Criminalisation of climate protesters in UK is counterproductive, research finds | Environmental activism

The criminalization of direct climate action protests in the UK is counterproductive and increases activists’ resolve to undertake disruptive protests, according to a study of 1,300 activists.

New findings suggest that arrests, fines and lengthy prison sentences imposed on nonviolent climate protesters who blocked roads or damaged buildings may actually radicalize them. The crackdown on protests could even be a driving force behind recent covert actions such as cutting internet cables, they said.

Previous research has found conflicting results on the impact of the crackdown on protesters, with some suggesting it deterred further action and others indicating it encouraged it. The new work reveals that activists’ emotional response determines their reactions to the repression they experienced or anticipated.

Those who have already been imprisoned, fined, arrested or monitored said they were less fearful of participating in future disruptive actions. The activists who have not suffered repression are divided into two large groups. Those who felt anger or contempt at the prospect of a crackdown were galvanized and determined to participate in it in the future. Those in whom the idea of ​​repression increased fear had weakened intentions.

The British government has cracked down on climate protesters in recent years. Some were jailed for four years for planning to block a highway and denied the opportunity to present a “reasonable excuse” or weather defense to a jury.

The UN special rapporteur for human rights defenders, Mary Lawlor, recently accused the UK, US and other governments of pretending to support climate goals while criminalizing activists. Research found that 17% of all climate protests between 2019 and 2024 resulted in arrests, compared to an international average of 6.3%.

“These kinds of actions are counterproductive because they drive people away from the state,” said Dr Nicole Tausch, of the University of St Andrews and a member of the study team. “The emotion of contempt is really telling. When people start to feel contempt, they tend to think that they no longer have to conform to norms and rules. [Repression] could actually radicalize people – if you don’t give people a legitimate avenue to express their discontent, they will find other avenues.”

Tausch, who has studied protest in highly repressive situations in Russia, Hong Kong and Egypt, added: “It really mobilizes people. It creates a shared identity, a shared destiny, a moral obligation to act. It’s not going to weaken the protest.”

Sunniva Davies-Rommetveit, also from the University of St Andrews and a member of the team, said: “We are also starting to see different types of actions, sabotage for example. [Repression] could potentially steer people toward more covert types of actions.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The right to lawfully protest is fundamental to our democracy. However, protests must not cross the line between peaceful protest and serious disruption. Existing laws give the police strong powers to manage protests and prevent serious disorder, disruption or intimidation, while protecting the right to peaceful protest.”

The research, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, used anonymous surveys completed by 1,375 members of an Extinction Rebellion mailing list.

The greatest impact was reported by those who suffered repression. “It was very striking,” Davies-Rommetveit said. “They feel less fearful and are therefore more likely to intend to act disruptively in the future.” »

She added: “Policymakers listening to climate activists is probably a good idea, especially as the climate crisis worsens. Our results suggest that there is definitely frustration with how the system currently handles protests.”

A 2023 opinion poll commissioned by the University of Bristol found that 68% of the British public disapproved of the disruptive protest group Just Stop Oil, which had blocked roads and disrupted sporting events. However, only 29% believe that imprisonment is the most appropriate sanction for people who participate in disruptive, non-violent protests, while a fine is considered most appropriate by 37% and 15% believe that such activists should receive no sanctions at all.

Ministers have commissioned an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation, which examines whether it is “fit for purpose” and “balances freedom of expression and the right to protest with the need to prevent disorder and keep communities safe”. It should be released soon.