In defence of Mark Field
There has been plenty of condemnation aimed at Tory MP Mark Field for the manner in which he removed a protestor from a dinner at the Mansion House last night. People have accused Field of being heavy-handed — some have called him unchivalrous, and some, naturally, have used the incident to suggest it was in some way emblematic of greater violence against women. But let’s look at the facts.
An event attended by a great many important people, including the governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was interrupted by protestors. Put aside what the protest was for, for a second; security was breached, and the people in the room were vulnerable.
Protestors approached the high table from both angles, cutting off any potential exit route for the Governor and Chancellor. And, though they have claimed in the aftermath their protest was peaceful — and, in fact, I believe them — the current climate in which politicians interact with protestors is not a comfortable one where the best intentions can be taken for granted. There have been too many assaults in the past three years on MPs and MEPs, from Jeremy Corbyn to Nigel Farage. One has been murdered, and at least one other was the intended target of an assassination, only foiled by extensive police work. Another, Tobias Ellwood, administered CPR to a dying police officer in the grounds of the Parliamentary Estate after a terrorist attempted to storm the Palace of Westminster.
Against this backdrop, and the fact that, even as Field escorts the protestor from the room, there is no evidence of security, it is perhaps understandable that an MP might feel a little jumpy, and seek to intervene to stop something that could very easily, in the circumstances, have become very sinister very quickly.
Field stands up as the woman tries to walk past — there is not enough time for him to get up beforehand and simply block her path. He has to make a decision. There is a pillar behind his chair, making that point in the room a bottleneck. She is pushed against the pillar forcefully as she tries to continue past him. One of Field’s hands goes to her hand, in which she is holding something not entirely visible. That fact alone is grounds to react to stop her intrusion from progressing further. His other hand goes to the back of the protestor’s shoulder, and the nape of her neck. It’s not as if he has throttled her — this is a standard area by which to restrain people, as it lessens the risk of being spat at or bitten. He then escorts her out.
There are plenty of alternative scenarios one can come up with where this exact course of events would not be causing any outcry; were the protestor a man, or Mark Field a woman, we would be lionising his quick thinking and bravery. Were she a Brexit campaigner, or championing any number of other causes, again, the response would have been very different. But because Field is a Tory in black tie, and the woman a climate protestor, the tables are turned.
There is an implicit sexism at play — that Field should not have stopped her because she was a woman. The Evening Standard’s Charlotte Edwardes has suggested that Field’s actions, and those defending him, allow society to ‘turn a blind eye’ to violence against women. But what does her gender have to do with it? Field would almost certainly have acted the same way were the protestor male. Someone’s gender does not necessarily make someone less of a security threat — and, as the Spectator’s Freddy Gray pointed out, just because it is a woman doing the intruding doesn’t mean we should adopt a ‘wait and see’ attitude.
If Field is forced to stand down because the person he escorted from the room forcefully was female, essentially what we will be saying is that the law covers you if you or your property are threatened by a man, but if threatened by a woman, you have to wait until said woman has actually caused some damage before being allowed to seek justice after the fact — there will be no effort at prevention, because violence against women (and, let us be clear, this was not a case of violent behaviour) takes precedence. We cannot have two sets of rules for men and women. That is not just, but it is the precedent that will be set.
A great many people have concluded that Field’s behaviour was ungentlemanly — which is little more than virtue signalling, given that this was a case of believing he could have been preventing a crime. A great many others have just said ‘it was assault’, ‘the police should be involved’ and other things along such lines. But again, I ask you. Try, for a second, to imagine yourself in that position, having witnessed assaults, threats, and even death stalk your friends and colleagues. What would you have done differently? Just let whatever was about to happen, happen?
If so, I believe that is a bigger stain on your character than on Mark Field’s.
