The Limits of Selective Liberty: A Free Speech Critique of George Monbiot’s Protest Commentary

George Monbiot has long been one of Britain’s most eloquent defenders of radical dissent. His recent defence of Palestine Action protestors in The Guardian — “Palestine Action exposes a threat to British democracy” (4 July 2025) — continues this tradition: a passionate call to recognise civil disobedience as a legitimate response to state injustice. Yet this article, when read alongside his earlier columns, reveals a striking and troubling inconsistency—one that perfectly illustrates the fragility of selective free speech advocacy.

Steelmanning Monbiot: The Moral Logic of Resistance

Monbiot’s core argument in the July 2025 article is principled and, on its own terms, persuasive. He sees protest not as mere disruption but as a safeguard of democracy. Where democratic mechanisms fail, he argues, civil disobedience becomes not only justified but necessary. Palestine Action, in his view, reveals uncomfortable truths: the British state’s entanglement with arms manufacturers and the erosion of moral legitimacy through complicity in foreign injustice.

This position draws on a deep moral tradition—Thoreau, MLK, Gandhi—all of whom used illegal protest to highlight systemic wrongs. Monbiot is right to remind readers that not all laws are just, and that breaking them in conscience can be an act of democratic fidelity, not rebellion.

But Only for Some: A Pattern of Ideological Gatekeeping

The trouble arises not in Monbiot’s defence of civil disobedience per se, but in his inconsistent application of it. The same columnist who exalts Palestine Action and climate activism as noble democratic resistance routinely denounces other protest movements with the same disruptive strategies as dangerous, illegitimate, or proto-fascist.

• In “The angry farmers in Nevada and Germany show how far-right protests go mainstream” (19 Jan 2024), Monbiot characterised farmers’ protests as part of a “global rightwing backlash.” Though driven by many of the same grievances (state overreach, lack of accountability, economic disempowerment), they were painted as inherently suspect—fuelled by “conspiracy theories,” and “threats to democracy.”
  → No mention here of protest as a tool for the unheard, nor any sympathy for their reasons.

• In “Why we must resist extremists – not just for our own sake, but for society’s” (22 May 2024), Monbiot warned against the normalisation of “hate-based” movements. Again, the critique focused solely on the political right—ignoring that many on the left have used equally inflammatory rhetoric or disruptive methods.

• In “This is what thuggery looks like – and it’s the product of 14 years of Tory race-baiting” (6 Aug 2024), he responded to violent unrest following a tragedy involving teenage girls by blaming systemic racism and political rhetoric. The underlying message? Some lawbreaking is provoked and therefore understandable—when it aligns with the right cause.

This isn’t just selective—it’s ideological. Monbiot, like many progressives, has quietly slipped into a posture where only some protests deserve protection, depending not on what is done, but why. The principle isn’t liberty. It’s allegiance.

Why This Undermines Free Speech—and Democracy

The heart of the issue is this: you either support free speech and protest rights for everyone—or for no one.

To defend Palestine Action’s window-smashing, paint-throwing protests while demanding the full weight of the law be thrown at, say, Tommy Robinson supporters for marching without permission, is not principled. It’s political tribalism masquerading as moral clarity.

This matters. Because once you concede that the content of a protest determines its legitimacy, you hand power to the state—or the media—to decide which causes are permitted and which are crushed. Today, that discretion may favour Gaza activists. Tomorrow, it may favour arms manufacturers or fossil fuel companies. The logic cuts both ways.

Indeed, we’ve already seen this. Climate activists are increasingly prosecuted under anti-extremism laws originally designed for right-wing agitators. The Public Order Act 2023—passed partly in response to climate protests—can now just as easily be used against Palestine Action. And Monbiot will have helped lay the groundwork by legitimising criminalisation of “the wrong sort” of protest.

The Case for a Consistent Standard

The only coherent position, from a democratic standpoint, is this:

• Allow all peaceful protest and speech, regardless of ideology—even when it is offensive, uncomfortable, or wrong.
• Prosecute criminal acts (e.g. property damage, violence) neutrally—based on action, not belief.
• Resist state overreach that aims to control the content of political dissent.

This doesn’t mean moral equivalence between causes. One may believe Palestine Action is right and Tommy Robinson is wrong. But the law—and a democratic society—must apply one standard. Otherwise, we are left with protest not as a right, but a privilege granted only to the ideologically approved.

Conclusion

Monbiot’s mistake is not his defence of Palestine Action, but his failure to extend the same grace to those he politically opposes. In doing so, he demonstrates exactly what free speech advocates have long warned: when speech is treated as conditional—on decency, ideology, or approval—it is no longer free.

We must reclaim protest and free expression as universal rights, not partisan tools. Because a right you only have when you agree with George Monbiot is no right at all.