“When the anti-suffrage members of the government criticise militancy in women, it is very like beasts of prey reproaching the gentler animals who turn in desperate resistance at the point of death.” These words were spoken by Emmeline Pankhurst some 110 years ago. As the great-granddaughter of Emmeline, and the granddaughter of Sylvia Pankhurst, I’m often asked to make comparisons between the suffragette movement and the environmental movements of today. People regularly ask me whether I endorse the tactics of climate activists such as Just Stop Oil.
The climate activists who recently threw tomato soup on a Vincent van Gogh painting might easily be regarded as gentle beasts turning to desperate resistance. The climate crisis is already deadly for many around the world: in east Africa, one person dies of climate-induced hunger every 36 seconds. My great-grandmother advised suffragettes to go to the House of Commons and refuse to leave; to break windows; to “attack the secret idol of property”. The point she was making was that within every cause there is room for people to find their own versions of activism and militancy. The choice of tactics must not divide the movement.
Of course, then, as now, there were red lines: damage to property, not people. The suffragette foot soldiers had already ramped up their militancy. Individual women had smashed windows and gone on hunger strikes, massively raising the visibility of their cause. The Women’s Social and Political Union, the militant wing of the suffrage movement, approved and took responsibility for these acts. But the schisms were there. Sylvia, Emmeline’s middle daughter, felt the focus should be on movement building and disapproved of militant actions such as the damage to Velázquez’s Rokeby Venus when it was slashed with a meat cleaver by the suffragette Mary Richardson.
Many other suffrage campaigners were conflicted. Some tried to use non-militant but media-grabbing stunts, including attempting to drop leaflets from a hot air balloon over parliament. The question of which tactics are appropriate is a collective dilemma in the modern environmental movement.
On one hand, environmental activists are shocked by the lack of urgency given to the matter. They feel that “constitutional” methods aren’t working, that the media are not giving their cause enough attention and that more people need to act. On the other hand, many worry that activists are going too far and alienating those who they need on their side.
Meanwhile, in the face of dissent, authorities are increasingly using heavy handed tactics of their own. The government’s Police and Crime Act curtails the right to protest peacefully. It increases the cost and reduces the space for citizens to share their views and to make their discontent heard. Activists may therefore adopt more disruptive actions.
As a feminist and environmentalist, I support climate activists. The climate crisis is a feminist issue. It is disproportionately taking the lives and futures of women and girls. Research by Care international found that 150 million more women than men experienced climate-induced hunger in 2021, while 900,000 children, most of them girls, are at risk of dropping out of school in Somalia alone due to drought. Yet so few women are at the decision-making tables (just seven out of the 110 world leaders at Cop27). Women are not responsible for this manmade climate mess, but they must be at the centre of finding solutions.
At the same time, I am uncomfortable with some of the more disruptive tactics used by environmental protesters. I worry about the danger of alienating the general public. Nevertheless, I understand the sense of urgency and frustration with the untenable status quo. It is not just their own deaths that climate activists are worried about, but people living in the harshest conditions around the world.
Those with political and economic power are the “beasts of prey” that should be made accountable for the pledges not delivered, for greenwashing, for the continued destruction of our planet. They have it in their power to limit global heating to that critical cap of 1.5C, and to invest in the women and girls who are so disproportionately affected by this crisis.
Environmentalists of all forms have the moral high ground. I have absolutely no doubt that in 100 years’ time they will be seen as the real heroes. Those who ignored the warning bells will be – nay, already are – on the wrong side of history.
Helen Pankhurst is a senior adviser on gender equality for Care International UK and a professor at Manchester Metropolitan University
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
