Protection from abuse, not accountability

The recent reporting of threats made against Peterborough City Council Leader Dr Shabina Qayyum contains an important truth: nobody should face threats of violence.

Not because they are a woman. Not because they are Muslim. Not because they hold public office.

Simply because nobody should have to live or work in fear.

The conviction of a woman for making threats against a GP surgery was rightly treated seriously by the courts. Threats and intimidation have no place in a civilised society, whether directed at politicians, doctors or members of the public.

That principle should unite us all.

But there is another principle worth defending alongside it: democratic accountability.

Increasingly, public debate struggles to distinguish between abuse and criticism. The two are not the same.

Abuse seeks to intimidate. Criticism seeks to challenge.

Abuse attacks a person. Criticism examines decisions, arguments and conduct.

When those boundaries become blurred, public debate suffers. Legitimate scrutiny begins to look like hostility, while genuine abuse risks becoming lost amongst ordinary political disagreement.

There is an increasing tendency in politics to present criticism of a person's decisions as criticism of their identity. That distinction matters. Prejudice should always be challenged, but disagreement with a political leader's choices is an inevitable part of democratic life.

I did not enter politics seeking different standards because I am a woman. I entered politics expecting to be judged on my decisions, my behaviour and the arguments I make.

In public life, character is demonstrated through conduct rather than identity. These distinctions affect how political disagreements are understood and how residents form their views about those who represent them.

One example from my own experience illustrates the point.

During a council debate on a motion calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, our group proposed adding the word "sustainable". The amendment was not accepted and I subsequently abstained.

Instead, a social media message highlighted my abstention by name and circulated a video of the vote without explaining the reasoning behind it. Readers were left to draw conclusions from a partial account of events.

Democracy depends on informed judgement. A voting record matters, but so does the reasoning behind it. When context is removed, the public is not being given the full picture. Political point-scoring may generate attention, but it rarely generates understanding.

Political leaders have a particular responsibility to model the standards they expect from others. It is difficult to complain about a toxic political environment while simultaneously contributing to one in which opponents' positions are reduced to headlines, clips and accusations rather than being understood in good faith.

Leadership requires more than identifying opponents' votes. It requires representing their positions fairly, particularly on issues that provoke strong emotions and deep division.

Those standards should apply equally to everyone, regardless of sex, religion or political affiliation.

If we want more women to enter politics, and I certainly do, then we need an environment where threats are condemned without qualification, prejudice is challenged wherever it appears, and disagreement remains legitimate.

Improving political culture requires more than condemning abuse. It requires a commitment to fair representation, proper context and honest scrutiny. Accountability should strengthen democracy, not deepen division.

The equality worth defending is not the right to avoid scrutiny.

It is the right to be held to the same standards as everyone else.

No more. And no less.