Support 100 years of independent journalism.

6 February 2018updated 09 Jun 2021 8:25am

Why I don’t think the suffragettes should receive a pardon

Law-breaking in the campaign for women’s votes was not a bug. It was a feature.

By Caroline Criado-Perez

Today is a miraculous day. No, not because it’s the centenary of the day the first women in Britain won the right to vote — although that’s pretty brilliant too. It’s miraculous because it has delivered something I wasn’t sure I’d ever see in my lifetime: Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party, and Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, agreeing on something.

It’s something you might think I would agree on too: that the suffragettes deserve a government pardon. That these brave, passionate soldiers in the fight for women’s fundamental right to participate in democracy, these women who laid their reputations, their bodies, and even their lives on the line, should not be looked on as criminals.

Here’s the thing though: I don’t. And I don’t believe the suffragettes would have either. 

The women who broke the law in the battle — and it was a battle — for female suffrage did so knowingly. They were not unwitting victims. They were not acting on compulsion. They were sending a very public message: while you don’t allow us a voice in making them, we won’t respect your laws. Law-breaking for the suffragettes was not a bug. It was a feature.

And they celebrated their war-wounded. Women who had been imprisoned received a badge in the shape of prison gates; one badge per imprisonment. Women who had gone on hunger strike and endured the body and soul violating torture of force-feeding were awarded medals. These women were never seen by their sisters as criminals. They were seen as warriors. 

Select and enter your email address Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. A weekly newsletter helping you fit together the pieces of the global economic slowdown. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The New Statesman’s weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. Our weekly culture newsletter – from books and art to pop culture and memes – sent every Friday. A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.
  • Administration / Office
  • Arts and Culture
  • Board Member
  • Business / Corporate Services
  • Client / Customer Services
  • Communications
  • Construction, Works, Engineering
  • Education, Curriculum and Teaching
  • Environment, Conservation and NRM
  • Facility / Grounds Management and Maintenance
  • Finance Management
  • Health - Medical and Nursing Management
  • HR, Training and Organisational Development
  • Information and Communications Technology
  • Information Services, Statistics, Records, Archives
  • Infrastructure Management - Transport, Utilities
  • Legal Officers and Practitioners
  • Librarians and Library Management
  • Management
  • Marketing
  • OH&S, Risk Management
  • Operations Management
  • Planning, Policy, Strategy
  • Printing, Design, Publishing, Web
  • Projects, Programs and Advisors
  • Property, Assets and Fleet Management
  • Public Relations and Media
  • Purchasing and Procurement
  • Quality Management
  • Science and Technical Research and Development
  • Security and Law Enforcement
  • Service Delivery
  • Sport and Recreation
  • Travel, Accommodation, Tourism
  • Wellbeing, Community / Social Services
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how New Statesman Media Group may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.

Pardoning them now erases that and does them a disservice. They were radical. They were law-breaking. They were the Nasty Women of the early 20th century. They don’t deserve to be whitewashed and made more palatable.

When we think of the suffragette’s militancy we often think of their later more violent actions. The bricks through windows. The arson attacks on post-boxes. But for years before they started their campaign of vandalism they engaged in all sorts of other acts of very public civil disobedience. 

The Women’s Tax Resistance League adopted the slogan “no vote, no tax,” and turned the sale of goods seized by bailiffs from women who refused to pay their taxes into open air meetings on women’s right to vote. When the government held a census in 1911, hundreds of women defied the law and refused to take part, either refusing to provide information, or by joining one of the packs of women who roamed the streets on the night of the census in order to avoid being at home when the count was made. Emily Wilding Davison famously hid in a broom cupboard in Parliament so that she could give her address as the House of Commons.

These radical women didn’t want a pardon. They didn’t want a pat on the head. They wanted equality. Which leads me to my second reason for not wanting a pardon for them.

The suffragettes above all valued “Deeds, not Words.” And a pardon from today’s government for the actions of long-dead men is the epitome of words not deeds. 

A pardon costs today’s government nothing. It is pain-free, and it is meaningless. And in the context of the deeds this government is enacting, it is an insult. 

This is a government, after all, that refuses to gender analyse its budgets — despite the fact that it is arguably a legal requirement under the 2010 Equality Act, and despite that fact that more than one body has found that 86 per cent of cuts since 2010 have fallen on women. This is a government that refuses to adequately fund women’s shelters, leading to 94 women and 90 children being turned away from Women’s Aid refuges on a single day last year. This is a government that forces women to prove they were raped in order to claim child tax credits if they are wilful enough to have a third child — and which forced this change through Parliament without a vote.

This is a government, in short, that has repeatedly shown it is not interested in equality. A pardon from them is not welcome, it is not needed, and it should not be accepted were it to be offered. The suffragettes deserve better than that. Women today deserve better than that. Nasty Women want deeds, not empty words.  

Topics in this article :