oris Johnson is a freedom-loving libertarian: this is the yarn spun by much of the British commentariat. “If Boris Johnson has a political philosophy,” suggested ITV’s political editor, Robert Peston, earlier this year, “it is that he will not restrict our liberties unless there is an overwhelming reason to do so.” That our prime minister failed repeatedly – last March, September and December specifically – to take decisive action to crush the pandemic, and delayed lockdowns in England, leading to one of the world’s worst death tolls, is thus attributed to an excessive attachment to ancient liberties rather than to the self-defeating prioritisation of economic interests over human life. His acolytes at the Spectator, where he was once editor, also like to relay breathless tales of Johnson railing “against the nanny state tendency”. At the office he would delight in seeing a “no bikes” sign covered by bikes. How cute! This week, Johnson’s government is proposing legislation that allows for the criminalisation of protests that cause “serious annoyance” or “serious unease”. Here is a crackdown on one of our most basic freedoms, won through considerable sacrifice by our ancestors, that is more reminiscent of Vladimir Putin’s Russia than of a self-professed democracy. Any effective protest seeks to provoke serious annoyance or serious unease among the powerful: that is, indeed, the entire point. Unlike the restrictions imposed during the pandemic that allegedly so violated Johnson’s freedom-loving sensibilities, these new laws would be permanent. Police would be given discretion to ban any protest they so chose. It’s not just protesters who would be affected: Johnson’s increasingly authoritarian state would target Gypsies and Travellers, long among the most marginalised and discriminated-against minorities in Europe. Previously, the state could take action against Travellers only if they “caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words”, according to the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, which this bill would amend. After this they wouldn’t need to do anything beyond simply causing the police suspicion, in whatever way that was interpreted. The freedoms of a nearly voiceless minority would now be left to the whims of a police officer and their prejudices. This then leads us to an instructive case study into how the likes of Boris Johnson understand freedom. Freedoms, as they see it, are for people like them: privileged, white, establishment men. Freedoms are not for protesters – certainly not, as we saw on the weekend, for women at the vigil for Sarah Everard in Clapham. They are not for minorities subjected to centuries-old bigotries, and they are definitely not for migrants and refugees. Thanks to the appointment of pantomime authoritarian Priti Patel, child detention has been brought back by stealth, while refugees in Folkestone are locked away in inhumane conditions, which predictably proved fertile ground for Covid-19. Here is “freedom” as traditionally interpreted by elites. For example, we hear constant agitation for freedom for big business: to be liberated from regulations to protect workers’ rights, consumer protections or environmental standards, all dismissed as “red tape”. Workers, meanwhile, must endure “the most restrictive union laws in the western world”, as Tony Blair boasted in 1998. And those have been made significantly more restrictive since. The battle cry of “free speech” is yet another striking example. For the right, this is not a defence of genuine free expression – a precondition of any democracy worthy of the name – but rather of using public platforms to broadcast bigoted views against minorities, who largely lack representation in a media ecosystem dominated by the right. While we are told that there is a “free speech” crisis in universities, one study of 10,000 student events in 2020 found two instances of “no platforming” – one involving a convicted fraudster, the other Jeremy Corbyn. All too often, “free speech” is misused as a veneer for publicly maligning, say, Muslims and trans people – not a courageous thing to do, given how widespread and socially acceptable prejudice is against both minorities – without facing challenge or consequence. How do we know this? Because the otherwise incessantly speaking “free speech” warriors are largely silent now on a genuine crackdown on freedom of speech, as embodied by legislation to allow the suppression of peaceful protest. In 2019, we heard almost non-stop hysteria, including from liberals, about the menacing authoritarianism represented by Corbynism: always an absurd fantasy given the longstanding record of its leading lights rebelling against New Labour’s own profoundly authoritarian impulses. Meanwhile, Johnson was portrayed as an anarchic libertine. “He is fundamentally a liberal and will take a noticeably less authoritarian approach” than Theresa May, the Spectator’s political editor, James Forsyth, once cooed (Forsyth is married to Johnson’s recently appointed official spokesperson, in another episode of “Britain is a totally normal country”). And yet no undeserved rehabilitation of Theresa May is required to point out that Johnson’s onslaught on democratic freedoms is too much even for her. Does Johnson truly believe in freedom? The answer is yes – for people like Boris Johnson. Freedom for this government is for the powerful and the privileged, not for dissidents or oppressed minorities. Freedom is for those who accept the status quo and don’t deviate from accepted norms: but then even most openly authoritarian regimes confer this “freedom”. For the dupes and the chronically gullible who helped pave the way for Britain’s authoritarian turn, there will be no reflection, no pause for thought, and so our rights and freedoms are tossed on a bonfire, and they will now burn. Owen Jones is a Guardian columnist