Robert Abela wants to be the next leader of the Labour Party, a title that will push him further up to the post of Prime Minister, the most powerful position in the country.

He wants the votes of the Labour delegates who will be casting their preference on 11 January to choose between him and the other contender, Chris Fearne, and as such is eager to appeal to their conscience and passion.

This is why probably he felt the need to say, in one of the first public appearances since he announced his candidacy, that the protests that are being organised by civil society are a “provocation”.

It is what staunch Labour supporters have been saying since the crisis erupted following the link that emerged between the Office of the Prime Minister to the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia two years ago.

And many of those staunch Labour supporters will be choosing the next Labour leader and next PM. Abela wants to be seen as one of them.

But, whatever his reasons for saying as much, it is very dangerous that someone who aspires to become a leader of a party and of a nation to have this line of reasoning. It smacks of someone who is preparing to be oppressive in the way he deals with anyone who does not agree with him. It indicates he will go to great lengths to quash anyone who is not on his side.

Playing at home in an interview on the party’s radio station – the kind Jason Micallef likes, given his aversion to interviews candidates give to the independent media – Abela said that he “tolerates” passive protests, but will not “tolerate” anyone’s attempt to cause trouble in the country.

“If they manage to break, then they themselves will inherit a broken country, and then they would inherit a country with problems they would have created and would need to solve it themselves. These are protests that I today believe that the only scope behind them is one of provocation,” were his words.

The use of the verb “tolerate” is already wrong. It means that Abela believes that no such protests should take place whatever the circumstances, and that he will only “allow” them if they are “passive”.

Well, you’re out of line there, Abela.

Protests are a sacrosanct right in a democratic society, and everybody is free to voice an opinion – unless, of course, Abela believes in a kind of dictatorship that suppresses voices that are discordant with the official line taken by the government.

Let us remember that the protests are not being organised just for the sake of causing disruptions.

People have been marching in the streets because the assassination of a journalist has been linked with the Office of the Prime Minister. Protests have been held because the institutions have not protected the citizens, but have protected (and continue to protect) perpetrators. Sit-ins and gatherings have been organised because some people abused their power and are still roaming free.

To label these protests as “provocation” – as Robert Abela did – is an offence to the people’s right to express themselves.