{"id":2551,"date":"2026-03-31T20:29:13","date_gmt":"2026-03-31T20:29:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/2551\/"},"modified":"2026-03-31T20:29:13","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T20:29:13","slug":"the-attack-on-the-right-to-protest-in-the-uk-is-not-just-about-palestine-protests","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/2551\/","title":{"rendered":"The attack on the right to protest in the UK is not just about Palestine | Protests"},"content":{"rendered":"

On April 1, a British court is\u00a0set to rule<\/a>\u00a0in an important trial that could define the limits of mass protest in Britain. Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and Chris Nineham, vice chair of Stop the War Coalition, were both charged with breaching the Public Order Act 1986 for organising a pro-Palestine demonstration in London on January 18, 2025, on which the police had imposed conditions.<\/p>\n

Last week, Judge Daniel Sternberg refused to dismiss the case, despite evidence provided by defence barrister Mark Summers that protesters did not break the conditions, nor had any intention to do so. The trial is seen as yet another indication of the rapidly shrinking space for the free expression of dissent in Britain.<\/p>\n

Politicised policing<\/p>\n

The proceedings in the trial against Jamal and Nineham have revealed the extraordinarily close relationship between the Metropolitan Police and Zionist groups. This includes the police accepting recommendations from these groups about the Palestine movement\u2019s demonstration routes.<\/p>\n

In negotiations between protest leaders and the police ahead of the January 18 demonstration, the police had agreed in principle to a demonstration forming up outside the BBC headquarters in central London, which is close to the Central Synagogue. Protesters had assembled there\u00a0before<\/a> and were keen to do so again in order to\u00a0highlight the BBC\u2019s pro-Israel bias<\/a>.<\/p>\n

During the trial, it was revealed that\u00a0police commander Adam Slonecki received a letter from the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC), which threatened a judicial review if he failed to impose conditions on the protest. Slonecki had also had a series of meetings with various pro-Israeli groups after receiving the letter.<\/p>\n

On December 20, he met with protest organisers and explained \u2013 without offering evidence or mentioning the meetings that had taken place \u2013 that the demonstrations were producing a \u201ccumulative impact\u201d in the form of serious disruption to the Jewish way of life, and that protesters were to be banned from marching in the vicinity of the BBC.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, the police allowed only a static protest on January 18, at Whitehall. In a carefully worded speech on the day, Jamal announced from the stage that a small delegation of protesters would walk towards the BBC to lay flowers in memory of those killed in Gaza. If prevented, they would lay the flowers at the feet of the police and disperse. The police allege that Jamal\u2019s speech constituted incitement to breach the conditions.<\/p>\n

In fact, as protesters waited for the police to decide where the flowers could be laid, Nineham was violently arrested.<\/p>\n

The defence argued that the police were unduly influenced by pro-Israeli pressure in the run-up to the demonstration and failed to facilitate the right to protest. That the police commander\u00a0did not make any effort to meet with\u00a0sections of the Jewish community that are pro-Palestine<\/a> validates the suggestion of police bias.<\/p>\n

Growing restrictions on protest<\/p>\n

The trial of Jamal and Nineham should be seen within the context of growing efforts by successive British governments to limit the rights to freedom of expression and assembly.<\/p>\n

In 2022, the British Parliament approved the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which expanded police powers to impose conditions based on the location and size of protests, and noise levels. It has been considered an affront to civil liberties, in part because it follows a logic that relies on police perception of risk rather than actual harm.<\/p>\n

In 2023, the Conservatives introduced amendments to strengthen Public Order Act 1986, which remains the primary legislation for policing protests in the country. Public Order Act 2023 provides police with greater powers to prevent protests that are deemed disruptive \u2013 with vague definitions of what constitutes disruption<\/a> \u2013 and includes pre-emptive restrictions around freedoms of assembly and association.<\/p>\n

Both acts are widely criticised for having a chilling effect<\/a> on people seeking to exercise the legitimate democratic right to protest.<\/p>\n

Also in 2023, then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman attempted to push through regulations<\/a> to lower the threshold for what is considered \u201cserious disruption\u201d, but this was struck down by the Court of Appeal<\/a> in 2025, which ruled that the government had exceeded its powers.<\/p>\n

Now the Labour government \u2013 in lockstep with the Conservatives \u2013 is seeking to further expand police discretion over the regulation of protest through the Crime and Policing Bill<\/a>, one element of which is managing\u00a0\u201ccumulative impact\u201d.<\/p>\n

Over\u00a0100 MPs have expressed opposition<\/a> to it, in addition to campaigning groups, because it would restrict protests based on frequency, not behaviour, and make protests more conditional and subject to police discretion.<\/p>\n

In parallel, the government is trying to push through a bill that would cut in half the number of trials that go to jury<\/a>. If this legislation passes, fewer protest-related cases may reach juries, reducing resistance to unpopular laws.<\/p>\n

This is on top of the\u00a0amendments made last year to The Terrorism Act 2000<\/a>\u00a0to proscribe Palestine Action, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support the organisation, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. These came after a group of Palestine Action activists \u2013 known as the Filton 24 \u2013 broke into the Elbit Systems drone factory in Bristol to protest Israel\u2019s genocide in Gaza. They were arrested and held on remand, many for over 18 months.<\/p>\n

Although they were\u00a0recently cleared of the most serious charges<\/a>, and the organisation was successful in pleading for a judicial review that\u00a0ruled that the home secretary\u2019s decision to proscribe Palestine Action<\/a> as a \u201cterrorist\u201d organisation was unlawful, the police have already made 2,700 arrests and will continue arrests pending the outcome of an appeal<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Already, one of the Filton 24, Qesser Zuhrah, was rearrested<\/a> on March 30 for a social media post calling for \u201cdirect action\u201d.<\/p>\n

Cumulative impact<\/p>\n

The imposition of tougher legislation was introduced in response to climate protesters and anti-monarchy protesters. Now it is being\u00a0reinforced over Palestine protest<\/a>. But it is clear that it won\u2019t stop there.<\/p>\n

If implemented, the proposed legislation around cumulative impact could be used against any group of people exercising democratic rights, whether trade unionists or anti-war campaigners, curbing their ability to organise freely.<\/p>\n

It could also serve to reinforce division in society, as measures are increasingly deployed at police discretion. Recently, for example, the police have not given protest organisers permission<\/a> to march on their proposed route for the annual Nakba Day demonstration on May 16, while they have granted Tommy Robinson, a notorious fascist, the whole of central London to do its far-right march.<\/p>\n

Whatever the outcome of Jamal and Nineham\u2019s trial on April 1, there needs to be a society-wide mobilisation to defend the rights to free speech and assembly. This is no longer just about the Palestinian cause, but about British democracy.<\/p>\n

The views expressed in this article are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera\u2019s editorial stance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"On April 1, a British court is\u00a0set to rule\u00a0in an important trial that could define the limits of…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":2552,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[252,90,41,1675,250,5,6],"class_list":{"0":"post-2551","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-uk","8":"tag-europe","9":"tag-gaza","10":"tag-israel-palestine-conflict","11":"tag-opinions","12":"tag-protests","13":"tag-uk","14":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2551","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2551"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2551\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2552"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2551"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2551"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2551"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}