In today's Britain, protest has ceased to be a basic freedom. Rather, it has become a privilege that authorities grant or withhold at their discretion. This constitutes the implication of proposed measures that the ruling administration is putting forward, which would dictate the timing and location protests can take place, with possible prison sentences for those who defy these restrictions.
Previous governments had already weakened this essential right: the former Conservative government had granted law enforcement extensive new authorities, which global rights bodies had condemned as "serious and unjustified restrictions" on civil liberties. Taken together, these progressive assaults on freedom have practically abolished the historically earned right to public demonstration.
The most recent limitations are being defended by citing last week's terrible antisemitic attack on a British mosque. There should be widespread consensus that the security of Jewish communities in Britain must be protected. However, using this horrific incident as a justification to suppress dissent is not only disconnected to that duty but perverts it.
"If you can't set boundaries at genocide, you likely cannot establish limits at democracy," commented a prominent American author, whose words that rings true for the current government.
Consider Britain's long tradition of protest and direct action against racial discrimination and authoritarianism, from the historic 1936 Cable Street confrontation to postwar Jewish groups opposing fascism and the 1970s demonstrations against the far-right organization. Many of these early protesters were labeled as extremists in their time, even while they were advocating the freedoms of minorities.
In the current complicated landscape, here's what's actually occurring: Israel – a sovereign nation – is perpetrating what United Nations investigations have described as genocide. Its military actions have prompted the global justice body to issue legal indictments against Israel's prime minister and his former defense minister.
International public opinion has changed significantly against Israel's violent actions. In Britain, a substantial majority of the public think Israel has likely committed international law violations. Most people would endorse a complete ban on weapons exports to the nation, and approve the arrest of Netanyahu.
Having essentially failed the public debate, pro-Israel advocates are now seizing on a vile antisemitic crime to try to suppress a mass movement against a moral catastrophe. The British government seems involved in this effort. Ministers have not enacted comprehensive sanctions on Israel and have allowed weapon shipments to proceed.
People who are demonstrating against the erasure of Gaza have been characterized as hateful extremists. Yet there's a important factor why there hasn't been a more extensive suppression on these demonstrators until now: very limited protesters have made truly offensive statements about Jewish people, giving police authorities little justification to take action.
Merging Jewish heritage with the policies of the Israeli state is not only manipulative but also dangerous. The official definition of antisemitism, adopted by the British government and numerous institutions, has been rightly challenged for potentially stifling legitimate criticism of Israel. However, there should be no disagreement about one of its central illustrations: that "holding Jewish people generally accountable for actions of the state of Israel" constitutes antisemitism.
This is why we've arrived at a point where law enforcement can propose that demonstrations opposing Israel's policies should be called off because they might "inadvertently or intentionally" support anti-Jewish sentiment. Similarly, political figures have stated that recognition of Palestine as a nation has made political parties "implicated" in supposed mistreatment faced by British Jews.
On the very day as the religious center assault, the Israeli military killed dozens of Palestinians in Gaza – adding to the terrible count from 24 months of daily atrocities that have taken many thousands of human lives. British political leaders and media outlets have hardly hidden the limited value they attach to Palestinian existence. This represents one of the boldest expressions of racism in contemporary society.
Our government has already crossed a concerning boundary by proscribing Palestine Action, a peaceful, anti-genocide direct action organization. Thousands of British protesters have been detained, primarily for carrying placards opposing mass killing and endorsing the proscribed group. Many of those arrested are elderly citizens; including a retired priest and the daughter of a Holocaust survivor.
It's not difficult to see where this trajectory leads. In the United States, political leaders helped vilify pro-Palestinian protests: a ex-political leader implied that some were "linked with" other nations, while the sitting leader described such protests as anti-Jewish. In doing so, they contributed to normalizing the repressive measures on such demonstrations – and on free speech in general.
If a hard-right government comes to power, it would be given extensive authority to suppress opposition. What might a new administration do with this repressive toolkit? Our forebears fought, suffered and died to secure our freedoms. We may eventually regret how casually we permitted them to be eroded.
A seasoned business strategist with over a decade of experience in digital marketing and corporate growth initiatives.
James Shepherd
James Shepherd
James Shepherd
James Shepherd
James Shepherd