Why is a Labour government trying to resurrect Tory anti-protest powers that the courts found to be unlawful?
From the riots against the poll tax in both the 14th century and the 1980s, to the Suffragette and Chartist campaigns for voting rights, the fight against racism in the Bristol Bus Boycott and the mass demonstrations against the Iraq War, Britain’s past and present have been shaped by protest movements. But has change ever been achieved through a single day of marching with placards?
Even in those historic examples, governments haven’t always listened. In the case of the Gaza war, the government has continued to provide arms and diplomatic cover to Israel after two years of protest against the Gaza war, which a UN inquiry has declared a genocide. However, the reality is that without sustained protest and campaigning, change would never be achieved.
Now, with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announcing plans to grant police sweeping powers to restrict repeated protests, Left Foot Forward examines the future of protest rights in Britain.
The proscription of Palestine Action
Restrictions on protests have intensified since the Labour government proscribed Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 in July. The move followed an incident in June, when some members of the group broke into RAF Brize Norton and reportedly spray-painted two military airplanes, among other acts of property damage.
In the parliamentary vote, the government bundled Palestine Action’s proscription with those of two far-right organisations — The Maniacs Murder Cult and The Russian Imperial Movement.
As well as RAF Brize Nortion, another key target of direct action by Palestine Action has been British factories producing weapons for Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms manufacturer. Two of their manufacturing sites in Bristol, one of which has since closed, have been the subject of dozens of Palestine Action protests.
A Declassified UK investigation in March revealed that the government had held a private meeting with Elbit Systems in December 2024. Although a recording of the meeting was made, both parties refused to release it.
Under the previous Conservative government, a Guardian and Palestine Action investigation uncovered internal Home Office documents showing Home Office ministers and staff had tried to influence police and prosecutors to crack down on activists targeting the UK factories of an Israeli arms manufacturer.
The documents showed that ministers and a director from the Attorney General’s Office representing the Crown Prosecution Service attended meetings with Elbit. They also revealed that Home Office officials contacted the police about Palestine Action.
The Synagogue attack and Defend Our Juries protest
Restrictions on protests are set to be tightened again. Following the antisemitic attack on Heaton Park Hebrew Synagogue on 2 October, the government said that pro-Palestine protestors should “recognise and respect the grief of British Jews” and not protest against Israel’s war in Gaza or their proscription of Palestine Action at the weekend.
Mahmood said protest is “a precious freedom in this country”, but called on protestors to “step back” and think about those who had lost a loved one in the terror attack.
“Just because you have a freedom, it doesn’t mean to say you have to use it all the time,” she said.
On 5 October, after Defend our Juries refused to cancel their weekly protest against the proscription of Palestine Action that weekend, the Home Office announced that police forces will be granted new powers to put stricter conditions on repeated protests.
In a statement, Mahmood wrote: “Large, repeated protests can leave sections of our country, particularly religious communities, feeling unsafe, intimidated and scared to leave their homes.
“This has been particularly evident in relation to the considerable fear within the Jewish community, which has been expressed to me on many occasions in these recent difficult days.”
Under the proposed restrictions, police would have the power to change the time or location of protests, and organisers who defy their orders could face fines of up to £2,500 or even prison sentences.
However, Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) has warned that there are already “unprecendented restrictions” on their protests.
“Already, the national marches for Palestine are subject to what even the police admit are unprecedented restrictions – curtailing the routes, times and duration of marches,” PSC said in a statement.
According to the group, police have only permitted their national marches to take place on two routes through central London over the past six months. More recently, police have also imposed conditions banning the banging of pots and pans, drums, and the use of megaphones during protests.
Tory attacks on protest rights
British people have been subjected to years of unprecedented attacks on their rights to protest by now. When the Tories passed the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act in 2022, followed by the Public Order Act in 2023, the landscape of protest rights in the UK shifted dramatically. The Public Order Act’s highly vague definition of protesting in ways that create ‘serious disruption’ could now get you arrested. At one point, this even extended to Braverman trying to criminalise homeless people deemed a nuisance or accused of having ‘an excessive smell’.
Braverman later introduced a statutory instrument to lower the threshold when police could intervene in protests from ‘serious disruption’ to ‘more than minor’. Statutory instruments can pass with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. Human rights group Liberty launched a legal challenge against the Tory government, and the Court of Appeal found that Braverman had made the change unlawfully. The Labour government initially appealed the decision but then dropped the case. But now, their plans to restrict repeated protests appear to be an attempt at restoring a Tory anti-protest power that had already been quashed.
New powers are ‘not new at all’
In response to the announcement, Amnesty International UK’s Law and Human Rights Director, Tom Southerden said: “The ‘new’ powers announced by the Home Secretary are not new at all – they are a reheat of powers that the last Government tried to push through under regulations that the courts found to be unlawful.
“Is the Government seriously suggesting that people protesting its decisions should only be able to do that a limited number of times? If it is, it is a ludicrous proposal, and if not, this is just a cynical attempt at looking tough.”
He added that Amnesty hopes “the Home Secretary’s threatened ‘review’ of the state of protest law in this country will take into account that there have been three anti-protest bills in as many years and that the Government is putting the fourth through Parliament as we speak”.
Labour backbenchers voice concerns
Labour MP Nadia Whittome expressed concern about the government’s announcement.
Whittome told Left Foot Forward: “Successive governments have severely eroded our right to protest, with the current Labour government sadly continuing this trend.
“It must be remembered that these restrictions are in response to protests against a genocide. If even demonstrations against one of the most grotesque crimes it is possible for human beings to commit face repression, where does this end?”.
She also warned that if Reform gains more power in the next election, Nigel Farage could use these powers to further curtail civil liberties: “It feels like we are going down a very dark path where the acceptability of protest is narrowly determined by the government and the police. This is especially irresponsible with the prospect of a far right government on the horizon, who could use and build on powers brought in by our government to further crush dissent.”
In a letter to Mahmood on 8 October, Andy McDonald, the Labour MP for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, shared his “deep concern” about the government’s proposals to restrict protests on the basis of “cumulative impact”.
He noted that the powers “appear to resurrect Conservative proposals to restrict powers of protest, such as when they sought to amend the legal definition of ‘serious disruption’ following the passing of their Public Order Act 2023 and which was ruled unlawful by the courts.”
McDonald added that “a Labour Home Secretary should not be in the business of reviving failed attempts by a Tory government to restrict protest”.
“Legislating in haste further risks rationing freedom of expression, telling campaigners they have had their demonstration and must now be silent. That would be a profoundly dangerous precedent,” he pointed out.
‘Harder and harder to exercise our right to protest’
Liberty, which describes itself as having ‘a proud history of defending the right to protest’, said the move is likely to fuel more tensions by limiting the right to freedom of expression.
Akiko Hart, director at Liberty, said: “The police already have immense powers to restrict protests – handing them even more would undermine our rights further while failing to keep people safe from violence like the horrific and heartbreaking anti-Semitic attack in Manchester.
“During times of fear people understandably want to see action, but restricting protest further is likely to fuel tensions by taking away legal and safe ways for people to make their voices heard.”
Hart warned that the announcement comes “when it is already getting harder and harder to exercise our right to protest without falling foul of ever expanding anti-protest laws”.
From restricting protests to censoring speech
As part of the Home Secretary’s review of our protest rights, prime minister Keir Starmer has asked that Mahmood look into “some of the chants that are going on at some of these protests”.
This could mean that chants such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” could be covered in Labour’s changes to protest laws.
Pro-Palestine campaigners say they use the chant to call for the end of Israel’s occupation of Palestine, while critics view it as a call for the destruction of the state of Israel.
If the Labour government moves to legislate against protest chants or political slogans, the crackdown on protest rights would cross a new line — becoming a direct attack on free speech itself.
That’s not something any government should do, least of all one that says it stands for equality, justice and democracy.
Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward
Left Foot Forward doesn’t have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
