Political demonstrations are frequently controversial. Any issue that can mobilise tens of thousands of people is likely to involve fierce passions, and provoke strong reactions. In a democracy, those are insufficient grounds for a ban. That is why the Metropolitan police have resisted ministerial pressure to withdraw permission for a Palestinian solidarity march in central London this weekend. Sir Mark Rowley, the Met commissioner, has taken the view that Saturday’s march does not pose a threat to public safety. Downing Street has very reluctantly, and perhaps only temporarily, deferred to that judgment.
Rishi Sunak has expressed his objection in terms of the date. A rally on Armistice Day would be “disrespectful”, according to the prime minister. Whether or not that is true – and the march organisers have tried to accommodate such sensitivities in their choice of route – respectfulness is not a measure of public order. There would be few public demonstrations on any issue if the threshold for a ban were set at breaches of a prime minister’s sense of decorum.
The more extreme view was expressed by the home secretary, Suella Braverman, who has described pro-Palestinian gatherings as “hate marches”. That is a conflation of justified horror at the plight of civilians suffering and dying under Israeli bombardment in Gaza with support for Hamas and its murderous agenda for annihilating the Jewish state altogether. If Ms Braverman does not recognise a difference between those propositions she is not qualified to comment at all. If she is wilfully blurring the distinction, she is guilty of fomenting division and stirring intercommunal suspicion, making her plainly unfit for public office.
There is a mode of violently anti-Israel rhetoric that shades into antisemitism and then attaches itself to the cause of Palestinian solidarity. And it only takes a few hateful placards to worry Jewish people, who are still reeling in shock and grief at the atrocities perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October.
There is also a tendency for the malicious amplification of fringe views by propagandists of the far right who seed suspicion of terrorist sympathy around any humanitarian cause supported by British Muslims. The overwhelming majority of attenders at pro-Palestinian marches are there to express peaceful solidarity with Gazans and to demand a ceasefire.
These are complex sensitivities for politicians to manage. The correct approach begins with a careful choice of language and an aspiration to promote mutual understanding. It requires the disruption of vicious cycles of rage and misrepresentation that end up radicalising opinion on all sides. It means minimising needless political provocation.
Ms Braverman prefers the opposite approach, which is consistent with a pattern of treating any political situation as a platform for the advancement of personal ambition in the Conservative party. That is shallow politics at the best of times. In the context of war in the Middle East, it is reprehensible.
The police don’t welcome controversial demonstrations, while recognising that the law allows them. In that respect, the Met’s view that Saturday’s march should go ahead is more reliable than political interference from the cabinet. There are times when a requirement of public safety supersedes the right to protest. There is no evidence that the threshold has been met in this case. A political ban on pro-Palestinian rallies would aggravate divisions that ministers should instead be trying to heal.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
