Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Wednesday 28th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 week, 3 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:15
Alex Sobel
-
-
Alex Sobel
Committee on Human Rights Public Evidence Session on safety, security and protest. The Joint Committee on Human Rights is a committee of both houses, made up of 12 members from a broad range of political backgrounds. Today we will be looking into safety, security and protest, and we will be hearing from three witnesses. Liz Webster, founder of Save British Farming. Peter Leary, deputy director of Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and Rahila Gupta, trustee of Southall Black Sisters. As members will be aware, the Subjudice resolutions of both houses mean that live legal cases should not be discussed in parliamentary proceedings.
Please remember to avoid referring to any legal cases in our discussions today, and also to remind the gallery that you are here to observe and not take part in the meeting in any way. I will start the question. So first question is you've all been involved in organising protests in the past few years. Have you noticed any change in the attitude of police towards your events in that time? We'll start with you, Mr.
Leary.
Please remember to avoid referring to any legal cases in our discussions today, and also to remind the gallery that you are here to observe and not take part in the meeting in any way. I will start the question. So first question is you've all been involved in organising protests in the past few years. Have you noticed any change in the attitude of police towards your events in that time? We'll start with you, Mr.
Leary.
14:16
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, what I would say is that over the past three years in particular, we've been involved in a large number of organising a large number of protests in response to Israel's what we regard and others widely regarded as Israel's genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza. And what we have experienced is a level of policing and a type of policing that that isn't familiar to us from the past and hasn't isn't familiar to those of our members and coalition partners who have , in some cases, a very long track record of of organising protests and demonstrations going back decades.
I mean, what that includes is the routine use of the public order legislation to impose restrictions on our marches, restricting the time, the duration, the routes, the the end time of marches, in some cases, of preventing us from protesting at places where we would wish to protest the BBC, for example, or the Israeli embassy or other sites that we would regard as of as sites of legitimate protest that we would want to be to, to, to be protesting. And I think that that is a a sort of, as I say, a new experience, these these use of conditions.
I mean, if I can. Sort of perhaps explain what I mean by that, we we would speak to the police ahead of the demonstration, and we would discuss the route of the march and the time we planned to set off, and we would reach agreement on that. And then usually the day before or a couple of days before, the police would impose conditions to say, if we say we said, you know, we're assembling at 12, we aim to set off about a 12:45. The police will impose conditions, say you must have set off by 12:45.
So, you know, theoretically, if we're still there at 10 to 1, we could be charged for violating the the the order. Similarly, people taking part in the march must follow this particular route. So again, theoretically, someone who leaves the march to go to the toilet even could be potentially in breach in violation of those orders imposed by the police. We would say, you know, we hope to be finished by 430. We would then have a condition imposed to say, you must be finished by 430. So again, you know, putting extreme pressure. We often have speakers at the end of the demonstrations, members of Parliament, trade unionists, Palestinians who have lost family.
The Palestinian ambassador often speaks. Sometimes people don't always stick to time. But but but but we because of the way in which these orders are used, that that could potentially be an arrestable offence if people are still speaking at 20 to 5 when when we said we were aiming to finish at 4:30. So that's a very new experience and it has developed over the past few years.
I mean, what that includes is the routine use of the public order legislation to impose restrictions on our marches, restricting the time, the duration, the routes, the the end time of marches, in some cases, of preventing us from protesting at places where we would wish to protest the BBC, for example, or the Israeli embassy or other sites that we would regard as of as sites of legitimate protest that we would want to be to, to, to be protesting. And I think that that is a a sort of, as I say, a new experience, these these use of conditions.
I mean, if I can. Sort of perhaps explain what I mean by that, we we would speak to the police ahead of the demonstration, and we would discuss the route of the march and the time we planned to set off, and we would reach agreement on that. And then usually the day before or a couple of days before, the police would impose conditions to say, if we say we said, you know, we're assembling at 12, we aim to set off about a 12:45. The police will impose conditions, say you must have set off by 12:45.
So, you know, theoretically, if we're still there at 10 to 1, we could be charged for violating the the the order. Similarly, people taking part in the march must follow this particular route. So again, theoretically, someone who leaves the march to go to the toilet even could be potentially in breach in violation of those orders imposed by the police. We would say, you know, we hope to be finished by 430. We would then have a condition imposed to say, you must be finished by 430. So again, you know, putting extreme pressure. We often have speakers at the end of the demonstrations, members of Parliament, trade unionists, Palestinians who have lost family.
The Palestinian ambassador often speaks. Sometimes people don't always stick to time. But but but but we because of the way in which these orders are used, that that could potentially be an arrestable offence if people are still speaking at 20 to 5 when when we said we were aiming to finish at 4:30. So that's a very new experience and it has developed over the past few years.
14:19
14:19
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We haven't been. Nobody's been arrested for running over time. But we've been very fearful of that. And, you know, we have had situations where, you know, the final speaker would be speaking and we're we're getting agitated. And the police are are, you know, approaching the the stage and we're sort of pushing that we have had situations where conditions have been imposed. On one occasion, for example, the conditions were imposed governing where people could be in various parts of Whitehall at various points during the day. And there were people who were arrested literally for finding themselves on the wrong side of the road at the wrong time.
And so, so a lot of that, you know, there can be confusion on certainty. I think the other thing, as I say, is, is, is it creates a sort of chilling effect. We've also had occasions where speakers have not spoken because we were running out of time and we were running up to to the allotted time. So that's in terms of freedom of people's expression and their ability to address the rally. While they haven't been arrested, it has obviously had that suppressing effect.
And so, so a lot of that, you know, there can be confusion on certainty. I think the other thing, as I say, is, is, is it creates a sort of chilling effect. We've also had occasions where speakers have not spoken because we were running out of time and we were running up to to the allotted time. So that's in terms of freedom of people's expression and their ability to address the rally. While they haven't been arrested, it has obviously had that suppressing effect.
14:21
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, when we did the first demonstration in London, it was actually during 2020 and the Covid years. So I would say that our experience is probably a little bit the opposite in that it was much tougher when we first started. It was the first time tractors had ever really been brought to London in any number, and so the police were quite concerned about what we were going to do. And so they were helpful. But but they were sort of don't do this and don't do that. And so there was a there was a lot of mistrust to begin with.
And we did another, bigger 1 in 2024. And they were going around checking our machinery, making sure it was in debt. You know, it was it was legal. I mean, it's a slightly different protest because it's a moving it was a moving vehicle protest. And so when we came to do the much bigger protest in 2025, 2024, at the end of 2024 and 2025, by then, we sort of built a better relationship with the police. They knew who we were, and we spoke to them and had meetings with them ahead of the protests so that we knew what the parameters were, and we decided to work with them as much as we possibly could.
So I would say it improved. It was much, much tougher in 2020 because probably of the Covid restrictions as well. So all in all, it sort of got better for us. And also, I was clear with them that we never wanted to see anyone participating in the protests to go on the wrong side of the law. We were adamant that we didn't want to see any farmers arrested . That would not have helped us or them.
And we did another, bigger 1 in 2024. And they were going around checking our machinery, making sure it was in debt. You know, it was it was legal. I mean, it's a slightly different protest because it's a moving it was a moving vehicle protest. And so when we came to do the much bigger protest in 2025, 2024, at the end of 2024 and 2025, by then, we sort of built a better relationship with the police. They knew who we were, and we spoke to them and had meetings with them ahead of the protests so that we knew what the parameters were, and we decided to work with them as much as we possibly could.
So I would say it improved. It was much, much tougher in 2020 because probably of the Covid restrictions as well. So all in all, it sort of got better for us. And also, I was clear with them that we never wanted to see anyone participating in the protests to go on the wrong side of the law. We were adamant that we didn't want to see any farmers arrested . That would not have helped us or them.
14:22
14:23
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, I mean, legally there is a slight different difference between a moving vehicle protest and a physical protest of people. But they at times were, you know, we want you to finish at this time and you can't always guarantee that you're going to get rid of people. Some tractors decide to hang around and park in Whitehall afterwards and go for a drink, you know, but we we did everything that we could to make sure that we did what the police asked us, because we felt it was more important for the protests to go well and positively, and we didn't want to have a negative relationship with them.
So we, we when they came through to us and said, we want you to clear Whitehall. Now, that's exactly what what we did. We did our best to do what the police asked us to do, but we had to consider that it's a vehicle protest, and we didn't want to get in the way of the hospitals, or we didn't want anything that was going to cause significant problems for London or for the people in London. So we tried to do everything that we could to work with them as positively as possible. And that has helped us, you know, that we've built a good relationship with the met.
And and so I would say that that's that has made it more positive. So an opposite experience.
So we, we when they came through to us and said, we want you to clear Whitehall. Now, that's exactly what what we did. We did our best to do what the police asked us to do, but we had to consider that it's a vehicle protest, and we didn't want to get in the way of the hospitals, or we didn't want anything that was going to cause significant problems for London or for the people in London. So we tried to do everything that we could to work with them as positively as possible. And that has helped us, you know, that we've built a good relationship with the met.
And and so I would say that that's that has made it more positive. So an opposite experience.
14:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Okay. First of all, thank you very much for inviting Southall Black Sisters to talk on this important subject. I want to make my comments a little bit broader than those of my colleagues here. And just to say, start with the really simple point that, you know, we wouldn't be here today if we hadn't been out there on the streets and continued to be to make our voices heard. So that's really the importance of protest is very, very important to us. And it's also it's the right to belong, which I think is very important for racialised minorities.
And as we know with the article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to belong is enshrined there. And of course, Hannah Arendt has talked about the right to have rights. So I just want to start with that introduction in terms. So I do have some provisos. And it goes back to the fact that we cannot separate the policing of protests from our history or from our experience of policing generally. And so we come from a history of, you know, mangrove nine, the Bradford . 12 and in fact, I could say that most recently the King's Cross three when our director, who is sitting right behind me, was bitten in a racist incident on the tube, and it was the police who arrested her for common assault.
Now, we fought the charges. The charges were dropped. But I'm giving you this incident to explain how our experience of policing comes from a particular bias, if you like, but a bias that we feel is justified by our history. And again, this might feel a little bit too far back, but it's relevant to the point I want to make about the two tier policing. I'm sorry to use that term, because I think it's been usurped by the likes of Nigel Farage, but I come at it from a totally different point of view. And just to say that Southall Black Sisters was, you know, came up in 1979 when we had the National Front wanting provocatively to hold a meeting in Southall, predominantly Black and Asian area.
They brought in the special patrol group on horses, you know, criminalising arresting black and Asian men. So it's it's we are still living with that double edged or light touch policing, if you like, of the far right, whose right to protest seems to be better protected than ours. So going back 50 years, sort of nearly 50 years forward, fast forward to last year when we organised a demonstration outside the Home Office to protest against the earned settlement route in the new immigration proposals. These are still proposals, and we were actually really anxious that the far right would turn up and do a counter protest.
So we didn't even advertise this demonstration on social media, which you might say is a bit of an own goal because it's self defeating. If you can't actually bring the numbers together. And that was our anxiety that these men who have appeared outside asylum centres and immigration hostels, they are they are dominated by men who have criminal convictions for racial and sexual violence. They have been known to photograph women leaving these centres and then putting that on social media. So with with these sorts of dangers, we were worried about how do we mobilise? How do we bring our women into what could be potentially dangerous situation?
And our entire work is about restoring confidence to women, reclaiming the streets, you know, restoring their autonomy. So it's this two tiered policing that it's problematic. The second proviso is that unlike my colleagues here, we have organised, as I've just mentioned, the demo, we've organised a few demos and mostly marches through Southall, but we're not that's not our primary tool of protest. So I will be talking from our experience of participating in marches, many of them organised by Palestine Solidarity Campaign. And just to say that from that experience, I would argue that the law has now caught up with policing.
And what I mean by that is that what were heavy handed measures in the past are now have legislative backing, and I would argue that it probably goes even further that if you talk about things like the excessive noise clause or you talk about, you know, the facial facial covering, etc..
And as we know with the article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to belong is enshrined there. And of course, Hannah Arendt has talked about the right to have rights. So I just want to start with that introduction in terms. So I do have some provisos. And it goes back to the fact that we cannot separate the policing of protests from our history or from our experience of policing generally. And so we come from a history of, you know, mangrove nine, the Bradford . 12 and in fact, I could say that most recently the King's Cross three when our director, who is sitting right behind me, was bitten in a racist incident on the tube, and it was the police who arrested her for common assault.
Now, we fought the charges. The charges were dropped. But I'm giving you this incident to explain how our experience of policing comes from a particular bias, if you like, but a bias that we feel is justified by our history. And again, this might feel a little bit too far back, but it's relevant to the point I want to make about the two tier policing. I'm sorry to use that term, because I think it's been usurped by the likes of Nigel Farage, but I come at it from a totally different point of view. And just to say that Southall Black Sisters was, you know, came up in 1979 when we had the National Front wanting provocatively to hold a meeting in Southall, predominantly Black and Asian area.
They brought in the special patrol group on horses, you know, criminalising arresting black and Asian men. So it's it's we are still living with that double edged or light touch policing, if you like, of the far right, whose right to protest seems to be better protected than ours. So going back 50 years, sort of nearly 50 years forward, fast forward to last year when we organised a demonstration outside the Home Office to protest against the earned settlement route in the new immigration proposals. These are still proposals, and we were actually really anxious that the far right would turn up and do a counter protest.
So we didn't even advertise this demonstration on social media, which you might say is a bit of an own goal because it's self defeating. If you can't actually bring the numbers together. And that was our anxiety that these men who have appeared outside asylum centres and immigration hostels, they are they are dominated by men who have criminal convictions for racial and sexual violence. They have been known to photograph women leaving these centres and then putting that on social media. So with with these sorts of dangers, we were worried about how do we mobilise? How do we bring our women into what could be potentially dangerous situation?
And our entire work is about restoring confidence to women, reclaiming the streets, you know, restoring their autonomy. So it's this two tiered policing that it's problematic. The second proviso is that unlike my colleagues here, we have organised, as I've just mentioned, the demo, we've organised a few demos and mostly marches through Southall, but we're not that's not our primary tool of protest. So I will be talking from our experience of participating in marches, many of them organised by Palestine Solidarity Campaign. And just to say that from that experience, I would argue that the law has now caught up with policing.
And what I mean by that is that what were heavy handed measures in the past are now have legislative backing, and I would argue that it probably goes even further that if you talk about things like the excessive noise clause or you talk about, you know, the facial facial covering, etc..
14:29
14:30
14:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I mean, I mean, as I sort of indicated in my previous answer, I mean, we we obviously always make sure to we do inform the police, we discuss with the police ahead of our protests. We we understand that they have a responsibility to facilitate to to facilitate protests. But also we want to because we're bringing large numbers of people. These are often very, very large events. They contain a wide range of people, disabled people, elderly people, people with children, and young families who come on these marches. And we want to make sure that they can do so safely and participate effectively in the aims of the protests as well as, you know, the practical things.
We want to make sure that the the roads are closed. So, so that we're not walking headlong into traffic. And all of that, for all of those reasons is, is, you know, we always seek to engage with the with the police. I think that I, I would characterise the sort of approach of the police. I wouldn't characterize it as one in which they are seeking to facilitate us to exercise our rights. I would think that they are seeking to use what powers are at their disposal to, to limit and curtail our rights to, to, to do that.
That includes, you know, as I say, for example, preventing us for several years now from protesting from other marching to or from the BBC somewhere . We have wanted to, to, to, to be a part of one of our national demonstrations from protesting at the Israeli embassy, sometimes imposing restrictions that that that make it very difficult to protest in a sort of normal or standard way at all. I mean, one ironic example was the day that the Crime and Policing Bill, which contained a number of what we would regard as restrictive anti-protest clauses, was debated in Parliament, and we organised a protest outside.
Outside Parliament. On the day we discussed with the police, we discussed with them the location of the protest and where it should be sited, and with an hour to go , they they imposed a restriction banning us from using megaphones, which. Megaphones have been a feature of protests and demonstrations, I'm sure, since before I was born. And you know what that makes it means it's very difficult to communicate with the people who have gathered. I mean, we did hold our rally. We had to shout , give us all a sore throat. But but but but but, you know, that sort of normal feature that you would expect that would enable you to communicate with people who've come together to, to, to, you know, both in order to get the message of your protest across, but also to, to, you know, for safety reasons to tell people if you want them to move and that kind of thing.
We were sort of banned from doing that at, at very short notice. So certainly our feeling is, isn't that that the police have been seeking to facilitate us to, to, to make make our protest sort of the contrary. In fact, many times we've felt that their approach has been like, we're not really people going about our lawful business at all, where people engaged in a sort of quasi criminal activity by, by taking part in the protests and that protests, protesters perhaps exist over here, and the public exists over there. And their role is to protect the public from rather than to to facilitate those members of the public who wish to express their democratic rights.
We want to make sure that the the roads are closed. So, so that we're not walking headlong into traffic. And all of that, for all of those reasons is, is, you know, we always seek to engage with the with the police. I think that I, I would characterise the sort of approach of the police. I wouldn't characterize it as one in which they are seeking to facilitate us to exercise our rights. I would think that they are seeking to use what powers are at their disposal to, to limit and curtail our rights to, to, to do that.
That includes, you know, as I say, for example, preventing us for several years now from protesting from other marching to or from the BBC somewhere . We have wanted to, to, to, to be a part of one of our national demonstrations from protesting at the Israeli embassy, sometimes imposing restrictions that that that make it very difficult to protest in a sort of normal or standard way at all. I mean, one ironic example was the day that the Crime and Policing Bill, which contained a number of what we would regard as restrictive anti-protest clauses, was debated in Parliament, and we organised a protest outside.
Outside Parliament. On the day we discussed with the police, we discussed with them the location of the protest and where it should be sited, and with an hour to go , they they imposed a restriction banning us from using megaphones, which. Megaphones have been a feature of protests and demonstrations, I'm sure, since before I was born. And you know what that makes it means it's very difficult to communicate with the people who have gathered. I mean, we did hold our rally. We had to shout , give us all a sore throat. But but but but but, you know, that sort of normal feature that you would expect that would enable you to communicate with people who've come together to, to, to, you know, both in order to get the message of your protest across, but also to, to, you know, for safety reasons to tell people if you want them to move and that kind of thing.
We were sort of banned from doing that at, at very short notice. So certainly our feeling is, isn't that that the police have been seeking to facilitate us to, to, to make make our protest sort of the contrary. In fact, many times we've felt that their approach has been like, we're not really people going about our lawful business at all, where people engaged in a sort of quasi criminal activity by, by taking part in the protests and that protests, protesters perhaps exist over here, and the public exists over there. And their role is to protect the public from rather than to to facilitate those members of the public who wish to express their democratic rights.
14:34
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
We. In the beginning of the after the farm tax was brought in, there was efforts by other people in the farming community that wanted to go and block depots, supermarket depots and. You know, going back 20 years ago, that would not have been illegal. And so I just used I had the view that from our perspective, we wanted to run a PR campaign and we wanted to get positive. It was about getting positive press and to get people on our side. So I did everything that I could to stop that from happening, despite the fact that that probably would have got more attention because food would have been interrupted and people would have understand the impact of what the farm tax means to them personally.
So. Were we able to do what we wanted to do? No. But what we decided to do was to keep within the parameters of the law. Because in my view, the more that we try to push the law and put the police in a position where they're going to start being heavy handed with us, that it would actually probably give more freedoms for the for the lawmakers to inflict more laws on protesters. So there were two things in my mind, A getting through the message, which is about everyone's food, not just the farmers, but also about trying to show that, you know, protesting in in this day and age isn't the same as it was when Emily Pankhurst strapped herself to the railings, because we've got social media, we've got television, you know, 24 over seven.
And I was very keen to try and get a positive campaign out to make sure that people heard the message and to do it as orderly as possible. Controlling people that are protesting with you is like herding cats. And that is difficult. And I, I also respected the job that the police are trying to do. It's not their fault that the laws are coming through. I mean, maybe some of them agree with the laws, maybe some of them don't. They're all we're all humans at the end of the day. And I did feel that we needed to try and get to a point where we were sort of saying, look, these things are happening to British farming, which means it's going to impact your food, which in fact impacts all of our human rights as well access to food.
And to try and do that as positively as, as we can. But so that that is how we decided to approach this situation with protesting. And it's been more successful, I think, from from that point of view, because we found a narrow way through it. And it is easier because it's we've we've used it was Covid that got us into the vehicles because we wouldn't have been allowed to do a physical protest in 2020, but we were allowed to it was outside of the remit of the Covid laws to do with moving vehicular protest. And then in doing so, it sort of gave us the opportunity to we've got big machines that's fortunate.
So we're able to be seen, which gives us it makes it looks as if we're being treated differently, but we're not really we're trying to do the same thing. We're trying to communicate. I suppose that's what protesting is. We're trying to communicate to the people that know what's going on in their country and what it means to them, but there is an element of people wanting to express their frustration with whatever they're protesting about. And as organisers, I think that responsibility is enormous because you can't control everybody. And the law is quite frightening because, I mean, I don't want to go to jail, and I didn't want anyone else to go to jail and end up with a criminal record either.
So it is it is a big thing to do a big protest. It's a huge amount of responsibility.
So. Were we able to do what we wanted to do? No. But what we decided to do was to keep within the parameters of the law. Because in my view, the more that we try to push the law and put the police in a position where they're going to start being heavy handed with us, that it would actually probably give more freedoms for the for the lawmakers to inflict more laws on protesters. So there were two things in my mind, A getting through the message, which is about everyone's food, not just the farmers, but also about trying to show that, you know, protesting in in this day and age isn't the same as it was when Emily Pankhurst strapped herself to the railings, because we've got social media, we've got television, you know, 24 over seven.
And I was very keen to try and get a positive campaign out to make sure that people heard the message and to do it as orderly as possible. Controlling people that are protesting with you is like herding cats. And that is difficult. And I, I also respected the job that the police are trying to do. It's not their fault that the laws are coming through. I mean, maybe some of them agree with the laws, maybe some of them don't. They're all we're all humans at the end of the day. And I did feel that we needed to try and get to a point where we were sort of saying, look, these things are happening to British farming, which means it's going to impact your food, which in fact impacts all of our human rights as well access to food.
And to try and do that as positively as, as we can. But so that that is how we decided to approach this situation with protesting. And it's been more successful, I think, from from that point of view, because we found a narrow way through it. And it is easier because it's we've we've used it was Covid that got us into the vehicles because we wouldn't have been allowed to do a physical protest in 2020, but we were allowed to it was outside of the remit of the Covid laws to do with moving vehicular protest. And then in doing so, it sort of gave us the opportunity to we've got big machines that's fortunate.
So we're able to be seen, which gives us it makes it looks as if we're being treated differently, but we're not really we're trying to do the same thing. We're trying to communicate. I suppose that's what protesting is. We're trying to communicate to the people that know what's going on in their country and what it means to them, but there is an element of people wanting to express their frustration with whatever they're protesting about. And as organisers, I think that responsibility is enormous because you can't control everybody. And the law is quite frightening because, I mean, I don't want to go to jail, and I didn't want anyone else to go to jail and end up with a criminal record either.
So it is it is a big thing to do a big protest. It's a huge amount of responsibility.
14:38
14:38
14:38
Baroness Chakrabarti
-
-
Baroness Chakrabarti
Thank you. I mean, you've talked a bit about this already, so I don't want you to have to repeat answers. And I think we all appreciate that you have slightly different levels of direct engagement with liaison groups as part of the police and with the police directly in your case. So I'm interested more in more solutions that you think to some of this stuff. If the starting point, I'm assuming for you is pretty low level of trust in some of the police liaison groups that you meet and how they're working with you, maybe I'm wrong.
Please correct me. I'm interested firstly, if that's the case and secondly, how you meet with them beforehand. You've talked a little bit about that, what barriers there might be in overcoming that trust and what you might propose as a solution.
Please correct me. I'm interested firstly, if that's the case and secondly, how you meet with them beforehand. You've talked a little bit about that, what barriers there might be in overcoming that trust and what you might propose as a solution.
14:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I would say we have a mixed experience of different, different police officers that we deal with. I mean, I would say that there is a sort of a a lack of, you know, I mean, maybe this maybe this is the wrong way of, of, of, of viewing it. But, but for example, I mean, you know, our, our marches have been a major issue of national controversy over the last number of years following various comments that have been made, the the Chief Inspector of the Metropolitan Police has made numerous public comments about our marches, some of which we have, you know, rejected and objected to and so on, but has repeatedly refused to meet with the organisers of the marches.
So I think from the top down , there's a sort of, you know, there's that unwillingness to engage with political conversation about our marches, but not not a willingness to engage with those responsible for for organising the marches. And I think that's often reflected in some of the operational police that we also deal with are often not are not willing to, to, to, you know, or, you know, sort of place conditions in terms of engagement. So, for example, we had a situation in May where we were the police refused our route for our annual Nakba Day commemoration march.
And the, the they proposed an alternative route. We had some concerns about it. There was a major right wing, far right, we would say, demonstration taking place in London on the day in a context where some of those groups have previously tried to violently attack our march, most famously on the deal in November 2023, the. We had concerns about the route. We wanted to meet with them, and the police took the position that they would only meet with us once we had agreed to the route that that that they were proposing. So, so so they were sort of using refusing to engage in dialogue with us on unless we met certain conditions.
We've had had similar experiences where right up to the week of demonstration, the police have been threatening to or saying that they will impose conditions on our march, including the formation point, which is obviously the most important thing that we have to be able to advertise in advance where people need to come in order to arrive. But but refusing to tell us what those conditions might be, and instead sort of saying, well, can you, you know, come up with a, you know, an alternative and so on. And so, so, you know, there has been an approach that, you know, my experience is that I think that what the law has given to the police is, are a lot of powers to, to impose conditions, often at very short notice.
So they're not subject and can't be subject to any legal scrutiny. Or we would have no opportunity to, to, to seek any legal redress given the timescales involved. And that creates a disincentive for the police to engage in any kind of good faith in discussion with protest organisers, because they know that they can ultimately just impose conditions. And there's very little that we can do about it.
So I think from the top down , there's a sort of, you know, there's that unwillingness to engage with political conversation about our marches, but not not a willingness to engage with those responsible for for organising the marches. And I think that's often reflected in some of the operational police that we also deal with are often not are not willing to, to, to, you know, or, you know, sort of place conditions in terms of engagement. So, for example, we had a situation in May where we were the police refused our route for our annual Nakba Day commemoration march.
And the, the they proposed an alternative route. We had some concerns about it. There was a major right wing, far right, we would say, demonstration taking place in London on the day in a context where some of those groups have previously tried to violently attack our march, most famously on the deal in November 2023, the. We had concerns about the route. We wanted to meet with them, and the police took the position that they would only meet with us once we had agreed to the route that that that they were proposing. So, so so they were sort of using refusing to engage in dialogue with us on unless we met certain conditions.
We've had had similar experiences where right up to the week of demonstration, the police have been threatening to or saying that they will impose conditions on our march, including the formation point, which is obviously the most important thing that we have to be able to advertise in advance where people need to come in order to arrive. But but refusing to tell us what those conditions might be, and instead sort of saying, well, can you, you know, come up with a, you know, an alternative and so on. And so, so, you know, there has been an approach that, you know, my experience is that I think that what the law has given to the police is, are a lot of powers to, to impose conditions, often at very short notice.
So they're not subject and can't be subject to any legal scrutiny. Or we would have no opportunity to, to, to seek any legal redress given the timescales involved. And that creates a disincentive for the police to engage in any kind of good faith in discussion with protest organisers, because they know that they can ultimately just impose conditions. And there's very little that we can do about it.
14:43
14:43
14:43
Alex Sobel
-
-
Alex Sobel
Thank you. Peter, as you raise the Nakba Day march, I was going to ask later on, but I'll ask now. I remember very well the difficulties because the Tommy Robinson marched out the same day, and the pressures that put on your organization. And you mentioned that your route was in part determined by the fact that that Tommy Robinson had decided to have his whatever you want to call it, event. The same day , there was contention within the Jewish community about the route of the march because of its proximity to Westminster Synagogue. Was that route decision due to the Tommy Robinson event ?
And would you normally choose not to march close to a synagogue or place of worship?
And would you normally choose not to march close to a synagogue or place of worship?
14:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, it certainly absolutely no intention of ours to march close to or pass or target any place of worship in, in any way. So that's that's not sort of part of our intention. Now, it is challenging that there are very I mean, sometimes what the Metropolitan Police determine as near to or in the vicinity of is quite expansive. So I've also mentioned, for example, the BBC, we've been prevented from marching there owing to a synagogue several streets away. The occasion I was just referring to when we were when the police refused to tell us what conditions they were going to impose with, with just days to go refer to Hyde Park, a long standing historic site of protest and assembly and so on.
That relates to related to we didn't know at the time, but but but it turns out related to to a synagogue, I think about 12 minutes walk away. So the challenge is that there are very few places in any town or city, and certainly not in central London, that aren't within those kinds of distances of, of, of a place of, of worship, of one kind or another. So, so I think, you know, these are quite large distances that far beyond, for example, the exclusion areas that in my view, quite rightly, are imposed around abortion clinics, for example, to protect those using those services or far beyond the sort of protection that's given to accommodation for asylum seekers.
To give another example, where there are very threatening protests, often happening right outside. So, so so certainly that the, the, the, you know, it is difficult, you know, the, the issue there, you know, the route, as I say, was imposed on us. So it wasn't, you know, it wasn't particularly a route of our choosing. But but there are there are challenges in terms of organising protesters. In that sense.
That relates to related to we didn't know at the time, but but but it turns out related to to a synagogue, I think about 12 minutes walk away. So the challenge is that there are very few places in any town or city, and certainly not in central London, that aren't within those kinds of distances of, of, of a place of, of worship, of one kind or another. So, so I think, you know, these are quite large distances that far beyond, for example, the exclusion areas that in my view, quite rightly, are imposed around abortion clinics, for example, to protect those using those services or far beyond the sort of protection that's given to accommodation for asylum seekers.
To give another example, where there are very threatening protests, often happening right outside. So, so so certainly that the, the, the, you know, it is difficult, you know, the, the issue there, you know, the route, as I say, was imposed on us. So it wasn't, you know, it wasn't particularly a route of our choosing. But but there are there are challenges in terms of organising protesters. In that sense.
14:46
14:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, as I say, I certainly, you know, we we would obviously reject any suggestion that our marchers in any way represent a threat to people who are wishing to to use their place of worship, including people who are wishing to, to, to visit synagogues. And would point to the fact that the very clear messaging from our marches in terms of opposition to anti-Semitism alongside all other forms of racism, Islamophobia, anti-palestinian, racism, and the fact that large numbers of Jewish people participate in the marches, both, as many of them, are marching as part of an organised Jewish block as as platform speakers and all of the marches, including often Holocaust survivors , speaking at the at the demonstrations.
But but I certainly think that that that lack of clarity and the discretion that is that is given to the police and leads both amongst both amongst March organisers, but I think also amongst the public to, to, to, to a false impression often. So so for example, Mark Rowley has said that when we march, we try to march near a synagogue, but he means 12 minutes walk away. Whereas I think when that often gets interpreted, it means past the very door or on the doorstep. And, and that undoubtedly will create a false perception and may indeed create fear in certain communities about what our intentions and the intentions of the of the marches are.
So I think, yes, I mean, some sort of some clarity on that would enable people to understand what is and isn't happening in relation to these marches, for one thing, but also to, to, to would help us as much organisers to, to facilitate that.
But but I certainly think that that that lack of clarity and the discretion that is that is given to the police and leads both amongst both amongst March organisers, but I think also amongst the public to, to, to, to a false impression often. So so for example, Mark Rowley has said that when we march, we try to march near a synagogue, but he means 12 minutes walk away. Whereas I think when that often gets interpreted, it means past the very door or on the doorstep. And, and that undoubtedly will create a false perception and may indeed create fear in certain communities about what our intentions and the intentions of the of the marches are.
So I think, yes, I mean, some sort of some clarity on that would enable people to understand what is and isn't happening in relation to these marches, for one thing, but also to, to, to would help us as much organisers to, to facilitate that.
14:48
14:48
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. I mean, I'd never arranged a protest until, you know, well, 2019 was the first time when we brought sheep to London and People's Vote organised all of that. So it was quite a big step to first do it. You know, it kind of was quite, you know, daunting, I suppose. And, you know, you don't you're not quite sure what's expected of you in London, but once you've actually once I breached that barrier and made connections with certain people in the met, it got a lot easier. So the communication channels opened. I got to know them, they got to know me, and we were able to have a dialogue and sort of say, can we do a protest next week?
And they'd say, actually, that's a bad day, Liz, because so and so, you know, is coming over and we've got this going on. And so that that was, you know, that was that was fine, you know? Okay, it was inconvenient. Perhaps one day we would have wanted to do something. But I understood that their resources are really stretched. And so I took the, I took the view that and I still take the view that I want the protest to be positive, not negative. And so I recognise that we have to work with them. So I suppose if there's more communication around that, that when you're arranging a.
I mean, what I would say to somebody who's organising a protest in London is I'd ask them, what do you want to achieve? Are you doing it because you just want to go and feel and, you know, and let off steam? Or are you doing it because you're communicating and trying to further that so that Parliament acts, you know, about the issue that you're upset about. And that was the view that I that I took. But I am as a citizen, I am concerned about the creeping laws which are restricting us to do these things, because I honestly can say I never want to be arrested and have a criminal record, and I wouldn't want to be responsible for anyone else doing that either.
And I am acutely aware of the fact that those laws have become more illiberal. And I'm also aware that what happened in Hong Kong and how that slippery route continues. So I didn't want to also be responsible for provoking that and shutting down protests even further, which is a fundamental human right.
And they'd say, actually, that's a bad day, Liz, because so and so, you know, is coming over and we've got this going on. And so that that was, you know, that was that was fine, you know? Okay, it was inconvenient. Perhaps one day we would have wanted to do something. But I understood that their resources are really stretched. And so I took the, I took the view that and I still take the view that I want the protest to be positive, not negative. And so I recognise that we have to work with them. So I suppose if there's more communication around that, that when you're arranging a.
I mean, what I would say to somebody who's organising a protest in London is I'd ask them, what do you want to achieve? Are you doing it because you just want to go and feel and, you know, and let off steam? Or are you doing it because you're communicating and trying to further that so that Parliament acts, you know, about the issue that you're upset about. And that was the view that I that I took. But I am as a citizen, I am concerned about the creeping laws which are restricting us to do these things, because I honestly can say I never want to be arrested and have a criminal record, and I wouldn't want to be responsible for anyone else doing that either.
And I am acutely aware of the fact that those laws have become more illiberal. And I'm also aware that what happened in Hong Kong and how that slippery route continues. So I didn't want to also be responsible for provoking that and shutting down protests even further, which is a fundamental human right.
14:50
14:51
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Okay. So the first thing I would say is that I take your point completely about the dangers of getting a criminal record as a citizen, but what if your right to protest and anything that you do on that protest actually takes away your ability to continue to live in this country, which is actually the people that we deal with. Because every single, not every single, but a lot of the women, both workers and the women that we deal with their right to remain in this country is affected by the immigration rules. And I think that that is it's puts us in a completely different situation from the ordinary citizen who rightly fears the policing of protests and fears arrest.
And I just because the immigration rules are quite complex, I just want to refer to my notes so I don't get it wrong. So I think one of the big issues is this proposal of the earned settlement route. And I think that that is within your these are still proposals, and this is within your remit as lawmakers to actually reverse them, because there is a good character test which has direct impact on this issue about participation in protest. And so this earned settlement route, which Andy Burnham has put his has, seems to be supporting. It's through economic contribution, high earnings and good character.
And that's the one of the big issues in relation to this. So your previously you were had an automatic right to permanent residence after a period of five years. Now the length of time can increase from anywhere between 10 to 20 years. So this intersection of the good character test and these expanding protest laws, they carry significant human rights implications for non-citizens in the UK. So I think these policies alter how fundamental rights are exercised. And any of the serious disruption offences that are being are in the law at the moment, locking on, blocking the highway.
They can all carry prison sentences of up to 12 months. There is a persistent offender clause which can catch anyone who is engaged repeatedly in acts of civil disobedience, and those can receive cautions or there are minor convictions. And if there are three occasions or you accept a conditional caution to avoid court, it could affect your ability to remain in this country. So that is a really big problem for us. The other issue, and this was in section 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It gave the police and the CPS the power to issue conditional cautions to foreign nationals.
They were known as undocumented migrants at that point. The new law in 2026 has expanded that to all foreign nationals who hold limited or valid. They're valid visas, but limited in order to enter and remain in the UK and some of the categories that affect us and they affect us because we have workers drawn from these categories, are skilled workers on employment visas, there are individuals on family visas, there are international students. And then of course, there are recognised refugees or victims of human trafficking. So many of our workers and women fall into one of these categories.
So what? And we are not talking about a small number of people. These numbers are sizeable people who are subject to the. No recourse to public funds are numbers somewhere around 4 million people. And these are only going to grow with the earned settlement and then also with the refugees. All of this actually has a huge impact on our ability to participate in protest.
And I just because the immigration rules are quite complex, I just want to refer to my notes so I don't get it wrong. So I think one of the big issues is this proposal of the earned settlement route. And I think that that is within your these are still proposals, and this is within your remit as lawmakers to actually reverse them, because there is a good character test which has direct impact on this issue about participation in protest. And so this earned settlement route, which Andy Burnham has put his has, seems to be supporting. It's through economic contribution, high earnings and good character.
And that's the one of the big issues in relation to this. So your previously you were had an automatic right to permanent residence after a period of five years. Now the length of time can increase from anywhere between 10 to 20 years. So this intersection of the good character test and these expanding protest laws, they carry significant human rights implications for non-citizens in the UK. So I think these policies alter how fundamental rights are exercised. And any of the serious disruption offences that are being are in the law at the moment, locking on, blocking the highway.
They can all carry prison sentences of up to 12 months. There is a persistent offender clause which can catch anyone who is engaged repeatedly in acts of civil disobedience, and those can receive cautions or there are minor convictions. And if there are three occasions or you accept a conditional caution to avoid court, it could affect your ability to remain in this country. So that is a really big problem for us. The other issue, and this was in section 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It gave the police and the CPS the power to issue conditional cautions to foreign nationals.
They were known as undocumented migrants at that point. The new law in 2026 has expanded that to all foreign nationals who hold limited or valid. They're valid visas, but limited in order to enter and remain in the UK and some of the categories that affect us and they affect us because we have workers drawn from these categories, are skilled workers on employment visas, there are individuals on family visas, there are international students. And then of course, there are recognised refugees or victims of human trafficking. So many of our workers and women fall into one of these categories.
So what? And we are not talking about a small number of people. These numbers are sizeable people who are subject to the. No recourse to public funds are numbers somewhere around 4 million people. And these are only going to grow with the earned settlement and then also with the refugees. All of this actually has a huge impact on our ability to participate in protest.
14:55
Baroness Chakrabarti
-
-
Baroness Chakrabarti
Thank you. And I think we've got the sense of what you might answer for our next question, but it's just to kind of double down a bit more on the how you see the changes that have been made to the law and public order in protest in recent years. Overall, do you think these changes have made it more or less clear when protest becomes unlawful and when police interference is justified? So it's a broad question, Peter, I know you've answered some of that, but is there anything you'd like to add about the expansion of the law?
14:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah, I mean, I think that, you know, as I've probably indicated, it's become much more difficult for us. I think that the police have a lot more powers to to prevent protests, effectively prevent protests by imposing conditions on it that make it difficult, if not impossible to, to, to organise a protest. We've had experiences where, for example, we wanted to protest that the the Israeli embassy, in response to the passing of a death penalty law that applies only and exclusively to Palestinians, whether in the occupied Palestinian territory or Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. We wanted. Clearly the target of that of such protest is the Israeli embassy.
The government is responsible. The police, with an hour's notice, imposed conditions on us to move us to Downing Street, which, you know, not only I mean, we did go ahead with it, but but but but effectively, we're not protesting against the the body that we wish to be. You know, we're not we're not able to because they've got those powers to, to sort of, you know, to, to move us. I mentioned the occasion, which was I did feel extremely ironic when we were at a protest in response to the Crime and Policing Bill and the anti-protest clauses in that.
And we were banned from using megaphones and we had to shout. We were banned on the day that the the famine was officially declared in Gaza from banging pots and pans out at a protest. We were banned from using megaphones or amplified noise on the day when the President of Israel. I visited Britain and we wish to to to protest in response to that. So I think that this makes protests. It silences them, makes them much less effectual, much harder to organize protests, to even communicate with people where, where the the location of a protest is going to be.
The government is responsible. The police, with an hour's notice, imposed conditions on us to move us to Downing Street, which, you know, not only I mean, we did go ahead with it, but but but but effectively, we're not protesting against the the body that we wish to be. You know, we're not we're not able to because they've got those powers to, to sort of, you know, to, to move us. I mentioned the occasion, which was I did feel extremely ironic when we were at a protest in response to the Crime and Policing Bill and the anti-protest clauses in that.
And we were banned from using megaphones and we had to shout. We were banned on the day that the the famine was officially declared in Gaza from banging pots and pans out at a protest. We were banned from using megaphones or amplified noise on the day when the President of Israel. I visited Britain and we wish to to to protest in response to that. So I think that this makes protests. It silences them, makes them much less effectual, much harder to organize protests, to even communicate with people where, where the the location of a protest is going to be.
14:57
14:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Where to begin? You know, I mean, you know, I think there are many, many things and it's very hard to prioritize them. I mean, I think that the prescription of Palestine action has created a hugely chilling climate for anyone wishing to engage in protest or express themselves at all in this country. I think it is absolutely shocking the consequences that we've seen from that in terms of huge numbers of people, often elderly people, disabled people being arrested simply for for holding signs. And I don't think that the implications of that simply stop at those protests.
I think they send out a clear message about what the attitude of the police and the government in this country is to freedom of speech and to freedom of expression. So even though that's not a protest that I'm involved in myself or that we're involved in, I think that that would be one thing. But I think there is so much.
I think they send out a clear message about what the attitude of the police and the government in this country is to freedom of speech and to freedom of expression. So even though that's not a protest that I'm involved in myself or that we're involved in, I think that that would be one thing. But I think there is so much.
14:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
That we would like to you know, I mean, I, you know, the in terms of the, you know, the charges that are being pursued against people for taking part in protests of a variety of kinds, but also the, you know, there has been just a wave of, you know, anti-protest laws. I mean, perhaps I'll go chronologically and start with the Crime and policing bill and go back to the police, crime and Courts bill and work backwards that way. But but I just think there's been so much that needs to be looked at and addressed.
14:59
14:59
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I, I think the sort of knee jerk reaction to keep legislating in response to protest, which is happening because of economic changes and, you know, which are also linked to immigration and, and changes over the last, particularly over the last 10 to 15 years are just it's just the wrong thing. And I think it also makes the police's job probably a lot harder because they have to tick boxes as well in all of this. So I think, you know, I think that the I'm scared of it becoming an illiberal police state, that that is not a country I want to live in.
And it does feel that we're getting close, edging closer to that. And it does mean that you're less likely to want to even get involved in protest or certainly managing it because the responsibility sits with you and that's telling you that that's fundamentally wrong. If you believe in human rights. So I don't think that more legislation is the answer. I think that probably a pulling back from that, but also that involves properly funding our police who are, I know, overstretched to manage these different demonstrations. And so you've got the austerity, which has made everything worse as well.
So politically, you've asked me a very difficult question. And yeah, there's a lot that needs to be looked at. So we're not in a good situation that we have got this going on. And certainly with Palestine action that the police's resources are having to arrest people for holding a sign is ludicrous.
And it does feel that we're getting close, edging closer to that. And it does mean that you're less likely to want to even get involved in protest or certainly managing it because the responsibility sits with you and that's telling you that that's fundamentally wrong. If you believe in human rights. So I don't think that more legislation is the answer. I think that probably a pulling back from that, but also that involves properly funding our police who are, I know, overstretched to manage these different demonstrations. And so you've got the austerity, which has made everything worse as well.
So politically, you've asked me a very difficult question. And yeah, there's a lot that needs to be looked at. So we're not in a good situation that we have got this going on. And certainly with Palestine action that the police's resources are having to arrest people for holding a sign is ludicrous.
15:01
15:01
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Well, I have to echo that everything that has been said before me, and I really do think that we should be looking at repealing a number of these laws. Certainly the serious disruption prevention orders, I think, should be repealed. I think the whole thing around megaphones and excessive noise, that's the joy of protest. We go, we sing, we chant, we dance, we have we play drums. You know, this is part of the reason that people come out on the streets and to, to legislate against that, to criminalise that, I think really puts Britain in some category like India actually, because India is, you know, really coming down very hard on public demonstrations.
So, so I would, you know, repeat all of those things. We need to go back to a , I don't even know when I would date it. But certainly there have been four new laws in the last five years. And I think that a lot of them have some of these draconian elements to it. And I was listening to the police give evidence here, and I think the issue was not so much of clarity, but plethora of laws. They didn't know which law to use to do what. And I'm not sure that actually the police are not happy with the situation.
My understanding is that they have got what they have asked for and what they wanted, and they've been lobbying for. So I think we're in a situation where the police have got too many powers and there's too much legislative backing. And to make the point about living in a democracy, I mean, this is your mail bag come to life. You know, this is your mail bag personified, that there are people who are going out on the streets to tell you what's going wrong with their lives. You know, that the status quo has become unbearable for them.
And so why do we fear it? Why do we not welcome and facilitate it rather than see it as a problem to be policed? So that would be my view on that.
So, so I would, you know, repeat all of those things. We need to go back to a , I don't even know when I would date it. But certainly there have been four new laws in the last five years. And I think that a lot of them have some of these draconian elements to it. And I was listening to the police give evidence here, and I think the issue was not so much of clarity, but plethora of laws. They didn't know which law to use to do what. And I'm not sure that actually the police are not happy with the situation.
My understanding is that they have got what they have asked for and what they wanted, and they've been lobbying for. So I think we're in a situation where the police have got too many powers and there's too much legislative backing. And to make the point about living in a democracy, I mean, this is your mail bag come to life. You know, this is your mail bag personified, that there are people who are going out on the streets to tell you what's going wrong with their lives. You know, that the status quo has become unbearable for them.
And so why do we fear it? Why do we not welcome and facilitate it rather than see it as a problem to be policed? So that would be my view on that.
15:03
Baroness Chakrabarti
-
-
Baroness Chakrabarti
Thank you. Chair. It's always a privilege to sit on this committee, but I have to say that listening to these witnesses is and and they're gentle, reasoned engagement has been really, really wonderful in in recent minutes. Our three witnesses are very much steeped in the law and the organizing around protest. But but there'll be many others in your communities, in your campaigns who are not so much and who will listen to today's evidence and be concerned about the potential cost of participating in protest. So, and by the way, I declare an interest chair as I'm teaching an undergraduate law course at the LSE this term that includes the law of protest.
So I'm declaring that interest.
So I'm declaring that interest.
15:04
15:04
Baroness Chakrabarti
-
-
Baroness Chakrabarti
With all the frenetic activity we have, the we have the Public Order Act 1986, and there wasn't that much frenetic activity after that. And in recent years, lots of frenetic legislative activity. My question is, now you have a friend, you have a supporter sort of putting their toe into the water of your campaign. You have three different campaigns and they say, I really care about this cause, and I really want to I really want to be heard, but I'm really nervous. I'm really nervous about consequences now. I think we've heard from Southall Black sisters about the particular consequences for non citizens.
But so maybe firstly to the other two , what do you what do you actually say in friendship and solidarity to to them about whether it's a good idea to be in Parliament Square, be outside an embassy or when they're particularly nervous and they could be nervous for any number of reasons. And Liz was very honest, I think, and articulate about not wanting to be arrested, not wanting to be prosecuted. People have families, people have livelihoods. They want to be heard, but they what would you honestly say to them? Now in Britain 2026 about how comfortable, you know, as a good friend, actually, as a good friend?
What would you say to them about the about what, whether that's a good idea or not and what they might face.
But so maybe firstly to the other two , what do you what do you actually say in friendship and solidarity to to them about whether it's a good idea to be in Parliament Square, be outside an embassy or when they're particularly nervous and they could be nervous for any number of reasons. And Liz was very honest, I think, and articulate about not wanting to be arrested, not wanting to be prosecuted. People have families, people have livelihoods. They want to be heard, but they what would you honestly say to them? Now in Britain 2026 about how comfortable, you know, as a good friend, actually, as a good friend?
What would you say to them about the about what, whether that's a good idea or not and what they might face.
15:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think it's it's difficult. And I think that there are you know, it is something we hear all the time. People, I mean, including people who are, you know, perhaps they're on a student visa or they're, you know, they have concerns around immigration, people who've got concerns about their their job. A colleague was telling me about someone saying, I really like to go on the marches, but I'm a teaching assistant and I'm worried about, about, about my job. So these are concerns. And the truth is that we can't guarantee if you go on a protest, you can't guarantee that people won't face arrest, potentially through no fault of their own.
And I think. Earlier I made the point about that, you know, people, people being arrested for finding themselves on the wrong side of the road in Whitehall when the conditions said they had to be on one side and they were on the other side. In that case, I think there was no further action taken, but it's nevertheless a distressing sort of experience for people and be people who don't want to take take that risk. At the same time, I obviously encourage people to come on the protest. It's my my job to do so. I think it is important, both in terms of the issue that we're protesting about.
And, you know, we've all seen the horrors in Gaza over the past three years and, and the need to to why we have felt it's so important to protest, to keep protesting, to, to maintain, you know, continue to come out into the streets. We've now seen, obviously, some shift in government policy as a consequence of, of maintaining that persistent campaigning and those persistent protests nowhere near as far as we would like it to go. But but but but nevertheless, we've had that real, you know, real impact. I also think it is important to, to uphold our our democratic rights.
I don't think they, they, you know, the freedoms we have have come about through people exercising, through people taking to the streets in protest by people campaigning for the right to vote, but also for, you know, rights to strike and to take all these kinds of actions and exercising those rights as well. I think that that, that, that that's how, how they are preserved. So I think we, we do have that responsibility almost to, to, to, to, to continue to defend, to exercise, to deploy our, our democratic rights or, or, or we will lose them.
But I can understand on an individual level why some people don't wish to do that, and particularly those people who , for various reasons are more likely than others to be arrested or will face more severe consequences than others if they should find themselves in that situation. I think it's a very challenging situation.
And I think. Earlier I made the point about that, you know, people, people being arrested for finding themselves on the wrong side of the road in Whitehall when the conditions said they had to be on one side and they were on the other side. In that case, I think there was no further action taken, but it's nevertheless a distressing sort of experience for people and be people who don't want to take take that risk. At the same time, I obviously encourage people to come on the protest. It's my my job to do so. I think it is important, both in terms of the issue that we're protesting about.
And, you know, we've all seen the horrors in Gaza over the past three years and, and the need to to why we have felt it's so important to protest, to keep protesting, to, to maintain, you know, continue to come out into the streets. We've now seen, obviously, some shift in government policy as a consequence of, of maintaining that persistent campaigning and those persistent protests nowhere near as far as we would like it to go. But but but but nevertheless, we've had that real, you know, real impact. I also think it is important to, to uphold our our democratic rights.
I don't think they, they, you know, the freedoms we have have come about through people exercising, through people taking to the streets in protest by people campaigning for the right to vote, but also for, you know, rights to strike and to take all these kinds of actions and exercising those rights as well. I think that that, that, that that's how, how they are preserved. So I think we, we do have that responsibility almost to, to, to, to, to continue to defend, to exercise, to deploy our, our democratic rights or, or, or we will lose them.
But I can understand on an individual level why some people don't wish to do that, and particularly those people who , for various reasons are more likely than others to be arrested or will face more severe consequences than others if they should find themselves in that situation. I think it's a very challenging situation.
15:09
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
If somebody well, I mean, look, when we when the farm tax first came in and we did the first big demonstration, a gentleman rang me from Tetbury who is in his 80s, and he was so upset by that, but he drove his tractor all the way from Tetbury to here because he didn't have time to do any tax planning. And it was, you know, the responsibility or the emotional reality of needing to say to Westminster and to MPs, what on earth are you doing to us is immense when that reaction is is needed. So so I would say when something happens, which is a shock or whatever, and you you have a feeling that you want to go and do something and exercise your right, that you should be able to do that fairly freely.
To organise it, as I've said, is an enormous responsibility in London. I mean, it's actually we've done demonstrations across the country in other towns, which is really very different. It's very easy. London busy place, it's very different. So if someone said, I want to organise a protest, Liz, what do you think? I would sort of say it's hugely complicated. It's a lot of responsibility, liability and and all the rest of it. And so it's not for the faint hearted. It's it's a huge thing to run a protest and it shouldn't be. The responsibility shouldn't be so great on so few to actually have the because you don't get hurt.
I mean, we're lucky in the farming community to be able. A few people are seen because we've got big machines. So we're able to make a big message and and get and get seen. And I recognise the disparity with this protest and another protest that when you're only. And I mean, I attended a lot of the pro-EU marches, millions of people are not seen as much as thousands of tractors. And so we were able to get our message out more, more clearly. And we were less as vehicles. We're actually the law doesn't bite on us as much as it does on physical protests, which is another thing to think about.
But it's an expression and it's a communication. And maybe if Parliament had more access to petitions that had more bite in the European Union, they do have citizenship petitions that when they reach a certain level, they can actually bring in legislation rather than just saying, oh, you go to a back committee, you express yourself, and then it's closed, because that's another thing that leads to more protests. So if you want to reduce the protest, actually, you need to open these bigger groups, more access to the parliamentarians who perhaps can find a better way of easing pressure on society.
I mean, that would be another thing that I would say, because I do feel sorry for the police, because I know their resources are very limited.
To organise it, as I've said, is an enormous responsibility in London. I mean, it's actually we've done demonstrations across the country in other towns, which is really very different. It's very easy. London busy place, it's very different. So if someone said, I want to organise a protest, Liz, what do you think? I would sort of say it's hugely complicated. It's a lot of responsibility, liability and and all the rest of it. And so it's not for the faint hearted. It's it's a huge thing to run a protest and it shouldn't be. The responsibility shouldn't be so great on so few to actually have the because you don't get hurt.
I mean, we're lucky in the farming community to be able. A few people are seen because we've got big machines. So we're able to make a big message and and get and get seen. And I recognise the disparity with this protest and another protest that when you're only. And I mean, I attended a lot of the pro-EU marches, millions of people are not seen as much as thousands of tractors. And so we were able to get our message out more, more clearly. And we were less as vehicles. We're actually the law doesn't bite on us as much as it does on physical protests, which is another thing to think about.
But it's an expression and it's a communication. And maybe if Parliament had more access to petitions that had more bite in the European Union, they do have citizenship petitions that when they reach a certain level, they can actually bring in legislation rather than just saying, oh, you go to a back committee, you express yourself, and then it's closed, because that's another thing that leads to more protests. So if you want to reduce the protest, actually, you need to open these bigger groups, more access to the parliamentarians who perhaps can find a better way of easing pressure on society.
I mean, that would be another thing that I would say, because I do feel sorry for the police, because I know their resources are very limited.
15:12
Baroness Chakrabarti
-
-
Baroness Chakrabarti
Just on that one. One one final supplementary, if I may, chair, you've all spoken. You all represent organized protest groups in a way which isn't the whole story about protests, because the protest could be about an individual who gets upset with what's happening in their community, and they don't necessarily have the access to the negotiations that you've described. There is a theory and there's academic scholarship on this. There's a theory that parliamentarians inherently believe that the only legitimate sort of political, democratic expression is through this place. I say this at risk of upsetting, and I've already got a look from someone who I won't name, but there is I say this at risk of.
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:13
Baroness Chakrabarti
-
-
Baroness Chakrabarti
And they have the rigorous debates, and everyone should just sort of quieten down and wait for the wait for the next election. So you've all you've all spoken about your engagement with the police, but what about your. engagement with parliamentarians? How how sensitive do you think. parliamentarians are to to your feelings about street. protest in between elections?
15:14
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I just I just wanted to reiterate the point I made earlier that the street protest is your mailbag on the streets that you can. And I believe that. parliamentarians are very dedicated to their mailbags because every point that they raise in Parliament is supposedly arising from the strength of feeling of their constituents. So here you have the strength of feeling of your. constituents on the street, especially at a time when we tend to be rather. dismissive of people who, you know, sign petitions at the click of a mouse. And we talk about, you know, keyboard warriors.
So if if people then come out on the street, it's actually a strength of feeling that in all weathers, you are dragging your sorry body out of your home, you know, in order to make a point. And, and, and the fear, in fact, that. parliamentarians won't hear it because in the past we used to feel that there was I mean, that's a that's a question that needs to be debated. We still hope that, you know, our voices are heard, that the amount of disruption we create. May sends a message to Parliament. Here are a large number of.
people who are very upset by this, that or the other, and you need to act on it. So I would have hoped that actually this would .
So if if people then come out on the street, it's actually a strength of feeling that in all weathers, you are dragging your sorry body out of your home, you know, in order to make a point. And, and, and the fear, in fact, that. parliamentarians won't hear it because in the past we used to feel that there was I mean, that's a that's a question that needs to be debated. We still hope that, you know, our voices are heard, that the amount of disruption we create. May sends a message to Parliament. Here are a large number of.
people who are very upset by this, that or the other, and you need to act on it. So I would have hoped that actually this would .
15:15
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Not fall on deaf ears. I mean, I mean, I have heard that sentiment, ironically, sometimes from members of the House of Lords who aren't elected, but say, say, say that, you know, well, there are. avenues for people to to, you know, to express themselves. Democratically. And of course, the the irony of that is that the only reason why most of us have the right to vote for at least some of the people who sit in here is because people went out into the street and protests at a time protested. In fact, in successive waves of protests to expand, expand the vote, first amongst men and then to women and so on.
You know, so so I think that that the democratic system, however imperfect that exists, is in many ways a result, a a product of. protest rather than than, you know, protest is something that is indulged by, by or within a democratic system. And of course, we all know that that that the yes, we do have a vote, but the electoral system is is imperfect. We vote for political parties. We vote for MPs who stand on a wide range of manifestos. But that doesn't mean that we don't have an issue, or an issue doesn't arise where that hasn't been.
reflected in in when we went to the polls or isn't reflected necessarily in the manifesto, or I might support the Labour Party but disagree with it about Palestine, how do I then vote? Do I vote for some other party or what? What do I do in those sort of situations? So I think that our involvement in those democratic. processes is vitally important. And I think that what we have seen over the past few years is a good example of it.
But, you know, we have brought about through protest.
You know, so so I think that that the democratic system, however imperfect that exists, is in many ways a result, a a product of. protest rather than than, you know, protest is something that is indulged by, by or within a democratic system. And of course, we all know that that that the yes, we do have a vote, but the electoral system is is imperfect. We vote for political parties. We vote for MPs who stand on a wide range of manifestos. But that doesn't mean that we don't have an issue, or an issue doesn't arise where that hasn't been.
reflected in in when we went to the polls or isn't reflected necessarily in the manifesto, or I might support the Labour Party but disagree with it about Palestine, how do I then vote? Do I vote for some other party or what? What do I do in those sort of situations? So I think that our involvement in those democratic. processes is vitally important. And I think that what we have seen over the past few years is a good example of it.
But, you know, we have brought about through protest.
15:17
15:17
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I would say, partial but significant shift in government policy from where we were when we started the recent cycle of protests where, you know, the major parties were instructing their MPs to vote against the motion, simply calling for a cease fire to one where we are now saying the imposition of sanctions against illegal Israeli settlements in the illegally occupied Palestinian territory. So . So that, I think, is a. consequence and of protests. And I think one of the worrying things, particularly worrying things for us is the laws around cumulative disruption, the cumulative disruption, because it's actually been the the persistence of those protests that has brought about that really.
15:17
15:17
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think, albeit limited political shift. If I could just very quickly, if just just something I should have said before on your previous question about what I would say to people who are protesting, because I do think it's important that we don't. contribute to the chilling effect, because actually, one of the things is difficult as it can be as an organizer, to organize a protest on our protests. Certainly arrest rates are very low. They're lower than the arrest rates at football matches or music.
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
We we actually had Labour MPs and Lib Dem MPs supporting our protests. And then we had a change of government. And so now before the conservative MPs weren't when they were in government, they didn't want to stand with with the protests. And now the inverse has happened. The conservatives are wanting to stand with the farmers, and some Labour MPs are. supportive or they they feel awkward about it.
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:19
Lord Rook
-
-
Lord Rook
Thank you. Let's move on to Lord rook. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm very glad you're here. I was I was doing an event with a colleague from from the Commons last week, and she told the most amazing story about how your organization had helped her to right injustice in her own life and in the life of her family. And so it's a real privilege to be asking questions on this important issue of all of you today.
But I'm really glad you're here. So I'm going to address this firstly to you. Obviously, in.
But I'm really glad you're here. So I'm going to address this firstly to you. Obviously, in.
15:20
15:20
Lord Rook
-
-
Lord Rook
Powers were amended to impose. conditions to provide more detail on what was provided. AM I right on kind of serious protest? And that was to include this idea of excessive noise. So I'm interested from all three. I've heard a bit from Peter around sort of the. loudhailers and the. amplifiers and and kind of things, the megaphones, which, you know, are there examples by which your. activities are have been changed by that.
15:20
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Imposition of rules around excessive noise? And I'll start with you, Rihanna. The very short answer to that is actually no, because we continue to bring our megaphones along and our drums and we sing and we continue to do all of that. But it's it's this chilling effect that we've all been talking about. At which point will the police intervene? At which point will they stop us? And that's the fear. And, and I think we're going to be talking about face coverings later on. So that's part of that's I would like to talk about that in particular.
But yes, I think, you know, I think megaphones is really quite a. ridiculous .
But yes, I think, you know, I think megaphones is really quite a. ridiculous .
15:21
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Liz V how, how is this affected? Yeah, I mean, look, probably we probably had the noisiest protest. I'm sure you all remember it. We did try again. The police asked us not to blow the horns, particularly around Parliament Square. We can't control everyone. But it's it's it's their expression. And so yes, it's inconvenient for you. I know, and I certainly even know the Sky news studio find it a bit annoying as well. But it's funny and it's, it should be, it should be something that we're proud of as a culture that we can go and express ourselves.
And there is definitely with protests, there is an element of theater to it and that is wrapped up in in the whole thing, which is so. fundamental that perhaps the police forget about because it's there day in, day out. We've got to do this. And as I've said, I've been into their control rooms. I've seen how. overstretched they are. So, you know, it's a delicate balance. And so, you know, I, I think it's really important to try and.
maintain our.
And there is definitely with protests, there is an element of theater to it and that is wrapped up in in the whole thing, which is so. fundamental that perhaps the police forget about because it's there day in, day out. We've got to do this. And as I've said, I've been into their control rooms. I've seen how. overstretched they are. So, you know, it's a delicate balance. And so, you know, I, I think it's really important to try and.
maintain our.
15:22
15:22
15:22
Lord Rook
-
-
Lord Rook
Are quite extrovert. And why would we want to stop that? I'm intrigued on that one , because we've all been in our offices either humming along with the the horns or maybe shouting at them. What have they? I mean, clearly, as you say, it's difficult for you to control people doing or not doing that. What has been the nature of your interactions with .
15:22
15:23
15:23
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
As I said, it was the Covid restrictions, and they were really heavy handed with us. And they did say we would arrest you if you blow the horns. Gosh. And and they got better with us because as we got bigger, it was it was probably they realised that it was a task too far and that it sort of became. And the media, the media were more focused on us because we were bigger as well. So it was we were we were only sort of. 25 tractors the first time. So it was different and it was a different time with the Covid restrictions.
I mean, it was ridiculous really, because it was really very empty outside because of the Covid restrictions. But it was a new I think it was a new experience for them. And they were unsure. And again, they'd been. terrorism in. Parliament and they were worried about. trailers with what would be in it. And so, you know, as I said, I tried my best to work with the police to make them understand that it was an expression that we needed to do to try and get Parliament to, to act, which looks like a niche issue because it's just farmers.
But it isn't. It is everybody's food. And that is that's what we were trying to.
I mean, it was ridiculous really, because it was really very empty outside because of the Covid restrictions. But it was a new I think it was a new experience for them. And they were unsure. And again, they'd been. terrorism in. Parliament and they were worried about. trailers with what would be in it. And so, you know, as I said, I tried my best to work with the police to make them understand that it was an expression that we needed to do to try and get Parliament to, to act, which looks like a niche issue because it's just farmers.
But it isn't. It is everybody's food. And that is that's what we were trying to.
15:24
15:24
15:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Okay. Peter, I mean, you shared some of this earlier. Is there is there anything else you need to add? Just I mean, I think I've probably said most of it. I mean, you know, I mean, I repeat the example of the the day that farming was officially declared in Gaza, I think it was the 22nd of August 2025. And we were it was a Friday evening. It was it was the start of a bank holiday weekend. We were proposing to protest banging pots and pans for for an hour, 6:00 in the evening. Now, that would have made noise and people would have heard it.
But, but but but, you know, I think, you know, within what I would
But, but but but, you know, I think, you know, within what I would
15:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
For for for an appropriate protest. And we, you know, the police use the powers for to ban us from doing that. Similarly, when the president of Israel visited and we were banned from using megaphones. I mean, I think, you know, it just it sort of made it very difficult. Again, an evening protest. It was sort of dark. We wanted to be able to. communicate with people who were in the crowd. And it was it was impossible for us to do so.
So that's,
So that's,
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
Lord Murray of Blidworth
-
-
Lord Murray of Blidworth
This year, the Crime and Policing Act was passed, which. imposed provided powers to the police to impose. conditions in relation to access in relation to places of worship, and required the police to. consider and to take into account the cumulative disruption of protests. To what extent have these changes impacted on your. protests and what effect might they have in the future? It's obviously a fairly .
15:47
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
New piece of legislation. I think, Mr. Leary, you probably have the most direct experience of this. Well, I think I mean, I have commented a little bit on in relation to the places of worship and in response to the previous question, and I can come back to that if you'd like. But just on the cumulative impact, I think that is one that we find. deeply concerning. It allows the police to impose. restrictions on it based on the impact of past or future protests in a in a particular area, the area is sort of ill defined.
It could be, for example, the whole of central London could be an entire town or city. There's no sort of clarity in relation to that in the law. And in fact.
It could be, for example, the whole of central London could be an entire town or city. There's no sort of clarity in relation to that in the law. And in fact.
15:48
15:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Some of the conversations we've had with the police suggest that they do think about it in that way. Or you had a previous protest and another route in London, and you've now got a protest on this route in London. There's a cumulative. impact of all of these. It's obvious that certain sites are the. frequent location of protests . Trafalgar Square, Parliament Square City Centre's most. Most town centres have a place where where protest happens in the centre of the town. It also doesn't matter whether the protests are the. The. For . For the same purpose or involve the same people.
So, for example, the police could impose a restriction on one of our marches on the grounds that a farmers protest took place in the same. location as the the the previous week. Or, you know, on a previous occasion, they could ban and restrict a pride parade on the grounds that a far right protest took place at the previous week or is planned for for for the next week in, in the same location. So I think this is deeply concerning in terms of its, you know, its potential impact, how it could be used by this or any future.
government to effectively make make protests extremely difficult to organize protests in any sort of city centre, town or city. And I think what would be lost as a result of that, I mean, even if you even if we're only thinking about protests that are organised by the same people or for the same cause, I mean, we were talking about the campaigns for democracy, the, the, the suffrage protests went on more than a decade. It took for them to, to achieve their goals.
The protests against apartheid South .
So, for example, the police could impose a restriction on one of our marches on the grounds that a farmers protest took place in the same. location as the the the previous week. Or, you know, on a previous occasion, they could ban and restrict a pride parade on the grounds that a far right protest took place at the previous week or is planned for for for the next week in, in the same location. So I think this is deeply concerning in terms of its, you know, its potential impact, how it could be used by this or any future.
government to effectively make make protests extremely difficult to organize protests in any sort of city centre, town or city. And I think what would be lost as a result of that, I mean, even if you even if we're only thinking about protests that are organised by the same people or for the same cause, I mean, we were talking about the campaigns for democracy, the, the, the suffrage protests went on more than a decade. It took for them to, to achieve their goals.
The protests against apartheid South .
15:51
15:51
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I mean, cumulative disruption has been used to justify banning marches, going to the BBC, for example. So we haven't made, you know, that that's something that we would very much wanted to do. There's a very strong feeling amongst a lot of people that the BBC's coverage of Gaza has been inadequate and one sided, and many people wanted to make a. Who are our supporters? And amongst our wider sort of coalition in the constituencies we represent, wanted to protest there. We haven't been able to to to do that. Have one of our marches either assembled there or end there now for, I think, over two years, as a consequence of the the police using cumulative disruption as a .
15:54
15:54
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The impact on people who live or work or worship nearby the route? Well, yeah, I mean, I mean, you know, one, one of that's one of the things that we would want, one of the reasons why we would want to, particularly at the at the very height of the bombing of Gaza, when we were having quite a lot of protests, you know, the this was a we were being confronted every day with the sort of horrors that I'm sure you've all witnessed. We were we were maybe marching once a month and so on. We we wanted to make sure that we were varying our routes and through, through, you know, through different different parts of London, for example.
And so, you know, we, we tried to take different routes. One of the things that the police did was was to impose. restrictions to, to, to which had the effect of. limiting us to fewer and fewer routes. And it sort of feels like this awful catch 22, if you like, where the police are using conditions to limit us to fewer and fewer routes for our marches, and then that builds the case. I guess that you could argue that we're having a cumulative impact in, in marching in those areas. So, so that that sort of feels to us like a kind of a vicious circle and a trap that .
And so, you know, we, we tried to take different routes. One of the things that the police did was was to impose. restrictions to, to, to which had the effect of. limiting us to fewer and fewer routes. And it sort of feels like this awful catch 22, if you like, where the police are using conditions to limit us to fewer and fewer routes for our marches, and then that builds the case. I guess that you could argue that we're having a cumulative impact in, in marching in those areas. So, so that that sort of feels to us like a kind of a vicious circle and a trap that .
15:57
15:57
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
In relation to your demonstrations? No, I just want to make a small. observation and that is that I don't think the farmer's march would be. rerouted because it went too close to a place of worship, but the Palestinian march would be. And I think that that assumption, because I have been on those. marches and there's never been any sense of. anti-Semitism or anything that others would fear, would necessarily fear unless you politicise the issue.
So it's interesting that, you know, which marches would be.
So it's interesting that, you know, which marches would be.
15:59
15:59
15:59
15:59
Euan Stainbank
-
-
Euan Stainbank
Okay. Thank you. Our next move to supplementary on this and the next supplementary. And it is on the point of the principle mode of cumulative disruption, but also the use of exclusion zones. I am not sure this will be utilised because to the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been any. counter-protesters to save British farming during a protest in London especially, I've had and you referred to this earlier, asylum protests in my patch and something that I've noted in terms of opinions on how we should regulate protest in the country, is that it is becoming coming in my mailbag in a greater proportion from those actually participating in the protest by using examples of the conduct of the.
counter-protesters or the. protesters essentially just talking about the conduct of the other side and saying, we need to do something about that. So when we talk about the boundaries of how cumulative disruption has been applied and the impact and some of the vagaries that I do sort of share your concern about in law, is there a concept of cumulative disruption that should be kept in law to address? I think, the impact it can have on distinct.
counter-protesters or the. protesters essentially just talking about the conduct of the other side and saying, we need to do something about that. So when we talk about the boundaries of how cumulative disruption has been applied and the impact and some of the vagaries that I do sort of share your concern about in law, is there a concept of cumulative disruption that should be kept in law to address? I think, the impact it can have on distinct.
16:01
16:01
Euan Stainbank
-
-
Euan Stainbank
Or should we be addressing this more through the use of exclusion zones because we do not have cumulative disruption? I think in Scotland, I do think the First Minister certainly lying in wait to see how it pans out before deciding how he goes in this direction. But we do use exclusion zones and have legislated for things like abortion clinics in the past. Do you see that as the better way to address, I think the legitimate concern the public do have about the conduct of .
16:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Protests in the same area over and over again? I mean, I think that there are certainly I mean, you know, I think that it's, in my view, perfectly justified that there are exclusion zones that allow people to access the services in abortion clinics, for example, and they aren't disrupted from doing that. I'm not sure whether that's a cumulative issue or not, because if you're someone who needs those services, then you may need them only once, and you go in and there's someone who's preventing you or protest that's preventing you from doing so, you should be able to you should be able to access those services.
So I don't know whether cumulative disruption is the is the. Is the means by, by, by which to do that. But I think it's sort of it's it's interesting the question around the. counter-protests and that you raised , because I think one of the contradictions that we have found is that while we have been prevented from protesting at sites where we would wish to protest, I mentioned the Israeli embassy, the BBC, for example. The police then are also always tell us that the. counter-protests have a right to be within sight and sound of our our protests.
And, you know, yes, we also are some of those people who complain about the behaviour of the counter protest because they have subjected people to racist and sexist abuse, rape threats, death threats and so on. But in terms of the counter-protests and of course, the far right. counter-protests have on occasions violent attempted to violently attacked the marchers. So so that you know that that is a concern. The police seem to take a different view to that than they do to the the protest in terms of where we have a right to be or to, to, to, to protest against.
But but they certainly don't. So yes, that's but, but whether cumulative, I don't it doesn't seem to me that cumulative disruption and certainly not as it's framed in the existing. legislation offers anything positive. I think it really is an alarming .
So I don't know whether cumulative disruption is the is the. Is the means by, by, by which to do that. But I think it's sort of it's it's interesting the question around the. counter-protests and that you raised , because I think one of the contradictions that we have found is that while we have been prevented from protesting at sites where we would wish to protest, I mentioned the Israeli embassy, the BBC, for example. The police then are also always tell us that the. counter-protests have a right to be within sight and sound of our our protests.
And, you know, yes, we also are some of those people who complain about the behaviour of the counter protest because they have subjected people to racist and sexist abuse, rape threats, death threats and so on. But in terms of the counter-protests and of course, the far right. counter-protests have on occasions violent attempted to violently attacked the marchers. So so that you know that that is a concern. The police seem to take a different view to that than they do to the the protest in terms of where we have a right to be or to, to, to, to protest against.
But but they certainly don't. So yes, that's but, but whether cumulative, I don't it doesn't seem to me that cumulative disruption and certainly not as it's framed in the existing. legislation offers anything positive. I think it really is an alarming .
16:06
16:06
16:06
16:07
16:07
16:07
16:07
16:08
16:08
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You know, so so it's not something that has impacted on or affected us directly. But I do think that it is part of a wider climate that that in terms of the message it sends out, which, you know, I've already alluded to the prescription of Palestine action is terrorists, for example, that certain types of protests might be branded in that extreme way. And then you have other types of protests being subjected to, to, to, to, to further legal restrictions.
I think that it creates an. atmosphere around protests that, that, that it's that it's sort of, you know, that that it is something that's very dangerous, that it's something that,
I think that it creates an. atmosphere around protests that, that, that it's that it's sort of, you know, that that it is something that's very dangerous, that it's something that,
16:09
16:09
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Of things that you've tried to steer people away from doing, so that they don't end up with a criminal record? Yeah. I mean, farmers wanted to some of them wanted to really naughty things. And I'm a good girl. And so I tried my best to explain to them that from a public relations point of view, we don't win hearts and minds by doing what the French do. And I think that's, that's, you know, they sort of see the French, you know, Belgium, they destroy stuff. But I don't think that the British public as a whole buy into that, which is why actually the, the bans on the, you know, on horns and stuff is so bad because that is an.
expression which is. harmless and that actually helps release some of the pressure. And, and it is really, you know, it is. understanding from Parliament's point of view why nobody bothers to get out of their house and put a huge amount of effort and time and money into doing a. protest just for the hell of it. I mean, maybe, maybe some of them that are.
expression which is. harmless and that actually helps release some of the pressure. And, and it is really, you know, it is. understanding from Parliament's point of view why nobody bothers to get out of their house and put a huge amount of effort and time and money into doing a. protest just for the hell of it. I mean, maybe, maybe some of them that are.
16:12
16:12
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
You know, with standing outside their Daily Mail do. But you know, as a whole, when you've got large members of the public. interacting or feeling that they've got no other recourse but to do this is, you know, I don't know what else would. happen that that you would be totally suppressed and you would just have to accept whatever Parliament puts on you. So I wish that if there'd been another way of us being able to do it, then I'm because farmers are pretty. conservative people and they're quite, you know, they're they're not used to they're not used to coming to London, most of them.
And so it was an enormous change for them to come here. And that.
And so it was an enormous change for them to come here. And that.
16:13
16:13
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
And, you know, so it's just. If it's not. released by. If the pressure and the ask is not released by Parliament, then it does lead to law breaking and it will do. And, you know, there is still a risk that there are certain members in the farming. community that will go and do that. And we're at risk of that today. It's budget day and there's not been any changes.
And so there's still risk of that happening. I think that's a bad thing for our campaign, because I think you'll lose support from the public.
And so there's still risk of that happening. I think that's a bad thing for our campaign, because I think you'll lose support from the public.
16:14
16:14
16:14
16:14
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Criminal offences, though, your campaign would try and deter those types of tactics being used. I'm not I don't believe in destruction. I'm not, I'm not. I don't think it's for me. It doesn't win my heart. If somebody breaks something when I see the French farmers destroying thing, I think it's I think it's awful. But it it does get a reaction in their country and it works. So they keep doing it. I.
So I don't think I've always seen it from a sort of.
So I don't think I've always seen it from a sort of.
16:15
16:16
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
PR thing, getting people to sort of go, this campaign is, is moving and it's, it's gathering pace. That's how I see it as a campaign organiser rather than I'm upset about this. So I'm going to go and, you know, go crazy. You know, it's one of those one of those things I took the. responsibility of leading my campaign very, very seriously. I wasn't in it to have a. crowdfunding thing, to grift for my poor children who might not survive or anything else. I'm not in it for, for those means I'm in it to say this is really.
concerning and, and, and it impacts. everybody across the board. And .
concerning and, and, and it impacts. everybody across the board. And .
16:17
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Communicate to people. Any sort. Any thoughts on the offensive? I just have an anecdote to offer and that is that my partner was. arrested for holding up a placard saying I support Palestine Action. We both support the direct action taken by that. organisation to, you know, attack the factories that provide armaments to Israel. But I could not take part because of my connection with Southall black sisters, and I could not take the risk that it might bring to their funding and their stature and their authority. So I had to actually step back from what I would have liked to have protested about.
But because my partner is.
But because my partner is.
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:19
16:19
16:19
16:20
16:21
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
If you're allowed. It's an article to be you that can be used in an offence described in the public order. Yeah. I mean it's not something that that. I've been particularly aware of. I do think, though, that a lot of the, the, these powers where certain things that either wouldn't be allowed in terms of police behaviour or certain. behaviours that would be allowed in terms of what people might be doing on a protest. I don't necessarily mean this example that it's sort of treated differently. I it sort of fuels this sort of sense about what a protest is and where it stands in relation to the law, which seems to me is the opposite of what it should be.
I mean, people who go on a protest are people who are going about their lawful business. They're not merely going about their lawful business in the way that you would be if you were going to the, the, the, the shops, for example. But they're actually. exercising rights that are afforded enhanced protection in terms of their, their, their human rights. And yet I think a lot of the legal framework that has come in in recent years seems to imply the opposite, that you're sort of because you're on a.
I mean, people who go on a protest are people who are going about their lawful business. They're not merely going about their lawful business in the way that you would be if you were going to the, the, the, the shops, for example. But they're actually. exercising rights that are afforded enhanced protection in terms of their, their, their human rights. And yet I think a lot of the legal framework that has come in in recent years seems to imply the opposite, that you're sort of because you're on a.
16:23
16:23
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You are you have fewer rights than you would be in another situation so that you can be stopped and searched in a way that you might not be in other situation or, or you can be arrested for, you know, if you if I want to go to the shops with a mask on, there's no law that says, I can't do that. If I do that to a protest, and I could be doing that at a protest, I could be finding myself prosecuted. So it adds to this. environment that, in my view, is the opposite of what it should be, that participating in protest rather than being one lawful, two.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:25
16:25
16:25
16:25
16:25
16:25
16:25
Lord Rook
-
-
Lord Rook
The point. That point about concealing identity, more depth to Lord rook. The Crime and Policing Act has introduced new powers to make it a criminal offence to use an item to conceal identity as a protest. I think firstly, my question is do you think this was needed? And the second one is how has the change in the law again .
16:26
16:27
16:27
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
When the Palestine march took place and the women, we had quite a big block organised for Southall black sisters and two of our women were wearing Covid masks. They were wearing this because of fear of being photographed, filmed, seen, etc. and as far as I know, the police are not allowed to. legitimately ask for a medical mask to be removed because they don't know whether somebody is actually suffering from something or the other or not. Now, we also had a woman in our group who was wearing a niqab, the Muslim face veil. She was not approached by the police because the police are required to ignore.
religious face coverings. Now, as a secular women's.
religious face coverings. Now, as a secular women's.
16:28
16:28
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
We are not in any way ever going to tell our women to wear a niqab in order to hide from police scrutiny. So these women were asked to take their masks off, and they did. One of them put it back on, and the police came in very aggressively and said, I will arrest you if you continue to do that. So that is. And she it was her. 1st March that she'd ever attended. I, in fact, have a quote from her. If I could read it out, I would like to do that. Is that okay? Okay, so I have, in fact, a quote from a woman has no status in this country and who.
And where is it gone? Sorry. Yeah. So this is the woman who doesn't have status in this country. She said, this is the first time ever I've been on a march. And when I was asked to take off my mask, I did. But I felt unsafe because of the cameras and videos. I went into the background and hid myself. I will have to think about whether I come again. And then the second woman who has recently got her right to remain, she said. I finally got a chance to be there without fear and feel that I'm on the right side of history.
I stood by my words and principles. So, you know, those were the two kind of very.
And where is it gone? Sorry. Yeah. So this is the woman who doesn't have status in this country. She said, this is the first time ever I've been on a march. And when I was asked to take off my mask, I did. But I felt unsafe because of the cameras and videos. I went into the background and hid myself. I will have to think about whether I come again. And then the second woman who has recently got her right to remain, she said. I finally got a chance to be there without fear and feel that I'm on the right side of history.
I stood by my words and principles. So, you know, those were the two kind of very.
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
You know. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, it has it is having an impact on us because actually we'd like to dress up as animals, chickens, pigs, cows and, and we can't now. And so, you know, okay, we can do it without, but we'd have to have our face out. But it, it, it changes the whole thing. And in fact, if you look back and MPs did a protest wearing chicken outfits, the Labour Party did.
And so again, it's one of those. examples of a law coming in as a as a.
And so again, it's one of those. examples of a law coming in as a as a.
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Impact on, on everything else. Peter. Yeah, I mean, I echo what has been said. I mean, I think there are. multiple elements to this in terms of, I mean, firstly, I should say most people, because I wouldn't want to create a false impression most people have got. I mean, I don't know if any of you have been on the marches, but most people don't cover their faces or wear masks, unlike some other protests that do happen, which are largely people who are concealing their identity, I think the people who wear masks do so for complex reasons.
Some do so for medical reasons, some do so for religious reasons. Some wish to conceal their identity because they don't wish to someone to know that they're on a demonstration, or where they can be found or identified. We're operating in a context where there are where cameras are everywhere. I mean, I don't mean police cameras or CCTV, but there are, you know, there are. Now, if you go on a march, you'll encounter. Far right. activists videoing people on the march, posting people on social media, you know, commenting on, you know, on that. I think for a lot of young people who who, you know, are very, very exposed in their lives on, on, on social media, they may wish to, you know, conceal their identity.
And of course. those sorts of theatrical elements where people there was a, I think a grim reaper was arrested recently, ironically, I think. protesting the the death of. democracy in response to one of the prosecution cases around relating to, to, to, to right to protest. So, so, you know, the it sort of undermines some of those, those, those kinds of aspects. But again, I come back to, to the point if I, if I, if I go out on Saturday night for Halloween with a mask on to go trick or treating, that's perfectly lawful. But if I go on a protest with the same mask on, it ceases to be or potentially ceases to be lawful, which implies that by going on a protest, I'm not just going about my lawful business as I would be if I went trick or treating.
And certainly I'm not. engaging in an activity. The expression of freedom of expression, exercising my rights, freedom of expression and assembly, which are actually. protected activities and should be more enhanced than,
Some do so for medical reasons, some do so for religious reasons. Some wish to conceal their identity because they don't wish to someone to know that they're on a demonstration, or where they can be found or identified. We're operating in a context where there are where cameras are everywhere. I mean, I don't mean police cameras or CCTV, but there are, you know, there are. Now, if you go on a march, you'll encounter. Far right. activists videoing people on the march, posting people on social media, you know, commenting on, you know, on that. I think for a lot of young people who who, you know, are very, very exposed in their lives on, on, on social media, they may wish to, you know, conceal their identity.
And of course. those sorts of theatrical elements where people there was a, I think a grim reaper was arrested recently, ironically, I think. protesting the the death of. democracy in response to one of the prosecution cases around relating to, to, to, to right to protest. So, so, you know, the it sort of undermines some of those, those, those kinds of aspects. But again, I come back to, to the point if I, if I, if I go out on Saturday night for Halloween with a mask on to go trick or treating, that's perfectly lawful. But if I go on a protest with the same mask on, it ceases to be or potentially ceases to be lawful, which implies that by going on a protest, I'm not just going about my lawful business as I would be if I went trick or treating.
And certainly I'm not. engaging in an activity. The expression of freedom of expression, exercising my rights, freedom of expression and assembly, which are actually. protected activities and should be more enhanced than,
16:31
16:31
Peter Swallow
-
-
Peter Swallow
Intimidation and harassment, followed by the final question by Afzal Khan. Peter, thank you so much. This sounds like a very philosophical question at this stage of of the session. But we all of us are very familiar with the debate around freedom of speech and where freedom of speech should end, what limit there should be on it in terms of, you know, what should be allowed to be upsetting or offensive and what shouldn't be allowed because it's threatening or abusive. Could each of you please set out what your view is on that as. organizers of protests?
And also perhaps if you think that's different from the. perspective .
And also perhaps if you think that's different from the. perspective .
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Which is not aimed at any individual group or not. And then I think it was probably on the same day when the there were people arrested in the Unite the Kingdom rally, in which black police officers were called the N word, and they were told to f ING go home. Now, you know, those both of those people in both of those marches were arrested. I don't know in which world they are comparable. So I think we have got to a situation. It's it's it's the best of times. Freedom of speech is really hard to define, to define the boundaries.
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
White, but it was a result of racial tension. And so I'm acutely aware of how language can be. dangerous and how it actually impacts everybody. It isn't a one sided thing. You know, if my son happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and racial tension had been allowed to run free in a school. And racial slurs were given, you know, were were prosecuted on one side and not on the other and the tension. And so it's not a question of saying, you're right, you're wrong, or, you know, the point is that from a legislative point of view, you have to look at it.
cohesively in terms of safety. And so if you if you suddenly going around and you're. criminalizing somebody for saying.
cohesively in terms of safety. And so if you if you suddenly going around and you're. criminalizing somebody for saying.
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
Peter Swallow
-
-
Peter Swallow
The remit of save British farming, potentially. But, you know, I was we were just having that conversation just now with with point about to, you know, to uses of language, which I think it's fair to say different people would. I think I hope everyone would accept that using the N word against black police officers is utterly unacceptable. Saying that, I know that not everyone, but the vast majority of of decent British people would be appalled at that. I think the other the other phrase used is more contested, shall we say. There is a challenge. There isn't isn't there.
Where, where when we're trying to seek this balance. If we each of us have different.
Where, where when we're trying to seek this balance. If we each of us have different.
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I mean, what I'm trying to say is it is complicated, isn't it? Basically, it's completely complicated. But you should be coming it from you should be coming at it. cohesively as a whole to make society. safer and to make society more tolerant. And that is not happening because of the. politics and because some of politicians are able to get all of the media's attention. And we've had it this week with Nigel Farage saying things about the conservative leader, which is.
16:31
16:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So you ask me what I personally find unacceptable. It's that it's. racism and it's dangerous, and it puts us all at risk. And, you know, even you guys in Westminster, it doesn't matter what your ethnicity is. All of those things make. society more dangerous. So if we focus on a tick box, as in, you know, am I offended? Because I mean, I come from a gypsy traveller background. I mean, I, you know, so someone wouldn't know that I come from a mixed ethnicity background. I don't look like it. Would I be offended if somebody said something rude to me?
Yes. But, you know, if you if I'm if you're asking me about my personal feelings of what I get upset about, that's a different thing to saying. What do I think for the country as a whole? I want to see my country return to being more.
Yes. But, you know, if you if I'm if you're asking me about my personal feelings of what I get upset about, that's a different thing to saying. What do I think for the country as a whole? I want to see my country return to being more.
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
That's the nature. That's the problem with over legislating. Peter. Yeah. I mean, it is complicated and it does call for nuance. I mean, freedom of speech is precious. And people also have rights not to be threatened and intimidated and abused. And I think, you know, it's, it's right that we, we seek to draw the distinction between language that incites violence or hatred and, and statements of, of political statements that people may strongly disagree with may even find offensive. I think we've, you know, in in terms of our work, I think we've strayed over very much into into the policing of.
political statements, the most obvious being expressions of support for Palestine action, which I don't think anyone could. plausibly describe as inciting hatred or violence. But but.
political statements, the most obvious being expressions of support for Palestine action, which I don't think anyone could. plausibly describe as inciting hatred or violence. But but.
16:31
16:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The, the, the, you know, the large numbers of people have been arrested and. criminalised under the most extreme. legislation available for, for, for doing just that. I mean, if I can just pick up on the example that was given in terms of the word intifada, which is which is an interesting one in the sense of London and Manchester have made statements around that. I don't think the same policy has been adopted by other police forces. So you can say it in Liverpool, but not in Manchester or maybe in Liverpool. Greater Manchester covers that. But but but you get the point.
I'm making the the you know, there's a sort of a lack of. consistency there. One of the biggest inconsistencies for me is that, you know, intifada is an Arabic word. It means uprising. It's been used in a wide variety of contexts. It is used in a wide variety of contexts. The Easter Rising in Dublin in 1916 is described as an intifada in Arabic sources. The. It's been. It's been used to describe many .
I'm making the the you know, there's a sort of a lack of. consistency there. One of the biggest inconsistencies for me is that, you know, intifada is an Arabic word. It means uprising. It's been used in a wide variety of contexts. It is used in a wide variety of contexts. The Easter Rising in Dublin in 1916 is described as an intifada in Arabic sources. The. It's been. It's been used to describe many .
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
That's grand. But if an Arabic speaker says exactly the same thing in their language, they're potentially going to be arrested and criminalised for that. And I think that is sends out a very dangerous message. It's hard not to see that itself as an example of racist and offensive policing for for the simple someone .
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
Euan Stainbank
-
-
Euan Stainbank
Palestinian rights. I think we've got a supplementary from you. Before we move on to your second question, just very briefly, it's building off what Peter's talking about. Obviously, the police's job in the context of this question is to legally distinguish, not politically distinguish between lawful language and threatening language. So do you recognise that there is potentially a unique challenge? And I'm coming back to the point I made earlier about a higher volume of. complaints about the conduct of protests coming from those who are the. counterparties in the police, being able to legally distinguish between points that are being made.
That's it.
That's it.
16:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Whether it's lawful or unlawful expression. I mean, I can I can understand that that is is difficult. I think that that they, you know, they, they need to, you know, I guess there should be all I can say is I think there should be greater clarity on that. I think it should be applied. consistently and equally. There are lots of statements made that that, you know, I mean, I read things in the newspapers every day that I find offensive, that I don't like that, that I might even consider to be racist. But but the police, you know, aren't knocking down the doors of Fleet Street or wherever the newspapers are based these days to, to, to, you know, to, to arrest the sort of editors.
But I think that that, you know, there is this approach to protest, that it's sort of being put into this. category . , that that it should be held to a different standard, treat it as something that is.
But I think that that, you know, there is this approach to protest, that it's sort of being put into this. category . , that that it should be held to a different standard, treat it as something that is.
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
Euan Stainbank
-
-
Euan Stainbank
Mean what they say , when they when they say what they mean, potentially. I acknowledge the point that you made potentially about a British or a white speaker, especially at Palestine rallies compared to an Arabic speaker. Do you think that that type of selective reporting is creating an incentive system for. protesters to essentially police the conduct and report the conduct of counter-protesters? So somebody who, for example, would have very different views to you would use a particularly more politically evocative.
person to blame and castigate and .
person to blame and castigate and .
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
You know, rather than actually this was this isn't, you know, this, this isn't some someone who is an asylum seeker who's just living in their accommodation. And protesters have come and shouted offensive things at them. This is someone who's gone to a. demonstration with a camera to look for something that they can possibly interpret in a way that they can claim that that is offensive, to then report it to the police and the police. priorities seem to be sometimes being .
16:31
16:31
16:31
Peter Swallow
-
-
Peter Swallow
Present it as political distinction, but that's not really a question. So I'll go back to the chair. If I if I can just ask my sort of follow up point there, which is I think if if we can agree, not necessarily. I mean, not just me, I'm trying to keep my personal views out of it. I mean. collectively as, as a country, we can't always necessarily agree readily where the line is. I hope we can all agree as, as as Liz was alluding to, that there is a line and therefore, you know, if a. protester crosses that line, whatever that line may be, who is.
responsible or who shares. responsibility about responding to that, do you, as an organiser of.
responsible or who shares. responsibility about responding to that, do you, as an organiser of.
16:31
16:31
16:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Or where should it fall? I should say, well, certainly we have an extensive stewarding operation at our demonstrations. We you know, I mean, the police themselves have remarked at how well organised and steward is the. demonstrations are. And I think that in terms of any kind of. If you're continuing to sort of ask in relation to hateful speech and so on, that our positions and the message that goes out to our shooting operation and from our platforms and in our. communications is absolutely clear that we reject all forms of racism and. discrimination of every kind.
So people are very much aware of that. And I think. You know, where they've become aware of instances, I think, you know, if people, people were to see, hear something or see something that was problematic, then our stewards would within reason feel confident to, to challenge that. I mean, obviously they don't have police powers. They're not designated constables. There are limits to what, what, what, what they could possibly do and in fact, could find themselves on the wrong side of the law if they were to, to, to, to sort of overstep that. But, but but, you know, so, so and I think, again, it comes back to this point, people don't sort of step outside of the the public, if you like, once they go on a.
demonstration that, you know, they're still entitled to. protection and, you know, from the law and so on. So I think that, you know, we're very clear in our political messaging that, you know, and that that is passed on to, to our to our stewarding operation .
So people are very much aware of that. And I think. You know, where they've become aware of instances, I think, you know, if people, people were to see, hear something or see something that was problematic, then our stewards would within reason feel confident to, to challenge that. I mean, obviously they don't have police powers. They're not designated constables. There are limits to what, what, what, what they could possibly do and in fact, could find themselves on the wrong side of the law if they were to, to, to, to sort of overstep that. But, but but, you know, so, so and I think, again, it comes back to this point, people don't sort of step outside of the the public, if you like, once they go on a.
demonstration that, you know, they're still entitled to. protection and, you know, from the law and so on. So I think that, you know, we're very clear in our political messaging that, you know, and that that is passed on to, to our to our stewarding operation .
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You know, and so some people thought that they were there and that we'd invited them and we hadn't. So I think it's really hard to really get a view of or have control exactly what they do. And as I said, I think that you can sometimes over. legislate for quite small things. I mean, you might have somebody at your protest who's got Tourette's, who comes out and says something, I think. So if you're if you're controlling people for what they say, it's just too much control and, and, and too much. But if you've got. collectively a large gang of far right.
thugs telling people to go home because they're they don't. identify with their.
thugs telling people to go home because they're they don't. identify with their.
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Know, it's it's proportionate, right? So you're not if you if you've got if you look at a Tommy Robinson, I mean, which I find particularly. Worrying and, and threatening when you see. And I mean, and I don't know how someone who I mean, someone who I was born in this country and, you know, I don't, I don't I'm not it's not obvious from the colour of my. colouring that I come from a mixed heritage. So I can, I can only. imagine how scary it must be for people to see those. protests unfold. I find it makes.
As I said, my son was hurt. He survived a severe attack with a hammer to his head. So I have felt that violence. perpetrated on my son and I felt the racial. backlash of what. happened and the fear of of one community wanting to go and take it out on another community. And I that's really what brings me actually to into this into activism is fear of that .
As I said, my son was hurt. He survived a severe attack with a hammer to his head. So I have felt that violence. perpetrated on my son and I felt the racial. backlash of what. happened and the fear of of one community wanting to go and take it out on another community. And I that's really what brings me actually to into this into activism is fear of that .
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
What is your. response to that proposal? Well, I think for me, there are two dangerous and conflations there, and I'd also I think there's also something to be said about the particular. context of that moment. But but or of that march that we're talking about there, the I think the two dangerous conflations is, on the one hand.
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The individual associated, had any links to any form of protest or any kind. So so there's that conflation, which obviously builds on the previous the other conflation of protest with terrorism that we've seen around the prescription of Palestine action. But but but but but I think it's. particularly dangerous in this context, where we start. conflating political dissent with terrorism. The other conflation, obviously, I think, is with. Israel and the state of Israel and the actions of the state of Israel with Jewish people and Jewish. communities in this country. We are, as I say. absolutely and consistently clear.
Jewish people are not. responsible for the crimes of the state of Israel. And and that that is that is our, you know, very, very consistent and clear message. In fact, there are many, many Jewish people involved in the marches involved in the very marches that this.
Jewish people are not. responsible for the crimes of the state of Israel. And and that that is that is our, you know, very, very consistent and clear message. In fact, there are many, many Jewish people involved in the marches involved in the very marches that this.
16:31
16:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
This call was asking for a moratorium of many of them marching after hundreds, if not thousands of Jewish people marching as part of an organized Jewish bloc. Jewish speakers on the platform. There are Jewish people who are among the key. organizers of the marches. On several occasions, the marches have been addressed by Holocaust survivors, perhaps some of the largest audiences ever addressed by Holocaust survivors in in this country. And that's to send out a very clear message about any. And we're ensuring that that's the message that we're coming out, we're sending out from the protests.
So I think for that reason, I mean, the idea that, you know, the marches could be incubators of. anti-Semitism seems absurd. I think if someone was an anti-Semite, they would find our demonstrations a very, very. uncomfortable place to be because because of the messages, because of the makeup of those those marches and protests. In fact, anyone who believed in any form of bigotry, I think would feel that way, because these are protests that bring together people from all. backgrounds and, and every walk of life, the. particular that particular statement was made in the context in the run up to our Nakba Day demonstration, which is an annual event when we.
commemorate the. displacement of. Palestinians from their homeland since 1948. It's a very solemn occasion. In many ways, it's very important to the. Palestinian community in particular, and I don't know whether the independent reviewer of anti-terror. legislation consulted with or took the feelings or sentiments of the Palestinian community into into consideration, because it's also a kind of a national day for, for, for. Palestinians as well, when they when they sort of celebrate and mark their, their, their, their Palestinian identity.
So this was a very important march. It every year is led led by.
So I think for that reason, I mean, the idea that, you know, the marches could be incubators of. anti-Semitism seems absurd. I think if someone was an anti-Semite, they would find our demonstrations a very, very. uncomfortable place to be because because of the messages, because of the makeup of those those marches and protests. In fact, anyone who believed in any form of bigotry, I think would feel that way, because these are protests that bring together people from all. backgrounds and, and every walk of life, the. particular that particular statement was made in the context in the run up to our Nakba Day demonstration, which is an annual event when we.
commemorate the. displacement of. Palestinians from their homeland since 1948. It's a very solemn occasion. In many ways, it's very important to the. Palestinian community in particular, and I don't know whether the independent reviewer of anti-terror. legislation consulted with or took the feelings or sentiments of the Palestinian community into into consideration, because it's also a kind of a national day for, for, for. Palestinians as well, when they when they sort of celebrate and mark their, their, their, their Palestinian identity.
So this was a very important march. It every year is led led by.
16:31
16:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Along with what are by now very elderly Nakba. survivors who sort of go at the front of the march. And I think it was very important that that we continue to to commemorate that in that way. And also, of course, it came on the day that Tommy Robinson had called on his far right. supporters to, to to come out into the street. He has called on his supporters to attack our marches before. I believe that he likely called on his supporters to come into to, to, to the street on the day of the annual Nakba march in order to try and drive the Palestine Solidarity Movement off the street.
Because he hates to see Muslims and. immigrants and. And alongside Jewish people and LGBT people and all others. And that represents everything that he stands against. I taking part in the protest. So I think it had there been such a moratorium imposed, it would have been a victory for Tommy Robinson on the far right as well. So our response was to .
Because he hates to see Muslims and. immigrants and. And alongside Jewish people and LGBT people and all others. And that represents everything that he stands against. I taking part in the protest. So I think it had there been such a moratorium imposed, it would have been a victory for Tommy Robinson on the far right as well. So our response was to .
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31