The Palestine marches need to stop

Analysing the "right" of Freedom of Assembly

This weekend, the long-suffering people of Montreal were treated to yet another “pro-Palestine” march. I put “pro-Palestine” in inverted commas because it is questionable if the participants really have the interests of the ordinary Palestinians in mind; however I will describe it as such henceforth for the benefit of shorthand.

This follows week after week, month after month, of offensive, intimidating occupations of public space in capitals throughout the West in which a banner increasingly seen as a hate symbol is being waved wickedly in the faces of the unwilling. In the presence of these aggressive demonstrations, the Jewish kippa-wearing bystander is a provocation. So peaceful are the marchers - and such avowed lovers are they of “real Jews” - that a piece of knitted cotton is sure to wind them up into a fit of uncontrollable rage. They may even attack football fans in an organised pogrom such is their mastery of Buddhist breathing techniques. And nothing is sacred for these prophets of kindness: not beautiful artwork, nor the most important days in the British calendar. They will gladly insult our honoured dead on Armistice Day such is warped worship of depraved terrorist ideologies. And it was this insult to the British way of life in November 2023 that originally inspired this article.

You will note that this polemic is entitled “Freedom of Assembly”; not “Freedom of Speech”. The two concepts are not interchangeable. A great deal of the angst about curtailing demonstrations is derived from the conflating these two principles. We are all free - or at least we should all be free - to express any opinion we choose so long as it does not constitute incitement to violence. All citizens should feel able to wax lyrical about Israel, Turkey, immigration, homosexuality, transgender issues, critical race theory, Donald Trump and any manner of other controversial topics. They should feel able to do so without fear for their job prospects or their inclusion in the community. Universities should be safe space for free-ranging debate. Such should be the legal position, both at the theoretical and practical level.  

The above said, citizens should be encouraged to remember the purpose of free speech, namely the improvement of public policy and the flourishing of every human being. Offence and insult should be permitted, but intention is important. As a matter of convention, it should be avoided if its purpose is purely gratuitous. However, if its purpose is to bring about positive change it should be actively encouraged. Thinkers such as Christopher Hitchens have been known for insulting religion in general and Islam in particular. Their motive has not been malign. It has been to make believers - with an emphasis on Muslims but including all theists - see the dangerous path down which they claim faith leads. They are encouraging debate to which opponents are invited to participate freely and peacefully. Their goal is an improved world and whatever the rights and wrongs of New Atheist beliefs, their use of free speech to encourage unrestrained debate is to be welcomed.

Freedom of assembly is quite distinct from freedom of speech in that it is necessarily limited. Aside from the public order implications, it is not physically possible for the constabulary to police every possible demonstration that could take to the streets of the British capital. There isn’t the space in Central London and there aren’t sufficient police officers. How about if the Armenians or the Afghan refugees or the bombed Yeminites or the invaded Ukrainians had wished to demonstrate on Armistice weekend: why should the Palestine protesters have been given priority? And besides, do Londoners have the right to go about their business without continual disruption?

Furthermore one must be cognisant of the British mentality towards protest. In short it is not a very British idea. Outside of student pro Palestine-anti tuition fee rallies and pro Palestine-anti Iraq war rallies and pro Palestine-pro Palestine rallies (and of course Northern Irish sectarian marches) I struggle to think of almost any demonstrations at all.   It’s an idea that has been imported by neo-Marxist rabble-rousers who have brought their brand of revolutionism to an unrevolutionary country. Whereas in France it is common to see 5 strikers outside every post office, in the UK marches are seen as a last resort in industrial struggles and little else. We don’t protest! We vote. We elect representatives to resolve our political issues and then complain when they don’t do the job well enough.  Said representatives have Parliamentary immunity to speak without legal consequence. But we don’t protest! It is being permitted as a concession to free speech, but it is fundamentally unBritish.

A further distinction needs to be made between assembly and marching. The freedom of assembly as understood in the UK is essentially the right to get together with like-minded people in a room and to criticise the government, all the while not fearing arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. Though such associations ordinarily take place on private or hired property, they may take place in the public space on the condition that the police believe it not to be a public order issue. There are many considerations besides. No-one will be permitted to march through Central London on the day of a royal wedding or the state opening of Parliament or the official visit of an American President.  The extreme right are rightfully prevented from marching for supporting evils arguably lesser than those of Hamas. And if there are simply insufficient police to accompany any protest it will not be permitted either. In short, public association is a civilised conversation between protesting groups and the public authorities. It is not an unalloyed “right”.  

Regarding the issue of Palestine protesters in particular, there are specified objections. The first is the sheer police presence it requires to safeguard the police themselves and the members of the public, given the tendency of such marches to spiral into violence. You will note that Trade Unions can strike without police guards. As can the Falun Gong outside the Chinese Embassy. And the anti-regime Iranians can peacefully protest also. The Jews at Israel solidarity rallies do need a police presence, but only to protect participants from their antagonistic adversaries. An Israeli demo will never cause public order problems. Only pro-Palestine and neo-Marxist protesters need childminding and that says quite a lot about the kind of people their protests attract.

Additionally one cannot ignore the violently pro-Hamas element of these protests that spew dangerous slogans in clear breach of the anti-terrorism legislation. No-one is permitted under British law to call for intifada or support Jewish ethnic cleansing (or shout “fire” in an unburning building), but the outnumbered police are powerless to make arrests. If the law is incapable of enforcement, then the rallies should be limited to smaller numbers in a static location where the police can do their job properly.

Furthermore we are called upon to state clearly that these rallies are not marches for peace. If they were, why are the participants not protesting against the Saudi bombing of Yemen? Or Assad’s butchery in Syria? Or the oppression of women in Iran? Or the Iranian destruction of Lebanon? Or the Armenian ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Azeris? Or the 1.7 million refugees forced to leave Pakistan over the last year? Many of which are happening in this very month. And if the Middle East is their overriding concern, why are they not marching with doves and rainbows and intertwined Israel-Palestine flags? Why aren't they calling for negotiations towards a two-state solution? The reason is clear. They are not pro-peace. They are not even pro-Palestine. They are anti-Israeli.

But even if the above were accepted, the reader might maintain that they have the right to be anti-Israel, obnoxious as that may be. And that the peaceful protesters have the right to march for that objective even though they be accompanied by violent terrorist supporters. Last November, Piers Morgan and Douglas Murray discussed this very point on Talk TV and Douglas’ answer was spot on. If you were on a march, without a thought of violence in your heart, but next to you were the fascist BNP calling for the expulsion of all black people from Britain, would you re-march with those hooligans again the week after? Piers Morgan paused. “Good question”. He wouldn’t. Neither would you. So we have to question why “peaceful” pro-Palestine marchers are unaffected by standing shoulder-to-shoulder with wannabe genocidaires. Are there peaceful Jews counter-protesting next to English ultra-nationalists? No. And there is a reason for that.

So there you have it. Freedom of assembly in the public square is not equivalent to freedom of speech. And marching in numbers - and opposed to static protests - most certainly isn’t.  It is unBritish; and a limited right.  Pro-Palestine protests are not peaceful, are not pro-peace and are not conducive to public order. They are offensive, prioritized over other causes, mingle terrorist-supporters with those apathetic to their attitudes and are a pain in the neck to the people of the West. The police are not enforcing anti-terrorist legislation and sacred days in the British calendar are being defiled. Their violence reflects the cause they are celebrating and the Jews in particular are feeling harassed.

So to be clear:

Palestine demonstrations should be permitted, but only in static locations with restricted numbers that the police can effectively manage.

Palestine marches need to stop.

We need to take back control of our streets. And when do we want it? Now!

APPENDIX:

1. 26th November 2024: Amsterdam’s mayor proves my point that Freedom of Assembly is a strong, but conditional right based on co-operation with democratic-minded forces of law. She decided to prevent a demonstration from the organisation Christians for Israel apparently on the basis that the police couldn’t ensure their safety. This shows that: a) Palestine protests are privileged over protests from other causes; b) a significant number of Palestine protesters cause violent disturbances with those they disagree with and c) the “right” to assembly is dependant on co-ordination with the authorities and the authorities have the right to to say “no” at their own discretion (which shouldn’t be abused for suppression of political opponents). By the same token, the Dutch police could (presumably) legally ban the assembly of Palestine protesters not only on the basis of their own behaviour but on the basis of the behaviour of others. Of course opponents of Palestine protesters are non-violent and they are penalised for this good behaviour in the modern Netherlands.

   FROM TIMES OF ISRAEL:
   Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema has banned a large pro-Israel protest that was planned for Thursday night at the Dutch capital’s central Dam Square. Halsema’s spokesperson says the mayor can’t guarantee public safety. No violence has occurred from the pro-Israeli side at any Amsterdam rally since October 7, 2023. Anti-Israeli protests, however, routinely end in clashes with police. At an earlier demonstration organized by Christians For Israel marking a year since the Hamas invasion of southern Israel, protesters on Dam Square were attacked by violent pro-Palestinian counter-protesters.” (https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/mayor-bans-planned-christians-for-israel-rally-in-amsterdam/)

2. This article should not be read as giving permission to national police forces to deny marches as a matter of course. There should be a strong legal presumption of the police permitting protest marches on the condition that:

   i. The marches are non-violent with the organisers being responsible for the actions of those on their marches.

   ii. The marches do not intimidate those members of the public with different views.

   iii. The marches take place on appropriate days in appropriate locations given the reasonable sensitivities of others.

   iv. The marches do not take place at an unreasonable regularity.

   v. The marches do not unreasonably prevent the marches of other causes nor unreasonably effect the life of the city.

   vi. The marches are free of racism.

   vii. The organisers are co-operative with the police (and the police must be co-operative in return).

Let us be clear: Of the current causes currently being marched for, only those of the extreme right (I’m taking of neo-Nazis) and Palestine fall into this bracket of refusal. The problem, however, is that we wrongly refuse to consider Palestine marches to be hateful like those of the extreme right. To emphasise, the above isn’t an excuse for democratic regimes to oppose non-violent political opponents.