London, United Kingdom. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the government could ban pro-Palestinian marches in some circumstances, citing their “cumulative effect” on the Jewish community after two Jewish men were stabbed in London on Wednesday.
Starmer comments on protests and policing
Starmer told the BBC he would always defend freedom of expression and peaceful protest, but said chants such as “Globalise the Intifada” during demonstrations were “completely off limits” and that those voicing them should be prosecuted.
He said he was not denying there were “very strong legitimate views about the Middle East, about Gaza,” but said many people in the Jewish community had told him they were concerned about the repeat nature of the marches.
Asked whether a tougher response should focus on chants and banners or whether protests should be stopped altogether, Starmer said: “I think certainly the first, and I think there are instances for the latter.”
“I think it’s time to look across the board at protests and the cumulative effect,” he said, adding that the government needed to consider what further powers it could take.
Background to demonstrations
Pro-Palestinian marches have become a regular feature in London since the October 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel that triggered the Gaza war. Critics say the demonstrations have generated hostility and become a focus for antisemitism.
Protesters have said they are exercising their democratic right to spotlight ongoing human rights and political issues related to the situation in Gaza.
Security and threat level
Britain raised its terrorism threat level to “severe” on Thursday amid mounting security concerns that foreign states were helping fuel violence, including against the Jewish community.
“We are seeing an elevated threat to Jewish and Israeli individuals and institutions in the UK,” the head of counter-terrorism policing, Laurence Taylor, said in a statement, adding that police were also working “against an unpredictable global situation that has consequences closer to home, including physical threats by state-linked actors.”
How should the government balance freedom of protest with concerns about intimidation and public safety?