Protests, proscription and policing: London’s fraught weekend in the shadow of terror
At least 355 people were held by London police over the weekend as pro-Palestine demonstrators deliberately defied a ban on activity linked to the group Palestine Action, in protests that intersected with a city still raw from a terror attack on a Manchester synagogue.
- Advertisement -
The arrests stretched across central London with the largest concentration in Trafalgar Square, where organisers of a “silent vigil” said more than 1,000 people had gathered to protest the proscription. Officers also detained six people after a banner in support of the proscribed group was unfurled on Westminster Bridge. Metropolitan Police said those arrested faced offences including supporting a banned organisation — a criminal offence under UK law.
Voices on the ground
The mood in Trafalgar Square was sombre but charged. Demonstrators held placards referencing Gaza and chants were largely muted in the advertised “silent” vigil, but tensions flared when counter-protesters approached, shouting expletives at Hamas and calling out support for Israel. Police intervened to prevent clashes.
“At a time when we want to be deploying every available officer to ensure the safety of those communities, we are instead having to plan for a gathering of more than 1,000 people in Trafalgar Square in support of a terrorist organisation,” Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley said, urging the organisers to call off the event so officers could concentrate on protecting vulnerable sites.
Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer appealed for restraint. Writing in Jewish newspapers, he asked protesters to “recognise and respect the grief of British Jews this week,” calling the period “a moment of mourning” and warning that demonstrations could cause further pain for victims’ families.
That view was echoed by Jewish community leaders. Dave Rich, director of policy at the Community Security Trust, which monitors antisemitism and provides protection for the community, described the decision to press ahead as “phenomenally tone deaf.” He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that diverting police resources to a protest supporting a proscribed group came at the expense of protecting the rights of Jewish people “to live their lives and go to synagogue in safety”.
Not everyone agreed. Jonathon Porritt, a long-time environmental and human rights campaigner involved with the protest, said participants would observe the vigil with respect for victims of the Manchester attack but maintained that the larger question of mass civilian suffering in Gaza should not be silenced. “I have no doubt whatsoever that everyone taking part … will demonstrate huge respect and real grief,” he said, adding that cancelling would be “an unwise move”.
Policing in a pressured era
Police said extra officers were deployed to synagogues and Jewish community centres across Britain to offer reassurance in the attack’s aftermath. Greater Manchester Police’s chief constable urged would-be protesters to “consider whether this is really the right time.” Still, groups in Manchester and other cities held smaller demonstrations, with around 100 people reported near Manchester Cathedral ahead of a march.
The weekend exposed a dilemma that many liberal democracies are grappling with: how to protect vulnerable communities and maintain public order without unduly curtailing the right to protest. When the cause being championed has been formally proscribed by the state, that line becomes razor thin. Police and politicians argue that the decision is about public safety; activists say it is about conscience and a long-standing campaign against Israel’s conduct in Gaza.
What the prosecutions and proscription reveal
Proscription of activist networks is an increasingly used tactic in Western capitals seeking to stem violent extremism and clamp down on direct action. But banning groups can also sharpen grievances and radicalise a segment of the movement — a pattern observed in recent years from the United States to Europe, where proscription or heavy-handed policing have sometimes driven protests into more confrontational or clandestine channels.
The UK’s use of the criminal law to restrict protest activity feeds into a wider debate about proportionality. Critics warn that invoking terrorism statutes risks conflating legitimate dissent — and the wider right to criticise states and policies — with violent extremism. Supporters of the approach insist such laws are necessary to prevent the normalisation of organisations that advocate or enable violence.
Beyond legalities, the weekend highlighted how the Israel-Palestine conflict continues to cast a long shadow across diasporic communities. Cities such as London, Paris and New York have repeatedly seen local tensions spike in step with developments in the Middle East, putting municipal leaders and police forces under intense pressure to balance competing rights and security needs.
Questions without easy answers
- How should democratic societies balance the right to protest with protecting grieving communities after violent attacks?
- Does criminalising certain activist groups reduce violence, or simply push militants and sympathisers underground?
- Can police resources be distributed in a way that reassures targeted communities without entirely foreclosing lawful dissent?
Those questions will not be settled by a single weekend of demonstrations. But the fallout from the arrests — and from the decision by some to press on while others urged restraint — will reverberate in political corridors and community centres. For people on different sides of the issues, the same images of banners and barricades are being read through very different moral grammars: grief, guilt, anger, solidarity, security and liberty.
As Britain heads into more unsettled months, officials must weigh the immediate imperative of protecting citizens with the long-term costs of narrowing the democratic space for protest. Activists, meanwhile, face a choice about strategy and timing that will shape public sympathy for their cause. Both must ask themselves whether the moment — and the methods — advance their aims or harden divisions that are already deep.
By Abdiwahab Ahmed
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
