A former Supreme Court justice has highlighted the significant legal challenges police face when trying to prosecute individuals for using controversial slogans at pro-Palestinian demonstrations. This comes as forces adopt a tougher stance, leading to multiple arrests.
The Legal Challenge: Proving Intent
Lord Sumption, a former justice of the Supreme Court, stated that securing prosecutions for chants such as 'globalise the intifada' would be 'exceptionally difficult'. The core legal obstacle is the requirement to prove the chanter's intent to provoke violence or stir up racial hatred, a high bar for prosecutors to meet.
This legal ambiguity creates a complex situation for frontline officers, who must interpret the law in real-time during heated protests. Police chiefs have openly acknowledged this difficulty, even as they implement new operational guidelines.
A New Police Stance and Immediate Arrests
In a notable policy shift, both the Metropolitan Police and Manchester Police announced a stricter approach. They declared that anyone heard chanting contentious slogans like 'globalise the intifada' would now face arrest, citing a link to recent terror attacks as a catalyst for the change.
The immediate impact of this policy was seen during a pro-Palestinian protest outside the Ministry of Justice in Westminster, London. Here, five individuals were arrested for shouting 'intifada' and other alleged public order offences. This protest, organised by Palestine Action, saw a total of at least 90 arrests.
Divided Reactions: Security vs. Liberty
The police's more robust stance has received support from the highest levels. A spokesperson for the Prime Minister welcomed the move, as did Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis, who viewed it as a necessary step against antisemitism.
However, the change has sparked criticism from campaign groups who see it as an infringement on the right to protest. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign argues that the term 'intifada' is being mischaracterised. They contend it means 'shaking off or uprising against injustice' and is a call for peaceful resistance, not incitement to violence.
The debate underscores a fundamental tension in a democratic society: balancing the need to protect communities from hate speech with the preservation of the right to express political dissent, however contentious.
