EWJ Dec 2023 - Journal - Page 64
in these protests could result in future pro-Palestinian
protests being prohibited. If this occurs, the policing
response to that already seen will be very different.
Examining the behaviour already witnessed is worth
assessing if there is sufficient evidence to prevent
further protests.
These are rights which it is in the public interest that
individuals should possess; and, indeed, that they
should exercise without impediment so long as no
wrongful act is done. It is often the only means by
which grievances can be brought to the knowledge of
those in authority—at any rate with such impact as to
gain a remedy. [British] history is full of warnings against
suppression of these rights.’ [My emphasis]
Hate Crime and Offences Under Terrorism
Legislation
UK hate crime comes under Part III of the Public
Order Act 1986, creating the offences of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or displays written material which is threatening, abusive or
insulting with the intent of stirring up racial hatred or
having regards to the circumstances racial hatred is
likely to be stirred up and publishing or distributing
such material. Racial hatred is defined as, ‘…hatred
against a group of persons defined by reference to
colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins’. Part 3A of the Act introduced
offences based on the grounds of religious hatred and
hatred on the ground of sexual orientation. Under
the Act religious hatred means hatred by reference to
religious belief or absence of religious belief, with hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation meaning
hatred by reference to sexual orientation be it towards
persons of the same sex, the opposite sex or both.
The current pro-Palestinian protests are in the public
interest and are a means of bringing what the
protesters see as a grievance in the way the innocent
Palestinian citizens are suffering with Israel’s response
to the Hamas attack in October 2023. It is submitted
that Braverman’s wide-sweeping statement that these
protests are hate protests per se, is incorrect and,
considering she is a qualified barrister, surprising.
When Protests become Illegal and Offences Associated with the Protests
Under the Public Order Act 1986 organisers of
protests must give notice of their intention to hold a
procession that in relation to the pro-Palestinian
protests include groups like the Palestine Solidarity
Campaign which in this case it is intended to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions
of any person or body of persons, or to publicise a
cause or campaign. If the senior officer where the
procession will take place reasonably believes that:
In these demonstrations some protesters have been
arrested for offences under Part III. Most of it has
been antisemitic as the UK’s Jewish population have
been targeted. It is natural to associate Israel with the
Jewish population, but it is Israel with a right-wing
government that is carrying out the actions in Gaza. As
such it is important to differentiate between Zionism
and Judaism as it appears the anger for many of the
pro-Palestinian protesters is with the state of Israel and
its Zionist government not Jewish citizens. Zionism is
about the pursuit of an independent Jewish state
whereas Judaism is a religious community that believes only in one supreme power, that is God. Sadly,
there has been a significant rise in anti-Semitic hate
crime in the UK since Hamas attacked Israel in October 2023. Potential evidence that the protests are
against Zionism is the chant repeatedly given during
the protests ‘From the river to the sea, see Palestine
free’. Whether this is a hate speech as the former
Home Secretary would have us believe is a moot point.
Braverman is correct that the context of this chant is
the erasure of Israel from the map, but does it solely
mean the state, or does it also mean incurring a genocide against Jewish Israeli citizens to achieve this? It is
submitted that if this chant was added to with a phrase
that calls for the death of Jews to achieve this then that
definitely has crossed the line and is no longer protected under the freedom of expression and becomes
a hate crime. The cries of calling for a jihad heard at
these protests also needs to be seen in context. Acknowledging there are two forms of jihad, the greater
jihad which is self-reflection to make one a better person in society and the lesser jihad, which is the call for
a holy war, there is no doubt the context of the jihad
called for in the protests is the lesser jihad and that is
also inflammatory and a hate crime.
1. it may result in serious public disorder, serious
damage to property or serious disruption to the life of
the community, or,
2. in the case of a procession in England and Wales,
the noise generated by persons taking part in the procession may result in serious disruption to the activities
of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity
of the procession, or
3. in the case of a procession in England and Wales
(i)the noise generated by persons taking part in the
procession may have a relevant impact on persons in
the vicinity of the procession, and
(ii)that impact may be significant, or
4. the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them
not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act
they have a right not to do,
that officer can impose on the organisers conditions as
appear to them necessary to prevent such disorder,
damage, disruption, impact or intimidation, including conditions as to the route of the procession or prohibiting it from entering any public place specified in
the directions. One can see here the conditions under
a statute (this is the prescription by law point) required
for interfering with the right to peaceful assembly
under article 11 ECHR. If the chief officer of police
where the procession will take place believes that the
conditions in section 12 of the Act will be insufficient
to prevent holding a procession that officer can prohibit that procession for a period not exceeding 3
months and this decision will be with the consent of
the relevant Secretary of State, which here is the
Home Secretary. Behaviour that has been seen so far
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
62
DECEMBER 2023