On October 7, 2025, the streets of cities across the United Kingdom filled with the sounds of protest. Students from London, Edinburgh, Belfast, Sheffield, and other university towns marched in solidarity with Palestinians, marking the second anniversary of the Hamas attacks on Israel—a date now etched with pain and controversy in the region’s history. But this year’s anniversary was shadowed by another tragedy: less than a week earlier, a deadly knife attack at Manchester’s Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue left two men dead, intensifying an already fraught national conversation about protest, free speech, and public safety.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, traveling on a trade mission in Mumbai, India, responded swiftly and unequivocally. He told reporters on October 8 that the government was considering new curbs on protest laws, including measures that could specifically target chants and slogans used at pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Starmer said, “I’ve asked the home secretary to look more broadly at what other powers are available, how they’re being used, and whether they should be changed in any way. I think we need to go further than that in relation to some of the chants that are going on at some of these protests.”
His comments referred to an ongoing review of protest legislation led by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood. The government had already announced plans to grant police broader powers to restrict repeat protests, allowing senior officers to consider the “cumulative impact” of demonstrations. This could mean forcing organizers to relocate events if a site has seen repeated protests, or even—if the review so recommends—moving toward outright protest bans in certain circumstances. For now, the law requires a risk of serious public disorder before a march can be banned entirely.
The immediate catalyst for these proposed changes, according to Starmer and Mahmood, is the fear and distress felt by the UK’s Jewish community following both the Manchester synagogue attack and a series of large-scale pro-Palestinian protests. Mahmood stated over the weekend, “Repeated large-scale protests have caused considerable fear for the Jewish community.” She emphasized that the new powers were “not a ban on protests but about restrictions and conditions.”
Central to the government’s concerns are slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” a chant that has become a flashpoint in the national debate. Critics, including several pro-Israel organizations, argue that the phrase calls for the destruction of Israel and is therefore inherently antisemitic. Protesters and their supporters, however, insist the chant is a call for justice and freedom for Palestinians, with most using it to demand an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza. According to the Metropolitan Police’s own guidance issued last year, while the chant is “difficult and controversial,” it is unlikely to result in prosecution.
Starmer’s stance has been uncompromising. He described the protests as “un-British” and claimed some demonstrations have been used as “a despicable excuse to attack British Jews.” He urged students not to participate in the anniversary marches, warning of “rising antisemitism on our streets.” He also called on the now-proscribed group Palestine Action to cancel its planned protests following the Manchester attack.
But the government’s moves have sparked a fierce backlash. Protest group Defend Our Juries accused the government of “doubling down on an anti-democratic agenda,” arguing that proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organization would “pave the way for further authoritarian crackdowns on our fundamental rights to free speech in this country.” Their spokesperson added, “Every day in Gaza, the equivalent of a classroom of children is being killed by Israeli forces—yet our Prime Minister is talking about banning chants. That says everything about how little he values Palestinian lives.”
Rights groups and free speech advocates have been quick to condemn the proposed crackdown. Sam Grant, director of external relations at Liberty, said, “Recent moves to crack down on protests have severely weakened people’s rights, caused mass confusion, and led to some spending many years in prison for non-violent demonstrations.” He urged the government to “actually engage with groups and people most impacted by the policing of protests and build policy based on their experiences.”
Tom Southerden, legal programme director at Amnesty International UK, cautioned, “We will be scrutinising any new proposals to restrict protest speech very closely. Genuine incitement to violence or hatred can and should be restricted under international human rights law, but the UK already has an extensive legal framework that already addresses this. Any further restrictions must be clearly defined, evidence-based and strictly necessary, not politically motivated or open to broad interpretation.”
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s director Ben Jamal was equally forthright, declaring, “The British government is spending more time considering how to restrict protests against genocide than stopping its own complicity. We will resist their attempts to restrict our fundamental democratic rights—on Saturday, we march in London once again.”
Events on the ground have been tense. On October 4, nearly 500 people were arrested in central London during protests supporting Palestine Action, most at Trafalgar Square where around 1,000 protesters sat silently, holding signs and ignoring calls from police and politicians to stay away in the wake of the Manchester attack. Paula Dodds, chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation, described officers as “physically exhausted” from facilitating “relentless protests,” and questioned, “How can this be right?” Amnesty International, however, maintained that arresting people “peacefully sitting down” was a breach of the UK’s human rights obligations.
The UK’s debate is mirrored across Europe. Several governments, including Germany, have recently cracked down on anti-Israel demonstrations, often citing antisemitism or terrorism as justification—sometimes, critics say, on “vague or unsubstantiated grounds.” Many campaigners argue that these measures unjustly criminalize legitimate political expression, targeting criticism of Israeli government policies rather than antisemitism itself.
As the government’s review continues, both sides of the debate are digging in. Pro-Israel organizations continue to lobby for tighter restrictions, citing the need to protect Jewish communities from hate speech and intimidation. Free speech campaigners, human rights groups, and pro-Palestinian activists warn that the UK risks undermining its own democratic principles by criminalizing dissent and peaceful protest.
With the government’s protest law review ongoing and the country’s streets still echoing with chants and counter-chants, the UK faces a defining test of its commitment to both public safety and the right to protest. The outcome will shape not only the nation’s response to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but also the boundaries of free speech and civil liberties in British democracy for years to come.
