The Right to Protest Under Threat: A Recipe for Disaster
Imran Khan KC argues that Britain's right to protest is facing its greatest challenge yet. The upcoming review of public order and hate-crime legislation has left many concerned that the law will be used to silence dissenting voices.
The home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, recently appointed Lord MacDonald to lead the review, citing the need for "consistent application" of the law. However, those familiar with the inner workings of the justice system know that consistency is a luxury rarely afforded to minority communities.
Racialized groups continue to bear the brunt of uneven enforcement, with repeated calls from Muslim communities going largely unheeded in addressing Islamophobia. The threshold for religious discrimination remains too narrow, treating Muslims as a monolithic group despite individual differences in belief and behavior.
This racialization affects protesters, who face preemptive restrictions, heightened policing, and public warnings that blur the line between protest and criminality. Counterterrorism language seeps into decisions about policing, conditions, and enforcement, justifying extraordinary measures such as false imprisonment and terrorism charges.
A similar pattern has been observed in Black communities, where assumptions about aggression and disorder are used to shape stop-and-search practices, public-order policing, and criminal-justice outcomes across generations. These assumptions rarely appear in statute but exert powerful influence over discretion exercised on the ground.
The looming review's focus on constraining protest is a worrying trend. It fails to recognize that protest is not a collective nuisance but rather an exercise of protected freedom. The idea that repeated action causes inconvenience justifies restriction ignores the power of sustained pressure, as seen in the suffragettes' and civil rights movements' use of persistent protest to secure change.
If left unchecked, this review threatens to entrench existing inequalities and restrict the rights of some to preserve the comfort of others. Free speech becomes a matter of political permission rather than a fundamental right. This is a moment that requires us all to speak out against such a draconian approach, lest we sacrifice our collective freedoms for the sake of convenience.
As we consider this review, it is essential to remember that protest is not just a privilege but a democratic right. We must stand united in defending this right, even when faced with attempts to restrict it. The future of free speech and peaceful assembly hangs in the balance.
Imran Khan KC argues that Britain's right to protest is facing its greatest challenge yet. The upcoming review of public order and hate-crime legislation has left many concerned that the law will be used to silence dissenting voices.
The home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, recently appointed Lord MacDonald to lead the review, citing the need for "consistent application" of the law. However, those familiar with the inner workings of the justice system know that consistency is a luxury rarely afforded to minority communities.
Racialized groups continue to bear the brunt of uneven enforcement, with repeated calls from Muslim communities going largely unheeded in addressing Islamophobia. The threshold for religious discrimination remains too narrow, treating Muslims as a monolithic group despite individual differences in belief and behavior.
This racialization affects protesters, who face preemptive restrictions, heightened policing, and public warnings that blur the line between protest and criminality. Counterterrorism language seeps into decisions about policing, conditions, and enforcement, justifying extraordinary measures such as false imprisonment and terrorism charges.
A similar pattern has been observed in Black communities, where assumptions about aggression and disorder are used to shape stop-and-search practices, public-order policing, and criminal-justice outcomes across generations. These assumptions rarely appear in statute but exert powerful influence over discretion exercised on the ground.
The looming review's focus on constraining protest is a worrying trend. It fails to recognize that protest is not a collective nuisance but rather an exercise of protected freedom. The idea that repeated action causes inconvenience justifies restriction ignores the power of sustained pressure, as seen in the suffragettes' and civil rights movements' use of persistent protest to secure change.
If left unchecked, this review threatens to entrench existing inequalities and restrict the rights of some to preserve the comfort of others. Free speech becomes a matter of political permission rather than a fundamental right. This is a moment that requires us all to speak out against such a draconian approach, lest we sacrifice our collective freedoms for the sake of convenience.
As we consider this review, it is essential to remember that protest is not just a privilege but a democratic right. We must stand united in defending this right, even when faced with attempts to restrict it. The future of free speech and peaceful assembly hangs in the balance.
I'm totally getting anxious about this review of public order and hate-crime legislation 
. It seems like they're going to use it as a tool to silence dissenting voices 
. We can't let that happen! 
Protest is an exercise of our fundamental right to free speech, not just a nuisance to be handled by the authorities 
. I'm all for consistency in the application of laws, but we need to make sure that doesn't come at the cost of protecting vulnerable communities 
. We should be promoting peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, not restricting it with draconian measures 
. We've seen how powerful protests can be throughout history - from the suffragettes to the civil rights movement 
. Let's stand united and defend our right to protest! 
Police are already too aggressive, need to calm down before they start silencing us. 
this whole thing is super concerning, you know? like, protest is a fundamental human right 
. it's not just about being a nuisance, protest is about making your voice heard and pushing for change 
. we gotta stand up against this review and make sure our freedoms aren't taken away from us 
We need to stand up for what we believe in, even if it's uncomfortable or inconvenient. I mean, have you seen the history of protest movements? From suffragettes to civil rights activists, they all knew that silence wasn't an option! 
. We need to make our voices heard and support those who are fighting for their rights. It's not just about us, it's about the future of democracy! 
like wut's wrong wit protestin anyway? its all about speakin out 4 what u believe in & gettin heard... dont let ppl dictate wut ur "allowed" 2 say or do 
the whole point of having a right 2 free speech is 2 express dissent when needed... otherwise we'd be stuck in this fake utopia where everyone's just sippin tea & pretending everythin's alright 
. It's like they're saying that if you don't agree with them, you're just gonna be silenced and stuff 
. I think it's time we stood up for ourselves and for free speech 
. Newsflash: it's not always that extreme! We're talkin' about ppl makin' their voices heard, demandin' change, and standin' up for what they believe in 
. We should be learnin' from their examples, not tryin' to limit our own options 
. It's time for us to take a stand and defend our right to free speech, even if it means rockin' the boat 
!
if we let them restrict our rights, we'll just be giving up on the progress we've made. protests are about bringing attention to issues & pushing for change, not being a nuisance 
It's about making our voices heard and demanding change. We can't let them turn it into some kind of "permission slip" to stifle dissenting opinions. I'm all for free speech, but not when it comes at the expense of others' rights