How are speeches selected and edited?
- Quotes and speeches are selected on the basis of their relevance and notability - whether they bring new information to a debate, are rhetorically interesting, or whether they are interesting in the context of their speaker.
- Omissions to speeches are noted by ellipses (...) but are otherwise as recorded in Hansard.
- Not all speeches are selected here.
- AI is used to draft articles summarising Parliamentary debates. All summaries are reviewed and edited manually before publication. You can read the script used to generate the summaries.
Palestine Action and The Right to Protest
Edited by Peter Warrington, 2026-06-15 Debates on the Right to Protest and how it is balanced with public order following the ban of the al-Quds Day march and the mass arrests linked to the proscription of Palestine Action.Key Quotes:
“The vitally important issue of Palestinian rights should not be co-opted by one organisation that has shown that it is willing to use violence in pursuit of its cause. The clear advice and intelligence given to the then Home Secretary earlier this year was that Palestine Action satisfied the relevant tests in the Terrorism Act 2000 and should be proscribed. … Some of its attacks have involved the use of weapons, resulting in alleged violence and serious injuries to individuals. … These are not the actions of a legitimate protest group, and for a Government to ignore expert security assessments, advice and recommendations would be highly irresponsible.” - Dan Jarvis (Labour)
“Lumping Palestine Action with Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement was calculated, cynical and disproportionate. It has led to the arrest of hundreds, if not thousands, of protesters. What does the Minister think will be the consequences now that his Government look more interested in silencing protest than maintaining policing by consent?” - Liz Saville Roberts (Plaid Cymru)
“Anyone who wishes to demonstrate about the humanitarian situation in Gaza or the actions of any Government, including our own, has the absolute freedom to gather with others and voice their views, provided that they do so within the law, but supporting Palestine and supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation are not the same thing.” - Dan Jarvis (Labour)
“Over 1,600 people have been arrested since this Labour Government proscribed a non-violent direct action group [Palestine Action] for the first time in British history, including elderly people, disabled people, priests, NHS workers and the children of Holocaust survivors.” - Zarah Sultana (Independent)
“If we do not get the response right, if we continue to arrest those in that secondary category [protesting the use of proscription], the seriousness of the term ‘terrorism’ risks losing its meaning and becoming diluted rather than strengthened.” - Stella Creasy (Labour)
“I agree with everything the Home Secretary has said, especially as she is one of the best Conservative Home Secretaries we have ever had!” - Sir Edward Leigh (Conservative)
“It cannot be right that simply displaying a placard in support of a proscribed organisation, while peacefully protesting, can result in a conviction and up to six months in prison.” - Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrat)
Palestine Action Proscription Debate - September 8th 2025
Months earlier, on Monday 8th September 2025, the House of Commons met to debate the controversial proscription of the activist group Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act. The Minister for Security, Dan Jarvis (Labour), made the opening statement:
Anyone who wishes to demonstrate about the humanitarian situation in Gaza or the actions of any Government, including our own, has the absolute freedom to gather with others and voice their views, provided that they do so within the law, but supporting Palestine and supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation are not the same thing. The vitally important issue of Palestinian rights should not be co-opted by one organisation that has shown that it is willing to use violence in pursuit of its cause. The clear advice and intelligence given to the then Home Secretary earlier this year was that Palestine Action satisfied the relevant tests in the Terrorism Act 2000 and should be proscribed. … Some of its attacks have involved the use of weapons, resulting in alleged violence and serious injuries to individuals. … These are not the actions of a legitimate protest group, and for a Government to ignore expert security assessments, advice and recommendations would be highly irresponsible.
Stella Creasy (Labour) asked an Urgent Question, warning that the mass arrests of peaceful placard-holders risked diluting the very meaning of terrorism:
Nearly 1,500 people have now been arrested because of concerns about proscription. … I am not here as a supporter or defender of Palestine Action and its tactics. I condemn without hesitation abuse, intimidation and attacks on the police and any political opponent. … There is a difference between people protesting using violence and people protesting the use of proscription. If we do not get the response right, if we continue to arrest those in that secondary category [protesting the use of proscription], the seriousness of the term ‘terrorism’ risks losing its meaning and becoming diluted rather than strengthened. Proscription was supposed to be about stopping those inciting direct harm and violence.
Speaking for the Liberal Democrats, Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrat) warned of the chilling effect the proscription was having on legitimate peaceful protest:
The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of a liberal democracy, but events over the weekend have set a dangerous precedent and risk having a chilling impact on free speech and legitimate protest in the UK. … It cannot be right that simply displaying a placard in support of a proscribed organisation, while peacefully protesting, can result in a conviction and up to six months in prison. Will the Minister urgently review terrorism legislation, specifically as it is impacting the right to protest peacefully, to ensure it is proportionate and contains the nuance that it so clearly needs?
Liz Saville Roberts (Plaid Cymru) compared the proscription of the activist group to direct actions in Welsh history:
On this day 89 years ago, three founding members of Plaid Cymru handed themselves in after burning the RAF bombing school at Penyberth. Today, they and all their supporters would likely be branded terrorists for non-violent direct action. Lumping Palestine Action with Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement was calculated, cynical and disproportionate. It has led to the arrest of hundreds, if not thousands, of protesters. What does the Minister think will be the consequences now that his Government look more interested in silencing protest than maintaining policing by consent?
Dr Simon Opher (Labour) questioned whether the government’s approach was disproportionate:
In recent weeks, a number of my constituents in Stroud have been arrested. Many of them are over 70, and the whole situation seems to have become slightly ridiculous. Does the Minister agree that proscribing is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
The Minister for Security, Dan Jarvis (Labour), responded to the “sledgehammer” comparison:
With great respect, and I do not mean to be flippant, I think it is a rather unfortunate use of ‘sledgehammer’ [to describe the proscription of Palestine Action], given previous events. [referencing a Palestine Action attack where an officer was hit with a sledgehammer] … No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I think the actions of the Government have been necessary and proportionate for the reasons I explained earlier.
Finally, Zarah Sultana (Independent) raised the mass arrests of peaceful protesters, calling on the government to lift the ban:
It is a shame that the Home Secretary could not come here today to defend her Government. Over 1,600 people have been arrested since this Labour Government proscribed a non-violent direct action group [Palestine Action] for the first time in British history, including elderly people, disabled people, priests, NHS workers and the children of Holocaust survivors. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has condemned this proscription as “disproportionate and unnecessary”, warning that it risks creating a “further chilling effect”. Will the Minister finally admit that his Government got it wrong and that they have threatened and undermined our free speech and right to protest, and will they review and immediately lift this ban?
Protest Policing Debate - March 11th 2026
The Home Secretary had approved a historic ban on London’s al-Quds Day marches due to a ‘risk of serious public disorder’.
The House of Commons met on Wednesday 11th March 2026 to hear a statement on public order from the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood (Labour):
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on public order.
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley, has requested a prohibition on processions relating to al-Quds Day under section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986. I have consented to that request, placing a ban on those processions for both protesters and counter-protesters that will now last for a month. This is the first ban since 2012, so I wish to explain to the House today why I have done so.
…
My first duty is to keep the public safe. Having carefully and thoroughly considered the risk assessment presented to me by the Metropolitan police, I am satisfied that an order under section 13 is necessary.
…
Section 13 cannot be used to ban a static protest, referred to in the legislation as a “public assembly”. Should a static demonstration proceed this weekend, the police will not be able to stop it. … People will therefore be able to exercise their right to peaceful protest, although the full force of the law will be enforced if hate crimes, or other crimes, are committed. … Peaceful and lawful protest, whether for Palestine or for Israel, or for any other cause, must be cherished and protected, and this Government will always defend that sacred freedom.
The Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Philp (Conservative), was called to respond on behalf of the opposition:
I fully support a ban on this march. The police assessment of the risk is right, and, in fact, I wrote to the commissioner a week ago urging for exactly this ban. However, the problems with the al-Quds march go beyond simply the risk of serious disorder. … A leading speaker at these marches has been Nazim Ali, a man who has demanded that Israel “be wiped off the map”. Speaking at a previous march, Ali even blamed what he called “Zionists” for the Grenfell fire. He also said: “We are fed up of the Zionists. We are fed up of their rabbis. We are fed up of their synagogues.” The reference to rabbis and synagogues shows that when this despicable man [Nazim Ali] says ‘Zionist’, he means Jews. That is clear antisemitism. Speech inciting violence and speech inciting antisemitism, which we have heard at these marches in the past, has serious consequences. … Extremism has no place in the UK. Support for terrorism or violence has no place in the UK. … Will the Home Secretary use those powers to expel extremists who are not British citizens?
During the ensuing debate, Liberal Democrat MPs pressed the Home Secretary on why the government had not yet proscribed Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Shabana Mahmood (Labour) responded:
The House will be pleased to know that I decline the invitation to learn any lessons from the Liberal Democrats—not just on this occasion, but for evermore. … Let me reiterate the point about the IRGC. We will bring forward measures as soon as we can. We obviously have to proceed with care, because these are complex matters, and we have to get the balance right in the action we take. However, we have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC, and the Government are working at pace to move forward with delivery.
Later in the debate, the Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh (Conservative), urged the government to maintain a very high bar when restricting the right to march:
I agree with everything the Home Secretary has said, especially as she is one of the best Conservative Home Secretaries we have ever had! Will she forgive me for asking her to stress just one part of her statement? I have noticed an increasing tendency to say that we should ban marches because we find the views of the marchers thoroughly offensive. … Can she emphasise that there is a very high bar, and that marchers will be banned only if they might incite or cause violence?
Shabana Mahmood (Labour) replied, rejecting his compliments:
I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman [Sir Edward Leigh], but I am Labour all day long. I enjoy swatting Conservatives, Lib Dems, Greens and everybody else at my leisure, and I will continue to do so. … The Father of the House is right about the law. There is a high bar for any banning order to be requested or granted under the framework set out in the Public Order Act. He is absolutely right that it should be a high bar. People are allowed to have their own views, and we should not be seeking to shut down views which, although offensive or provocative, are still within the law.