Armistice Day is meant to be a moment of solemn national unity. Yet this year it is expected to coincide with the rather less harmonious ‘Million March for Palestine’, as hundreds of thousands gather in central London on Saturday to protest against Israel’s war on Gaza.
Are these events compatible? Should the protest be banned? The Prime Minister says holding the protest on Armistice Day is ‘disrespectful’ but insists that only Sir Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, can act to stop it. So Rishi Sunak is, in effect, saying his government cannot be blamed if there’s trouble at what Suella Braverman, his Home Secretary, calls a ‘hate march’. It’s all on Sir Mark. ‘My job is to hold him accountable,’ says Sunak.
We don’t need more laws. The problem we have is with existing legislation not being enforced
Politicians can ban marches only if the police refer the decision to them. But the law states that even the police can ban them only in order to prevent ‘serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community’. They may ask protestors to delay a march (as the Met has done this week) but they cannot block one outright on the grounds of taste or cause.
‘The laws created by parliament are clear,’ Sir Mark has said. ‘There is no absolute power to ban protests, therefore there will be a protest this weekend.’ The legal bar to stop a demonstration is set very high for a reason: to make sure governments cannot silence protest. That’s why the power is used very rarely. The last time was in 2011, when Theresa May forbade an English Defence League rally in London.
Sir Mark, whom I know slightly, is cerebral and independent-minded. He’ll feel the political pressure but argues that it’s his duty to uphold the law – and only the law.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in