Starmer Considers Stricter Measures on Pro-Palestinian Protest Chants

Published: 08 October 2025. The English Chronicle Online.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer is set to direct the home secretary to explore additional measures targeting protests, including potential powers to address specific inflammatory chants at pro-Palestinian demonstrations. The move comes amid heightened concerns over public safety and rising tensions following a recent terror attack at a Manchester synagogue.

Speaking to reporters while en route to Mumbai, Starmer indicated that Labour intends to go further than the measures previously outlined by Shabana Mahmood, which focused on assessing the “cumulative impact” of repeat protests in particular locations. The proposals from Mahmood have faced criticism from civil liberties groups over their potential implications for the right to protest, but recent events have intensified pressure on the government to act decisively against actions perceived to incite violence.

Starmer specifically highlighted chants that could be interpreted as promoting violence, citing phrases such as “globalise the intifada” as examples of rhetoric that may warrant stricter oversight. “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,” he said. “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.”

The prime minister suggested that police forces might take additional steps as part of this review, examining how existing public order powers are exercised and whether amendments are required to enhance their effectiveness. Starmer confirmed ongoing consultations with Jewish community leaders to ensure a coordinated response to potential threats.

Mahmood previously emphasised that the new laws would allow officers to evaluate the cumulative impact of protests when determining their lawfulness. In certain cases, protests could be rerouted or prohibited entirely if deemed too disruptive. Starmer’s latest intervention signals a push to expand these powers, reflecting concerns over antisemitic expressions within a small minority of pro-Gaza marches.

The government has urged organisers not to hold protests on sensitive dates, including the anniversary of the Hamas attacks on Israel, which claimed over 1,000 lives. Mahmood described decisions to proceed with demonstrations on such occasions as “fundamentally un-British” and “dishonourable.”

Tensions surrounding protest management have already escalated in recent months. The mass arrests of pro-Palestinian demonstrators, often for holding placards, have drawn scrutiny from MPs and the public. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy faced boos while addressing a vigil in Manchester following the synagogue attack, reflecting widespread unease over the handling of demonstrations.

In a recent opinion piece marking the 7 October anniversary of the Hamas attacks, Starmer called for institutions, including universities and the NHS, to intensify efforts to root out antisemitism. “We will continue to fund the security of Jewish schools and synagogues and take every possible step to stand up to this hatred wherever it is found,” he wrote.

Activist groups have vowed to escalate demonstrations over the coming months in response to government restrictions. Defend Our Juries, a pressure group, has announced plans for ten days of protests in November, arguing that new restrictions imposed by the Home Office infringe on democratic rights. Nearly 500 people were arrested in London for expressing support for the proscribed group during recent events.

Home Office sources indicate that amendments could be made to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act of 1986. Under these changes, repeated disruptions at the same location could lead to orders for organisers to relocate events, limit attendee numbers, or impose time restrictions. Breaches of these conditions could result in up to six months’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.

The government’s approach reflects a balancing act between safeguarding public order and protecting the right to protest, a debate set to continue as the Labour leadership considers further legislative and enforcement measures.