Civil Liberty Groups Raise Alarm Over Proposed Expansion of Anti-Protest Powers

Published: 06 October 2025. The English Chronicle Desk, English Chronicle Online

Civil liberties organisations have voiced serious concerns over government plans to grant police expanded powers to regulate protests, a move that coincides with organisers of mass demonstrations against the banning of Palestine Action promising a “major escalation” of their campaign.

Labour MP Shabana Mahmood stated that repeated large-scale protests over Gaza had created “considerable fear” within the Jewish community, particularly in the aftermath of a deadly terror attack at a Manchester synagogue last week. Under the proposed legislation, police would have the authority to impose stricter conditions on static demonstrations and marches, taking into account the “cumulative impact” of prior protests in the same locations.

Following Mahmood’s statement, the campaign group Defend Our Juries announced plans to intensify demonstrations in support of Palestine Action over a ten-day period in November. A spokesperson for the group condemned the government’s proposed powers as “an extraordinary new affront to our democracy,” warning that the restrictions would likely fuel public backlash against the ban.

The proposals come after nearly 500 people were arrested in London over the weekend for participating in protests supporting Palestine Action. Jewish community leaders, law enforcement officials, and political figures, including Labour leader Keir Starmer, had called for restraint following the tragic attack on the synagogue.

Mahmood is reportedly reviewing all existing anti-protest legislation, with the potential to strengthen authorities’ ability to ban certain demonstrations entirely. Shami Chakrabarti, Labour peer and former shadow attorney general, cautioned against the introduction of sweeping powers, warning that such measures could be misused if they fell into the hands of future governments with less commitment to civil liberties. “Street protest that isn’t a bit of a nuisance isn’t usually effective,” she noted. “Any government seeking to further restrict it should carefully consider the implications if powers are used in the wrong hands.”

Concerns were echoed by two Labour MPs, who emphasised that even distasteful protests should not justify hastily enacted laws that could curtail legitimate demonstrations in the future. Under the proposed rules, repeated protests at the same site causing disorder would empower police to instruct organisers to relocate events, limit participant numbers, or enforce time restrictions. Home Office officials confirmed that the legislation would amend sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, which currently subjects offenders to up to six months in prison, an unlimited fine, or both for breaching police-imposed conditions.

Speaking to Sky News, Mahmood argued that a gap in the law necessitated the changes, asserting that “cumulative disruption” is a valid consideration for police when setting restrictions. On BBC One’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, she clarified that the measures are not aimed at banning protests outright, but rather at allowing police to apply conditions that manage timing, location, and other factors to reduce repeated disruption.

The Liberal Democrats criticised the proposals, warning that they could divert police resources toward minor incidents while neglecting real criminal activity. Max Wilkinson, the party’s home affairs spokesperson, described the plans as a continuation of “a messy approach to protest laws” first seen under Conservative leadership.

Legal experts have noted that the government’s plans could face challenges in court, referencing similar attempts by former Conservative Home Secretary Suella Braverman to curb protests, which were struck down by the courts. In 2023, Braverman’s legislation lowered the threshold for police intervention in demonstrations, covering any disruption deemed more than minor. The High Court ruled this move unlawful in May 2024, a decision hailed as a major victory by civil rights organisation Liberty.

Amnesty International UK and Liberty have criticised the current proposals. Tom Southerden, a director at Amnesty International, called the measures “ludicrous,” suggesting they are a cynical attempt to appear tough on protests. Liberty’s director, Akiko Hart, warned that granting police even broader powers could undermine fundamental rights without improving public safety in the wake of violent incidents like the Manchester synagogue attack.

In response to the anticipated judicial review, Defend Our Juries has announced plans for widespread civil disobedience between 18 and 28 November. Mahmood, in a letter to chief constables, acknowledged that the country faces “heightened tensions and division” and expressed gratitude to police for their response to the recent attack. She confirmed that legislation would be introduced to expand police powers against repeated disruptive protests while also reviewing the full spectrum of public order legislation to ensure it remains effective in light of evolving protest activity.

The planned new powers complement existing measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, which would criminalise the possession of face coverings, fireworks, and flares at protests, as well as certain actions involving war memorials. The proposals have reignited debates over the balance between public safety, civil liberties, and the right to peaceful protest, highlighting the ongoing tensions in UK politics around how to respond to demonstrations on sensitive political issues.

As the debate continues, civil liberty groups, legal experts, and political leaders are closely monitoring the government’s approach, stressing that any legislative changes must safeguard fundamental democratic rights while maintaining public order. The evolving situation is likely to remain a key point of contention in the coming months, particularly as activists plan to test the limits of proposed restrictions through mass demonstrations.