Should Burnham Repeal the Palestine Action Protest Law?

The true measure of a democracy is not how it treats popular opinions, but how it treats those opinions that many people find uncomfortable or objectionable.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham came to office promising to restore trust in politics, govern in the interests of ordinary working people and renew Britain’s democratic institutions. Those promises are now being tested by one of the most contentious civil liberties debates in recent years.

Thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens have reportedly been arrested, questioned or investigated after displaying placards reading simply, “I Support Palestine Action.”

Whether one agrees with that message is almost beside the point.

The real question is whether a free society should criminalise the peaceful expression of political opinion.

A Law Designed for Security

The legislation was introduced against a backdrop of concerns about public safety and alleged criminal activity associated with Palestine Action. Supporters of the law argue that the Government has both the right and the responsibility to prevent organisations believed to be involved in serious criminal offences from attracting public support or encouragement.

They contend that restricting expressions of support is a legitimate tool in preventing unlawful activity and protecting the public.

Few would dispute that governments have a duty to combat crime.

If individuals commit criminal damage, intimidation or violence, they should expect to face the full force of the law.

But that is not the issue troubling many civil liberties campaigners.

When Does Opinion Become a Crime?

Reports of pensioners, teachers, nurses, students and other ordinary citizens becoming caught up in the criminal justice system because they peacefully held a sign have raised profound questions about where Britain now draws the line between political expression and criminal conduct.

Many of those arrested insist they neither encouraged violence nor participated in unlawful acts. They simply wished to express support for what they regarded as a political cause.

If that is so, then the debate moves beyond Palestine Action itself.

It becomes a debate about the future of freedom of expression in Britain.

History teaches that today’s unpopular opinion can become tomorrow’s accepted truth. The suffragettes were condemned. Campaigners against apartheid were branded extremists by some. Protesters against the Iraq War were accused of undermining national interests.

Democratic societies are often judged not by how they protect agreeable opinions, but by how they protect controversial ones.

A Difficult Balance

No right is absolute.

Freedom of expression has always existed alongside laws against incitement to violence, terrorism, harassment and other serious offences.

The challenge for any democratic government is ensuring that those boundaries remain proportionate.

If the law captures those who merely hold a placard expressing a political opinion, many will argue it has crossed a constitutional line.

If, however, arrests are based on evidence that individuals have intentionally encouraged criminal acts or provided unlawful support beyond peaceful expression, then many would regard prosecution as justified.

That distinction is essential.

Burnham’s Opportunity

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has repeatedly argued that politics must work for the many rather than the few and that government should earn, rather than demand, public trust.

His administration now has an opportunity to demonstrate those principles in practice.

Rather than treating the legislation as untouchable, his government could establish an independent review examining whether the law is being applied fairly, proportionately and consistently with Britain’s long-standing traditions of free speech and peaceful protest.

Such a review would not weaken public safety.

Instead, it could strengthen confidence that laws intended to protect the public are not inadvertently restricting legitimate democratic expression.

The Bigger Picture

This debate is not ultimately about Palestine Action alone.

Tomorrow it could concern another campaign, another protest movement or another unpopular opinion.

The powers governments create rarely remain confined to the circumstances that first justified them.

Every democracy must therefore ask itself a difficult question.

Should citizens fear arrest simply because they peacefully express support for a political cause, however controversial, provided they neither advocate nor participate in criminal conduct?

The answer to that question will shape Britain’s democratic character for years to come.

Our Conclusion

Prime Minister Andy Burnham should not ignore the growing concerns surrounding this legislation.

His government should immediately commission an independent review into the operation of the law and the circumstances in which peaceful citizens have been arrested for displaying signs expressing support for Palestine Action.

If that review concludes that individuals have been criminalised solely for the peaceful expression of political opinion, rather than for inciting, encouraging or participating in criminal acts, Parliament should amend or repeal the legislation without delay.

Protecting the public and protecting freedom are not opposing principles—they are both essential duties of a democratic government.

A confident democracy does not fear peaceful dissent. It answers ideas with debate, not handcuffs.

Whatever one’s views on Palestine Action, the principle at stake is far larger than any single organisation. It is whether Britain wishes to remain a nation where peaceful political expression is protected by law—or one where it risks becoming a criminal offence.