Why we should oppose BBC ban on police protest

---

The forces are trying to ban a previously agreed pro-Palestinian protest outside the BBC in London because they say there are two synagogues in the general area and Saturday is the Jewish Sabbath. There are actually no synagogues on the route, so given the number of synagogues in central London, this decision will mean no Palestinian demonstrations in the West End.

Never mind that the Palestinian movement has used this very route twice in the past sixteen months with police permission, and that there has been no report of intimidation from synagogues. Never mind that the police themselves have repeatedly commented on the problem-free nature of Palestinian demonstrations.

The police’s argument, if that’s not too strong a word, is that what they call the “Jewish community” (a category that excludes the vast number of anti-genocide Jews) feels “intimidated” by the demonstrations.

If this claim had any real basis, it would be a serious concern. But really, the word “intimidated” is doing too much work here.

The definition of harassment is “subjecting someone to aggressive pressure or intimidation.” Synagogues are at least a block away from where the demonstrators are gathering. In response to the call, the police admit that they are not aware of any acts of intimidation, obstruction, aggression, violence or threats of violence against Jews in connection with the pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

When pressed, they claimed that the nature of the harassment was that they “were within earshot of the demonstrators’ shouts.” In any sane world, being around people you disagree with doesn’t qualify as harassment.

there there are serious and passionate disagreements. Ephraim Mirvis, the chief rabbi who is leading calls to ban the demonstrations, has openly praised the appalling and criminal behavior of the Israeli military in Gaza, saying it was “the greatest possible thing that a decent, responsible country could do”. make’.

Looking at the polls, it seems that most people in Britain do not agree with him. Surely all those demonstrating for a ceasefire and genocide express regret with such sentiments. Such is the policy in these tense times. But why is this a police matter?

When asked why they changed their policy and banned the demonstration on a route that had previously been given a green light, police cited the Equality Act’s provisions on freedom of religion and argued that the “cumulative effect” of these protests was having an unacceptable impact on the Jewish community.

This shows an almost surreal lack of sensitivity on the part of the police to use “cumulative community impact” to prevent Palestinians and their supporters from demonstrating, given what is happening in Gaza.

But leaving that aside, what exactly is cumulative impact? The last time the movement gathered on the BBC was almost a year ago. Given that demonstrations do not prevent anyone from entering synagogues, isn’t it too much to ask that Palestinian supporters can protest twice a year outside the BBC on Saturday, the only day suitable for mass marches, at the time of the genocide?

After all, it is widely believed that the BBC was not critical enough in the face of the Israeli attack. Indeed, how Owen Jones has just shownthe BBC’s editorial policy on Gaza is partly determined by someone with clear Israeli sympathies who was “absolutely delighted” to learn he used to work for a CIA unit. In a country that prides itself on its traditional right to protest, shouldn’t people be able to collectively voice their concerns over the public broadcaster?

If the “cumulative effect” argument fails, one must conclude that the level of political pressure on the police to become tougher with the pro-Palestinian movement has actually changed. The police did admit to the organizers of the demonstration that they were under a lot of pressure, including receiving messages from the BBC. Ahead of the decision, the chief rabbi called publicly for the first time for a ban on demonstrations, as well as questions raised in the Greater London Assembly, as well as an open letter from MPs and colleagues to the police calling for a ban. It seems almost certain that this sudden and aggressive change in the police line comes from the government.

In other words, what is happening in the name of the Equality Act is that bogus claims of threats to freedom of religion are being used to try to marginalize a movement that opposes non-Jewish people – hundreds of Jews are taking part in all the demonstrations – but the British establishment’s policy of supporting Israel during genocide

We should not underestimate how serious this is. Reducing a strong political disagreement to perceived communal tension is the last thing any responsible person should be doing in the current political climate. And anyone who values ​​free speech should be concerned that the police are intervening in a public political dispute on the side of the government.

The police sent a formal notice to the organizers that they could be arrested if they called people to demonstrate. It considers a situation where the police will protect the BBC with physical force and arrest demonstrators who represent the majority opinion in Britain marching for peace in the Middle East.

It is encouraging that there was a huge outpouring of protest against the decision of the police. 39 parliamentarians have already condemned the actions of the police, as well as Amnesty International UK, Liberty, War on Want, leaders of thirteen national trade unions and over a hundred other prominent people from actor Mark Rylance to singer Charlotte Church, Michael Mansfield, comedian Alexey Sayle. and world-renowned Palestinian author Susan Abulawa.

The Palestinian movement will hold a march on January 18. Support for our stand is growing. We call on all who believe in freedom to protest to lobby the local MP, to complain of police and BBC and join us on the streets next Saturday. #МыБудемоМарш

Source: Stop the war