Keir Starmer has been passionate in rebutting the critique of modern British speech codes mounted by US rightwingers, most notably JD Vance. Of course we maintain our robust tradition of open debate and tolerance for robust criticism! How could anyone think otherwise? The PM appears to genuinely believe his own assertions on this topic, reflecting his own impoverished understanding of freedom.
But almost every week brings a new demonstration of why he is wrong. The latest illustration of the sorry state of British liberty came this weekend, when the police arrested over five hundred people at a demonstration in London in support of Palestine Action. PA was proscribed under anti-terrorism legislation following an attack by activists on RAF aircraft at Brize Norton earlier in the summer. Since the start of the decade — long before the current war in Gaza — they have carried out sabotage at important sites for weapons and technology manufacturers, notably of Elbit Systems and Leonardo, and various forms of vandalism and criminal damage.
Clearly PA is a profoundly subversive and dangerous organisation — a menace to British national security and to our advanced and successful defence industry. The claim that it is simply another pro-Palestinian advocacy group does not stand up to serious analysis. In her defence of the proscription, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper alluded to advice she had taken from the security services about the danger posed to national interests by the group, and suggested that the threat was worse than might be expected from current media reports. Apparently, there are ongoing criminal cases and investigations involving PA, limiting the amount of information that can be shared about their actions.
The PA proscription itself is therefore potentially defensible. There are, however, thornier questions about both the grounds on which the decision was made, and how the state ought to balance the right to free assembly and free speech with its interest in protecting British infrastructure. The 2000 Terrorism Act is quite wide-ranging in the powers it gives the state to suppress terrorist groups: it is an offence to offer practically any sign of support for a proscribed group, as well as to be a member of one or arrange its meetings, hence the huge Met operation to take into custody those who declared their support.
That makes sense in the context of, say, the Provisional IRA or the various Islamist terror organisations. Palestine Action, by contrast, is arguably not in quite the same category as those groups, given that — so far, at least — they have not targeted individuals, either military or civilian. They are subversives, even traitors, rather than terrorists (the fact that British elites are no longer comfortable talking of treachery and subversion is itself rather interesting).
That seems to justify viewing support for the organisation in a somewhat different light than support for straightforwardly murderous factions, and therefore to raise a sceptical eyebrow at the mass arrests that took place over the weekend. To do so does not require sympathising with those who were detained by the Met — the crowd had a preponderance of the kind of existentially bored catastrophising Boomers who also dominate climate action groups. It does require considering the wider context in which those arrests are taking place, i.e. of a flailing and unpopular government, careless of British liberties of association and thought, hostile to normal law-abiding Britons, but still fully in control of highly politicised police forces whose officers are mostly uninterested in the maintenance of a truly free society.
Consider the recent wave of protests across provincial England against the settlement of large groups of unknown foreign men in small communities, and the inevitable resulting crime and disorder. It is far from inconceivable that if these demonstrations continue, or spread, a panicky establishment will try to suppress them, perhaps cobbling together a case that they are an organised threat to public order or national security, or that they are inciting racial hatred. The precedent of Palestine Action would probably be used. We can imagine the kind of rhetoric Sir Keir might employ — tough choices … respect … a small minority of troublemakers … no tolerance for racism … advice from the police — and another nail in the coffin of our open society will have been hammered home.
The concern that a piece of loosely-drafted law and order legislation … will have its scope gradually widened by an unscrupulous government, is hardly unjustified
Possibly I’m wrong. Maybe the position of supporting the proscription of PA, while having qualms about the enforcement of that proscription, is incoherent, though it is perfectly reasonable to say that a specific law has good parts and bad parts, or to lament that the law does not allow the authorities to take a more carefully tailored approach. But the concern that a piece of loosely-drafted law and order legislation, originally designed to target a specific problem or group, will have its scope gradually widened by an unscrupulous government, is hardly unjustified. Think of the 1986 Public Order Act, or the 2003 Malicious Communications Act, which are regularly used by the police against individuals who have supposedly caused “offence”, “alarm” or “distress” by the mere expression of opinion or disagreement. It is a cliché that we should guard the civil liberties of those we find irritating or absurd as closely as we guard our own, in order to firmly restrict the powers of government, but that does not make it any less true.
