At a time when people are grieving and most of the nation is alarmed about antisemitism, it would have been decent and respectful for the organisers of Saturday’s protest against the banning of Palestine Action to postpone it.
However, the organisation called Defend Our Juries has refused a request from the Metropolitan Police to do so. The protest, at which 1,500 people have said they are prepared to be arrested for expressing support for a terrorist organisation, will presumably go ahead.
This is a shame. Worse than that, it is a mistake. Defend Our Juries would have made a more persuasive case for its cause if it had shown that it meant what it said when it condemned the Manchester synagogue murder. It could have done so by observing a period of mourning.
The argument made by Defend Our Juries is that the government was wrong to label Palestine Action a terrorist organisation. That is a reasonable point of view, and the government should have been more forthcoming about the reasons for the ban. But anyone seeking to persuade the undecided ought to be at pains to distance themselves from what certainly was an act of terrorism at the Heaton Park synagogue.
That said, the protesters have the right to be mistaken. Decency and respect are British values, but so too is freedom of speech. Those calling on the home secretary to ban the protest should be resisted.
Shabana Mahmood was perhaps a little feeble in saying that she did not have the power to ban the protest: she ought not to have that power, and if she did have that power, she would be right not to exercise it. She should have said it would be wrong to ban the peaceful expression of unpopular views.
In law, the police have the right to request a ban if they think there is a likelihood of serious disorder. Defend Our Juries insists that its supporters are committed to “non-violent action”. They must be held to their word, and any departure from it must be met with the full force of the law.
We can accept that the organisers of the protest do not intend violence towards the police or counterprotesters. But they, of all people, should be aware of the limits of free speech and that incitement to violence falls outside those limits. They intend to be in Trafalgar Square, after all, because they disagree with the government that support for Palestine Action is, in effect, advocating violence.
They should know, too, that while the majority of demonstrators on other pro-Palestinian protests have been non-violent advocates of a two-state solution in the Middle East, some of their number have held placards or chanted slogans that incite hatred.
The horror of the Manchester synagogue killing should be a reminder that words can have consequences. No one can know precisely why the murderer felt compelled to kill random Jews attending a shul on their holy day, but it seems likely that the language used about the war in Gaza has contributed to racist hatred.
Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, was right to urge people to “dial down the rhetoric” about Israel. The justified criticisms of the Israeli government’s conduct of the conflict must never be allowed to lead to the hatred of Jews as a people.
It would have been better if Saturday’s protesters had shown some sensitivity and understanding of the risks of the conveyor belt on which they stand, of support for the Palestinian cause leading to antisemitism and of antisemitism leading to violence. But, provided that they eschew both violence and incitement to violence, they have the right to free speech.
