the repeat nature, it's the cumulative effect
In the wake of a terror attack that left two Jewish men stabbed in Golders Green, Britain finds itself weighing one of democracy's oldest tensions: the freedom to dissent against the duty to protect. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has signaled that some pro-Palestinian marches may need to be curtailed, citing not any single incident but the accumulated weight of repeated demonstrations on a community that says it no longer feels safe. The question now before the country is not simply one of law, but of what a society owes to those who feel endangered by the exercise of others' freedoms.
- A stabbing attack in Golders Green, declared a terror incident, has sharpened a debate that was already raw — Jewish communities say they are living under a sustained and worsening threat.
- PM Starmer has broken from cautious language, openly suggesting that some protests may need to be banned outright, not just more tightly policed — a significant shift in tone from a government that has long defended the right to demonstrate.
- The government's own review of public order and hate crime law, commissioned after a fatal synagogue attack in Manchester, remains unpublished months past its deadline, leaving a policy vacuum at a moment of acute pressure.
- Civil liberties groups and opposition voices on the left warn that banning protests sets a dangerous precedent, while Conservatives and Reform UK push for an even harder line — leaving the government squeezed from both directions.
- Police already hold powers to restrict or ban marches, but such bans are rare and require home secretary approval; new legislation is expected to expand those powers, though whether it will translate into greater safety remains deeply uncertain.
Two Jewish men were stabbed in Golders Green in late April in what police declared a terror incident — the latest in a series of violent attacks targeting Jewish people in Britain. The attack has ignited a fierce debate about the limits of protest and the obligations of the state toward a community that says it feels under siege.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer, speaking on BBC Radio 4, went further than before in suggesting the government may need to ban certain protests outright. He pointed not to any single march but to their cumulative effect — the repeated weight of demonstrations, one after another, on Jewish people's sense of safety. "I accept that," he said of the community's concerns, "which is why we intend to deal with cumulative effects." He also singled out chants like "globalise the intifada" as dangerous and said they should be prosecuted.
The government had already commissioned a review of public order and hate crime legislation following a fatal attack outside a Manchester synagogue, but that review remains unpublished. In the interim, the government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation called for a moratorium on pro-Palestinian marches, arguing it was "clearly impossible" for such protests to avoid antisemitic language. The Chief Rabbi added his voice, saying the marches had cultivated a "tone of Jew hatred" in Britain.
The response has not been without pushback. Civil liberties advocates and organizers of previous marches condemned antisemitism but rejected any link between the demonstrations and violent attacks. The Greens and Jeremy Corbyn's party warned against eroding civil liberties; the Conservatives and Reform UK demanded a harder line still. The government finds itself pulled in opposing directions, holding existing legal powers it has rarely used while preparing new ones whose effect remains unknown.
Two Jewish men were stabbed in Golders Green, north London, on a Wednesday in late April. Police declared it a terror incident. It was the latest in a series of violent attacks targeting Jewish people, and it has set off a sharp debate about where Britain draws the line between the right to protest and the safety of a community that says it feels under siege.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer, speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, suggested the government may need to ban some protests outright. When asked whether he wanted stricter policing of language at marches or whether he wanted to stop certain demonstrations altogether, he said both approaches were on the table. "I think certainly the first, and I think there are instances for the latter," he said. He emphasized that he would always defend the right to peaceful protest, but he was troubled by what he called the "cumulative" effect of repeated marches on the Jewish community—the weight of them, one after another, wearing on people's sense of safety.
The government had commissioned a review of public order and hate crime legislation last year, following a separate attack outside a synagogue in Manchester that killed two Jewish people. That review was supposed to report back in February but has not yet been published. In the meantime, Jonathan Hall, the government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, called for a moratorium on pro-Palestinian marches. He argued it was "clearly impossible" for such protests not to contain some antisemitic or demonising language. Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis echoed the call for a temporary ban, telling the BBC that the marches had contributed to a "tone of Jew hatred within our country."
Starmer acknowledged the concern. "In relation to the repeated nature of the marches, many people in the Jewish community have said to me, it's the repeat nature, it's the cumulative effect," he said. "Now, I accept that, which is why we intend to deal with cumulative effects." When pressed on whether some protests needed to stop altogether, he said: "We need to look at what further powers we can take."
The prime minister also singled out specific chants for criticism. He called slogans like "globalise the intifada"—based on an Arabic word for uprising—"very dangerous" to the Jewish community and said they should be prosecuted. The term intifada gained currency during the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation beginning in 1987. Jewish groups have interpreted it as a call for violence against Jewish people, while pro-Palestinian groups have described it as a call for peaceful resistance. In December, the Metropolitan Police and Greater Manchester Police said they would arrest people using the slogan in chants or on placards.
But Starmer's suggestions have drawn sharp criticism from civil liberties advocates. The Stop the War Coalition, which has helped organize previous marches, condemned all forms of antisemitism and racism but said it was "wrong" to connect the demonstrations to attacks on Jews. The Green Party and Jeremy Corbyn's Your Party have warned that the response to the attacks should not restrict civil liberties. On the other side, the Conservatives and Reform UK have called for the government to take a harder line on the demonstrations.
Under current law, police forces in England and Wales can restrict protests by stipulating a route or an end time. They can apply to ban marches outright if they believe these powers are insufficient to prevent "serious public disorder," but such bans require approval from the home secretary and are rarely used. Starmer also addressed criticism from the Jewish community that the government had not done enough to protect them. He acknowledged that many Jews were "feeling very scared" and pointed to enhanced police security in areas like Golders Green, which he said had been in place for some time. The government has also announced increased funding for protecting Jewish communities.
What emerges is a government caught between two urgent claims: the right to protest and the safety of a community that says it is under threat. The review of public order legislation, whenever it arrives, will likely propose new powers. How those powers are used—and whether they will actually make anyone safer—remains to be seen.
Citas Notables
I think certainly the first, and I think there are instances for the latter— PM Keir Starmer, on whether to tighten policing of march language or ban some protests altogether
It is clearly impossible at the moment for the protests not to incubate within them some sort of antisemitic or demonising language— Jonathan Hall, government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
When the PM says "cumulative effect," what does he actually mean? Is he saying the marches themselves cause violence, or something else?
He's saying the repeated nature of the protests creates a climate that wears on the Jewish community—a sense that they're being targeted, that their safety is not being prioritized. It's not necessarily a direct causal claim about the marches causing the stabbings. It's more about the psychological and social weight of seeing the same demonstrations happen again and again.
But that's a tricky argument, isn't it? Couldn't you say the same about any protest that makes a group uncomfortable?
Absolutely. That's why the civil liberties groups are pushing back so hard. If you ban protests because they make a community feel unsafe, you've essentially given any group with enough political power a veto over dissent. The government is trying to thread a needle—protecting Jewish safety while not opening the door to banning protests wholesale.
What about the specific chants he mentioned—"globalise the intifada"? Is that actually a call for violence?
That's where the disagreement is sharpest. Jewish groups say yes, it's a call for violence against Jewish people. Pro-Palestinian groups say it's about resistance to occupation. The language itself is contested, which makes it hard to legislate. You're essentially asking the state to decide what a phrase means, and different communities will always disagree.
So the review of public order legislation—what's that likely to propose?
We don't know yet, but given what Starmer said, it probably includes new powers to restrict or ban protests based on their cumulative effect, not just individual incidents. That's a significant shift from how protest law has worked. It moves from "this specific march will cause disorder" to "these marches, taken together, are harmful."
And the attacks themselves—are they connected to the marches, or is that a false link?
The government and Jewish leaders are saying there's a connection—that the marches create a climate in which antisemitism flourishes. Critics say that's scapegoating the protesters for the actions of individuals. The truth is probably that both things are happening: there are real attacks, and there are real concerns about antisemitic rhetoric at some protests. But whether banning the marches would actually prevent the attacks is an open question.