Is it possible to name a recent policy or decision made by the British government that was not specifically designed to accelerate the country’s decline or cause widespread resentment among the native population? It feels as though every time Keir Starmer or one of his cabinet ministers opens their mouths, we are forced to wave goodbye to another ancient institution or expect an attack on some vital part of British life.
In the past several months alone, there have been attacks on trial by jury, the announcement of digital ID cards, which we subsequently learnt will be imposed by draconian measures, as well as the attempt to introduce sentencing guidelines that almost put native Britons at the bottom of a racial sentencing caste system in their own country—and that is just to name several out of dozens of similar examples. The fact is a simple one: Britain is being abolished from within. And although many European nations are facing similar attacks, it feels most pronounced in Britain, where any notion of the salami-slicer has been replaced by a blunt axe, indiscriminately hacking away at anything before it.
The latest example is the incoming abolition of the freedom to protest. Following the arrest of 500 people participating in the Palestine Action protests last weekend, the British government announced it will grant the police new powers to put conditions on what they call “repeat protests.” These include forbidding the protest from taking place, forcing the event to be held elsewhere, or restricting the duration of the protests.
Notably, the police already possess powers to ban protests if there is a risk of serious public disorder in Britain, which, for many, is already going too far. Yet, the powers granted to the police will go far further than what already exists. From what has been announced by the government, the police will be able to permit or ban protests much more freely than before, with British Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s justification for these measures being so that those residing near ongoing protests can “live their lives without fear.” She further added that large, repeated protests could leave religious communities in Britain “feeling unsafe, intimidated and scared to leave their homes.”
The issue with this is, of course, entirely clear. Some matters are worth protesting about more than once. In fact, it oftentimes requires widespread effort over several months or even years before governments are willing to accept the protestations as valid. What use is protesting if a group of people can only do it once, and for a limited period of time, on the outskirts of a city rather than in the heart of it? How can citizens expect their voices to be heard? A free society does not say to its citizens that they have the right to protest, but only once and only for a duration that the people in power consider fit. That is not freedom, but a licence—and one that will only be granted increasingly sparingly going forward.
This is supported by Mahmood herself, who stated in an interview with the BBC, “I think just because you have a freedom doesn’t mean to say you have to use it at every moment of every day…”
Unfortunately, what Mahmood fails to understand is that you cannot be free to do something if the government can dictate how or when you can do it. The freedom to protest either exists or it doesn’t, and much like freedom of expression, any attempt to restrict or define the confines thereof negates the principle itself. If you are only free to say what the government wants you to say, then that is not freedom of expression; and thus, if you can only protest with the consent of the government and the police, then you are not free to protest.
Furthermore, it would be foolish to believe that the new powers will be used to control protests pertaining to foreign wars, such as Israel and Palestine. They will quickly be used to crush demonstrations by the native population, specifically those organised by Tommy Robinson. There is, in fact, no better current example of “repeated protests” than the regular ‘Unite the Kingdom’ marches, which consistently draw hundreds of thousands of Britons from across the country and currently represent the only means through which the British people can express their frustration. However, the new rules will allow the police to stop these events from taking place, with the likely rationale being that certain religious communities, many of whom already despise Mr Robinson, have been made to feel “unsafe” or “intimidated.”
Could one create a policy that is more likely to invoke the outrage of the British population? If the native population cannot convene in their own capital city once or twice a year to voice its collective opinions and concerns peacefully, then what can it do? And what other options does it have to do so—especially in a country witnessing the arrests of some 12,000 people for social media posts, the most in the world? It almost seems as though the government is doing its utmost to goad the public into doing something far more radical. Yet, by imposing such authoritarian policies, the British government is inadvertently admitting that it is losing control of the country.
Britain has already been teetering on the edge of something big for some time. Speak to any person residing in Britain, regardless of their race or creed, and they will inform you that the entire nation seems uneasy. It’s not a feeling of listlessness; on the contrary, the nation is on the move—or at least is ready to be. Hundreds of thousands of people are already out on the streets protesting, and politics is consistently the predominant subject of conversation among the people. The major problem is that there is currently zero direction. Millions of Britons are ready to do something, but what that ‘something’ is is not obvious. Indeed, the country is ripe for demagoguery. Fortunately, however, that person is yet to arrive.
However, the government’s actions will only seek to expedite such a turn of events—to everyone’s detriment. The situation is bleak, and you would do very well to find anyone who is optimistic about the future. As the Holy Roman Empress Maria Teresa wrote, “People who have no hope have nothing to fear, and are dangerous.” That is what should concern people the most.
You’re Not Free if the Government Holds the Leash
A girl wearing a T-shirt with the words “send them home please protect me” stands with protesters at one of many demonstrations calling for the closure of The Bell Hotel which houses asylum seekers, outside the hotel, in Epping, northeast of London, on August 31, 2025.
Chris J Ratcliffe / AFP
You may also like
How Brussels Unwittingly Bankrolls Hamas
New documents reveal that EU-funded NGOs have been infiltrated by the Islamist terror group.
The EU’s Censorship Regime Is Coming for X—Again
How does Brussels still delude itself into believing there is no free-speech crisis in Europe?
Is the EU Commission Supporting Pakistan’s Authoritarian Regime?
Despite Pakistan’s deteriorating human rights situation, the EU continues its partnership with the country.
Is it possible to name a recent policy or decision made by the British government that was not specifically designed to accelerate the country’s decline or cause widespread resentment among the native population? It feels as though every time Keir Starmer or one of his cabinet ministers opens their mouths, we are forced to wave goodbye to another ancient institution or expect an attack on some vital part of British life.
In the past several months alone, there have been attacks on trial by jury, the announcement of digital ID cards, which we subsequently learnt will be imposed by draconian measures, as well as the attempt to introduce sentencing guidelines that almost put native Britons at the bottom of a racial sentencing caste system in their own country—and that is just to name several out of dozens of similar examples. The fact is a simple one: Britain is being abolished from within. And although many European nations are facing similar attacks, it feels most pronounced in Britain, where any notion of the salami-slicer has been replaced by a blunt axe, indiscriminately hacking away at anything before it.
The latest example is the incoming abolition of the freedom to protest. Following the arrest of 500 people participating in the Palestine Action protests last weekend, the British government announced it will grant the police new powers to put conditions on what they call “repeat protests.” These include forbidding the protest from taking place, forcing the event to be held elsewhere, or restricting the duration of the protests.
Notably, the police already possess powers to ban protests if there is a risk of serious public disorder in Britain, which, for many, is already going too far. Yet, the powers granted to the police will go far further than what already exists. From what has been announced by the government, the police will be able to permit or ban protests much more freely than before, with British Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s justification for these measures being so that those residing near ongoing protests can “live their lives without fear.” She further added that large, repeated protests could leave religious communities in Britain “feeling unsafe, intimidated and scared to leave their homes.”
The issue with this is, of course, entirely clear. Some matters are worth protesting about more than once. In fact, it oftentimes requires widespread effort over several months or even years before governments are willing to accept the protestations as valid. What use is protesting if a group of people can only do it once, and for a limited period of time, on the outskirts of a city rather than in the heart of it? How can citizens expect their voices to be heard? A free society does not say to its citizens that they have the right to protest, but only once and only for a duration that the people in power consider fit. That is not freedom, but a licence—and one that will only be granted increasingly sparingly going forward.
This is supported by Mahmood herself, who stated in an interview with the BBC, “I think just because you have a freedom doesn’t mean to say you have to use it at every moment of every day…”
Unfortunately, what Mahmood fails to understand is that you cannot be free to do something if the government can dictate how or when you can do it. The freedom to protest either exists or it doesn’t, and much like freedom of expression, any attempt to restrict or define the confines thereof negates the principle itself. If you are only free to say what the government wants you to say, then that is not freedom of expression; and thus, if you can only protest with the consent of the government and the police, then you are not free to protest.
Furthermore, it would be foolish to believe that the new powers will be used to control protests pertaining to foreign wars, such as Israel and Palestine. They will quickly be used to crush demonstrations by the native population, specifically those organised by Tommy Robinson. There is, in fact, no better current example of “repeated protests” than the regular ‘Unite the Kingdom’ marches, which consistently draw hundreds of thousands of Britons from across the country and currently represent the only means through which the British people can express their frustration. However, the new rules will allow the police to stop these events from taking place, with the likely rationale being that certain religious communities, many of whom already despise Mr Robinson, have been made to feel “unsafe” or “intimidated.”
Could one create a policy that is more likely to invoke the outrage of the British population? If the native population cannot convene in their own capital city once or twice a year to voice its collective opinions and concerns peacefully, then what can it do? And what other options does it have to do so—especially in a country witnessing the arrests of some 12,000 people for social media posts, the most in the world? It almost seems as though the government is doing its utmost to goad the public into doing something far more radical. Yet, by imposing such authoritarian policies, the British government is inadvertently admitting that it is losing control of the country.
Britain has already been teetering on the edge of something big for some time. Speak to any person residing in Britain, regardless of their race or creed, and they will inform you that the entire nation seems uneasy. It’s not a feeling of listlessness; on the contrary, the nation is on the move—or at least is ready to be. Hundreds of thousands of people are already out on the streets protesting, and politics is consistently the predominant subject of conversation among the people. The major problem is that there is currently zero direction. Millions of Britons are ready to do something, but what that ‘something’ is is not obvious. Indeed, the country is ripe for demagoguery. Fortunately, however, that person is yet to arrive.
However, the government’s actions will only seek to expedite such a turn of events—to everyone’s detriment. The situation is bleak, and you would do very well to find anyone who is optimistic about the future. As the Holy Roman Empress Maria Teresa wrote, “People who have no hope have nothing to fear, and are dangerous.” That is what should concern people the most.
Our community starts with you
READ NEXT
Europeans May Not Love Trump—but Many Agree With Him
De Wever Puts Belgium First Against EU Lawlessness
The Vatican Rejects Female Diaconate, but the Judgment “Is Not Definitive”