Tag Archives: police

Palestine Action arrests threaten all our rights

Posted on by symonhill

I wrote the following article for the Church Times, who published it on 29th August 2025.

The Vice-President of the United States, J. D. Vance, has reiterated his claim that free speech is under threat in the UK. Any valid points that he might have about the policing of abortion protests are undermined by his failure to mention that hundreds of people are being arrested for supporting Palestine Action (PA).

The banning of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act had only just come into force last month when footage went viral of the arrest of the 83-year-old priest the Revd Sue Parfitt at a protest. After less than two months, the number of those arrested in connection with PA has exceeded 700. Among them are clergy of at least four denominations.

PA was banned after its members broke into RAF Brize Norton to damage weapons. But the people accused of entering Brize Norton have been arrested under existing laws, as have other PA members. The ban does not target PA’s activists, but those who publicly agree with them. It criminalises opinions.

Most people who have been arrested so far have carried signs that read “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” I wonder whether I would be arrested for a sign that read “I broadly support Palestine Action, but think some of their tactics are misguided.” I easily could be. The first five words are illegal.

The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, has doubled down. She claims that many PA supporters do not understand the nature of the group. So, why criminalise such apparently ignorant people? She says that court restrictions prevent her revealing “the full nature of this organisation”. In other words: trust the people with power: they know more than you do. I doubt whether this sort of request will work.

 PA was founded in 2020, when I was on the staff of the Peace Pledge Union (PPU), Britain’s leading pacifist group. One of PA’s two founders is a PPU member. Impeding the arms industry has been the core of PA’s activity. The group’s critics label its members as violent. But, whatever the rights or wrongs of destroying property, the word “violent” surely refers to harming a living being. To describe the destruction of weapons as violent is to give property the same value as people.

Only the most grotesque priorities can lead ministers to condemn damage to weapons while continuing to supply those weapons to regimes that bomb children.

It is when they have deviated from targeting arms production that PA’s members have lost support. When they daubed paint and scrawled graffiti on Rico House in Manchester, protesting against Israeli landlords, their target was far from obvious to people working in rented offices there, many from the mostly Jewish local area. Whatever their intention, PA gave the impression that they were targeting Jews rather than genocide. This deterred potential Jewish supporters, and led to criticism from PA sympathisers who were keen to combine opposition to Israeli aggression in Gaza with resistance to anti-Semitism.

When it comes to targeting weapons, however, widespread revulsion against genocide in Gaza has increased support for PA just as they have been banned.

Nonetheless, it is possible to disagree completely with PA, even to want its activists imprisoned, and still to oppose the group’s proscription under the Terrorism Act. Mass arrests for expressing opinions are a threat to all our rights

“I was there to bear witness to the call of Jesus to stand with those who are being silenced,” said the Revd Dr Sally Mann (pictured), a Baptist pastor arrested in London on 8 August. Passionately opposed to British arms sales to Israel, she said that she would be just as opposed to arming Hamas.

Like several other clergy, Dr Mann received support from her congregation. The morning after the Roman Catholic priest Fr John McGowan was arrested, he was applauded at mass; but, when he had arrived at the demonstration the day before, he heard someone calling out “Where are the church leaders? Why aren’t they saying anything?”

Several bishops and denominational leaders have condemned the supplying of arms to Israel, but have avoided mentioning the ban on PA.

Among non-churchgoers, the reaction is quite different. Look at social-media footage of Ms Parfitt’s or Dr Mann’s arrests and you will see comments from people saying that their perception of Christianity has improved. They have heard people speaking of Jesus as their reason for standing against genocide and risking arrest.

If this discovery leads them to attend a church, will they find the same enthusiasm for justice and peace?

Sixty people already face trial for supporting PA. More than 300 prominent British Jews have called for the PA ban to be reversed. The Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, Plaid Cymru, and several politicians, are backing Amnesty International and Liberty in calling for a review of terrorism legislation.

Silent bishops and denominations will face a choice as their own members stand trial for their beliefs. They can ignore one of the biggest issues facing us today; or they can bless those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. As Dr Mann puts it, “It is costly, but we need to call out genocide and war crimes no matter who commits them. Jesus shows us how to do this.”

My book, The Peace Protestors: A history of modern day war resistance (Pen & Sword, 2022) can be bought online from the Church Times Bookshop.

Backlash continues over police raid on Quaker Meeting House

Posted on by symonhill

Churches Together in England (CTE) have become the latest organisation to criticise the police raid on Westminster Quaker Meeting House.

CTE are a bit late to the party, given that a full two weeks passed between the raid on 27th March and the CTE statement on 10th April. Nonetheless, given that CTE includes Christians with such a range of views, and that as a body it’s not exactly known for progressive positions, the statement is very welcome.

CTE have asked for a meeting with the Metropolitan Police and called for “an appropriate review by the police and its accountability structures”. While police “accountability structures” are weak to the point of barely existing, it would be interesting to see what comes out of a meeting between CTE, the Quakers and the Metropolitan Police.

If you’re not yet aware of this incident: at least 20 police broke down the door of Westminster Quaker Meeting House on the evening of 27th March. They swarmed through the building and arrested six young women attending a welcome talk by the nonviolent protest group Youth Demand.

Police also entered the other rooms in the building, including a room being used by a life drawing class and – staggeringly – a room hosting a private counselling session.

Youth Demand is not a Quaker group. However, they share with many Quakers a commitment to nonviolent direct action, in this case over climate change and war in Gaza.

Quaker Meetings were frequently broken up by the authorities in the seventeenth century. Now as then a place of worship has been attacked by violent representatives of the state seeking to stop peaceful people from acting on their conscience.

There has been coverage of the Meeting House raid in many places, including on the front page of the Sunday Times on 30th March. Personally I have written about it for the Morning Star and for Premier Christianity.

Other critics of the police raid on the Meeting House include Christian Aid, the Green Party, several MPs and members of the House of Lords and even Jacob Rees-Mogg.

The much shorter list of people who have refused to condemn or even question the raid includes Yvette Cooper, the Labour Home Secretary.

Police raid Quaker place of worship hosting campaign group’s welcome talk

Posted on by symonhill

On Thursday 27th March, at least 20 police officers broke down the door of a place of worship in central London and arrested young people who belong to a peaceful protest group.

New anti-protest laws have in recent years allowed the police to become ever more heavy-handed and anti-democratic in their approach to protest. Raids on people who are planning direct action – and not even doing it – have become more common.

Nonetheless, the police attack on Westminster Quaker Meeting House (pictured right) is particularly alarming for several reasons.

Firstly, the event was described by Youth Demand as a “welcome talk“ that was “publicly advertised”, to discuss protests against the genocide in Gaza. In other words, this event was open to anyone. That includes people with no experience of taking part in, or even talking about, civil disobedience or direct action. Anybody who went along out of interest may very likely be frightened of attending any political meeting again. This is police intimidation.

Secondly, it seems you can now be raided for having conversations about actions that you might take. Given that this was a welcome meeting, it is disingenuous for the police to imply that everyone there was in the middle of some sort of high-level planning of mass disruption. The police comment given to the media focused on what “Youth Demand have stated” their intentions to be. This is very different to everyone present being intent on taking part in such things. Given that the police raided other Youth Demand members’ homes in London and Exeter, it seems that they were attempting not only to arrest certain members of Youth Demand but also to intimidate all the others.

Thirdly, the police have raided a place of worship. Apologists for the police have been quick to jump on social media and point out that the people arrested were not Quakers (or at least, probably not Quakers). This is irrelevant. Quakers have a strong theology of not separating the “sacred” and the “secular”, so they do not believe their buildings to be more sacred than other places. This is also irrelevant, however. Religious groups expect their buildings to be places of safety and welcome; those who visit them should be able to expect this (speaking personally, Westminster Quaker Meeting House was a great place of welcome and community to me after I nervously moved to London 20 years ago). Westminster Quaker Meeting House is also the home of two Quaker wardens, who have now experienced the violation of their home by the police.

The police are clearly abandoning the sort of sensitivity and caution that might once have made them reluctant to break into a place of worship. A statement from Quakers in Britain described the incident as “an aggressive violation of our place of worship”.

Of course, this whole incident cannot be understood without the context of the genocide in Gaza, which is enabled by Keir Starmer’s government. Like the Tory government before them, they are happy to arm Israeli troops killing civilians in Gaza and Saudi troops killing civilians in Yemen – and many other vicious regimes around the world. The young people arrested in Westminster Quaker Meeting House were not planning violence. They were seeking to resist violence.

This police raid seems fairly clearly to be an attempt to deter people from taking part in Youth Demand’s upcoming protests. For this reason if for no other, let’s make sure we support them! Tessa, a member of Youth Demand speaking outside Bromley Police Station yesterday insisted that “this blatant act of intimidation by the Met Police” would not stop them.

Among other things, it is vital that religious groups condemn the police’s behaviour and their violation of free speech, freedom of assembly and religious liberty. This time it was a Quaker Meeting House. Next time it could be a church, mosque, temple or synagogue.

Royalists failed to silence me – but free speech remains in danger

Posted on by symonhill

I wrote the following article for the Morning Star, who published it in today’s issue (11th March 2025).

Two and a half years after throwing me in the back of a police van for opposing the monarchy, Thames Valley Police have admitted that I was wrongfully arrested.

I am pleased and relieved of course. But I am also acutely aware that most people who are unlawfully arrested receive little or no publicity and are not in a position to take legal action against the police.

I was able to do so only because of Liberty, whose excellent lawyers advised and represented me. I was helped, practically and emotionally, by a wide range of friends, comrades and strangers.

But this is not about me. It never was.

It is about the rights of all people to speak out, to express themselves, to challenge the powerful, to refuse to bow down, to assert the dignity and equality of all humans.

Leaving church in September 2022, I found myself amid crowds of people trying to negotiate their way around town despite roads being closed for a ceremony declaring Charles Windsor to be king.

I remained silent as the High Sheriff of Oxfordshire read out expressions of grief for Elizabeth Windsor.

But then he declared Charles to be our king and “rightful liege lord.” I called out “Who elected him?”

A couple of people told me to shut up. I said that a head of state was being imposed without our consent.

I might well have left it there. But three security guards came over and told me to be quiet. With no sense of irony, they stood menacingly right in front of me and said they were asking me “nicely” not to express my views.

When I asserted my right to speak, they began to push me backwards. I briefly feared that I would be knocked over.

The police intervened — not to arrest the security guards for assaulting me, but to arrest me for expressing my views. I was forcibly led away and handcuffed.

I will forever be grateful for two people — complete strangers to me — who followed us down the road. They repeatedly asked the police why I was being arrested. They said they didn’t agree with me but they thought Britain was a “free country.”

The police contradicted themselves several times about which law I had been arrested under.

I was called back for a police interview and told that one of the security guards had alleged that I had assaulted him. This was a reversal of the truth.

Three months after my arrest, I was charged with breaking the Public Order Act 1986 through behaviour likely to cause “harassment, alarm or distress.”

Two weeks later, the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the charges, saying there was little prospect of conviction.

On the same day that I was arrested, a 22-year-old woman in Edinburgh — who has preferred to remain anonymous — was arrested while peacefully holding an anti-monarchy placard. Shortly afterwards, Paul Powlesland was threatened with arrest in London if he wrote “not my king” on a piece of paper.

When it came to the coronation, Graham Smith and other staff at Republic were arrested as they arrived to set up for a lawful demonstration. The police used powers that had been rushed into law less than a week earlier.

After my arrest, I was taken aback by the level of media interest. I received hundreds of supportive messages, dozens of abusive messages and a few death threats. Andrew Schraeder, a Conservative councillor in Basildon, tweeted that I should be sent to the Tower of London.

I also heard from many other people who had been wrongly arrested, or otherwise mistreated by the police, who had received far less publicity than me.

Several anti-monarchists were arrested at the royal wedding in 2011. We all know how anti-protest legislation has been used against nonviolent anti-war and climate campaigners. And I have lost count of the number of protests I have attended in which black and Asian people have been the first to be questioned or arrested.

Certain cases of appalling police behaviour at least make the news, such as the vile police assault on a vigil mourning Sarah Everard in 2021. At other times, police behaviour receives little attention. A homeless woman in Oxford told me of how she had been beaten up in the back of a police van. She did not, of course, have the resources to take legal action.

Yet it is rightwingers — including some on the extreme right — who misleadingly present themselves as defenders of free speech.

This claim reached the heights of absurdity when JD Vance criticised Britain for a lack of free speech, with an outrageous lie about people in Scotland being prevented from praying in their homes.

Similar claims about the suppression of free speech are made by Nigel Farage — a far-right multimillionaire who receives excessive media coverage in inverse proportion to the coherence of his arguments.

Far-right types on social media claim to be upholding “free speech” when they want an excuse to peddle racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and other doctrines that demonise their fellow human beings.

Meanwhile, various celebrities claim that they are being “cancelled” when voluntary organisations such as students’ unions decide not to invite them to speak.

Vance, Farage and their gang do not of course mention the arrests of peaceful people resisting war, monarchy or climate change. The excessive prison sentences for Just Stop Oil and Palestine Action campaigners receive no criticism from them.

It is not the rich and powerful whose free speech is threatened. Free speech is under threat in Britain because police are arresting and charging people for nonviolent protest and the expression of opinions. Unlike Vance and Farage, most people have limited power to do much about it.

But as every socialist and trade unionist knows, we all have more power when we act together. Now is a vital time for the left to seize the narrative and take back the cause of free speech from the hatemongers.

In demanding our rights to freedom of speech, we assert the reality that we have equal value to the kings, presidents, generals and billionaires who are so keen to be heard while expecting the rest of us to shut up. Let’s make sure they know that shutting up is the last thing we will be doing.

Reform UK’s MPs are ready to justify violence – whether it’s carried out by the police or used against them

Posted on by symonhill

It has not taken long for the five MPs from Reform UK to reveal themselves as a gang of far-right thugs in suits.

Nigel Farage has spent much of the last two days denying that he stoked up the racist violence in Southport on Tuesday. The reality is that Farage recorded a video only hours before the violence began in which he challenged the police’s statement that the murders of children were “not terror-related”.

Farage told his viewers:

“I just wonder whether the truth is being withheld from us. I don’t know the answer to that.”

Farage is right about one thing: he does not know the answer to that. He knows no more about this horrendous attack than most of us do – which is very little. He also knows that despite saying he does not, know, his comments were likely to be heard as strongly implying that the truth is indeed being withheld from us.

Yesterday, he defended himself on GB News, claiming that the police should have been clearer about the identity of the murderer. Disgracefully, Farage claimed:

“That’s what led to the riots last night. That’s what led to people being outside that mosque in Southport. You know, sometimes just tell the public the truth and you might actually stop riots from happening.”

If Farage is implying that people would not have attacked a mosque if they had known the murderer was not a Muslim, then he is in effect suggesting that it would have been acceptable to attack a mosque if the killer were a Muslim.

Reform UK leader’s reluctance to believe police statements contrasts remarkably with Reform UK’s attitude when a police officer was filmed jumping on a suspect’s head as he lay prone on the floor in Manchester airport last week.

Reform MPs rushed to defend the police involved, saying that police officers had been viciously attacked, including by the person whose head one of them later jumped on.

They missed the point that nobody was defending violent assaults on police officers. But Reform MPs defended equivalently vile behaviour – because it was done by police officers. There is no context in which it is acceptable to kick and jump on someone who is lying prone on the floor, whatever that person has done.

Tice went so far as to post a photo of a young police officer with blood on her face, claiming she had been attacked by the men in Manchester Airport. The picture turned out to have been taken in Leicestershire four years ago.

A week later, this demonstrably false photo is still on Tice’s Twitter feed.

Tice, however, must cede the award for most ludicrous response to his fellow Reform MP (and former Tory MP) Lee Anderson – the man known for telling refugees to “fuck off”, telling anti-monarchists to emigrate and telling people in poverty that it is possible to cook a meal for 30 pence.

Anderson didn’t just try to shift the focus away from police violence. He actively welcomed the violence. He wrote on Twitter:

“The vast majority of decent Brits would applaud this type of policing. We are sick of the namby pamby approach. Time to back our boys in blue.”

This is the first time I have known the phrase “namby pamby” used to mean “not jumping on people’s heads”. Anderson (as usual) cites no evidence that “the vast majority of decent Brits” are in favour of police assaulting suspects as they lie prone on the ground.

But Anderson surpassed even himself in his comments in a BBC interview, saying:

“The message I am getting loud and clear from my constituents is they are fed up with seeing police dancing around rainbows and being nice to people and running off from rioters. They want police to do their job, and I think these police yesterday should be commended. In fact, I’d give them a medal.”

You might need to read that again. The most shocking statement from Anderson is not that he wants to give a medal to people engaged in a violent assault. It is that the police behaviour to which he objects include “being nice to people”.

Yes, he really said that. He said his constituents are fed up with seeing police “being nice to people”.

What an outrageous way to behave – being nice to people. This is a party whose MPs defend people who engage violence against a man lying prone on the floor, but who object if those same individuals are being nice to people.

Reform’s enthusiasm for the police suddenly changed, however, when it came to the horrific murders of children in Southport on Monday.

With the Manchester airport incident, Tice, Anderson and their mates had taken it for granted that everything said about the suspects’ attacks on police was true. Now it may well be true, but it’s worth noting that they did not even stop to consider whether it was.

In contrast, the police statements that they do question are not those involving the disputed details of a violent incident but factual statements about an arrested individual.

The police in Southport said that the individual they have arrested is 17 and was born in Cardiff to parents from Rwanda. Today a court ordered that his name be made public. The police have said the incident is not “terror-related”, which I think is a bizarre expression but basically seems to mean that the motivation was not an attempt to bring about political change.

While I have little or no faith in the police, the police statements that seem to me to be most likely to be accurate are those concerning the age, nationality and so on of suspects.

This has not stopped far-right types claiming on social media that the killer is a Muslim and/or an asylum-seeker. But as he was born in Cardiff, he literally cannot be an asylum-seeker. A Rwandan family is pretty unlikely to be Muslim. Even if he were Muslim, this would not take away from the reality that Muslims in Southport are as appalled as anyone else by the horrific murders of children.

Farage’s language about the truth being withheld played directly into the hands of those who claimed that the basic factual statements about the arrested individual are not true. Reform MPs were too late to undo their damage when they took to social media on Wednesday morning to condemn the violence in Southport the previous night.

Within less than a month of Reform UK gaining five MPs, they have revealed the reality that they side with violent thugs – whether those thugs are attacking police officers, or are police officers themselves.