On 5 October 2025, the Labour Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, announced that police will soon be able to impose restrictions on “repeat” protests. Officers, she said, will have new powers to consider the “cumulative impact” of demonstrations held in the same place and, if they deem it necessary, order organisers to move elsewhere, shorten the event, or reduce numbers.
This is a knee jerk response. The measure follows nearly 500 arrests at a London protest the day before, most for showing support for the now-banned group Palestine Action. Mahmood insists the move is “not a ban, but about restrictions and conditions.” But it is, in truth, another turn of the screw in a decades-long erosion of Britain’s right to protest war and atrocity.
The justification is familiar. Ministers say repeated protests risk leaving Jewish communities “feeling unsafe,” following the killing of two men outside a Manchester synagogue (one by the murderous assailant, another in a hail of police bullets). Few dispute the gravity of that crime, or the need to confront antisemitism. Yet the policy extends a pattern of legislative tightening that has, over the past twenty-five years, made dissent about war steadily more difficult.
The right to protest has not been revoked; it has been systematically debrided – cleanly, bureaucratically, almost imperceptibly.
The process began with the Terrorism Act 2000, passed by Tony Blair’s Labour government before the attacks of September 11th but expanded in their wake. This granted police the power to stop and search individuals without suspicion in designated zones. Intended for counter-terrorism, it was soon used against anti-war demonstrators and peace campaigners. In 2005, an 82-year-old Labour delegate, Walter Wolfgang, was dragged from the party conference for heckling the Foreign Secretary over Iraq and detained under this same law. His crime was dissent.
That same year brought another incision: the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which banned unauthorised protests within one kilometre of Parliament. The legislation was aimed squarely at Brian Haw, the anti-war protester whose ragged camp in Parliament Square irritated ministers and embarrassed the government. Under the new rules, even reading aloud the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq without police approval became a criminal act. Protest near Westminster, once the physical embodiment of public accountability, was now a regulated event.
When the coalition government took office in 2010, it promised to roll back Labour’s excesses. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 did repeal the notorious exclusion zone. Yet it simultaneously banned tents, sleeping gear, and loudhailers in Parliament Square. The long vigils that had defined anti-war activism were thus rendered impossible. What the law gave with one hand, it took with the other. Protest was allowed again, but only if temporary, quiet, and sanitary.
The middle years of the decade brought subtler threats. The Cameron government’s proposed Extremism Disruption Orders in 2015, though never enacted, would have permitted bans on individuals accused of promoting “non-violent extremism”. The ambiguity of that term alarmed civil libertarians. Meanwhile, the surveillance of protesters deepened. Police databases of so-called “domestic extremists” expanded to include environmentalists and peace campaigners. Undercover officers infiltrated anti-war groups as if pacifism itself were subversion.
By the 2020s, the erosion became legislative once again. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 redefined protest as a potential nuisance. It widened police discretion to restrict any gathering—including a lone protest—if it risked causing “serious unease” or “more than minor disruption”. Noise became a justifiable reason for arrest.
A year later, the Public Order Act 2023 introduced a new category of criminal offences aimed at activists: “locking on” to buildings, “tunnelling” to obstruct works, and even carrying equipment that might enable such acts.
The same statute created Serious Disruption Prevention Orders, allowing courts to bar named individuals from attending demonstrations or using social media to promote them. What began as an effort to control climate protests now covers almost any sustained political dissent.
This year’s developments have cut deeper still.
In July 2025, Mahmood’s predecessor, Yvette Cooper, used counter-terror powers to proscribe Palestine Action, a protest network that has targeted British arms factories supplying Israel. The decision was unprecedented: a non-violent protest group listed alongside jihadist and neo-Nazi organisations. Since then, more than a thousand people have been arrested for expressing support for Palestine Action, often by holding placards or chanting slogans. Amnesty International called it an “unprecedented attack on the right to protest.” The United Nations issued a rare rebuke.
Yet Labour presses on.
Now, Mahmood’s new “cumulative impact” doctrine threatens to transform frequency itself into an offence. A protest that recurs too often, say, a weekly vigil outside an embassy or an arms manufacturer, may be deemed excessive and relocated or curtailed. The Home Secretary says she will review existing protest legislation “to ensure powers are sufficient.” It is an ominous phrase.
Liberal Democrats warn that the measure will do little to stop antisemitic hate but much to undermine peaceful assembly.
Powers designed for one crisis are rarely surrendered in the next.
The pattern is clear. Each generation of government inherits the tools of its predecessor and refines them. From Blair’s stop-and-search zones in 2000, to the protest exclusion zone in 2005, to Cameron’s sanitised Parliament Square in 2011, to Johnson’s and Sunak’s public-order acts in 2022 and 2023, to Starmer’s proscription orders and repeat-protest restrictions in 2025, the result is cumulative constraint. The country that once hosted a million-strong march against the Iraq war has become one where citizens risk arrest for saying the names of the dead out loud or for just holding a sign stating that you do not agree with the proscription of a protest group.
Britain’s political class insists this is balance, not suppression. They say democracy requires civility. But democracy is not meant to be always comfortable. It requires friction: the noise of disagreement, the visible discomfort of power confronted in public.
So, when the state decides that a protest has happened “too often” or is “too loud,” it is no longer moderating dissent. It is managing dissent. It is limiting the right to be democratic.
The right to protest war and atrocity is the foundation on which political freedom is built. It is how a citizenry signals that a war fought or armed in its name is not fought or armed in its conscience.
Successive governments have narrowed that freedom in increments: policing sound, place, duration and now repetition. No single measure destroys the right, but together they debride it to the point of amputation.
Britain claims it is a democracy, but how democratic is a place where protest is bounded to such a degree that it loses its weight and, in so doing, its power for reform?
History shows that liberties rarely vanish overnight. They are a death by a thousand cuts – sliced away by “restrictions and conditions,” by bureaucratic euphemisms that sound reasonable in the moment and regrettable in retrospect.
This weekend’s announcement may appear a minor procedural tweak. But it’s cumulative. So, while protest remains lawful, the space for it has been sliced away with every new law that claims merely to tidy it up.
Britain’s long debridement of political dissent has been clean and quiet. This is precisely why it should alarm us.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate