It’s time for Parliament to re

For many years, and certainly since the terror attacks in London in July 2005, there have been attempts to frame laws that balance the right to free expression against the threat that such latitude poses to the security of the nation or individuals within it.

After the weekend march in London by pro-Palestinian supporters demanding the extirpation of Israel, questions are being asked once again: is the balance right or do the police need more powers?

Why was such an inflammatory march allowed to take place when it appeared to have been designed not only to support Palestine but also to intimidate Jews? The Metropolitan Police can withhold permission for demonstrations if they think there is a risk to public order but decided not to do so. It is not a lack of power but a willingness to use it that is at issue.
Similarly, the police did not arrest people waving flags that seemed to show allegiance to Islamist organisations like Isis. Again, they could have done so but chose not to.

They also allowed members belonging to an Islamist group called Hizb ut-Tahrir to demand a “jihad” on the specious grounds that the word could be interpreted in a number of ways. Many people would think that it was a threat given the context, but the police decided to ignore it and have a word with the perpetrator. Once more, no new laws were required.

Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, held talks with Sir Mark Rowley, the Met Commissioner, to discuss the way our laws are being used and whether they give the police sufficient clarity. Downing Street said that there would be no new legislation yet the interpretation of existing public order measures is clearly a problem.

Sir Mark feels that his officers responded correctly and that the protesters could not be prosecuted under existing laws. He previously authored a review that found extremists were able to operate with “impunity” and incite hatred because of the “gaping chasm” in British legislation. Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, said there were “gaps in the law” that had to be plugged though without identifying what they were.

If the law is inadequate then the Government should bring forward proposals to address the shortcomings, and do so as a matter of urgency. Parliament needs to deal with the menace of Islamist extremism once and for all.