British Minister: 'Just Because You Have a Freedom Doesn't Mean You Have To Use It'
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is moving to ban protests that annoy the public.

The British government has a very peculiar definition of freedom. In a Sunday interview with the BBC explaining new restrictions on protest, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood implied that freedom is something the public shouldn't exercise freely if it bothers others. And the sentiment is bipartisan.
"This is not about a ban. This is about restrictions and conditions," Mahmood said. "Just because you have a freedom doesn't mean you have to use it at every moment of every day," she added.
She added that police will have to strike a "balance" between "allowing people to protest, which is an ancient freedom in this country" and "the rights of the wider community to go about their business free from intimidation and fear."
Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, agreed with her rival, telling the BBC in a separate interview that "we believe in free speech, but that has to be within the bounds of the law. If protests are used to intimidate, to incite hatred, then that is not protest." Last year, the courts struck down anti-protest laws passed by a previous Conservative government.
Under Mahmood's new protest regulations, police will be able to move, reschedule, or limit the size of protests based on the "cumulative disruption" caused by similar protests. In other words, if a movement is annoying enough to the powers that be, they can push it off the streets.
These restrictions will be enforced under the Public Order Act of 1986, which allows for six-month jail sentences and/or unlimited fines for violators.
The immediate context of the restrictions is an attempt to crack down on pro-Palestinian unrest. The British government designated Palestine Action a terrorist organization in July 2025 after its members vandalized military equipment allegedly destined for the Middle East. Under British law, even expressing verbal support for terrorism is illegal, and hundreds of people have been arrested protesting in favor of Palestine Action.
After a deadly stabbing attack on a synagogue last week, Prime Minister Keir Starmer called on protesters to stop in order to "respect the grief of British Jews." On Saturday, police arrested 500 people in London for protesting under banners that supported Palestine Action.
But the British government has also cracked down on anti-Palestinian speech. For example, police arrested and interrogated Yorkshire man Pete North in late September for sharing a meme several months ago that said, "Fuck Palestine. Fuck Hamas. Fuck Islam. Want to protest? Fuck off to Muslim country and protest." He was released without charge.
That crackdown seems to be a response to race riots in the summer of 2024, sparked by a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment. Starmer blamed social media for the violence. Earlier this year, British police charged anti-immigration activist Tommy Robinson for "harassment" over his actions during the unrest.
And the authorities have gone after causes across the political spectrum. Last year, a British court acquitted schoolteacher Marieha Hussain for "racially aggravated" public disorder after she was photographed holding up a placard that depicted Conservative Party politicians Suella Braverman and Rishi Sunak as coconuts, meaning that they were "brown" on the outside and "white" on the inside.
Last month, British police snatched up Irish comedian Graham Linehan at the airport for a post he made about punching trans people "in the balls." Last year, a British court convicted anti-abortion activist Adam Smith-Connor for silently praying outside a clinic, a case that U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance brought up in a speech attacking "the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values."
British police arrest an average of 30 people per day for offensive online content, according to data obtained by The Times. Arrests have been rapidly increasing—police arrested twice as many people over their posts in 2023 than in 2017—even as convictions fall.
Although the progressive Labour Party currently holds power, some dissidents on the left are worried about the speech crackdowns, especially as polls project a blowout for Nigel Farage's right-wing Reform Party in the 2029 election.
"Street protest that isn't a bit of a nuisance isn't usually effective. But any government seeking to further restrict it should think about new powers in Farragist hands," Labour peer Shami Chakrabarti told The Guardian.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
She is against freedom of speech for White Christians. Full stop. Muslims. She is 100% fine with.
This is why you can’t have chicks in charge.
Agreed.
The Brits colonised first!
More of those benefits of multiculturalism, it seems.
It seems Paki grooming rape gangs are freer speech than those who object.
Britain is done...stick a fork in it.
which
iswas an ancient freedom in this country"FTFY
All the stories have been told
Of kings and days of old
But there's no England now
"British Minister: 'Just Because You Have a Freedom Doesn't Mean You Have To Use It'."
1. Good to know this fascist sow hates freedom.
2. Ask me again why I'm glad my ancestors leftist this fascist rock centuries ago.
And the sentiment is bipartisan.
You morons realize that even in our own Constitution, Freedom of Speech is only 1/4 Freedoms listed in the 1A and isn't among the two explicitly identified as 'rights', correct?
That an explicit and literal interpretation (as well as good faith, "spirit of the law" interpretation) of the 1A is that the *RIGHT* of peaceable assembly supersedes the freedom to disrupt such assembly. That the only thing the 1A forbids WRT speech is Congress passing laws regulating it (and even at that you fuckers have consistently undermined your stance and exposed your retardation by supporting Section 230).
You aren't any better than the Brits. You just use a different set of words and order of operations by which to ignore violent disruption and call it "mostly peaceful".
I was about to call you a moron, but I checked the First Amendment first ...
Yup, only two are expressly labeled a "right".
Very strange wording. I smell lawyers. They fuck up everything.
Very strange wording. I smell lawyers. They fuck up everything.
Again, critically, even in spirit.
I'm not particularly making the argument that peaceable assembly is a right and free speech isn't a right, but the words are there. I'm making the argument, clearly in alignment with libertarian principles, that someone gluing themselves to a public street doesn't clearly trump someone else's ability to get to work and that people's ability to set their own shit on fire in a public space of a public university doesn't trump and is arguably inferior to a class full of students who just want to get to lecture on time.
The only way this is even remotely quizzical is if you're a moronically self-defeating Homer Simpson-style free speech absolutist.
+ one-thousandty percent!!
Properly understood, no Right may be properly exercised in any manner that interferes with or commits aggression against the Equal Rights of others.
I'll say whatever I goddamn well please.
Freedom to protest should also include freedom from protest; you should absolutely have the right to make your beliefs or grievances known, just as I should have the right to go about my business without being unduly hindered by it.
"This is not about a ban. This is about restrictions and conditions," Mahmood said. "Just because you have a freedom doesn't mean you have to use it at every moment of every day,"
I agree. A "freedom" does not require anyone to do anything. A "freedom" does prohibit YOU from doing anything. Now go fuck off.
If people followed the money then it would lead to China and others who oppose individual rights, freedom and liberty.
They will fund anything that can potentially disrupt and derail western society.
Afterall a broken fractured and unorganized society is easiest conquered.
police arrested and interrogated Yorkshire man Pete North
That probably got messy.
During interrogation, he spilled everything.
Did he make a straight up confession?
'Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood'
Stop right there.
Oh, and they DO NOT have this freedom, along with many others enumerated for US people. Their economy is collapsing, and they are moving back to irrelevance.
Great Britain is no longer great, and it is no longer a free country.
Which is why we should have no military support for Britain.
"the rights of the wider community to go about their business free from intimidation and fear."
Doing things that cause reasonable people intimidation and fear was illegal for centuries. Therefore the new laws must make it illegal to do things that make unreasonable people afraid or intimidated, which is basically anything.
Why does America continue to have American troops, military equipment and bases in that shit hole? Time to pack up and leave. They can go it alone.
The same holds for NATO and the rest of Europe, especially the E.U.
Get U.S. out, Mr. Trump!
In Britain one can be arrested for the crime of wrong think and bad speak. There are more than 3300 British citizens sitting in prison for the crime of bad speak. Does this sound like a free nation?
The Prime Minister is a child molesting pedo jew who was placed in power by other jews to destroy what's left of Britain and bring about a Bolshevik style communist government complete with gulags and summary executions.
Trump needs to shutter every single military base in Britain and Europe.