Suella Braverman has accused the police of “double standards” in the way they handle protests – after Rishi Sunak conceded that a pro-Palestine march on Armistice Day will go ahead.
The home secretary has sharply criticised the Metropolitan Police in an op-ed for The Times newspaper – saying there is “a perception that senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protesters”.
It comes after Mr Sunak described Saturday’s planned march in London as “disrespectful”.
The prime minister met the chief of the Metropolitan Police on Wednesday afternoon – and had vowed to hold Sir Mark Rowley “accountable” for his decision to greenlight the demonstration.
Sir Mark had resisted calls to try and block a march taking place – and said that, after looking at intelligence, the legal threshold for a ban had not been met.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:27
The Prime Minister says he’ll hold the Met Police chief ‘accountable’ over a planned protest on Armistice Day
Ms Braverman once again described pro-Palestinian protesters as “hate marchers” – writing that it is “a phrase I do not resile from”.
More on Israel-hamas War
Related Topics:
That is despite numerous government ministers saying they would not use such language.
She wrote that the marches are “problematic, not just because of violence around the fringes but because of the highly offensive content of chants, posters and stickers”.
Advertisement
She added: “This is not a time for naiveté. We have seen with our own eyes that terrorists have been valorised, Israel has been demonised as Nazis and Jews have been threatened with further massacres.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:36
The Home Secretary Suella Braverman has criticised pro-Palestinian protests in London
Ms Braverman went on to say that the “heart of the matter” is that she does not “believe that these marches are merely a cry for help for Gaza” but “an assertion of primacy by certain groups – particularly Islamists – of the kind we are more used to seeing in Northern Ireland”.
“Also disturbingly reminiscent of Ulster are the reports that some of Saturday’s march group organisers have links to terrorist groups, including Hamas,” she added.
Claiming that a double standard exists within the Met, she asked: “Right-wing and nationalist protesters who engage in aggression are rightly met with a stern response yet pro-Palestinian mobs displaying almost identical behaviour are largely ignored, even when clearly breaking the law?”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:04
Pensions minister Laura Trott distances herself from Braverman’s comments
Calling for protests to be policed “even-handedly”, the home secretary also questioned why protests for Black Lives Matter were allowed to go ahead during the COVID pandemic, while “lockdown objectors were given no quarter by public order police”.
In words seeming to pile pressure onto Sir Mark Rowley, she concluded: “This weekend the public will expect to see an assertive and proactive approach to any displays of hate, breaches of conditions and general disorder.”
In response to Ms Braverman’s article, Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, described her as “out of control”
She wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter: “Her article tonight is a highly irresponsible, dangerous attempt to undermine respect for police at a sensitive time, to rip up operational independence and to inflame community tensions.
“No other home secretary of any party would ever do this.”
And the Liberal Democrats have accused her of “running a Conservative Party leadership campaign, not the Home Office”.
Sunak labels pro-Palestine march ‘disrespectful’
In a statement earlier today following a meeting with Met Police chief Sir Mark Rowley, the prime minister conceded that the protest this weekend will go ahead.
He said in a statement: “Saturday’s planned protest is not just disrespectful but offends our heartfelt gratitude to the memory of those who gave so much so that we may live in freedom and peace today.
“But part of that freedom is the right to peacefully protest. And the test of that freedom is whether our commitment to it can survive the discomfort and frustration of those who seek to use it, even if we disagree with them. We will meet that test and remain true to our principles.”
He added: “It’s welcome that the police have confirmed that the march will be away from the Cenotaph and they will ensure that the timings do not conflict with any remembrance events.
“There remains the risk of those who seek to divide society using this weekend as a platform to do so. That is what I discussed with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in our meeting.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:20
The Prime Minister ‘politicking’ over pro-Palestine protest says Ben Jamal.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer had accused Mr Sunak of “cowardice” for “picking a fight” with the police.
He tweeted: “Remembrance events must be respected. Full stop.
“But the person the PM needs to hold accountable is his home secretary. Picking a fight with the police instead of working with them is cowardice.”
Downing Street denied seeking to put pressure on the Met, which is operationally independent, and insisted the meeting was about “seeking assurances” that their approach is “robust”.
The Met has said its officers were already preparing for remembrance events over the weekend and “we will do everything in our power to ensure that people who want to mark the occasion can do so safely and without disruption.”
Organisers say protest will be ‘well away’ from Cenotaph
Tens of thousands have demonstrated in London in recent weeks over Palestinian deaths in the Israel-Hamas war – with 29 arrested during a fourth week of protests last Saturday, during which fireworks were thrown.
Organisers of this Saturday’s protest say it will be “well away” from the Cenotaph – going from Hyde Park, around a mile from the war memorial in Whitehall, to the US embassy – and won’t start until after the 11am silence.
Several cabinet ministers have spoken out about the situation, with Health Secretary Steve Barclay telling Sky News that 11 November was the “wrong day” for protest action in London.
He said: “There is a legal threshold and the commissioner is of the view that that legal threshold has not been met.
“Obviously, the Home Office and colleagues will discuss that over the course of the day.”
Labour MPs who are opposed to legalising assisted dying believe the momentum is swinging behind their side of the campaign, Sky News has learnt.
MPs are currently weighing up whether to back a change in the law that would give terminally ill people with six months to live the choice to end their lives.
At a meeting in parliament on Wednesday, Sky News understands Labour MPs on the opposing side of the argument agreed that those who were undecided on the bill were leaning towards voting against it.
One Labour backbencher involved in the whipping operation for the no camp told Sky News: “The undecideds are breaking to us, we feel.”
The source said that many of those who were undecided were new MPs who had expressed concerns that not enough time had been given to debate the bill.
“They feel they are too new to be asked to do something as substantive as this,” they said.
Issues that were being brought up as potential blocks to voting for the legislation include that doctors would be able to suggest assisted dying to an ill patient, they said.
The source added: “We were elected to sort the NHS out rather than assisted dying.
Advertisement
“And there is no going back on this – if any doubt, you should vote it out.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:30
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater discusses End of Life Bill
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, put forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, is due to be debated on 29 November, when MPs will be given a “free vote” and allowed to vote with their conscience as opposed to along party lines.
In a recent letter to ministers, Cabinet Secretary Simon Case said the prime minister had decided to “set aside collective responsibility on the merits of this bill” and that the government would “remain neutral” on its passage and the matter of assisted dying.
There has been much debate about the bill since its details were published on Monday evening, including that the medicine that will end a patient’s life will need to be self-administered and that people must be terminally ill and expected to die within six months.
Ms Leadbeater, who has the support of former government minister Lord Falconer and ChildLine founder Dame Esther Rantzen, believes her proposed legislation is the “most robust” in the world and contains safeguards she hopes will “reassure” those who are on the fence.
They include that two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and that a High Court judge must give their approval.
The bill will also include punishments of up to 14 years in prison for those who break the law, including coercing someone into ending their own life or pressuring them to take life-ending medicine.
She has also argued the fact terminally ill patients will have to make the choice themselves and administer the drugs themselves “creates that extra level of safeguards and protections”.
However, several cabinet ministers – including Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who would be responsible for the new law – have spoken out against the legislation.
The health secretary warned that a new assisted dying law could come at the expense of other NHS services – and that there could be “trade-offs” elsewhere.
Sky News understands Ms Leadbeater has said she is “disappointed” by Mr Streeting’s comments about the bill.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:03
Tory MP: ‘Impossible’ for assisted dying bill to be safe
And another Labour MP who is voting for the legislation told Sky News they believed Mr Streeting had “overstepped the mark”.
“I think it’s a bit of a false exercise,” they said.
“It’s definitely going to raise eyebrows – it’s one thing to sound the alarm but he is purposefully helping the other side.”
The MP said that while it did feel “the momentum is moving away from us, a lot of it will come down to the debate and argument in the chamber”.
“Some of the scaremongering tactics might backfire,” they added.
“It’s still all to play for but it’s undoubtedly true the other side seems to be making headway at the moment.”
A source close to Mr Streeting told Sky News: “Wes has approached this issue in a genuine and considerate way, setting out his own view while respecting others’ views.”
As a private member’s bill that has been put down by a backbencher rather than a government minister, the legislation will not receive as much time for consideration as a government bill – but proponents say it can always be amended and voted down at later stages.
At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Tory MP Sir Alec Shelbrooke questioned whether enough time had been set aside to debate the bill and urged Sir Keir Starmer to allow two days, or 16 hours, of “protected time” to “examine and debate” the legislation before the vote.
Sir Keir replied: “I do think there is sufficient time allocated to it but it is an important issue.”