Understanding Protest and Security: Rights vs. Threats

Protest and security have become interlinked in ways that pose serious risks to civic freedom in the UK. Demonstrators recently displayed a banner during a protest against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) bill on January 15, 2022, in London, UK. The tragic killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis by ICE agents serves as a crucial reminder to the UK Government about the danger of viewing civic action solely as a security issue. This shift undermines civic action as a fundamental right in a democracy.

The UK Government presents itself as a staunch defender of free speech, protest rights, and civic engagement. However, the reality paints a different picture. Democratic participation in both the UK and the United States is increasingly perilous. Human Rights Watch’s recent report, Silencing the Streets, reveals a systemic erosion of protest freedoms in the UK, not through abrupt changes but through gradual shifts that facilitate the policing and penalization of protests, curtailing the right to peaceful assembly.

Legislative And Policy Shifts

Recent legislation, including the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023, has given police extensive powers to limit demonstrations deemed excessively noisy or disruptive, relying on vague definitions. Tactics regarded as peaceful, such as slow marches and carrying banners, are now reclassified as criminal offenses. Arrests for non-violent actions have become more frequent.

Even places of worship, traditionally seen as safe havens for moral leadership and sanctuary, are increasingly viewed as threats. Disturbingly, a peaceful gathering of youth activists addressing climate change and Palestine at a Quaker meeting house in London was forcibly disrupted. Armed officers from the Metropolitan Police reportedly stormed the building, arresting the young women assembled therein.

Paul Parker, the Recording Clerk for Quakers in Britain, noted that no one in recent memory had been arrested in a Quaker meeting venue. This incident highlights how even peaceful discussions in such sanctified spaces are subject to scrutiny.

Faith communities in Minnesota, including Emmanuel Christian Center and the Metropolitan Community Church, have vocally opposed the circumstances surrounding Ms. Good’s death, advocating for peace and justice. In the UK, the designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist organization marks a worrying escalation in the Government's approach to civic dissent. This misuse of terrorism laws to curb legitimate activism has led to over 2,700 arrests, primarily for merely holding signs.

Terrorism Designation and Pre-Trial Detention

In recent years, some governments have increasingly labeled peaceful activism as “terrorism” or a security threat. This approach allows authorities to use anti-terrorism laws to justify restrictions on protests and extend pre-trial detention periods. In the UK, groups like Palestine Action have been proscribed as terrorist organizations, leading to thousands of arrests, primarily for non-violent protest activities. These terrorism laws have enabled authorities to detain activists for extended periods without trial, raising serious concerns about due process and the right to peaceful assembly.

Human Rights Watch reports that many activists under such detention have been held far beyond normal remand limits, with some going on hunger strikes in response to prolonged confinement. UN human rights experts have flagged that these conditions raise significant issues under international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees freedom of assembly and fair trial protections.

Labeling civic dissent as terrorism effectively criminalizes legitimate protest and allows authorities to preemptively suppress activism . Extended pre-trial detention under terrorism statutes restricts civil liberties, undermines democratic participation, and creates a chilling effect on civic engagement, signaling that authorities may treat peaceful protest as inherently threatening.

Lessons From Minneapolis: Civic Action and Security Misframing

The tragic killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis underscores the dangers of framing civic engagement as a security threat rather than a fundamental right. Renee Good was actively monitoring immigration enforcement officers in her Minneapolis community when she lost her life, illustrating the perils associated with civic engagement.

Key lessons from the Minneapolis case for the UK and beyond include:

Civic Participation Must Be Protected: Peaceful protest and community monitoring are essential components of democracy. When authorities equate dissent with danger, they undermine public trust and discourage civic involvement.

Excessive Force Has Deadly Consequences: Use of lethal or militarized tactics against non-violent participants creates preventable tragedies, reinforcing the need for proportionate law enforcement responses.

Precedent of Misclassification: Minneapolis shows how labeling certain activities as threatening can justify extreme measures, including extended pre-trial detention or aggressive policing. This mirrors concerns in the UK, where legislation like the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 has expanded police powers to limit demonstrations deemed disruptive, even when peaceful.

International Implications: Observers abroad, including authoritarian regimes, may cite U.S. responses to justify their own crackdowns. Mismanaging protest as a security issue sets a global precedent that threatens the universality of protest rights.

Structural Accountability Is Key: Independent oversight and transparent investigations are essential to prevent abuse of power. The Minneapolis case illustrates the importance of mechanisms that hold enforcement agencies accountable for actions that endanger citizens exercising democratic rights.

For policymakers and activists, the overarching lesson is clear: when protest and civic engagement are viewed through a security lens rather than a rights-based framework, both individual safety and democratic freedoms are compromised. The UK can learn from Minneapolis by prioritizing protections for assembly, scrutinizing law enforcement actions, and adhering to international human rights standards.

While the focus is currently on Minnesota in the U.S., places like Los Angeles and Chicago showcase a broader pattern of suppressing civil action. Similarly, in the UK, escalating fines and prison terms, along with increasing discretion concerning who may be stopped, searched, or arrested for protests, reflect this flawed mindset at work.

Officials must remember that many rights people enjoy today emerged from protests that were disruptive and controversial, often met with government opposition. Framing those actions as inherently suspicious risks erasing history and undermining the very rights achieved through struggle. The current government would benefit from recalling the role of protest in its own establishment.

Britain must heed the lessons from Minneapolis. When authorities regard civic participation as a threat rather than an exercise of fundamental rights, the risk of abuse of power rises, sometimes with tragic consequences. For more on the erosion of protest rights, explore detailed analyses on sites like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Your Action Plan

Prioritize protecting peaceful protest as a fundamental democratic right, ensuring that demonstrations are not automatically treated as security threats.

Advocate for proportionate law enforcement responses, avoiding excessive force and militarized tactics that endanger civic participants.

Monitor and challenge pre-trial detention practices, particularly under terrorism legislation, to safeguard due process and civil liberties.

Support independent oversight mechanisms for law enforcement agencies to prevent abuse of power during protests.

Raise awareness about the global implications of misclassifying civic engagement, highlighting how such precedents can influence policies abroad.

Encourage policymakers to review legislation, such as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, to align with international human rights standards.