The Crime and Policing Bill now being discussed covers a great many topics; each topic is then garlanded with many amendments, making it what’s known apparently as a ‘Christmas tree’ bill. What concerns us today is the clause that intends to curtail pro-Palestinian marches. See below the Jewish Bloc for Palestine statement and the speech by John McDonnell condemning the clause, plus the actual text of the clause in question.
Jewish Bloc for Palestine Statement on the Crime and Policing Bill
Tue 14 Oct 2025
The Jewish Bloc has existed for some years, gaining in numbers since October 2023. It gives a collective identity to the very large numbers of Jewish participants in the National Marches for Palestine. The Jewish Bloc is one of many ways in which British Jews have come together to campaign for an end to the genocide in Gaza. On any weekend, on any day of the week, there are political events organised by Jews – talks, meetings, vigils – all across the UK.
There is widespread popular revulsion against Israel’s genocide in Palestine. This is true among Jews as it is in other social groups. The Jewish Bloc have mobilised contingents on the marches numbering from hundreds to a thousand or more. These marchers have included the religiously observant and the resolutely secular; youngsters and pensioners; Ashkenazis and Sephardis and Jews of colour.
The Crime and Policing Bill currently before Parliament incorporates in Clause 124 the establishment of “new police powers to protect worshippers from intimidating/intimidatory protests”. The clause empowers the police to restrict or ban protests near “mosques, churches and other religious sites”. But it is clear that the new powers have one specific target – marches in support of Palestine that can be asserted by a police officer to be “in the vicinity” of a synagogue.
Transparently the powers proposed in this clause are a government response to an active campaign to paint the National Marches for Palestine as ‘hate marches’ that should be banned. Synagogues and their worshippers are now being deployed as arguments to eliminate the most effective expression of popular opposition to what Israel has been doing in Gaza. Yet there is zero evidence beyond rhetorical assertion that the marches are antisemitic in character, or that synagogues or worshippers are in need of protection.
The Jewish Bloc has been an integral part of all of these marches since 2023. We can attest from our own personal experience that there is nothing here that Jews need to be protected from. In the context of the enormous size of, now, thirty marches the reported instances of any kind of antisemitic behaviour have been vanishingly small. The slogans, the banners, the chants are certainly highly critical of Israel, outraged even. But the anger expressed is not directed at Jews as a social, ethnic or religious group. It is directed at Israel – a state committing state crimes.
We are aware that calls for measures to restrict protest around places of worship have come from a variety of interest groups, including those who claim to represent the Jewish community. These bodies do not represent us in the Jewish Bloc, or any of the growing proportion of Jews appalled by Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people. The Jewish community is diverse, and attempts to flatten this diversity behind a single communal voice misrepresents who we are.
Freedom of opinion, assembly and speech used to be cherished in Britain. They need to be maintained and protected. Clause 124 of this Bill does the opposite, without any evidence to support its supposed justification.
Action based on these new powers should they become law will depend purely on a police perception – namely that some worshippers may feel intimidated by an assembly or procession, regardless of its actual character. As Amnesty International said when the bill was published “It is enough for police officers to consider that a protest ‘may’ intimidate someone into not accessing a place of religious worship.” We know that when police are given powers to restrict protest, they are invariably abused.
In January this year, the Metropolitan Police imposed an exclusion zone that prevented that month’s Palestine March from approaching the BBC’s HQ. The reason given was the supposed (but greatly exaggerated) proximity of the Central Synagogue. This restriction protected the BBC, not Jewish worshippers.
Protest against a state currently engaging in genocide is a righteous act. It was Jewish lawyers, Lemkin and Lauterpacht, who in the aftermath of the Second World War developed the concepts of genocide and of crimes against humanity. Respected international bodies up to and including the United Nations now find Israel clearly in breach of the international conventions that resulted. The Jewish Bloc urges the removal of Clause 124 from this bill. It is the crimes committed by Israel against the Palestinians, not the demonstration of opposition to them, that should be prevented.
Comment by Jewish Voice for Liberation:
· The Crime and Policing bill currently before Parliament incorporates in Clause 124 the establishment of “new police powers to protect worshippers from intimidating/intimidatory protests”.
· House of Lords second reading debate is on 16 October
· No evidence beyond rhetorical assertion that the National Marches for Palestine are antisemitic in character, or that synagogues or worshippers are in need of protection from them.
· Synagogues and their worshippers are now being deployed as arguments to eliminate the most effective expression of popular opposition to what Israel has been doing in Gaza.
· Protest against a state currently engaging in genocide is a righteous act. It was Jewish lawyers, Lemkin and Lauterpacht, who in the aftermath of the Second World War developed the concepts of genocide and of crimes against humanity.
2. The Crime and Policing Bill has completed its House of Commons stages and the House of Lords second reading will be on 16 October. The Bill covers many topics. Part 9 covers Public Order, Chapter 2 of part 9 covers police powers relating to protests and assemblies. Clause 124 covers Places of worship: restriction on protests
3. The long title of the Bill reads:
A Bill to make provision about anti-social behaviour, offensive weapons, offences against people (including sexual offences), property offences, the criminal exploitation of persons, sex offenders, stalking and public order; to make provision about powers of the police, the border force and other similar persons; to make provision about confiscation; to make provision about the police; to make provision about terrorism and national security, and about international agreements relating to crime; to make provision about the criminal liability of bodies; and for connected purposes.
4. In the Commons Committee stage debate on the introduction of this clause the shadow minister while welcoming the clause asked the following questions :
How will she ensure that new clause 88 {now clause 124] strikes the right balance between protecting freedom of religion and upholding the right to protest under articles 9, 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights?
What guidance will be provided to the police to assess whether a protest “may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness”?
How will subjectivity be mitigated to avoid arbitrary enforcement?
Has the Home Office identified particular recent incidents that demonstrate a pressing need for the power?
How frequently does the Minister expect it to be used?
None of these questions received a serious answer
There was no opposition to this clause at Committee stage
5. At House of Commons Report Stage, John McDonnell made a detailed critique of the clause which concludes
“I urge the Government to think again about clause 114 [now 124], and to see whether they could clarify some of the definitions, bring forward guidance and maybe halt the Bill’s implementation until there has been a much more thorough consultation with a wider section of the community. We all want the democratic right of protest upheld; I have never heard anyone in this House argue against that. However, we want that done in a way that does not cause harm to anyone, or deny people their democratic right to express their opinion. In this coming period, given international affairs, we will see more demonstrations, so it is important to get their management right through more effective legislation.
The Minister’s entire response was:
The clause will allow the police to impose conditions on a protest near a place of worship if the police have a reasonable belief that the protest may deter individuals from accessing the place of worship for religious activities, even if that effect is not intended. That gives the police total clarity on how and when they can protect places of worship, while respecting the right to peaceful protest.
Which addressed not one of the detailed points made in the critique
Actual wording of Clause 124:
(c)
in the case of a procession in England and Wales, the
procession is in the vicinity of a place of worship and may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness with the result that those persons are deterred from—
(i)
accessing that place of worship for the purpose
of carrying out religious activities, or
(ii)
carrying out religious activities at that place of
worship,”.
(3)
John McDonnell’s speech opposing this clause :
The Government do not cite in the explanatory notes the issue in clause 114 of restriction on protests at places of worship. In all the national demonstrations in London that have taken place, there has never been an incident outside a place of worship. Concerns have been expressed by some groups, but largely, I think, they have been by groups who have motivations other than concerns about public order.
In the negotiations with the Metropolitan police on each demonstration that has taken place, there has been a long discussion in which the route is identified, and usually there is overall agreement to avoid any areas that could be seen as contentious and could provoke a reaction. Even when a place of worship, such as a synagogue, has been some distance from the demonstration, the organisers have tried to ensure not just proper stewarding, so that the demonstration does not go anywhere near it—usually, it has to be 10 or 15 minutes’ walking distance away—but that the times of services are avoided as well.
Interestingly, until recently there had never been a problem, but the police seem to have hardened their attitude, I think as a result of coming under pressure from organisations that might simply not want the protest to go ahead in any form because they take a different attitude to what is happening in Gaza and
I am concerned that not only are we trying to solve a problem that does not exist, but it could be solved in better ways. I am also worried about the drafting of the legislation. Clause 114 has the phrase:
“the procession is in the vicinity of a place of worship”.
We need clarity on what “in the vicinity” means. In the negotiations on the last demonstration, the protestors wanted to march to the BBC, and the police were concerned about a synagogue that was 10 or 15 minutes’ walk away. The protest organisers said, “Fair enough—we’ll make sure that the protest doesn’t go anywhere it if there is a service going on, so no one feels in any way anxious about that.” However, the wording of the clause is open to interpretation, and that interpretation is often done by police officers, who come under intense pressure from people who might have different motivations from those who are worrying about public order.
The other issue is that the clause refers to a procession that
“may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness”.
I have no idea what “reasonable firmness” means; in fact, I have not seen that term in legislation before. It may well have come up in court, and that may have set the precedent, but I have no idea what it is. In fact, I would not be able to determine whether Members stood with reasonable firmness on any issue, because that changes with time and with the circumstances.
I worry that if interpretation of these terms is left so loosely in the hands of police officers, they are put in an impossible position when it comes to these definitions and how they implement the measures. For a long time, while demonstrations have been going on, the police have tried to consult as best they can, yet even that demonstrates how contentious these issues can become. For instance, they have consulted the Jewish communities, but there are real arguments within that community about who represents them. The Board of Deputies of British Jews, which is normally consulted, represents an element of the Jewish community but certainly not the majority—and that board is now split, with 36 members contradicting the position of the majority. Other Jewish groups have not been consulted—or have only recently have been consulted—and they have expressed their concerns about how the police are making the decisions.
I tabled an amendment to delete clause 114 because I want to get on the record some of the facts around the issues. There have not been problems relating to places of worship on any of the national demonstrations. There is a procedure for negotiating routes and avoiding disturbance, which has worked pretty well until very recently. Also, before such legislation is produced, we need a great deal more consultation with a much wider community. The clauses leaves open the definition of “vicinity” and “reasonable firmness”, and opens up a system that is more difficult to implement than the current system, in which negotiations take place in an atmosphere of good will.
I worry about this legislation, and I hope that in the other place we might get clearer definitions, if nothing else. Before then, we might even get much more detailed guidance from the Government on how the Bill will be implemented; otherwise, it will cause more divisions, rather than settling some of the problems that some people perceive. I think some simply want to stop the protests. In my view, stopping them would undermine people’s democratic rights, and it would lead to people taking action in different ways. I would rather we channelled their concerns—and sometimes, yes, their anger—into forms of protest that are manageable, and a more constructive expression of people’s views.
Before the Bill reaches the other place, I urge the Government to think again about clause 114, and to see whether they could clarify some of the definitions, bring forward guidance and maybe halt the Bill’s implementation until there has been a much more thorough consultation with a wider section of the community. We all want the democratic right of protest upheld; I have never heard anyone in this House argue against that. However, we want that done in a way that does not cause harm to anyone, or deny people their democratic right to express their opinion. In this coming period, given international affairs, we will see more demonstrations, so it is important to get their management right through more effective legislation.
By the time the bill reached the Lords, that provision had been renumbered to Clause 124 (places of worship: restriction on protests). Peers did debate it at Second Reading on 16 Oct 2025, with speakers explicitly referencing “Clause 124” and its effect on protests near places of worship. Hansard
For what comes next: the Lords Committee Stage (line-by-line)—where Clause 124 would be probed in detail—is scheduled to begin 10 Nov 2025. bills.parliament.uk
Labour Affairs 