Concerns about latest bill and affects on right to protest

January 2026

Liberty and other human rights organisations argue that proposals in this bill, currently going through the Lords, will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

Repeat Protests 

Clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would give police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area. If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues. They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on its size. This means there could be borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before. This won’t just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Since change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament (votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend) this clause is viewed as inhibiting persistent lawful protest.

Face coverings at protests

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings. Police already have the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Protests outside places of worship 

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship. Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This very low threshold could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Regular demonstrations outside Parliament could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

Other amendments 382 A-D would make it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and remove the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest.

CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS

The British Egyptian activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah will not be stripped of his citizenship as, according to the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmoud. His ‘abhorrent’ social media posts of a decade ago do not meet the legal bar for revocation. The necessary criteria would include fraudulent acquiring of citizenship or terrorism charges or links with serious organised crime.

The British government helped secure the activist’s release from years in an Egyptian jail but after his arrival in London from Egypt on Boxing Day, opposition parties called for him to be deported and his citizenship revoked, citing tweets in which he called for Zionists to be killed. El-Fattah who was granted British citizenship while in prison in 2021 through his mother’s birth in the UK, has apologised for past social media posts.

Government sources said the bar on removing citizenship was set high to provide the necessary safeguards. There is a right of appeal against the decision to revoke citizenship. Shamima Begum’s appeal was rejected by the former home secretary Sajid Javid in 2019.

PROTESTS ON BEHALF OF HUNGER STRIKERS

A 500-strong protest was held outside Pentonville prison to express urgent concern at the government’s continued inaction in the face of the imminent death of three remaining hunger strikers of the so-called Filton 24. They have now been on strike for over 45, 59 and 66 days respectively (8 January). 800 medical personnel have signed a letter criticising the government’s handling of the hunger strikers.

Campaigners have called their treatment ‘punishment by process’ since none has yet been charged with a terrorist offence, only with burglary, criminal damage and violent disorder, relating to their entry into a factory run by Elbit Systems, the Israeli arms manufacturer.

While the CPS sets a maximum of six months on remand, the hunger strikers have already been imprisoned without trial since November 2024. Their actions took place before the banning of their pro-Gaza protest group, Palestine Action, a banning which is currently being investigated after an appeal supported by Liberty and Amnesty.

Previous posts:

• Palestine Action centre of the news
• Minutes and Newsletter
• Palestine Action ban lifted: for now
• EU Strategies on Immigration: A Shift in Focus
• Right to protest under threat

---

On 21st January, we are hosting a talk by the author and journalist Peter Oborne about his new book ‘Complicit’. For details see the post about Britain’s role above. It is free with a parting collection.