Close Menu
Market Data Newsletter
Friday, May 15
Global Free Speech

There have been calls for pro-Palestine protests to be banned following attacks on Jewish communities. Photo: orlando britain/Alamy Since the shocking attacks on members of the Jewish community in Golders Green, north London on Wednesday, there have been calls to ban future marches in support of Palestinians, including from Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer on terrorism legislation. It sounds like a reasonable demand. There have been expressions of antisemitism on these marches and political slogans are often chanted that many believe to be antisemitic, such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as well as the phrase “Globalise the intifada”, which has led to arrests for stirring up racial hatred and which the prime minister described as “extreme racism”  following the attacks. However, this proposal is unwise for a number of reasons. The Jewish community needs protection, but so does the right to protest. It was significantly eroded by the last Conservative administration and Keir Starmer’s Labour government has already displayed an authoritarian zeal to limit free speech, including new powers that will allow police to put conditions on repeat protests, which became law in April. While this demand for a ban may appear to be targeting hate speech, and in this case specifically antisemitism, it would prevent legitimate and necessary protest. More than 70,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since 7 October 2023 and settler attacks in the West Bank have resulted in multiple deaths and thousands of Palestinians being displaced from their homes. Protest is an essential means of demonstrating public outrage at these events and solidarity with Palestinians. Nor will banning marches diminish the alarming growth in antisemitism, which has become normalised since 7 October. I have myself witnessed a new licence in disparaging Jews and Judaism in public life to a degree that I have never previously observed. It is as if a taboo has been broken. No distinction is made between the actions of Israel and a diaspora minority – not only by the individuals who commit these acts of violence, but even by apparently peace-loving people who would consider themselves to be opposed to racism. This attitude towards Jews has a long history. The belief that the Jewish people are intrinsically evil and out to undermine society dates back to medieval times in England, when they were the most visible minority in the country. That connection between Jews and wrongdoing is so deeply ingrained in our culture (from Chaucer through to Shakespeare, Dickens and Roald Dahl) that anti-Jewish feeling is easily triggered. So, when the Jewish state commits war crimes, it’s the ancient, irrational charges that surface once again: Jews as bloodthirsty child killers seeking to control the world. That’s why the distinction between Jews and Israel is so readily blurred. You don’t stamp out that deep cultural antipathy by banning a march. Instead, you marginalise Palestinians, who are in essential need of international support. You undermine a fundamental democratic right and you fail to address the root causes of antisemitism. You also deny the possibility for a nuanced discussion. I have sympathy with fellow Jews who feel that the chants on marches are hostile and racist. But “Globalise the intifada” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are political slogans open to interpretation. The Arabic word intifada, or shaking off, is an expression of rebellion against Israeli occupation that dates back nearly 40 years. After nearly 60 years of oppression, supporters of Palestinians have every right to call for it in solidarity. Likewise, “From the river to the sea” could be interpreted as a legitimate call for self-determination or for a one-state solution, which an increasing number of Jews are now calling for too since there is no possibility of a two-state solution in sight. We need to have the courage and vision to support the Jewish community without destroying a fundamental and necessary right. It is Jews who will ultimately be harmed too, as members of the UK population, if the right to protest is further eroded. READ MORE

News RoomBy No Comments4 Mins Read195 Views
There have been calls for pro-Palestine protests to be banned following attacks on Jewish communities. Photo: orlando britain/Alamy Since the shocking attacks on members of the Jewish community in Golders Green, north London on Wednesday, there have been calls to ban future marches in support of Palestinians, including from Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer on terrorism legislation. It sounds like a reasonable demand. There have been expressions of antisemitism on these marches and political slogans are often chanted that many believe to be antisemitic, such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as well as the phrase “Globalise the intifada”, which has led to arrests for stirring up racial hatred and which the prime minister described as “extreme racism”  following the attacks. However, this proposal is unwise for a number of reasons. The Jewish community needs protection, but so does the right to protest. It was significantly eroded by the last Conservative administration and Keir Starmer’s Labour government has already displayed an authoritarian zeal to limit free speech, including new powers that will allow police to put conditions on repeat protests, which became law in April. While this demand for a ban may appear to be targeting hate speech, and in this case specifically antisemitism, it would prevent legitimate and necessary protest. More than 70,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since 7 October 2023 and settler attacks in the West Bank have resulted in multiple deaths and thousands of Palestinians being displaced from their homes. Protest is an essential means of demonstrating public outrage at these events and solidarity with Palestinians. Nor will banning marches diminish the alarming growth in antisemitism, which has become normalised since 7 October. I have myself witnessed a new licence in disparaging Jews and Judaism in public life to a degree that I have never previously observed. It is as if a taboo has been broken. No distinction is made between the actions of Israel and a diaspora minority – not only by the individuals who commit these acts of violence, but even by apparently peace-loving people who would consider themselves to be opposed to racism. This attitude towards Jews has a long history. The belief that the Jewish people are intrinsically evil and out to undermine society dates back to medieval times in England, when they were the most visible minority in the country. That connection between Jews and wrongdoing is so deeply ingrained in our culture (from Chaucer through to Shakespeare, Dickens and Roald Dahl) that anti-Jewish feeling is easily triggered. So, when the Jewish state commits war crimes, it’s the ancient, irrational charges that surface once again: Jews as bloodthirsty child killers seeking to control the world. That’s why the distinction between Jews and Israel is so readily blurred. You don’t stamp out that deep cultural antipathy by banning a march. Instead, you marginalise Palestinians, who are in essential need of international support. You undermine a fundamental democratic right and you fail to address the root causes of antisemitism. You also deny the possibility for a nuanced discussion. I have sympathy with fellow Jews who feel that the chants on marches are hostile and racist. But “Globalise the intifada” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are political slogans open to interpretation. The Arabic word intifada, or shaking off, is an expression of rebellion against Israeli occupation that dates back nearly 40 years. After nearly 60 years of oppression, supporters of Palestinians have every right to call for it in solidarity. Likewise, “From the river to the sea” could be interpreted as a legitimate call for self-determination or for a one-state solution, which an increasing number of Jews are now calling for too since there is no possibility of a two-state solution in sight. We need to have the courage and vision to support the Jewish community without destroying a fundamental and necessary right. It is Jews who will ultimately be harmed too, as members of the UK population, if the right to protest is further eroded. READ MORE

Listen to the article

0:00
0:00

Since the shocking attacks on members of the Jewish community in Golders Green, north London on Wednesday, there have been calls to ban future marches in support of Palestinians, including from Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer on terrorism legislation. It sounds like a reasonable demand. There have been expressions of antisemitism on these marches and political slogans are often chanted that many believe to be antisemitic, such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as well as the phrase “Globalise the intifada”, which has led to arrests for stirring up racial hatred and which the prime minister described as “extreme racism”  following the attacks.

However, this proposal is unwise for a number of reasons. The Jewish community needs protection, but so does the right to protest. It was significantly eroded by the last Conservative administration and Keir Starmer’s Labour government has already displayed an authoritarian zeal to limit free speech, including new powers that will allow police to put conditions on repeat protests, which became law in April. While this demand for a ban may appear to be targeting hate speech, and in this case specifically antisemitism, it would prevent legitimate and necessary protest. More than 70,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since 7 October 2023 and settler attacks in the West Bank have resulted in multiple deaths and thousands of Palestinians being displaced from their homes. Protest is an essential means of demonstrating public outrage at these events and solidarity with Palestinians.

Nor will banning marches diminish the alarming growth in antisemitism, which has become normalised since 7 October. I have myself witnessed a new licence in disparaging Jews and Judaism in public life to a degree that I have never previously observed. It is as if a taboo has been broken. No distinction is made between the actions of Israel and a diaspora minority – not only by the individuals who commit these acts of violence, but even by apparently peace-loving people who would consider themselves to be opposed to racism.

This attitude towards Jews has a long history. The belief that the Jewish people are intrinsically evil and out to undermine society dates back to medieval times in England, when they were the most visible minority in the country. That connection between Jews and wrongdoing is so deeply ingrained in our culture (from Chaucer through to Shakespeare, Dickens and Roald Dahl) that anti-Jewish feeling is easily triggered. So, when the Jewish state commits war crimes, it’s the ancient, irrational charges that surface once again: Jews as bloodthirsty child killers seeking to control the world. That’s why the distinction between Jews and Israel is so readily blurred.

You don’t stamp out that deep cultural antipathy by banning a march. Instead, you marginalise Palestinians, who are in essential need of international support. You undermine a fundamental democratic right and you fail to address the root causes of antisemitism.

You also deny the possibility for a nuanced discussion. I have sympathy with fellow Jews who feel that the chants on marches are hostile and racist. But “Globalise the intifada” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are political slogans open to interpretation. The Arabic word intifada, or shaking off, is an expression of rebellion against Israeli occupation that dates back nearly 40 years. After nearly 60 years of oppression, supporters of Palestinians have every right to call for it in solidarity. Likewise, “From the river to the sea” could be interpreted as a legitimate call for self-determination or for a one-state solution, which an increasing number of Jews are now calling for too since there is no possibility of a two-state solution in sight.

We need to have the courage and vision to support the Jewish community without destroying a fundamental and necessary right. It is Jews who will ultimately be harmed too, as members of the UK population, if the right to protest is further eroded.

Read the full article here

Fact Checker

Verify the accuracy of this article using AI-powered analysis and real-time sources.

Share.

The FSNN News Room is the voice of our in-house journalists, editors, and researchers. We deliver timely, unbiased reporting at the crossroads of finance, cryptocurrency, and global politics, providing clear, fact-driven analysis free from agendas.

Related Articles

Global Free Speech

LEFT: Still from the film Dhurandhar which came out in India in 2025, directed by Aditya Dhar. Photo: COLLECTION CHRISTOPHEL © B62 Studios – Benetone Films – Jio Studios/Alamy This article first appeared in the Spring 2026 issue of Index on Censorship, The monster unleashed: How Hungary’s illliberal vision is seducing the Western world published on 2 April 2026.  Salim Mirza, played by one of India’s greatest actors, Balraj Sahni, stands on the wide platform of Agra railway station, as he waves goodbye to his sister and her children who are leaving for Karachi. India has been partitioned overnight but Mirza’s love for Agra, his home city, holds him back. He’s not like most of his fellow Muslims who are leaving en masse in search of a life they presume will be free from discrimination. As the story unfolds, Mirza’s small shoe manufacturing business endures spiralling losses, heightening his dilemma, but eventually Mirza decides to stay, braving the harsh realities of post-independence India. Garm Hawa (Scorching Winds), made in 1974, is one of the greatest Hindi films on Partition and the geo-politics of India and Pakistan. It was made on a shoestring budget and the director Mysore Shrinivas Sathyu borrowed three quarters of the money from his friends. In Garm Hawa, Karachi was positioned as a “land of hope” and Pakistan was not merely a land of barbaric violence. Though in reality Partition had caused enormous bloodshed on both sides of the border, resulting in the largest singular human displacement in the subcontinent’s history. Even at the time, the film struggled to be released, held back by the Censor Board which cited communal sensitivity. But Garm Hawa finally saw the light of day at the Cannes Film Festival the following year and received international recognition. The arguments for Garm Hawa’s subtle, heart-wrenching but humanist approach towards those troubled times after Partition are many. But what is most striking is the absence of hyper-nationalist discourse and “Islamophobia” from the public realm at the time. Interestingly, the term Islamophobia was only adopted later as sociological jargon. The portrayal of Muslims Hindi cinema has come a long way from the 1970s when a film could depict Muslims as real, honest people living ordinary lives and being forced to leave India for Pakistan. Now, cinema is showing Pakistan as a country of terrorists, crime, blood and gruesomeness with Karachi at the heart. The apogee of this trend is Dhurandhar which came out in 2025. The film is both a historic discourse and reflects the rise of hyper-nationalist cinema. It was a huge success at the box office, taking an extraordinary $160 million (13 billion rupees). The cinematic change hasn’t happened overnight, it is intertwined with India’s social transformation and compounded by ideology. A cursory search of films themed on India Pakistan relations throws up mostly espionage thrillers or military dramas. Some of the films were released as early as 1997, like Border set during the India-Pakistan war of 1971. In 2003, there was LOC: Kargil about the 1999 border war between India and Pakistan and the 2007 movie, 1971, was also about the Indo-Pak war. They are more nuanced in comparison with what is happening today and all came out a long time before the current batch of hyper-nationalistic cinema even got the wind in their sails; tellingly, a sequel to 1997’s Border was released on 23 January 2026. On the whole, the late 1990s films laid the groundwork for more definitive later works which showed Hindu heroism and Muslims as the enemy, like for instance The Kashmir Files, Uri The Surgical Strike, The Kerala Story, Raazi, Fighter or Gaddar 2. All are premised on the idea of “patriotism” and “bravery” as predominant emotions and they enjoy a Bollywood eco-system willing to back such projects. Patriotism is box-office gold In a typical chicken and egg scenario, a long list of producers are happy to fund money spinners. The latest “patriotic” films like Dhurandhar and Chhaava were among the highest-grossing films of the year. And as there is such massive demand for stories of Muslim “othering”, more films are getting made. Interestingly, the universe of propaganda films made in 2025 is varied, a period film, Chhaava is focused on Mughals and Marathas. Films like Sky Force and Tanvi The Great are political thrillers. Diplomat, another release, concentrates on Islamic terrorism while Sarzameen is an army thriller based in Kashmir. Dhurandhar, the most successful one of all, is significant because it shifts the film-making grammar of its predecessors and emerges as a gripping entertainer with upscaled cinematic techniques. Wickedly crafted, it is primarily a spy thriller, but it is also a gangster movie and a story of regional political conflict reflecting Pakistan’s internal politics. The genres are mixed together to churn out a brutally violent film, hitherto unseen in Hindi cinema. The screenplay deploys a smart structure with short segments leading from one to the other. This is mounted with a chartbusting techno Qawaali, (a form of Sufi devotional singing) originally used in the iconic 1960s superhit Barsaat. There are high velocity action shots either in extra close-up or from drone cameras. The film is set in the gory, trash-littered streets of a working-class neighbourhood of Karachi. And the characterisation is original. The lead character Hamza Ali Mazari (later unmasked as Indian army officer Jaskirat Singh Rangi), goes undercover as a member of Baloch mobster Rehman Dakait’s gang. Dakait is played by well-known and much-loved Bollywood actor Akshaye Khanna, Mazari by one of the highest paid younger generation actors Ranveer Singh. Dhurandhar appears to be a slick, edgy, hard-hitting movie not your typical hyper-nationalist puff. It speaks its language of bigotry differently, laced with codes of love-hate for the Muslim aesthetic, like its use of popular qawwali and ghazals (forms of music mostly associated with Islamic cultures), spliced with the portrayal of sado-masochistic Muslim men – and women – trying to break free from their “prison”. Younger audiences have lapped up Dhurandhar because they have already been weaned on the unsettling universe of Hollywood’s Kill Bill and Sin City. And the massive distribution network behind the film with 3,000 screenings worldwide, 390 in North America alone, has created a juggernaut guaranteeing the movie’s success. Such intertwinings are intricate and clever, a stark contrast to a handful of cinemas with small budgets but powered by a gritty resolve to tell a story rising from the very same geo-politics but which still manage to remain humane. Ikkis (meaning 21) was released in 2025 without much fanfare, while Dhurandhar was a crushing box office hit. Ikkis is a tenderly told true story of a young army man who died in the Indo-Pak war in 1971 and the events that follow next, when his octogenarian father travels to Lahore for a college reunion thirty years after his son’s death. No jingoism, no slogan-mongering, it casts a newcomer Agastya Nanda, together with the legendary actor Dharmendra who died a few days before the film’s release to pose some vital humanitarian questions connected to war. Ikkis was reportedly made with a budget of between $4.7 million and $7.1 million and was released on 1 January. The film was distributed by powerhouse brands – quite startling as one of them is also the distributor for Dhurandhar – yet it hasn’t been able to catch a break so far and has been a box office flop. The film got some love from a handful of audiences willing to argue for peace. So, it is much more conducive for propaganda films like Dhurandhar to be made (its sequel Dhurandhar 2 is ready for a March release). A polarised view of the world, where Pakistan and Muslims are baddies and Hindus and Indians are goodies, is driving enormous profits for Bollywood, so no wonder the movie moguls are not stopping. READ MORE

Add A Comment
Leave A Reply