Rishi Sunak has been urged to sack Suella Braverman after she accused the Metropolitan Police of “playing favourites” with how it handles controversial protests.
Ms Braverman has been criticised for using “inflammatory” language in an article for the Times newspaper.
The home secretary once again described pro-Palestinian protesters as “hate marchers” and added: “I do not believe that these marches are merely a cry for help for Gaza.
“They are 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.”
In a rebuke to the Metropolitan Police, which is allowing a pro-Palestine march to go ahead on Armistice Day, Ms Braverman said the force was guilty of “double standards” by taking a more lenient approach to left-wing demonstrations than right-wing ones.
She also repeated her claim that the pro-Palestine marches that have been taking place across the UK were “hate marches” similar to those seen in Northern Ireland – comments that were branded “wholly offensive and ignorant”.
Tens of thousands of civilians flee amid heavy fighting in Gaza
Who is Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar – the ‘butcher of Khan Younis’ Israel claims to have trapped in a bunker?
Israel-Hamas war: Half of Britons think pro-Palestinian marches should be banned on Armistice Day, poll finds
Labour’s shadow business secretary Jonathan Reynolds branded Ms Braverman “out of control” and told Sky News Mr Sunak should “of course” sack her if he had not signed off on the article.
Politics latest: ‘She’s on a mission to get sacked’
“Where is the prime minister on this?” he asked. “Do we believe the prime minister signed off that kind of inflammatory rhetoric? He won’t tell us.
“If you have a home secretary that is so out of control, so divisive, so inflammatory, undermining the police and, therefore, the national security and safety of the public, that’s not someone who should be home secretary.”
Sky News has confirmed that Downing Street did not fully sign off the home secretary’s article. It is understood Number 10 were sent it and suggested changes that were not then carried out.
Labour was joined by the Liberal Democrats in calling on Mr Sunak to sack Ms Braverman, with party leader Sir Ed Davey accusing Ms Braverman of “putting police officers in harm’s way”.
“The home secretary’s irresponsible words and foul actions have significantly increased the likelihood of unrest this weekend and the risk of violence towards officers,” he said.
Israel-Gaza latest:
‘Security circumstance’ forces Rafah border crossing to close
In an urgent question in the House of Commons, policing minister Chris Philp defended Ms Braverman and said it was “reasonable for politicians” to raise “concerns and make sure that the police are protecting those communities”.
He insisted the government “resolutely backs the question of operational independence”.
In the article, Ms Braverman wrote: “Unfortunately, there is a perception that senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protesters.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
“During COVID why was it that lockdown objectors were given no quarter by public order police yet Black Lives Matters demonstrators were enabled, allowed to break rules and even greeted with officers taking the knee?
“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?”
In response, the Met Police said they would “not be commenting at this time”.
Earlier this week its commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, confirmed that the demonstration on Saturday would go ahead because the “legal threshold” to stop it on security grounds “had not been met”.
By Graham Wettone, policing analyst
Sir Mark Rowley was very careful with his words about why the pro-Palestinian protest this Saturday has not been banned.
He spoke about the legal issues around banning a gathering and then explained the possible options for a ban.
He has interpreted the law correctly and some in government appear to have misunderstood or misinterpreted it, and forgotten the police have operational independence.
Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 allows for marches and processions to have conditions placed on them if the senior officer “reasonably believes” it may result in serious disorder, damage or disruption.
The Met can impose conditions relating to the duration and route of a march, as placing a number restriction is totally unworkable. That is what they will be doing with the organisers this Saturday, as the organising groups have refused to cancel the protest.
Section 13 of the Public Order Act relates to banning a march. This is only applicable if the commissioner reasonably believes that the powers under Section 12 – any conditions he imposes on the procession – will not be sufficient to prevent serious disorder.
Sir Mark clearly stated that, at the moment, the intelligence does not support the “reasonable belief” that serious disorder is likely, hence he cannot legally apply for a ban under Section 13. I would agree that is probably the case – but intelligence will be developing over the next few days, and the commissioner did not rule out the situation may change before Saturday.
Sir Mark then explained the law around gatherings or assemblies. Police can impose conditions on these under Section 14 of Public Order Act, which is similar to Section 12 in that there needs to be a “reasonable belief” of “serious disorder”.
However a key difference is that Section 13 only applies to processions or marches under Section 12 – and not gatherings under Section 14. There are no legal powers to ban people gathering.
The Met tried to prevent unlawful assemblies using Section 14 across London a few years ago with Just Stop Oil, but the High Court ruled it was unlawful and that gatherings cannot be legally banned.
The likely scenario as it stands is that if a ban went in for the march, the organising groups would still have people attend a “gathering” – and the fact a ban is in place may well increase numbers. If groups then decide to separate off in different directions, and if there are significant numbers in the thousands, then arresting all is impossible.
Meanwhile, one former Tory cabinet minister told Sky’s political editor Beth Rigby that Ms Braverman’s comments were “wholly offensive and ignorant of where people in Northern Ireland stand on the issues of Israel and Gaza”.
“It would be good to know what she knows about what Northern Ireland people think about the current Israel-Palestine situation before she casts aspersions,” they said.
More on this story:
Does Braverman relish being controversial?
Braverman has displayed breathtaking ignorance on NI
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
“It’s clear that the home secretary is only looking after her misguided aspirations for leader than responsible leadership as a home secretary.”
A senior Tory MP branded the home secretary an “embarrassment”.
“The Conservatives have always been a party of fundamental decency. This is either ignorantly whipping up division [bad enough] or it’s being done deliberately, which is just shameful. When a hotch-potch of thugs and hooligans choose to kick off on Saturday she can look to herself as an enabler.”
Another former Tory cabinet minister said while he agreed with Ms Braverman about the nature of the marches, “this would be a bad hill to die on”.
“I think Suella wants to lock down the right ahead of next year, but this would be a bad hill to die on,” they said.
“I don’t think Number 10 really disagree with her and she seems to be trying very hard to stir a needless fight with them.”
Pointing to potential difficulties Mr Sunak may face if he did sack Ms Braverman, the former cabinet minister said any action against her could mobilise supportive MPs to trigger a no confidence vote in his leadership.
Mr Sunak confirmed on Wednesday that the pro-Palestinian march on Armistice Day would go ahead, but said Sir Mark would be held “accountable” for his decision to give the event the green light.
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.
