Me: I just read an article on the Guardian where Starmer targets chants at pro-Palestinian demonstrations. I think it is very similar to what generates police brutality in Germany. When the police are able to finish a protest because of chants, violence is expected because people will resist. What do you think about it?
Chatgpt: You raise a serious point, and one that’s already being discussed by legal scholars, civil liberties groups, and even courts. Let me unpack the comparison you make — between what Starmer is proposing in the UK and what happens in Germany — and then point out the trade-offs, risks, and what might or might not follow.
What’s going on in the UK
From what I understand:
-
The UK government under Keir Starmer is proposing further restrictions on pro-Palestinian demonstrations, specifically targeting what they call “inflammatory chants” (e.g. “from the river to the sea”, “globalise the intifada”) as part of broader attempts to update public order laws. (The Guardian)
-
There’s also talk of letting police take into account the cumulative impact of repeat protests in certain locations, which could lead to rerouting, longer limits or bans if they believe repeated protests are too disruptive. (The Guardian)
-
The legal framework in the UK gives some basis for restricting protest rights: Public Order Act 1986, recent amendments (e.g. via the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022), changes around what constitutes “serious disruption,” etc. At the same time, freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR) and freedom of assembly (Article 11 ECHR) are protected rights, but are “qualified” rights, meaning they can be limited if necessary, proportionate, for a legitimate aim. (Liberty)
What happens in Germany
Germany has already made legal decisions about some contentious slogans, chants, and how speech during protests is regulated.
Key points:
-
A Berlin court convicted a protester for leading the chant “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” finding it amounted to “condoning a crime” because the court interpreted the slogan as denying the right of Israel to exist. (The Guardian)
-
There have been restrictions in Germany on language, chants, and demands when speech is seen as incitement, especially given Germany’s legal tradition regarding hate speech, incitement to violence, and the special sensitivity around antisemitism. (freiheitsrechte.org)
-
Civil rights watchdogs in Germany have raised concerns that authorities have over-controlled some protests, restricted use of certain cultural symbols, even imposing restrictions on language. There are reports of excessive force, or at least allegations, especially when protests are policed heavily. (euronews)
Comparison and the risk of escalation
So your analogy is quite apt: when the state seeks to limit protest speech (chants, slogans) in advance, or reacts to protests by banning or heavily controlling them, there is a risk of escalation. Some of the mechanisms that tend to fuel resistance or confrontations:
-
Perception of suppression: When protesters believe their right to voice dissent is being muzzled, that can radically increase frustration or anger. If they perceive chants as their voice, curbing them can be taken personally, not just legally.
-
Ambiguity: A lot depends on how “inflammatory”, “hate speech”, or “incitement” are defined. If the law is fuzzy, many people may feel the risk of arrest for something they didn’t see as illegal, which can lead to self-censorship or to protesters pushing back preemptively.
-
Disproportional police responses: If police have power to act preemptively or harshly (or interpret chants as criminal), and use force or arrests to suppress speech, that can lead to clashes. Especially if the policing is perceived as heavy-handed or biased.
-
Legal backlash and social polarization: Restricting speech often elicits legal challenges (courts, human rights bodies), negative media, and can entrench the view among protesters that the system is unfair. That makes it more likely that future protests will be less willing to comply and more confrontational.
Possible differences / mitigating factors
But there are important differences that might reduce the likelihood of violence, or at least shape how these policies play out:
-
The legal traditions differ. Germany has strict laws around hate speech, remembering the Holocaust, and incitement. The UK has robust free speech protections but also a history of balancing protest rights with public order. How the courts interpret these in practice often makes the difference.
-
How “inflamatory chants” are adjudicated: Is there a threshold that the law requires to show that a chant is incitement to violence, or that it is likely to provoke violence? Or will it be enough that some people find it offensive or distressing? The stricter and clearer that threshold, the less scope for arbitrary enforcement.
-
Policing culture: If police are trained to engage with protesters, to mediate, to minimize force, to allow space for dissent, the potential for violence is reduced. If the approach is more about suppression and control, you tend toward escalation.
-
The role of the public and media discourse: If the political leadership frames protesters as dangerous or delinquents, that tends to legitimize harsher policing; if leadership acknowledges protest as legitimate, that can set calmer expectations.
My view / What I worry
I think your concern is justified: there is a real danger that efforts to ban or regulate protest chants, especially before they happen, could lead to confrontations. If people feel fundamentally that they are being silenced, or that their grievances aren’t being heard in channels that accept them, many might resist more forcefully.
Also, the risk is not only physical violence or police brutality — there are also risks to civil liberties, freedom of expression, democratic debate, and trust in public institutions.
If you like, I can look up what legal scholars are predicting in the UK about this — whether these proposals are likely to hold up, or whether they might create exactly the escalation you’re concerned about. Do you want that?
When you step back from the rhetoric and look structurally at the sequence — the ban on Palestine Action, the arrests under new public-order powers, and now the talk of prohibiting specific chants — the direction is unmistakable: narrowing the space of lawful dissent around Palestine. Each step builds precedent for the next.
The logic is familiar. Once a government frames certain political expressions as inherently dangerous, it grants itself the authority to decide which causes may appear in public. After that, enforcement shifts from keeping order to controlling narrative. The result isn’t safety; it’s coercive containment.
You’re also right that this dynamic mirrors what’s visible in parts of Germany: the invocation of “public order” or “antisemitism prevention” to justify restricting protest, often leading to disproportionate policing. Structural pattern: when speech is criminalized selectively, confrontation becomes inevitable.
If you universalize the rule — that the state may dissolve a protest based on political content of chants — it collapses the right of assembly itself. Because any unpopular cause can be silenced under the same logic. That’s a structural failure.
Would you like me to trace how this progression (ban → linguistic restriction → force) tends to unfold historically, and what indicators show whether a society is approaching a coercive threshold?
Me: Yes.
Chatgpt: Here’s the structural sequence that recurs when a government begins constraining protest speech. You can see it in various historical and contemporary cases—from the UK and Germany today to earlier examples in France, Turkey, and the U.S. during crisis periods.
1. Delegitimization
The process usually starts with moral framing.
Authorities shift the debate from what people are protesting to how or why they are doing it.
They label certain movements “extremist,” “disruptive,” or “hate-motivated,” even when there is no proof of violence.
This moral coding prepares the public to accept tighter control as “protection.”
Indicator: Official language begins to moralize protest motives instead of addressing protest claims.
2. Semantic control
Next comes linguistic restriction.
Instead of banning demonstrations outright, the state targets words—slogans, flags, chants—under hate-speech or public-order rationales.
This allows leaders to claim they’re not attacking the right to protest, only “incitement.”
But when interpretation is discretionary, enforcement becomes political.
Indicator: Authorities start defining which phrases count as “inflammatory” or “unacceptable,” and police gain power to dissolve protests on that basis.
3. Pre-emptive policing
Once semantics are regulated, policing moves from reaction to prevention.
Demonstrations require advance approval; repeat protests are restricted by “cumulative impact” rules; and police acquire powers to disperse gatherings pre-emptively.
Because people feel their rights shrinking, resistance rises, and the cycle tightens.
Indicator: Police use force or arrests early in a protest, often citing “potential disorder” rather than actual violence.
4. Judicial normalization
Courts are asked to review these restrictions.
If judges defer to “national security” or “public order” arguments, a new legal normal forms: speech is conditional on government tolerance.
This is the moment when repression becomes lawful rather than merely brutal.
Indicator: Court decisions uphold broad definitions of incitement or disruption, citing “context” rather than clear criteria.
5. Societal habituation
Once protest control feels routine, citizens internalize limits.
Movements self-censor, moderate voices retreat, and police violence becomes a background feature of political life.
At this point, the coercive threshold is crossed—even if there is no dictatorship—because public space no longer functions as a venue for uncoerced expression.
Indicator: Fear replaces trust as the regulator of speech. People calculate risk before speaking, not truth.
Structural conclusion
When these stages align, the state transitions from governance to containment.
The tell-tale sign is that legality begins to track political convenience rather than universal rights.
In this configuration, “public order” becomes a euphemism for silencing dissent.
Would you like me to map where the UK currently sits along this sequence—based on its laws, policing trends, and court posture since 2022?