John Rees writes:
Over the last week, the head of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley, made a series of unprecedented interventions, taking aim at the left and spreading disinformation about the Palestine movement in the run-up to the local elections. In so doing, he revealed an uncomfortable truth about contemporary Britain: our security state is now so powerful, and so radicalised, that it has dropped its pretence of neutrality. It is happy to be seen as an active political force, allied with some of the most reactionary elements in the country.
On 30 April, in the final stages of the election campaign, Rowley issued an open letter lambasting Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who had shared a tweet after the Golders Green stabbings questioning why the police had repeatedly kicked the attacker in the head while he lay on the ground convulsing from being tasered. Rowley claimed that Polanski’s retweet was ‘contributing to the rising tensions we are seeing in society’ and that it would have a ‘chilling effect’ in a context where ‘Jewish communities are scared’.
Of course, debate about that incident is a legitimate part of political discussion, and naturally many Tory and Labour politicians criticised Polanski for his post. What is not legitimate — which is why it has never happened before — is for a public servant to use his authority to undermine a leading politician at such a pivotal moment.
This was not simply a matter of Rowley defending his officers. The Commissioner has never made any equivalent criticism of Nigel Farage, despite the Reform leader’s repeated claims that the Met is engaged in ‘two-tier policing’ or failing to tackle grooming gangs. The double-standards speak for themselves. This was nothing less than a targeted attack on the Greens, and a cynical attempt to frame their progressive politics as a threat to Jewish people.
Rowley Versus Palestine
Even before that intervention, Rowley had already launched an extraordinary broadside against Palestine solidarity protests, suggesting in a round of media interviews that protesters set out with a deliberate ‘intent’ to assemble at, or march past, synagogues. ‘I think that sends a message’, he told ITV, ‘that feels like antisemitism’. The accusation was designed to bolster the right-wing Zionist narrative that Palestine national demonstrations are ‘hate marches’ that aim to instil fear in the Jewish community.
Needless to say, Rowley’s statement has no basis in fact. The Palestine Coalition has never requested that a march assemble at or march past a synagogue. Given the number of synagogues in central London and the location of various politically significant buildings, any march is likely to take place somewhere in the vicinity of one. ‘Why have we assembled or tried to assemble on Park Lane?’, wrote Stop the War Coalition national officer Shabbir Lakha in response to Rowley. ‘A clue might be found in the fact that so many big demonstrations historically have assembled there, from the Chartists to the Suffragettes right up to the Together Against the Far Right demonstration. Could this have something to do with the logistics of assembling hundreds of thousands of people, ability for coaches to drop off, and the length of the route to places like Downing Street?’
Rowley knows all this, but he has nonetheless decided to spread this defamatory and malicious claim. Its effect is to conflate Jews with supporters of the Israeli state — a reckless move which, in itself, risks fuelling antisemitism. A legal letter has now been sent to the Commissioner on behalf of the Palestine Coalition demanding a retraction.
It is worth noting that Rowley himself is highly politically engaged, especially with supporters of Israel. He has held private meetings with the Israeli ambassador Tzipi Hotovely. He has spoken at the annual conference of an Israeli think tank linked to the country’s military and intelligence services. He recently attended a dinner hosted by the Community Security Trust (CST), a group that equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism and aggressively targets critics of Israel. On his watch, the Met has invited the CST into its special operations room during the monitoring of pro-Palestine protests.
Sir Mark has every right to practice his politics as a private citizen. But if he wants to make them part of his public role, then he is obliged to resign as a police officer — given the legal requirement of political neutrality — and run for elected office himself. Weaponising his position at the Met to score points against politicians and movements he dislikes is a deeply disturbing trend.
Arbiters of Racism
Beyond the absurdity of Rowley’s comments, there is something more structural and serious at work here. The Met now have an array of powers to limit freedom of assembly and speech: either placing strict controls on these civil liberties or banning them outright. In exercising this authority, the force is increasingly being made the arbiters of what is and is not racist. In other words, the legal definition of racism is in the hands of an institution that was first found to be ‘institutionally racist’ by the 1999 Macpherson Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence, and has since been found to be systemically racist by a series of official inquiries, reports, and reviews in 2010, 2014, 2016, 2020, 2023, and twice in 2024.
We are already beginning to see the results. Late last year, the Met made a summary decision that the slogan ‘Globalise the Intifada’ is now illegal, and began to detain activists for uttering the words. Overnight, a perfectly legal chant suddenly became an arrestable offense, with no recourse to new legislation nor even a court ruling. The police have become the authors of the law as well as its enforcer.
At the same time as it hauls in peaceful protesters, the Met has refused to investigate British nationals who face credible accusations of committing war crimes while fighting with the Israeli military in Gaza. After reviewing a meticulous 240-page report from human rights groups providing evidence of ‘targeted killings of civilians and aid workers, indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, attacks on hospitals and protected sites, and the forced transfer and displacement of civilians’, the police force announced that it would take no action — claiming, without explanation, that it could not conduct an effective investigation.
Crossroads
We have reached a dangerous moment. Political freedoms are under greater threat than at any time since at least the miners’ strike. The political establishment is hell-bent on suppressing the left, while at best tolerating and at worst encouraging the hard right: not only the electoral-populist wing led by Farage, but also the street movement led by the openly fascist Tommy Robinson.
You don’t need to be a scholar of twentieth-century history to see where this could lead. The expansion of anti-terrorism policing to stamp out direct action protests may be the beginning of a wider process. So far, the ban on Palestine Action has triggered a 660 percent increase in arrests for ‘terrorism’, mostly people nabbed for holding a sign supporting the proscribed group. If the more than 3,000 arrestees are convicted, there will be more political prisoners in the UK than in Putin’s Russia. Confronting the extremity of this situation is the first step. Resisting it with all our strength is the next.
Could he survive a Green mayor?
ReplyDelete