The people who voted here rejected new bans, and No won decisively; more revealingly, the winning side argued less for these marches than against giving ministers wider power over their subject. Here, the settled instinct was that conduct should determine intervention, not the cause being protested.
The floor’s most-respected No case drew the line plainly: “In a free society, people should be free to peacefully protest however they want.” Other highly rated voices made the broader constitutional argument — “Free speech can not only be applied for matters you agree with” — while several insisted that existing public-order powers were sufficient and needed fairer enforcement.
The Yes side was smaller and more uneven, but its core complaint was clear: foreign conflicts were being imported into British streets at too high a social and practical cost. Its strongest argument said, “Our streets should not be used as sounding boards for issues outside our country”; another demanded that protest be “meaningful and proven to be necessary”. Some Yes contributions slid into hostility towards foreigners, while No voters talked past them by defending the right to protest even when they disliked the cause.
That leaves the vote inside the familiar tension between public order and free expression, with the chamber favouring rules aimed at behaviour rather than belief. The argument the floor rated highly was not that disruption should be tolerated, but that “The police don't need new laws, they need the willingness and training to use what they have against groups that are political favourites.”
The room’s answer was therefore less a celebration of protest than a refusal to make its subject the trigger for prohibition: police the breach, not the opinion.
52 Opinions
In a free society, people should be free to peacefully protest however they want. Causing violence or disruption is where i would draw the line.
The police don't need new laws, they need the willingness and training to use what they have against groups that are political favourites.
New laws restricting freedom of expression and right to protest are not the answer. And we can be quite sure they would be used mostly against protesters on the right due to the left wing bias in the UK’s institutions.
We already have far too many laws. Natural & Common law are the only laws required (they are different but valid). Most laws created by past governments were only created to give governments more power to control the populace.
Free speech can not only be applied for matters you agree with. It is universal.
In order to justify the continued disruption of our public spaces, protest should be meaningful and proven to be necessary. Too many people have made a hobby of protesting; meeting every week to find something else to complain about.
If we live in a free society we have to be able to express our feelings & views both privately and publicly within the law whether we like what we're hearing or not.
I believe we have the laws needed ,just not used.
The government already has power to restrict marches should it wish to do so. It doesn't require any more.
We are very lucky to have freedom of speech, including the freedom to express opinions other people dislike. Once you start banning one thing, it becomes easier to ban the next, until our freedom is extinguished. Obviously face coverings and calls for violence should be banned from these marches.