London’s Two-Tier Protest Problem: Sadiq Khan, Free Speech, and the Growing Fear of Double Standards
Is London defending democracy — or quietly redefining it?
On the surface, the debate appears familiar: the balance between freedom of expression and public safety in a city shaped by diversity, protest, and political tension. But beneath that surface, a far more combustible question has emerged — whether London’s leadership is applying the law equally, or selectively, depending on who is marching in the streets.
At the centre of the storm is London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, now facing renewed accusations of double standards over how his office responds to different protest movements — accusations that have struck a nerve at a moment of heightened anxiety for the capital’s Jewish community and deepening ideological polarisation across Britain.
A Tale of Two Protests
The controversy was reignited by a widely circulated video featuring Susan Hall, the Conservative figure who challenged Khan in the London mayoral race, alongside commentators from the British Stand channel. Their charge is blunt: that the mayor condemns some demonstrators swiftly and personally, while remaining conspicuously restrained — even silent — when faced with others.
Their central comparison focuses on two sets of protests.
In one case, Khan publicly denounced a demonstration organised by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, better known as Tommy Robinson, under the banner “Unite the Kingdom”. The event resulted in 13 arrests, and the mayor described Robinson as a “violent racist”, characterising the march as part of the “far right”.
In another, a protest linked to Palestine Action reportedly led to around 400 arrests — yet, critics note, Khan refrained from issuing comparable condemnations or naming individual organisers.
For Hall and her supporters, the contrast amounts to what they describe as a “two-tier” approach to policing and political rhetoric — a claim that resonates strongly with sections of the public already sceptical of institutional neutrality.
“This is not about law and order,” one commentator argues. “It’s about who gets judged — and who gets excused.”
The Slogan That Divides
At the heart of the dispute lies a phrase that has become a political flashpoint:
“From the river to the sea.”
For many supporters of Palestinian activism, the slogan is framed as a call for liberation. For many Jews, it is understood as a call for the elimination of Israel — and therefore inherently antisemitic.
Susan Hall pressed this issue directly, questioning whether chanting the slogan, branding Israel a “terrorist state”, and doing so on dates of particular sensitivity — including the anniversary of the Manchester Arena terrorist attack and Jewish holy days — should be recognised as antisemitism.
Her position was unequivocal:
“Everyone knows what it means.”
Sadiq Khan’s response, however, was more cautious.
He acknowledged that such language was “inappropriate” and “insensitive”, particularly given the trauma of recent terrorist attacks and the fear felt by Jewish communities. But he stopped short of defining the slogan itself as antisemitic, insisting instead that its meaning depends on context.
Crucially, Khan reaffirmed what he described as a cornerstone of democratic society: the protection of free expression and the right to protest, even — and perhaps especially — when the views expressed are controversial or uncomfortable.
Fear in the Capital
For London’s Jewish residents, the debate is not merely theoretical.
Hall described a city in which Jewish parents feel compelled to lock their children inside schools, avoid central London, and live under heightened security due to hostile demonstrations and rhetoric.
She dismissed the mayor’s claim that City Hall has worked tirelessly since 7 October 2023 to reassure the Jewish community, cutting in sharply to state that many simply do not feel reassured.
Her closing rebuke was stark:
“Shame on you.”
This sense of vulnerability reflects wider concerns documented by community organisations, which report a rise in antisemitic incidents following the escalation of violence in the Middle East — a trend mirrored across much of Europe.
Principles, Politics, and Perceived Bias
Khan’s defenders argue that the mayor is navigating an extraordinarily difficult landscape — one in which any misstep risks inflaming tensions further. They insist that upholding civil liberties requires restraint, consistency in legal thresholds, and a refusal to criminalise political speech without clear evidence of incitement.
Critics counter that restraint, when applied unevenly, becomes partiality.
Hall accused Khan of duplicity, suggesting that his willingness to label some protests as extremist while declining to scrutinise others has eroded trust — particularly among minorities who feel increasingly exposed.
To them, this is not a failure of messaging but of moral clarity.
A City Reflecting a Divided Nation
The dispute over protests in London is symptomatic of a broader fracture running through British society — one in which identity, historical grievance, and political allegiance collide in public spaces.
For Khan, the challenge is maintaining London’s reputation as a global city committed to tolerance and democratic freedoms, while convincing all communities that those freedoms are protected equally.
For his critics, the issue is simpler:
the law must not only be fair — it must look fair.
As protests continue to shape Britain’s political landscape, the question confronting London is no longer just who gets to march, or what they are allowed to say — but whether the rules governing dissent are applied with consistency, courage, and credibility.
In a city defined by diversity, perception may matter almost as much as policy. And in today’s London, the perception of double standards is becoming a protest in its own right.
