Town Hall accused of ‘killing democracy’ as police boot out free speech protesters

Police officers were forced to intervene at Camden Town Hall last night as proposed rule changes, including a ban on flags and banners, met with severe backlash from protesters.

The council suggested capping the size of deputation groups at five people, and limiting debate topics to matters over which it has “some influence”.

It also planned to impose a nine-month wait on resubmitting similar topics for discussion – but demonstrators accused the Labour-run council of “stifling free speech”.

The proposals were justified on the grounds of “efficiency”, but councillors’ safety soon emerged as a clear theme.

“The constitutional changes do not take away the right to protest. They ensure the chamber is a space for meaningful discussion,not a battleground, and that deputations are focused and address issues that genuinely impact our residents,” said Cllr Nanouche Umeadi.

“Crucially, they help safeguard the mental wellbeing of councillors who dedicate themselves to serving this community.”

“Democracy works best when it fosters real engagement – not just noise,” she added.

This drew loud heckles from the public gallery, where pro-Palestine activists had poured in to hear the plan debated, but it also caused unease on the Labour benches.

Cllr Richard Cotton asked: “Are we not risking our rebellious spirit for fear of a few demonstrators in the gallery? Isn’t this a sledgehammer to break a few nuts?”

Leader of the opposition, Cllr Tom Simon, said it would have a “chilling effect on democracy here in Camden”.

“Banners are a legitimate form of protest and expression. We recognise that it is possible for them to contain unacceptable language or images, but this does not warrant a complete prohibition.”

Council leader Richard Olszweski’s speech is interrupted by protesters. Video: Josef Steen / free for use by LDRS partners

Noise from the gallery reached a crescendo as demonstrators unfurled Palestinian flags while shouting over council leader Richard Olszewski, who insisted the rule changes were modest and “flexible”.

“It’s perfectly reasonable to stop people abusing council processes simply to use it as a political platform,” he said. “It’s important that councillors focus on doing their job for people in Camden.”

One protester retorted: “I’m a Camden resident. Israeli criminals have blocked aid to Gaza – that affects my mental health.”

“You’re silencing democracy to protect Zionism,” said another, before the mayor ordered councillors to leave the chamber until the gallery was cleared.

After protesters initially refused to leave, police arrived to escort them from the Town Hall – mirroring a similar incident last November where they held banners spelling out “genocide” that were deemed “offensive” by the borough solicitor.

As the debate resumed, Cllr Robert Thompson spoke of his experience needing police protection in a different public role, and recalled an episode where he was threatened with a knife at a committee meeting about Grenfell, forcing officers to lock him in a church toilet for safety.

“It feels to me that the present situation in Gaza and Israel has been used opportunistically by many, and has been in this chamber,” he said.

“Freedom of expression is not an absolute freedom. What we have heard today are some antisemitic slurs and a racist slur towards Cllr Umeadi.”

The fracas follows months of argument in the council chamber over the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The council has been under persistent pressure to divest its pension funds from Israeli arms producers and firms linked to alleged human rights abuses and war crimes by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

Campaign group Camden Friends of Palestine had warned on social media that the council was trying to “shield itself from public scrutiny – a direct response to the community holding it accountable for genocide”.

While the proposals were passed, opposition councillors insisted the vote be recorded for transparency to the public.

The Citizen understands at least one member did not vote for this reason.