Defend Dissent

On 7 October 2023, Hamas attacked Israel, killing around 1,200 people, injuring more than 4,000 and involved the taking of hostages. Amnesty International has confirmed these crimes amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In the aftermath, Israel launched a large-scale military assault on Gaza. Many authorities and organisations have concluded that Israel's actions amount to genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

These events prompted unprecedented solidarity actions around the world, including across UK universities. These protests were overwhelmingly peaceful and focused on ending Israel’s genocide, occupation and apartheid; divestment from arms-linked companies; defence of academic freedom; and equal treatment of Palestine-related speech.

Against this backdrop, many universities shifted from facilitating debate to reframing such expressions as a security risk. The evidence demonstrates this response was a coordinated sector-wide practice, influenced by direct government pressure, regulatory direction, lobbying by pro-Israel advocacy groups, and advice from private law firms and security contractors.

As public bodies, universities are bound by the Human Rights Act 1998 to protect the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, non-discrimination, academic freedom, privacy, and education.

Many UK universities are adopting restrictive measures that unduly limit students’ rights to organise, assemble, and express political views, particularly in relation to Palestine.

These measures, often deployed in combination, violate domestic and international human rights law and standards.

Some universities have introduced authorisation procedures that require students and staff to obtain prior institutional permission before holding protests on campus - meaning protests may proceed only once the university has approved them.

Such regimes transform protest from a presumptive right into a conditional, administratively mediated privilege.

Interviews and documents have shown that students have been pressured to sign restrictive protest agreements as a condition of avoiding disciplinary penalties at some universities.

At the University of Sheffield, students facing disciplinary proceedings (for taking part in an online protest against BAE Systems) were given a choice between paying a £75 fine or consenting to a formal undertaking.

Some universities have used possession orders, interim possession orders and wide‑ranging civil injunctions to impose blanket bans on assemblies, while also exposing students and staff to contempt of court, meaning risk of fines and imprisonment.

External legal actors have actively promoted this approach. Freedom of Information requests revealed that the law firm, Shakespeare Martineau LLP, ran a webinar for universities after helping Cardiff University get a year‑long injunction against unauthorised protest across campus.