Protest as disruption
The European Court of Human Rights has consistently made it clear that public demonstrations
are likely to cause some
disruption to everyday life, but that this is a necessary feature of a democracy. Yet many UK universities have been treating peaceful Palestine solidarity assemblies, such as sit-ins and encampments, as disciplinary issues – even when they are non-violent and there is no evidence of any disruption to classes, study or exams.
Students have been banned from campus, denied access to university buildings and threatened with expulsion for taking part in
collective protest. Such behaviour from
our universities may amount to unlawful interference with the right to peaceful assembly.
Punishing students pre-emptively Our research has found that the presumption
of the right to peaceful protest is often replaced by suspicion when those protests are about Palestinian solidarity. Some universities have taken pre-emptive disciplinary action, including drastic measures such as excluding students from campus, classes or facilities, often for extended periods.
Such sanctions warrant close scrutiny in terms of their conformity with the principles of necessity and proportionality. Penalising non-violent protest with extreme academic and personal consequences undermines academic freedom, which is protected under international
14 AMNESTY SPRING 2026
law, including Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. In many cases, universities began lengthy disciplinary proceedings that dragged on for months before they were dropped or reduced to low-level warnings. Students have described the period of waiting – under campus bans, loss of services, and the threat of expulsion – as the most punishing element. Even when there was no case to answer the cumulative restrictions, stigma and uncertainty severely disrupted their study and health.
Vague misconduct policies
Many universities have relied on vague or overly broad policies to investigate and sanction students engaged in peaceful protest. Actions such as chanting, clapping, wearing keffiyehs (widely recognised as a symbol of Palestinian solidarity), or expressing political slogans have frequently been treated as threatening or disruptive, even when there is no evidence of harm.
Universities have, in some instances, invoked harassment policies based solely on whether someone felt harassed or uncomfortable, without requiring a demonstration of intent, a pattern of conduct, or objective standards of harm or unlawful conduct.
While legislation such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and Public Order Act 2023 criminalises behaviour likely to cause harassment, this must be interpreted consistently with Article 10 of the ECHR, which protects freedom of expression.
There is a very
high bar for restricting freedom of expression – allegations of discomfort are not sufficient
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
