Under UK law, Jewish people are supposed to have equal protection. But when that principle becomes optional depending on the protest, postcode, or political weather forecast, it’s not equality—it’s negligence dressed in uniform.
🕍 Sir Not-Appearing-at-This-Crime Scene: Policing by Vibe, Not by Law
Let’s break it down: a restaurant isn’t Gaza. A bakery isn’t an embassy. And Jewish communities aren’t cardboard cutouts for anyone’s geopolitical rage. Yet when businesses with Jewish ownership are met with intimidation under the banner of “protest,” the volume of police sirens seems to drop below audible levels. 👮♂️🤷♀️
We’re told “intent matters.” But let’s talk impact. When protests tip into menace, when property is targeted not by ideology but by identity, and when enforcement chooses ambiguity over action—that’s not neutral. That’s permissive neglect.
And no, saying this isn’t “accusing police of antisemitism.” It’s pointing out something arguably more insidious: inconsistent application of the law. Which, for those keeping score, is how democratic institutions quietly rot from within.
The issue here isn’t theoretical. It’s not a university debate. It’s a street-level litmus test for whether the state is willing—or even able—to uphold its most basic duty: equal protection under the law. Miss that mark too many times, and the message is loud and clear: “You’re on your own.”
Because when intimidation is tolerated selectively, when protection is handed out like party favours to whichever group is trending less controversially this week, we’re not talking about civil liberties—we’re talking about civil failures. 🧨
🧯Challenges 🧯
If police can’t (or won’t) act when a minority is being openly targeted, what exactly are we funding? Sirens aren’t symbolic—they’re supposed to show up. Sound off in the comments: is this legal inconsistency or systemic cowardice? ⚠️💬
Chameleon Magazine 
Leave a comment