Loyalist Jamie Bryson calls for Home Secretary Suella Braverman to apologise to unionists over ‘primacy’ remarks

Home Secretary Suella Braverman looks at some of the names on the Shoah Wall in Vienna of Austrian Jews who died during the Holocaust, earlier this month. She has in an article said: “They are an assertion of primacy by certain groups – particularly Islamists – of the kind we are more used to seeing in Northern Ireland” Pic: Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire

Suella Braverman said that some people organising pro-Palestine rallies in London on Saturday “have links to terrorist groups, including Hamas” and said this was “disturbingly reminiscent of Ulster”.

Writing in The Times on pro-Gaza protests, Mrs Braverman said: “I do not believe that these marches are merely a cry for help for Gaza. They are an assertion of primacy by certain groups – particularly Islamists – of the kind we are more used to seeing in Northern Ireland.”

But loyalist Bryson wants an apology to the unionist community. He said it seemed clear that Mrs Braverman “meant to conjure up a comparison with IRA terrorist events, but the totally clumsy way she has written this makes it appear she is including the rich cultural marching band tradition”.

Writing on X, formerly known as Twitter, he said: “The Home Secretary should clarify, urgently.”

Mr Bryson the loyal orders and marching band tradition have been equated with “terrorist hate marches” due to “the almost idiotic construction of the relevant paragraph” which “instead appeared to have in error encompassed unionist culture”.

Mr Bryson said: “It’s welcome it has been semi-corrected as a source close to the Home Secretary has publicly made clear she meant republicans, but given the article went out in her name, and such is the offence caused, Suella really ought to personally correct it and apologise to unionists.”

The Home Secretary has also sparked a fresh row within the Conservative Party by accusing police of “playing favourites” with pro-Palestinian protesters, with the claim slapped down by a Cabinet colleague.

Rishi Sunak is facing calls from opposition parties to sack Mrs Braverman over the “irresponsible” and “divisive” remarks which they say fan the risk of unrest on Armistice Day.

In a Times article, the Home Secretary said aggressive right-wing protesters are met with a stern response by officers while “pro-Palestinian mobs” are “largely ignored, even when clearly breaking the law”.

Story continues

The former chief inspector of constabulary Sir Tom Winsor said Mrs Braverman’s comment “crosses the line” by breaking the convention that a Home Secretary should not question the operational integrity of the police.

Questioned about Mrs Braverman’s claims of police bias, Transport Secretary Mark Harper directly contradicted her view. “I think all police forces are focused on upholding the law without fear or favour,” he told Times Radio on Thursday.

SDLP leader Colum Eastwood has said that the “aggressive ignorance” makes the Home Secretary unfit for office.

The Foyle MP said “The Home Secretary’s comments in an article in The Times today are so far removed from reality that it is impossible to come to any determination other than she is deliberately stoking division to bolster her own brand among the Conservative Party’s right wing. It’s honestly like reading a pound shop Enoch Powell piece.

“The comments comparing the proposed Armistice Day protests against the appalling bombardment of civilians in Gaza with the marching tradition in Northern Ireland are an exercise in what can only be described as aggressive ignorance. Ignorance of the conditions faced by the civilian population in Gaza, ignorance of the role of the Met police, ignorance of the complex history and traditions of marching and protest in Northern Ireland. She has managed to offend just about everyone – no mean feat in a divided society.

Mrs Braverman doubled down on her characterisation of a protest planned for Armistice Day despite government objections as a “hate” march, a description Mr Harper declined to endorse.

He evaded repeated questions on whether the Home Secretary’s language inflames tensions and adds to difficulties for the police, saying: “I think we’re all focused, and I think everyone in the Conservative Party and the Government is focused on trying to make sure that the events of the weekend pass off peacefully.”

Sir Tom was more forthcoming in his criticism, describing her intervention as “unusual” and “unprecedented”.

The ex-HM chief inspector of constabulary told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “It’s contrary to the spirit of the ancient constitutional settlement with the police, I think it’s contrary to the letter of that constitutional settlement. And it is highly regrettable that it has been made.

“These political objections can be made by many, many people, but a Home Secretary of all people is not the person to do this.”

He added: “By applying pressure to the commissioner of the Met in this way I think that crosses the line.”

Prime Minister Mr Sunak on Wednesday hauled in Metropolitan Police chief Sir Mark Rowley for an emergency meeting about the march planned in London, saying he would hold the Scotland Yard boss “accountable” if there was trouble.

Sir Mark has faced pressure from senior Tories to ban Saturday’s march in London, but has said the law would only allow him to do so in “extreme cases”.

Following their talks on Wednesday, Mr Sunak said the planned protest on Armistice Day is “not just disrespectful but offends our heartfelt gratitude to the memory of those who gave so much so that we may live in freedom and peace today” and “part of that freedom is the right to peacefully protest”.

Mrs Braverman claimed “there is a perception that senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protesters”.

She said: “Right-wing and nationalist protesters who engage in aggression are rightly met with a stern response yet pro-Palestinian mobs displaying almost identical behaviour are largely ignored, even when clearly breaking the law.”

Mrs Braverman’s article is her latest high-profile intervention, with ministers in recent days seeking to distance themselves from her claims some people were homeless as a “lifestyle choice”.

No 10 has not said whether it signed off on the Home Secretary’s article.