Criminalising the Nazi Salute in the United Kingdom
## CONTEXT
The United Kingdom currently operates under a framework of public order and hate crime legislation designed to balance freedom of expression with the need to protect communities from harassment, alarm, or distress. The Public Order Act 1986, the Malicious Communications Act 1988, and the Communications Act 2003 provide the primary legal tools for addressing threatening or abusive behaviour. However, these laws are largely reactive and often require proof that conduct was targeted at a specific individual or group based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. The Nazi salute, when performed in public without a direct verbal or written component targeting a protected characteristic, can fall into a legal grey area where prosecutors struggle to demonstrate that the specific elements of a hate crime have been met.
The complication is that the Nazi salute is not merely offensive; it is a historically loaded gesture that explicitly references the regime responsible for the Holocaust and World War II atrocities. Its use in public spaces—at football matches, political rallies, or online—is widely understood as an act of intimidation and an endorsement of neo-Nazi ideology. In recent years, high-profile incidents, such as the 2023 arrest of a man performing the salute outside a Holocaust memorial event, have highlighted the inadequacy of existing laws. The question, therefore, is whether the UK should follow the lead of other European nations—such as Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Poland—that have specific laws criminalising the display of Nazi symbols and gestures. The answer, as this petition argues, is yes: a clear, targeted offence would provide legal clarity, deter extremist behaviour, and protect communities from intimidation, while preserving legitimate uses for educational, historical, artistic, or journalistic purposes.
## PROBLEM
The core problem is that the Nazi salute currently exists in a legal lacuna where it is widely condemned but not specifically prohibited. Under the Public Order Act 1986, Section 4A makes it an offence to cause intentional harassment, alarm, or distress, but this requires proving that the perpetrator intended to cause that specific reaction in a particular individual. The Nazi salute, when performed in a public square or at a football match, is often directed at no single person but at society at large. Similarly, the Malicious Communications Act requires the communication to be indecent or grossly offensive, but a silent gesture may not meet the threshold of a "communication." This legal ambiguity means that many incidents go unprosecuted, emboldening extremists and leaving communities feeling unprotected.
The cost of inaction is significant. Data from the Home Office shows that hate crime incidents in England and Wales rose by 26% between 2020 and 2023, with antisemitic offences reaching record highs. While the Nazi salute is not always recorded as a hate crime, its use is a known precursor to more serious extremist activity. In Germany, where the display of Nazi symbols is illegal under Section 86a of the German Criminal Code, prosecutions for such displays have been linked to a measurable reduction in public extremist gatherings. Without a similar law, the UK risks normalising a gesture that is intrinsically linked to genocide and racial hatred. Furthermore, the absence of a specific offence creates a perception of legal permissiveness that can be exploited by far-right groups seeking to test the boundaries of free speech. The harm is not just symbolic; it is a tangible erosion of community safety and social cohesion.
## PROPOSED SOLUTION
The proposed solution is to introduce a new criminal offence under UK law that specifically prohibits the intentional performance of a Nazi salute in public or online, with a maximum penalty of up to six months' imprisonment and/or a fine. The legislation would be modelled on the German approach under Section 86a of the German Criminal Code, which criminalises the use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations, including the Nazi salute. However, the UK version would include explicit exemptions for legitimate educational, historical, artistic, journalistic, and law-enforcement purposes. For example, a teacher explaining the history of World War II in a classroom, a film director recreating a historical scene, or a journalist reporting on a far-right rally would not be prosecuted, provided the intent is clearly not extremist.
The decision to pursue a specific offence rather than relying on existing laws was reached after considering alternatives. One alternative was to amend the Public Order Act to explicitly include the Nazi salute as a form of harassment, but this would still require proof of targeting a specific individual. Another was to rely on the existing common law offence of public nuisance, but this is a broad and unpredictable charge that does not provide the clarity needed for deterrence. The process for implementation would involve the Home Office drafting a bill, followed by parliamentary scrutiny and a vote. Enforcement would fall to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which would issue specific guidance to prosecutors on how to apply the exemptions. Execution would require a public awareness campaign to educate citizens and law enforcement on what constitutes an offence versus legitimate use. Comparable proposals in Austria and Hungary have shown that such laws are enforceable and do not lead to a chilling effect on free expression when exemptions are clearly defined.
## EXPECTED IMPACT
The primary beneficiaries of this legislation would be Jewish communities, Holocaust survivors and their descendants, and other groups targeted by neo-Nazi ideology. A 2021 study by the Community Security Trust (CST) found that 78% of British Jews felt that public displays of Nazi symbolism contributed to a climate of fear and intimidation. By criminalising the salute, the law would provide a clear legal deterrent, reducing the frequency of such displays in public spaces. In Germany, following the introduction of Section 86a, prosecutions for Nazi symbol displays averaged 1,500 per year between 2010 and 2020, and surveys indicated a 40% reduction in the public visibility of such symbols. While the UK context differs, a similar reduction in public displays is expected, particularly at football matches and political rallies where the salute is most common.
The scope of impact extends beyond direct deterrence. The law would provide police and prosecutors with a clear, low-threshold tool to intervene before extremist behaviour escalates to violence. It would also send a strong societal signal that the UK rejects the ideology represented by the salute, reinforcing community cohesion. Metrics for success would include a year-on-year reduction in reported incidents of the salute, an increase in prosecutions (from the current near-zero baseline), and positive feedback from community organisations. However, the law must be carefully monitored to ensure it is not used disproportionately against minority groups or to suppress legitimate protest. The expected outcome is a measurable decline in public extremist displays, a stronger legal framework for community protection, and no significant reduction in legitimate free expression, as the exemptions are designed to be robust.
## DECISION LENS
| | If this passes | If this doesn't pass |
| --- | --- | --- |
| What will happen | The Nazi salute becomes a specific criminal offence, leading to prosecutions and a deterrent effect. Police have a clear legal tool to intervene. Public displays of the salute are expected to decline by 30-50% within two years, based on German precedents. | The legal grey area persists. Extremists continue to use the salute with impunity, emboldened by the lack of consequences. Hate crime rates may continue to rise, and community trust in the legal system erodes. |
| What won't happen | Legitimate educational, historical, artistic, or journalistic uses will not be prosecuted. Free expression for non-extremist purposes remains fully protected. The law will not lead to a chilling effect on political protest or satire. | The UK will not align with European norms on hate speech. The absence of a law will not prevent future high-profile incidents that cause public outrage. The government will not have to defend the law in international forums. |
## PRECEDENTS
EXAMPLE: Germany — What: In 1960, Germany introduced Section 86a, criminalising the use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations, including the Nazi salute, swastika, and SS runes. The law includes exemptions for educational, artistic, and scientific purposes. — Outcome: Between 2010 and 2020, an average of 1,500 prosecutions per year were recorded. Public visibility of Nazi symbols in public spaces declined by an estimated 40%, and the law is widely accepted as a cornerstone of Germany's post-war democratic culture. — Outcome: Between 2010 and 2020, an average of 1,500 prosecutions per year were recorded. Public visibility of Nazi symbols in public spaces declined by an estimated 40%, and the law is widely accepted as a cornerstone of Germany's post-war democratic culture.
EXAMPLE: Austria — What: Austria's Prohibition Act, amended in 2011, criminalises the public display of Nazi symbols, including the salute, with penalties of up to 20 years imprisonment for more serious offences. The law was strengthened after a rise in far-right activity in the 2000s. — Outcome: Prosecutions for Nazi symbol displays increased by 60% between 2011 and 2015. A 2018 study found that 85% of Austrians supported the law, and incidents of public Nazi salutes at political events dropped significantly. — Outcome: Prosecutions for Nazi symbol displays increased by 60% between 2011 and 2015. A 2018 study found that 85% of Austrians supported the law, and incidents of public Nazi salutes at political events dropped significantly.
EXAMPLE: Hungary — What: In 2013, Hungary introduced a ban on the use of totalitarian symbols, including the swastika, hammer and sickle, and Nazi salute, with a penalty of up to one year imprisonment. The law was motivated by a rise in far-right demonstrations. — Outcome: The law led to 200 prosecutions in its first three years. However, enforcement has been inconsistent, with some critics arguing it has been used selectively against political opponents. Despite this, public displays of the salute at far-right rallies decreased by an estimated 25%. — Outcome: The law led to 200 prosecutions in its first three years. However, enforcement has been inconsistent, with some critics arguing it has been used selectively against political opponents. Despite this, public displays of the salute at far-right rallies decreased by an estimated 25%.
July 28, 2026
