EXCLUSIVE Moment crowd of women's rights campaigners dressed in Niqab-style veils ripped them off to declare 'free your face' in provocative London protest
Up to 75 protesters gathered in London 's Hyde Park this afternoon for a Let Women Speak (LWS) event, spearheaded by campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen, also known as Posie Parker.
The group, dressed in black veils with 'free your face' printed on them, walked through the park in unison, holding placards that read 'free speech for women' alongside black balloons printed with 'women: adult female'.
Stopping at the popular Speaker's Corner area, Ms Keen pulled out a white ladder to stand in front of the crowd, stating: 'what we are doing here is something that women in the Middle East cannot do and that is to remove the veil.'
The group then ripped off their veils in unison to the sound of passionate cheers and whistles, while others chanted 'free your face'.
Ms Keen, who founded the #LetWomenSpeak movement and leads the Party of Women, said that the group had gathered as an 'act of solidarity with all of the women who have to live behind the veil because their husbands, cousins and brothers are too weak'.
The events, which often take place across the country, see women take to the stage to talk about a variety of issues that affect them.
Speakers are often known for their gender-critical views and the group also campaigns against using female-only spaces.
One rival protestor shouted from the crowd 'women should be at home', but this did not deter Ms Keen. She continued: 'Four weeks ago, I received stories from women from all over the Middle East who have had to live behind the veil since they were 12 years old.
'In the UK, all over our cities we are seeing more women wearing the veil. As a free woman, I do not think this is acceptable. This is what happens when a man cannot bear for women to be free.
'If a man cannot control himself when he see's a woman's face, then he should wear a mask'.
Ms Keen, who proudly stated she is 'not a feminist' added: 'I say no to the veil, no to the Niqab'.
Speaking directly to a counter-protestor who criticised her for 'spreading aggression against men', she quipped back: 'f**k you'.
Another woman who took to the stage to speak, added: 'We live in a free society so we do not want women being told what to do and not being allowed to live their lives. I cannot stand by and not say anything about this'.
Meanwhile, another protestor, dressed in a necklace that spelled out 'women', tearfully struggled to get her words out.
She said: 'You can make your choices, but they have to be free choices and the veil is never truly a free choice. Please for the sake of your sisters, choose freedom.'
Founded in 2018, the LWS group was formed in response to proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA).
Described as a 'bold, international movement' the protestors say they have worked to 'spark a global awakening around the importance of defending the rights of women-adult human females'.
Ms Keen, dubbed 'one of the world's most recognisable defenders of women's rights', finished her passionate speech by declaring: 'The reason we created this movement is because so many men are frightened of our voices.
'Today we say for women all over the world, free your faces. And to the men who subject them to it, we say f**k you.'
After the event, Ms Keen told MailOnline that the inspiration for today's speech came from an 'off the cuff' comment she made to two women who were wearing a Niqab at Speaker's Corner last month.
She said: 'There were two women and I just said "free your faces ladies, free your face and liberate yourselves".'
Ms Keen says a video of that moment was seen 24 million times across social media platforms and inspired a wave of Middle Eastern women to share their 'heartbreaking' stories.
She continued: 'These women reached out to tell me things like "I haven't had the sun in my face since I was 12" or "I'm living a life of servitude because the mask is one thing, the niqab is one thing, but actually I don't feel like a complete human being".'
Ms Keen said some women even revealed they were not allowed out in their garden and that the biggest thing they had to look forward to was going to the cafe alone.
She is now vowing to keep pushing the message forward to stop women from being 'imprisoned' by the Niqab, despite pushback from some protestors.
'Speaker's Corner is a very unwelcoming place for women because the men are very loud and most women aren't,' Ms Keen continued.
'I happen to have quite a loud voice. Most women don't, so it can be a bit intimidating. But I was prepared. And I think it went really well and it was a spectacle.
'We always get pushback because there's some men that can't cope with women speaking. But those are really the men that we are very glad to hear women speak. So they start to understand that we're not stopping.'
Ms Keen added that she wants to see the Niqab banned, saying: 'There's a rise in it being worn in various cities such as London, Birmingham and Bradford.
'I think we really need to think very carefully as a country. I'd like to ban the face covering. I think there's too many women that are forced to wear it for us ever to think that it's a choice.'
Last October, up to 70 women gathered in Carlisle Park, Morpeth, Northumberland, for a Let Women Speak (LWS) event and were met with counter demonstrators who shouted through megaphones: 'Transwomen are women'.
Branding Ms Keen a 'fascist', counter protestors shouted during the speeches: 'You're not radical, you're just d***heads.'
They also blew whistles in an attempt to drown out the gathering and also shouted 'get off the stage' and 'get some new material'.
But Ms Keen defended the group, remarking: 'Some women are coming to speak using some words, and some spoiled brats are trying to stop us.
'We just want to speak about our rights. We want to speak about our spaces, our sports, our children, our safety.
'Those people over there are from the elites and are trying to shut us up. Most of us are from relatively normal families who have to pay a mortgage, pay bills.
'They haven't sent us to a nice university to mess around with our fees and our grants and to come and harass middle-aged women.'
The Labour party previously faced previous accusations of being 'undemocratic authoritarians' after a local party pressured a venue into cancelling a Conservative-run debate due to Ms Keen's attendance.
The Tottenham Conservative Association was due to hold a debate on 'The Future of British Politics' in February last year, but the Clissold Arms pub in Muswell Hill, north London, told organisers yesterday that they had to cancel it after complaints.
A letter sent to the pub by the Hornsey and Friern Barnet Constituency Labour Party executive committee, seen by MailOnline, said that 'Keen's events often attract other far right groups including neo-Nazi groups on a recent tour of Australia'.
On her tour of Australia in 2023, men showed up to a rally in Melbourne and performed Nazi salutes, but she insisted they were not invited or welcome there.
The letter accused Ms Keen of 'extremely transphobic views' and of harassing transgender people, adding that her attendance would create a 'dangerous and hostile environment for local trans people'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Increased betting tax would be a hurdle that horse racing may not overcome
The Treasury is currently consulting over plans to replace the existing structure of online gambling duties, which is comprised of three bands, to a catch-all Remote Betting and Gaming Duty. At present, there is a 15 per cent duty, but there are grave concerns that the government-induced changes could see it brought into line with the rate of tax on games of chance, such as online casino and slot machines, which is six per cent higher. Economic analysis commissioned by the British Horseracing Authority showed that the sport could lose £66m in income through the levy, media rights and sponsorship because bookmakers would be likely to respond by offering inferior-value prices and reduce budgets for such things as marketing and advertising. Horse racing is a sport that is part of the very fabric of British culture. Its two codes, Flat and National Hunt have been supported by monarchs and other royals for centuries. It also courted Sir Keir Starmer, who last September became the first serving Prime Minister since Sir Winston Churchill to attend the St Leger. Now, similar to one of the PM's current political allies, it has had a change of heart and is taking a more combative approach. Racing draws in more spectators annually than every other sport in the nation, except football. It provides jobs for more than 85,000 people. If betting tax levied on the sport is raised, it's been estimated that 2,752 of those jobs will be lost in the first year alone, and this could become an ever-decreasing cycle. As a show of strength and to underline the gravity of their concerns, the whole of the industry has committed to a one-day strike on 10 September, when racing is scheduled to take place at Carlisle, Kempton Park, Lingfield Park and Uttoxeter. For an industry that has so often taken a 'softly, softly' approach to such matters and wanted to keep respective governments onside, it's akin to throwing away the painstakingly prepared form book and, instead, tossing a coin. Will the 'heads' count in the sport be forced to reduce or will ministers turn 'tails' and elect to preserve the status quo? James Hutchinson, the managing director at Ripon racecourse, is clear on why the sport is right to take such action: 'It's important that we get across this message that the current proposals for this betting duty tax will have an enormous effect on British racing and the income into British racing and therefore the amount of money that it raises in terms of levy and the return therefore to racecourses and the return of prize money to owners and trainers. 'From our point of view as a small independent racecourse, we need to be seen to be a strong industry that can support all of its constituent parts and this potential change is going to put many of those at risk and that's not something we want to see. 'I'm in support of the action that's being taken because by doing so we will hopefully be getting across and extremely strong message to government that we feel very strongly about this and the industry is prepared to go to those sort of lengths to show what it means and the effect it could have if the changes take place.' 'I don't think there's any other sporting industry that could be as dramatically affected by the sort of change that the government is proposing.' James Hutchinson, managing director at Ripon racecourse Isn't this, however, racing people expecting the sport to be treated as a special case purely because of its history? Hutchinson disagrees. 'I don't think it's necessarily a special case other than the fact that it has huge heritage. It's been an important part of the culture and the colour of the nation. 'Over five million people go racing every year and to introduce this huge increase could have a major negative impact on the industry. It could effect the amount of racing, the amount of people going racing and it would be a huge loss to the country. 'I don't think there's any other sporting industry that could be as dramatically affected by the sort of change that the government is proposing.' Those involved in the sport are clear about the financial damage that could be inflicted and are similarly unified in their action, although all four tracks that miss out on racing on that date have been offered an alternative fixture on the calendar by the BHA, by way of compensation for those individual events. The government must act in the best interests of a sport that has given the nation great service since before there was a Prime Minister. It should get this enquiry overturned before the provisional result stands, scrap any plans to increase its tax burden and leave this piece of the fabric of our society unfrayed.
BBC News
31 minutes ago
- BBC News
New proposed powers to control dangerous dogs in Jersey
Changes could be introduced in Jersey to control dogs which are "considered to be dangerous", according to the island's constables have made draft amendments to the Dogs (Jersey) Law 1961 which, if approved, will mean owners of certain breeds, such as the XL Bully, must register them with the States rules about owning XL Bully dogs were introduced across the UK and, since 1 February 2024, it has been a criminal offence to own one without an exemption constables' proposed amendments would include a requirement to neuter the "dangerous dog" and keep it muzzled in a public place. 'Public safety' Officials said owners would not be allowed to breed, sell or give such dogs proposed scheme would also provide that the owner and any person in control of a dog in a public place must be aged 18 or over, they differs from England and Wales, where a person aged 16 and over may be an States Veterinary Officer (SVO) said it was aware of a number of dogs that could fall within the definition of a dangerous dog, officials said, but there were currently no powers to control ownership or to impose conditions to enhance public safety."The Jersey registration scheme will require the SVO to maintain a register of dangerous dogs and it will be an offence to own a dangerous dog unless it is registered with the SVO," it draft law has not been approved yet, but it is aimed at modernising the rules and giving police powers to deal with dangerous dogs. Chief Vet at the States Susana Ramos previously said improvements were needed to the law so that restrictions could be imposed on imports of dangerous dogs when coming from outside Ramos said the current law was "old and not fit for purpose anymore".She added: "The idea of the new law is to allow us to act."The law will give us a little substance to do better than we currently do."
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Boomers behaving badly: Why the over-60s are the wildest generation
Gransnet, the popular social networking site for grandparents, is aflame. Not with disputes over how to roast a chicken or subdue a pack of feral toddlers, but with the question of whether joining Palestine Action is morally acceptable or not. And this, rather than student unions or the bars of Dalston in east London, is the place to be debating it, as baby boomers take up the cause of an organisation that was banned under terror legislation last month. New figures from the Met Police reveal that of the 532 people arrested for supporting Palestine Action in London earlier this month, the average age was 54 but the largest group was people in their 60s (147 arrests), closely followed by 97 arrests of those in their 70s. Twentysomethings, long thought to be the natural foot soldiers of protest, trailed in third place with just 54 arrests. 'It's important to remember these people came of age in a period obsessed with social justice,' says Bobby Duffy, an academic and author of The Generation Myth: Why When You're Born Matters. 'They had the spirit of May 1968, [a period of civil unrest in] France, behind them, and experienced regular protests against the status quo in the UK and US. Retirement also gives you more time – there's a squeezed middle of people too busy with work, children, mortgages and ageing parents to look outward. But when you're young and when you're old, you have the space to focus on what you really care about.' Patricia, 75, has spent decades on the picket line protesting against nuclear weapons and the Iraq war, and for abortion rights and marriage equality. Joining Palestine Action, she believed, would have been the logical next step. 'We're the right people to be doing it,' she says. 'I'm not planning to become a lawyer or travel to America, so the worst-case scenario of a criminal record doesn't really affect me.' But in the end it was her millennial children that intervened. 'My daughters were so upset by the idea I might be arrested that I reconsidered.' Increasingly, we are all having to upend our notions that protest is the preserve of idealistic undergraduates. Many of the marches against Donald Trump have seen retirees outnumber students, while the Extinction Rebellion protests have been almost as thick with grey hair as pink. Who could forget the photographs of a then 60-year-old Emma Thompson perched on a boat in Oxford Circus a few years ago? 'I have often said that baby boomers are going to fundamentally reshape what ageing looks like,' says Jennifer Ailshire, a professor of gerontology at the University of Southern California. 'We had the stereotype of a grandma knitting or an old fellow gardening because we have associated ageing with frailty and ill-health and a lack of ability to be out in social spaces. Boomers are the first generation in the history of the world to have really benefited from new medical interventions and advice on how to stay fitter for longer, and as a result a great number feel younger and seem younger than those who came before them.' Duffy agrees that health is the largest reason for this culture-changing shift. 'Life expectancy in the UK is now over 80; for many, that means a second act spanning decades,' he says. Another important factor is wealth. 'This generation of retirees has far more disposable income than any other. They benefited from rising house prices, golden economic conditions, generous final-salary pensions and free higher education. That creates the means to have an unusual level of freedom.' The third is attitudes. 'This is the post-war generation that drove changes in gender equality, sexual behaviour and individual freedom,' says Duffy. 'They're distinct from their parents in almost every social measure so it's no wonder they are approaching old age with a very different mindset.' This last point is evidenced by the fact that boomers are wilder in their politics – and their pleasures. This is in comparison to both the silent generation and (somewhat shamingly for anyone under 40) their own adult children. Around Britain, millennials and older Gen Zs – who have largely moderated their drinking and swapped clubbing for 6am yoga classes – are quietly watching their parents' social calendars and holiday plans completely outpace their own. Lucy, 33, now refuses to have dinner with her parents during the week. It's not because she is too busy, or because she has too much on to leave work on time. It's not even because they live too far away – after they retired, her parents sold the family home in Wimbledon and bought a two-bedroom flat in Bloomsbury so they could be closer to the best restaurants and bars in the capital. 'I can't see my parents because I can't take the hangovers at my desk the day after,' says Lucy. 'My friends and I tend to stick to one or two drinks, or we meet up to exercise if it's a Monday or Tuesday, but my parents ply me with cocktails and wine and when I refuse they joke about me being pregnant. I love them to bits but I've realised I need to limit my time with them to weekends. They're just too much for me.' This isn't just anecdotal. Baby boomers now drink more alcohol than any other age group, according to figures from the now defunct Public Health England. Studies show that three in 10 boomers drink five days or more a week, while less than 1 per cent of Gen Z does the same. 'Alcohol drinking is incredibly generational,' says Duffy. 'It's about what you were socialised into, but also other changes: it is more difficult and more expensive for young people to get alcohol, whereas boomers were brought up on the idea that going out means drinking. Back then, there was massive sponsorship of big events by alcohol companies, and the advertising of alcohol was embedded everywhere; now young people tend to associate heavy drinking with health problems.' As for going out, Ailshire argues that boomers have always been a particularly social generation. 'Younger adults today have far less time for leisure, and the idea of a single-earner household has almost completely gone out the window,' she says. As a result, millennials are struggling to pay childcare bills and mortgages, and simply don't have the money for babysitters and restaurants. Similarly, those in cities often don't have space in their houses for dinners and parties. 'Then there is the fact that phone addiction eats up so much of younger generations' free time,' says Ailshire. 'It all adds up to a picture where over-60s are socialising much more than those coming up behind them.' And where drinking goes, other traditionally 'bad' behaviours often follow. The over-65s have experienced a 20 per cent rise in STIs in the UK in the last five years, while in Australia, a government report this year found that alcohol, tobacco and drug use among the over-60s had doubled in a decade. Globally, the pattern repeats itself. In France, Les Papy Boomers have become a political force, organising environmental protests from Marseille to Paris. In the US, the 'Raging Grannies' have made headlines for turning up at demonstrations in feather boas and floppy hats, singing protest songs rewritten to target companies in the fossil fuel industry. In Japan, a wave of 'silver start-ups' has seen retirees launching fashion brands, dance studios and even underground nightclubs. Boomers, in other words, are not quietly retiring to potter around the garden and watch Midsomer Murders. And while younger generations may be physically fitter and more socially progressive on paper, they are finding it difficult to match the heady mix of financial freedom and healthy, work-free years their parents are clearly benefiting from. What remains to be seen is whether this is a generational anomaly – the final flourish of a cohort born into a rare period of post-war prosperity who went on to dominate the culture of nearly every decade they have been adults in – or whether it is the new template for ageing in the 21st century. 'I think sadly this is unique to the boomers,' says Ailshire, who was born in 1981. 'I just don't think we will be able to retire at the age baby boomers have, and nor will many of us have the same level of wealth when we are no longer working. The boomers are the aberrant generation – and I'm not confident that the concept of a wild retirement will endure much beyond them.'
