The Green Party wanted Jonathan Sacerdoti arrested

Max Thompson, Campaigns Officer

7 August 2026

One day, a plain-clothes police officer arrived at Jonathan Sacerdoti's door. As he points out, this was a rarity, given that nobody turned up when his car was broken into or when shoplifters threatened a local shop worker with a stolen bottle of wine. The officer suggested she come inside for a conversation.

She informed Jonathan that she was there to invite him to a voluntary interview so he could give his "account".

The complaint related to a Green Party canvasser. Jonathan, the son of a Holocaust survivor, writes that he has become increasingly alarmed by the trajectory of the Green Party and the antisemitism emerging within it.

Jonathan told the Green canvasser, who was wearing a keffiyeh, that he did not want Green canvassers at his house, told her what he thought of the Green Party's handling of anti-Jewish racism, and asked whether she, "like her leader, thought Jews were worried about the 'perception' of danger rather than the real thing – after firebombed ambulances and synagogues, and Jews killed on Yom Kippur in Manchester".

Ten weeks later, the police knocked on Jonathan's door.

Because he dared to challenge a representative of the party who appeared on his doorstep wearing a keffiyeh, he found himself facing a police visit. Jonathan had previously told another Green Party canvasser that he did not want the party canvassing at his home. It seems the Greens do not take kindly to voters who answer back and challenge them.

Writing in The Spectator, Jonathan says: "As a writer and broadcaster in 2020s Britain, one almost expects the police eventually to arrive and allege some sort of thought crime, particularly if one writes about anti-Jewish racism and violence, free speech, the Middle East, Islam or trans issues. I write about all of them".

The police officer also went on to reveal something deeply concerning. It was not the woman in the keffiyeh who had made the harassment complaint. It was the earlier canvasser, who, the officer revealed, was then a Green Party candidate and is now a councillor. She alleged that Jonathan had called her "terrorist scum", even though he had not.

More troubling still, according to the officer, the Green Party appeared to have a "system" for collating intelligence about Jonathan.

"Harassment in law requires a course of conduct involving at least two separate incidents, aimed at the same person. I didn't know either woman, didn't know where they lived or worked, or in fact anything about them other than their allegiance to the nasty party. They knew where I live, what I do, my ethnicity and religion, and even my husband's name. I know who I think was harassing who."

After the officer left, Jonathan contacted his lawyer, who is funded by the Free Speech Union.

"The complainant, whom they insisted on calling the 'victim', was pressing them to act, though the CPS itself recognised the weakness of an allegation with literally no evidence. Maybe, they said, I'd like to write a letter of regret, to make this all disappear?
Regret? For what? I'd broken no law. I declined. If 'voluntary interviews' and letters of regret are becoming the new tools for silencing lawful political speech, we must refuse them at every opportunity.
The irony is that the Green Party has shown far less sensitivity toward prejudice in its own ranks."

Several weeks later, the police called Jonathan to inform him that no further action would be taken and that the investigation had been dropped. The officer informed him that "There is literally no evidence whatsoever that this happened as she alleged" — something he immediately forwarded on to his lawyer.

This came after Jonathan had been subjected to weeks of a threat hanging over him. It appears that the Green Party, a political party that purports to cherish tolerance, is not practising what it preaches and wishes to silence those who challenge them.

"Hostile questions are allowed. Anger is allowed. A citizen on his own doorstep owes a political canvasser no more comfort than he is owed, and owes a party's 'feelings' no deference to the police. A party that contains candidates calling Jews vermin and rationalising violence should not expect a Jewish journalist who challenges it at his own door to grovel for forgiveness. These are the basics of free speech, and no attempt to intimidate a journalist, a citizen, a Jew in response to legitimate political argument should be tolerated."

It is incredible that the police even investigated this. The Free Speech Union was pleased to have been able to help.

Read Jonathan's article in The Spectator.