A London court has blocked a Banksy mural denouncing the crackdown on pro-Palestine protests.

On Monday morning, the first passers-by along central London's historic Strand stopped in amazement in front of one of the walls of the Royal Courts of Justice, the UK 's most iconic court complex. There, on the exterior wall of the Queen's Building, appeared what would soon be confirmed as a new Banksy work . The mural, painted in his signature monochrome style with pops of bright red, depicted a British judge, recognizable by his gown and wig, brandishing a gavel and violently beating a protester lying on the ground, who was holding a bloody placard.

Hours later, the artist confirmed the authorship on his official Instagram account, without issuing, as usual, further comment. By then, the image had already been covered by court security personnel with temporary opaque panels, and a discreet police presence was deployed nearby.

Banksy's gesture, as powerful as it was ephemeral, comes at a time of particular friction between British civil society and state institutions, regarding the conflict in Gaza and the growing number of pro-Palestine protests that have taken place in different cities across the United Kingdom in the last two years, during which the government has also approved several measures aimed at restricting the right to demonstrate , under the arguments of preserving public safety, protecting institutional neutrality and preventing incitement to hatred. The most controversial of these measures was the inclusion of the collective 'Palestine Action' on the list of extremist organizations, a decision adopted in May of this year and which has resulted in more than 900 arrests, according to data published by 'The Guardian'.

In this context, the appearance of a Banksy mural in front of the country's most symbolic court building is more than an artistic intervention. Its location, its content, and its almost immediate concealment constitute a revealing episode of the current climate of legal and political tension in the United Kingdom.

The institutional reaction was swift. Court staff acted swiftly to cover up the work, citing reasons of " maintaining institutional decorum " and "preventing disturbances of public order." A decision that was interpreted by online activists as a form of preemptive censorship. The artist's own post also raises questions about how he was able to paint the mural in such a heavily guarded location.

In any case, the tension between art, protest, and legality is a characteristic of Banksy's career. In 2005, the artist had already generated controversy by painting several murals on the Israeli separation wall in the West Bank , including a girl flying with balloons over the wall and an open window overlooking a peaceful landscape. In 2017, he opened the 'Walled Off Hotel' in Bethlehem, a space part art installation, part tourist attraction, whose main focus was the wall itself. These interventions had already placed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the center of the anonymous artist's work, but always in spaces directly linked to the terrain. This time, however, the work questions the United Kingdom from within , in its role as guarantor, or censor, of freedom of expression.

Thus, what sets Monday's mural apart, in addition to its content, is its political charge in the British space, on the very facade of one of the symbols of Western legality, with a direct critique of the way the British judicial system is perceived by a segment of the population regarding its treatment of activists calling for an end to the violence in Gaza. The speed with which it was covered up also calls into question the criteria used to decide which art is preserved and which is eliminated , since on many occasions, unlike this one, the artist's works have been protected for their tourist and artistic value, even with the installation of protective sheets or security cameras.

In this climate, a comparison with other exponents of British critical culture is almost obligatory, such as Paul Laverty, a frequent screenwriter for Ken Loach, who in recent statements has denounced what he considers a systematic erosion of the right to protest in the name of a fictitious state neutrality, and has warned of the risks of confusing institutional stability with repression of dissent. And although the screenwriter has not commented on the mural, his words resonate in Banksy's gesture as a continuation of that shared concern about the limits of democracy in contemporary Britain.