British citizens are being arrested for exercising free speech in the United Kingdom. This has been going on for over a decade but is escalating to new heights under the direction of UK’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Furthermore, US citizens visiting the country could face criminal prosecution.
Welcome to the beginning of a new world – a dystopian era where gaslighting on an international scale becomes the rule of law, particularly as it pertains to the wonton restriction of fundamental civil liberties.
I am no stranger to despotism or the machinations of arbitrary control over information.
Years ago, I lived in a US prison subworld where information was tightly controlled, reducing news to misinformation and disinformation in an effort to redirect our awareness of certain public events.
My own personal writings as well as the legal materials associated with the appeal I was preparing were confiscated. Furthermore, even a news reporter was prohibited from asking me questions about my case, which censored my ability to defend myself. Lastly, my own attorney was obstructed from meeting with me.
The ultimate goal of censorship, when access to information has been restricted is to control the narrative, and eliminate opposing narratives. Both of these control forms are being enforced by the UK government right now.
More importantly, these broad and overly vague censorship laws, which interpret unwanted speech as 'hate speech' have been impacting the UK for years. However, under Keir Starmer, the government has taken an aggressively adversarial approach against the British public for speaking the wrong opinion.
What began as a democracy has evolved into a Trojan horse agenda, revealing qualities of an unyielding dictatorship more commonly associated with non-Western foreign countries and putting democracy under fire.
This article alone could be my undoing.
Compromising democracy
Videos have been flooding social media recently depicting the arrests for free speech, both online and in public. Since the onset of Britain’s recent influx of asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Syria – entering the UK both legally and illegally by crossing the English Channel – the UK has experienced unprecedented culture shock, violent clashes, and riots between British protesters and radical migrants, and hotels housing asylum seekers.
The saying is true, “the few spoil it for the many.”
Where I live in the UK is a peaceful mix of British citizens and immigrants. I am, after all, an immigrant myself who is still in the visa process.
Needless to say, tensions are running high here. Speaking out against immigration in any way, regardless of tone, can invariably result in individuals being confronted by a police response, where suspects are considered to be inciting hate speech.
In one video posted on January 6th, which received 1.6 million views as of this writing, a social media user is confronted by two police officers, accompanied by a senior nurse working for the National Health Services (NHS) over a comment he posted. They confront the user, expressing that they had “a few concerns, a few things that are bothering you at the moment.”
“People have raised concerns about your views … that you’ve got concerns that’s going on in Australia?” said one police officer. The context of the post was concerning “some beliefs being expressed” because he said, “Christians should stand up.”
The NHS nurse then attempts to offer counseling, saying, “So, there’s a report about some beliefs being expressed. So, the reason why I’m here, is I work for the NHS, and if you’re willing, I’m happy to talk and listen with you, and if you’ve got any concerns about your well-being…”
Other videos are making the rounds, including one showing the Metropolitan Police confronting an established preacher, Dwayne Lopez, who was peacefully sharing his faith in public, as reported by The Telegraph and GB News last spring. The man was surrounded by about five police officers.
Going back a few years, during an interview in 2019, British comedian and political commentator Konstantin Kisin stated that the UK arrests more people for social media posts than Russia, mentioning that in the previous year, approximately 400 people were arrested in Russia for their online posts, while in the UK, the number was somewhere around 3,300.
I myself often take offense when encountering bubbly, spritely, and overly chatty people on Monday mornings, which I find painfully annoying. As I revel in my castle of periodic misery while returning to work – when I’d rather be on vacation – I eventually get over myself and move on with my life.
In the words of Australian comedian Steve Hughes on his Health and Safety and Offended comedy routines, he said “'I wanna live in a democracy but I never wanna be offended again.' Well, you're an idiot!" Nail on the head right there. The claim that you should not have to be negatively affected at all by whatever anyone says or does is unenforceable without significantly compromising any meaningful talk of democracy or freedom.”
Offensiveness, as an "occupational hazard" in society, speaks to the reality that in any diverse community, people are bound to encounter ideas, expressions, or behaviors that clash with their values, beliefs, or sensibilities.
This is an inevitable byproduct of human diversity – differences in culture, upbringing, religion, politics, and personal experience, which creates a smorgasbord of perspectives. Consequently, this also causes individuals to encounter misunderstandings and the potential to experience conflict.
I find it hard to digest how people in my generation who grew up watching South Park and cartoons like The Ren & Stimpy Show have a leg to stand on when it comes to being offended in 2025.
Free speech demonized as “far-right”
The rhetoric being weaponized by the Prime Minister enforces the idea that if social media users or people in public areas share the wrong opinions, it is a criminal offense, by which they are labeled “far-right” in an effort to prioritize the feelings of others.
Let that sink in.
Just to clarify, to be targeted as being “far-right” comes with political stigmas in the UK. For example, the far-right has historically been linked to extremist ideologies, including white nationalism, xenophobia, and racism. This is because being proud to be English translates to being a racist.
"One notable grievance that highlights the history of censorship in the UK is the instance when Parliament member, the Rt Hon Eric Pickles, acting as the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, wrote a letter dated May 16th, 2013, to the Radstock Town Council. In the letter, he criticized the council for banning the flying of the English flag and noted that the prohibition was even criticized by Muslim groups.
“You have been reported as asserting that the flag is offensive to Muslims and that the flag has been hijacked by the far Right,” he wrote.
The rise of far-right groups such as the British National Party (BNP) and the English Defence League (EDL) has been accompanied by violent protests, hate crimes, and clashes with anti-fascist groups.
What’s important to take away from these arrests is that regardless of what immigrants are doing, the British public cannot so much as speak a contrary opinion to the narrative the UK government wants. This begs the question, why is the UK government willing to target its own citizens over seemingly innocuous opinions, and grant immunities to the foreigners imposing their own will on British citizens?
Growing up as a kid in the 90s in the USA, I’ve heard people say that we’re heading toward an Orwellian dystopia if we don’t wake up. Similarly, the US Founding Fathers left writings that testify to the subtle methods by which civil liberties are encroached upon, serving as harbingers that candidly warn how corruption and despotism creep in and gain control over democracy.
In the dystopian novel 1984 by George Orwell, censorship is a major theme of the novel, where the Party led by Big Brother heavily censors its citizens as a key tool for controlling information and redirecting public opinion. In current-day Britain, to offend someone amounts to a cancellation, as you are branded far-right for having opinions other people don’t like.
Furthermore, The Party constantly rewrites history to align with its current narrative. This is done through the Ministry of Truth, where protagonist Winston Smith works. Historical records are altered, and inconvenient facts or events are erased, creating a reality where the Party is always "correct."
Sexual exploitation coverup fueling further distrust
The last nail in the coffin is the public outcry against Starmer for his complete dismissal of investigating the sexual exploitation of young girls in Rotherham, UK back in 2008 when Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
This occurred after he was persuaded by an email from the Home Office, which urged police forces not to investigate. The email suggested that the girls, who were below the legal age of consent, had made 'informed choices.'
The victims of the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal were mostly girls aged between 11 and 16, which included some as young as 9 or 10 years old. The abuse occurred over a period of 16 years and impacted 1,400 children.
Let that resonate for a moment.
Since the National Crime Agency (NCA) is higher than the general police force in the UK, the agency revisited the Rotherham rape cases late last year, in what they called ‘Operation Stovewood’ which resulted in the conviction of seven men, who received a toal 106-year prison sentence.
This has not quieted the unrest in the UK.
Starmer himself denied these claims that he dismissed investigations or was directly responsible for blocking inquiries into the abuse, shifting the attention to inadequacies within law enforcement.
The Rotherham Borough Council was criticized for its wonton failure to act on warnings about child sexual exploitation and brazenly covering up the scale of the abuse. Additionally, local politicians and council officials were also accused of being complicit in blocking or delaying inquiries because they feared the consequences of highlighting the ethnic backgrounds of the perpetrators, who were mostly Pakistani men, which brings us back to the root issue of British unrest.
The unrest is proliferating because British citizens have legitimate concerns about those within the immigrant population who do not follow our laws. Secondly, the government is prioritizing the welfare of non-law-abiding individuals over its own law-abiding citizens – those who are not inciting violence or breaking the law. Thirdly, the government seems nervous about offending our Arab asylum seekers.
All these things, and things not mentioned herein, have added fuel to the fire of national unrest because of Starmer’s adversarial stance against the free speech of the peaceful, voicing their concerns over a violent minority who refuses to adhere to British laws, imposing their way of life on British culture through usurpation of what has always been our way of life.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are markedmarked