In August, when the United States’ Department of State issued its annual report on global human rights, it had some choice words for the United Kingdom.

It pointed to restrictions on freedom of expression, including a clampdown on political speech. The department’s spokesperson, Tammy Bruce, said, “No matter how disagreeable someone’s speech may be, criminalizing it or silencing it by force only serves as a catalyst for further hatred, suppression or polarization.”

A particular concern was the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt, who was prosecuted for holding a sign that read “Here to talk, if you want” outside an abortion clinic in Bournemouth, England. Undaunted, she pledged, after her conviction, to “continue my fight for free speech”.

Her predicament attracted the concerns of both the US vice-president, JD Vance, and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (which falls under the Department of State). The bureau described the conviction as “disappointing”, emphasizing that “Freedom of expression must be protected for all.”

In response, the UK government insisted, “Free speech is vital for democracy around the world, including in the UK, and we are proud to uphold freedoms while keeping our citizens safe.” Alas, these high-sounding sentiments owed nothing to reality.

In February, moreover, Vance declared that free speech was “in retreat” in the UK, a declaration that events have since confirmed.

When, for example, the popular Irish comedian Graham Linehan landed at London’s Heathrow Airport on Sept 1, he was arrested, searched, and questioned by five armed police officers. His “crime” was to have written posts on X that were deemed “anti-trans”. One post said, “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act.” Another post said the police should be called in such situations, and that women should be able to defend themselves against biological males who invaded their space.

Nobody was more incensed over Linehan’s treatment than Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK. Calling his arrest “rather timely”, he pointed out that Linehan had been invited to testify before the US House Committee on the Judiciary at a hearing on “European threats to free speech”.

Farage said Linehan’s ordeal was more proof that the UK was sliding into what he called a “really awful authoritarian situation”, although this was only the tip of the iceberg.

When Linehan’s arrest was raised with the British prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, his spokesman called it “an operational matter for the police”.

Since Starmer was elected 16 months ago, the police have used their recently acquired (and often draconian) powers to clamp down on people whose views are unorthodox or otherwise offend the governing class. Although the judiciary sometimes steps in, this is by no means a given. A climate of fear is taking hold, which Starmer has done nothing to counter. On the contrary, by accusing nearly 500 protesters of terrorism under a hastily enacted law for protesting peacefully against the Gaza genocide, Starmer has sought to frighten people into keeping quiet (the courts may yet strike down his legislation as excessive)

Others, fortunately, were less mealy-mouthed, and the Conservative Party leader, Kemi Badenoch, said, “Sending officers to arrest a man for a tweet isn’t policing, it’s politics.” Moreover, the children’s author JK Rowling, a champion of women’s rights, spoke for many when, in response to Linehan’s arrest, she said the UK was now a “totalitarian” state.

And the leader of the Workers Party of Britain (WPB), George Galloway, a former parliamentarian and popular talk show host, would undoubtedly agree. When he and his wife, Putri Gayatri, the WPB’s deputy chairman, arrived at London’s Gatwick Airport on Sept 27, they were detained for nine hours by counterterrorism police. In what he described as “intimidation”, they confiscated his phone and laptop and questioned him about his views on China and Russia.

Although the couple was not formally arrested, the WPB described the episode as “politically motivated intimidation”. As Galloway explained on his talk show, no effort was made to show cause for the detentions, which amounted to a “fishing expedition”. If, as he inquired rhetorically of his audience, he and his wife could be arbitrarily detained under the UK’s anti-terrorism laws, “What hope have you got?” The police even wanted to know why one of Gayatri’s fingernails was painted in the Palestinian colors.

Galloway had intended to speak at an event in London, which was to be attended by the Chinese ambassador, but his detention prevented his attendance (this may have been part of the plan). However, true to form, he refused to be cowed, saying, “Not even death will intimidate me.” He explained that the police wanted to obtain the couple’s phones, which they confiscated to gain access to their private communications (he pledged to seek their return through the courts).

In September, another political leader, Tommy Robinson, a right-wing firebrand, in a remarkable show of strength, mobilized a march of over 100,000 people in London in protest at Starmer’s disastrous immigration policies. Needless to say, he, like Tossici-Bolt, Linehan, and Galloway, found himself in the firing line for his views, but at least in his case, the Judiciary came to the rescue.

After Robinson was stopped by police officers at the Channel Tunnel in Folkestone, England, while driving to Spain, he was inexplicably detained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which permits officers to question individuals at British ports to identify potential links to terrorism. When he was told to provide his phone’s personal identification number, he refused, citing journalistic protections, whereupon he was charged with a terrorism offense.

However, at court, Robinson’s lawyer, King’s Counsel Alisdair Williamson, argued that the stop was politically motivated, with the police thinking, “Oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson.” Judge Sam Goozee agreed, pointing out that the officers who detained Robinson for 40 minutes had failed to record clear reasons for selecting him. He said the stop “gave the impression of an arbitrary decision based on who you are”, which it clearly was — this meant “I cannot convict you.”

If the police had intended to deter Robinson and his followers from expressing themselves in the future, they would have got nowhere with Robinson, who takes everything in his stride. Some of his followers, however, may think twice, particularly those with families to support.

Although Robinson’s legal fees were paid by Tesla’s Elon Musk, a free speech advocate, others facing persecution for their views may not be so fortunate.

Musk stepped in because he deplored the “censorship” imposed by Starmer’s government. Last year, his social media platform, X, refused to give police the account details of hundreds of Britons protesting against illegal immigration. Indeed, after a care worker, Cameron Bell, was imprisoned for nine months for livestreaming riots and using language deemed insulting in Tamworth last year, Musk branded Britain “a police state”.

Although the UK’s Human Rights Act (Art. 10) “protects a person’s right to hold opinions and to express them freely”, the likes of Tossici-Bolt, Linehan, Galloway, Gayatri, and Robinson must have been left wondering if these rights are worth the paper they are written on.

Another recent shocking miscarriage of justice involved Lucy Connolly, who issued (and then deleted) a racist tweet in fury after a man of Rwandan stock murdered three girls in a knife attack at a dance workshop in Southport last year. She was sentenced to 31 months’ imprisonment for stirring up racial hatred, which stunned the public. This type of sentence is usually reserved for hardened criminals, not for a childminder and mother of previous good character who made a foolish mistake in the heat of the moment. It was little wonder that one parliamentarian, Rupert Lowe, called her punishment “morally repugnant”, adding, “This is not the Britain I want to live in.”

When Starmer was asked about Connolly’s treatment, he ducked again, claiming it was “a matter for the courts”. Upon release, however, Connolly was unequivocal, describing herself as “Starmer’s political prisoner” — and who can blame her?

Since Starmer was elected 16 months ago, the police have used their recently acquired (and often draconian) powers to clamp down on people whose views are unorthodox or otherwise offend the governing class. Although the judiciary sometimes steps in, this is by no means a given. A climate of fear is taking hold, which Starmer has done nothing to counter. On the contrary, by accusing nearly 500 protesters of terrorism under a hastily enacted law for protesting peacefully against the Gaza genocide, Starmer has sought to frighten people into keeping quiet (the courts may yet strike down his legislation as excessive).

If Hong Kong had treated its residents in the way the UK has treated Tossici-Bolt, Linehan, Galloway, Gayatri, Robinson and Connolly, there would be angry outcries from Starmer’s government and the UK’s noisy anti-China brigade.

Although it is not usual for the Beijing or Hong Kong Special Administrative Region governments to condemn human rights abuses in the UK (or in other Western countries), they would, given recent developments, be wholly justified in making an exception at this time.

The next time, therefore, Starmer’s government considers accusing Hong Kong of impinging “on the rights and freedoms of individuals in Hong Kong and overseas” (as it did on March 27), it would do well, if it has any shame, to consider the impact of its own repressive policies on free speech in the UK. And the next time it says it will “continue steadfastly championing rights and freedoms for the people of Hong Kong” (as it did on Oct 23), it should first consider championing the rights and freedoms of the British people.

After all, Starmer must know that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.