Starmer’s Britain: When Dissent Becomes Terrorism
George Galloway and his wife were detained by counter-terrorism police at Gatwick Airport on Saturday, a stark reminder that in Starmer’s Britain, the machinery of the surveillance state operates with chilling efficiency against political opponents as well as journalists and even comedians.
The former MP was stopped by officers under Schedule 3 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act after arriving from Moscow via Abu Dhabi. The legislation allows authorities to stop, question, search and detain individuals at borders to determine if they have engaged in “hostile activity”, a conveniently elastic definition that can apparently stretch to cover any political position the government finds inconvenient.
Galloway and his wife Putri Gayatri Pertiwi were later released without charge, but not before the Workers Party of Britain condemned what it called “politically motivated intimidation.” Their statement cut to the heart of the matter: “We were obstructed from providing legal support and the conduct of the affair has been designed to intimidate political opponents of the drive towards war with Russia and China.”
The timing is hardly coincidental. Galloway has been one of the most vocal critics of Western military involvement in Ukraine and the broader confrontation with Russia. His recent return from Moscow, regardless of the purpose, provided the perfect pretext for authorities to demonstrate what happens to those who stray from the approved foreign policy narrative.
This represents the logical extension of legislation originally sold as necessary to combat genuine terrorism. Schedule 3 powers, introduced under the 2019 Act, require no suspicion of wrongdoing, merely the authorities’ assessment that questioning might reveal “hostile activity.” The definition of such activity remains deliberately vague, creating space for exactly this kind of political fishing expedition.
The broader pattern is unmistakable. Counter-terrorism legislation, once justified as emergency measures against bomb plots and mass casualty attacks, now routinely targets journalists, protesters, and political dissidents. The legal framework designed to protect national security has become the instrument of political control.
Galloway’s detention sends a clear message to anyone considering deviation from official orthodoxy on foreign policy. Travel to Moscow, Beijing, or any other disfavoured capital, and you risk finding yourself in a police interview room explaining your activities to counter-terrorism officers. The chilling effect on political discourse and diplomatic engagement cannot be overstated.
Thoughtcrime:Β No one can get up much enthusiasm for a Government which puts you in jail if you open your mouthβ
– George Orwell.
The Workers Party leader’s political career, representing Glasgow Hillhead, Kelvin, Bethnal Green, Bradford West, and most recently Rochdale, has been marked by consistent opposition to Western military interventions. His critics may question his judgments, but his right to hold and express those views should be beyond dispute in any democracy worth the name.
Yet here we witness the inexorable expansion of state power that characterises Starmer’s administration. The same government that promises to restore trust in politics deploys counter-terrorism powers against a sitting politician whose crime appears to be holding unpopular views about international relations.
The procedural aspects matter as much as the political ones. Galloway’s party reports being “obstructed from providing legal support”, a concerning indication that even basic legal protections become negotiable when the authorities decide someone requires special attention. If a former MP cannot access proper legal representation during border detention, what hope do ordinary citizens have?
This incident illuminates the dangerous precedent being set across multiple fronts. We have already witnessed the arrest of journalists like Richard Medhurst, Asa Winstanley, Sarah Wilkinson, Allison Pearson and Tony Greenstein under terrorism legislation, comedians prosecuted for satirical content, and ordinary citizens detained for social media posts that authorities deem problematic. The net widens systematically: first terrorism suspects, then political dissidents, then journalists, then anyone whose online activity attracts official displeasure.
The legislation itself reveals the problem. Schedule 3 powers operate in a legal grey area where normal protections against arbitrary detention do not apply. There is no requirement for reasonable suspicion, no automatic right to legal representation, and no meaningful oversight of how these powers are exercised. The state can detain and question anyone crossing the border, for any reason it deems relevant to national security.
Galloway’s detention also raises questions about the relationship between political opposition and national security. When did holding dissenting views about foreign policy become grounds for counter-terrorism investigation? When did travelling to countries with which we maintain diplomatic relations become suspicious activity requiring police interrogation?
The answer reveals itself in the broader trajectory of Starmer’s government. From arresting social media users for online posts to monitoring bank accounts under financial crime legislation, the pattern shows a state increasingly comfortable with deploying exceptional powers against ordinary political activity.
The Workers Party’s accusation of “politically motivated intimidation” deserves serious consideration, not dismissal. The timing, the target, and the conduct of this detention all suggest something beyond routine security screening. This looks like political policing dressed up in counter-terrorism clothing.
As Galloway prepares for his planned candidacy in next year’s Scottish Parliament elections, this detention serves as a warning to any politician considering positions that challenge the foreign policy consensus. Step out of line, and the full weight of the security apparatus awaits.
This is Starmer’s Britain: a country where dissent becomes disloyalty, where political opposition invites security investigation, and where the machinery of counter-terrorism turns its attention to anyone who dares question the march toward conflict. The transformation from democracy to security state continues, one detention at a time.
Note to self… cancel holiday abroad next year…
Support Independent Journalism Today
Our unwavering dedication is to provide you with unbiased news, diverse perspectives, and insightful opinions. We're on a mission to ensure that those in positions of power are held accountable for their actions, but we can't do it alone. Labour Heartlands is primarily funded by me, Paul Knaggs, and by the generous contributions of readers like you. Your donations keep us going and help us uphold the principles of independent journalism. Join us in our quest for truth, transparency, and accountability β donate today and be a part of our mission!
Like everyone else, we're facing challenges, and we need your help to stay online and continue providing crucial journalism. Every contribution, no matter how small, goes a long way in helping us thrive. By becoming one of our donors, you become a vital part of our mission to uncover the truth and uphold the values of democracy.
While we maintain our independence from political affiliations, we stand united against corruption, injustice, and the erosion of free speech, truth, and democracy. We believe in the power of accurate information in a democracy, and we consider facts non-negotiable.
Your support, no matter the amount, can make a significant impact. Together, we can make a difference and continue our journey toward a more informed and just society.
Thank you for supporting Labour Heartlands
