The political climate in the UK today is fraught with tension, particularly when it comes to free speech and the upholding of traditional British values. Under Keir Starmer’s leadership, there’s a growing concern that Labour is increasingly promoting a form of ideological conformity that threatens the very foundation of our democratic society.

Consider the example of Sir Salman Rushdie, a man who has been celebrated for his literary achievements and his fearless advocacy for free expression. Rushdie, knighted and appointed a Member of the Order of the Companions of Honour (CH) in 2022, along with many other awards internationally represents the very essence of what it means to champion free speech against authoritarian forces. Yet, under the current political trajectory, one wonders if Rushdie would face criminal charges simply for voicing his opinions today.

The arrest of Dee Stitt for posting comments critical of Islam raises troubling questions about free speech in the UK. Contrast this with how Sir Salman Rushdie, author of "The Satanic Verses," faced international death threats for his critiques of Islam but was celebrated in Britain for his courage and commitment to free expression. Rushdie’s novel, controversial for its portrayal of Islamic themes, was defended as an essential exercise of free speech. The book illudes that Satan sent Qur'an verses to deceive Muhammad into thinking they came from God. The book states that these "Satanic Verses" were revealed between verses 20 and 21 in Surah An-Najm of the Qur'an. This idea is far more controversial and offensive to Muslims than anything Dee Stitt posted on Facebook.

Yet, today, under Labour's government, a man is arrested for a social media post being critical of Islam. The disparity reveals a dangerous shift in how we view free speech: what was once a proud defence of the right to critique and provoke thought is now met with fear and censorship.

Absolute authoritarianism over our justice system is not far-fetched. The Home Office's recent tweet declaring over a thousand arrests related to public disorder and labelling those individuals as "criminals" before any trial is deeply concerning, irrelevant to whether an individual broke the law or not. It hints at a dangerous erosion of the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of British law. This approach reflects a broader trend within Labour's ranks, where dissenting views are increasingly being silenced, and ideological purity is enforced.

Many on the right and centre argue that under Starmer, Labour is fostering a culture that prioritises ideological alignment over genuine discourse and diversity of thought. This is not the Britain of free thinkers and spirited debate that many of us cherish. Instead, it’s a step towards a more controlled society where only certain opinions are tolerated, and those who dare to question the prevailing orthodoxy are sidelined or worse.

As we face the reality of a Labour government, it’s essential to consider what is at stake. Will we continue to uphold our proud tradition of free speech, allowing voices like Rushdie’s to flourish? Or will we see a further slide into a restrictive environment where the state determines which voices are acceptable? The answer to this question will define the future of our society and the freedoms we hold dear.