In 2017, when the UK’s current foreign secretary, David Lammy, was still a backbench parliamentarian, he launched an intemperate attack on the US president, Donald Trump. He claimed he was unfit to hold public office, and posed a “profound threat to the international order”. He was “no friend of Britain” and should be denied the honor of a state visit to the United Kingdom.
His horror, therefore, when Trump was re-elected in 2024 can only be imagined. As foreign secretary, it was his responsibility to build bridges with the United States. He has, therefore, now swallowed his words, describing Trump as “warm and friendly”. Even if Trump did not forget the abuse, Lammy must have prayed for his forgiveness, though he would have realized he had to earn it.
Lammy’s strategy, therefore, has been two-pronged. Firstly, like his boss, Sir Keir Starmer, he has swallowed his principles and said the things he believes Trump wants to hear. Secondly, he has courted Trump’s senior officials, with some success.
Thus, when he addressed the House of Commons on June 24, Lammy emphasized the UK’s commitment to the US-led “Five Eyes partners”, and called China a “sophisticated and persistent” threat. In case this did not suffice, he also referenced the UK’s National Strategy 2025, which sought “a deeper trade, technology and security deal with the US”. Even if his comments have not wholly placated Trump, they will have done him no harm.
Lammy’s wooing of Trump’s officials should also have pleased him. On Aug 2, The Guardian reported that Lammy now called the US vice-president, JD Vance, his “friend”, and claimed “JD completely relates to me”. He even attended a Mass at Vance’s home in Washington in March, with their burgeoning friendship apparently growing out of shared backgrounds. They are both Christians, and Lammy believed there was “common ground”.
Vance was clearly flattered by Lammy’s overtures, and, at the Munich Security Conference in February, he reciprocated, calling him “my English friend”.
When, moreover, Vance began his summer holiday in England this month, he and his family spent two days with Lammy and his wife at their home in Kent. Having trumpeted their friendship, he warned Lammy that the UK should not go down a “very dark path” of losing free speech.
If genuine, friendships can be wonderful things, and they help to build trust. Furthermore, when friends lay out unpleasant home truths, they need to be taken seriously. It is invariably well-intentioned and objective, unlike that of others. When, therefore, Vance pointed out the errors being made by Starmer’s government, Lammy was hopefully listening.
In February, when Starmer and Lammy attended an Oval Office meeting with Trump, Vance said the UK had a free speech problem, which must have startled them. In Munich, he elaborated, accusing Europe’s leaders — including Starmer and Lammy — of “censorship”. He singled out the UK government for its free speech laws, which gave the police too much power to arrest people for what was deemed offensive internet speech.
Until Starmer’s government has put its house in order, Lammy is in no position to lecture anybody else about their failings, least of all Hong Kong, a beacon of hope in troubled times
Vance clearly had a point, and The Economist has since pointed out that “British police arrest more than 30 people a day for online posts, double the rate in 2017” (May 15). This has resulted from the police spending thousands of hours trawling through social media, rather than patrolling the streets and catching criminals.
Not surprisingly, Vance pulled no punches, saying “most concerningly, I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons, in particular, in the crosshairs”. He was particularly incensed by the case of an army veteran, Adam Smith-Connor, who was prosecuted for praying too closely to an abortion clinic in Bournemouth, England. When questioned by the police, he said he was praying for his unborn son who had been aborted years before.
Vance could also have mentioned the notorious case of Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative Party councilor. She was imprisoned for 31 months in May last year for posting a racist tweet after a man of Rwandan ancestry knifed three little girls to death at a Southport dance school. Although she deleted the tweet, apologized, acted in the heat of the moment, and had a clear record, this cut no ice with the court. It handed down a sentence that was way over the top, and the public was outraged. This, unfortunately, is now the face of English justice, and a culture of intolerance has taken hold more generally.
When, for example, Simon Pearson, who teaches at Preston College, opined online that Connolly’s prison sentence was an example of “two-tier policing”, he was dismissed from his post after a complaint. Although he had acknowledged that Connolly’s tweet was “obviously wrong”, he felt she “should not have been jailed”, a wholly legitimate point of view. However, the college did not see his exercise of free speech in that way, claiming his comments might bring it into disrepute.
Although Pearson explained, “I’ve dedicated my life to education and to supporting students from all walks of life,” it fell on deaf ears. He said he was the victim of “a witch hunt”, and “had to be eliminated no matter what”. It was little wonder that Vance described free speech in the UK (and across Europe) as being “in retreat”, a commonly held view.
Indeed, on June 12, the Evening Standard’s columnist, Melanie McDonagh, spoke for many Britons when she said, “It’s time for a brutal truth — JD Vance was right about free speech in Britain.” She cited the case of the respected journalist, Allison Pearson (a columnist for The Telegraph), who was visited at home by two police officers because of a tweet someone disliked about Palestinian protests. If the thought police could even target Pearson, McDonagh reasoned that “none of us is safe”. She signed off with the words “Thank you, JD”, and Lammy hopefully heard.
If so, he was not sufficiently attentive. On July 5, his government, in a move condemned by the United Nations human rights commissioner, Volker Turk, proscribed Palestine Action (PA), which campaigns for Palestinian rights. It designated PA a terrorist organization after several activists spray-painted two government aircraft in a publicity stunt. However, the courts have allowed the organization to challenge the legality of the ban, and it could well be lifted. The police have already arrested hundreds of peaceful protesters for showing their support for PA, and many more arrests are forecast. Instead of harassing people disgusted by Israel’s atrocities in Gaza, the police should be combating the UK’s spiraling criminality, including the knife crime epidemic in London.
As anybody who expresses support for PA now faces up to 14 years’ imprisonment, Vance’s concerns over the stifling of free speech in the UK are wholly justified — as Lammy hopefully realizes. However, American concerns are not confined to Vance.
After The Telegraph revealed last month that civil servants were monitoring social media posts about asylum hotels and “two-tier” policing during the Southport riots last year, there was a public outcry. The officials were monitoring “concerning” posts about asylum seekers and then asking tech companies to remove them. As free speech campaigners pointed out, the officials were effectively censoring political debate about immigration, and they demanded an immediate inquiry. This time, however, it was not Vance who raised the alarm, but the US State Department (headed by Marco Rubio).
It stated that, “One of the reasons free speech is so important is that it enables citizens to have accurate information and honest conversations about policy failures of the ruling class — immigration is a prime example of this.” Its worries were such that it said, “We are monitoring free speech developments in the UK closely and with great concern.”
The UK’s actions, therefore, have been chilling, and it has been told unequivocally to protect free speech. This has come not from an adversary, but from its closest ally. Lammy’s new best buddy, JD Vance, has explained exactly what is going wrong, and, in his heart of hearts, Lammy must know he is right. Indeed, the situation must be dire if even Vance felt he had to speak out, embarrassing his “English friend”.
Traditionally, when the US says “Jump”, the UK responds, “How high?” Only time will tell if Lammy and his colleagues will heed the condemnations from Vance and his colleagues, but they have no choice but to take them seriously. If even their closest friends are calling out the UK’s abuse of free speech, it is hard to see how it can be business as usual.
Until Starmer’s government has put its house in order, Lammy is in no position to lecture anybody else about their failings, least of all Hong Kong, a beacon of hope in troubled times. It beggared belief, for example, that when he issued the UK’s 55th six-monthly report on Hong Kong last year, he claimed that “media freedom remained under threat” and that “civil and political rights and freedoms” were endangered. Although he was then new to his job, it was the height of hypocrisy, as he hopefully now realizes.
With Vance’s words ringing in his ears, Lammy should at least have the decency to avoid propagandizing at the expense of others. As the US has explained, his government is actively undermining free speech (and related) rights, and he is in no position to judge Hong Kong. When, therefore, he drafts his next Hong Kong report, he must remember that “people 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.
