In a tense political climate, police have initiated a search for a man who openly threatened Labour leader Keir Starmer, stating on camera that “Keir Starmer needs to be assassinated, someone needs to shoot Keir Starmer.” This chilling remark has raised questions over the security of public officials in the United Kingdom. In reaction, there are now frantic demands for increased security for Starmer.
At the same time, Elon Musk is taking a beating for his statements at a recent Nativist/Alt-Right/Hate Rallies. While his remarks were not specifically aimed at Starmer, Downing Street described them as “dangerous and inflammatory.” This situation is further complicated by recent legal cases involving threats and hate speech, raising questions about the boundaries of free speech and public safety.
Police Investigation and Threats
In the meantime, the police are taking the potential threat very seriously and are investigating the individual who issued the violent threat against Keir Starmer. As tensions escalate both on and off the Capitol grounds, federal authorities have echoed the call to protect the safety of our public servants. That particular statement, made by this unnamed individual, has been considered so serious as to require immediate action by law enforcement.
The remarks by Elon Musk at a recent rally, although clearly not aimed at Starmer, have only contributed to that toxic environment. Musk, known for his advocacy of free speech, stated, “This is a message to the reasonable centre, the people who ordinarily wouldn’t get involved in politics, who just want to live their lives.” He warned that if current trends continue, “if this continues, that violence is going to come to you, you will have no choice.”
Legal Implications of Threatening Speech
The UK tackles menacing speech under the Public Order Act 1986. Moreover, the Serious Crime Act 2007 underpins this legal architecture. Section 4 of the Public Order Act addresses “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” directed toward individuals. Legal scholars have warned that if threats against Starmer increase, such draconian legislation could be used.
Jonathan Hall KC, the UK independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, remarked that Musk’s comments would not have broken any laws. He failed to elaborate on what this means for Starmer. The current national and local conversations about free speech and its boundaries are the key to making sense of these incidents.
“Politicians use martial language all the time, don’t they?” – Jonathan Hall KC
Context and Reactions
In light of recent high-profile cases of hate speech, such as the murder of MP Jo Cox, there has been increased scrutiny on political rhetoric in the UK. The 21-year-old Connolly was sentenced to 31 months in prison for inciting racial hatred. It is essential to understand that her case is not about Starmer. Ricky Jones, a suspended Labour councillor, was accused of making racist and sexist remarks. He was eventually acquitted of incitement to violent disorder after saying inflammatory things about far-right activists.
Chris Philp, then shadow home secretary, highlighted the perceived double standards in justice. He stopped short of naming Starmer explicitly. And not a word from Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, on Starmer’s call to be safeguarded. He’s had nothing to say about it publicly.
That political landscape is made all the more confusing by international comparisons. Unlike these other countries, the U.S. has an unqualified embrace of free speech. Unfortunately, these principles have no purchase in our crooked UK law or Starmer’s deeply undemocratic present.