US says human rights have ‘worsened' in UK in past year

CNN

21 hours ago

The Trump administration has published a report claiming that human rights in the United Kingdom 'worsened' over the past year.
The annual report, part of the US State Department's global survey of human rights, criticized what it said were 'serious restrictions' on free speech and threats of violence motivated by antisemitism.
Although other reports in the series claimed human rights also regressed in countries like France and Germany, the list of grievances in the UK was far longer, underscoring the supposed backsliding in the age of social media.
Specifically on freedom of speech in the UK, the US report said that 'the government generally respected this right' but that 'there were specific areas of concern, including involving restrictions on political speech deemed 'hateful' or 'offensive.''
A UK government spokesperson said that free speech is 'vital for democracy,' and that 'we are proud to uphold freedoms whilst keeping our citizens safe.'
Speaking at the Munich Security Conference in February, Vice President JD Vance – who is currently on vacation in England's rural Cotswolds – claimed that free speech across Europe is 'in retreat' and singled out Britain as the country where the 'basic liberties' of citizens had been caught 'in the crosshairs.'
The report singled out the response by what was then the young government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer to the murder of three schoolgirls by Axel Rudakubana, the British son of Rwandan migrants, in the northern English town of Southport last year.
The murders – and misinformation about the identity of the perpetrator – sparked anti-immigration riots across the country, prompting some to set fire to a hotel used to house asylum seekers while people were inside.
In the wake of the Southport killings, government officials 'repeatedly intervened to chill speech as to the identity and motives of the attacker,' the report said.
Although the report implied nefariousness on the part of the British government, prosecutors applied existing laws, such as the Public Order Act 1986 and the Communications Act 2003, to punish speech deemed 'indecent or grossly offensive.'
To stem the rioting, Starmer – a former director of public prosecutions – pledged that those involved would face the 'full force of the law.' That summer, nearly 2,000 people were arrested and more than 1,000 people were charged.
Although the riots swiftly died down after the initial spasm of outrage, many on the British right criticized the government's response as heavy-handed, designed to throttle conservative views.
'While many media observers deemed 'two-tier' enforcement of these laws following the Southport attacks an especially grievous example of government censorship, censorship of ordinary Britons was increasingly routine, often targeted at political speech,' the report said.
It cited the sentencing in July of Lee Joseph Dunn to eight weeks in prison for 'posting a meme suggesting a link between migrants and knife crime.' Dunn pleaded guilty to sending messages that were 'grossly offensive,' which prosecutors said risked 'worsening community tensions.'
Dunn's case was not unusual. In another high-profile instance, Lucy Connolly, a mother and former nanny, was sentenced to 31 months in prison after calling for mass deportation and urging hotels housing immigrants to be set on fire. 'If that makes me racist so be it,' she posted on X at the time.
While the UK maintains it is striking a balance between protecting speech and keeping citizens safe, Vance claims the UK has got that balance wrong. During a meeting last week with UK Foreign Minister David Lammy, the vice president said he did not want other countries to 'follow us down what I think was a very dark path under the Biden administration' by censoring conservative views.
Following Vance's Munich speech, and his more recent interventions, many in Britain have accused him of hypocrisy and cited the Trump administration's detention of students over pro-Palestinian speech and taking legal action against broadcasters for what it deems hostile news coverage.