In Keir Starmer’s Britain, free speech is alive and well — as long as you parrot the establishment’s globalist dogma, denounce Britain’s history, and never dare to challenge the sacred cows of international law. But question any of it, and you’re not just wrong — you’re apparently a Nazi. It’s the exact smear delivered by none other than Lord Richard Hermer, Starmer’s Attorney General, in a public speech last week.
Hermer didn’t hesitate to draw a grotesque comparison between those questioning the UK’s blind adherence to international legal bodies like the European Court of Human Rights, and jurists in 1930s Nazi Germany. Lord Hermer, in what was meant to be a sober legal address, effectively branded people like Kemi Badenoch — and by extension, millions of Britons who want to take back legal control of their own country — as ideological bedfellows of Hitler’s regime.
And when challenged? Did he apologise? Of course not. He “regrets” the “clumsy choice of words”.
That’s the new standard for Labour’s elite: you can hurl deeply offensive historical slurs, and if you’re caught, just regret being “clumsy.”
Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot. If a Conservative had implied that Labour’s deference to international law was akin to appeasement in 1938 — we’d never hear the end of it. The BBC would be running wall-to-wall coverage, Labour MPs would be in full froth, and resignations would be demanded before the day was out.
But in Starmer’s two-tier Britain, the rules are different depending on what you believe. If you’re on the left, you can call people Nazis for supporting national sovereignty.
But if you’re on the right — or even just not on the left — a politically incorrect meme, a wrong word, or even a policy disagreement can cost you your job, your reputation, or even your freedom.
Take Lucy Connolly, for example — hounded, punished and publicly vilified. What she said was vile. But where is her “regret” clause? Where was her media protection? Nowhere — because in Starmer’s Britain, there is no equal standard. There is only narrative discipline.
And what is most dangerous of all is the precedent this sets. Hermer’s comments weren’t just reckless; they were revealing. Because behind the legalese and the polite regret lies the real message: any attempt to reclaim sovereignty, to update outdated treaties, or to even question the authority of foreign courts, is morally equivalent to fascism.
If that’s Labour’s position — and Starmer has not contradicted it — then we’re in dark waters. This is how democratic debate is poisoned. This is how free speech dies — not with bans and laws, but with the steady demonisation of anyone who dissents from the state-approved script.
In a healthy democracy, those in power are challenged — especially by those with different views. In Starmer’s Britain, they’re labelled extremists, “far-right thugs”. And if we don’t speak up now, we may soon find we no longer have the right to speak at all.
