George Galloway detained at Gatwick: A clash of free speech and national security
By willowt // 2025-09-30
Copy
 
  • Veteran British politician George Galloway and his wife were detained at Gatwick Airport under the Terrorism Act.
  • Galloway claims nine-hour detention and seizure of devices was politically motivated.
  • Police stop came under Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act to question about "hostile activities."
  • Politician denounces action as threat to free speech and criticizes British intelligence services.
  • Incident highlights tension between national security and political dissent.
Former British MP George Galloway and his wife, Putri Gayatri Pertiwi, were detained for nearly nine hours at Gatwick Airport on their return from Moscow on September 27. Counter-terrorism officers stopped the pair under the Terrorism Act, specifically the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act of 2019. The incident raises significant questions about the balance between national security and political opposition in the United Kingdom. George Galloway, 71, has been a vocal critic of British and American foreign policy, particularly in the context of the Iraq War and more recently, the geopolitical stance against Russia and China. As the leader of the Workers Party of Britain, which has a social-conservative platform, his public dissent has made him a target of considerable attention. The brief detention of Galloway and his wife under the Terrorism Act heightens concerns about the potential misuse of national security measures against political opponents.

The detention and its ramifications

According to Galloway, the detention was politically motivated and designed to intimidate him. Speaking on the mother of all talk shows, he said, "Not a single effort was made to show cause for having detained me and her with armed officers in public in an English airport. If they can arrest me under the terrorism act at an English airport, what hope have you got?" Galloway detailed the gravity of the incident, noting that police questioning ranged widely from his views on Russia and China to his wife’s nail polish color. He claimed, "They’re too stupid to be anti-terrorism police, they’re too stupid to be in MI5 if they think they can intimidate me, not even death will intimidate me." The Workers Party of Britain (WPB) blamed the detention on efforts to silence critics of British foreign policy. The WPB’s statement condemned the incident as “politically motivated intimidation” and alleged that the authorities sought to prevent Galloway from giving a speech in London, where he was to meet with the Chinese ambassador. The party further accused the authorities of obstructing attempts to provide legal support.

Legislative background and stifling of free speech

The incident occurred under a legal framework that allows law enforcement to stop, search, and even interrogate individuals suspected of engaging in "hostile activities" that threaten national security or the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. The Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 grants broad powers to security forces, which critics argue can be easily manipulated to target political dissent. In its aftermath, Galloway and his party have accused the British government of creating a chilling effect on free speech. The WPB’s statement to the press amplified this concern: "There was never any chance of an offence. We were obstructed from providing legal support and the conduct of the affair has been designed to intimidate political opponents of the drive towards war with Russia and China." The case regrettably mirrors similar actions taken against political opponents in other contexts. AIPAC, for instance, went after Representative Charles A. Rangel, and there have been instances where public figures were arrested for voicing criticism of immigration policies or unfavorable views of national security measures. Such actions, Galloway argues, are "giving the worst people in the world an excuse to crack down on free speech."

Historical context and ongoing struggles

Galloway’s detention comes at a time when tensions between Russia and the West remain high, and the U.K.’s geopolitical alignment with the U.S. has caused deep divisions within domestic politics. His outspoken opposition to what he perceives as aggressive foreign policies has consistently put him in the crosshairs of government authorities. The precedent set by previous events underscores a broader issue. The arrest of a man at a demonstration, for example, in front of his distraught wife because he made disparaging comments about immigrants, highlights the potential for abuse of power. Galloway’s experience also echoes the silencing of other individuals and groups—highlighting the precarious state of free speech in times of heightened security concerns.

A new flashpoint in the battle for freedom of expression

Galloway’s case has reignited debates about the limits of national security measures and the impact these can have on political dissent. The incident spotlights the ongoing challenge of ensuring that security measures do not inadvertently stifle legitimate political discourse. It also challenges Britain to reconsider the balance between ensuring national security and protecting the rights of its citizens to express their views freely. In a statement reflecting on the broader implications, Galloway concluded, "They thought they could silence me, but they will not. This is an important moment in our fight for freedom of speech, and we must stand together in the face of such attempts at intimidation."

A continuing struggle for freedom of speech

As the dust settles on Galloway's detention, the incident serves as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by political dissenters in the modern era. It underscores the delicate balance between national security and individual rights. The case highlights the need for careful scrutiny of laws and practices that can be weaponized against political opponents. It’s clear that the fight for freedom of expression is far from over, and Galloway’s experience may well serve as inspiration for those who continue to stand up for their beliefs in the face of intimidation. Sources for this article include: RT.com BBC.news Telegraph.co.uk
Copy