Britain today feels increasingly divided, not just by politics, but by perception.

Arguments once confined to foreign policy have become domestic fault lines: over Israel and antisemitism, over Russia and China, over what counts as “truth” in an era of misinformation. Trump-era populism, imported through online echo chambers, has fused with Britain’s own anxieties about extremism, creating a volatile mix of culture war and geopolitical paranoia.

In late September, on the eve of China’s National Day, Manchester was shaken by the stabbing of three worshippers outside a synagogue, an attack police described as a hate-motivated assault. The suspect, a 28-year-old local man, was detained at the scene and later arrested under the Terrorism Act. The victims, including a father and son, were hospitalised with serious injuries. The incident reignited fears of religiously driven violence, coming amid a sharp rise in both antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents across Britain since the escalation of the Gaza conflict. For many, it was another sign of a nation turning in on itself — where foreign wars and online misinformation fuel local acts of hate.

Just days later, a mosque in Peacehaven, East Sussex, was set ablaze in what police are treating as a hate-motivated attack. The fire, which broke out before dawn, caused extensive damage but no casualties. Investigators believe the arson may have been retaliation for the Manchester stabbings, highlighting how one act of hate now triggers another.

Community leaders warned that the same online networks spreading anti-Muslim and antisemitic rhetoric were feeding an endless cycle of anger and fear. Together, the two incidents underscored how extremism in Britain no longer fits into neat categories of ideology or faith, but reflects a broader culture of suspicion and grievance.

The Manchester incident quickly became a rallying point for Britain’s online far right.

U.S.-aligned MAGA influencers and fringe commentators amplified false or exaggerated claims about the suspect’s motives, linking the attack to broader anti-immigrant narratives.

The speed with which such rhetoric travelled from American social media into British discourse highlights how U.S. political polarisation now feeds directly into Britain’s own culture wars, deepening divisions just as the country grapples with rising extremism at home and escalating geopolitical tension between China and the United States abroad.

Across Europe, far-right parties have gained strength since 2024, fuelled by post-COVID migration pressures, stagnant growth, and online polarisation. In Germany, the AfD has doubled its vote share; in Italy and Hungary, right-wing governments set the tone; and polling shocks in France and state races in Germany show mainstream parties shifting rightward. Analysts warn that if this trajectory continues into France’s 2027 presidential race, EU politics could face a decisive tipping point.

MAGA figures and European allies now gather at CPAC events in Poland and Hungary, sharing strategies on migration and media. Former UK prime minister Liz Truss has courted the same stage, calling for a “MAGA-style” movement at home.

In London last month, a massive anti-immigration rally, one of the largest since Brexit, featured open praise for Donald Trump and JD Vance, reflecting how U.S. populist rhetoric is now woven into Britain’s street politics. With migration driven by war, repression, and post-COVID economic shocks, and misinformation spreading rapidly online, Britain faces a combustible mix: U.S.-aligned populism, European far-right momentum, and domestic polarisation converging at once.

Just as the country was reeling from these tensions, another controversy erupted, this time at Gatwick Airport. George Galloway, leader of the Workers Party of Britain and one of the country’s most outspoken critics of Western foreign policy, was stopped by counter-terror police while returning from Moscow. He and his wife were detained under Schedule 3 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, the same law that allows officers to stop and question anyone at UK ports “to determine whether they appear to be engaged in hostile activity.” In practice, it empowers officials to detain individuals for up to six hours, demand answers, and seize phones or laptops, all without needing reasonable suspicion of a crime. Refusal to cooperate is itself a criminal offence.

Galloway and his wife were questioned for several hours and had their devices seized. By the time they were released, the event in London had finished, leading many to wonder whether the timing of the stop was coincidental or whether it was intended to prevent him from speaking.

In Galloway’s case, returning from Moscow was treated as sufficient grounds for hours of detention, questioning about his views on Russia and China, and the confiscation of personal devices, all without arrest, charge, or the need to show that any offence had been committed. It is this combination of sweeping authority and limited oversight that has made Schedule 3 one of the most debated elements of Britain’s counter-terror framework.

To understand the significance of this episode, it is necessary to understand the man at its centre. Galloway is a veteran of British politics, having first entered Parliament in the late 1980s as a Labour MP before being expelled from the party over his opposition to the Iraq War. He later founded the Respect Party and, more recently, the Workers Party of Britain, from which he still operates today. Throughout his career he has positioned himself as a voice of dissent, willing to challenge mainstream foreign-policy positions even at the cost of political isolation.

Those challenges have increasingly centred on his alignment with powers regarded with suspicion in London and Washington. He has long cultivated ties in Moscow, where his regular appearances on media platforms such as RT and Sputnik established him as one of the most prominent British critics of NATO. These broadcasts drew an audience abroad but also sharp criticism at home, where detractors accused him of amplifying Kremlin narratives.

His stance on China has been even more striking. Galloway has described the founding of the People’s Republic of China as “the most momentous achievement in the history of the world.” He has praised China’s success in poverty reduction, global infrastructure and diplomatic outreach, insisting that “China is the model that all people should follow” and “China is the future.” In his words, the Chinese people “dragged themselves out of bondage and backwardness to become the light of the world in these dark times.” At his party’s special congress last year, he pledged that the Workers Party of Britain would seek to “build socialism with British characteristics,” explicitly drawing inspiration from Beijing’s path.

Such words set him apart from most British politicians, who treat Beijing through a cold cost–risk analysis of trade and security. But they also come at a time when ties to China are under unprecedented scrutiny in the UK. Only weeks ago, prosecutors dropped espionage charges against two men, including Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, who had been accused of spying for Beijing under the Official Secrets Act. The case collapsed for lack of evidence, but government ministers still voiced “grave concern” and called it “extremely disappointing.” For Cash, who said the two years since his arrest had been a “nightmare,” the ordeal itself became a punishment. Beijing called the accusations “malicious slander,” while critics warned that Britain risks turning political connections or cultural exchange into grounds for surveillance.

Against this backdrop, Galloway’s open admiration for China is more than unusual rhetoric. It places him directly in the crosshairs of a political climate increasingly defined by suspicion. Where most Western governments hedge their engagement with Beijing, he speaks of marching alongside it. That divergence makes his silencing at Gatwick appear not only personal but symptomatic of a broader unease about who can speak freely on China in Britain today. These positions stand in marked contrast to the cost–risk analysis applied to China by most Western governments, including Britain’s Labour administration, which balances trade opportunities with concerns about security and influence. On Russia his divergence is sharper still. Where Western leaders cast Moscow only as an adversary, Galloway portrays it as a legitimate partner in a multipolar order. This combination of pro-China enthusiasm and pro-Russia defiance makes him a uniquely controversial figure and helps explain why his silencing at Gatwick resonated far beyond the airport.

Equally contentious are Galloway’s views on the Middle East. He has long described Israel as an apartheid state and spoken favourably of Hamas. Earlier this month he travelled to Tehran, where, according to British and Iranian reports, he accepted an award named after Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, assassinated by Israel earlier this year, remarking that Haniyeh’s passport was his most “treasured possession.” Such positions have made him one of the most polarising voices in Britain, but also reinforce the sense among his supporters that his treatment reflects political suppression rather than routine security enforcement.

The incident also struck a chord because of the wider political backdrop. Donald Trump has become increasingly vocal on British politics, while business leaders such as Elon Musk and Steve Forbes have sharply criticised the UK’s direction on speech. Whatever one makes of such rhetoric, it demonstrates how cases like Galloway’s shape international perceptions of Britain’s democratic culture.

At home, the timing of his detention coincides with a tightening of Britain’s approach to free expression. The Southport stabbings last year proved to be a turning point. When three young girls were killed during a Taylor Swift-themed dance class, misinformation spread rapidly online. False claims that the perpetrator was a Muslim asylum seeker went viral, amplified by far-right figures such as Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson. In reality, the attacker was a 17-year-old second-generation immigrant of Rwandan Christian background, but the rumours had already fuelled violent protests across several towns. Mosques, refugee centres and minority communities were attacked before official corrections could gain traction.

The rapid spread of such falsehoods, and the violent far-right mobilisation that followed — deepened official fears about the country’s stability. In response, the government introduced sweeping legislation expanding powers to combat misinformation. Ministers argued the laws were essential for public safety, but critics warned they gave the state wide latitude to decide what could and could not be said. When coupled with the use of counter-terror powers against a political figure like Galloway, the impression is of a society where controversial voices are increasingly restricted rather than debated.

Tommy Robinson, along with other far-right influencers, has been among the loudest critics of the British government’s handling of the synagogue attacks. He has announced plans to travel to Israel at the invitation of groups sympathetic to his cause. During the trip, he and his associates are expected to visit the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, and tour the West Bank to demonstrate solidarity with the Israeli cause. The move underscores their increasingly confrontational stance toward the UK government, particularly over what they see as its weak position on Israel and Gaza.  His visit is expected to draw attention from both supporters and opponents who see it as an attempt to internationalise his message, linking Britain’s domestic unrest to the wider ideological battle lines between Western populists and the Middle East. For many, it underscores how fragmented the political landscape has become: a space where far-right activists forge ties abroad even as dissenting voices at home face counter-terror scrutiny.

This debate is not confined to Britain. In the United States, students at pro-Palestine protests have faced police detention and disciplinary action, sparking concerns about creeping limits on dissent. In Britain, the arrest of Tommy Robinson during the Southport unrest has been cited by his supporters as evidence of selective enforcement, drawing comparisons with similar episodes in the United States. These parallels highlight a broader tension across Western democracies: how to preserve free expression while managing public order in an era of polarisation and misinformation.

The pattern is becoming clear: international conflicts no longer stay international. Britain’s streets, universities, and social media feeds have become mirrors of the same global divides pro-Israel versus pro-Palestine, pro-China versus pro-US, pro-West versus pro-Russia. Each side accuses the other of extremism or foreign influence, while the state oscillates between doing too little to contain real violence and too much to silence political dissent. The result is a country where ideological boundaries blur, and “hostile activity” can mean anything from an act of terrorism to an unpopular opinion.

They also raise a difficult question about consistency. If Galloway can be detained for his associations with Russia and China, Robinson arrested for inflaming unrest, and students disciplined for criticising Israel, then where is the same scrutiny for mainstream politicians who maintain close ties with governments accused by many of committing atrocities, including allegations of genocide in Gaza? The uneven application of free-speech principles risks eroding public trust.

本文系观察者网独家稿件，文章内容纯属作者个人观点，不代表平台观点，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn，每日阅读趣味文章。