Earlier this week, four individuals were arrested after projecting images of Donald Trump alongside convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein onto Windsor Castle, coinciding with the US president’s state visit. The police cited “malicious communications” as the reason, but the reality is more revealing than the official statement.

At first glance, projecting images — particularly ones showing factual associations — shouldn’t be considered a crime. Yet, the arrests illustrate a broader pattern: the selective enforcement of vaguely written laws to suppress dissent, especially when powerful figures are involved.

Consider the context: a week prior, the UK sacked its ambassador to the US, Lord Peter Mandelson, over links to Epstein. Trump’s own history with Epstein, however, is widely known but ignored in official proceedings. Here, the projection wasn’t just street theatre — it was holding the powerful accountable. And yet, it was treated as a criminal act.

This isn’t unique to the UK. In the US, Luigi Mangioni faced prosecution under anti-terror laws for acts that, while morally reprehensible, were not legally terrorism. Courts ultimately rejected the charges because prosecutors couldn’t prove terroristic intent. The system, in that instance, worked.

In the UK, however, the focus is often on pre-emptive suppression. Arrests are made not necessarily to secure a conviction, but to stop the protest in its tracks. The law — “malicious communications” in this case — is stretched beyond its intended purpose. The result? The protest is halted, the message silenced, and a chilling effect is established, all regardless of whether charges would hold up in court.

This pattern repeats across other legislation too. The Investigatory Powers Act, for instance, was framed as a tool to combat terrorism and serious crime, but it grants sweeping surveillance powers over ordinary citizens. Anti-terrorism laws, public protest regulations, and even communication statutes all share a similar flaw: noble intentions, vague wording, broad application. Once in place, they can be used whenever convenient — often to protect those in power rather than the public.

Politically, this incident exposes double standards. The right-wing narrative in the UK often rails against “two-tier policing,” but when the beneficiary is Trump, it falls silent. Meanwhile, the left sees hypocrisy and overreach, but voices are quieter, constrained by cautious leadership and a desire not to appear anti-diplomatic.

The Windsor arrests are small in scale, but symbolically, they are perfect: a microcosm of how the law can be wielded to shield the powerful while suppressing ordinary citizens. It’s a reminder that in a democracy, vigilance is needed not just for major policy decisions, but for the everyday enforcement of laws, and for the principles those laws are meant to protect.

Because when laws designed for safety, justice, or public good are stretched to shield elites and silence dissent, the very foundation of civil liberty is at risk.