In May 2010, the government’Â’s Freedom Bill sweetened the pill of coalition for Liberal Democrat voters and libertarian Tories with the promise of rolling back the illiberal legislation of the new Labour years. No longer would we toil under the socialist yoke. We were promised reform of the libel laws, scrapping of ID cards, greater Freedom of Information.
But perhaps one of the most insidious restrictions on freedom was left untouched. The Home SecretaryÂ’s power to bar people from entering the country on the basis of what they say. The Home Office has confirmed to me that there is no intention of changing the position on excluding people for their words. The power has been used at least once by Theresa May, to ban preacher Zakir Naik.
Attention was drawn to this power in May 2009, when the Home Office released its list of non-EU nationals barred from entering the UK for what a Home Office representative described to me as “”unacceptable behaviour””.
The list was varied to the point of random. While some on it clearly had links to terror organisations, and some had criminal convictions, others were simply, well, unpleasant. What’Â’s more, it was clear that even the ones who did have convictions were being excluded on the grounds of what they said.
Some, such as shock jock Michael Savage and Reverend Michael Phelps (of God Hates Fags) fame, are mere controversialists. Russian skinhead murderers Pavel Skachevsky and Artur Ryno, will still be in jail long after their exclusion orders (which last a maximum of three years) run out. Newly-excluded Zakir Naik may be banned, but his pamphlets, books and DVDs are available in Islamic shops across the country. It’s difficult to see what the purpose of exclusion is beyond mere gesture politics. This impression is only strengthened by the Home Office’s assertion that the list of excluded is “indicative, not exhaustive”.
A nation does have the right to decide who passes through its borders, and to protect its population from genuine criminality and harm. But exercising this right in an attempt to censor people, or to “protect” society from their ideas, is counterproductive and futile, particularly in the age of the Internet.
Jacqui SmithÂ’’s barring of Geert Wilders only served to give him greater publicity, turning a minor Dutch politician into a national talking point . Even before the ease and speed of global communication we now enjoy, censorship didn’t work. The Irish governmentÂ’s censorship of the Provisional IRA through Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act, first introduced in 1971, did absolutely nothing to halt its rise. The UK”s aping of the tactic in the late 80s just made the government seem petty. We deal with extremism by confronting its arguments, not by pretending itÂ’s not there. The coalition should confirm its commitment to freedom and end the censorious use of this power.
Padraig Reidy will be discussing exclusion, censorship and culture with the GuardianÂ’’s Sarfraz Manzoor and Douglas Murray of the Centre for Social Cohesion at Two Minute Hate, Monday 20 September, as part of the Free Word Festival
