Britain is wrong to ban speakers like Hasan Piker

It is a shabby look for a country that sees itself as the birthplace of free speech. And it is an assault on one of the fundamental pillars of liberal democracy: the freedom to express oneself. Turning speakers away at the border wrongs British listeners who want to hear what they have to say, and perhaps to disagree with it.

Both men in this latest incident, Mr Uygur and Hasan Piker, were blocked because Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, judged that their presence in the country “may not be conducive to the public good”. This extraordinarily vague standard has been applied increasingly, it appears, to ban commentators whose views the government does not welcome. In April it was deployed to stop Kanye West—a rapper with a history of unhinged Nazi ramblings, for which he has since apologised—from performing at a musical festival. In May it was cited to block several far-righters from attending and speaking at a rally for Tommy Robinson, a white-nationalist rabble-rouser, in London.

All of this is a worryingly aggressive application of the discretionary power afforded to the home secretary. Such power should be used sparingly. Direct and deliberate incitement to violence is rightly unlawful, and it is fine to exclude someone with a history of such behaviour. Hurtful, disturbing or disgusting views do not meet the bar.

Mr Piker has many opinions that reasonable people might find offensive or simply bonkers. He thinks bank robberies are “cool”, says he understands why someone might want to murder a health-insurance boss and once said: “I would vote for Hamas over Israel every single time.” But he does not pose a threat to Britain, any more than the protesters arrested for holding signs saying “I support Palestine Action” do. The country that gave sanctuary to Karl Marx should not be frightened of one of his more superficial disciples.

Gag reflex

Britain is not the only country that uses visa bans to keep out speakers its government dislikes: America, Australia, Germany and many others do so, too. But that is no excuse. Parliament should press the government to stop using its powers so casually.

It should also do more to blunt the tools used by the rich and powerful to intimidate or silence critics, such as lawsuits intended to impose ruinous costs on them (known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation”, or SLAPPs). This past weekend saw an egregious example, when a former employee of Meta turned whistleblower had to sit mute on a stage at a literary festival in Wales, gagged by a global non-disclosure agreement, and unable even to nod her head without risking financial penalties.

Visa bans on the likes of Mr West and Mr Piker will not stop Britons from hearing their views. Anyone can tune into their social-media accounts. Indeed, the attempt to suppress their speech makes it more likely that Britons will listen to it, to find out what the fuss is about. Google searches in Britain for Mr Piker and Mr Uygur this week are higher than they have ever been. As provocateurs who make their living from clicks, they are no doubt delighted.

With free speech under siege around the world, it is shameful that Britain, once a bastion of tolerance for vigorous debate, should be turning censorious. The government’s job is to keep people safe from actual violence, not to try to shield them from words that might upset them. If it makes a habit of banning visiting speakers, it will create the impression that it endorses the views of the people it does let in. It will encourage more and more activists to lobby for bans on foreigners whose ideas they disagree with. And it will make Britain less free.

Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.