Dieudonne, the French comedian banned from the UK

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all”.

- Noam Chomsky

Why should we care that a man we are told is an anti-Semitic holocaust denier has been banned from the UK? Surely such a man is indeed "detrimental to the interests of peace and security"?

Well, the Home Office, as far as I can see, is not telling us the reasons Dieudonne has been banned, but only hints that there are "public policy or public security reasons". That’s not good enough. Are we going to surrender our civil liberties on such vague and flimsy pretext? - “The Home Office has decided this person can’t enter the UK. It’s for your own good”. That’s a dangerous precedent.

What if it’s not Dieudonne, but someone else? We don’t know the criteria used; all we know is that the Home Office has decided. All those cheering this decision are basing their glee on the fact that the banned person is someone we disagree with, someone with despicable views. But who gets to decide what counts as detrimental? How are these "public policy or public security reasons" arrived at?

I am not at all comfortable with handing over to the state the right, without accountability, without discussion, to debar whoever they like from the country.

What if the Home Office were to say Norman Finkelstein was subject to an exclusion order? He has, after all, also been called an anti-Semite, as have many who oppose the actions of the Israeli state, such as Noam Chomsky, quoted above. Far-fetched? That, in my view, is far too trusting a stance to take.

Remember that Pablo Neruda, the Chilean poet, supporter of Allende, and Spanish Civil War activist was refused entry to the UK. The singer and civil rights activist Paul Robeson was also denied entry to the UK in 1950 for a peace conference. (The US also revoked Robeson’s passport for many years).

We cannot trust the state only to exclude the people we disagree with. Are we really saying that Theresa May gets to decide what counts as acceptable opinions?

The idea of freedom for expression only for those with acceptable views is nonsense. It is no kind of freedom at all.

What are the foreseeable possible consequences for left-wingers, radicals, anarchists, environmentalists and so on of giving blind support to a policy of denying “extremists” entry to the country?

Furthermore, banning Dieudonne is counterproductive.

Dieudonne is not someone I had heard of until very recently. I have no intention here of going into the controversy over his trademark gesture, the "quenelle". I have read the reports that he is anti-Semitic and a holocaust denier. He does seem to be an unpleasant bigot. But if we ban someone who says “the Jews control everything” from entering the UK, all we are doing is giving anti-Semites the ammunition to say “see, he was right, they do”. They will say, “See, there is a conspiracy to silence ‘the truth’”. You want to fuel those ideas and give them legitimacy? Go ahead, back the ban.

If someone tells lies about the holocaust, challenge their facts. If someone says something you don’t like, disagree with them. Tell them where they’re wrong. Explain why you’re right.

This is not a defence of Dieudonne, it’s a defence of us all, because once we allow the principle of freedom for expression only for those with acceptable views, then mission creep sets in, and finally we find, too late, we were sleep walking into a situation where our own freedoms were eroded.