You may have seen the viral video of Konstantin Kisin discussing free speech with the Australian politician John Anderson. “In Russia last year, 400 people were arrested for things they said on social media. How many people do you think were arrested in Britain?” Kisin asks. The answer: “3,300”. Anderson looks genuinely shocked. And so he should be.
Incidentally, Kisin’s stats are from a few years ago and it’s not clear the comparison is entirely apples-to-apples. What is clear is that Britain arrests a huge number of people for expressing their views or simply telling jokes online.
An investigation by the Times revealed that, in 2023, over 12,000 people were arrested under laws that make it illegal to transmit “grossly offensive” messages. One man was arrested for posting a picture of himself dressed as the Manchester Arena bomber for Halloween. In other words, he was arrested for wearing an ‘offensive’ costume. I guess provocative hairstyles will be next.
While the joke is surely not to everyone’s taste, it is no more offensive than the sort of things Frankie Boyle or Jimmy Carr used to say. Are professional comedians going to be shoved in the back of police vans too?
Not content with mass arrests of online joke tellers and Halloween party goers, the Government has adopted a new tactic in the war against ‘offence’. It is banning lippy foreigners from entering the country altogether.
Since Sir Keir Starmer became Prime Minister in July 2024, there have been a number of such incidents.
In June 2025, the far-Left South African politician Julius Malema was banned over his support for Hamas and his refusal to rule out calling for the slaughter of white people. In April of this year, Kanye West was banned over various antisemitic comments he has made. In May of this year, 11 Right-wing activists, including Republican Congressional candidate Valentina Gomez, were banned over their anti-Islam views.
Now, the Left-wing activists Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur have been banned, apparently for controversial remarks they’ve made about Israel and, in Piker’s case, saying that “America deserved 9/11”.
One thing that can be said in favour of these bans is they are remarkably non-partisan, with both Left- and Right-wing rabble rousers finding themselves in the Government’s crosshairs. Starmer isn’t simply pandering to the Left. He’s banning anyone he can.
Naturally, one doesn’t have to agree with any of the above persons to find this form of censorship deeply objectionable. After all, why should Keir Starmer get to decide who other Britons hear from? Actually, it’s more absurd than that. Britons can still hear from all the banned individuals — by going online. So it’s really: why should Keir Starmer get to decide who other Britons hear from in person?
Yes, all of the banned individuals have their critics, but they also have people who’d like to hear what they have to say. Why should the interests of the critics take precedence?
And shouldn’t people be able to hear what they have to say and then challenge them? Why do people who can’t bear their physical presence in the country get the final word?
In the case of Israel/Palestine, practically everyone who has taken a strong position has said something that people on the other side consider ‘offensive’. So shall we just ban all foreign participation in that debate from Britain’s shores? No more pro-Israel voices and no more pro-Palestine ones. That would minimise the total ‘offence’ to British ears.
In defending its actions, the Government has often claimed that the banned individuals’ presence “may not be conducive to the public good”. Personally, I would say the same about the Government’s attitude to free speech.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Some of them, quite possibly, but in being permitted to become professional comedians (e.g. being allowed to perform at venues and not having their events cancelled by mobs threatening or committing violence) they have effectively been issued a licence to say acceptably provocative things in an approved venue. This makes them even less effective than mediaeval jesters.
Perhaps the Home Secretary could stand on the dock at Dover and prevent the boatloads of individuals invading our country from landing by saying that their presence “may not be conducive to the public good”.
Personally I think Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr should be banned for not being funny.
Funny how the list of people who have been banned contains very few if any Muslim hate preachers. Given that Islam is inherently misogynistic, anti-Semitic and intolerant most imams will be guilty of preaching hatred against women, Jews and non-believers at some point. No one even knows what’s being preached in mosques up and down the country every week, there needs to be compulsory CCTV and every sermon needs to be watched by independent “moderators”. Any foreign hate preacher should be immediately deported, if they’re British born and we can’t get rid of them ban them from preaching in every mosque in Britain. Mosques who allow hate preachers on the premises should get one warning then be closed down if they do it again.
I’ve always thought these things confirm your argument / position is so weak you can’t defend it with logic, or it’s just simply wrong. Free speech is absolute in my opinion, you either have it or you don’t – no ifs, buts and maybes…
It doesn’t mean there is no consequences of course – I could go up to big chap in the pub and call him all sorts of things with this freedom, however I’ll probably, and quite rightly, get a smack in the face for my trouble.
Natural selection stops people from doing this. It’s why everyone is so harsh online vs in person – there is no danger…
At some point this basic human process changed and we decided to police it instead… early to late 2000’s in my opinion, aligning with Blair as PM / social media boom…
“One thing that can be said in favour of these bans is they are remarkably non-partisan, with both Left- and Right-wing rabble rousers finding themselves in the Government’s crosshairs. Starmer isn’t simply pandering to the Left. “
That is not the correct analysis, and anyway there is not a thing that can be said in favour of the odious creature.
He is banning Left-wingers as a cover for banning Right-wingers to avoid accusation of his evident hatred of any who challenge him or his policies, who are therefore “Far Right”.
It’s chess… sacrifice the Bishop, to get the Queen.
Not really bunched about who’s banned from entering, except I draw the line at the banning of the fragrant and brave Eva Vlaardingerbroek
The purpose of these bans isn’t to block us hearing certain things. It is to intimidate all of us into not saying the things they don’t want said.
Generally it works. Most people self censor to a degree they are probably not even aware of anymore because it’s so deeply ingrained at this point.
Noah comments that we can still go online to hear from people who are barred from entering the country because they may cause offence to some. The question is: for how much longer?
They’re working on it.
Exactly.
This entire Government is not conducive to the public good.
A timely article. I agree wholeheartedly. I believe Djokovic was ejected from Australia for the same reason. His covid vaccine exemption was recognised as valid – the decision to remove him was a political one, based on the possibility he would whip up anti-vaxx mania.