Given endless cases of Muslim grooming gangs raping British girls, Muslim suicide attacks on British trains, and Muslim converts butchering a British soldier in broad daylight, one would think that the British government would be careful to protect open discussion of the ideology that calls for the subjugation of Great Britain. However, to assume that the British government would stand up for British values is to assume the presence of a backbone where no backbone exists.
Let us all hope that the United States and Canada take note of such cowardice and never sacrifice our rights on the altar of political correctness.
Will the British government now ban Jews from the country so as to “prevent public disorder,” since the presence of Jews has been shown all too often to upset some Muslims and cause them to riot? The judgment permits such a Nazi approach.
In upholding our exclusion from the U.K., the judges relied heavily on a November 2014 British Supreme Court ruling that Maryam Rajavi, an Iranian dissident, could be lawfully excluded from entering Britain because her doing so could damage Britain’s relationship with Iran.
Their reasoning is deeply flawed. Our ban was put in place in June 2013, so a November 2014 ruling should have no bearing on it. This is tantamount to changing the rules after the game has started. What’s more, one of the judges in the Supreme Court decision applied by the British Court of Appeal wrote stating that the Supreme Court case was “not a judicial review of the lawfulness of the decision of the Secretary of State that the admission of Mrs Rajavi to this country would not be conducive to the public good.” Rajavi was excluded because her admission would supposedly hurt Britain’s relationship with Iran, but there were no foreign policy issues in our case where the exclusion is alleged not to be in the public good.
Even more ominously, this dismissal of our appeal sets the precedent that those whose speech is unpopular with the British government can be banned from the country. It strikes what could be a fatal blow to the very heart of the doctrine of the freedom of speech: that speech that is unpopular, and may even be offensive to some must be protected, as a safeguard against tyranny. Offensive speech is permissible even in British law, which the British Court of Appeal ignored in order to appease the government. (Continue Reading.)