Article #2: Home Secretary Names and Shames 16 banned from UK.

I was pleased to see the Home Office’s list of those banned from the UK in the news yesterday. Like others, I am inclined to question the motives behind this announcement and I agree that the government have bigger fish to fry at the moment. I do, however, think that making a public statement about what our country will and will not tolerate is a good thing. Or at least what it will and will not tolerate in theory.

To my mind it is reassuring to see that this list is balanced, including white supremacists, as well as Anti-Gay preachers, and extreme religious figures from all sects. Usually when it comes to those who are/are not allowed into our country, the only newsworthy information seems to surround asylum seekers, illegal immigrants and Muslim terrorists. This focus leads to ignorance and scapegoating in the tabloid comics that, in my opinion, is absolutely abhorrent.

The ‘terrorism’ that is often reported comes in many forms, and the acceptable slander that many minorities can face seems to go unchallenged amongst most. On many occasions, for example, I have seen immigrants blamed for the economical and political problems in this country (as well as any other problem you care to mention.). These views seem to have grown out of ignorance and the problems they create are worse than those which they apparently address.

This kind of move could be seen to reflect the sway left that we have seen with America’s remarkable recent election. The phenomenon of having a black leader is one which I am certain we would not see in this country. It also reflects Labours stance against the growing popularity of the BNP: a party whose extreme right views have seen a steady rise in popularity in the past few years. Ok, so maybe I should be more cynical about Labour’s motives here but I doubt that there is anything they can do alter their fate now anyway.

Of course, I am aware that in reality there will be little difference made with such a list. It is very true that in this country there are people who spread hate and commit crimes that are equal to, and in some cases worse than, those named here. However, there is no way to avoid that which is, in effect, our responsibility already. With the internet as popular as it is, views cannot be silenced anyway: the likes of Mr Savage will continue their contemptible rantings regardless. What we can do is show our refusal to advocate such behaviour.

Many have responded to this with the old chestnut ‘what about freedom of speech’. Freedom of speech is, of course, an important rite of passage for everyone. As a liberal ‘I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it’. However, it becomes a more complex issue when someone’s free speech hinders another’s right to live without persecution or distinction based on race, sex, religion or politics. Often the same people who choose to resort to this argument are those who are angered at ‘political correctness gone mad’. The truth is we wouldn’t need these rights or policies if we lived in a more tolerant world. Oh, were it that simple: if people expressed opinions with empathy, understanding and caution, and extremism weren’t so rife, freedom of speech would be an enjoyable privilege and not a poor excuse for bigotry.