You can’t enter the United Kingdom if you’re harmful or hateful.

A petition was uploaded recently to the United Kingdom government website to allow Martin Sellner, Brittany Pettibone and Lauren Southern to enter the country, after all three were denied entry last month ostensibly for their political views. As expected, the Home Office responded, not with an apology, but with what seems to now be a predictable, boilerplate screed: “Freedom of speech defines us a society, however…”

It should be noted that all three were simply heading to the country to speak, to talk, to listen. And just for the record, their ‘political crime‘ is that they all believe in the protection of Western culture from Islamic culture and sharia law. As the only purpose at the moment for most of Europe’s governments seems to be importing untold numbers of Muslims from the Maghreb and the Middle East, Islamic law and sharia culture are very protected species.

The summary government response is shown below, but as with all-things British these days, their response is misleading. When they use the phrase. “…conducive to the public good,” this strikes you as an old, perhaps ancient, English common-law concept – keeping the King’s lands and highways free from turmoil. What this really means of course is, quite simply, that the United Kingdom government no longer wants any opinions on Islam or mass immigration on its streets that are contrary to its own manifest destiny policies. Especially from its visitors.

Upon being ejected from the United Kingdom (for attempting to poach the King’s pheasants?) Brittany Pettibone received a letter from the Home Office. Forget about pheasants, it sounds like Pettibone was actually planning a Wat Tyler* takeover of Old London Town! Note that the Home Office is weary of “tensions between local communities”; what they really mean of course is that they don’t want Muslims to riot (and more often than not, be joined by the Fascist Anti-Fascists – ‘Fantifa‘).

…your planned activities whilst in the United Kingdom bear a serious threat to the fundamental interests of society are likely to insight [sic] tensions between local communities in the United Kingdom. [Home Office]

The government’s detailed response to the petition is outlined below, with my highlights and comments.

Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, and equal rights define us as a society. The Government is committed to upholding free speech, and legislation is already in place to protect these fundamental rights. However, this freedom cannot be an excuse to cause harm or spread hatred. UK legislation values free speech and enables people who wish to engage in debate to do so – regardless of whether others agree with the views which are being expressed. Everyone has a right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This is a qualified right however, which means that it can be restricted for certain purposes to the extent necessary in a democratic society. [Home Office]

• define us as a society – a society defined by free speech does not charge a man for teaching his pug dog to do a Hitler salute
• however – and there it is
• cause harm and spread hatred – so don’t forget, any visitor to the United Kingdom, speaking about Islamic culture, sharia law and mass immigration is harmful and hateful, and thus illegal
• whether others agree – Britain now has classes of ‘others‘; it just depends upon which class of ‘other‘ the person speaking freely is in; Sellner, Pettibone and Lauren are the wrong kind of ‘other‘
• Article 10 – it’s worthwhile giving this article a read from the unelected, accountable hive-mind of the European Union, to give you a real insight into how enormous they believe the infamous ‘however‘ should be; it’s also worthwhile pondering why the United Kingdom government is still eager to cite EU law post-Brexit
• qualified right – no question here; ‘smothered with a pillow until is stops moving – qualified‘
• can be restricted – as with all of the United Kingdom’s voluminous legislation on ‘hate crime‘, there is verbal latitude built into all of its regulations such that an anti-sharia speaker is restricted, but an imam speaking on the evils of homosexuality is not restricted; in the parallel society which the United Kingdom has now become, this is extremely useful; telling – but useful

There is no doubt that the United Kingdom, without massive intervention into its institutions, has been compromised beyond hope with Islamic legal norms. There is no doubt, that even in the wake of Brexit, the United Kingdom is still committed to engage in ‘population replacement‘ through mass immigration from the Muslim Maghreb and Middle East. There is therefore no doubt that any opposition or dissent to this, however small, will be punished “to the extent necessary” by those same institutions.

* Wat Tyler lead the Peasant’s Revolt of 1381 in England in order to seek economic and social reforms. He was eventually killed by the King.