UK Thought Police: Detaining Opponents "For The Public Good"

Submitted by Robbie Travers,

Would you want your government to decide who can and cannot enter your country based on how popular their political views?

Would you trust any individual to police on your behalf what speakers are “conducive to the public good?”

The UK Home Office feels it is absolutely the organisation to fulfill this role. It also apparently feels there are certain opinions that you are far better never hearing.

Like those of Lauren Southern, who on the 12th of March was “banned for life” from entering the United Kingdom, after being detained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act (2000).

Southern was told that “by her own admission” she had distributed “racist material.” It is important to note that actually, Southern, however, did not at all admit to the material being distributed being “racist” in nature, she simply admitted to distributing it.

But she, of course, was forbidden to dispute whether her material was truly racist, the mere suggestion that Southern was racist proved ample enough for her right to speak freely being expunged.

What material led to Southern being banned from entering the United Kingdom? A UK Home Office official explained that Southern was “refused [entry] on policy grounds that their presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good.” It leaves anyone who believes in free discourse, without the trappings of state oversight with the question: Should the state really be the arbiter of what is “conducive” to the public good? No, is the answer most sensible individuals will conclude.

You may like the idea of a state you agree with having this power, but what happens when it becomes a state you disagree with?

This decision is far better left to the people of the United Kingdom and any other nation.

But this isn’t just censorship, this is using the potent force of counter-terrorism legislation to silence. An examination is needed. We must inspect the alleged possible ways in which Miss Southern could potentially have posed a terrorist threat and breached the Terrorism Act of (2000).

Southern was served a notice that she was detained under counter-terrorism laws, specifically under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act (2000). A reminder: when detained under this serious counter-terrorism tool, it is a serious offence to remain silent.  Does this really seem like a fitting use of counter-terrorism legislation when we have IS fighters returning in their 100s to the UK? Only 54 of said fighters have even been prosecuted.

The alleged breach of Schedule 7 is not made perfectly clear in the dubious material handed to Southern, although the official Home Office notice claims that “distribution of racist material” in Luton was enough to warrant a refusal of entry.

The material in question appears to be that Southern in February of this year distributed material emblazoned with the slogan “Allah is a Gay God.”

Oh dear. Quelle horreur! How will the omnipotent Allah recover from such a “sick burn.” It appears the state is now censoring individuals who dared have the audacity to offend Islam by saying something mischievous!

OK Magazine will be asking: How will Islam cope? Oprah may give Allah a tearful interview. But on a more serious note: should the UK Border Force really be trying to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws? We have enough regressive Islamists constantly asserting to suggest who we can and cannot criticise, and intimidating those who do dare to criticise Islam a little more forcefully. Do we really need our state joining in?

Voltaire once noted: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Islamic theology, it seems, is off limits to rational thinkers.

Regardless, consider what is so offensive about calling Allah gay? Unless, Islamic individuals would have a problem with Allah being homosexual?Could that be down to regressive opinions and intolerance of homosexuality amongst Islamic individuals?

True, perhaps Southern’s leaflet is not the sharpest or most intelligent criticism of Islam, and it certainly won’t mortally wound Allah, even if his acolytes seem to think so, but should the UK Government now in the role of policing criticisms of Islam? This is the next logical step. The UK Government now seems to be the theological arbiter of what is acceptable when criticising Allah.

Interestingly, this doesn’t seem to have been an offence that has previously seen arrests, or even action taken. Or even been illegal. The Council of Ex-Muslims of Great Britain at the 2017 London Pride Parade held placards inscribed with the apparently deeply damaging slogan “Allah is Gay.” Despite outrage from the East London mosque who felt this was Islamophobic, no police action was taken. So how can it be a terrorist offence for an individual to distribute material with this opinion when others can march with it on placards? The implementation of the law here, at best, seems inconsistent.

It seems like all individuals have free speech, but certain individuals have more free speech than others.

Surely, calling Allah a “gay god,” a theological and not racial criticism, is not enough to merit detention of Southern alone? So, an important question is what other parts of the Terrorism Act (2000) would merit the detention of and refusal of entry for Southern?

Section 11 notes that “A person commits an offence if he belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.” Lauren Southern obviously does not belong to any proscribed terrorist organisation, so this ground for arrest can be swiftly ruled out. Lauren Southern, if anything, has repeatedly criticised terrorist organisations, and fought to defend those who have been censored for doing so and brought attention to actions of these organisations and human rights abuses. You may disagree with her politics and find her even personally repugnant, but she has not engaged in support for international or national terrorism.

Section 12 of the Terrorism Act (2000) notes: “A person commits an offence if— (a) he invites support for a proscribed organisation,” which clearly does not apply to Southern. She does not support any organisation that could be considered terrorist in nature, the opposite would seem to be true. This charge can also be dismissed out of hand.

Section 12 also states: “(2) A person commits an offence if he arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting which he knows is (a) to support a proscribed organisation, (b) to further the activities of a proscribed organisation, or (c)to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.”

Again, there seems to be no evidence that Lauren Southern supports or has supported any organisation on the UK’s proscribed list of organisations. There is additionally no evidence that Lauren Southern was planned to meet any terrorist organisation.

Regardless, alarm bells of hypocrisy should be overwhelming, if not certainly ringing, dear reader.

What about the Al-Quds rally in London, where thousands rallied, flying flags of a terrorist organisation and making spurious allegations about the Jews? This author isn’t recommending these people be prosecuted, but recommends that if one can stand with terrorist material promoting anti-Semitic conspiracies in British streets with police protection, someone who called Allah “Gay” in a leaflet should be able to enter the country.

Furthermore, returning to Section 13 of the Terrorism Act (2000), which declares: “A person in a public place commits an offence if he (a)wears an item of clothing, or (b)wears, carries or displays an article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation,” we see more of this blatant inconsistency. Again, Southern has not been charged for her clothing or for wearing the insignia of any terrorist organisation? Even if one argues that her leaflets were “offensive,” they were not in support of terrorism or emblazoned with such insignia.

Sections 15 and 18 of the Terrorism Act (2000) pertain to the other possible offences, that are “fund-raising” and “money laundering,” of which it is perfectly clear did not justify Southern’s Schedule 7 detention, and Southern is not guilty of.

What appears to be the case is that Southern was arrested, detained and refused entrance to the United Kingdom because her political opinions were deemed to be a little too inappropriate and obviously exceedingly dangerous… for British people to hear.

Silencing the opposition isn’t a sign of strength, and it is a sign of weakness and ultimately totalitarianism. If the Home Office's ideas of stability can stand the test of time and fierce logical criticisms, then they can stand a moderately famous blonde youtuber and her critiques.

Sadly, the Southern incident is one of many, in which individuals who have been deemed to have thought “wrongly” have been detained, and their ability to enter or leave the UK restricted. Activists Brittany Pettibone and Austrian politician Martin Sellner have also been detained for a period of 3 days and then deported from the United Kingdom.

Pettibone’s offence was arranging to interview Tommy Robinson, former leader of the English Defence League. Her crime was going to be interviewing a man who holds opinions that are unfashionable. It was not even her own opinions that saw Pettibone deported, but her daring to possibly inquire about, challenge and probe those of another person. Regardless of what you think of Robinson, or Pettibone, should another individual be held accountable for asking him about his opinions? This censorship would fit well in the world of Orwell’s 1984.

Selner’s alleged crime that warrants removal from the UK, according to a Home Office spokesperson is to belong to Generation Identity, designated “a far-right group” that “intend[s] to incite racial hatred.”

Generation Identity, which Selner allegedly belongs to, is not a proscribed organisation under existing counter-terrorism laws, but it is apparently too dangerous for you to hear from. They do not seem to advocate violence or promote terrorism, even if you have disagreement with their political goals.

Generation Identity seem to wish to defeat the ideology behind terrorism, however, not support it, they have publicly stated that “London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, believes that the threat of terror attacks are “part and parcel of living in a big city”. On the contrary, we think that the source of islamisation lies in mass immigration, which must be stopped.”

Believing that immigration should be restricted, a legitimate policy opinion, is now enough to see you rejected from entering the United Kingdom? This is a legitimate policy concern, which polling appears to vindicate, as it suggests that 7 in 10 Brits want reductions in immigration. But apparently wanting to promote this, in a peaceful manner through demonstrations including displaying non-violent banners, is to be deemed enough to see you rejected entry from the UK.

Sadly, it seems that frequently individuals in the UK face being arrested and detained for having the “wrong opinions.”

Take the case of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, who has been arrested and questioned for daring to disagree with allowing young transgender individuals to transition. Keen-Minshull was “told she will be arrested if she tries to leave the country.”

You may not agree with a single one of these individuals or their politics, and that is well within your right to do so. You do not have to like or laud them, or view them as particularly helpful, but what you should support is the individual citizen’s ability to decide whether they agree with you. And their freedom to make a case without state intervention.

Orwell warned us about the dangers of policing what is and isn’t acceptable. In effectively censoring these individuals, the UK Home Office has decided that you cannot be trusted to make up your own opinion, and that it should decide for you. And that should be enough to terrify any individual who thinks all in our society must have the fundamental right to unfettered discourse.


beijing expat Mon, 03/26/2018 - 05:07 Permalink

Cracking down on regular people while ignoring criminal anarchy among the colored folks is called Anarcho-Tyranny. 

It is the future the Oligarchy has for you. You will eventually beg for a police state, but it won’t take offer any real protection. 


Your childrens future is El Salvador e

Fireman beijing expat Mon, 03/26/2018 - 05:31 Permalink

The Coudenhove Kalergi Plan is functioning! The Europeon aristocracy is happy with the destruction of the once sovereign states of Urupp and supports USSA'S ongoing judaic wars in the Muslim oil patch. Weapons sales are up, the Europeon slums are teeming and the migrant industry is filling the coffers of the slum lords.

Remember democracy is the real enemy. Your ari$tocracy knows best!

"Count" Richard Coudenhove Kalergi’s Plan outlined by Gerd Honsik
“Kalergi proclaims the abolition of the right of self-determination, ... the
elimination of nations by means of ethnic separatist movements or mass
allogeneic (genetically dissimilar) immigration to create a multiethnic flock
without quality, easily controllable by the ruling class. Kalergi characterized
the multiethnic flock as cruel and unfaithful but maintained the elite must
deliberately create them in order to achieve their own superiority: ‘Then the
elite will first eliminate democracy – the rule of the people. Next, the elite
will eliminate the people via miscegenation, thereby replacing the ruling white
race with an easily controllable mestizo race. By abolishing the principle of
equality of all before the law, avoiding and punishing any criticism of
minorities, and protecting minorities with special laws, the masses will be

In reply to by beijing expat

Heros BennyBoy Mon, 03/26/2018 - 05:57 Permalink

The British need to confront the truth about their history. I used to think Russians lived in histories biggest lie about Stalin, the Bolshevics and their great war. Now I think the UK lie is even bigger.  Churchill was no better than Stalin.

The British need to realize that their "Lord" Rothschild is the one who incited two world wars along with the British elites.  They need to accept that without anglo-zionist interventions there never would have been a Russian Revolution, Lenin, Stalin or WWII.  Or their sacred holohoax for that  matter.

As long as the English willingly choose to hide behind the obvious lies about the last 2 hundred years, they will remain vulnerable to the main source of these lies.

In reply to by BennyBoy

Adolph.H. Haus-Targaryen Mon, 03/26/2018 - 06:22 Permalink

It is good to see the perfid country be trapped in its own perfidy. I wish them pain and destruction, because this is what they do to themselves. 

Nothing of what they do produces any value currently, they are sinking like the titanic. 

They will only raise stronger from their ashes once they have gotten rid of their clown royal family, pseudo nobility and razed the City, all of which being the Jew enablers, the enemies within. 

To all the good brits here, you are left with the tedious task of finding and removing all the traitors from your society. There is no way out. good luck and may our almighty God help you. 



In reply to by Haus-Targaryen

D503 hedgeless_horseman Mon, 03/26/2018 - 14:09 Permalink

The only reason anyone gives a shit about Lauren Southern is because they want to stuff it in her mouth. 

The only reason she gets away with half the shit she says is because people want to stuff it in her ass. 

And the only reason she says any of the shit she says is because she is paid to agitate the masses for the next war. 

In reply to by hedgeless_horseman

LightBeamCowboy kralizec Mon, 03/26/2018 - 11:22 Permalink

I've been a regular follower of Lauren Southern's work since long before the current incident, and what's surprising about the above article is that the author never once mentions that the "Allah is Gay" flyer was specifically an experiment to see what would happen, in response to Muslims saying Jesus was gay where precisely nothing happened. So the scientific answer to Lauren's experiment was that you can freely criticize or mock Christianity, but don't you dare get cheeky about Islam.

In reply to by kralizec

Lordflin IridiumRebel Mon, 03/26/2018 - 06:51 Permalink

For some while now the idea that traditional liberal philosophy is inextricably entwined with the open acceptance of homosexuality has been one I am expected to accept. Seems I am not allowed to pick and choose my ideas, but rather I must embrace one publically held philosophy or another. 

Well, I embrace freedom in the traditional sense. On the other hand I reject homosexual behavior as a perversion. I do not care whom one buggers in the privacy of their bedroom, nor have ever... but the homosexual class has forever been a tool in the hands of tyrants and authoritarian rule throughout history.

What appears as freedom in times of corruption is often not freedom at all, but a kind of self imposed bondage. I reject my bonds in all of their forms, but most especially those intended to chain my mind...

In reply to by IridiumRebel

Heros Haus-Targaryen Mon, 03/26/2018 - 06:30 Permalink

Hitler was pretty clear that he wanted the English empire to survive.  It was Roosevelt and his ((cronies)) who wanted the US to take its place.

Even more so than the Americans, the British fought on the wrong side.

There is a great new Carryington interview Dr. Hammond about Katyn.  There are some great tidbits in there:…

In reply to by Haus-Targaryen

Lordflin Heros Mon, 03/26/2018 - 06:59 Permalink

Seriously?? Hitler used to offer countries pieces of the British empire to come into the war. He had no intention of leaving the Brits intact. In fact Stalin used to write Hitler asking what part of the empire they were to be given, but Hitler never responded... well, until June of 1941 that is...


In reply to by Heros

Heros Lordflin Mon, 03/26/2018 - 08:50 Permalink

"In fact Stalin used to write Hitler"

I'd love to see some documentation on that, especially in light of all the tanks, airplanes and armies that Stalin had had massed on the German border in the spring of 1941.

We are also now aware that Roosevelt smeared Hitler with a fake map declaring how Hitler planned on carving up South America.  It was all fake, like virtually every single charge by the Allies against him.…

In reply to by Lordflin

Lordflin Heros Mon, 03/26/2018 - 11:19 Permalink

Well, you might try reading Churchill's six volume history of the war... one of many WWII histories I have read, this one twice as it was worth it... the letters are published there for your perusal, as well as the letters from Hitler to other foreign leaders offering them parts of the British empire if they would come into the war...

Or, you folks could just continue to downflag me, as ignorance is clearly the expedient choice...


In reply to by Heros

jin187 Heros Mon, 03/26/2018 - 07:14 Permalink

Hitler was buddies with the Muslims.  He let them do as they wished, much as they do now, but his goals aligned with theirs.  Funny thing is that all of these supposedly terrible dictators we had in the mid-east from the 50's until now were put there specifically to stop the commies and religious nuts from taking over.  Not sure why anyone is shocked that whenever one is toppled, the savages he was keeping in line scurry out of the woodwork like cockroaches.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone that's not a psycho could root for Hitler.  Atrocities aside, the man created and ruled the exact kind of police state people fear now, with the exact same elites running everything, and everyone that didn't like it ended up dead.  Let's say he kills all the Jews, and the commies, and keeps the Muslims in line.  Soon as all of our perceived enemies are in the ovens, what, we're just gonna go back to baseball and apple pie?  We'd end up with a dystopian shitworld full of gulags, slave labor camps, and thought police.

In reply to by Heros

DuneCreature Lordflin Mon, 03/26/2018 - 07:41 Permalink

Take heart, Lordfin.

The game here has just changed some.

A certain percentage old ZH Common-Taters have been replaced with AI AL bots as the vets fall away. ... Some bots are low-level third or forth generation and exceedingly easy to spot. .. But those bots are decoys to keep you thinking bots aren't sophisticated enough to even respond to your reply to them.

Other more advanced bots are here too and can converse as easily as you or I can. .. Much, much tougher to pick out of the ZH rabble.

A new challenge, the way I look at the Fight Club changes.

Live Hard, Bots Can Color And Change The Whole Tone And Tenor Of A Board. ............... ZeroHedge Comments Section Being No Exception. ....... As A Matter Of Conjecture, We May Well Be The AI AL Bot Beta Test Area. ................. The Down Range Damage Assessment Section, Die Free

~ DC v8.8


In reply to by Lordflin

OverTheHedge Lordflin Mon, 03/26/2018 - 07:47 Permalink

Actually, I recommend this spammer's link - it is a fine example of the utter futility of most of the human race, and why, despite all moral logic, getting rid of 80% of the mouth-breathers would be a good idea.

Bless him - he actually believes his site is interesting, informative and serves a useful purpose. In truth, it is a perfect example of why eugenics came about as a serious idea.

In reply to by Lordflin

DuneCreature OverTheHedge Mon, 03/26/2018 - 08:01 Permalink

purplewarrior is a bot. ....... That's my call on whatever 'Ex-pat Asian Bowel Movement Catholic Boy' is anyway. .. A bot that just wastes your time and lowers the denominator here to new ZH visitors and frustrates the old-timers into leaving.

To counter an AI bot = Scroll right past them once you have IDed them.

Live Hard, Welcome To The Wonderful World Of Asshole-Like AI AL In Your Face 24/7, Die Free

~ DC v8.8

In reply to by OverTheHedge

BrownCoat beijing expat Mon, 03/26/2018 - 09:35 Permalink

"Cracking down on regular people while ignoring criminal anarchy among the colored folks"

Everybody is caught up on ethnicity. I see this as cultural.

As the UK becomes more Islamic, it loses its Western Civ culture. Values like Free Speech are virtually snuffed out in the UK. Sex slavery, violence (knife attacks much more gory than other weapons), honor killings are the new values of a UK that is already lost to Western Civilization.

Western Civ is crumbling. The once great British Empire has succumbed.  See you after the next Dark Age!

In reply to by beijing expat

LightBeamCowboy beijing expat Mon, 03/26/2018 - 10:54 Permalink

Thanks for spreading the term "Anarcho-Tyranny, but respectfully would like to say that it isn't just for "colored folk" lawlessness, it refers to lawlessness at all levels of society (like Hilary) and among all races or religions (the "anarcho" part). The "tyranny" part refers to the full weight of a police state being ready to crack down on anyone who complains about the lawlessness. I first heard the term from Black Pigeon Speaks here:

In reply to by beijing expat

Sudden Debt Mon, 03/26/2018 - 05:15 Permalink

The entire west is heading this way.

I was called a "Nazi" last week because I made remarks about a muslim.

And the way everybody started getting agressive to me when one moron said that was mindbogling.


We're nearing the point where everybody hates everybody and wants to kill everybody.

Reminds me of that test with rats where to many rats where put in the same enclosure.

the male rats turn gay and they started killing each other.


And there's actually a difference between city people and countryside people.