One month ago, the British Parliament held a spirited debate on whether to bar Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump from visiting the United Kingdom, due to, amongst other statements, his call for a temporary ban on Muslims seeking to enter the United States.
This isn’t the first time authorities in the UK have considered denying travel privileges to controversial figures. In 2013, the nation’s Home Office, which oversees immigration and visa issues, forbade American bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, two vociferous opponents of radical Islam, from attending an event in support of murdered British soldier Lee Rigby. Several years prior, in 2009, the Home Office sought to bar Dutch politician Geert Wilders, another prominent critic of Islam (this decision was later overturned by a higher immigration tribunal).
Credit: Wikipedia
These efforts aren’t just limited to the UK, or, to those hostile to Islam. In 2004, Swiss academic Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim scholar who explores issues surrounding Islam and modernity, was scheduled to begin work as a tenured professor at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. Ramadan was issued a visa, which the State Department revoked shortly before his arrival.
Elaborating on this decision, a spokesman for the Department of Justice cited provisions of the Patriot Act, which allow the federal government to deny visas to people who use “a position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity.” At issue were claims by some critics (vigorously disputed by Ramadan) that Ramadan was a proponent of radical Islam. After a legal battle, a 2009 ruling by the US Court of Appeals (Second Circuit) permitted Ramadan to enter the United States.
Such battles aren’t solely a feature of Western democracies. In early 2013, Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, announced that he had been blocked from entering the Indian city of Kolkata, where he was scheduled to attend the Kolkata Literature Festival. Rushdie claimed that Kolkata police informed him they were simply following the orders of Mamta Banerjee, the Chief Minister of the state of West Bengal, where Kolkata is located.
Rushdie, who was born in India but now lives in Britain, has been a lightning rod for anger in some quarters. Since The Satanic Verses, published in 1989, was viewed as blasphemous by many Muslims, Rushdie was the target of a death edict from the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, and the subject of deadly riots in India, Pakistan and other nations.
Credit: Times of India
Each of these cases raises an important question: Should a democratic government deny entry (for a stay of limited duration) to visitors from abroad, whose public pronunciations are in some way offensive, and/or potentially disruptive to public order? The answer is, with a few limited exceptions, no.
While every sovereign nation enjoys a basic right to regulate who enters it’s borders, unless an individual is shown to be actively inciting or promoting acts of violence or sedition, he or she should be allowed to enter another nation, and engage in core activities of free expression, for a limited period of time, and subject to appropriate security procedures.
Perhaps the biggest problem posed by speech-based travel bans, is that it empowers the state to decide what is and isn’t acceptable speech. This is a dangerous expansion of governmental power. If members of the British Parliament, powerful officials in the US State Department, or the leader of a state in India, choose to bar individuals whose speech is disfavored, they are setting the parameters for permissible discussion and debate. In effect, the coercive power of government is harnessed to impose subjective value judgments on the populace, and dictate whom their fellow citizens may or may not personally hear from and communicate with.
While it is reasonable to be wary of “slippery slope” arguments, really, where does this end? Could impingements on the speech of potential visitors, eventually lead to silencing inconvenient voices at home? Quite possibly. Freedom of thought and expression lies at the core of a free society, and abridgment of such rights is a dangerous path to ravel.
Of course, in the era of Google, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook, one doesn’t have to go very far to hear what Trump, Wilders, Ramadan and others are saying. What’s more, thanks to these websites, and blogging platforms like Medium, Wordpress and Blogspot, any person with Internet access, across the globe, may engage with these individuals online, and express support, opposition, or simply ridicule their positions.
Why, then, is it so crucial to let those who are magnets for controversy visit other nations, and offer their thoughts in person? Why can’t we simply conduct these discussions online?
Credit: Drupal.org
In any matter of communication, whether a discussion with a small group, a spirited public debate at a local college, or an impassioned rally before thousands, there is no substitute for physical presence. If this weren’t the case, presidential candidates, both in the United States and elsewhere, wouldn’t spend so much time on the road, hoping to make an impression on voters. Despite the growth of videoconferencing, business travel remains crucial for many types of meetings, and telecommuting by employees isn’t always favored, in part because of the value of personal contact.
When Donald Trump is barred from the United Kingdom, or Tariq Ramadan isn’t allowed to teach at an American university, and Salman Rushdie can’t visit Kolkata, every Briton, American or Indian is actually somewhat less free. He or she may not sit in an auditorium or college classroom, contemplating what these men have to say, while observing body language and verbal inflections, and noting the reactions of other audience members. This citizen cannot offer a voice of encouragement or dissent (such as by demonstrating in a public space outside of an event), and partake in the age-old war of ideas.
Besides curtailing individual freedoms, such restrictions also harm society as a whole. While the right of each person to speak is immeasurably important, it is the full range of discussion available which makes for a truly open and vibrant nation. Books, radio and television, as well as digital and social media, are all important contributors in this endeavor.
Yet, there is simply no substitute for the public square (whether outside of the United States Supreme Court, or at a local museum or university), where those of varied outlooks can gather to voice their opinions, and must hear the viewpoints of others. Such gatherings might prove to be uncomfortable and tense, stretching the comfort zones of all who are present. Still, they can also serve as a source of learning and growth (as Kaddie Abdul, a Muslim-American women who attended a Trump rally, recently noted) , and a powerful reaffirmation of how a free society can withstand differing outlooks and vigorous dissent.
Credit: The Guardian
Quite often, those who press for bans on controversial speakers aren’t per se opposed to free expression, so much as they wish to avoid disruptions to public order. This is a valid concern. In 1991, a translator of The Satanic Verses was murdered, and another was stabbed but survived. 13 years later, Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was highly critical of Islam, was murdered in Amsterdam by a terrorist tied to a regional militant network. We all recall the 2015 massacre of Charlie Hebdo staff in Paris, slaughtered for drawing cartoons some Muslims found offensive, and followed by the murderous attack on Jewish shoppers at a kosher supermarket, all carried out by Al Qaeda operatives.
In the United States, protests outside of abortion clinics have on occasion turned violent, as have cartoon contests seen as blasphemous by some Muslims. Meanwhile, armed (although nonviolent) protesters have attended demonstrations against President Obama, as well as gatherings protesting gun violence, acts seen by many as clear intimidation.
In this highly charged environment, it is easy to understand why those tasked with overseeing security are wary of allowing visits by anyone whose presence might increase the risk of violence. Yet, in allowing the heckler’s veto to prevail, we empower those who seek to threaten or silence opposing voices. We hand a core principle of democratic governance, an appetite for peaceful protest and differing views, over to people ready to use violence and intimidation to silence others.
In such a world, the compatriots of the Charlie Hebdo murderers need only threaten bloodshed when Rushdie visits, or vow to raise Cain at the sight of Donald Trump or Geert Wilders, and they can supersede the basic freedoms of every person who wishes to hear what these men have to say, however disagreeable it might be to others. The same is true of a violent anti-abortion group which decides to disrupt a pro-choice rally, or really, any group of extremists which wants to challenge differing thought and speech through force. In effect, the preferences of extremists carry more weight than the values of a free nation.
Credit: The Age (Australia)
Of course, one aspect of national sovereignty is the right to regulate immigration and borders. Those who openly call for violence and genocide, or actively incite violent uprisings, are not welcome in most places which recognize some variation of the French motto of Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité (liberty, equality, fraternity). Yet, that raises the question, exactly what sort of speech ought to be classified as violence, genocide, or naked incitement, such that a ban on travel is justified?
Should someone like Daryush Valizadeh (known as Roosh V), who has argued for the legalization of rape, be banned from visiting the UK and elsewhere? How about Anjem Choudary, a fiery British Islamist with ties to terrorists, who argues that Muslims are obligated to violently impose a version of Sharia law in the West? Should he be stopped from giving speeches in California or Minnesota? Or, let’s consider Thomas Dienel, a German neo-Nazi leader who threatens deadly violence against Jewish people and immigrants? Should he be allowed to visit other nations in Europe? What do we do about those who spew calls for bloodshed and hate?
As with so many matters of law and policy, the simple answer is, it depends. Delineating the boundaries of free speech is a famously difficult task (as the late Potter Stewart of the US Supreme Court famously noted in an opinion on obscenity: “I know it when I see it.”). At some level, every society will have to decide which sorts of utterances, however repugnant, are permissible, and what crosses the line into incitement of violence and rebellion, especially when a visit by a foreign national is involved.
Courts are well-equipped to answer these sorts of questions, as are lawmakers. However, since the legislature can be swayed by public abhorrence of some types of offensive speech (as seen with laws against flag burning in the United States), it is important for the judiciary to act as a check on elected officials. Both elected officials and courts ought to err on the side of fewer speech restrictions, and citizens must hold their government accountable for protecting freedom of expression, even for disagreeable visitors from abroad.
Credit: Wikipedia
As far as travel and visits by controversial figures, let’s keep in mind that such visits need not be indefinite in duration. Geert Wilders doesn’t have a right to make London his second home, and Salman Rushdie need not travel through Calcutta indefinitely. If, due to the nature of a visitor’s speech, a government believes that protecting public safety is a vital concern, it has every right to reasonably limit the time of his or her overall visit, as well as restrict the number of public appearances. But, it shouldn’t ban him or her outright.
Also, when there are serious security concerns about the sort of audience whom a particular speaker attracts, law enforcement agencies should allowed to observe who attends these gatherings, and take note of what is being said (though, given the potential for overreach and abuse in targeting those who hold unpopular beliefs, such surveillance must be subject to strict legislative and judicial oversight).
Ultimately, this whole discussion comes down to the true nature of supposedly free nations. Are we strong enough to tolerate the public presence of those whose views repel us, allowing them to offer their thoughts to audiences, and be vigorously challenged in the public arena, by those who strongly disagree? Are we eager to strengthen the ideals of debate, differing opinions, and free expression, which lie at the core of an open society?
Or, do we value our comfort over freedom, and insead hope to preserve the tidy illusion of democracy over the messy reality it often entails? If we don’t wish to allow controversial figures from abroad to speak, for how much longer will we really permit dissent at home? Donald Trump, Salman Rushdie, Tariq Ramadan, and thousands of others who stir the passions of others, will live to fight another day. The question is, will we?
