Ban on Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur should terrify the entire 'British public'

“Ban on Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur should terrify the entire 'British public' Submitted by Shereen Fernandez on Wed, 06/03/2026 - 16:26 Home Office decision to deny entry to anti-Zionist US political commentators highlights a broader assault on domestic freedoms Political commentator Hasan Piker attends an event in Los Angeles, California, on 15 March 2026 (Neilson Barnard/Getty Images/AFP) On This past March, UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood quoted George Orwell’s essay “The Lion and the Unicorn” during a speech on immigration and asylum. Two months later, Mahmood’s outrageous decision to block American citizens and political commentators Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur from entering the UK , apparently on the basis of their criticisms of Israel , evokes the very authoritarians that Orwell’s most famous works decry. Many analysts have discussed the impacts of this decision on Piker and Ugyur as individuals, highlighting the illiberal and undemocratic theft of their freedoms of movement and speech. But it also has broader implications for British citizens. Both Piker and Uygur were scheduled to speak at the SXSW festival and the Oxford Union when Mahmood revoked their electronic travel authorisations, arguing that their presence in the UK “ may not be conducive to the public good”. This elastic phrase not only positions non-citizens Piker and Uygur outside the borders of the British “public” supposedly defended by the Home Office, but constitutes that very “public” through the expulsion of anti-Zionism. Anyone who dares to speak out against the UK government’s material and diplomatic support for Israel is cast as a threat to, rather than a member of, that “public”. Like its synonym “the people”, “the public” is described by sociologists Stuart Hall and David Held as a “discursive figure, a rhetorical device” that can be exploited as a form of populist mobilisation against those who are “not one of us”. Yet where “the people” under Thatcherism excluded various minority groups, as Hall and Held explain, Mahmood’s Zionist “public” excludes the majority of British people who, according to recent YouGov polling , oppose Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians and brutal invasion of Lebanon . Erosion of democratic principles Casting people outside “the public” is not merely a rhetorical exercise. In addition to holding virtually unchecked power over travel authorisation for American visitors, the UK home secretary can strip British people of their citizenship if she feels it is “conducive to the public good”. Recall how Sajid Javid, then the Conservative home secretary, wielded that power to strip Shamima Begum of her citizenship in 2019 (flouting international law by effectively rendering her stateless ) after the teenager was groomed online to join the Islamic State group in Syria . At the time, Javid defended this unprecedented decision by insisting that Begum posed such an exceptional threat that it would be far too perilous to allow her to return to the UK to fight her citizenship case. In doing so, he implemented a “ state of exception ”, in philosopher Giorgio Agamben’s terms, in which the law paradoxically employs “the suspension of law itself”. Anyone who dares to speak out against the UK government's material and diplomatic support for Israel is cast as a threat to, rather than a member of, that 'public' When apologists for Javid argue that such punishments are only reserved for the worst of the worst criminals - that most people would never dream of joining a proscribed terrorist group - they are normalising what Agamben described as the “transformation of a provisional and exceptional measure into a technique of government”. In other words, they are excusing the erosion of democratic principles, which are supposed to secure our status and rights as citizens, and leaving us all vulnerable to the whims of individual home secretaries. Consider how Mahmood’s predecessor, Yvette Cooper, branded Palestine Action a “terrorist organisation”, framing activists as national security threats after several incidents of vandalism, including at a Royal Air Force base in Oxfordshire. The group has consistently engaged in direct action against companies accused of complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity in Palestine , including the UK subsidiary of Israel’s largest weapons manufactur, Elbit Systems. Weaponising what Amnesty International has called an “extremely broad” legal definition of terrorism, the proscription absurdly equates neo-Nazi groups like National Action, whose leader says he wants a genocide against British minorities, with conscientious citizens exposing the UK’s failure to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional order to prevent the genocide of Palestinians. Undermining solidarity on the left Overnight, British people protesting Israeli crimes were cast as criminals. Mass arrests ensued . Pensioners and vicars with signs reading, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action” were hauled off to police stations as public menaces, accused of endorsing “terrorism”. And when the High Court stepped in this past February to rule that the chilling proscription was “ unlawful ”, Mahmood said she would appeal the decision (at British taxpayers’ expense), ensuring that the suspension of law remains, in Agamben’s words, the “dominant paradigm of government”. Meanwhile, there has been no investigation into more than 2,000 British Israeli dual citizens who were recruited by the Israeli army to participate in the Gaza genocide. 'Ridiculous': Social media reacts as Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur denied entry to UK Read More » When the home secretary overlooks soldiers allegedly involved in “targeted killings of civilians and aid workers, indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, attacks on hospitals and protected sites, and the forced transfer and displacement of civilians”, while declaring that the presence of people opposed to such crimes is not “conducive to the public good”, she redraws the moral borders of British citizenship, with full membership becoming contingent on adherence to Zionism. It is not difficult to imagine how a far-right Restore Britain or Reform UK government could further constrict those borders, expelling anyone it deems a “threat” to its ethno-nationalist ideals - a category that could encompass Muslims, socialists, trans people and postcolonial scholars, among others. By blocking Piker and Uygur from entering the UK, Mahmood is attacking the fundamental rights and freedoms of the current Labour government’s political opponents, no matter how peaceful their protests may be. I cannot help but wonder whether Piker’s plans to meet anti-Zionist opposition leaders Zack Polanski of the Green Party and Jeremy Corbyn of Your Party factored into Mahmood’s decision, in a desperate attempt to undermine transnational solidarity on the left. In the short term, Piker and Uygur should have their travel authorisations reinstated. Beyond that, the home secretary’s unilateral power to revoke British citizenship must be repealed if we are to protect democratic principles against the rise of fascism. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. Human Rights Opinion Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29 Update Date Override 0

Summary generated from the RSS feed of Middle East Eye. All article rights belong to the original publisher. Click through to read the full piece on www.middleeasteye.net.