Post by Dr Chan Abraham

𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒎𝒆𝒓 𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝑼𝑲 𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒚 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒈 𝑫𝒖𝒕𝒄𝒉 𝒘𝒐𝒎𝒂𝒏 𝒘𝒉𝒐 𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒉𝒊𝒎 𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁! 𝗦𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗙𝗼𝗼𝘁𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 Dutch Free Speech activist Eva Vlaardingerbroek has been banned from entering the UK. No charge, no explanation, no hearing, no appeal—just an email declaring her presence “not conducive to the public good,” arriving three days after she criticised Keir Starmer. She committed no crime. Her “offence”? Lawful political speech against mass immigration, trans ideology, state surveillance, and more. Yet the same government shows no such urgency with illegal migrants arriving without ID, or extremist-linked groups.  For instance, around 98% of small boat arrivals lack passports upon processing, yet they are often accommodated and directed into the asylum system rather than swiftly removed. Extremist-linked individuals, including over 170 foreign nationals involved in terrorism or extremism, face delayed deportations due to human rights barriers, requiring ongoing monitoring instead of immediate action. Asylum seekers get multiple appeals through tribunals (with backlogs averaging 53 weeks), taxpayer-funded legal aid for representation, and protracted processes that can span years—while a critic like Vlaardingerbroek gets zero due process, with her Electronic Travel Authorisation revoked without recourse. This selective use of power reveals the truth: rights in modern Britain are conditional, based on whether your views align with those in power. A confident democracy debates ideas openly—it doesn’t ban dissenters quietly.  Credit: Noel McElwee on LinkedIn for the original post (expanded with references and evidence for repost).