‘Weak and cowardly’: UK bars renowned Swedish author ahead of Palestine event

Andreas Malm, a Swedish author, climate activist and Lund University associate professor, was refused entry to the UK. The decision came shortly before he was due to speak at a pro-Palestine event in London. Officials used the phrase that his presence “may not be considered to be conducive to the public good.”

The officials did not provide evidence or explain what specific risk Malm supposedly posed. Malm said he had visited Britain for decades, researched his PhD there, lectured at dozens of universities and attended many conferences. He called the decision “scandalous” and asked for it to be overturned.

His exclusion became part of a wider dispute over Britain’s treatment of Palestine-supporting speakers. The event was also due to feature Huda Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action. Organizers and publisher Verso Books condemned the decision as censorship and authoritarian overreach.

“Not conducive to the public good” is a broad immigration formula. It means officials claim that allowing someone into the country would not serve the public interest. The wording can support an entry refusal without alleging that the person has committed a crime.

In Malm’s case, officials used the phrase but supplied no evidence or further explanation. The article does not identify the specific legal grounds, such as security, public order or other immigration concerns. It therefore does not establish what officials believed Malm might do.

The wording matters because it gives the government significant room to restrict entry while revealing little publicly. Malm, Verso Books and Tribune interpreted the decision as censorship linked to his political speech. The article places it alongside earlier bans on pro-Palestine speakers, but it does not say whether the refusal will be reviewed.

Andreas Malm is described as a renowned Swedish author and climate activist. He is also an associate professor of human ecology at Lund University. Verso Books has published several of his books in Britain, and Malm said he had researched his PhD and lectured at universities across the UK.

He was invited to speak at Tribune’s London event, titled “Washington’s global reign of terror and Britain’s role in reinforcing it.” The planned discussion was to address freedom of speech, the banning of Palestine Action and the effective ban on Sally Rooney’s books over her support for that group.

Malm’s invitation placed him within a debate about political protest and restrictions on Palestine-related speech. He was scheduled to appear alongside Huda Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action. His refusal at the border meant the event lost one of its planned speakers and intensified criticism from Tribune and Verso Books.

The article says two other pro-Palestine speakers had previously been barred by the UK government: Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur. It does not provide further details about when they were refused entry, why officials excluded them or what events they planned to attend.

Their cases are mentioned as background to Malm’s refusal. Malm was stopped before a London discussion on global power, Britain’s role and Palestine-related censorship. The article therefore connects the three cases through the government’s treatment of speakers who support Palestinian causes or criticize British policy.

The reported total of other speakers is two. The wider political dispute remains unresolved in the article. Tribune editor Oliver Eagleton called Malm’s exclusion authoritarian overreach continuing from the Starmer government, while Malm asked for the decision to be overturned. No official explanation beyond the public-good wording is given.

Tribune planned the London event as a discussion titled “Washington’s global reign of terror and Britain’s role in reinforcing it.” Its agenda also included freedom of speech, the banning of Palestine Action and the effective ban on Sally Rooney’s books over her support for the group.

Malm was one of the planned speakers, alongside Huda Ammori. When immigration officials stopped him, the government prevented him from taking part in a public discussion about political restrictions. Tribune editor Oliver Eagleton therefore described the situation as censorship of a speaker at an event about censorship.

The criticism reflects a broader concern about whether governments can restrict political debate by controlling who may enter the country. Verso Books called the decision an effort to curb dissent. Eagleton said authors and academics were being treated as terrorists for supporting Palestinians and people protesting Israel’s actions, though the article gives no official response explaining Malm’s exclusion.

When a group is “proscribed,” the government has formally banned it under UK counterterrorism law. The designation makes the organization unlawful and restricts public association with it. The article states that Palestine Action was proscribed over its anti-genocide activism, but it does not give the legal order’s details.

Under established UK rules, consequences can include criminal liability for belonging to the group, inviting support, arranging or addressing meetings, fundraising, or displaying symbols linked to it. The exact offence and penalty depend on the conduct and the law in force. These general consequences are not listed in the article itself.

The designation shaped the London event’s subject matter. Organizers planned to discuss the banning of Palestine Action and what they called the effective ban on Sally Rooney’s books because of her support for the group. Malm’s exclusion added another disputed restriction to that discussion.

Democratic governments generally protect speech and peaceful protest because public debate helps people challenge official policy. They may also claim powers to restrict entry or ban groups when they believe there are serious risks to security, public order or other public interests. Those powers create a difficult balance.

A fair system should use clear laws, relevant evidence and measures proportionate to the claimed risk. Decisions should be explained as far as possible and open to independent review. In Malm’s case, officials refused entry using a public-good formula but gave no evidence or further explanation. That lack of transparency drove the censorship criticism.

The article shows the dispute continuing across several cases. It mentions earlier exclusions of Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur, Palestine Action’s proscription and Sally Rooney’s books. It also reports Labour leaders’ differing statements on Gaza. The central question is whether restrictions protect the public or suppress dissent.