Why Britain thinks Uygur and Piker are bigger threats than riots

Earlier this week, a man was brutally stabbed by a Sudanese refugee in Belfast, Northern Ireland. It was a truly heinous act, and the news was widely received with justified contempt. The public was horrified that this could happen in their streets, fearing naturally that it might just as well happen to them and their families one day.

Yet this was apparently not good enough for those who immediately sought to racialize the discourse, blaming the incident on “mass migration from the third world,” as the infamous anti-Muslim activist Tommy Robinson described the stabbing as “the attempted beheading of a man by a Sudanese invader.” With his characteristically aggressive comments, the principal “Unite the Kingdom” organizer seemed to have effectively encouraged the arson of homes believed to be occupied by migrant families. Following Robinson’s call to action, violent rioters took to the streets and set fire to multiple residential buildings across Belfast. The images of burning houses and rescued children were heinous, too.

Despite its mainstream promotion, however, most non-arsonists in Britain agree that constant vilification of “foreigners” is actually “not conducive to the public good,” which is often legal grounds for denying certain other “foreigners” entry into the country, as we find out more and more every day.

Earlier this month, Turkish American political commentators Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker were both notified by the British authorities that their visas had been revoked precisely on this basis, that their presence in Britain would not be “conducive to the public good.” Apparently, the presence of these two commentators would have posed a “significant threat to society,” unlike the rioters in Belfast.

Cenk Uygur, host of “The Young Turks,” speaks on stage during a web summit, Vancouver, Canada, May 13, 2026. (Getty Images Photo)

To be sure, both Uygur and Piker are fierce critics of Israel, which is exactly why their visas have been revoked, according to the Times article that initially publicized the decision. On various platforms, both Uygur and Piker confirmed that this was indeed the case, referring to efforts undertaken by fanatical Israel supporter British lawmaker David Taylor from the Labour Party, who lobbied for and later welcomed the decision. Taylor describes Uygur and Piker as “those who seek to spread hate and division.”

The government, clinging to its pretence of guaranteeing freedom of speech, had to at least offer some explanation for how people like Uygur and Piker could be reasonably assessed as threats to the public good in Britain, especially as the public good was already under severe threat by supposedly indigenous elements.

Hasan Piker, streamer and creator, speaks on stage during a web summit, Vancouver, Canada, May 13, 2026. (Getty Images Photo)

The explanation was simple: Uygur and Piker, by their presence in Britain, would contribute to “the rise of anti-Semitism.” There was no need for further explanation, of course, as the decision-makers had already judged that allowing in someone like Piker, who, in his last visit, gave a speech at the Oxford Union on how “terrified” he was of “the conflation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism,” would result in a rise in anti-Semitism.

The contrast is instructive. In Belfast, the authorities were confronted with the tangible consequences of political rhetoric that led people to view entire communities as suspect, but “those who seek to spread hate and division,” in this case, were not punished for incitement, even though they caused real danger as streets were overtaken by mobs.

Meanwhile, the justification for barring Uygur and Piker from entering Britain rested on a chain of speculation so tenuous and, frankly, shocking that it would be dismissed outright in almost any other context. No violent act had been linked to either man. No disorder accompanied their previous visits. No evidence was presented that either intended to incite hatred against Jews. Rather, the authorities appear to have accepted the proposition that criticism of Israel, even criticism explicitly directed at a state and its policies, carries within it an inherent tendency toward anti-Semitism, and that this hypothetical danger warrants state intervention where actual incitements and their consequences do not.

DAILYSABAH