Andreas Malm condemns UK travel ban as ‘drift into authoritarianism’

Swedish climate academic says he has been ‘kept in the dark’ over Home Office decision to revoke his travel authorisation

The Swedish climate academic Andreas Malm has condemned a travel ban imposed on him by the UK government as a “drift into authoritarianism” amid criticism of the move.

Malm, the author of How to Blow Up a Pipeline, said he had been “kept in the dark” by the UK’s immigration authorities over the reasons for his electronic travel authorisation (ETA) being revoked.

He said he had only been told that his presence in the UK was “not considered to be conducive to the public good”, as the Guardian revealed.

Speaking to Radio 4’s Today programme on Friday, he speculated that the only plausible rationale for the ban was his advertised appearance at a conference next Wednesday alongside Huda Ammori, a co-founder of the proscribed group Palestine Action.

He said: “I cannot see any other explanation than the scheduled appearance of me on stage for a panel on Wednesday evening in London, together with Huda Ammori. That … makes me somehow a terrorist or associated with terrorism, and therefore barred from travelling to the UK. That’s pretty scandalous.”

He added: “What I am going through here is just a very small part of a major trend: this drift into authoritarianism that is targeting the Palestine movement, the climate movement, and others who oppose the destructive forces that are in control of this world. And that’s a very sad thing.”

Malm confirmed to the Guardian that he would speak via video link at the event organised by Tribune magazine.

In his BBC interview, he denied supporting or helping to finance Palestine Action. But Malm, who has long campaigned for Palestinian rights, added: “You might be able to guess my opinions and sympathies.”

The Home Office said it could not discuss individual cases. However, a source said: “Decisions to refuse or cancel an ETA on the grounds that presence in the UK may not be conducive to public good are based solely on an assessment of the potential risk an individual may pose to UK society.”

Malm said: “I don’t have any concrete evidence for what this is all about. I’m left in the dark. I have asked for clarification, explanation. I haven’t received any.”

Malm was challenged on Today over whether his description of the Hamas attacks on 7 October 2023 as an “act of liberation” could be the reason for the ban.

He replied: “It could be. But my views about what happened on 7 October and in Palestine have been in the public realm for a long time. I was most recently in the UK in May.”

Malm added: “I’ve done nothing in public that is associated with Palestine Action. I have not publicly supported them or promoted them in any way.”

Malm said he was invited to speak alongside Ammori to discuss the war in Iran.

“So, what they’re preventing here is for us to have a discussion about the drivers of the imperial aggression in the Middle East,” he said.

“The only link to Palestine Action is her [Ammori] as a person. If you continue with these guilt-by-association links, then presumably if I am a threat to the public good in the UK by dint of talking to her, then someone who talks to me presumably is also a threat to the public good. Where does that end?”

The travel ban has been widely criticised. The author Sally Rooney said it was a “sad and frightening act of cultural self-harm”.

In a post on X, the Green party leader, Zack Polanski, said: “This all feels very much Starmer’s Labour government 2.0. An extraordinary attack on free speech from Andy Burnham.”

The Labour MP Clive Lewis, who last year offered to stand down from his Norwich South seat to allow Andy Burnham the chance to return to parliament, said: “When any government starts barring academics for their political views, alarm bells should be ringing.

“If ministers have evidence Andreas Malm is dangerous, produce it. Otherwise, this looks like political censorship dressed up as public safety. That’s a dangerous road for any democracy.”

How to Blow Up a Pipeline, which inspired a film of the same name, argues that sabotage and destroying property are morally and strategically justified forms of activism.