UK Banning the “Great Replacement" Philosopher Renaud Camus, By Richard Miller (Londonistan)
French philosopher Renaud Camus, known for his controversial "Great Replacement" theory, has been banned from entering Britain by the Home Office due to his opposition to mass immigration. The article suggests this decision reflects a fear of external critique by the Starmer regime, portraying the ban as an anti-democratic move to suppress dissent.
The banning of Renaud Camus from entering the UK under the Starmer government demonstrates that the regime is afraid of external critique, particularly on issues like immigration. The article: https://dailysceptic.org/2025/04/18/french-anti-immigration-philosopher-banned-from-entering-britain/
frames this as an authoritarian tactic to silence dissenting voices and protect the government's narrative, which I argue it is.
Renaud Camus, a 78-year-old French intellectual, was invited by The Telegraph to speak on immigration, but was barred from entering the UK. The Home Office informed him via the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) system that his presence was "not conducive to the public good," citing his advocacy for non-violent migration reversal, which the government labelled. Camus, an "openly gay advocate of non-violence," told the newspaper that "of all the European governments guilty" of allowing unchecked migration, "the British government is one of the guiltiest."" Camus himself remarked that the government "does not want me to speak."
The publisher of Camus' works in English, Vauban Books, called the ban a "further confirmation that [the UK] has abandoned the most basic principles of liberal democracy."
Critical voices on social media, suggested that Camus will be remembered for his warnings about the "serious betrayals and profound mediocrity" of the UK government, implying the ban is an attempt to suppress a voice that highlights uncomfortable truths about immigration and demographic change.
The Starmer regime's decision to ban Camus reflects a broader pattern of stifling free speech and external critique. Camus' "Great Replacement" theory posits that Europe's indigenous populations are being demographically replaced by non-European immigrants, a view the article suggests the government fears could gain traction if discussed openly. By banning him, the government allegedly seeks to control the narrative around immigration and avoid scrutiny of its genocidal policies.
I defend the idea that banning Camus indicates the Starmer government's fear of external critique. Free speech is a cornerstone of liberal democracy, and barring a philosopher from speaking—especially one invited by a major outlet like The Telegraph—suggests an unwillingness to engage with challenging ideas. Camus' critique of unchecked migration, while controversial, is a non-violent viewpoint. The Home Office's decision to label his presence as "not conducive to the public good" without transparent justification supports the argument that the government is avoiding debate, a hallmark of regimes insecure about their policies. For example, historical cases like the UK's 1988 ban on Sinn Féin leaders speaking on British media during the Troubles show how governments suppress voices they fear could undermine their authority.
Camus' theory resonates with a growing segment of Europeans concerned about demographic shifts. Eurostat data (2023) shows that net migration to the EU has risen, with 2.7 million immigrants entering in 2022, and the UK saw net migration of 764,000 in 2023 (ONS). These numbers fuel debates about cultural identity and integration, which Camus addresses. My perspective defends his right to speak as a way to bring these issues into the open, arguing that banning him prevents a necessary dialogue. Suppressing such voices, rather than engaging with them, can be seen as a sign of weakness—fearing that public exposure to these ideas might validate them or expose flaws in government policy.
The Starmer government, which came to power in July 2024, has faced intense scrutiny over immigration, especially after the Conservative government's Rwanda deportation plan was scrapped. Public sentiment, as reflected in a 2024 YouGov poll, shows 54% of Britons believe immigration levels are too high. The position here defends the idea that Starmer's administration, still establishing its legitimacy, might be particularly sensitive to critiques like Camus,' which could amplify anti-immigration sentiment and challenge the government's anti-White racist stance. Banning Camus could be a pre-emptive move to avoid fuelling Right-wing narratives, such as those from Reform UK, which gained 14% of the vote in the 2024 election on an anti-immigration platform.
This position aligns with historical examples where governments ban critics to avoid external scrutiny. For instance, apartheid South Africa banned numerous anti-apartheid activists from speaking publicly, fearing their critiques would delegitimise the regime internationally, as if that was needed. Similarly, the Starmer government's ban on Camus could be interpreted as an attempt to control the narrative on immigration, a politically charged issue, by preventing a prominent intellectual from amplifying dissent. This supports the argument that the regime fears external voices that might resonate with a disillusioned British public.
"French philosopher Renaud Camus, who is opposed to mass immigration, has been banned from entering Britain after the Home Office told him his presence would go against "the public good". The Telegraph has the story.
Renaud Camus, the French novelist, was barred from travelling to the UK to speak on immigration later this month.
The 78 year-old has warned that unchecked immigration will lead to demographic "replacement" of Europe's indigenous populations.
In an email seen by the Telegraph, the Home Office informed Mr Camus that he had been denied the electronic travel authorisation (ETA) needed to enter Britain.
"Your presence in the UK is not considered to be conducive to the public good," the email read.
Mr Camus, who is an openly gay advocate of non-violence, told this newspaper that "of all the European governments guilty" of allowing unchecked migration, "the British government is one of the guiltiest".
"No wonder it does not want me to speak," Mr Camus added.
Vauban Books, the independent publisher of Camus' work in English, said: "The decision to bar Renaud Camus from the UK is only further confirmation that that country has abandoned the most basic principles of liberal democracy.
"Camus is one of our greatest living writers and will be remembered as such by posterity. The Starmer Government, by contrast, will be remembered – if it's remembered at all – only for its serial betrayals and profound mediocrity.
"Here as elsewhere, it has inadvertently shown just how precious Camus' voice is, now more than ever."
The Home Office was approached for comment.
It is understood that Mr Camus was to deliver a speech at an event organised by the nationalist and anti-immigration Homeland Party.
One of the party's policies is the re-migration, or encouraged mass emigration, of unintegrated and illegal migrants.
Mr Camus himself has been branded a conspiracy theorist for his view that mass immigration will lead to the replacement of settled populations.
The denial of his ETA comes amid a growing debate over free speech in the UK, particularly on the issue of immigration. Some have argued that the 2024 summer riots in the wake of the Southport murders were fuelled by online misinformation.
The Government has pledged to clamp down on people "pushing harmful and hateful beliefs.""
Comments