by Peter Demos, Christian Post
Britain did not merely deny entry to a tourist when it effectively barred Finnish politician Päivi Räsänen from even changing planes at Heathrow.
Räsänen — previously convicted in her home country for her views on marriage and sexuality — revealed recently that her electronic travel authorization (ETA) for the U.K. had been canceled.
The former Finnish Minister of the Interior said her application was initially successful, but she later received a notification saying it had been canceled. ETAs are for travelers to Britain who don’t require a visa but who need to pass through the U.K. border. Her planned trip to Northern Ireland next month is now in doubt.
Räsänen’s comments and opinions are not new — she was unanimously acquitted by both Finland’s District Court and Court of Appeal for her views several years ago. But earlier this year, Finland’s Supreme Court narrowly reversed the ruling, convicting her over language published in a church pamphlet written more than 20 years ago.
The ETA decision should concern everyone who believes in free speech, regardless of their views on sexuality.
Should a Western democracy deny entry to an elected official because she was convicted in another Western democracy for expressing traditional religious beliefs?
The U.K. government has every sovereign right to decide who enters its borders. No nation is obligated to admit every traveler. But sovereignty does not answer the more important question: What principles are guiding those decisions?