The British government’s recent decision to bar Dutch conservative activist and Catholic convert Eva Vlaardingerbroek from entering the United Kingdom has struck a nerve among both conservative and Catholic commentators for what it means for free speech and ideological tolerance in the West.
Vlaardingerbroek, a 28‑year‑old lawyer, author and political commentator, announced on social media that her Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) had been revoked by the UK Home Office as of January 13, and that she was told her entry was “not conducive to the public good” with no right of appeal. The order effectively blocks her from visiting Britain unless she applies for a visa.
For many on the right who have watched Vlaardingerbroek’s own spiritual journey unfold publicly, the move feels like a troubling precedent. Having converted to Catholicism in 2023 — being received into the Church through the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham and taking the name “Joan” in honour of St Joan of Arc — she is not merely a political figure but also someone whose faith informs her critique of modern Western trends.
Her supporters argue that barring her from the UK simply because her views are unpopular in certain political quarters sets a dangerous tone. Rather than being given a chance to engage in dialogue or debate, critics say, she has been excluded outright. Some commentators have drawn parallels with previous incidents in which conservative voices — including foreign activists like Lauren Southern — were denied entry to Britain for their views on immigration and contemporary culture.
Not everyone applauds her message — some media outlets label her “far‑right” and associate her with controversial figures and rhetoric. Yet for many Catholics and conservatives, the strongest concern isn’t her politics per se, but the principle behind the government’s action: that a state may decide which ideas are acceptable and punish those that it deems otherwise. Critics warn that such broad standards of “public good” have been applied inconsistently in the past and, in effect, collaborate with a narrowing public square where dissenting voices are marginalised rather than heard.
