Today's announcement that the government is to name and shame a list of foreign-born "preachers of hate" who will be denied entry to the UK bears all the hallmarks of a PR gimmick designed to make the home secretary look as if she is being tough on those who promote terrorism.

A list of more than 200 foreigners "suspected of stirring up tensions" will be made public and is expected to include anti-abortionists, animal rights extremists and holocaust deniers as well as extremist clerics.

This is not how a confident democracy should be responding. What is wrong with the good old-fashioned method of simply upholding the law, ie allowing these people to visit the UK like everybody else and then prosecuting them if they happen to break the law?

This morning's Guardian reports:

"The burden of proof is to be placed on the individuals concerned by demanding that they refute accusations made against them by publicly denouncing or retracting their reported views."

This is a strange inversion of all principles of natural justice. If the government believes these individuals are up to no good then it is for the government to establish this in a court of law. The presumption should be innocence until proven guilty, not the other way round.

Several of today's papers focus on the example of Omar Bakri Mohammed, the former leader of al-Muhajiroun who departed these shores in 2005 after living here for more than 20 years and was then barred from ever returning to this country by the Home Office. Now there is certainly a legitimate question to be asked about why Bakri was ever allowed to settle in the UK in the first place – but that is a separate matter from refusing him entry to the UK just because we find his views objectionable. Make no mistake: many of Bakri's pronouncements were disgraceful. He revelled in the tabloid attention that his grotesque views attracted, and many British Muslims – myself included – breathed a sigh of relief when he decided to relocate elsewhere. But to reiterate my basic point: simply having odious views is not and should not be a reason to refuse people entry to the UK.

The same also goes for holocaust deniers. However nutty their views may be, the best response to holocaust deniers must be to publicly and systematically demolish their arguments, not by seeking to refuse them entry to the UK or, as in parts of Europe, imprison them because they hold some repulsive opinions.