On 30 June, we reported that Lloyds are debanking the Canary. In the aftermath, we were proud to see independent media figures and activists rallying around us. We’d be remiss, however, if we didn’t acknowledge that some on the right have also spoken out:
The Canary has been debanked by Lloyds.
Debanking is one of the most pernicious forms of cancellation that an individual or organisation can face — something the FSU is only too familiar with.
Lloyds has provided no explanation for its decision and has not told The Canary when… https://t.co/Y2YKbFC1wu
— The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) June 30, 2026
You can read our full statement on the debanking here.
Standing against debanking
The Free Speech Union (FSU) said in full:
The Canary has been debanked by Lloyds.
Debanking is one of the most pernicious forms of cancellation that an individual or organisation can face — something the FSU is only too familiar with.
Lloyds has provided no explanation for its decision and has not told The Canary when its funds will be returned.
We are in contact with The Canary and stand ready to help.
As we’ll get into, we’ve certainly had disagreements over what ‘cancelling’ actually is. We definitely agree that removing an individual or organisation’s ability to bank is diminishing their ability to have a voice, though.
Founded by Toby Young, the Free Speech Union describes itself as follows:
If you want to speak up about an issue that matters to you, you should be free to do so without fear of being penalised. We have helped over 6,000 people who’ve found themselves in trouble merely for expressing a controversial opinion or for exercising their right to lawful free speech, whether at college or university, in the workplace or on social media.
If you’re looking for information and guidance, or in need of immediate help, our team of experts are here to provide assistance, resources and support.
We’ve covered the Free Speech Union before; specifically when actor Laurence Fox called them out for not supporting his legal case. In the union’s opinion, ‘encouraging people to destroy Ulez cameras’ was a criminal matter and not a free speech issue. We’ve also covered Young before, and seldom in a flattering light. So say what you will about the man, but his commitment to free speech goes beyond the superficiality of others.
Debanking opposition
Financial investigator Lee Nallalingham said:
This is appalling behaviour from Lloyd’s.
I disagree with @TheCanaryUK on almost everything politically.
They’ve even published factually incorrect claims about me in the past.
But I’ll still defend their right to have a bank account.
Principles only matter if they apply to everyone.
Back in 2020, when people on the political right were warning that cancel culture was real, The Canary dismissed it as a myth.
Hopefully today’s events are a reminder that your values and viewpoint shouldn’t be flexible…
…depending on which side of the political spectrum is on the receiving end.
As far as we can tell, the only time we’ve covered Nallalingham was in May this year. We’re not sure what the “incorrect claims” were, but we’re always happy to discuss! In the meantime, thank you for your support, Lee.
Middle-aged boxer Adam Brooks said this:
I supported the right of Nigel Farage to get his accounts back, and I’ll do it for a publication that often comes for me, and who I detest.
Why ?
Because we must not normalise debanking and cancellation. https://t.co/nPUWefGGJF
— Adam Brooks AKA EssexPR
(@EssexPR) June 30, 2026
Other right-wingers included Gawain Towler:
Debanking the Canary is as pernicious as debanking organisations and individuals on the right.
Much as I disagree with pretty much everything that it says, this is an assault on freedom of speech, and is thus an assault in all of us. https://t.co/mDmBvXPeut
— Gawain Towler (@GHWTowler) June 30, 2026
Towler received criticism for the above (content warning for ableism), but he stuck to his guns:
No, I believe in freedom of speech. That is a universal for me.
— Gawain Towler (@GHWTowler) June 30, 2026
Not necessarily a right-winger, but organised crime reporter Rebecca Tidy said:
If a bank suspects that even a tiny proportion of funds entering or leaving an account may be linked to a proscribed organisation, terrorist financing, sanctioned persons or jurisdictions, or crime, then the compliance risk for the bank is often too great (2/2).
— Rebecca Tidy (@DrRebeccaTidy) July 1, 2026
‘Sanctioned jurisdictions’ could be crucial, because we employ journalists in the Middle East. And as we noted in our initial statement:
We do know that multiple other politically engaged people have suffered similar actions by other banks in recent times. It is not lost on us that powerful banks are able to restrict the financial activity of anti-Zionist and pro-Palestine organisations and individuals. Whilst we do not currently know the reasons behind our debanking, we cannot afford to be naive about this.
Right-wing critique
While many on the right have reaffirmed their opposition to debanking, some – like Reform UK’s Richard Tice – highlighted the following article:
Is this you Canary?
Do you now accept cancel culture exists?
Would you like some help from us who are Right?
Even though you have been utterly foul to us ? https://t.co/bIVrULwQwk— Richard Tice MP
The above piece is from 2020, and it was written by the American writer Peter Bolton. Bolton last wrote for us in 2022 – a year before Nigel Farage had his own debanking issues. The piece in question related to an open letter published in Harper’s magazine:
titled A Letter on Justice and Open Debate. The list of signatories ran the political spectrum from right to left and included figures as diverse as former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum and linguist and political dissident Noam Chomsky.
The letter starts off innocuously enough. It describes “demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society” as “overdue”. But having made this point, it then goes on to say that these demands have nonetheless “intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity”.
It then concedes that “forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world”, while acknowledging that this is primarily something associated with the political right. It singles out US President Donald Trump, who it says “represents a real threat to democracy”. But it then says that “democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides”.
In the piece, Bolton drew a distinction between:
- State and corporation-backed repression.
- Public discourse turning against individuals.
In his own words:
So when left-wing commentators like myself, for example, call out bigots for the racist things that they say, we’re not impeding their free speech. In the first place this is because we’re not the government. But, moreover, it’s because criticizing our political opponents for what they say is itself freedom of speech that is protected every bit as much as their freedom of speech.
What the right is really complaining about is not that they are being silenced. They’re complaining that they can’t say whatever they want without facing consequences, which may well include public criticism. And if what one says is prejudiced, intellectually dishonest, or otherwise contemptible, then one runs a very real risk of facing such a consequence.
We still think this is a legitimate distinction. And something else that must be acknowledged is that we’re not new to criticising the act of debanking:
Scott Ritter is a prominent critic of US and Western imperialism, and has just announced his bank has taken his money
By @skwawkbox https://t.co/vhs766rQgj
— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) January 16, 2026
Standing against the state
Another thing to note is that we’re also not new to defending our enemies against state overreach and oppression. In a piece titled “Tommy Robinson is a wasteman, but he shouldn’t have been arrested using terror laws”, we wrote:
If people have broken the law, that needs to be resolved in some fashion. The problem is successive governments and police services have decided that opposing them is an offence in itself – even when said opposition does not cross the threshold of illegality.
This state overreach needs to stop.
And to be clear, we really don’t like Tommy f*cking Robinson:
Tommy Robinson called for white rioters to hit the streets, and then revelled in the chaos – all for the umpteenth time
By @willem_moore_uk https://t.co/MNHPHRebKZ
— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) June 10, 2026
All this aside, we are grateful to anyone who is standing against this. You can’t shape your beliefs around simply opposing what your enemies support. And no one should support a system in which your entire life can be turned upside down with no warning or explanation.
Featured image via the Canary
By Willem Moore
From Canary via This RSS Feed.