Sorry, I don't understand. It looks (to an outsider) like politicians are selectively enforcing nebulous 'hate speech' laws to silence people they don't like. How is that not a built-in feature of hate speech laws?
I don't quite understand your complaint. You say the UK doesn't have freedom of speech; you demonstrate that by giving an example of people who do have freedom of speech; you then mention people who are banned from entering the UK, but those people are banned because there is a risk of violence; you then say that that rule is not applied to violent Islamists who live in the country.
Of course it isn't! They live here, border controls are entirely the wrong tool to use for citizens.
Those border controls are used to prevent many Islamists from coming to the country.
And violent Islamists are dealt with using other laws.
A better example of uneven freedom of speech laws might have been the protections that Jews and Christians had (under racial discrimination laws and blasphemy laws) that were not extended to Muslims.
"but those people are banned because there is a risk of violence"
No, they're banned because their speech is so unpopular amongst a small but violent group of the population, that the Govt. would rather they weren't allowed to speak there.
That's a freedom of speech issue, not a border control issue.
If the Govt. were functioning properly, it would uphold its duty to protect unpopular speech by preventing (or at least attempting to prevent) violence directed at them. Instead, they just close their doors.