UK Holds Hearing to Ban Trump

 

Leading Republican Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump has not only become somewhat a phenomenon here in the US during the 2016 election, but across the pond he has stirred over a half a million people to sign an online petition banning him from their country.

On Monday, Members of Parliament held a hearing on whether to block the former reality TV star from entering the United Kingdom.

A variety of reasons for the ban were given, including the claims that Trump “mocked in a cruel way a man for his disability, that he lumped the people of Mexico in together labeling them rapists and drug users, that he’s made some degrading remarks about women, and the latest that Muslims not be allowed in the US.”

Paul Flynn of the Labour Party told members that the Trump petition had been signed by more people than any other petition in Parliament’s history: 573,971 total.

A competing petition named Don’t Ban Donald Trump from UK was reportedly signed by 42,898 people. However, Flynn clarified that 30,000 signatures were removed for being “suspect because they were coming from one source.”

Noted here are some of the better moments of the debate. Words used to describe Trump included “ridiculous,” “poisonous,” “corrosive,” “buffoon,” “dangerous fool,” and “wazzock.” (Yeah, I had to Google it too.)

Three hours later members held no vote and Trump was not banned.

There are 27 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Boisfeuras Inactive
    Boisfeuras
    @Boisfeuras

    A cringe-inducing day for those of us in the UK…

    • #1
  2. Boisfeuras Inactive
    Boisfeuras
    @Boisfeuras

    Some context though: This was forced on, rather than the freestanding initiative of, the British Parliament.

    A few years ago, there was a massive embezzlement/expenses fraud scandal involving British MPs (from all parties). In a bid to repair their image and make themselves more “relevant” to the electorate’s concerns, Parliament created “e-petitions” in 2011.

    Under these, any electronic petition with more than 100,000 adherents will almost always have to be debated in Parliament, thereby making Parliament the hostage (through its own stupidity) of any sufficiently large number of suitably outraged members of the public with access to a keyboard and mouse.

    No matter how ludicrous the topic.

    • #2
  3. Chirp Inactive
    Chirp
    @Chirp

    What a silly country.

    • #3
  4. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Editor
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    Chirp:What a silly country.

    It’s certainly a silly — and dangerous — basis on which to have held the debate, and shows the danger of having any law on the books, anywhere, giving a government the power to decide what is and isn’t “hate speech.” But as Boisfeuras pointed out, they were more or less forced to have it by procedural constraint, given the number of people who signed the petition.

    That said, Trump is a big problem for all of our allies, because he’s proposed to bar their citizens from travel to the US — including, presumably, their diplomats and diplomatic staff, their elected officials, their students, and their citizens with business interests or investments in the United States. In fact, given the impossibility of knowing someone’s religious beliefs, the only way to make such a ban meaningful would be to bar travel from pretty much every country in the world to the United States. Most of our allies have obviously decided that he’s not apt to be elected, and if elected, apt to be told that this idea isn’t viable before he causes a massive diplomatic rift. But should he be elected and should he say something like that in office — as a clearly serious proposal — our alliances would be very strained by it.

    • #4
  5. Naudious Inactive
    Naudious
    @Stoicous

    Get 100,000 people together, and perhaps we can petition the British to be a serious country again. Then again, our White House had to do a similar speal about not building a Death Star because the government got a petition.

    This is especially weird considering the British have their own immigration fanatics.

    • #5
  6. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    Government by petition. I guess we’re back in middle school now.

    • #6
  7. Frank Soto Contributor
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    Katie Jerkovich: Noted here were some of the better moments from the debate. Words used to describe Trump were ridiculous, poisonous, corrosive, buffoon, dangerous fool, and a wazzock. (Yeah, we had to google it too.) Three hours later members held no vote and Trump was not banned.

    It is terrifying how much of government these days is simply about emoting correctly.

    • #7
  8. Randal H Member
    Randal H
    @RandalH

    I’m sure someone somewhere will come up with a list of nefarious people who didn’t elicit a call for being banned from the UK. I’m also sure there are imams in Britain right now spewing the most vile hatred that won’t be banned. Will anyone be banned because of the Rotherham scandal? Jeremy Corbyn has nothing but wild praise for Maduro and the Chavistas as Venezuela descends into anarchy and then totalitarianism. Will he be banned?

    For those people inclined to vote for Trump, this just represents a twofer. Not only do they get to stick it in the eye of the Republican establishment, they get to do the same for the British leftist establishment.

    • #8
  9. Roberto Member
    Roberto
    @Roberto

    Randal H:I’m sure someone somewhere will come up with a list of nefarious people who didn’t elicit a call for being banned from the UK. I’m also sure there are imams in Britain right now spewing the most vile hatred that won’t be banned.

    We don’t need a list, just one case highlights the insanity of it all.

    Jihadi preacher linked to bin Laden allowed to stay in UK despite ‘extremist’ views

     The Yemeni-born imam has spent more than a decade fighting for UK citizenship in a case that has cost the British taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds in court bills.

    The Telegraph is prevented from naming the preacher under protection given him by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC)…But incredibly, the Home Office cannot deport the imam, who preaches at a large mosque in the north of England, because it would be a breach of his human rights to do so.

    • #9
  10. Randal H Member
    Randal H
    @RandalH

    Roberto:

    Randal H:I’m sure someone somewhere will come up with a list of nefarious people who didn’t elicit a call for being banned from the UK. I’m also sure there are imams in Britain right now spewing the most vile hatred that won’t be banned.

    We don’t need a list, just one case highlights the insanity of it all.

    Jihadi preacher linked to bin Laden allowed to stay in UK despite ‘extremist’ views

    The Yemeni-born imam has spent more than a decade fighting for UK citizenship in a case that has cost the British taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds in court bills.

    The Telegraph is prevented from naming the preacher under protection given him by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC)…But incredibly, the Home Office cannot deport the imam, who preaches at a large mosque in the north of England, because it would be a breach of his human rights to do so.

    I agree. This is more than enough evidence.

    • #10
  11. Katie Jerkovich Inactive
    Katie Jerkovich
    @KatieJerkovich

    Roberto:

    Randal H:I’m sure someone somewhere will come up with a list of nefarious people who didn’t elicit a call for being banned from the UK. I’m also sure there are imams in Britain right now spewing the most vile hatred that won’t be banned.

    We don’t need a list, just one case highlights the insanity of it all.

    Jihadi preacher linked to bin Laden allowed to stay in UK despite ‘extremist’ views

    The Yemeni-born imam has spent more than a decade fighting for UK citizenship in a case that has cost the British taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds in court bills.

    The Telegraph is prevented from naming the preacher under protection given him by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC)…But incredibly, the Home Office cannot deport the imam, who preaches at a large mosque in the north of England, because it would be a breach of his human rights to do so.

    utterly ridiculous.

    • #11
  12. Katie Jerkovich Inactive
    Katie Jerkovich
    @KatieJerkovich

    Boisfeuras:Some context though: This was forced on, rather than the freestanding initiative of, the British Parliament.

    A few years ago, there was a massive embezzlement/expenses fraud scandal involving British MPs (from all parties). In a bid to repair their image and make themselves more “relevant” to the electorate’s concerns, Parliament created “e-petitions” in 2011.

    Under these, any electronic petition with more than 100,000 adherents will almost always to be debated in Parliament, thereby making Parliament the hostage (through its own stupidity) of any sufficiently large number of suitably outraged members of the public with access to a keyboard and mouse.

    No matter how ludicrous the topic.

    let this be a lesson to leaders here to not do the same. :)

    • #12
  13. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    I thought we won a war so we wouldn’t have to care what the Brits do…

    • #13
  14. Mike LaRoche Inactive
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    I really love the UK, having spent considerable time there in recent years. But events like this just make me shake my head.

    • #14
  15. Valiuth Inactive
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Trump just brings out the best in people doesn’t he? Its like the whole world is descending into 3rd grade.

    • #15
  16. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:

    Chirp:What a silly country.

    It’s certainly a silly — and dangerous — basis on which to have held the debate, and shows the danger of having any law on the books, anywhere, giving a government the power to decide what is and isn’t “hate speech.” But as Boisfeuras pointed out, they were more or less forced to have it by procedural constraint, given the number of people who signed the petition.

    That said, Trump is a big problem for all of our allies, because he’s proposed to bar their citizens from travel to the US — including, presumably, their diplomats and diplomatic staff, their elected officials, their students, and their citizens with business interests or investments in the United States. In fact, given the impossibility of knowing someone’s religious beliefs, the only way to make such a ban meaningful would be to bar travel from pretty much every country in the world to the United States. Most of our allies have obviously decided that he’s not apt to be elected, and if elected, apt to be told that this idea isn’t viable before he causes a massive diplomatic rift. But should he be elected and should he say something like that in office — as a clearly serious proposal — our alliances would be very strained by it.

    Like the way Germany used the courts to say Dick Cheney could not come to the nation?

    Great allies we have.

    • #16
  17. Sandy Member
    Sandy
    @Sandy

    This will not hurt Trump, either.  It worked really well for Kerry in Clark County, Ohio in 2004.  Short memories.

    • #17
  18. SpiritO'78 Inactive
    SpiritO'78
    @SpiritO78

    I think these kinds of mean, silly tactics make Americans rally around Trump, even those of us who don’t like him.  Jeremy Corbyn routinely makes offensive and buffoonish remarks; I can’t imagine anyone from the U.S. trying to ban him from visiting.

    • #18
  19. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Sandy:This will not hurt Trump, either. It worked really well for Kerry in Clark County, Ohio in 2004. Short memories.

    I think it’s a British domestic politics thing rather than an attempt to influence the Republican Primaries.

    And if you elect President Trump, it will be brushed under the carpet by all concerned.

    Both the US and the UK Governments denied Narendra Modi a visa (on character grounds?) when he was just Chief Minister of Gujarat, but as soon as he became Prime Minister of India their principles qualms were quickly forgotten.

    • #19
  20. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Katie Jerkovich: Noted here were some of the better moments from the debate. Words used to describe Trump were ridiculous, poisonous, corrosive, buffoon, dangerous fool, and a wazzock. (Yeah, we had to google it too.)

    Also, though, note that there were plenty of things said on the other side:

    Adam Holloway, a Conservative MP, says the “ban Trump” motion “makes Britain look totalitarian” and “we should apologise to the people of the United States”.

    He says this debate is making Britain look ‘totalitarian”.

    Philip Davies, another Tory MP, adds: “We should celebrate more often politicians who stand up and say things that are unpopular”.

    He says: “I think in this country we could do with rather less political correctness and more straight talking across the board.”

    If a vote had been taken it would have failed, seeing that the leadership of both major parties opposed the ban. It’s a sad day when Jeremy Corbyn is comparatively sort of reasonable, but I guess that happened.

    • #20
  21. Sandy Member
    Sandy
    @Sandy

    Zafar:

    Sandy:This will not hurt Trump, either. It worked really well for Kerry in Clark County, Ohio in 2004. Short memories.

    I think it’s a British domestic politics thing rather than an attempt to influence the Republican Primaries.

    And if you elect President Trump, it will be brushed under the carpet by all concerned.

    Both the US and the UK Governments denied Narendra Modi a visa (on character grounds?) when he was just Chief Minister of Gujarat, but as soon as he became Prime Minister of India their principles qualms were quickly forgotten.

    I didn’t mean to suggest that it was intended to influence our primaries, just that it might well have that effect, and in Trump’s favor.

    • #21
  22. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Katie Jerkovich: Noted here are some of the better moments of the debate. Words used to describe Trump included “ridiculous,” “poisonous,” “corrosive,” “buffoon,” “dangerous fool,” and “wazzock.” (Yeah, I had to Google it too.)

    “Poisonous” and “corrosive” are over the line.

    “Wazzock” has been weighed and found wanting. Go with “twerp.”

    • #22
  23. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Can we ban all Brits from the US? Or maybe just ban the MPs that voted for this silliness.

    • #23
  24. JVC1207 Member
    JVC1207
    @JVC1207

    I understand the procedural reasons why this issue had to be raised, but how mad would you be if your elected representatives wasted 3 entire hours arguing over this nonsense? Was there really nothing else of importance to accomplish that day?

    • #24
  25. Adriana Harris Inactive
    Adriana Harris
    @AdrianaHarris

    More free publicity for Trump. Thank goodness England has no problems and can spend their time on Trump bashing.

    • #25
  26. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    JVC1207:I understand the procedural reasons why this issue had to be raised, but how mad would you be if your elected representatives wasted 3 entire hours arguing over this nonsense? Was there really nothing else of importance to accomplish that day?

    I would be ecstatic if they spent 3 hours debating nothing. That is much better than 3 hours raising taxes or expanding the welfare state.

    • #26
  27. Douglas Inactive
    Douglas
    @Douglas

    Mike LaRoche:I really love the UK, having spent considerable time there in recent years. But events like this just make me shake my head.

    “Bloody Hell, no wonder you people left” – my Anglo Saxon ancestors

    • #27
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.