Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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.
Published in Foreign Policy
A cringe-inducing day for those of us in the UK…
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.
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.
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.
Government by petition. I guess we’re back in middle school now.
It is terrifying how much of government these days is simply about emoting correctly.
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.
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
I agree. This is more than enough evidence.
utterly ridiculous.
let this be a lesson to leaders here to not do the same. :)
I thought we won a war so we wouldn’t have to care what the Brits do…
I really love the UK, having spent considerable time there in recent years. But events like this just make me shake my head.
Trump just brings out the best in people doesn’t he? Its like the whole world is descending into 3rd grade.
Like the way Germany used the courts to say Dick Cheney could not come to the nation?
Great allies we have.
This will not hurt Trump, either. It worked really well for Kerry in Clark County, Ohio in 2004. Short memories.
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.
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
principlesqualms were quickly forgotten.Also, though, note that there were plenty of things said on the other side:
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.
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.
“Poisonous” and “corrosive” are over the line.
“Wazzock” has been weighed and found wanting. Go with “twerp.”
Can we ban all Brits from the US? Or maybe just ban the MPs that voted for this silliness.
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?
More free publicity for Trump. Thank goodness England has no problems and can spend their time on Trump bashing.
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.
“Bloody Hell, no wonder you people left” – my Anglo Saxon ancestors