Britain begins debate on banning Trump


#1

Washington Times:

Britain begins debate on banning Trump

Britain’s Parliament on Monday was debating whether to ban Donald Trump from being able to enter the United Kingdom for inflammatory rhetoric, which would put him on par with gang leaders and jihadi preachers who incited or took part in violence.Lawmakers said the debate was not going to result in an actual vote banning Mr. Trump — those are decisions left up to the home secretary. But the members of Parliament said they had to respond and hold the debate after more than half a million people signed an online petition accusing Mr. Trump, the GOP presidential front-runner, of hate speech.

“This is no attempt to disrespect in any way Americans or the American state,” Paul Flynn, a Labour Party member of parliament, said as he kicked off the debate in committee.
The Democratic National Committee gleefully highlighted the debate, and linked to live web video of the debate in London, saying it was “shameful” that a Republican presidential candidate was the subject of such a debate.

The evidence of Mr. Trump’s offenses included proposing a temporary ban on Muslim visitors or immigrants to the U.S., his accusation that Mexico sends rapists and other bad elements of its society to the U.S., and his mocking of a disabled reporter.
Mr. Flynn said Parliament had to hold the debate after pressure from the public helped push the petition, but he urged fellow lawmakers to shy away from actually going ahead with the ban.

“Our best plan is not to give him that accolade of martyrdom in that way. I think we may already be in error by giving him far too much attention,” Mr. Flynn said.
Mr. Trump received little support from the committee, with members calling him “poisonous,” “homophobic,” a “ridiculous xenophobe” and “racist,” and accused him of spreading “stupidity.”

As if Trump even cares what the Brits think of him.


#2

The continuing movement to ban speech. It is happening on this side of the pond, as well.

Jon


#3

It’s really pathetic. Trump has in no way attacked the British people, but has only cautioned us not to open the floodgates to Muslim refugees in the US. I guess that’s offensive to the more than half million people in Britain who signed this petition because it’s contrary to how the entire world should be governed.


#4

As a wise man once said “Any honest man is embarrassed of his government”. :o


#5

Erm, he’s got this resort thing going on in Scotland . . . sort of Golf stuff . . .


#6

It’s kind of crazy, Obama drone strikes a couple thousand Muslim women and children to death, and nobody talks about banning him, but let Trump talk about properly screening Muslim refugees, and people lose their minds. Funny world.


#7

Good.

If they do ban him, maybe the GOP can unite behind Cruz or Fiorina. We can’t have a leader who is PNG in England!

ICXC NIKA.


#8

Simmer down lads, no-one is going to ban him. The only reason it is been debated is that the rules of the online petition system more or less meant that because it got so many signatures it had to be debated. It had around 565,000 signatures last I looked. I find his remarks silly and often very crass but I agree but the MP who said there is no reason to ban people for stupidity. I can always just change the channel and he is not urging anyone to kill anyone or doing anything illegal and he is not going to get banned so I wouldn’t worry.


#9

Maybe if he is elected President, the U.S. can ban him, or at least New York? He can then become the first “off-shore President.”

I guess it’s time for my medication…


#10

I agree with Boris Johnson, visiting New York is very dangerous due to the clear and present danger of possibly running into Trump. Has he been vetted one needs to ask? Certainly his hair at least seems to require the attentions of a vet. :wink:


#11

then they should ban Hilary and Bernie Sanders as well.


#12

They’re not going to ban Trump or any of the others. People are getting worked up over nothing and what is effectively a very tiny tornado in a very teacup is inciting a great deal of silliness.


#13

I can not recall Congress ever even considering banning a mainstream British political candidate, though. :wink:


#14

Good Lord I was unaware Congress sat in London now :wink: They are forced to debate it because of the online petition system they themselves introduced. If a petition gets more than 10,00 vote they will give it a response, if it gets more than 100,000 they are forced to consider debating it. Give the whole media furore this silliness has generated they decided to debated it eventually. Sadly at the same time this wholes stupid petition was running there was one up trying to get signatures to save the UKs oldest school for deaf children and that would have been a sight more useful as something worth addressing. I do think it’s a chronic waste of time and money but that’s the nature of democracy at times.


#15

Agreed on all points. And thanks for the info concerning parliamentary procedure.


#16

Thanks for the clarification. :slight_smile:

My point is that it is in bad taste for an ally to “ban” a man who could very well be next POTUS. Tell ya what. We’ll elect Trump, and you all can have HRC.:smiley:


#17

I’m not British, I just live in Britain, however I think the majority of Irish people wouldn’t want Madam Clinton either. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair gave of a rather similar air to an used car salesman and Bill’s missus gives me some of that feeling also.


#18

You are obviously a person of great discernment.:smiley:


#19

Jharek is this, on topics of far greater importance, as well.

Jon


#20

I will admit, the more I hear other politicians and governments so obviously frightened of trump in office, it makes me want to vote for him even more.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.