A.G. Gancarski
On Monday, members of Great Britain’s House of Commons are debating a striking (albeit nonbinding) proposition in the usually moribund Westminster Hall.
Should GOP Presidential front runner Donald Trump be banned from the United Kingdom? For hours Monday, British parliamentarians debated it, even though no binding vote would happen on this day.
Still, such a debate could be interpreted as a strong argument that Trump may be poorly positioning himself for statesmanship as we know it. No matter what side of the ban question debaters were on, they, almost to a person, agreed that Trump’s rhetoric inflames rather than illuminates.
This illustrates how far American political rhetoric has evolved (or devolved, if one prefers) in recent years. Even with a general consensus being that offensive speech isn’t enough to constitute a ban, the fact that such is being discussed is a measure of how the world sees the red meat being served up by the leading candidate in the GOP Presidential Primary.
As Labour’s Paul Flynn noted, the paradox created would be one of banning a man who quite possibly could be president from the UK. Still, 570,000 have signed a petition to that effect.
The Petition Committee member and leader of the debate also noted that Trump’s offenses have been mild compared to others who have been banned, mostly for terrorist incitement and hate speech.
Flynn expressed a concern of conferring a “halo of martyrdom” on Trump.
Trump, who one member called a “ridiculous individual who,” nonetheless “could be elected President of the United States,” was clearly a concern of all in attendance, though many were worried that too much attention was being given to the Republican front runner.
Flynn noted Trump’s “degrading remarks about women,” as well as his proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration, as “dangerous” and playing into the desire of some for a global war between Muslims and Christians.
Flynn “urged the alternative of inviting him here,” showing him “the rich mixture of races and creeds” in Brixton, and asking the question of why there are more gun deaths in the US in one day than in the UK in one year.
In the first of many six minutes speeches, Conservative Paul Scully noted the examples of people excluded for “incitement and hatred, but I’ve never heard of one for stupidity, and I’m not sure we should be starting now.”
A better move, Scully said, would be to look at counterterrorism and strategies beyond banning Muslims, “though Trump hasn’t gone so far as to suggest putting a badge on them.
Tulip Siddiq noted that over 3,000 of her constituents signed onto this petition.
Siddiq, a Labour MP, noted that Trump’s language had “clearly fallen short of the Home Office guidance” and constituted hate speech.
“It was Donald Trump, don’t forget, who ran a dog whistle campaign against Barack Obama‘s birth certificate,” Siddiq said.
“A lot of his words mean that there’s real crime and real violence, and that’s where I draw the line regarding freedom of speech,” Siddiq said.
“I draw the line at freedom of speech when it actually imports violent ideology,” Siddiq added, saying that bans were intended to “protect” British citizens from Trump and others.
Conservative Edward Leigh warned against “using demagoguery to fight demagogues” like Trump, and said that such a ban would be using the very tactics anti-Trump people decry.
“I’m a firm believer in free speech,” said Leigh, saying that “dialogue is a solution, not deeper division” and that the anti-Trump movement in Britain is intended to shut down the UK’s own debate about immigration.
“I’m not sure Trump is going to be terribly worried about this debate,” Leigh said.
Gavin Robinson of the Democratic Unionist Party likened Trump’s approach to debating to “throwing a dead cat on the table,” yet wanted the “xenophobic” Trump to visit the UK and learn from its pluralism.
“Confront him,” Robinson advised of the “ridiculous xenophobe,” on the “bad policy” he recommended, which would change America’s reputation “irrevocably.”
Robinson brought up the Trump “birther” comments on Obama, as well as alleging that Trump’s ex-wife said Trump used to “lie in bed and read the works of Adolf Hitler,” by way of spotlighting Trump’s buffoonery.
The principles Trump espouses, he added, do not jibe with British or American culture.
Speakers noted the divergence between the rhetoric of Trump and Martin Luther King, with one calling for an American politician to check him, Joe McCarthy style, asking him “at long last sir, have you no shame.”
[That one has been tried. It doesn’t work.]
Labour’s Naz Shah sought to “challenge that narrative, challenge that hate speech that comes out of his mouth.
As a Muslim British woman, Shah notes that Trump would ban her from America, yet “goodness is better than evil,” and such a ban is part of the “rhetoric of badness,” of “hatred [that] breeds hate.”
Labour Shadow Minister Jack Dromey, calling for the exclusion of Trump, said that he should not be allowed to come to the UK and “preach that message of divisive hate” that has wowed American crowds.
His rhetorical flourishes got pushback, with one voice saying that England is good at roasting beef, so why not roast Trump.
Dromey held firm, saying “I don’t think Donald Trump should be allowed within a thousand miles of our shore,” calling him a “dangerous fool” who would incite people to terrorism in the UK, especially those already susceptible to the ISIS message.
It wasn’t all anti-Trump, with a Yorkshire Conservative, Philip Davies, lauding Trump for “straight talking” regarding the Muslim immigration issue, saying that “we could use a little more straight talking” regarding the influx of “terrorists who hate our way of life.”
Davies, who disagrees with Trump, believes that he is “entitled to have that opinion and express it.” He said that 35 percent of people in the North of England polled as agreeing with Trump.
“What about the rights of those minorities in this country?”
The “real issue” for pro-exclusion people, said Davies, is that “he’s rich, white, and politically incorrect.”
“It is precisely because of straight talking,” Davies said, that Trump has become so popular, adding that we should “celebrate” such honesty.
“It takes real guts to say things that are unpopular and controversial,” Davies added.
Gavin Newlands was blunt in response.
“Let’s be clear,” said the Scottish National Party MP, “Donald Trump is an idiot.”
Trump’s candidacy and “hateful politics,” Newlands added, validates the noxious creeds of “bigots, sexists, and racists.”
Another parliamentarian, Conservative Kwazi Kwarteng, brought up the “sugar-coated version of American history” being bandied about, citing the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Immigration Act of 1924, and so on.
“Martin Luther King would be very surprised by the sanitized version of American history” brought forth in the debate, saying that Trump is in line with his historic examples.
“Donald Trump is in a long tradition, but we should not ban him,” he said, adding that such a ban could only help the Trump campaign.
The SNPs Anne McLaughlin speculated that Trump’s rhetoric may get him through the primary election, but would be repudiated in the general election.
She effectively endorsed Hillary Clinton, for what that’s worth, during her remarks.
Wrapping up, Paul Flynn congratulated Parliament on having such a reasoned debate.
Check back for updates.
