Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Banning Donald Trump from Britain

Thread: Purgatory: Banning Donald Trump from Britain Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001307

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

This topic probably doesn't need any introduction, but a brief summary is as follows:

After Donald Trump's declaration of his intention to ban Muslims from the United States, a petition was started in Britain with the idea of getting enough signatories to debate in Parliament whether Donald Trump should be banned from the UK for hate speech.

The petition got over 570,000 signatures and is currently being debated. In practice it's quite unlikely that Donald Trump will actually be banned from the UK, but what are shipmates' views on this?

1) He should be allowed to visit Britain and say what he pleases.

2) He should be allowed to visit Britain but given a "guided tour" where he will visit a mosque, talk to Muslims, and see London and Birmingham with a view to debunking him of some of his wilder ideas.

3) Inviting him to Britain to see for himself would be a waste of time. He knows what he thinks and a visit wouldn't change his mind.

4) Banning him from Britain wouldn't help. It would give him extra publicity, would take away a chance to show him the reality on the ground, and also, if he did become President, make things rather awkward.

5) Yes, he should be banned from Britain for promoting hate speech. His visit would stir up divisiveness and encourage those who shared his views to become more active.

6) Donald Trump is honest enough to say what people really think but are afraid to say. Invite him here and get him to give some talks.

Or anything else that hasn't been covered...

I'm aware there is a Presidential thread running in Purgatory already but I'd like to focus on the freedom of speech angle here, not whether he gets elected or not. What do you think? There have been some good points put forward in the House of Commons debate on either side.

[ 16. May 2016, 08:19: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

As an American, I'm pretty squeamish about trying to regulate people's rights or ability to speak their minds. Although I recognize that one can argue that his speech constitutes a call to violent action (even if not explicitly so) against a certain group of people. Which is certainly NOT admissible and legally actionable.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

After foisting Piers Morgan on the Americans for a while it's only fair that we take someone in return.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

No good will be done by banning this ass from Britain, especially during the election. I like Ariel's suggestion #2.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

I started off thinking 5 but then thought 2, but now I'm thinking 3. I don't think a guided tour or "fact-finding" mission would change his mind. However, I feel he should be given the opportunity.

Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :

I'm really in two minds. I would love to him to come visit and see the wonderful communities and mosques and learn.

But equally, I am so upset with him for - not what he has said as much as what he thinks. Freedom of speech yes. But such ignorant and bigoted and vile thoughts? ug.

I would be surprised if he came to UK given what he has said about the place?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Almost uniquely for me, I signed the petition, and even got a few others to sign it, basically because it offered a grassroots way to hit back at someone who mirrors much of what I dislike in Marine Le Pen.

(As I still hold British nationality I was entitled to do so).

It's also great to have a system whereby if an issue gathers enough signatures, it may be debated, as this one is being.

Now, however, I hope (and anticipate) that the motion will not pass. The debate will serve to air the issues and see where some UK politicians stand, but he should not be banned so that he can see others do not seek to pay him back in his own coin (which would make him a martyr).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I see the debate has ended without a vote.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I signed to express my disgust really, I doubted a ban would happen - but I suppose also to highlight the contrast with other people who *do* get banned. He shouldn't get a free pass because he is rich and famous, if we'd ban people advocating something similar re Jews we should ban him. If we are not going to ban him, in the name of free speech, then we should be more careful about who we do ban for exactly the same reasons.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

I'd like to vote for...

7) Invite him to Britain -- but not allow him back in the U.S.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

If Mr Trump is saying this, you can bet that there's some part of the American people agree with him.

Better that he says it outright, so that those who are appalled by the idea can make their case in reply, than that he keeps his thoughts private until he's in a position of power.

Better that those who agree with him are engaged in the democratic process than that the rules of that process are somehow written to exclude their views. Because trying to get their way by private action in a gun-owning society is worse.

Free speech can go this far.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

The other thing is, I can imagine some people in Britain getting pretty upset if the US decided to try to influence a British election by publicly declaring that Mr Corbyn (just for example) was unwelcome in their country...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Some Shippies write as if Trump has never been to Britain. Of course he has. He has business interests in Scotland - some quite controversial and I presume he visits regularly. I doubt he's been to Birmingham or Bradford or down Brick Lane.

Thing is, whatever he sees would only confirm his suspicions and xenophobia. 'Hey, Prime Minister Cameron's saying that 190,000 Muslim women in Britain struggle with English ... that illustrates what I've been trying to say ...'

Banning the bastard wouldn't achieve anything and it may even convince some wavering Americans to vote for him.

I don't often quote Thatcher but her oxygen of publicity comment springs to mind.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I don't accept this is an attempt to influence the American election, not least because I doubt anyone believes the GOP base who support Trump give a flying fuck about a UK petition.

[ 18. January 2016, 19:19: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I've said this before, but the UK banned Dutch politician Wilders once, so I guess there is precedent.

[ 18. January 2016, 19:25: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
No good will be done by banning this ass from Britain, especially during the election. I like Ariel's suggestion #2.

I would plum for that one as well. It seemed to work for the ex leader of the EDL. Not sure what's happened to him these days.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

If you mean Tommy Robinson, he's about to set up an English branch of Pegida, starting with a rally in Birmingham in February.

I also signed the petition, more as an expression of disgust than because I thought it would do any good. It has however at least highlighted the issue. I worry about the increasing prevalence of anti-Muslim views - replace "Muslim" with "Jew" for full effect - but I suppose the people who support Trump's views would say it wasn't the same thing at all.

I doubt if he would change his mind if he was taken to a mosque and introduced to some nice friendly Muslims. Some people see what they want to see.

Someone was asking during the debate in Parliament this evening how far freedom of speech should go before it should be banned. They felt Donald Trump should not be banned from Britain; his views might be controversial and unpopular but they were honest and deserved a hearing.

[ 18. January 2016, 19:50: Message edited by: Ariel ]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Teaching the Donald is not, in my opinion, going to change anything about what he says. It is my thought that he figures out what makes people afraid and then tailors his speeches to inflame those fears; then tells how he is going to solve the problem causing the fear. Reality would only get in the way of the process for him.

Unfortunately, in certain sectors, his strategy seems to be working. On the other hand, I guess many of us are driven by self centered fear; myself included. I am trying to improve upon that and I recognize that self centered fear is a big motivator unless I am intentional about it not being a motivator.

Banning the Donald would, again only in my opinion, inflame the anthrophobia of many of his supporters. In other words, it might solidify his support among his current supporters. The world is, after all, out to get them.

There is nothing wrong with expression of disapproval of the Donaldagogue. Just try to not lower yourselves to his level.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
If you mean Tommy Robinson, he's about to set up an English branch of Pegida, starting with a rally in Birmingham in February.

I also signed the petition, more as an expression of disgust than because I thought it would do any good. It has however at least highlighted the issue. I worry about the increasing prevalence of anti-Muslim views - replace "Muslim" with "Jew" for full effect - but I suppose the people who support Trump's views would say it wasn't the same thing at all.

I doubt if he would change his mind if he was taken to a mosque and introduced to some nice friendly Muslims. Some people see what they want to see.

Someone was asking during the debate in Parliament this evening how far freedom of speech should go before it should be banned. They felt Donald Trump should not be banned from Britain; his views might be controversial and unpopular but they were honest and deserved a hearing.

I'm not keen on that idea that he's honest and therefore deserves to be heard. Sincerity can be overdone, for as Nye Bevan said of Anthony Eden at the time of the Suez crisis: "If Mr Eden is sincere in what he says, then he is too stupid to remain Prime Minister". It was mean, as Eden wasn't well at the time, but there's truth in there too.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
If you mean Tommy Robinson, he's about to set up an English branch of Pegida, starting with a rally in Birmingham in February.

Yes, couldn't quite remember his name, only that he'd appeared to have turned his back on extremism having mingled with moderate Muslims.
Not the case then.

Anyone who wants to make every Muslim the enemy along with the majority of Islam, will surely find themselves with a bigger problem than the one currently existing.

I agree with Tortuf about the inner fear potential in each of us. It was deliberately tweaked after 9/11 in order to gain support for the Iraq debacle. But, as with Jekyll and Hyde, it could activate of it's own accord if minority terror groups continue to make headway in the wider world.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

What do I think? As an American, I'm full of cross-pond jealousy. It's simply not fair that y'all get to vote to keep the guy out...

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

"The Donald" is among the stupidest of meaningless the nicknames I've ever the heard.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Oh, it has a meaning. In American English, referring to a person as "The" [name] is to class him as an object, similar to "the toadstool" or "the cowpat."

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Oh, it has a meaning. In American English, referring to a person as "The" [name] is to class him as an object, similar to "the toadstool" or "the cowpat."

Well, it can equally mean "the one and only" in American English.

Meanwhile, the origin of "The Donald" as a nickname for Trump.

And I'm all in favor of him going to any other country that will keep him.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As an American, I'm pretty squeamish about trying to regulate people's rights or ability to speak their minds. Although I recognize that one can argue that his speech constitutes a call to violent action (even if not explicitly so) against a certain group of people. Which is certainly NOT admissible and legally actionable.

To an extent I agree - however the debate is not in practice about Mr Trump's right to free speech, but his right to enter a foreign country. Unless one believes in open borders this is not an automatic right.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
"The Donald" is among the stupidest of meaningless the nicknames I've ever the heard.

But appropriate if we only refer to Trump as "it", as one might speak of a visitation of the plague.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Donald Trump would like nothing more than to be banned from Britain.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

The best way to treat Trump is to ignore him totally. In that way he will only be of significance in his own eyes while the rest of us can give attention to people and things that are important.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
"The Donald" is among the stupidest of meaningless the nicknames I've ever the heard.
But appropriate if we only refer to Trump as "it", as one might speak of a visitation of the plague.

It's almost always used tongue-in-cheek, a sardonic reference to Trump's oversized ego, the way he speaks of himself as the be-all and end-all of all Donalds, the biggest and the best everything.

In reality, as those who call him "The Donald" with all but audible air quotes, is that he is the be-all and end-all of buffoons.

Again, completely jealous that y'all have the ability to vote him off your island.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Donald Trump would like nothing more than to be banned from Britain.

This would allow him to blather on at full volume on the evils of King George III, still a surprisingly live figure for some people. Better yet would be to put him on a few interview shows for good long 30-45 minute one-on-one dialogues. I think he would find it difficult to manage them-- he seems to be the sort of person who prefers sound bites.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

The Donald doesn't do one-on-one interviews. He just shouts over them. Whatever question is asked, however important or relevant it might be, he just shouts over them, repeating his same tired talking points/rallying cries, doubling down on his latest shock-jock hate speech.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Bits of the MPs' debate are being shown on US evening news, and we have now learned the expression "wazzock." Thank you.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
The best way to treat Trump is to ignore him totally. In that way he will only be of significance in his own eyes while the rest of us can give attention to people and things that are important.

Rather like ignoring a wasp at a picnic - some people just can't help flapping at them.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I'd like to see Trump allowed in, if only so he can be questioned about what promises he gave Alex Salmond to get him to 'call-in' the decision on the golf development in Aberdeenshire.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
The best way to treat Trump is to ignore him totally. In that way he will only be of significance in his own eyes while the rest of us can give attention to people and things that are important.
Rather like ignoring a wasp at a picnic - some people just can't help flapping at them.

That's the perfect metaphor. Take a glass, pour a little cola in (not diet), and when he crawls in, put a plate over it. Perfect. He can rant away but no one can hear him and you can dispose of him at your leisure.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

This:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Donald Trump would like nothing more than to be banned from Britain.

That's more than a sufficient reason not to ban the dick-head.

Of course, he ain't going to get banned. But I suspect the merest threat of it has got him drooling and rubbing his hands with glee and it'll have been as manna from heaven to his supporters.

Nice own goal, folks.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

So what would actually constitute hate speech or sufficient reason to be banned from entering the country?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

In this day and age, banning a speaker from your shores has almost a touch of sympathetic magic about it, as if keeping his physical presence out of the country will somehow prevent anyone from hearing all the offensive things he has to say.

Whereas in reality, The Worst Of Donald Trump is just a mouseclick away for anyone with YouTube access.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've said this before, but the UK banned Dutch politician Wilders once, so I guess there is precedent.

The problem from a UK perspective anyway - as you point out above - is that a number of other people have previously been banned from visiting the UK - either entirely, or in the context of a specific visit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_banned_from_entering_the_United_Kingdom

So, assuming Trump is let in then the question would be, to what extent are his views less extreme than someone like Farrakan (or Julien Blanc). Or are we in a situation where government policy is driven on the basis that hate speech against some groups is more permissible than hate speech against others?

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've said this before, but the UK banned Dutch politician Wilders once, so I guess there is precedent.
The problem from a UK perspective anyway - as you point out above - is that a number of other people have previously been banned from visiting the UK - either entirely, or in the context of a specific visit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_banned_from_entering_the_United_Kingdom

So, assuming Trump is let in then the question would be, to what extent are his views less extreme than someone like Farrakan (or Julien Blanc). Or are we in a situation where government policy is driven on the basis that hate speech against some groups is more permissible than hate speech against others?

I think it's more that banning a potential (!) US president whatever he says is less acceptable than banning a wacko marginal right/left wing nobody.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

The list of banned individuals is kind of fascinating. I am entertained to find Todd Bentley (or Bent Toddley as I believe he was once known around these parts [Big Grin]

) on there. OTOH what on earth did Dmitri Shostakovich do to get banned? [Ultra confused]

Apologies for tangent.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've said this before, but the UK banned Dutch politician Wilders once, so I guess there is precedent.

If I recall correctly, one of the reasons and possibly the main reason why Wilders was banned was because Lord Ahmed (who is mentioned in that BBC report) threatened to get a rabble to demonstrate outside Parliament. I thought the government's decision was a disgraceful capitulation to mob rule.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Anglican't: If I recall correctly, one of the reasons and possibly the main reason why Wilders was banned was because Lord Ahmed (who is mentioned in that BBC report) threatened to get a rabble to demonstrate outside Parliament. I thought the government's decision was a disgraceful capitulation to mob rule.

I wasn't in the Netherlands at the time, so I'm not very aware of the circumstances. I haven't expressed a strong opinion in favour or against banning Wilders.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
After foisting Piers Morgan on the Americans for a while it's only fair that we take someone in return.

Yeah, thanks for that.

As horrifying as the thought of Trump being elected is, if he wins I can't imagine the UK banning the President of the US from visiting.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
After foisting Piers Morgan on the Americans for a while it's only fair that we take someone in return.
Yeah, thanks for that.

As horrifying as the thought of Trump being elected is, if he wins I can't imagine the UK banning the President of the US from visiting.

That's probably the main reason why some MPs were arguing against his being banned. But don't be under the illusion that he has friends here. Even if he wins, President or no, he will have to mature enormously before even those MPs who spoke against banning him will respect him.

Nobody official here has ever respected Berlusconi.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Nobody official here has ever respected Berlusconi.

Well, apart from Tony Blair ...

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
The best way to treat Trump is to ignore him totally. In that way he will only be of significance in his own eyes while the rest of us can give attention to people and things that are important.
Rather like ignoring a wasp at a picnic - some people just can't help flapping at them.
That's the perfect metaphor. Take a glass, pour a little cola in (not diet), and when he crawls in, put a plate over it. Perfect. He can rant away but no one can hear him and you can dispose of him at your leisure.

Yes, yes! Yes, Britain, please be our glass of cola and contain this nasty little insect for us.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Nobody official here has ever respected Berlusconi.
Well, apart from Tony Blair ...

Surely even Berlusconi wouldn't mistake Tony Blair's obsequiousness for respect? I can imagine the two of them singing "You're So Vain" to each other.

Posted by Beautiful Dreamer (# 10880) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Teaching the Donald is not, in my opinion, going to change anything about what he says.

...that's assuming he's teachable at all, which I don't think he is. Even if *he* were, I doubt the people who agree with him would be. I've known a few people like this and being willing to listen to other points of view isn't exactly one of their strong points.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Can you ban Sarah Palin at the same time? Satan's endorsement of Trump certainly builds The Doorknob's credibility.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful Dreamer:

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Teaching the Donald is not, in my opinion, going to change anything about what he says.
...that's assuming he's teachable at all, which I don't think he is. Even if *he* were, I doubt the people who agree with him would be. I've known a few people like this and being willing to listen to other points of view isn't exactly one of their strong points.

Indeed. Many of them consider it sinful even to try to listen to somebody else's POV. Hard to get through to someone in that head space.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Bits of the MPs' debate are being shown on US evening news, and we have now learned the expression "wazzock." Thank you.

If anyone is interested, here is the Hansard transcript of the debate https://hansard.digiminster.com/commons/2016-01-18/debates/1601186000001/DonaldTrump (link sent to me by the government because I signed the petition.)

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

cliffdweller:

quote:
Britain, please be our glass of cola and contain this nasty little insect for us.

Only if you agree to take Nigel Farrago off our hands in exchange.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Life imitating art:
Donald Trump & Sarah Palin the political version of Dumb & Dumber

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

What would someone have to actually say or do to be banned from entering a country? I’m not looking for a list of established government criteria here, but what you personally feel the limits should be. Or perhaps, in the interests of free speech, there shouldn’t be any limits?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Well, you'd definitely want to ban anybody highly likely to cause catastrophes in your own country--whether by inciting riots, or by committing crimes of some sort.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
What would someone have to actually say or do to be banned from entering a country? I’m not looking for a list of established government criteria here, but what you personally feel the limits should be. Or perhaps, in the interests of free speech, there shouldn’t be any limits?

That's a tough and challenging question. Whenever I've heard of British-based Muslim preachers being banned or deported from Britain because of their violence-inciting speech, I've found myself thinking: that's right to do so, because people like that cause tremendous harm in the communities where they have influence, sending young people into the arms of IS, stirring up hatred and ignorance etc.

And yet my response to 'should we ban Trump' was: no, of course not. That's just playing into his agenda. And stupidity like his is surely better exposed and nullified, rather than singling him out as somehow uniquely deserving of prohibition, as much as we wish to restrict the propagation of his poisonous views.

So I can't honestly say what my own decision would be in this case. Though I feel there are significant and important differences between the two cases, I'm not sure I've thought through them thoroughly enough to appreciate why I react so differently to them.

PS: I expect someone else has brought this up elsewhere, but every time I see Trump, I can't help thinking of that other meaning of the same word, ie 'Fart'. It's hard not to laugh at the man's absurdity at times; his name certainly doesn't help!
[Big Grin]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
What would someone have to actually say or do to be banned from entering a country? I’m not looking for a list of established government criteria here, but what you personally feel the limits should be. Or perhaps, in the interests of free speech, there shouldn’t be any limits?
That's a tough and challenging question. Whenever I've heard of British-based Muslim preachers being banned or deported from Britain because of their violence-inciting speech, I've found myself thinking: that's right to do so, because people like that cause tremendous harm in the communities where they have influence, sending young people into the arms of IS, stirring up hatred and ignorance etc.

And yet my response to 'should we ban Trump' was: no, of course not. That's just playing into his agenda. And stupidity like his is surely better exposed and nullified, rather than singling him out as somehow uniquely deserving of prohibition, as much as we wish to restrict the propagation of his poisonous views.

So I can't honestly say what my own decision would be in this case. Though I feel there are significant and important differences between the two cases, I'm not sure I've thought through them thoroughly enough to appreciate why I react so differently to them.

PS: I expect someone else has brought this up elsewhere, but every time I see Trump, I can't help thinking of that other meaning of the same word, ie 'Fart'. It's hard not to laugh at the man's absurdity at times; his name certainly doesn't help!

I think there is a difference between saying that something, even something pretty awful, should be enacted by the government(which has the power to make things legal), and saying that private citizens should go out and do something, even while it remains legal to do so.

For example...

SOME ANTI-ABORTION NUT: In a just world, these baby-killing doctors would be put on trial and given the death penalty if convicted.

ANOTHER ANTI-ABORTION NUT: I want everyone listening to this to get a gun, march down to your local baby-killing factory, and put a bullet into the head of the scumbag doctor.

I don't think the first one is incitement to violence, since it presumes that killing doctors will be made legal before people are able to do so. It's essentially just arguing that the government's power to take life(which anyone who isn't a pacifist supports) be extended to one more group.

Whereas the second one is telling people to do something illegal, right in the here and now. If the Muslim preachers you mention were saying stuff like that, then I think it would place them in a somewhat different category from Trump, who AFAIK has not actually advocated that anyone break the law.

And, yes, I realize that someone wishing to incite criminality might try to disguise it as legal reform. But I don't see how you can do anything about that, unless you want to make it so that saying(for example) "I think child molestors should get the death penalty" is the same thing as advocating vigilante violence against child molestors.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Anselmina: Whenever I've heard of British-based Muslim preachers being banned or deported from Britain because of their violence-inciting speech, I've found myself thinking: that's right to do so, because people like that cause tremendous harm in the communities where they have influence, sending young people into the arms of IS, stirring up hatred and ignorance etc.

And yet my response to 'should we ban Trump' was: no, of course not. That's just playing into his agenda. And stupidity like his is surely better exposed and nullified, rather than singling him out as somehow uniquely deserving of prohibition, as much as we wish to restrict the propagation of his poisonous views.

So, what's the difference between these Muslim preachers and Trump? Surely, Trump can cause harm in communities and stir up hatred and ignorance. And banning extreme Muslim preachers could be just playing into their agenda; stupidity like theirs is surely better exposed and nullified.

Why the difference?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I think part of the problem is that terrorism/militant/radicalise/fundamentalist are all defuse terms.

Basically treason and advocating treason should be illegal and result in banning people from entry to the country. Treason being the attempt to overthrow the government by force, regardless of the motivation. Inciting people to committ crimes of violence, intimidation and murder - or carrying out such crimes should be illegal and grounds for a ban.

I think that is probably not a contraversial position in the UK.

The trickier question is do you criminalise / let iin people who will "radicalise" - I think that Trump's rhetoric is on a par with someone arguing that there should be an islamic caliphate in the middle east. The statements in themselves don't advocate violence against the British state or its people - but they have a marked effect on the behaviour of the people who buy into the world view.

But most importantly, I think we should use powers to ban fairly and consistently. Trump isn't the president of the USA with the diplomatic status that implies, not for that matter is he an appointed or elected member of the US government - and therefore our response should be as for any other private citizen engaging in this kind of rhetoric.

I think his lack of official status is an important difference to say, the Chinese president with a terrible human rights record visiting, diplomatic relations are a different kind of interaction.

If we decide not to ban Trump fine, but then we must be consistent with other people we do ban.

[ 20. January 2016, 17:22: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think it's also a pragmatic question, not a principled one, nor a consistent one. There is no way that you can ban someone who is a potential candidate for Presidential office, unless they were barking mad. OK, I get the joke.

It's not the same as the diplomatic code, whereby we welcome tyrants and rogues, but it's adjacent, I think.

Remembering Chamberlain flying to see Hitler, oh damn, Godwin alert, alert, alert!

[ 20. January 2016, 17:42: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I agree with Doublethink. God forbid, should Trump be elected US President, that would produce a different problem. But as things stand, he should be judged by the same standards as others, some of whom have indeed been refused entry for inflammatory speech no worse than he has used.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's also a pragmatic question, not a principled one, nor a consistent one. There is no way that you can ban someone who is a potential candidate for Presidential office, unless they were barking mad. OK, I get the joke.

It's not the same as the diplomatic code, whereby we welcome tyrants and rogues, but it's adjacent, I think.

It appears this kind of consideration apparently doesn't always extend as far as you might think. Narendra Modi was denied a US visa for nine years before he became the Indian PM, because of the 2002 sectarian riots in Gujarat.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Robert Mugabe has banned from the UK for years, and is now banned from the whole of the EU.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

I do wonder if inviting him to some of the regions he talked about has merit.

I don't expect it to change his position at all.

However, I do like the idea of TV crews following him to the various parts of the UK he talked about as he's questioned about his comments... Or more likely getting news crews to report on said areas that he declined to visit.

Of course Fox News would never run it but it's a start.

Would this count at the UK interfering in the US election??

AFZ

Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :

Did the UK ban Mugabe independently of the sanctions imposed by the EU, Enoch? The EU ban is not watertight, in any event - he was able to pass through Italy to visit the Vatican, for example.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Anselmina: Whenever I've heard of British-based Muslim preachers being banned or deported from Britain because of their violence-inciting speech, I've found myself thinking: that's right to do so, because people like that cause tremendous harm in the communities where they have influence, sending young people into the arms of IS, stirring up hatred and ignorance etc.

And yet my response to 'should we ban Trump' was: no, of course not. That's just playing into his agenda. And stupidity like his is surely better exposed and nullified, rather than singling him out as somehow uniquely deserving of prohibition, as much as we wish to restrict the propagation of his poisonous views.
So, what's the difference between these Muslim preachers and Trump? Surely, Trump can cause harm in communities and stir up hatred and ignorance. And banning extreme Muslim preachers could be just playing into their agenda; stupidity like theirs is surely better exposed and nullified.

Why the difference?

That's the question I'm saying I have difficulty answering in my own mind. At least to any degree of close or detailed analysis why it seems right to ban a person in one case and not in another. If you can expand on why you think both cases are identical and therefore deserve identical responses I'd be willing to hear it.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Inciting hatred is something that crosses the indoctrination line, more importantly the indoctrination of others
If someone has a hatred of, say lamposts and expresses this hatred in private they're not a problem to anyone except themselves. If they incite the same hatred in others who then go on to trash lamposts in the belief they're serving the one doing the inciting then they are a problem.

This though doesn't solve the conundrum of whether it's ever theoretically permissible for any public figure to ever express personal predujicial attitudes in a public arena. Besides which wouldn't that even stretch to any of of us expressing hate in a public arena, such as here on the Internet ?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

alienfromzog wrote:

quote:
Would this count at the UK interfering in the US election??

I would say no, though I guess it depends on how you define "Interference".

It likely qualifies as the UK doing something that could have an effect on the US election(either helping Trump by making him a martyr, or hurting him by reminding Americans that he'd be a pariah if elected). But I think interference should somehow involve doing things that encroach upon someone else's legal or moral jurisdiction. Which isn't happening here, since the UK and the UK alone decides who gets into its territory.

That said, I guess if the point of the banning were to somehow tip the American primaries or election against Trump, that might count as some pretty astounding hubris on the part of the Brits, if not outright interference.

[ 23. January 2016, 16:07: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

That said, I guess if the point of the banning were to somehow tip the American primaries or election against Trump, that might count as some pretty astounding hubris on the part of the Brits, if not outright interference.

Hubris is why such an intent would have the opposite effect. It would strengthen his support more than hinder.
Those supporting Trump are not doing so based on any iota of reason so this would merely play to the fear-based, reactionary mental process used. And, to be fair, frustration. Though Trump is not the answer, the frustration that drives support for him is real. Misguided as to cause, but still real.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Inciting hatred is something that crosses the indoctrination line, more importantly the indoctrination of others
If someone has a hatred of, say lamposts and expresses this hatred in private they're not a problem to anyone except themselves. If they incite the same hatred in others who then go on to trash lamposts in the belief they're serving the one doing the inciting then they are a problem.

Back in the summer two men in Boston (USA) were convicted for beating up a homeless man because they thought he looked like a migrant. They remarked, as they beat him up, "Donald Trump was right. Illegal immigrants should be deported."

This raises two questions for me:

1) How many similar incidents would there need to be before someone could be perceived as responsible for inciting hatred?

2) And would that someone be responsible in this case for someone else's actions? ISTM that the sort of person who beats up a homeless man would probably just find a different pretext for doing so if they had never heard of Donald Trump.

[ 23. January 2016, 18:33: Message edited by: Ariel ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
ISTM that the sort of person who beats up a homeless man would probably just find a different pretext for doing so if they had never heard of Donald Trump.

I agree.
We've seen not long ago in the UK random people beaten, sometimes killed, over emotionally charged issues such as paedophilia or Extremist attacks. I suppose any of us who line up to demonise, with the help of the media, have to search our conscience.

With regards to your scenario 1) I think there would have to be quite a lot of similar incidents without condemnation from the percieved source of hatred before any action was taken, or a direct case made.
Fortunately this thing still feels a long way off of fever-pitched, and with 9/11 soon to be fifteen years old it has taken an awful long while for someone like DT to emerge.

Posted by Divine Outlaw (# 2252) on :

I'm a (1). I despise what he says, but banning him would play into his the victim complex his kind of politics thrives on. In any case, banning someone from entering a country on the basis, at least in part, because of his horrendous views on border controls, strikes me as a little ironic.

All this said, I hope he gets met by protests if he does come.

Posted by Beautiful Dreamer (# 10880) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Teaching the Donald is not, in my opinion, going to change anything about what he says.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I don't think there is a point in teaching him that his statements are bull. He knows that already.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't think there is a point in teaching him that his statements are bull. He knows that already.

Stephan Colbert, or possibly Trevor Noah, made the claim that the press are complicit in Trump's rise because they do not effectively call bullshit to his ravings.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

They do but he is oblivious. It is the public that does not care.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
They do but he is oblivious. It is the public that does not care.

From my observation, they point out the racist comments and chuckle about the outrageousness of others, but don't really confront it.
It won't change Ego boy, but it might slap sense into a few observers. And might make his big backers think a bit harder.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

What I don't understand is how evangelicals can tolerate him. He hits almost all the buttons they would most dislike. I have a cat who is a better Christian than he.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw:
I'm a (1). I despise what he says, but banning him would play into his the victim complex his kind of politics thrives on. In any case, banning someone from entering a country on the basis, at least in part, because of his horrendous views on border controls, strikes me as a little ironic.

All this said, I hope he gets met by protests if he does come.

For the same reasons you cited above, it would be far better if he is met by... no one. If he arrives to exactly zero press, zero crowds, no one to provide him the adulation he is so clearly seeking. Perhaps you Brits can do what we have failed to do: show him for the insignificant little windbag he is. Let him arrive, go on one of those bus tours of London, and have no one recognize him or notice him at all.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

What cliffdweller said: If he goes to the UK (or anywhere else), please just ignore him.

Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :

I suspect he'd deploy Rentacrowd, if necessary. His ego couldn't stand being ignored.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0