Trump branded a racist
Opinions split as Commons discuss if US tycoon should be refused entry
DONALD Trump has been denounced as a racist demagogue, a buffoon and a “wazzock” by MPs who have been left divided over whether the US Republican Party presidential contender should be banned from Britain.
The claim that the billionaire businessman is a stupid or annoying person was among several insults hurled by MPs during a debate on whether Mr Trump should be refused entry for threatening to ban Muslims from America.
However, one MP warned that such a move could turn him into a martyr.
The debate at Westminster Hall also heard that it was necessary because the Republican frontrunner was, through his outspoken remarks, importing “violent ideology”.
It was brought about by a petition which saw 574,000 signatures back Trump being banned.
A petition against a ban only attracted some 43,000 signatures but 30,000 others were not allowed as they were regarded as “suspect” given they came from a single source.
Mr Trump, who is leading several opinion polls in the race to be the the Republican candidate, sparked controversy after he called for the temporary ban on all Muslims entering the US in response to the shooting of 14 people in California in December last year.
He had previously caused rows over his negative comments about Mexicans and women and sparked further anger recently by claiming areas of London and other parts of the UK had become so radicalised that they were no-go areas for the police.
While MPs’ views about the billionaire businessman were overwhelmingly negative, opinion was divided on whether or not to ban him from Britain.
The debate in the Commons parallel chamber of Westminster Hall was opened by Labour veteran Paul Flynn, who read out a list of some of those who had been banned by the UK authorities in recent years. He warned the risk of doing the same to Mr Trump was that it would simply serve to boost the publicity around him “100 fold”.
The Newport West MP argued that the tycoon’s “prejudice” should be countered by “reasonableness, hospitality and courtesy”.
He told MPs: “The great danger by attacking this one man is that we can fix on him a halo of victimhood. We give him the role of martyrdom, which can seem to be an advantage among those who support him.”
But, supporting a ban, his Labour colleague Tulip Siddiq said that Mr Trump’s words risked “inflaming tensions between vulnerable communities” and those calling for this “poisonous and corrosive” man to be barred were speaking in good conscience.
“I draw the line with freedom of speech when it actually imports violent ideology, which is what is happening.”
He said the rules applied to other people also need to cover Trump.
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, SNP MP for Ochil and South Perthshire, branded Mr Trump a racist, saying his words were dangerous.
She explained that she was so strongly in favour of a ban because his words about Muslims applied to her and her family.
Sarah Malone, executive vice president of Trump International Golf Links, said “It is absurd that valuable parliamentary time is being wasted debating a matter raised as part of the American Presidential election.”
MANY thousands of people would like to see Donald Trump banned from the UK. Nearly 600,000 signed a petition calling for a ban, which is a remarkable number by any standards. Some politicians also support the move, including Alex Salmond, who said if he had his way he would ban “all Donald Trumps from Scotland”.
But a ban on Mr Trump, which was debated in the Commons this week, is a bad idea. On the face of it, his comments on Muslims look similar to the kind of language used by others who have been banned from the UK in the past, but the idea of excluding Mr Trump from the country is flawed in principle, and would not work in practice.
The issue of principle is that, in a democracy, citizens, or visitors for that matter, should be free to express their views however flawed. There have to be exceptions – when someone is trying to provoke violence for example – but the default should be freedom of speech. And even supporters of excluding Mr Trump must recognise the irony of responding to his call for a ban on Muslims with a call for a ban on him.
The practical consequences of a ban also undermine the idea. In 2009, the anti-Islamic Dutch politician Geert Wilders was refused entry to the UK but he exploited the decision for its publicity value and in the end the decision was overturned by an immigration tribunal.
The same is likely to happen with Mr Trump. He may be known for his bombastic style and his views are often offensive and stupid, but in recent months he appears to have become even more popular among his supporters by portraying himself as a victim.
That is a most unlikely label for a white, billionaire Republican like Mr Trump, but banning him from the UK would only add to his sense of victimhood and, in the race for President, allow him to exploit the decision for all its worth.