British lawmakers may debate whether to ban Trump from the U.K.
British lawmakers have scheduled a debate for later this month on whether to ban Donald Trump from entering their country.
The decision comes after more than 560,000 people signed a petition calling for such a ban — well over the 100,000 legally required to prompt a parliamentary debate. A separate petition opposed to banning Trump generated nearly 40,000 signatures.
The debate will be held Jan. 18 and can be watched online.
House of Commons Petitions Committee Chairwoman Helen Jones said that the debate “will allow a range of views to be expressed,” according to the Associated Press. Any con- clusion reached by the lawmakers will not be binding, the wire service reported.
The petition to ban Trump was launched after the American billionaire and leading Republican presidential candidate issued a series of controversial comments about Muslims. Trump’s comments — particularly his suggestion that some areas of London are so full of radical Muslims that police are too scared to go there — have earned rebuke from a number of prominent Britons.
In an unusually disdainful statement, London’s Metropolitan Police said, “Mr. Trump could not be more wrong.”
London Mayor Boris Johnson, a member of the right-wing Conservative Party who is tipped by some to be the next British leader, also responded: “The only reason I wouldn’t go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump.”
British Prime Minister David Cameron described Trump’s comments as “divisive, stupid and wrong.”
But the petition to ban Trump from entering Britain could go beyond words. The British Home Office really does reserve the right to refuse entry to foreigners coming to the country to speak under the unacceptable behaviors or extremism exclusion policy.
Anti-Muslim American speakers such as Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have been blocked from entering the country by these rules before, as have extremist Islamic preachers and others whose presence the home secretary has decided would “not be conducive to the public good.”