The Tribune

The debate in Britain on anti-Muslim comments made by the divisive Republican presidential candidate was a waste of time and hypocritical, Peter Young says . . .

“Trump to be banned from Britain”. Such was the recent dramatic UK press headline guaranteed to attract the interest of all who have been following the high profile struggle for the Republican Party’s nomination in this year’s US presidential election.

How serious was this and was it because of his controversial views or had he suddenly fallen foul of the law in some way? There had been no publicity about the latter so it had to be the former.

Donald Trump’s unexpected and spectacular progress in becoming the ‘GOP’ frontrunner, with a substantial lead in most polls against a high quality field of contenders, has placed him politically at the forefront of national attention.

Since it is becoming increasingly likely that he will win the Republican nomination, any suggestion that he could be prevented from coming to Britain could not fail to excite the imagination. The fact that he has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate and the golf, leisure and tourism sectors in Scotland has only added to the intrigue.

If, indeed, it turned out that a ban had been imposed, how could that have happened in a democratic nation such as Britain with its long and honourable tradition of tolerance of free speech?

Some people there do not like Trump’s extreme views on a range of issues – in particular, his stance on immigration and his demand for a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the United States. He has also been criticised for saying that the UK was trying to hide “its massive Muslim problem” and that there were “no-go Muslim areas where the police feared for their lives”.

Such statements persuaded individuals in Britain to launch an e-petition on the government’s website calling for Trump to be banned on the grounds of his alleged racism, divisiveness, incitement of hatred and Islamophobia.

Through this medium, members of the public have had, since 2011, a means of influencing what is debated in parliament. A threshold of 100,000 signatures invariably triggers the process and in Trump’s case there were 570,000 signatures, so a debate was duly held last week.

Rather than the full chamber of the House of Commons, the smaller Westminster Hall was used for the three-hour discussion. Predictably, Trump was described as bonkers (mad, in local parlance), a dangerous fool and a demagogue while more measured contributors suggested that at most he could be accused of stupidity and lack of judgment but a ban would “give him the role of martyrdom”. In the end, the idea of a ban was largely dismissed and no formal vote was taken.

So, the whole episode turned out to be a bit of a damp squib; but there was something of a backlash from many members of parliament who saw the exercise as farcical and a waste of parliamentary time while maintaining that the instigators of the petition were “wet liberals” and had a self-serving agenda which did not reflect the views and interests of the vast majority of British people.

They also argued that it was relatively easy to persuade even as many as 100,000 (or more) simply to click on an e-petition without much thought.

Others pointed to the hypocrisy of even seeking such a ban when Britain shows the red carpet to high level visitors from, for example, China and Saudi Arabia, whose human rights records are considered by many to be reprehensible.

Overall, this petition seemed to be pointless in so far as the power to ban an individual from visiting Britain lies not with parliament but with the executive branch of government in the person of the Home Secretary (minister of the interior) who can exclude a person who is judged to be “non-conducive to the public good”.

Two recent extreme cases were the Far-right Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, who was banned in 2009, and, of course, Abu Hamza, the notorious Islamic fundamentalist preacher in Britain, who was found guilty of inciting violence and racial hatred and was eventually extradited to the US to face terrorism charges.

The only possible grounds for excluding Trump at the present time would be as a hate preacher and, clearly, he does not fit that category.

In defence of Trump, he has put forward a policy applying to his own country and, even though he has taken an extreme position which appears not to have been thought through properly, it seems to be receiving some support domestically. So, since today’s heresy is often tomorrow’s orthodoxy, who knows what might happen were Trump to win the presidency.

It is now being suggested that his bold and imaginative short term solution to a flawed US immigration system – at a time of massive and almost unstoppable waves of migration as a result of unprecedented turmoil in the Middle East and ISIS’s declared aim of global jihad – might not be as barmy as supposed.

This is because his proposed ban would only be temporary while immigration controls were tightened up and the threat posed by jihadi radicals was reassessed. Moreover, there are now real fears that jihadists might be smuggled into Europe and the US in the midst of genuine refugees.

Above all, in a free society, a presidential contender must be able to put forward his own policies, however extreme they may be, without interference or judgment from overseas. If policy proposals are deemed to be illegal or otherwise unacceptable, that is a matter for law enforcement and local voters.

Amidst the rhetoric and accusations about the likely political stance of those involved in the e-petition, it seems that too little consideration has been given to the importance of free speech in a democracy.

The basic human right to voice one’s opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment was contained in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and was, of course, already guaranteed in the US by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Britain is well known for its respect for freedom of expression. This principle can be traced back to the Magna Carta, when the barons wrested powers from the King of England, and to the Bill of Rights in 1689 which granted freedom of speech in parliament. Most recently, as well as being a common law right, the guarantee of freedom of expression has been protected on a statutory basis in the Human Rights Act, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law in 1998.

The famous maxim of French philosopher Voltaire - “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” - is often seen as the basis of the modern principle of free speech and most people would agree that in an open, democratic society freedom of expression is essential. But there have to be limitations and exceptions; for example, hate speech, threats, obscenity and abuse while slander and libel are covered by defamation laws.

The law seeks to strike a balance between freedom of expression and use of that freedom in a manner that harms society. So, even at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park in London, an area for open-air public oratory, those who want to have their say must keep within the established legal constraints.

Donald Trump may be controversial and sometimes offensive in his utterances, and there should surely be strong limitations on hate speech designed to incite violence. But it is patently absurd to try to ban a foreign politician for putting forward a policy option in his own country during a political campaign – or, for that matter, because of a one-off comment about Muslims in Britain.

Prime Minister David Cameron has, perhaps unwisely, found it necessary to comment on the issue by calling Trump “divisive and stupid”. Who knows whether he may live to regret those words?

Fortunately, a government spokesman is reported to have stated, in suitably dismissive style, that exclusion powers would only be “based on all available evidence” – a note of quiet sanity to conclude an unusual episode.

• Peter Young is a retired British diplomat living in Nassau. From 1996 to 2000 he was British High Commissioner to The Bahamas.