Posted on 01/07/2016 8:50:27 AM PST by Kaslin
The news that the British Parliament will debate whether Donald Trump should be banned from the United Kingdom brings back memories of a similar British banishment of American talk-radio star Michael Savage.
In 2009 Savage was placed on a list of individuals banned from the U.K. for his having said that the Quran was a book of hate, among other comments. Since then he has been barred from entering the U.K. for allegedly "seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred."
As a graduate of England's Cambridge University, I was shocked at the time to learn that Savage had been lumped in with some truly dangerous characters who indeed posed a potential threat to Britain. What so bothered me then was that a nation built on concepts of free thought and intellectual debate would so dismissively punish someone from another nation who was simply expressing his own views. That Savage apparently remains banned even today is a travesty and an indirect attack on our own nation's already imperiled freedom of speech.
Although Savage is one of the nation's most listened-to talk-show hosts, he himself would certainly point out that he is not seeking the position as the world's most powerful person. Trump is. And Parliament, to great fanfare, will apparently debate putting Trump on the same list of banned international visitors that Savage is on. The reason? Trump's call for a temporary travel ban on Muslims entering the U.S.
Should it prove successful, this banishment effort could have unhappy consequences, and for more than just Trump. Moreover, I am guessing that the movement to ban Trump is designed to do its damage even if never acted upon. The idea that the British government might seriously consider a ban on Trump's entry into the U.K. because of his concerns about domestic terrorism in the U.S. would be a major weapon in the hands of Trump's presidential opponents. Arguing that Trump as president would be barred from visiting what is arguably this nation's closest and most important ally could become a central theme of his GOP rivals now and perhaps Hillary Clinton in the general election.
This would be most ironic, given that the Obama administration in the president's first days in office began to conspicuously discount the importance of the U.S.-Britain relationship. For example, former Prime Minister Tony Blair loaned former President George W. Bush a bust of Winston Churchill in 2001, which was on display in the White House for the duration of Bush's two terms. Great Britain offered to extend the loan after Bush left office, but the Obama administration rejected Britain's offer and returned the bust.
But the irony -- and the potential diplomatic damage -- might not end there.
Should Trump face Hillary Clinton in a November contest, his banishment from Britain would be used to illustrate his "inability" to conduct foreign policy. In short, this could have a peculiar chill on free speech in Britain that could, in turn, influence a U.S. election in the direction of President Obama's preferred candidate.
Many observers of the Obama administration believe that the president has purposely imperiled the long-touted "special relationship" between Britain and the U.S. Whether that is true, and for what reasons, it is almost certainly true the U.S.-Britain alliance is shakier than it has been in a long time, perhaps since before World War II.
Beyond that, most observers of this nation-to-nation relationship doubtless believe that a Democratic (i.e., Hillary Clinton) presidential administration would be more likely to continue the current U.S. policy of cold-shouldering Britain, while a Republican administration might be more inclined to thaw this big chill and get things back to where they have been.
So this dubious discussion of banning from Britain the law-abiding American citizen Donald Trump is negatively compounded by the fact that by such an action Britain might do its own country harm in the international arena. To put it another way, a banning of Trump would be both unfair and unwise. Too much is at stake to allow overly delicate political sensibilities in Britain to obstruct free speech in the United States.
These revelations -- that a government as important as Britain's would first ban an innocuous American talk-show host and now is playing presidential politics in a parliamentary fashion -- serve only to demean that nation's leaders and its great heritage. There are much more important actions that need to be taken to ensure the safety and security of Britain and indeed the free world.
I hope they do it. The past hundred years or so of Anglophilia has not helped America, and has deviated radically from the course set by the Founders.
This debate is evidence that Britain no longer is a serious country.
Except for the fact that banning Trump will ban the next President from their country.
Plus it would cause them to lose their Trump business and when they need help in pest control regarding their Islam problem they may later be force to beg.
When is the debate?
The abject cowardice of Cameron is speeding up the process of the destruction of the UK.
If the Brits do “ban” Donald Trump, there should be a massive effort to convince Americans not to visit the UK. At this juncture, I am ashamed to have to admit my progenitors came from the British Isles.
“Arguing that Trump as president would be barred from visiting what is arguably this nation’s closest and most important ally could become a central theme of his GOP rivals now and perhaps Hillary Clinton in the general election.”
It would be a badge of honor.
Yes it is. The fire before the phoenix is going on in a lot of places.
They should totally do it, and if Trump becomes president he can mock the socialist nitwits over in the UK relentlessly and when they come here he can mock them some more.
Trump could make a point that the English and their lackeys are proving they dont want anything to do with Scots.
That might stir it up a bit. Believe me, outside of the lowlands, the highlanders do NOT care for the English.
Been there over 8 times.
“At this juncture, I am ashamed to have to admit my progenitors came from the British Isles.”
Why? Your “progenitors” left.
Europeans and their Thought Crimes.
They would be peeing in their Wheaties until they could catch the next plane to America to meet with President Trump....
That's how we handle people who think they are going to tell us what we are or what we aren't going to do....and not only should we handle things that way in America, but I handle things that way in everyday life....you don't want my product, fine, end of subject....they leave and a few days later they are back....it works and has been working for me for years...
I am ashamed to have to admit my progenitors came from the British Isles.
Don’t be ashamed. Obviously most of the American public could care less about where you or your ancestors came from - look at who they voted for as president - twice.
The British will look like idiots if they do this and Trump is elected!
lol
They will have to undo it then because you obviously cant ban the President of the US from Britain.
The U.K. Has gone down hill since the days they protected Simon Rushdie.
I hope he asks for the Churchill bust to be brought back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.