Petition: Block Trump From UK

For UK citizens only:

Block Donald J Trump from UK entry

The signatories believe Donald J Trump should be banned from UK entry. The UK has banned entry to many individuals for hate speech. The same principles should apply to everyone who wishes to enter the UK.

If the United Kingdom is to continue applying the ‘unacceptable behaviour’ criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful.


Sign here.



8 thoughts on “Petition: Block Trump From UK

  1. I think this petition is misguided and dangerous.

    I’m actually pretty nervous about the UK’s “unacceptable behaviour” criterion, but in its defence (and as far as I’ve been able to determine) it is used *very* narrowly. The great majority of the known cases are people who’ve actively defended terrorist violence. In the very few other cases I’m aware of, the excludee is (a) advocating hatred at a level way beyond Trump’s (admittedly disgraceful) remarks, and (b) travelling to the UK expressly to interact with extremist groups here.

    The nearest analogy I can see to Trump, for instance, is Pastor Terry Jones, who was (a) taking high-profile actions (burning Korans, releasing illicitly dubbed films depicting wildly dishonest representations of Islam) that were pretty clearly done with the active goal of triggering a violent reaction; (b) travelling to the UK as the invited guest of the far-right and frequently-violent English Defence League.

    Trump is nowhere near Jones. This would not be a matter of equal treatment of a rich and powerful man: it would be a radical extension of existing border controls, and would at least appear to further the principles that (a) the UK government can exclude visitors to the UK according to whether they fall inside what the Home Secretary regards as the political mainstream; (b) the UK government can interfere in the domestic politics of an ally. Both are profoundly dangerous precedents to set, in terms both of UK domestic politics and of the norms of western countries. When President Cruz refuses Ken Livingstone an entry visa in 2017, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

  2. I agree wholly with everything David Wallace says. I merely want to add that *even if* it were permissible for a just state to ban people from entering on ideological grounds of the sort in question, it would not be acceptable for Britain to ban Trump by means of the regulations it actually has — for those regulations do nothing but confer arbitrary and uncabined discretion on the Home Secretary in a manner wholly incompatible with basic principles of procedural fairness.

  3. DW: I’m less sure. The UK did ban Michael Savage, who seems comparable.

    Michael Savage
    Born Michael Alan Weiner[1]
    March 31, 1942 (age 73)
    The Bronx, New York City, New York, U.S.
    Residence Larkspur, California U.S.
    Ethnicity Jewish
    Education Queens College (B.S. Biology)
    University of Hawaii at Mānoa (M.A. Anthropology,
    M.S. Ethnobotany)
    University of California, Berkeley
    (Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine)
    Occupation Radio talk show host
    Known for Conservative activism

    Michael Alan Weiner (born March 31, 1942), better known by his professional name Michael Savage, is an American radio host, author, activist, nutritionist, and conservative political commentator. He is the host of The Savage Nation, a nationally syndicated talk show that aired on Talk Radio Network across the United States until 2012, and in 2009 was the second most listened-to radio talk show in the country with anaudience of over 20 million listeners on 400 stations across the United States.[2][3] Since October 23, 2012, Michael Savage has been syndicated by Cumulus Media Networks. He holds master’s degrees from the University of Hawaii in medical botany and medical anthropology, and a Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley in nutritional ethnomedicine. As Michael Weiner, he has written books on nutrition, herbal medicine, and homeopathy; as Michael Savage, he has written four political books that have reached The New York Times Best Seller List.[4][5][6][7]

    Savage has summarized his political philosophy in three words: borders, language, and culture. Savage has characterized his views as conservative nationalism,[8] while critics have characterized them as “fostering extremism or hatred.”[9] He opposes illegal immigration to the United States, supports the English-only movement and argues that liberalism and progressivism are degrading American culture. Although his radio delivery is mainly characterized as politically themed, he also often covers topics such as medicine, nutrition, music, literature, history, theology, philosophy, sports, business, economics, and culture, and tells personal anecdotes.

    From WIKI.

  4. That’s fair: I’d forgotten the Savage case. I’d deem his rhetoric (“the Quran is a book of hate”) relevantly stronger than Trump’s but I can see there’s more room for interpretation.

    On the other hand, the Savage case was extremely controversial: the UK government claimed that he would foment unspecified “acts of criminal violence” but never gave details, and voices across the political spectrum condemned his exclusion as an outrageous violation of free speech. (I said I was nervous about the “unacceptable behaviour” clause; now I recall why.)

    I’ll concede that someone who was entirely fine with the Savage exclusion and feels that the UK should freely exclude voices well outside the UK political mainstream (as judged by the government of the day) even when they’re not closely tied to the advocacy of violence, could also be fine with advocating a Trump exclusion.

  5. DW, thanks for the additinal info. I have actually heard Savage on the radio, when bored on a long drive. He and Trump are both talented at engaging other’s bias. I hatethe idea of Muslims in the UK experiencing the same sort of organzed hatred.

    It seems to me that this sort of situation is getting more and more complicated. I am not sure about giving support to speech that seriously endangers groups of people.

  6. The Atlantic has an informative article on the subject at . One thing in the article I hadn’t come across was Israel’s 2010 refusal to admit Noam Chomsky – it turns out that the idea of “speech that seriously endangers groups of people” was exactly the idea used by some conservative Israeli MPs to defend refusing him entry.

    I’m not saying that the Chomsky and Trump cases are remotely the same on substantive grounds. But they have the same procedural structure – strongly worded political views well outside the political mainstream of the country in question, as judged by its current government. I am much more optimistic in defending the general principle of free expression than I am in managing to control an exception policy so as to deliver only the “right” results.

  7. DW, I’m suprise to think thr might be a refutation by example, but Noam Chomky does it for me.
    Of course, one is often enough advised to exmine one’s argumentsin just this way.

Comments are closed.