Here I disagree - the UK has been very willing, in the past, to attempt to ban individuals accused of espousing extremism from entering the country. And indeed, of being willing to deport such individuals to countries in which there was an incredibly high chance of them being tortured. I don't know about you but I find anyone who would proffer a registry of people based on their religion, or indeed who proposes to ban the entry of people because of their religion, rather extremist. The Washington Post created a rather interesting map, which probably highlights Trump's 'extremism'* better than I can...BaggyTrousers wrote:There may well be something in that Neil, however I come from a position of disliking censorship. Far better to expose a ballix to the vast majority than to try to stem his appeal to assholes by the remarkably ineffective means of keeping him physically out of the country, he will pervade the airwaves whether from his home base or in the UK/Europe.
Censoring him will not break his ability to communicate with assholes, and their views as you say are entrenched, assholes will remain assholes in either circumstance.
Far preferable that someone of wit & integrity debunks his ramblings in my opinion. I believe that barring him from entry would have no real effect.
To me, if we are content to allow a platform to the likes of Trump on the grounds that censorship is bad, or that his message will make it to idiots anyway, then we have to extend that right to everyone. By extension, the likes of Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim or Safwat Hijazi should also be allowed into the country. The concern I have is that few would suppose the latter proposition (I certainly don't), largely on the basis that they can see the direct harm such allowances would do. The distinction with Trump is less clear in the minds of too many people but no less dangerous, if you ask me.
Like you, I would err towards freedom of expression (although not right of access to a platform) over censorship. At the same time, however, there are plenty of people I am comfortable with being excluded from meaningful debate. Trump is definitely one of those. Put another way (and this is where the asterisk above comes in), debating with Trump is like debating with someone like Anjem Choudary - the entire basis of their argument is irrationality. This is why it works - it is hard to rationally put down a position that is built on an irrational, and thus movable, foundation. Reasonably intelligent and articulate people can easily recognise this but generally, these are not the people Trump is targeting.
*Actually, personally I don't see Trump as much of an extremist at all but, in fact, just incredibly opportunistic. Put another way, I don't believe for a second that he actually holds the beliefs he claims he does. It seems most have forgotten the time he was a pro-choice Democrat... In that regard, I find him probably all the more dangerous than someone with a settled set of core values because it would suggest that there is literally nothing Trump will not say or do in order to get what he wants.
On this I disagree - as with the above examples, it's sort of like saying, "Well, people can get radicalised on their own using the internet..." Whether banning him or not would play into his agenda should not be relevant to the decision that is taken.Snipe Watson wrote:Banning Trump would be rediculious. He doesn't need to be in the UK to appeal to Willie Frazer, UK racists and assorted other mad ejits who shout at the television. Banning him would only play into his agenda.