Trump Is crazy, but let’s invite him over: British MPs

Trump Is crazy, but let’s invite him over: British MPs


He’s poisonous, he’s idiotic, he’s a demagogue — but we should invite him in with a smile. That was the view of most British politicians who were debating on Monday whether US presidential candidate Donald Trump should be banned from entering the UK for hate speech.”If Donald Trump met one of my constituents in a pub they may well tell him he is a wassock,” said Victoria Atkins, an MP for the Conservative party, during the session that was scheduled after a petition calling to bar him entry gathered more than half a million signatures. But British values were strong enough that there was no need to worry about his “bonkers” proposals, she added.Banning Trump would give him a “halo of martyrdom,” said Labour party MP Paul Flynn, leading the debate. MPs had to consider that this “ridiculous person” might be elected, he warned — and in that scenario the US might then interpret a ban as a sign of disrespect for their entire nation.”I would invite him here,” said Flynn. “It would be pleasure to take him down to Brixton [in South London]and show him the rich mixture of races and creeds living there… We should greet the extreme things he says by our politeness and courtesy… with friendship, knowledge and truth.”

Members of parliament were forced to consider a Trump ban after a wave of public outrage in Britain over his Islamophobic and racist comments culminating in a call to ban all Muslims from entering the US.The UK government responds to all petitions that gain more than 10,000 signatures, and the proposals made by them are considered for parliamentary debate if they gather 100,000 signatures. The petition to ban Trump has now gained more than 570,000 signatures.All MPs were seemingly in agreement that Trump was a hateful, idiotic man. “Throw a dead cat on a table and people will stop and take notice — that’s his entire style of politics,” said Democratic Unionist party MP Gavin Robinson. But many thought the proposal to ban him was simply giving him more welcome publicity and more credence to his views. Moreover, freedom of speech meant the freedom to offend.
source: VICE NEWS


Comments are closed.