Get a debate in Parliament over Trump - support the petition!

Original post by TheArtofProtest

The point was made that banning trump would be a "violation of free speech".

That is categorically untrue.

How?

Reply 183

Original post by a noble chance

How?

No one is restricting his rights to air whatever views he wants. He can say whatever he likes (as he often does on his Twitter), so long as he is not physically present in this country.

Reply 184

Lady Comstock

14

Original post by TheArtofProtest

I asked for one rule, not comparative rules which are independent of each other, and you have been unable to deliver.

Therefore, according to the definition that you so desperately craved, there is no double standard.

The rule/principle is the application of fundamental freedoms. Muslims should not be banned on the basis of their use of their fundamental freedom, but Trump should.

I still do not see that you have adequately refuted it.

Reply 185

Original post by Fullofsurprises

People want me banned? Amazing, I've been off the site for a few hours, I come back to a lynch mob. :rolleyes:

Particularly enjoying the posts accusing me of launching the petition. Wish I'd thought of it.

Oh and there is plenty of precedent that the UK excludes people with undesirable views, to all the people who think it's some sort of brutal totalitarian act to call for Trump to be excluded. It isn't, it's a reasonable response to his particular brand of nouveau fascism. We've excluded others for similar.

That there is precedent is an argument for slavery and of no impact at all, but I don't agree that there is. People have been barred for security reasons if they are connected to terrorist groups, for inciting violence and racial hatred...Trump has done none of these things. Where exactly is the precedent?

Reply 186

Original post by TheArtofProtest

No one is restricting his rights to air whatever views he wants. He can say whatever he likes (as he often does on his Twitter), so long as he is not physically present in this country.

We are sanctioning him on the basis of the exercising of his right to free speech; this is a distinction without a difference.

Reply 187

Original post by Lady Comstock

The rule/principle is the application of fundamental freedoms. Muslims should not be banned on the basis of their use of their fundamental freedom, but Trump should.

I still do not see that you have adequately refuted it.

"Fundamental freedoms" is the concept, the topic, the subject, if you will. Be more specific about your general rule that you will subject both Trump and Muslims to.

Reply 188

Original post by a noble chance

We are sanctioning him on the basis of the exercising of his right to free speech; this is a distinction without a difference.

We are not violating his right to free speech. He can speak for the world, for all we care, just so long as it is not on our shores.

Reply 189

username1969391

14

Original post by TheArtofProtest

We are not violating his right to free speech. He can speak for the world, for all we care, just so long as it is not on our shores.

So freedom of speech isn't allowed on our shores?

Reply 190

Lady Comstock

14

Original post by TheArtofProtest

"Fundamental freedoms" is the concept, the topic, the subject, if you will. Be more specific about your general rule that you will subject both Trump and Muslims to.

The application of fundamental freedoms is the standard here. If a person holds a placard in one hand saying 'let me practise my religion' and one in the other saying 'ban blasphemy', then most would accept and readily understand the description that this is an 'inconsistent application of fundamental freedoms'.

Reply 191

username1738683

12

Original post by Fullofsurprises

The petition to ban Trump from the UK has now reached over 70,000 signatures.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003

Once it hits 100,000, it will trigger a debate in Parliament.

Please vote now to push it over. :colondollar:

Voting is easy - simply give your name, postcode and email address. It takes a few seconds. :yep:

Let's humiliate this neo-fascist demagogue by debating in Parliament if he should be allowed into the UK. :five:

EDIT At the time of this edit, the petition had achieved 102,000 signatures, which is the level required to request a debate in Parliament. :clap2:

However, please don't let this put you off adding your signature, as the size and scale of the response will also help to show how we feel about Trump. :yep:

EDIT EDIT: This is now the 10th most popular e-petition to the House since they started, with more than 144,000 signatures!

No, there have to be more important issues to discuss in the British Parliament than to organize a parade of insufferable self-righteous discourse on the thoughts and mouth of some git in the US trying to cause a stir.

Let them discuss it in the Senate if they wish, if they don't it will look even more pathetic to do so over here. Isn't indifference the worst form of contempt, this is only an issue because we make one of it and he couldn't even do it were he the President.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 192

Original post by NickLCFC

So freedom of speech isn't allowed on our shores?

I do think the petition and this discussion would be compeletely useless if Trump had aired his views and the British media wasn't allowed to report it.

Trump has clearly exercised his right to free speech, on our shores, through the media. He doesn't need to physically come to the UK to exercise his freedom of speech. He can also post on Twitter if he prefers.

Reply 193

Original post by TheArtofProtest

We are not violating his right to free speech. He can speak for the world, for all we care, just so long as it is not on our shores.

I do not want to live in a country which bars people from coming in because of what they believe.

Reply 194

Original post by Lady Comstock

The application of fundamental freedoms is the standard here. If a person holds a placard in one hand saying 'let me practise my religion' and one in the other saying 'ban blasphemy', then most would accept and readily understand the description that this is an 'inconsistent application of fundamental freedoms'.

You've been trying for nearly an hour to come up with a general rule that will be applicable to both groups in order to demonstrate what you perceive to be "double standards".

The fact that you have not even been able to come up with the rule, in order to start the comparison illustrating the double standards would be hilarious if I was unaware that you are completely serious.

Your issue is that you are comparing two different freedoms and trying to slap double standards on that. As I have told you time and time again, you seem to lack a basic understanding of what double standards actually is.

Reply 195

username402722

19

Original post by a noble chance

I'm not sure that's quite right...it's certainly illegal to discriminate in certain situations, like employment, for example. Do you have the statute to hand?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010

This includes religion or belief. If he owns a golf course then he must employ people, and even if no Muslim has ever applied for a job, is not his statement enough?

Reply 196