Parliament To Debate Barring Donald Trump From Entry Into The United Kingdom

495px-Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore220px-Houses.of.parliament.overall.arpWe have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). England is now a tragic example of how speech regulation and criminalization becomes insatiable — producing a down spiral as more and more speech is found intolerable or criminal. The most recent example is the call to ban Donald Trump from entry into the United Kingdom as someone guilty of hate speech. While I have criticized Trump’s statements about barring Muslims from entering the country, he is entitled to voice his views on immigration and participate in a debate about how we are going to handle both immigration and national security concerns. The chilling thing about this debate in Parliament is not that it will succeed in barring Trump but that it would not be in any way out of order with prior content-based sanctions.

Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws. We have seen comedians targeted with such court orders under this expanding and worrisome trend. (here and here).

Now even debating the risks of Muslim immigration as a policy is deemed hate speech and sanctionable by many. A far more useful debate on January 18th in Parliament is to look at the rapid decline of free speech in England. It is of course not alone. We have seen politicians like Dutch politician Geert Wilders prosecuted over what should clearly be protected speech. England has blocked Wilders and even speakers like Michael Savage based on disagreements with what they believe and say. Likewise, in France, Marine LePen is under investigation for speaking her mind on immigration.

What is truly distressing is that this petition was started by someone described as a “journalist.” Suzanne Kelly celebrated the news that someone with whom she disagrees could now be barred from entering the country: “However the debate goes, this exercise has brought many people together to speak out against hate speech and prejudice. That is my reward, and one I’m very happy and moved by.” It is a curious reward for a “journalist” to rally a mob against unpopular speakers and seek to impose content-based speech controls.

Kelly appears the very personification of the problem of the addictive aspect of speech controls. Kelly, a contributing writer for the community website Aberdeen Voice, said “The more I looked at Donald Trump and the remarks he has made before entering the presidential race, the more my hackles were rising . . . There are few things a person in my position can do against a person like that but make use of this country’s wonderful laws and procedures.” Those “wonderful” laws involve punishing people with whom you disagree. Time will only tell is speech in the future by Kelly get the “hackles” up of others — who will call for her own silencing or sanctioning. Movements for ensorship and speech controls tend to be like Saturn and devour their own.

Thus, we will watch on January 18th as free people rally around the concept of less freedom — calling for their government to curtail the freedom of everyone in order to silence those with whom they disagree. There is of course an alternative. Kelly could use that journalist identity and actually respond to Trump and his ideas. Now that is a novel concept.

Source: Time

67 thoughts on “Parliament To Debate Barring Donald Trump From Entry Into The United Kingdom”

  1. To me, Trumps popularity shows how ignorant Americans are. “If” the polls are true indications of the voting class of America, there is not much hope for humanity and the democratic process. The embracing of Trumps populous rhetoric showing how poorly educated people are in the area of “socio-economics”. I use this term because I want there to be a specific scientific study that specializes in how public policy affects the economics of a society. Jefferson called it political economy. Currently, this study falls under the very broad study of macro-economics and I think it is to important to not have it own course of study and curriculum.

    As an example, Jonathan is always in support of freedom of speech because he knows the inherent dangers or allowing those in government to prosecute speech crimes. The governments of the world appear to be getting worse on this long protected right and they’re using some very unsupportable rationale as the reasons.

    Quelling dissension is often the truth behind government actions and most of the governments around the world today are both massive and way to powerful. In an effort to maintain their power, governments have done many egregious acts against their own Citizens and others.

    I just got a parking ticket yesterday for being 25 minutes late to my car at the beach. The fine for their loss in revenue of about $0.90 was $30.00 and to pay it on line is another $3.50. But the Constitution says that the government cannot charge excessive fines. I guess 3,000% is not excessive to those creating and enforcing the law. Perhaps the prevalent mental illnesses within the laws schools is flowing over to the legal community because the majority of the legislators are attorneys and Judges are often the final arbiters in the enforcement of many of our laws.

    I don’t give much hope to Jonathan and his fight to uphold the Constitution and it’s intent to protect rights and restrain government. To many people are now either directly or indirectly participants/beneficiaries in the confiscatory actions of the ruling class and I fear they will become more and more oppressive as the economics continues to deteriorate. Oh that right, Obama’s massive spending stimulus has made things hunky dory again and all is well in paradise.

    1. H. Skip Robinson – Trump’s popularity seems to come from the mere fact that he is an outlier. Just the fact that he is not beholden to the movers and shakers of the GOP is enough to get people interested in him. Where it will get interesting is if Trump and Sanders win their nominations. They are both attractive to the same people. If Hillary wins, Trump will get Sanders people and if Trump loses Sanders will get his people.
      No party has more than 30% of the registered voters and the independent voterer will make the difference.

      1. Hey Paul, as I commented previously Trump is notorious for trying to beat his Constructors out of money in his business dealing. His MO is to complain about the quality of the product or service. Apparently nothing is good enough for Trump even though he hires the best craftsmen and buys the best products available. It would be different if it was a random occurrence, but it a standard operating procedure thus the contractors are put in the situation of either taking less or suing and he has a team of attorneys to fend everyone off. If you have not heard about his antics in the courtroom, he is one of those people who apparently litigate everything in an attempt to coerce people into paying him money. He has filed corporate bankruptcy at least 4 or 5 times and I suggest there will be more to come as economic conditions continue to deteriorate. At least he went from gambling casinos to golf courses. He is even suing Palm Beach Country because he thinks he should be compensated, because his home and golf course are on the flight paths of P.B. International airport. Do good Citizens sue their own government under frivolous rationale. Both of the major flight path cause flights to take off or land over his home or golf course and he is trying to say the country is intentionally routing planes to disrupt his business and personal affairs. Of course the airport has been there since prior to WWII, first a military base.

        He’s lying just like Obama, during his campaign, telling people he can accomplish various things when there is no way in hell he could get his policies through Congress. This is where the American people are ignorant. Often times Presidential Executive Orders don’t even apply to Citizens of the 50 States because they only has Federal Jurisdiction most of the time. Most of the people don’t even know we have two distinct types of Citizenship in this country. In my book I show some of the case law on the subject.

        For instance, If you live and work in the District of Columbia or are a Federal Government Official, you are considered a Federal Citizen, what is referred to a as U.S. Citizen. If you work and live in one of the 50 States and receive no Federal Taxable Income, you are the a Citizen of that State and of the Untied States of America. Here is some of the case law:

        1. “The government of the United States is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” In re Merriam, 36 N. E. 505, 141 N. Y. 479, affirmed 16 S. Ct. 1073, 163 U. S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287.
        2. “The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which are protected by the 14th Amendment, against abridgment by the states, are those which arise out of the essential nature and characteristics of the national government, the federal Constitution, treaties, or acts of Congress, as distinguished from those belonging to the Citizens of a state; Gardner v. Ray, 157 S. W. 1147, 1150; Hammer v. State, 89 N. E. 850, 851, 173 Ind. 199, 24 L. R. A., N. S., 795, 140 Am. St. Rep. 248, 21 Ann. Cas. 1034.
        3.”On the other hand, there is a significant historical fact in all of this. Clearly, one of the purposes of the 13th and 14th Amendments and of the 1866 act and of section 1982 was to give the Negro citizenship. “ Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1967), 379 F.2d 33, 43.
        4. “It is true that the chief interest of the people in giving permanence and security to citizenship in the 14th Amendment was the desire to protect the Negroes.” Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), 18 L.Ed. 2d 758, 764.
        5. “The object of the 14th Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 692.
        6. “It would be a remarkable anomaly if the national government, without the amendment, could confer citizenship on aliens of eve-ry race or color, and citizenship, with civil and political rights, on the “inhabitants” of Louisiana and Florida, without reference to race or color, and cannot, with the help of the amendment, confer on those of the African race, who have been born and always lived within the United States, all that this law seeks to give them.” United States v. Rhodes (1866), 27 Fed. Cas. 785, 794.
        7. “The amendment referred to slavery. Consequently, the only persons embraced by its provisions, and for which Congress was authorized to legislate in the manner were those then in slavery.” Bowlin v. Commonwealth (1867), 65 Kent. Rep. 5, 29.
        8. “After the adoption of the 13th Amendment, a bill which be-came the first Civil Rights Act was introduced in the 39th Con-gress, the major purpose of which was to secure to the recently freed Negroes all the civil rights secured to white men. . . .(N)one other than citizens of the United States were within the provi-sions of the Act.“ Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496, 509.
        9. “No white person. . . owes the status of citizenship to the re-cent amendments to the Federal Constitution.” Van Valkenbrg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47.
        10. “The rights of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the 14th Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provi-sions.” United States v. Anthony (1873), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.
        I think these are an astonishing group of decisions, in that they show just how prejudiced both Judges and many politicians were during this period. I found reading them unconscionable and disgraceful but enlightening in so far as the truth behind some legislation and in this case the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Once a darker skinned person of African descent became free, having been here for generations, would they not just automatically become Citizens of their respective States?

        1. hskiprob – what do his business practices have to do with being kept out of the UK. God knows, they have enough sleazy businesspeople.

Comments are closed.