Bugger Off, Gobby Trump!
Bugger Off, Gobby Trump!
Lauren PesinWednesday,16 December 2015
The recent U.K. petition to ban Donald Trump from entering their borders makes me wonder about the impact and history of banning, specifically in the U.S.
Who’s been banned from the U.S., why, and who should we think about banning?
After conducting a great deal of research, I discovered the U.S. bans people on a regular basis. The list, which is pretty extensive in the last 30 years, includes mostly criminals (predominantly associated with violent crimes, terrorists/terrorism, or drug offenses) and pop singers (mostly from Britain for the above-mentioned crimes).
Banning criminals and peeps on terrorist watch lists make sense. On this one, I must admit the U.S. is on the right track (with the exception of refugees). Besides the occasional baby on a watch list or inappropriate placement on a security no-fly watch list, the U.S. is using some logic. Yes! I’m so proud.
Along those same lines, my instinct is to ban exceptionally crazy, mean, or violent world leaders. Perhaps, any “dictator” responsible for the grave (recorded) human rights violations, including the knowing slaughter of their own people, mass torture, enforced genital mutilation, or genocide. For example, the following dictators:
– Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Equatorial Guinea
– Jose Eduardo Dos Santos, Angola
– Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe
– Omar Hassan al-Bashir, Sudan
– Kim Jong Un, North Korea
– Bashar al-Assad, Syria
My second and possibly more logical response would be to allow these unlikely visitors into the U.S. in order to obtain either intelligence from them, or to physically gain access to their person for whatever reasons.
Then there are the Brits. What impact if any, will banning Trump have on the U.K.?
The U.K. has banned celebrities, including Martha Stewart, Chris Brown, and Mike Tyson due to “inappropriate behavior.” Trump, a$$clown extraordinaire, certainly is guilty of acting inappropriately. The reason provided in the aftermath of Trump’s call to ban all Muslims from the U.S. is that his statement meets the threshold of hate speech. In the U.K., hate speech is one of many legal justifications to ban a person from entering the U.K. Therefore, under U.K. law, they have the “right” to ban Trump for the many hateful words that have slid from his forked tongue (no offense to actual snakes who are generally well behaved).
Whatever the real reason, I wonder what banning Trump will actually do. Will it impact his business? Probably not. He has minions to do his business maintenance and development overseas. Will it stop him from being stupid, speaking stupidly, and spreading stupidity? No, due to the ability of social media and the internet to promote free speech without restrictions.
The true implications will hopefully never be realized, which are what would happen if Trump actually became President. First, would people who plan to vote for him consider the implications of a U.S. President not being able to visit a close ally? My immediate response is, no, because whomever would vote for Trump is generally okay with alienation and isolationist policies.
Second, opportunities for economic and diplomatic cooperation with the U.K. would likely be impacted if Trump became President while banned from entering the U.K.. It’s conceivable that a small portion of Trump fans with a brain (I know…I laughed out loud too) may reconsider voting for him.
Regardless of ban or no ban, I think we’ve learned a few key items about the U.S., and our friends across the pond.
America isn’t afraid to ban terrorists and pop singers, and the U.K. tends to ban self-absorbed megalomaniacs (and ear biters), and whomever they damn please.