Matt Johnson

*Originally published on Tremr, February 4, 2016

Disclaimer: I’m no fan of Donald Trump. I don’t like his xenophobia. I don’t like his raging egotism. And I certainly don’t like his inability – or is it unwillingness? – to formulate a coherent set of policies and principles. He’s a sneering opportunist, and I hope his defeat in Iowa is a sign of what’s to come.

However, the rank stupidity of a recent petition to ban Trump from the UK made me cringe even more than yet another pursed-lip tirade about MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. The reflexive demand to suppress controversial ideas has become pathological in the West, and it’s much more troubling than the empty ravings of a reality show demagogue.

Almost 600,000 Britons ( including a few members of parliament) would like to keep Trump and his “unacceptable” thoughts out of their country. They’re afraid he’ll land at Heathrow and immediately start pumping his noxious fumes of bigotry and hatred into the fresh British air. Regardless of how many dictators and thugs have been permitted to stroll the streets of London, the petitioners believe Trump represents an intolerable threat that must be resisted. During a parliamentary debate about banning Trump on January 18, Conservative MP Edward Leigh noted this contradiction, arguing that British authorities have “welcomed to this country Saudi and Chinese leaders – not to mention Mr. [Nicolae] Ceausescu – whose crimes are far, far worse than anything Mr. Trump can dream up.” But I suppose the murder and subjugation of Romanians, the imprisonment and torture of Chinese dissidents, and the execution of Saudi bloggers doesn’t quite approach the pure evil of Trump’s “hate speech”:

The UK has banned entry to many individuals for hate speech. The same principles should apply to everyone who wishes to enter the UK. If the United Kingdom is to continue applying the ‘unacceptable behaviour’ criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful.

Although it was clever to present the petition as some sort of egalitarian crusade against the “powerful,” it’s really just a cheap political maneuver that stretches and warps what is already a ridiculous precedent. For starters, terms like “hate speech” and “unacceptable behavior” are inherently subjective, making it extremely difficult for the “criteria” to be “fairly applied.” One could cite other people who’ve been banned, but this wouldn’t address the underlying question: did they deserve it? According to statements issued by the British Home Office, the answer is “yes” because the presence of these individuals wouldn’t have been “conducive to the public good” – another hopelessly elastic judgment. The wording of the petition is suggestive: “The UK has banned entry to many individuals;” “the same principles should apply;” “continue applying;” “fairly applied.” Translation: frivolous bans have been imposed in the past, so we might as well slap one on Trump!

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to prevent someone from entering a country. In 2009, Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky were barred from the UK because they had been convicted of murdering 19 immigrants in Moscow. Samir Kuntar was refused entry for murdering three Israelis in 1979 and for his operational role in the military wing of Hezbollah (which the British government has designated a “proscribed terrorist organization”). These people actually committed acts of violence, so it made sense to keep them out. But over the past few years, an array of comparatively innocuous figures – including Michael Savage, Fred Phelps, Terry Jones, Pamela Geller, and Geert Wilders – have been banned for much more dubious reasons.

In all of these cases, the explanations offered by the Home Office were virtually interchangeable. Each included some combination of the following charges: “fostering hatred,” “extremism,” or doing something contrary to the “public good” (apparently, Savage fostered so much hatred that his mere presence “might lead to inter-community violence”). These invidious accusations could be leveled at anyone who regularly discusses contentious social and political issues, as the campaign against Trump so aptly demonstrates. But public figures shouldn’t be held accountable for every consequence of their utterances, no matter how incendiary they may be. As long as Trump doesn’t explicitly incite violence, he should be allowed to say whatever he wants without fear of official reprisal. If a few vicious morons set out in search of an immigrant to beat up or a mosque to vandalize after listening to one of his speeches, they’re the ones responsible for their behavior.

The best way to combat toxic ideas is to discredit them, and this can only be done with robust, open debate. Some MPs, like Richard Drax (Conservative), understand this. Others, like Tulip Siddiq (Labor), do not. After a nine-minute rant about the “need to stop a poisonous, corrosive man from entering our country,” Siddiq claimed that Trump’s “words lead to real crime and violence.” In response, Drax pointed out that many things, such as the passage of legislation, could inadvertently lead to violence – but this is hardly a reason to “shut down debate.” Important conversations and parliamentary decisions shouldn’t be dictated by the whims of a mob – assuming there’s even a mob to worry about. Siddiq seems to think that some significant number of British citizens are perched on the edge of sectarian violence, just one fatuous diatribe away from a bloody rampage. This is a condescending misattribution of responsibility, and there’s scant evidence to support it. According to Siddiq, “there is a correlation between the words he [Trump] uses and the increase in hate crime.” If you’ve ever taken an introductory statistics course, I’m sure you noticed the problem with that sentence.

It would be strange if the land of Fleet Street and the “Mother of Parliaments” refused to admit a preposterous, incoherent media clown solely to protect its citizens from his opinions. But it would be consistent with the new spirit of censorship in the West. Safe spaces (also known as “comfy little bubbles where craven children hide from ideological confrontation”) are popping up on campuses all over the United States and Britain. In their desperate attempts to find grievances to shriek about, the same children are chasing professors out of the classroom and destroying the careers of longtime university administrators. Meanwhile, moral heroes like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and comedians like Bill Maher are facing outright suppression for making unwelcome observations about the horrors of theocracy and misogyny.

Like all of these attempts to squelch and avoid critical voices, the proposed Trump ban is an ugly marriage of authoritarianism and cowardice.