Yes: Shahryar Iravani

Donald Trump’s brand of Islamophobia combines prejudice and political capital; this is the definition of racism. His specific targeting of vulnerable ethnic groups epitomises the kind of violence inflicted against Muslims since 9/11 on both sides of the Atlantic. The unprecedented rise in Islamophobic attacks in recent months cannot be ignored when coupled with Trump’s populist anti-Muslim hate speech. His demand for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” is vague, plays on an insidious ‘us-v-them’ rhetoric, and deliberately demonises each and every Muslim as a threat to American security.

I believe that when we fail to condemn racism, when we fail to properly and actively and explicitly challenge racism, we condone it. If we fail to react appropriately to Trump, we risk throwing innocent and hard-working Muslims under the bus. We allow vulnerable people, refugees escaping conflict and brutality, to be portrayed as violent and monstrous. In the context of a modern Europe that will find any excuse to hate and exclude Muslims, inviting Trump merely adds legitimacy to his views.

As Home Secretary, Theresa May has used her power to exclude people deemed dangerous to British safety and security. She has excluded Islamist extremists and neo-Nazis, people whose rhetoric is violent and incites hatred against vulnerable groups. May has excluded more hate preachers than any of her predecessors. The issue therefore is why it is so inconceivable that we should crack down on Donald Trump’s own incitements of hatred? These are incitements which not only stigmatise all Muslims, but also have a palpable effect on British Muslims who would be targeted by his blanket ban.

May has already banned 84 people for their hate speech, for their presence in the UK being unfavourable to the public good. These rules should be applied consistently and equally to all, regardless of status or political position.

The Home Office’s rules for banning people for “unacceptable behaviour” cover fomenting terrorism, provoking acts of terrorism, fomenting other serious criminal acts, and fostering hatred that might lead to community violence. This definitely seems to cover the very real violence that has resulted and will continue to result from Trump’s inflammatory remarks.

Indeed, his words cause violence. They cause crime. They fuel the constant, systematic alienation of Muslims in western societies, who of course are then blamed for failing to integrate sufficiently. Worryingly, his words are incredibly popular. This is not the silencing of someone with unpopular views, speaking truth to power – it is the rejection of rhetoric that will cause actual damage.

There are tangible, physical, and often violent consequences to Trump’s speech. He uses his political power to paint all Muslims as so dangerous to the security of the United States that their entire presence can no longer be tolerated. For Trump and his supporters, Muslims are inherently dangerous. This kind of fear mongering is, of course, highly racialised. His calls for Muslims to wear special IDs and for mass deportations of immigrants and refugees are disturbingly reminiscent of historical fascism. There is less of an outcry about protecting freedom of speech when other figures are banned from entering the UK, despite inciting similar hatred against marginalized communities.

In times of increasing Islamophobic attitudes, it is no wonder that people are less concerned about the presence of a figure so toxic and so influential in his open hatred of Muslim people. The defense of Trump’s behaviour is symptomatic of a society that already devalues and denigrates Muslim people. It epitomises the general apathy shown towards anti-Muslim sentiment.

What Trump advocates is a desecration of freedom of religion, and there seems to be little outcry about this from those supporting his entry to the UK. Banning Trump would not be an affront to freedom of speech: he isn’t being censored or restrained; as a presidential candidate he has the widest scope of listeners, an entire nation prepared to vote on his views. Banning him from the UK would certainly not have an effect on how loud Trump can speak. But to ignore his relentless incitements of racial hatred would be hypocritical; it would side with the powerful over the weak; it would be a betrayal of innocent Muslims everywhere.

No: Alexander Curtis

Is it right to ban those who you don’t agree with? Perhaps you believe it is if your name is Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, or Mao Zedong. Such people are definitely not by any means role models to follow though, especially not if you are trying to maintain a liberal democratic society like the one situated in this country in which we live today. I don’t particularly like Donald Trump. The man speaks with a nasty tone far too often for the liking of most reasonable people, and I completely disagree with a number of aspects of his politics. However, if we were to take a step back and objectively examine him for what he is; what would we define him as? In such a scenario, I would say that he is a very financially successful businessman who has made a considerable contribution to the Scottish economy. He has also proven so far to be skilled when it comes to exploiting the populist demands of large swathes of the various US Republican primaries electorates. In what circumstances should such an individual be refused entrance to this country? It would be useful to begin by examining the legal dimensions of such a matter.

It is clear that there are a number of fairly obvious official reasons for refusing people entry into this country; including having been convicted for a crime, having broken UK immigration rules previously, and having submitted false travel documents. The Home Secretary also has had the power since 2005 to ban individuals promoting hatred, serious criminal activity, or violent terrorism from entrance to the UK. Assuming that Donald Trump hasn’t broken immigration rules previously, are there really any grounds in the absolute slightest for refusing him entrance to this country on any of the latter three grounds? In short, no. The introduction of such powers for the Home Secretary did not occur for the government to simply ban people whom they dislike. Thankfully, we do not live under such a controlling authoritarian regime, like so many hundreds of millions of people around the world in countries like China, Egypt, and North Korea.

For Theresa May to plausibly issue an order to refuse someone entrance to this country, she would realistically have to put forward a justified statement that explained why Donald Trump’s presence would be a very real danger to the British citizens, residents, and other visitors presently in the United Kingdom. Yes, Trump has made some simply horribly distasteful remarks recently regarding groups including Mexicans, Muslims, and women; but the man is hardly likely to incite violent terrorism in the same way as an ISIS hate preacher, encourage serious criminal activity like a corrupt mobster or drug lord, or promote hatred of a similar magnitude to that spouted by leading figures of aggressive white supremacist groups.

I’m sure that many would argue that Trump’s comments do often inspire some hatred, but if you look at the list of figures officially banned by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith between 2008 and 2009, those banned for reasons of promoting hatred included the Westboro Baptist Church spokesperson, Shirley Phelps-Roper, who openly proclaims that “God hates fags” and pickets the funerals of AIDS victims and American soldiers killed in combat.

By any stretch of the imagination, no matter how much you dislike Donald Trump you cannot construct a sufficiently strong argument that considers the nastiness he presents as comparable in the slightest to the hatred spouted by such figures.

Without even really getting into the debate on government authoritarianism and civil liberties, it is evident that there is just not even an appropriate legal justification to deny Donald Trump entry into our country. The exclusion of individuals from our country is completely justified if the individuals in question pose a very real threat to the safety and security of people presently here. Crucially, there is a clear legal framework which sets this out, a legal framework which Trump is nowhere close to coming under.

In the final analysis, it is highly unlikely in the extreme that ‘The Donald’ would organise some sort of terrorist attack or develop a violent crime ring. At worst, he might offend a few people; but that absolutely isn’t enough of a reason to deny him entrance on arrival to British soil.

If people want to tackle Trump’s rhetoric, there are many other avenues to pursue and many debates of a much more interesting nature to have than this dilemma. In reality, banning him from entering this country would have no consequence on his US Presidential candidacy, and could potentially simply make Britain look immature. To put it simply, why go to the effort to ban Trump from this country?

Recently much has been made of the global rise in fringe anti-establishment politics that challenges political norms and galvanises disillusionment with the mainstream. Both sides of the political spectrum are represented with their respective emblematic issues: anti-austerity for the left and anti-immigration on the right. On the one hand, antipathy towards the ethnically defined ‘other’ and, on the other, hostility towards traditional elites and the vested interests they are seen to represent. Given the clamour surrounding the likes of Trump, Le Pen and the European anti-austerity movements one would be excused for believing that the political institutions of the West were crumbling around our ears.

So it might just seem amazing – given this apparent wave of either xenophobic or anti-capitalist hysteria – that not only are Western governments functioning perfectly well, but that the moderates and the centrists don’t really look as if they’re going to be vacating office any time soon.

Admittedly many on the left will point to the success of Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain as harnessing the considerable popular resentment towards the European Union and their demands for austerity, along with the political parties who acquiesce to these. However, for the only government in the West that has been elected on a platform that is markedly outside the mainstream, it is clear that even Syriza have compromised and deferred to European authority. In giving into the requirements of the European bailout agreement the party has split and their dogmatically Marxist finance minister Yanis Varousfakis has resigned and left the party.

A similar conclusion might be drawn from Podemos – the Spanish anti-austerity party: that they smashed the country’s two party system. However, the electoral statistics tell a different story. Not only did Podemos poll third behind social democrats PSOE – with around 20 per cent of the vote – they have recently shown signs of compromise and acquiescence, with an agreement for a grand left coalition with moderates and Catalan separatists. It is also worth remembering that this is a party that not only threatened to break the two-party grip on power: but to seize power for themselves. For having been placed as the top party in a multitude of opinion polls around the start of the year, their expectations have been dashed and they have been relegated to junior coalition partners. Political institutions, it seems, have a way of turning those that seek to overthrow them into prime exponents of those very systems: turning zealous outsiders into cold-hearted insiders.

The hyperbole is not solely isolated to the left, with expectations rather undeservedly high for both the Front National in France and Donald Trump’s attempt to seize the presidency in the USA. The former is symptomatic of a recurring phenomenon within French politics, but is also easy to dismiss. While opinion polling confirms that there is a distinct chance of Marine Le Pen ending up in the run-off of the final two candidates for French president, the same opinion polls almost unanimously demonstrate that those who had voted Sarkozy or Hollande would significantly prefer to vote for the other man: such is the anathema towards her. Their example serves to exemplify the point that while their strain of anti-establishment politics might galvanise a hardcore of voters, the rest of the electorate is alienated to the point where it becomes completely debilitating for their chances for gaining election. The French political system is simply designed to give these characters their allotted airtime, then dismiss them instead opting for the radical centre.

Then we are left with Donald Trump.

It says something about the state of American politics, that there is a man who seems as if he is a Sacha Baron Cohen creation and is yet being seriously considered as a contender for the Republican Presidential nomination. Nevertheless, the Iowa Caucus looms and the polls are yet to show his support waning. However, the key thing to remember here is that the demographics who are voting to select the Republican leader are wildly different to those who will vote in the Republic vs Democrat contest in November. The same people who are electing Trump are those who support bombing the fictional Arabian city of Agrabah: home of Aladdin. Yes, there is slight chance that Republican voters might even give him the nomination, however, the notion that he will beat Hillary Clinton is laughable. He speaks to the very worst of a very specific, yet vocal, minority of Americans. And given that he has spent the past year expressing his disdain for anyone who isn’t a white and male, it is hard to believe that he could ever persuade a significant proportion of the country that he was not just a loose cannon and a joke.

This is not to say that the sentiments underlying these parties are nothing to worry about. Expressions of xenophobia and racism are harmful to minorities and society as a whole. However, electorates are more united in the distrust of these fringe groups than they are of anything else. For while the hysteria around fringe political groups grows the systems in which they operate are working to swallow them whole. And yet the clamour will continue, but the centre will in fact continue to hold.