Donald Trump didn't get banned from UK, but he was called a 'wazzock'

During Monday's debate in the British parliament over whether Donald Trump should be banned from entering the country, myriad views were expressed, but in the end, few supported a ban. 

John Minchillo/AP
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign stop at Concord High School, Monday, January 18, 2016, in Concord, New Hampshire.

During a three-hour debate Monday, British MPs declined to ban Donald Trump from entering their country, choosing instead to launch a volley of insults at the Republican presidential candidate.

A minority backed a ban, but most shied away, insisting it would go against free speech, give Mr. Trump more publicity, or step beyond what was proper in terms of British involvement in American politics.

Plenty of those in the debate actually extended invitations to Trump, offering tours of their communities to challenge his views. Others chose to apply various labels to the Republican hopeful, including “crazy” and “offensive”.

The petition “Block Donald J Trump from UK entry” came into being in response to the politician’s call for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

There was also anger when he claimed that in Britain “we have places in London and other places that are so radicalized that police are afraid for their own lives.”

At last count, over 576,000 Britons had signed the petition. In the United Kingdom, any petition garnering over 100,000 supporters must be considered for parliamentary debate.

While Monday’s exchange was never intended to culminate in a vote, it was an opportunity for views to be aired.

Indeed, Prime Minister David Cameron had already made his views known, describing Trump’s call for a Muslim ban as “divisive, unhelpful and quite simply wrong”.

The leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, was likewise unimpressed: “I decided to invite Donald Trump on his visit to Britain to come with me to my constituency because he has problems with Mexicans and he has problems with Muslims,” he told the BBC Saturday.

"As you know, my wife is Mexican and my constituency is very, very multi-cultural so what I was going to do was go down to the mosque with him and let him talk to people there."

So the tone of Monday’s debate was set, with the Republican receiving a “flurry of invitations” to visit British constituencies. Indeed, The New Statesman suggested he might wish he had been banned.

"I want to see Donald Trump come to this country,” said Gavin Robinson, of Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party, during the debate. “I want him to get a sense of the fury and the frustration with his xenophobic remarks."

But there were those who felt the debate itself was a mistake, claiming that it made Britain look “totalitarian” and was born out of an obsession with political correctness.

“It’s in part because of political correctness that the straight talking of Donald Trump has proved so popular with the electorate out there,” said Philip Davies, a Conservative MP, adding that he had heard many people in his own constituency expressing similar views to Trump.

Immigration Minister James Brokenshire spoke specifically to Britain’s relationship with the United States: "The U.S. remains our most important bilateral partner. It is in the UK's interests that we engage all presidential candidates, Democratic and Republican, even though we may disagree profoundly on important issues."

Yet there were some in Parliament who backed a ban.

"Donald Trump is a fool," Labour’s Jack Dromey said. "He is free to be a fool. He is not free to be a dangerous fool on our shores."

Fellow Labour MP Tulip Siddiq talked of Trump’s “poisonous” words and insisted they were inciting hate crime.

There were moments of laughter, though – banality, even. One MP, citing Britain’s famed roast beef, asked whether it might not be “better to roast Trump”.

And then there was the MP who fancied that his constituents might call Trump a “wazzock”, if he should ever wander into their neighborhood.

A wazzock, according to Urban Dictionary, is a term of mild insult originating in northern England.

But perhaps the final word should be given to Labour MP Naz Shah, who would invite Trump for a curry and a debate of his views:

“I stand here as a proud British Muslim woman. Donald Trump would like me banned from America. But in my Islam, what it teaches me, is that goodness is better than evil. If someone does bad, you do good in return. I will not allow the rhetoric of badness into my heart”.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.