Article content continued

Because more than 100,000 people have signed the petition on the website of Britain’s Parliament, Parliament will have to consider whether the move should be debated.

Jack Dromey, home affairs spokesman of the opposition Labour Party, and Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party, have backed the proposed Trump ban.

Banning someone from entering the country because of words they’ve uttered may seem extreme, but Britain and much of Europe have a very different attitude toward free speech than the U.S. There has been some debate in the country as to whether to ban Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s signature “flag,” for example. In theory at least, anti-Muslim sentiment is dealt with just as seriously.

Helen Fenwick, a professor at Durham Law School, notes that some supporters of the Trump ban say that the American businessman should be banned from the country because he has incited hatred on the grounds of religion, something made illegal by Britain’s hate speech legislation. However, Fenwick doubts that Trump’s comments would fall within that definition — his comments were insulting rather than threatening, she notes. Fenwick adds that if the current home secretary, Theresa May, took a broader definition of “hate speech,” he could possibly be banned, but that would be unlikely.

The British government has indicated that it would not refuse Trump entry, despite the apparent popularity of the sentiment.

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, brushed off the idea that police would stay away from some neighbourhoods as “ill-informed” and “complete and utter nonsense.” He said the comments were an insult to London’s “proud history of tolerance and diversity.”

He mocked the U.S. politician, claiming that “the only reason I wouldn’t go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump.”