Earlier this month President Trump postponed his state visit to Britain by at least several months for fear of protests and government officials protesting his visit. The trip was originally to take place this summer, estimated at the time for October 5th-8th. The decision to delay the trip was mutually agreed upon between British Prime Minister Theresa May and Trump in a phone call early this month.

The Sun newspaper reports the decision was made to avoid controversy and British outrage over Trump’s proposed immigration ban. These concerns are legitimate as
over 1.8 million people signed a petition to block the state visit, thus forcing Members of Parliament to debate the issue. While Parliamentarians do not have the power to block the visit, the three hour debate was still a major concern for the White House as a source of political embarassment. As a result Downing street has maintained the invitation stating “The invitation has been extended and accepted and dates will be announced in due course.” Yet the White House is very aware it can little afford any further political incidents after losing a second battle on the travel ban, ‘Trumpcare’ failing and official FBI investigations ongoing over Trump campaign affiliation with Putin’s Russia. This situation is made even more tense after Trump’s unfounded accusations that the British intelligence agency GCHQ had Wiretapped his offices during his campaign on orders of former President Obama.

Amid these security and political concerns, rumors have spread that Trump’s state visit may be moved from London to the ‘Brexit’ heartland in the midlands. This would allow the president to address a mass rally and initially his staff raised the issue of raising money for Armed Forces Veterans, although this issue has taken a backseat of late given that he has not once met with any Veterans since his innauguration, sending a winner of his reality tv show to meet with them instead.

In discussions on potential venues, the National Exhibition Centre are being considered as the administration believes people outside of London will be more receptive to the President and his rhetorical style and as a outspoken support of ‘Brexit’.

One source close to the president said:

“It would be his biggest rally with 85,000 people coming together to celebrate the US-UK special relationship. If he is not speaking to the Houses of Parliament, let’s go to the people. The only person who gets screwed is the Speaker of the House of Commons.”

The potential plans to move the state visit are not entirely unfounded as the Metropolitan Police chief, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, has expressed further concerns about the
state visit given the level of protests expected.A statement further supported by several citizen groups in the UK. The coalition of 28 Left-wing groups- including the Egyptian
revolution committe, the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign and the Communist Party of Great Britain are meeting with Labour Party representatives to plan the opposition to President Trump. The ‘Stand Up to Trump movement told The Telegraph that the protests would be the biggest since 300,00 people came out to demonstrate against George W. Bush’s Uk Visit in 2003. Speaking for them, Lindsey German said:

“If he goes to Balmoral there will be a big protest there; if he goes to Windsor there will be a protest there. There are millions of people in this country who don’t want
him to come.”

While freedom of speech is certainly a crucial part of our society, it must be said, that the banning of state representatives is problematic at best. The right to protest
is a crucial part of democratic society, yet simply blocking anyone with whome you dissagree is a growing trend within an increasingly politicised and polarized society at large. Yet perhaps particularly hurtful is that the left, traditionally the party of free speech, liberalism and progressive values has seen a worrying trend of blocking those with whome they dissagree. A trend reflected most noticeably at universities across Europe and America, a trend that is arguably confining, restricting and directly limiting freedom of speech.