and the Petitions Committee says it does not have the remit to hold such a debate.

See? If it were more than a PR exercise, and truly democratic in practice, they likely wouldn't have said that.

Without living in the UK I agree with Sassenach. PR bullshit to make it look like they're listening, not actually listen.

But on the issue of Trump, it seems that 500,000+ Britons don't have a clue what "free speech" is about. And I find that scary. Not saying Americans are "smarter", mind you. But the whole thing is just stupid. And undemocratic in the extreme to exclude someone from your country because a bunch of people on the internet signing an electronic petition, probably without giving it too much thought before clicking "enter" [or whatever it says at the bottom], don't understand the double-edged sword of everything political, free speech included.

hacker

But on the issue of Trump, it seems that 500,000+ Britons don't have a clue what "free speech" is about. And I find that scary. Not saying Americans are "smarter", mind you. But the whole thing is just stupid. And undemocratic in the extreme to exclude someone from your country because a bunch of people on the internet signing an electronic petition, probably without giving it too much thought before clicking "enter" [or whatever it says at the bottom], don't understand the double-edged sword of everything political, free speech included.

They don't have a clue? and yet
The petitions are in themselves an aspect of free expression....
The "debate" was allowance of free speech by parliamentarians...
Democracy begins with the allowance of discussion of almost any idea.

And free expression does have limits. At least in the UK. Hate Speech is not allowed.

Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3] Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[4] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[5]

Trump's speech on Mexican immigrants in particular would be very close to hate speech. His proposed ban on Muslim travel, intended to specifically harass one group of people, might fall that way too.

I think that the petition and debate was indeed an exercise . But an exercise of democratic principle.
If it's intention was to demonstrate to Americans that Donald Trump is unliked abroad..... then it may have accomplished that goal, if anyone undecided on Trump was actually listening in the US. I doubt it.
But it was, in itself, expression of free speech.
And much speech, freely conducted, is often ineffective. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be tolerated.

Free speech is not the same as free movement. We know that much in the UK.