Sadiq Khan claims Donald Trump could be 'inadvertently radicalising people'
London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan has said he would be "more than happy" to meet Donald Trump - despite warning that the US President could be "inadvertently radicalising people" and is "not a force for good".
Sir Sadiq dismissed jibes that President Trump made against him on a recent visit to Scotland, where he claimed the London Mayor was "a nasty person" who has "done a terrible job". The Labour politician said remarks such as those were "water off a duck's back".
However, he told an event at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe it sometimes felt like he was "nine years old again" and "in the school playground".
But Sir Sadiq, speaking at the Political Party show with comedian Matt Forde, hit back at the US President, saying: "Somebody who has views like he does about black people, about women, about gays, about Muslims, about Mexicans, thinks I'm nasty. Really. He is the leader of the free world, arguably the most powerful man in the world, and really."
He spoke out as he said that records showed since the middle of January this year - when Mr Trump began his second term in the White House - and July "there have never been more Americans applying to British citizenship and living in London".
The Mayor said: "So I think Americans have got good taste by and large."
He added that he hoped the President would come to London during his state visit to the UK next month, with Sir Sadiq stressing the "diversity" of the capital was a "strength, not a weakness".
Speaking about this diversity, he insisted: "I think it makes us stronger not weaker, richer not poorer. And whe n President Trump says some of the things he does, it brings from the periphery to the mainstream, views that are potentially dangerous.
"He inadvertently - I'm not going to suggest he does it deliberately - he inadvertently could be radicalising people with views that could lead to them doing things that are dangerous."
He spoke out about fears that minorities "could be treated less favourably because of the views of the President of the USA" as he accused Mr Trump of "using London and our diversity as a political football, as a proxy for a culture war".
The London Mayor continued: "On a personal level, it is water off a duck's back, but we can't run away from the fact that there are some really serious challenges we face as a western society and President Trump, in my view, I speak generally, isn't a force for good."
However he insisted that he would be "more than happy to meet President Trump" saying he would seek to show him that it is "possible to be proud to be a westerner and a proud to be Muslim, that it is possible to be British, and proud to be British, and be of Pakistani origin and be a law abiding citizen and we aren't three headed monsters".
The Labour politician said: "I suspect President Trump may have formed a view of Muslims because of the actions of a small minority of really bad people who are terrorists and use Islam in a perverted way.
"What I would want President Trump to know is that is a very small fraction of Muslims across the globe.
"So if there was an opportunity to meet President Trump, I would be more than happy to do so."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump isn't ruling out sending US troops to Ukraine as part of a NATO-like security role with European partners, saying ‘we'll be involved' — but they'll talk more about it later
President Donald Trump on Monday refused to rule out sending American soldiers to enforce any peace deal between Russia and Ukraine and said he would be discussing the U.S. commitment to a future settlement with European leaders during a multilateral sit-down between him, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a group of European heads of state and government who'd travelled to the White House for talks. Speaking during a brief media availability alongside Zelensky in the Oval Office,Trump told reporters that both Europe and the United States would be involved in securing a post-war peace for Ukraine, but he refused to say outright that American troops would not be put on the ground to maintain that peace. 'We're going to work with Ukraine. We're going to work with everybody, and we're going to make sure that if there's peace, the peace is going to stay long term. This is very long term. We're not talking about a two year peace, and then we end up in this mess again. We're going to make sure that everything's good. We'll work with Russia. We're going to work with Ukraine. We're going to make sure it works. And I think if we can get to peace, it's going to work. I have no doubt about it,' he said. Pressed further on any guarantees for Kyiv by reporters, he said there would be 'a lot of help when it comes to security' in any post-war settlement, but he stressed that Europe would 'be the first line of defense' albeit with some American assistance. At the same time, the American leader seemed to rule out a future NATO membership bid for Kyiv, echoing a social media post he'd made earlier in the day, while hedging and telling the press that there hadn't been any such discussions yet. 'We're going to be discussing it today, but we will give them very good protection, very good security,' he said. Trump added that the European leaders who were waiting to meet with him and Zelensky were 'very like minded' on the matter. He also said he'd be speaking with Putin after his meetings with Zelensky and the assembled European leaders.
The Herald Scotland
4 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
It's time to explode the Establishment myths against a wealth tax
This rebuttal largely goes unchallenged by the national media, yet it has at its heart a number of misleading premises. The first is that wealth creation ceases when the wealthy leave. This stems from the myth that the ruling class create wealth through their ingenuity and risk-taking, as opposed to all financial wealth originating from human labour. It would therefore take a mass exodus or nationwide risk to life for wealth creation in a country to cease – we need only look at the hit private profit would have taken during the pandemic had the state not stepped in to shore it up to see the primacy of human labour evidenced. Read more The second is that existing wealth itself is mobile and can "leave" with the wealthy. Some wealth is, of course, mobile, in the form of fine art, precious gems, other luxury items and the king of capital; cash, which is exactly why currency controls and export restrictions and limits exist. However, a significant proportion of wealth is in immobile assets like land, property and British-based businesses whose wealth is generated by, you guessed it, human labour. This wealth cannot up sticks and leave with an individual. The resources remain in the country and are subject to taxation. The third is the Laffer Curve itself which purports to visualise the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue, the idea being that there is an optimum rate of tax which raises the maximum revenue, above which revenue starts to decrease as taxpayers are deterred from remaining in the tax system. This theory, though influential, is unfounded. The concept of trickle-down economics, that tax cuts raise more revenue by encouraging investment and thus benefit society, has not been borne out in data. Tax cuts have not been found to reduce inequality. UK taxes are considerably lower than in most other western European countries, yet we face significant and persistent income and wealth inequalities. Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that in the UK the top 10% own a staggering 57% of the wealth, while 2 in every 10 adults and 3 in every 10 children, are in poverty. So, if wealth creation doesn't stop when the already wealthy leave, if the super-rich can't take their British resource-dependent wealth with them, and if tax cuts have not been found to reduce inequality, why is the Establishment so opposed to taxing wealth? The other half of their argument is on what may happen in future. Their fear, they say, is that if we make the country less profitable for wealthy individuals, even slightly so through a modest wealth tax, they will leave, and private interest as a whole will be less likely to invest in our economy. How likely this is has been contested by organisations like Tax Justice UK and Patriotic Millionaires UK, so it seems likely that at least some of the millionaires will stay, but regardless the important question is: what do the rest of us stand to gain from any potential risk of flight? We know that waiting for wealth to trickle down has not worked, that inequality has remained high while the rich get richer. We know we won't lose wealth creation as long as we have a fit and able population to do the work. We know we won't lose all existing wealth as long as we have natural resources, built heritage and, yes, a fit and able population to do the work. In fact, the greatest risk to wealth is workforce shortages caused by a public health service on its knees, an undervalued public education system and a cost-of-living crisis deterring new parents. In short, the greatest risk to wealth is continuing to let it go untaxed. Inequality has remained high while the rich get richer (Image: Getty) Yes, we may lose some wealthy individuals who don't want to pay their fair share, we may see fewer corporate lobbyists on their payroll and fewer freebies for the politicians in their pockets – I'll shed no tears for them – but what we stand to gain is a fairer system. A system that addresses inequality and says clearly and proudly, if your private interest has benefitted from our public services: our health, our education, our labour (in every sense!), you will contribute a proportion of that benefit back into the system. There would be no wealth without us, all we are asking is that we all receive our fair share. A wealth tax is a modest policy whose time has well since come. So let there be no shame in calling for one and in doing so declaring that we will not reward greed and excess, we will build a society in which we all have enough. This Labour Government has an opportunity like no other: a mandate, a majority, and a moral imperative. It must embrace it. Mercedes Villalba is a Scottish Labour MSP for the North East Scotland Region.
Economist
5 minutes ago
- Economist
The War Room newsletter: Why Putin's peace plan is more like poison
Officials worry Trump backs the Kremlin's land grabs and fantasies Russia's leader is honoured, but offers little in return Clubs for shooting, rabbit-keeping and everything else are the backbone of its society A continent on holiday from geopolitical reality When they do it could spell trouble for TOGG, Turkey's domestic EV maker As the leaders prepare to meet, Russian forces break Ukraine's defensive line
