I do like that tune.
I watched the circus in Westminster Hall on ‘the parliament channel’.
A couple of days later I switched on the BBC’s very own parliament channel and there it was again! Bring on the clowns as they say. Dafter than ever and twice as excruciating.
The first thing every single speaker did was denounce Donald Trump. They needed to establish their heartfelt condemnation of 'The Trump' and made quite sure they were publicly seen to distance themselves from ‘his appalling views’. This ritual was performed by the banners and the no-banners alike.
The BBC had a rolling bar at the bottom of the screen explaining that Donald Trump has proposed a ban on all Muslims from entering the United States. They did not include the qualifier.
The standard of debate was pretty terrible. Speaker after meandering speaker made illogical and repetitive observations; speaker after speaker made irrelevant, time wasting interventions.
It was bad enough seeing this once, let alone twice or thrice. Obviously I didn’t sit through it in its entirety the second time.
Much of the rhetoric focused on prejudice and racial hatred (as in Islamophobia) but I heard nary a squeak about the elephant that inhabits large swathes of the “Muslim Community” - antisemitism - unless it was lumped together with Islamophobia like a
Siamese conjoined twin.
The old doddery speakers seemed to know little or nothing about Islam, and the earnest, virtue signalling members seemed a bit thick. Quite a bit thick.
Jack Dromey was monumental old bore. Hypocritical and badly informed to boot. He attempted to ridicule Trump by reading out a list of “Trumpisms” in a silly voice, presumably to illustrate what a buffoon Trump is. Someone made an intervention to the effect that ‘outing Trump’s buffoonery’ would be better than banning him, only for Dromey to retaliate witheringly “This is not a matter for flippancy.”
Several speakers argued that other bloggers and inciters of hatred whom the home secretary has previously banned set a precedent for banning Trump. Dromey mentioned Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer by name, both of whom were banned from entering this country for the sin of opposing Islamisation, but Dromey had trouble enunciating the word Islamisation, blurting out instead “Islamisisation”.
People kept saying that Trump would ‘preach hatred,’ as if he was a preacher.
|He wants to ban me and my family|
Two passionate speakers in favour of the ban were Tasmina Ahmed-Sheihk, the SNP member with the big hair, and her surprisingly eloquent colleague Anne McLaughlin. They both argued for banning Trump on the grounds of consistency. ‘Ban him because we’ve banned other hate speakers. Because of the risk of inciting hatred. Hatred or Islamophobia.’
Tasmina kept saying “the Muslim community “ this and ‘the Muslim community” that, but one does wonder whether she can legitimately speak for ‘all muslims’ whilst being incensed that Trump is tarring “all Muslims” with the same ban? Only Muslims are allowed to make generalisations for some reason?
One (or perhaps two) speakers pointed out that Trump hadn’t actually advocated a permanent ban on all Muslims, but vocal Muslim MPs like Tasmina and Tulip Siddiq still chose to emote victimhood. “He even wants to ban me and my innocent family.”
Trump’s ban might very well have been grossly unfair and clumsy, but there is another aspect to this, which I put to you just in case it’s worthy of your consideration.
‘Innocent Muslims’ (those who sincerely want to integrate and embrace the culture of country they inhabit) who are caught up in whatever backlash, fallout, proposed ban, unfair prejudice or bigotry that results from acts of terror, could be regarded as victims of terrorism like everyone else.
They’re victims of terrorism, just the same as innocents and bystanders of every creed and culture who are, unfortunately, caught up in the aftermath of terrorism. Collateral damage if you like. We’re all subject to extra scrutiny at airports these days. No-one likes it, but it’s there for a reason. Precautions. We all suffer because of terrorism; we all have to bear certain restrictions on our freedom in states of emergency and so on. In war time enemy aliens were interned for what was thought at the time to be the general well-being of the country. To be on the safe side. Unfair, but all’s deemed fair in war. Terrorism of the kind we’re seeing now is tantamount to war.
Trump’s temporary ban on Muslims does seem ludicrous and impracticable. I certainly don’t see how or why Trump could or should be banned from the UK. It’s unenforceable and dumb. However, under the circumstances a little profiling might not go amiss
The whole debate was conducted as though Trump had said what he said out of the blue. Someone mentioned San Bernardino, which had apparently been forgotten or ignored.
Everyone kept saying they’d like to take the Trump to their local mosque to show him what a wonderful multicultural place the UK is and how harmonious we all are.
How we’d show him up. Argue with him, show him the error of his ways, ridicule his ideas, and call him a buffoon; as the pot said to the kettle.
“I would urge the alternative of inviting Mr Trump here. I would be delighted if he could show us where the so-called no-go areas for police are in this country—I have never been able to find one. It would be a pleasure to take him down to Brixton and show him the rich mixture of races and creeds that are living happily together there. ”
That was Paul Flynn MP, the person who brought the debate to parliament. He was against banning Trump, but he also happens to be one of the persons who criticised the appointment of Matthew Gould to the British Embassy in Israel.
“The position, he said, required someone with “roots in the UK“.
Discrimination against people based on their heritage, much? It begins to seem as if 'it all depends'.
Trump wouldn't actually do anything about Muslim immigration if he got elected. All he cares about is continuing down the path of crony corporatism disguised as capitalism. He's just saying various things to get attention and praise. He's only there to break the Republican challenge and get Hillary elected. If by some bizarre chance he does get elected, it will be a third Clinton term anyway.ReplyDelete
The rest is noise and virtue signalling from people who will be quite pleased with what he does once he's in office.
I am not going to preface my remarks with the usual ritual condemnation of Le Trump.ReplyDelete
But I will recall that he criticised Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller for staging a free speech event that included cartoons of Mo. So I am no fan of him - he dodged the draft, he mocks the afflicted, is super-rich and vain to a degree bordering on mania.
I doubt he would make a good President. But of course that's for the Americans, not us to decide. For all that, he has brought a populist spirit to the campaign which has made it have some connection to the people.
It was a new nadir of debate in Parliament. Not even one MP seemed to be aware of what Islamic clerics (just about all of them) teach is true Islam (Sharia, hatred of non-believers, women as being inferior to men, and the obligation to undertake Jihad). How many of our idiot MPs know for instance that the Grand Mufti in Saudi Arabia issued a Fatwa (which has legal force for all Muslims in Saudi Arabia) that it was obligatory for all Muslims to hate non-believers?
And the emoting...
“He even wants to ban me and my innocent family.”
I've lost count of the number of times Muslim parents and siblings have said they "had no idea" their son or bruv was engaged in planning murderous terrorist activity - so how can she be sure all HER family are innocent?
In a country that was subject to a terrorist attack by Jihadis that killed 3,000 people, terrorised hundreds of thousands and traumatised millions, I think it perfectly reasonable to have a debate over whether Muslim immigration should be controlled.
Just when you thought a glimmer of common sense was breaking through following Cologne...we have the hyped-up bogus moral outrage over alleged "unaccompanied" refugee children, when we all know that nearly all such "children" are adults pretending to be children. Even the media seem unable to find bona fide examples of unaccompanied children and keep showing pictures of children who are clearly in the accompany of adult migrants! And BTW the BBC are no worse than the others in this respect it would seem.ReplyDelete
It appears that the power of the wishful narrative once again blasts away reality.
The term 'children' now joins many others that acquire different meanings via BBC Editorial Guidelines.Delete
Hence nineteen year olds are but moppets adrift seeking only nurture, whilst 16 year olds are adults deserving of the vote to bring in Labour worthies currently overseas emoting over their older cousins (who, once here, obviously need to bring over the rest of the family, as is their right).
Amazingly, though, when it comes to an abominable crime being committed, the suspect though aged 15 is no longer referred to as a child by the BBC -Delete
Why is that? Do the BBC not want us to associate unaccompanied migrant "children" claiming to be aged 15 with knife-wielding maniacs who despatch the people trying to help them?
BBC Radio 4 managed to get a fictional play written and produced on Trump so very quickly (heard on Saturday night) It adds and keep the focus on condemnation of him in a clever way. This type of propaganda is very effective and it is rather scary!!ReplyDelete
Given how that will impact with actual US voters I suspect it will not compete with Operation Clarke County, but likely served to make certain groups North of the river here feel that little bit warmer and fuzzier in their virtue.Delete
Dire propaganda from the licensed turban that is Hardeep Singh Kholi. A devout follower of Islam would never get the airtime he does.Delete
I wonder if he'd care to enlighten us about general Sikh attitudes to Muslims. So much more enlightened than Donald Trump's? Strangely Hardeep never seems to address this issue.
Just an observation:ReplyDelete
I see that Fraser Nelson - the extremist pro-migration editor of the Spectator - has joined the other headless chickens of the liberal political-media elite in running around in circles...
Not a BBC man, I know, but it exemplifies that the BBC is simply the most powerful and harmful arm of the elite, not its only limb.
The elite have really come unstuck. For years it appeared the locomotive of migration-plus- globalisation was going at full speed and all sorts of people wanted to get on board. It now appears that the locomotive was all the time actually careering downhill, out of control.
Mr Nelson seems to have just woken up to the fact. Though a headless chicken can't actually cluck, it sounds like he is making a good attempt at it...blaming the Swedish police and the Swedish media for the hugely negative impact of mass immigration, which of course is predominantly from the benighted lands of Islam in Sweden's case.
This is the top ten of rationalisations from the political-media elite for the horrendous effects of mass migration we are witnessing across Europe:
1. It's women's fault. They need to restrain their behaviour and dress modestly.
2. It's our fault. We are richer than them.
3. It's all a matter of education. Once they have had the half hour tutorial all will be well.
4. It's the fault of the media. If the media fully reported on all the negative effects, the population would be quieted.
5. It's the Police's fault. If the Police fully reported on the ethnic or religious background of perpetrators, all would be well.
6. It's all a right wing plot (thank you Hugh).
7. The rise of the fascist right shows just how much we need more migration (er?).
8. It's a tiny minority of migrants who are uneducated mysoginists with violent tendencies - the vast majority are engineers and doctors who are at the top of their game, and support feminism.
9. It's going to happen anyway, whatever we do.
10. Islam is a religion of peace, so logically we can have nothing to fear from its followers.