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 |
 |
| Surprisingly eloquent |
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'.
