When Theresa May announced, to the gathered press at the White House, an invitation for Donald Trump to make an official state visit to the United Kingdom, there were some in Britain who apparently oppose his views -- and, in a democratic and free society, express their opposition. There also were, however, concerns that these critics may have been acting hypocritically, as well as without considering due process.
House of Commons Speaker John Bercow declared that he would not invite Trump to make a speech before Parliament due to the president's alleged "sexism" and "racism," and the British Parliament's opposition to those stances, as well as, further, due to Trump's temporary restrictions on immigration until better procedures for vetting applicants can be put in place .
Bercow, however, never adhered to due process: he should first have consulted the Speaker of the House of Lords or the Lord Chamberlain.
If Bercow thought that a ban from addressing Parliament would stop
Trump from addressing the British people, he seems to have been wrong.
Press reports suggest
that Trump is planning massive stadium events. Perhaps that is the
repeated failure of Trump's opposition: to see his appeal to the masses.
Furthermore, where was Bercow when Emir of Kuwait visited? Kuwait has a poor record on women's rights, and refuses entry to those with Israeli passports. Kuwait Airways and even dropped its flights between New York and London not to "break the law" by possibly carrying Israeli passengers.
How come, then, that Bercow did not think it advisable to oppose the
Emir of Kuwait's visit due to its "sexism" and "immigration ban"? No,
Bercow granted the Emir a speech in the Queen's Robing Room.
Bercow also granted a speech in Westminster Hall to the President of Indonesia -- a country that canes women for "standing too close to their boyfriends"; that has applied sharia law and that has put the homosexual community under "unprecedented attack".
In addition to these seeming slip-ups, Bercow also received a representative of the North Korean regime for afternoon tea in Parliament, and received representatives from the Communist single-party state of Vietnam.
So, it is evidently acceptable to be a representative of some of the
world's most repressive dictatorships, with policies far worse than
Trump's, and yet visit Parliament, but a democratically elected leader
in the free world and a key ally, who may hold some views with which
Bercow disagrees, makes him unacceptable.
Some MPs have rightly raised concerns
that the Speaker is "using the Speaker's chair to pontificate on
international affairs." The Speaker in Britain's Parliament is supposed to be impartial; some MPs have alleged that Bercow has "broken his employment contract with members of parliament," in which he is bound to remain impartial.
Others open to allegations of hypocrisy include Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, who demanded
that Donald Trump not to be allowed a state visit or even to enter the
UK for his incorrectly-named "Muslim ban" -- actually, only a temporary
ban on people from seven countries, designated by former President
Barack Obama, and over which Congress gave the president the power to restrict people who might be security risks.
On the same day in which Sadiq Khan made these comments, he then hosted
a party to which he invited the ambassadors of Bangladesh, Brunei,
Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Pakistan, Sudan, the United Arab
Emirates and Yemen – all of which ban Israelis, and some of which
even ban peopled holding passports stamped by Israel. Where was the
outrage then, the mass protests, the marches against Khan for welcoming
Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party, also made it clear that he would not welcome Trump addressing Parliament and that he opposed a state visit. How ironic from someone who has welcomed former members of the IRA to Parliament, shortly after the IRA bombed the Conservative Party conference. He also welcomed Hezbollah and Hamas, and called them his "friends". Hamas is a genocidal organisation that remains dedicated to killing Jews and destroying Israel, and Hezbollah is dedicated to the obliteration of Israel.
It seems that there is a double standard here: Trump may have
previously made tasteless remarks, but are his policies really worse
than those of the Iran or North Korea?
As the British author George Orwell is alleged to have said, "Freedom
is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
What is it that the people trying to keep Trump from speaking are afraid others might hear?