This past Monday, (Mon 6 Feb 2017), John Bercow, (Speaker of the House of Commons), said that he is ‘strongly opposed’ to President Trump delivering an address in Westminster Hall.
John Bercow said,
“Before the imposition of the migrant ban, I would myself have been strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall. After the imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump I am even more strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall.”
He later added,
“We value our relationship with the United States.” and “However, as far as this place is concerned I feel very strongly that our opposition to racism and to sexism and our support for equality before the law and an independent judiciary are hugely important considerations in the House of Commons.”
We could look at the fact that as the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow is supposed to remain neutral on all political matters, and that once he has declared such an opinion he is no longer fit to chair a discussion… well on many matters that could relate to America and Donald Trump. Can you imagine going to a football match between West Ham and Arsenal and finding that the referee is wearing a West Ham hat and scarf? How believable are his decision going to be? John Bercow has opened himself up to a whole lot of possible trouble in future debates.
But I want us to consider just how foolish it is for a man in the position of John Bercow to step into this argument, and just how irrational or hypercritical his statement is.
John Bercow, along with many, many other MP’s and people who hold influential positions in the public eye are either willfully or unwittingly, going along with the leftist propaganda that Trump is an evil man.
I do not want to become an apologist for Trump, but accusations against him of misogyny, and racism are thin at best, and at worst are old and almost totally baseless. Yes, he has temporarily banned people from seven countries, but not because of religion or race, but based on the risk of terrorism.
You may disagree, and I guess you have the right to think you know him better than… well better than others who are intimately connected with him. And you may have had access to the daily intelligence briefings that he is given. However, I have not had either privilege.
Surely, before we condemn him, we need more that just the feeling that he is a ‘bad man,’ or the rantings of incoherent protestors in the streets at are violent and lawless. I have heard no rational evidence based, arguments against him.
Trump campaigned on several major policies, that of securing America’s borders and getting the country back to work. Why are we condemning him for keeping his campaign promises?
But just how bad must John Bercow think that Donald Trump is?
In September 2012 John Bercow welcomed the of Indonesia, President Susilo Yudhoyono.
The Speaker said at the time: “Mr President, it is a huge pleasure as well as a considerable honour for me, on behalf of both houses of parliament, to welcome you here today… it is also a huge privilege to introduce you personally. I do not know if there is an equivalent Indonesian expression for the phrase ‘renaissance man’ which we use to identify people with many attributes, but if it exists then it surely applies to yourself.”
Human Rights Watch says President Yudhoyono “left behind a toxic legacy of rising religious intolerance and related violence”, condemning “the Yudhoyono government’s sorry record” on human rights. Yudhoyono’s feared police force was “actively complicit in incidents of harassment, intimidation or violence against religious minorities”. His government was complicit in the “violation of the rights and freedoms of the country’s religious minorities”. Bercow said it was a “huge privilege” to introduce Yudhoyono to parliament.
Bercow said it was a “huge privilege” to introduce Yudhoyono to parliament. So Trump must be worse than this.
In November 2012 Bercow allowed the Emir of Kuwait His Highness Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah to address parliament.
John Bercow said of him “Your Highness it is my privilege to welcome you here to our Parliament for this important stage of your state visit. Your presence here today is a welcome reminder of the many intimate ties that exist between our nations and our peoples”
Human Rights Watch says, “Women, (In Kuwait), continue to face discrimination in many aspects of their lives, and large legal gaps remain in protections for women. Kuwait has no laws prohibiting domestic violence, sexual harassment, or marital rape.” Maybe Bercow thinks that Kuwaiti women do not mind a bit of sexism.
Kuwait also bans Israeli passport holders from travelling there, but hating Jews is not that bad is it Mr. Bercow? He did not oppose the Kuwaiti Emir from speaking in parliament…
It is illegal to be gay in Kuwait, but not in America under Trump. But surely something that Trump does must be really bad. It must be worse than this.
In October 2014 Bercow welcomed Singapore’s President Tony Tan Keng Yam to speak to parliament.
Male homosexuality is illegal in Singapore.
Human Rights Watch has condemned President Tan’s record on “limiting rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association using overly broad legal provisions on security, public order, morality, and racial and religious harmony”.
Bercow smiled and shook hands with President Tan as he introduced him to speak to parliament. So Trump must be worse than this.
Bercow welcomed China’s President Xi Jinping In October 2015. He told China’s President, It was “my pleasure” to have him to address parliament.
China is an authoritarian state, according to Human Rights Watch its government “systematically curtails a wide range of fundamental human rights, including freedom of expression, association, assembly, and religion”.
Amnesty International recorded at least 1,634 executions in China in 2015.
The church in china is very, very badly persecuted and oppressed.
Again, Trump really must be bad if he is less worthy to address parliament than President Xi Jinping.
In March of 2011, John Bercow entertained representatives from the North Korean regime in his apartments for tea.
Human Rights Watch says “North Korea remains among the world’s most repressive countries. All basic freedoms have been severely restricted”.
North Korea each year tops the list of the countries in the world that persecute Christians.
Are you getting the picture? If Trump is worse than representatives from the North Korean regime, Bercow really must have some pretty damning information about Trump.
Bercow lavished praise on the human rights abusing leaders of Kuwait, Indonesia, Singapore, China, and North Korea, yet bans Trump. You are left asking WHY?
You could conclude that John Bercow only said those nice things about these leaders as a responsibility of his office, but then surely he should be doing the same about Trump?
No there must be another reason.
Was it just ill thought out? Was it just that he loves to be in the headlines? Was it a bid for popularity?
I am not going to pretend that I know what was going through His mind, but we at least can say that is was not based on a rational consideration of Trump compared to other leaders that he has welcomed.
It appears that there is a worldwide irrational hatred for Trump. How much of this is genuinely felt and how much is, people jumping on a popular bandwagon, I do not know. There is some evidence that in the USA a few people are being paid to organise opposition to Trump.
My best guess is that for a very great number of people, it is that they hate people who tell the truth.
“… men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:19)