The Student Room Group

Speaker declares Trump too racist and sexist to speak in Westminster Hall

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Sabertooth
Trump is the oldest man ever elected president. Not a "great feat"? :tongue:


He isn't exactly the poster boy for electing really old white guys to high office.
This so-called speaker is overrated
Original post by Therec00
-x-


I assume these are some 'alternative facts'?
Original post by Therec00


The source for that seems somewhat dodgy, but the key point is that those bans weren't based on religion.
Original post by Ladbants
No I don't think so.


Pretty sure simply being elected POTUS would be considered by most a great feat, even before everybody, even your own party, is against you.
Can any of the SJWs give me an example of Trumps racism?
Original post by Mathemagicien
Why is it bad to discriminate based on religion?

Why is it worse to discriminate against religion, than to discriminate against nationality?


I think they're both bad. But freedom of religion is protected by the constitution.

Unless strict adherence to that only applies when looking out for the interests of the NRA?
So why did he feel "privileged" to introduce the Emir of Kuwait?
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Wow. :eek4:

Speaker Bercow has declared Trump to be too sexist and racist to be permitted to speak to Parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/feb/06/may-to-meet-netanyahu-ahead-of-brexit-debate-in-commons-live-updates

Take that and chew on it, Trump! :lol: :angry:

This must be a first for a very long time - a Speaker of the British Parliament denying speaking rights to the American President, due to his unsuitable conduct.

If it wasn't tragic, it would be funny.


Ever hear of free speech? "I might not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."
Original post by Jammy Duel
So why did he feel "privileged" to introduce the Emir of Kuwait?


Why not? Kuwait is probably the least bad of the Arab states. Why are you against him welcoming the Emir?
Original post by Jammy Duel
So why did he feel "privileged" to introduce the Emir of Kuwait?


Who, Trump?
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Why not? Kuwait is probably the least bad of the Arab states. Why are you against him welcoming the Emir?


Really?


Human Rights Watch has this to say regarding the practices of the government of Kuwait when it comes to human rights:

'Kuwait’s government aggressively cracks down on free speech, using provisions in the constitution, the national security law, and other legislation to stifle political dissent, as well as passing new legislation criminalizing or increasing penalties for various forms and means of expression. In an effort to curb local terrorism, according to authorities, Kuwait became the first country to pass a law requiring that all Kuwaiti citizens and residents provide DNA samples, in violation of the right to privacy. The government has yet to address the citizenship concerns of minority groups such as the Bidun, who are stateless in Kuwait.'
Original post by InnerTemple
Who, Trump?


Bercow, in 2012
Original post by Jammy Duel
Really?


Did I say they are perfect? I said 'least bad'. Compare with some of the others and they look like a model country.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Did I say they are perfect? I said 'least bad'. Compare with some of the others and they look like a model country.


I know the arabs are bad (and apparently these are people who we should be bringing into the country in large numbers) but which makes it look like a model country? How about Iraq, does that make Kuwait look like a model country (ISIS held parts aside)?
Original post by Jammy Duel
I know the arabs are bad (and apparently these are people who we should be bringing into the country in large numbers) but which makes it look like a model country? How about Iraq, does that make Kuwait look like a model country (ISIS held parts aside)?


The governments are largely terrible. Bit unfair to just apply that to "arabs" in general.

It's like saying the Americans are bad just because they managed to let Trump become president!
Original post by jamestg
Good.

Why should Trump get to speak at Westminster Hall when only 5 foreign leaders have done so since WW2? And only one of those five were a US President.

Being able to speak at Westminster hall is an extremely rare privilege and Trump has done nothing to earn himself the chance to speak there so far.

Bercow did not set a precedent for allowing Obama to speak there, so stop treating it as such...


It is a bit like handing Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush Jnr.
Original post by InnerTemple
The governments are largely terrible. Bit unfair to just apply that to "arabs" in general.

It's like saying the Americans are bad just because they managed to let Trump become president!


No, that makes Americans brilliant. Time and time again it's demonstrated you don't need democracy to reshape a nation, yet in the arab world we see no will to reshape nations, we see populaces happy to persecute gays, subjugate women, and try to see the end to Israel. Even in the west after assimilation they're hardly brilliant, the majority of American Muslims see suicide attacks as justified to fight against Israel and think homosexuality should be discouraged (the question went into no more detail than that), over a third do not embrace religious pluralism. Half (and just under half of Muslim women) believe that women should pray separately to men, and the majority of those who do not believe this think that the women should be behind the men. They're more likely than almost any other Muslim in the world to put their religion first in their identity over nationality
Conservatives/Libertarians/Classical Liberals really need to stop caring what the progressive eugenicists, race-baiters, racists (particularly against white people), traitors, xenophobes (they hold a particular hate for their own country), anti-Semites and sexists (particularly their sexism towards white men) think about them.

Stop giving the moral pedestal - they don't do morality, their morality bends like Play-Doh, and as and when it fits with their political objectives. Progressivism has nothing to do with morality, ethics or principles and everything to do with social status, social strategy, societal deconstruction and the exploitation of identity as a proxy for class warfare.

There's a tendency to place a certain amount of moral weight to their opinion, largely because it's expressed through powerful conduits they control like the Higher Education sector and the MSM. However, they don't own morality, principles or ethics - they don't actually have any. All they know is relativism.

Stop caring what they think.
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you