Freedom of speech

Made my view known on the Trump thread.

I just find the hypocrisy of Parliament astounding.

I believe in freedom of speech, and feel speaking to a depleted H of C would be much more appropriate and effective. I'm afraid as in most things freedom of speech is also 'selective' and hypocrisy, jumping on a popular band Waggon and of course embarrassing Mrs May are the true reasons for this ban.

If it is usual for foreign presidents and prime ministers to address the House then I think Trump should be allowed to do so too. Apparently Bercow welcomed the Emir of Kuwait and also the President of China so it seems inconsistent, to say the least, to ban Trump, the democratically elected president of an important ally.

Plus, like you cfrance, free speech has to be free speech for everyone, even people one despises, or it isn't free speech at all. I'm rather ashamed of our Speaker, who's supposed to be politically neutral, and quite a lot of MPs. I'm ashamed that we are not standing up for free speech properly.

No one is stopping Trump saying anything(chance would be a fine thing) we simply aren't going to give him a platform.

'we'?

I will raise this point again.

"2 weeks ago at the start of PMQ's ( 25/1/17 ) Bercow with his usual smarmy face welcomed the speaker of the Burmese (Myanmar) parliament and a delegation of parliamentarians who are watching on.

The Burmese Government are welcomed , as was Aung Sun Suu Kyi given much respect in the past by Parliament.

I am mentioning this because of the state of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar/Burma. MP's debate the genocide of the Rohingya Muslims in Parliament but the Myanmar/Burmese government turns a blind eye as to the Rohingya Muslim suffering, Genocide, Slaughter.

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/30/nobel-laureates-aung-san-suu-kyi-ethnic-cleansing-rohingya

"More than a dozen fellow Nobel laureates have criticised Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s de facto leader, for a bloody military crackdown on minority Rohingya people, warning of a tragedy “amounting to ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”.

Burmese military killed seven of my children, says Rohingya refugee
Read more
The open letter to the UN security council from a group of 23 activists, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Malala Yousafzai, warned that the army offensive had killed of hundreds of people, including children, and left women raped, houses burned and many civilians arbitrarily arrested."
----

So let me get this straight the Myanmar/Burmese representatives are 'feted' by the likes of Bercow but the Democratically elected President of the United States is shown humiliation.

Sorry but I think some people have lost the plot.

As the country. "We are all in this together" remember that? Your favourite people at the time.

That was to ana

Look at it what way you will freedom of speech applies to ALL regardless of what we personally think, including that chap who insisted that Churchill's mother was a whore who'd given birth to him when she was 61! (no protest from speaker Burcow!!)or it doesn't apply to anyone. Surely that's how it should be - 'defending to the death your right to say it however offensive'?

I don't know what you mean whitewave. Who were 'my favourite peope' and at what time?

Did I ever say any such thing...? No, thought not

Oh I thought you supported Osborne and Cameron ( remember him?)

Did you?

Got that wrong them must have been Miliband

What, Miliband supported Osborne and Cameron...?

can't even remember how this started now.

President Trump is the elected leader of the United States. We may not like his views ( I don't) and he seems to be showing a dangerous disregard for the American Constitution in his attacks on Judges and Muslims, but that is for the US Senate and House of Representatives to sort out.

Realpolitik says we need to walk a narrow line with him. He could be a powerful international friend for the UK over Brexit, but if we rub him up the wrong way, he could be a very dangerous enemy and that we cannot afford.

I think what John Bercow did today was silly, dangerous and hypocritical.

Especially as Trump hadn't even been invited to speak in the House, nor was it ever intended that he would be.

That is what I thought Ana it was never intended for him to speak to Parliament, just a visit to Westminster.

I agree with Monica. Seems crazy and dangerous.

There is always the soap box at speakers corner.
He could tweet from there at same time
Bit of multi-tasking

The queen and parliament have "welcomed" many exceedingly dubious folk and supped with them using long long spoons.

I guess that is what has to happen once more - but I would hope that the benches in parliament will be sparsely populated and this will speak volumes.

Bercow has a right to a view; but I am not sure that his position allows him to air that in parliament.

Heads of State are not automatically invited to address Parliament.

Since 1939 only three US Presidents have addressed Parliament; Reagan, Clinton and Obama.

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/may/25/head-state-addressing-uk-parliament

So Bercow is not doing anything unusual or breaking with any tradition by not inviting him. Announcing it so publicly is unusual.

With regard to 'hypocrisy'; as far as I can make out Aung Sun Suu Kyi spoke to Parliament over three years ago, presumably before the recent crackdown on the Rohingya people.

The visit in January was by the Speaker of the Myanmar equivalent of Parliament. He did not address either House, just had a tour, met a few people and attended an official dinner hosted by Bercow in the evening. We don't know if the occasion was used to put pressure on/influence the Myanmar government to improve their treatment of the Rohingya.

A little light googling seems to reveal that Bercow has an interest in maintaining relationships with Myanmar.

No doubt POGS knows much more about this as the plight of the Rohingya appears to be a cause she is interested in.

I really do not see what all this has to do with freedom of speech. Trump can say what he likes when he comes to the UK. He's just not being invited to address parliament and there is no particular reason why he should be.

Bercow has a right to a view; but I am not sure that his position allows him to air that in parliament.

Bercow is Speaker of the House of Commons. He runs it, so to speak. The Commons is independent of the Executive (i.e the Government) I believe that only the Speaker can decide which 'strangers' (people who are not elected MPs) can address the Commons. The Speaker of the House of Lords performs the same functions in the Lords. No Prime Minister can tell them who to invite or not to invite to address the respective Houses.

What people have to realise is that it is Parliament that is sovereign, not the Executive (the government). Governments can only 'govern' because they have a majority vote in the Commons. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to pass any new laws because laws can only be passed be getting a majority vote in the Commons. If a piece of legislation proposed by the government fails to get a majority vote it cannot be enacted into law.

He doesn't want to bann Trump, Trump hasn't been invited and when invited it is not in the house but in Westminster hall to both the commons and the lords, not all who came on a state visit are invited to speak