Freedom of speech

Not superior whitewave, different ,

Bercow has been successful in what he set out to do. His face is all over the papers and his name is being mentioned everywhere. The hypocrisy of some in the house is amazing. But then why should we be surprised? The leaders in the EU are the worst. Has anyone read what the prime minister of Hungary said about immigration? And he is invited to meet all and sundry in Europe. I don't like Trump or what he stands for. But he has been democratically elected.

I think we can accept that we have some shared values and some different values. But just because we live in the west we cannot assume that our values are superior.

Do we accept countries in the west share the same values as the East?

I think Bercow has overstepped his position and used his position as a platform for his own views.
Whilst I fully agree and support freedom of speech I am amazed at the vocal outpouring about Trump. He wants to vet people entering America....Why didn't the same people speak out and march when Obama, Blair etc started bombing innocent people..... or closer to home ....when the very people who murdered people in Ireland were set free, elected as government, met the Queen.....
It makes me wonder how many people like Bercow are just jumping in the bandwagon and trying to draw attention to themselves.

Mr Bercow has, in the past, welcomed the Chinese president Xi Jinping, despite his policy on Tibet. Also, the emir of Kuwait, a country which oppresses women's rights, where LGBT rights are not recognized and bans British dual nationals of Israeli origin. Like him or hate him, at least Donald Trumps was elected by the people of the USA.

As I indicated in my earlier post - you cannot compare Bercow to Betty Boothroyd - he is not even a pale imitation. He is too full of himself and is not impartial. He has happily received the leaders of regimes that imprison gays and deny women rights. There is a strong anti-Trump feeling running through the country and Bercow is merely jumping on the bandwagon.

I thought it interesting that there were so few conservative M P s in the House when Ber cow said his bit. They must have known what he was going to say and so avoided the embarrassment of how to react!!!

Some extraordinary outpourings of vitriol against the Speaker. None of it because of his track record in the role. GN members don't like his face, his height or his "grandstanding'.
It's important that a Speaker has an authoritative manner. Keeping control of the House is no mean feat. Remember Betty Boothroyd. No shrinking violet was she? It's important that the Speaker stands up for the rights of Parliament and Democracy. At a time when Trump is emitting announcements of an outrageous nature every day, who knows what he might say. He's obviously still going off script in the USA and doing so badly. Yesterday, speaking to a military audience, he declared that acts of terrorism were occurring regularly and (deliberately) not being reported:
"All over Europe, it's happening. It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported" "And, in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. They have their reasons"
Trump is not a normal president. Not even an normal politician. Would you invite him to your house?

Way up thread, mawbroon said that there's a world of difference between inviting/not inviting someone to speak in parliament and banning them. Yes. Exactly. So why not just not invite Trump instead of rudely calling him names (whether he warrants those names is irrelevant; name-calling should be beneath the dignity of the Speaker of the House) and saying he wouldn't be welcome?

Bercow has overstepped the mark. He should be ashamed of himself for his silly virtue signalling.

Being invited to address our MPs is a privilege, not a right. This issue has nothing to do with preventing President Trump from having freedom of speech. It has to do with whether, at this time, he is a suitable speaker for MPs to give up their valuable time for. If all that is going to happen if, or when, he does get such an invite is to scold us all about how we didn't vote for Brexit, are letting in millions of terrorists as immigrants, not dressing appropriately as women or deliberately giving out false news because our journalists are so dishonest etc, I personally, do not think he should be invited at this stage to speak. Should he be invited I want to hear a real statesman like speech worthy of the chief leader of the free world. The notion that we must listen to him because he is now so influential to us trade wise (and that remains to be seen) makes us the junior, fore-lock tugging partner. I am not pleased that he has been invited over so soon and I muse on whether this was the bargaining chip for TM to be first to meet him of all world leaders. Presumably TM had run it past HM the Queen before going to issue the invite in the first place. Too much, too early in my view. As for Bercow, I have a lot of time for him and I don't want a Speaker who is a 'yes' person. The Speaker is supposed to be able to protect us from people who think they are above it all and that includes the Monarch. I do think on this occasion, although I agree with his stance, he could have tempered some of his language. Should he be replaced? Absolutely not IMO.

"May is not a law unto herself, whatever posters on here seem to think."

I don't understand your point.

My point is that, over several discussions on this forum some posters seem to have been baffled by the idea that May cannot do just what she wants to do. As have some of the media; witness the uproar when the government was taken to court over May's attempt to bypass Parliament by invoking A50 using prerogative powers.

Given the other heads of state most of us would not have allowed in that have been allowed to speak to both Houses it is clear that Bercow is unfit for the job.

You are not the only one, because I do too!
I expect Bercow is doing his usual grandstanding but hpocracy does come into it as well.

Maizie D

"She can't invite anyone to speak to Parliament."

Most posters have acknowledged that point and 'She' has not invited anyone to speak' has she? Do you have information so far to contradict what most posters are saying?

"May is not a law unto herself, whatever posters on here seem to think."

I don't understand your point.

Not my words Maizie on the BBC site, although a lot of posters here seem to think that she has done so.

The only thing I have seen online ( BBC news items) said that T May had not invited Trump to speak

She can't invite anyone to speak to Parliament. That is the role of the Speakers of the Lords and Commons (and A.N Other which I don't know about, not having heard Bercow's announcement). Parliament is Sovereign and May is as bound by its rules and conventions as is any other MP. I have no doubt that sugggestions can be made as to who to invite but only the Speakers can do the inviting. May is not a law unto herself, whatever posters on here seem to think.

Maizie D

'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."

You have very little understanding of the Rohingya Muslim genocide do you. This is NOT a recent issue in Burma/Myanmar.

I posted this:-

" 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."

My point is Bercow can use his position of Speaker to welcome a government known to be committing atrocities against it's people , yet he uses his position as Speaker to humiliate another stating 'racism and sexism'.

If you think Bercow was meeting the Myanmar/Burmese delegation to 'put pressure' on the government could Bercow not have taken the same position with the USA delegation?

I find it strange that I was recently called a Racist on GN yet I appear to be the only one that finds the hypocrisy of Bercow in fawning over the Myanmar delegation and his measured choice to humiliate a country that has been an ally of ours.

PS Personally, I feel this visit will not go ahead. The American Security Service will be too nervous about Trump's safety.

Well said Margs!

Trump has attacked the integrity of the judiciary thereby placing himself above the law. This is unacceptable in any democracy and should not be condoned. I believe the Speaker has made a relevant decision, he hasn't banned him, he just will not allow him to use our Parliament as a platform for his prejudice and lies.

Isn't grovelling to trump so we keep on side embarrassing the country?

Sorry it should read speech!

Sorry it should read speech!

Oh dear, Mr Bercow spoke a bit too openly, we all know what everyone things about President Trump, he wasnt invited to speak in the House, and may not be expecting to, but perhaps speaking in Westminster Hall, will be an honour for him, and in that, not embarassing the Queen, by him not being invited.
I think this will be a good move towards International relationships, and Heaven knows we need them.
As for Trump, my freedom of speach wont allow me to express myself, might ruin relationships!