Freedom of speech

I do too annieb what I am less happy about was you slagging off my late MIL with your inappropriate and insulting comment.
However, "Nil nisi " is obviously a principle with which you do not agree . But I can accept that anybody can be having a bad day so venting your spleen might be understandable.

Capital punishment for being gay, lashing as a punishment for adultery, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honour killing. I can see how the values of much of the east are 'just different' from the values of much of the west!

07 February 2017

The Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler, made a statement to the House of Lords on 7 February 2017. The text is below.

'My Lords, I would like to make a short statement following the statement in the House of Commons by the Speaker there on a possible speech to Parliament by the President of the United States.'

'The procedure by which permission is given to speak in Parliament is long established. When the Speakers receive a request to invite a head of state to address Parliament, they both have to agree to issue an invitation, after consultation. The whole purpose is to seek consensus ensuring that both Houses have the opportunity to consider a request.'

'Yesterday in the Commons Mr Bercow said that he was opposed to the President speaking. I should make it clear that I was not consulted on that decision or its timing. However, the Speaker contacted me this morning. He told me that while he maintained his view on the issue he was genuinely sorry for failing to consult with me. Obviously I accepted that apology.'

'My view is that I will keep an open mind and consider any request for Mr Trump to address Parliament 'if and when'it is made.'

'I do not intend to argue the case for or against Mr Trump’s visit – that is not my role as Speaker. But allow me to say that I have spent the last 30 years campaigning against prejudice and discrimination, particularly for the rights of LGBT people and those with HIV/Aids. I would however like to make two further comments entirely on process. I stress that.'

'First, there will be other leaders coming to this country who may also be controversial. The procedure as it stands means that either Mr Speaker or myself can effectively veto any proposal for a visiting leader to address Parliament at least as far as Westminster Hall is concerned. I think it is for Parliament to consider whether there is a better way in which such decisions can be made.'

'Second, for the time being there may be a situation where one of the Speakers decides he cannot agree. Before we reach this point there should be, at the very least, some effort to reach consensus and a serious discussion on what the decision should be. I hope that we can now return to that previous practice.'

If he IS invited to speak (assuming he hasn't been impeached, shot or otherwise prevented from coming to the UK) let's hope MPs decide to stay away.
Freedom of speech is dangerous whichever side you take. Isn't inciting hatred against the law? and that's certainly what he does. We can't ban radical Muslim clerics yet give him a platform to air equally dangerous views just because he's a Head of State. No, I'm not arguing for the clerics.
So much for "the land of the free and the home of the brave."

"You may have heard Speaker John Bercow yesterday denied Donald Trump the right to speak in Westminster Hall when he visits the UK."

Fake news Quizqueen and it seems to be going the rounds. He did not refuse Donald Trump the right to speak, etc., he told Parliament that he will not be inviting him to address Parliament in Westminster Hall. To deny someone a right they must have it in the first place and nobody does when it comes to addressing Parliament in Westminster Hall unless they are invited to do so.

Well said Lord Fowler - thanks POGS.

Nigglynellie, yes I believe you are right! Ever since talk of britex started , there have been so many lies and false truths,
If this was a family ....It would be hell ! Everyone at loggerheads !
Yes those who Know the reality of where and how we will achieve it , are shouted down by the Big business icons who make excess money out of the EU, in fact the EU has trapped every MP into thinking HE or SHE can make a lot more money in the EU with excess bonuses ! And those business that cheat the public on a regular basis called fair price !
One only needs to look at Tony Blair ...Such a greedy man and so self-righteous !

If we chose to look back in history it is often the highly testerone fuelled politicians and warriors that rise to the top, they too were mysogynistic womanisers who were often more discreet with their conversations (until found out) Kennedy was a womaniser who brought us to the brink of war, Clinton was a serial adulterer, even the likes of John Major led a secret adulterous life. Why do their philandering and misdeeds now seem like storms in teacups compared to today? Because we weren't being blasted with the same levels of media force feeding as we are at the moment. Every image shows Donald Trump grimacing, just about every sound bite is a distortion or inflation of the actual and the gullible swallow it. One thing about Trump, he says it as he sees it right or wrong, not like a helluva lot of politicians whose political speak does not match their actions.
I consider DT the best of a.bad job, I certainly do not rate any of his potential replacements, they could potentially be more extreme than he.

Fake news Quizqueen and it seems to be going the rounds. He did not refuse Donald Trump the right to speak, etc., he told Parliament that he will not be inviting him to address Parliament in Westminster Hall. To deny someone a right they must have it in the first place and nobody does when it comes to addressing Parliament in Westminster Hall unless they are invited to do so
Exactly!!
So all these people getting in a stooshie about "withdrawn rights" or a"ban" or "free speech" should read the facts first, instead of getting the wrong end of the stick and then bashing all and sundry with it!

Joannewton46 well said and in total agreement

Tbf though a lot of people are getting in a stooshie because John Bercow failed to be impartial.The other Speaker has now accepted his apology for that.

And MawBroon, Bercow accepts that he shouldn't have spoken out as he did without discussing the matter with Lord Fowler first.

So he was in the wrong, whatever the whys and wherefores of what he actually said.

I do begin to wonder at the anti-Bercow prejudice shown on here, and what lies behind it.
I'm not a particular fan or foe. I think he is doing a good job of being Speaker. It was interesting watching him in action from the Strangers Gallery a few weeks ago. You can see the etiquette in action from there! Members must bow as they enter the chamber for instance.

I like John Bercow, and admire him for saying what he did. Good that he apologised to the H.o L. Speaker for being too impulsive.
He's been teased in the past about several things, including his stature, so the hero in this clip reminds me of him:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=li0qPwn4U8Y

The Speaker's role in expressing a public view is to express the view of Parliament, not just his own view. Bercow should have made some effort at consulting MP's if he really felt the need to go public on this, and for that reason Vernon Bogdanor, professor of govt. at King's College has made it clear that he considers Bercow to have acted unconstitutionally. No doubt he feels very strongly about this, but he should stick to the rules. Those who support him on this might think differently if a future speaker starts grandstanding against something they support.

Exactly, MawBroon. I watched it yesterday, and think Bercow did nothing wrong.
It has been suggested that there should be a vote of no confidence in Bercow, but he would win it.
Norman Fowler accepted Bercow's apology for not consulting him.
This really is a dead cat.
How can anyone claim that a member of KKK is not racist? It's well known that Trump is sexist.
However, much more important is the fact that Trump thinks he can get rid of anyone who disagrees with him. Equality before the law and an independent judiciary are very important in this country. Anyone who does not agree with that should not be invited to Westminster Hall. That's all. Doesn't matter who by.
Trump doesn't like free speech.

www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-vs-the-first-amendment/

This thread isn't about how awful Donald Trump is. Why don't you start a new 'Trump Presidency' thread?

Exactly Fitzy

Isn't there still an old Trump Presidency thread going Ana?

Fitzy54, we don't have a constitution.
I understand that the speaker only has to be neutral as far as anything domestic is concerned.

For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, it's easy to find on www.taxresearch.org.uk

www.taxresearch.org.uk

dj are you trying to allude that donald trump is a member of kkk
Is it definite that he is??

It's about freedom of speech, though.
Am I not allowed to say that as Trump doesn't allow freedom of speech, we should not allow him the freedom to speak in Westminster Hall?
Or is the idea of the right to freedom of speech for all too difficult for some people to understand?
If Trump wants freedom of speech for himself, he should allow it to others.

JessM says 'I do begin to wonder at the anti-Bercow prejudice shown on here and what lies behind it'
I think enough posters have already said it, Bercow is a bit of a show off, but went way beyond his job by speaking as he did, more to the point, instead of wondering about what lies behind Gransnetters views, I wonder what lies behind his outburst, a desire to punish the government for Brexit ( allowing a referendum) or something more?
He is very disliked I have read,by a great deal of Conservatives anyway.
He could have had his say when the time was appropriate.

No roses, it reached 1000 posts and has now disappeared off the Active list.