The petition’s status at 2219 GMT on January 31: More than 1.75 million signatures.
Parliament will debate a petition demanding that the invitation for new US President Donald Trump to make a state visit to the UK should be withdrawn, after it received more than 1.75 million signatures.
A brief statement, emailed to signatories, runs as follows:
“Parliament is going to debate the petition you signed – “Prevent Donald Trump from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom.”.
James Slack, the political editor of the Daily Mail, is the frontrunner to become the new official spokesman to the prime minister.
If Slack is confirmed in the role, he will be following in the footsteps of his predecessor, James Chapman, who moved from the Mail to work for George Osborne. Chapman is now director of communications for the Brexit secretary, David Davis.
The Daily Mail has been a strong supporter of May since she announced her candidacy for the role of Conservative leader and prime minister, and has praised her dedication to Brexit.
Minsk Agreements have been repeatedly broken by both Russia and Ukraine and low-scale warfare continues in the European Union’s backyard in a conflict that has claimed [around] 10,000 lives [Image: AFP].
“The current escalation in Donbass is a clear indication of Russia’s continued blatant disregard of its commitments under the Minsk agreements with a view of preventing the stabilization of the situation,” Ukraine’s foreign ministry said in a statement.
Meanwhile Russia’s Foreign Ministry said Ukrainian government troops had launched deadly offensives on rebel positions and warned that the region was “on the verge of humanitarian and ecological catastrophe”.
Vox Political stands corrected with regard to the so-called ‘pro-Trump rally’, of which the picture above has been circulating on the social media.
It seems those of us who were led to believe it was a genuine rally in support of Donald Trump were hoodwinked; it was staged by two Muslims who most certainly do not support Mr Trump’s views.
They said they wanted to see of people opposing Trump would stand up for what they said they believed in.
But their comments indicate that they were subjected to physical and verbal abuse.
Is it really impressive that people were willing to lower themselves to bullying tactics to express their opposition?
If This Writer had been present, I would most likely have asked these two men if they were having a laugh. If they had denied it (which would have been a lie), what’s wrong with talking to them about it?
Sometimes you have to fight violence with violence but, when your opponents are just a couple of men holding signs, let us not forget the alternatives. Is that reasonable?
As hundreds of people marched on Queen Street in Cardiff, a short distance away two men held placards supporting Trump and calling for Muslims to be banned from the UK.
The two men were flanked by police officers and were confronted by anti-Trump protesters, some of whom tried to rip the signs from their hands and chanted “off our streets Nazi scum”.
But the men holding the placards – which read “Ban Muslims from UK” and “Let’s follow Trump” – are two Muslims from Cardiff.
Aiman Saif and Sanaan Akhter said they were carrying out a “social experiment” and do not share any of Trump’s views.
Law student, Aiman, 22, said: “We wanted to know if people would go to the extent of supporting their opinions with actions.
“Most people approached us and that shows people were enthusiastic about what they believe in.”
Aiman – who is Yemeni (one of the countries banned by Trump) – said some tried to rip the placards from their hands.
Someone shouted: “I’m telling you what a sick individual you are.”
And a group of friends started chanting “off our streets Nazi scum”.
Aiman said he was impressed with people’s reactions which proved people were willing to stand up for their beliefs.
Sally Yates, the former acting Attorney General, was fired by Donald Trump after she stated that the law required her not to enforce the President’s ban on refugees and on immigrants from seven Muslim countries [Image: Evelyn Hockstein for the Washington Post via Getty].
Sally Yates, the acting Attorney General, provided an example of what it means to work honorably for Donald Trump. It comes down to conducting yourself in a way that, in many cases, will result—that you know will result—in not working for him for very long.
Trump fired Yates after she refused to deploy Justice Department lawyers in defense of his executive order, issued on Friday, which bans people from seven Muslim-majority countries, and refugees from anywhere in the world, from entering the United States.
Yates … decided that her job, her official position, not her policy beliefs or even the dictates of her conscience, required that she defy the President.
She did so in a letter which notes … “My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts.
“At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.”
By daring Trump to fire her, and for doing her job until and despite his decision to do so, Yates made a powerful statement about the profession of politics itself.
But there is also, for those who form the moving parts of our constitutional machinery, a question of the duty one has—and to what, and to whom.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer [Image: Andrew Harnik/Associated Press].
Fascinating; and horrifying.
Trump’s top advisors on immigration, including chief strategist Steve Bannon and senior advisor Stephen Miller, see themselves as launching a radical experiment to fundamentally transform how the U.S. decides who is allowed into the country and to block a generation of people who, in their view, won’t assimilate into American society.
White House aides are considering new, onerous security checks that could effectively limit travel into the U.S. by people from majority-Muslim countries to a trickle.
Still, the countries of origin for perpetrators of several prominent attacks cited by [White House Press Secretary Sean] Spicer were not on the list of banned countries. Spicer and other administration officials said more countries could be added.
The chief architects of Trump’s order, Bannon, Miller and National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn, forged strong bonds during the presidential campaign.
The trio, who make up part of Trump’s inner circle, have a dark view of refugee and immigration flows from majority-Muslim countries, believing that if large numbers of Muslims are allowed to enter the U.S., parts of American cities will begin to replicate disaffected and disenfranchised immigrant neighborhoods in France, Germany and Belgium that have been home to perpetrators of terrorist attacks in Europe in recent years.
Within decades, Americans would have “the kind of large and permanent domestic terror threat that becomes multidimensional and multigenerational and becomes sort of a permanent feature,” one senior administration official argued.
Counter-terrorism experts have long noted that Muslim immigrants in the U.S. are better assimilated and less likely to be radicalized than immigrants in many European cities.
But the connection between immigration, security, economics and culture that defines the nationalist ideology of Bannon and Miller has become intertwined in Trump’s own rhetoric.
UPDATE: It turns out that this is embarrassing for Vox Political and possibly many other commentators, too. For the reason, see this follow-up story.
Oh, how embarrassing.
While tens of thousands of angry Britons clamoured to show their disgust at new US President Donald Trump’s decision to ban people from certain Muslim countries from entering his country…
A somewhat smaller group held a PRO-Trump – yes, you read that right: PRO-Trump – rally in Cardiff. Here it is:
Pro-Trump rally in Cardiff [Image: Adrian E].
As you can see, there were almost as many police as participants. In fact, This Writer isn’t even sure the person on the far right (ha ha) was anything to do with it. They may have been asking directions…
As the world came out to “Stand Up To Trump” on Monday 30 January, Nigel Farage was busy condemning the protests. On his LBCshow, the former UKIP leader called out the “anti-democratic” “hypocrites” protesting about Donald Trump’s so-called ‘Muslim Ban’. But some of his listeners were having absolutely none of it.
Farage began by discussing the so-called ‘Muslim Ban‘. The executive order by Trump will see travellers who are nationals or dual nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen stopped from entering the US for 90 days. Farage said:
As this was in his manifesto… frankly if you are opposing what Donald Trump has done you are against democracy and you’re against the democratic process.
Are you saying being in opposition and not agreeing with the current government is anti-democratic? Because that means you’ve been anti-democratic all the time. Being in opposition is part and the foundation of a democracy.
A state visit could include President Trump staying at Buckingham Palace as a guest of the Queen [Image: Getty Images].
Theresa May blunders again.
Her government’s “premature” decision to invite Donald Trump on a state visit to the UK means the Queen will be directly involved with the extremist politics currently being exercised by the new president.
An event at which Herr Drumpf may stay as a guest at Buckingham Palace could bring the Royals into disrepute through no fault of their own, but because of the clumsy machinations of our weakling prime minister.
How many of these humiliations must the United Kingdom be forced to tolerate?
Lord Ricketts, who was permanent secretary at the Foreign Office from 2006 to 2010, said it was unprecedented for a US president to be invited for a state visit in their first year in the White House.
He said the Queen would want to receive the president in a “celebratory, warm, friendly visit”, but a state visit at the moment would seem “quite controversial”.
It got the Queen directly involved with “this early turbulent period of the Trump presidency, when these controversial policies are being announced and so on,” he said.
“It would have been far wiser to wait to see what sort of president he would turn out to be before advising the Queen to invite him.
“Now the Queen is put in a very difficult position,” he said.
Obviously Donald Trump has never read Martin Niemoller. What would the good pastor have to say about the US president?
“First he came for the Muslims, and I took to the streets with thousands of others across the world in protest,
“Then he came for gay people, and I started to think stronger action might be needed..”?
Americans aren’t like Brits; they don’t take to the streets or vent their anger in a pub conversation and then forget about the issues that are harming their country.
If Herr Drumpf retains the oppressive policies he has already imposed – and adds to them – then Americans will push back hard.
What will he do then?
President Donald Trump is reportedly considering an executive order directed at the LGBT community that could lead to discrimination from federal workers and potentially hinder gays from adopting children, according to media reports.
The order could rescind a previous order signed by former President Barack Obama that protected members of the LGBT community from discrimination while employed with federal contractors.
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.