Theresa the appeaser won’t condemn Trump’s #MuslimBan even when it affects her MPs
Theresa May and Donald Trump have turned their backs on the roar of outrage against his immigration ban. It seems their minds were on other matters [Image: Getty].
US President Donald Trump launched a purge against people entering the United States from seven Middle Eastern/Muslim nations (notably, not those with business ties to his own firms) – on Holocaust Memorial Day, proving either that he has no interest in learning from history or that he intends his presidency to be deliberately provocative against common decency.
The countries coloured red are those on which Donald Trump’s migrant ban has been inflicted. Those in mustard yellow are where he has done business or pursued potential deals.
This was the inevitable response to the selectivity of Mr Trump’s immigration ban.
UK Prime Minister Theresa May ignored calls on her to condemn this ban, which many consider to be disgustingly racist and bigoted, even though it has now been revealed that one of her own Conservative MPs will be affected by it.
Nadhim Zahawi, Tory MP for Stratford-on-Avon, who is a British citizen of Iraqi origin, has confirmed that the executive order – banning people from seven countries including Iraq from entering the United States for at least 90 days – does apply to him:
Had confirmation that the order does apply to myself and my wife as we were both born in Iraq. Even if we are not dual Nat.
— Nadhim Zahawi (@nadhimzahawi) January 28, 2017
So Mr Trump’s order adversely affects not only people from the Middle East countries he has named but also a UK member of Parliament and colleague of Theresa May, the UK Prime Minister – and she has nothing to say about it.
LOST: 1 spine
Owner: Theresa May
Last seen: prior to holding the tiny hand of a tyrant [Image: Dr Alex Gates on Twitter].
Because that’s what the UK does nowadays, under Tory Theresa’s rule. We support dictators.
Notice that Mrs May felt able to lecture Erdogan on his human rights obligations, something she never dared with Drumpf. This is because she is a typical bully, happy to threaten people she considers smaller than her but completely incapable of standing up to someone she thinks can hit harder than her.
Perhaps surprisingly, while Mr Zahawi has yet to criticise his leader for her silence, other Conservatives have already spoken up against Mr Trump:
https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/825407203003736064
https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/825409068546326528
https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/825409633024143361
Some supported this view of Mr Trump:
Bang on Sarah. You are speaking for many of us I'm sure. His beliefs on torture bad enough, today compounds this. https://t.co/DgVEqPlCjG
— Rt Hon Alistair Burt (@AlistairBurtUK) January 28, 2017
At least one has turned on her own leader:
Strong leadership means not being afraid to tell someone powerful when they're wrong. It's an ethos this country is proud of @theresa_may
— Heidi Allen (@heidiallen75) January 28, 2017
Meanwhile, the consequences of Mr Trump’s executive order have started to be felt across the States:
Let this sink in. There are green card holders who may have lived here for years, who upon returning home to US today we're refused reentry
— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) January 28, 2017
The green card holders were only allowed one phone call. Body search was a bit brutal. #MuslimBan
— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) January 28, 2017
Was just told of another Iranian student with multiple entry visa who was denied entry as she returned to the US from from Europe #MuslimBan
— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) January 28, 2017
Oh, and in case you’re wondering what all the fuss is about:
Just as White House officials tell reporters it isn't. (It is). https://t.co/BBwFINWQA2
— Simon Marks (@SimonMarksFSN) January 28, 2017
The son of the White House National Security Advisor is calling it a Muslim Ban pic.twitter.com/v6oIeggAlV
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) January 28, 2017
What a gift @realDonaldTrump has given to ISIS–to affirm their sick narrative that they are at war with an anti-Muslim America #MuslimBan
— David Ignatius (@IgnatiusPost) January 28, 2017
Lets be clear: The #MuslimBan does NOT make America safe, it only drags America's name through the mud. Making us LESS safe by dividing us
— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) January 28, 2017
The concern that the president has given terrorists a huge PR victory has been echoed by commentators including the New York Times.
Meanwhile, other world leaders have signified their own opposition to Herr Drumpf’s oppression, either by inviting refugees from the banned countries into theirs:
To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) January 28, 2017
Or by directly urging Drumpf to perform a policy U-turn and accept refugees from these countries:
#BREAKING French President Hollande urges US President Trump to 'respect' principle of accepting refugees
— AFP News Agency (@AFP) January 28, 2017
One national leader appears to have signalled his support, though:
President Trump is right. I built a wall along Israel's southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea 🇮🇱🇺🇸
— Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) January 28, 2017
Yes, indeed. By their actions shall you know them.
But let’s get back to Theresa the Appeaser: Considering the fact that Herr Drumpf’s order will affect UK citizens (Mr Zahawi is merely a prominent example), one can certainly agree with Tim Stanley:
https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/825428139123830784
And Emily Thornberry:
Yesterday PM's silence on Trump's abuse of Human Rights was shameful. Today it became sheer cowardice. So much for the Iron Lady
— Emily Thornberry (@EmilyThornberry) January 28, 2017
Also Angela Rayner, Francesca Martinez and all the others:
There's moments in life when you really get a chance to show what your made of. Today we've seen what T May is made of & I am disappointed 😔
— Angela Rayner 🌹 (@AngelaRayner) January 28, 2017
Appalling that Theresa May hasn't condemned Trump's disgusting rascism and ban on Muslim visitors.
Ashamed.
Thank God for @jeremycorbyn— Francesca Martinez (@chessmartinez) January 28, 2017
Mrs May’s silence on this vital matter has led to obvious speculation with regard to the other issue of paramount importance to the UK at the moment, and nobody can blame Harry for this thought:
After how Theresa May grovelled to Donald Trump & condoned through silence his human rights abuses she's not fit to lead us through #Brexit
— John Smith (son of Harry Leslie Smith) (@Harryslaststand) January 28, 2017
One opinion you won’t hear, though, is that of Theresa May – unless you count her cowardly claim that it is up to the United States to decide their own policy.
By her actions shall you, indeed, know Theresa May.
You’ll know that she is a bully, a coward, an appeaser and unfit to be the UK’s leader.
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
In fairness May has condemned it, or, at least, stated that she disagrees with it. It was on the Andrew Marr Show and news channels. The woman is the opposite of Cameron and by nature very cautious. Cool your jets, Mike.
She said the UK would not have done it, which is hardly a ringing condemnation.
Strictly speaking, what May’s doing isn’t ‘appeasement’ as such. Appeasement is making concessions in the face of threats, and that isn’t what’s happening, as Trump has not made any obvious threats against the UK. What May is doing is just as cowardly though, which is playing Trump’s sycophant, irrespective of how appalling his policies and behaviour become. We all know what May’s Government would be saying right now if, say, Vladimir Putin or Bashar al-Assad started policy programs of this type.
Oh, that’s it. Go right ahead and ruin a perfectly good nasty nickname for her! Don’t mind me!
How am I going to find a rhyme for “sycophant” in her name/titles?
Something to do with elephants maybe? May lies so much, an elongated nose sounds appropriate.
Mm… I think I’ll go look for a synonym for “sycophant” in my thesaurus!
What about p***ant?
No.
That word isn’t swearing
noun
1.
an insignificant or contemptible person or thing.
adjective
1.
worthless or contemptible.
I didn’t say it was.
It was Obama’s Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 which put those seven countries on the visa restrictions list! Well over a year ago! So there is no link with Trump’s business ties! Trump did not choose those seven countries Obama’s administration did.
Why didn’t he change them, then?
If he’s keen to keep terrorism out, then Saudi Arabia and the UAE should definitely be on the list.
I don’t know you would have to ask Trump’s administration that question. I am pointing out that it was Obama’s administration that put those seven countries on the list not Trump’s, hence the Bloomberg map above is misleading – and so is the quote below it
‘The countries coloured red are those on which Donald Trump’s migrant ban has been inflicted. Those in mustard yellow are where he has done business or pursued potential deals.’
The seven countries in red were already targeted for discrimination by the Obama administration by the Act in 2015 so how can that be connected to Trump’s business dealings? It is MSM misreporting the facts which in my opinion is dangerous!
Just because Obama did something, that does not make Trump right to push it to extremes.
The comments below the map are correct. Obama didn’t stop people visiting the US from those countries. Trump did. Trump has had business dealings with countries that were not included in the ban – but from which terrorists have travelled to the States. It is the fact that Trump has targeted the same seven countries and not included those from the group with which he had dealings that is being highlighted in that part of the story.
The facts weren’t misreported. You are trying to misrepresent them.
I am not misrepresenting the facts, the facts are not reported! The article does not mention anything about Obama’s Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 which put those seven countries on the visa restrictions list, declaring them ‘countries of concern’. So it should read: Obama’s list does not include countries that Trump has had business dealings with and Trump did not choose to add them, surely?
No.
I really think you should read my more recent article about this. I put it up just for you!
Do you mean your article titled: Similarities between Trump, Obama and Carter on Muslims are superficial. Don’t believe the ‘alternative facts’?
If so, I have not compared any of Trumps executive orders with any other former presidents executive orders. You have I have not. Also, I have not passed any judgement on his executive order or any other presidents executive orders! And if you can point out to me where according to you I am ‘claiming there is no difference between Donald Trump’s Muslim ban and apparently similar decisions by former presidents Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter.’?
What I am pointing out is that the article above does not state why those seven countries are in his executive order. It is because the department for Homeland Security under the Obama administration declared those very same seven countries as ‘countries of concern’.
By omitting this information your article reads as if Trump randomly picked these seven countries (and possibly because he does not have business dealings in them but does in other countries). I.e you write ‘US President Donald Trump launched a purge against people entering the United States from seven Middle Eastern/Muslim nations (notably, not those with business ties to his own firms)’.
This has nothing to do with comparing any presidential orders or the morals of any of them. You have compared them I have not. It is to do with not providing all the information in the story! You may not have realised about the seven ‘countries of concern’…hence why I wrote the comment in the first place!
Just noticed my comment from the 30th Jan 2017 at 7.34am is still awaiting moderation! A technical issue?
Yes. It’s called lack of time.
Hopefully I’ll get around to moderating as many comments as possible over the weekend, depending on what happens in the real world.
I should be grateful to you, I suppose, for encouraging me to look at the text of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 to check your claims.
Needless to say, you are mistaken.
The Act mentions only two of the seven countries in Mr Trump’s executive order – Iraq and Syria. The other five were added administratively by the Department of Homeland Security.
The Act was introduced to Congress by Candice Miller – Republican. Obama is a Democrat and therefore had nothing to do with it or the revisions.
In short, the Act you mention isn’t an Obama Act at all. It is a Republican Act.
If you want to criticise Obama, then you can only do so with regard to his executive order of 2011, relating to Iraq.
Knowing that it was under a Republican Act that those seven countries were chosen, it makes perfect sense that Trump would use them in his executive order. He didn’t randomly pick them; he was showing continuity with previous Republican legislation. Why that legislation didn’t mention countries with which he’d had dealings, we may never know. We do know that the list doesn’t seem to bear any relation to the origin points of terrorists who were known to have travelled to the United States.
So you did misrepresent the facts; Obama did not have anything to do with the legislation you mentioned; Trump’s political party did; and my question still stands – considering what we know about the origins of terrorists coming to the States, why didn’t Trump change the “countries of concern”?
Obama signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016, which includes the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 on the 18th December 2015!
You said: ‘The Act mentions only two of the seven countries in Mr Trump’s executive order – Iraq and Syria. The other five were added administratively by the Department of Homeland Security.’
At that time the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security was Jeh Johnson, he was nominated by President Obama to this position and was sworn in on Dec 23rd 2013. So when you later say:
‘Knowing that it was under a Republican Act that those seven countries were chosen, it makes perfect sense that Trump would use them in his executive order. He didn’t randomly pick them; he was showing continuity with previous Republican legislation.’
You yourself pointed out that the Act only mentions Iraq and Syria. Incidentally the Act also states ‘or any other country or area of concern’. The Department of Homeland Security then added the other 5 countries in 2016, the head of which was Obama’s nominee Jeh Johnson.
So Obama signed the Act into law in 2015, the Department of Homeland Security added the other 5 countries in 2016 under Obama’s administration. How can Trump who was not in public office at the time have had any realistic input into this? Your article suggested he picked those seven countries randomly over others and possibly because of his business dealings! Rather than it being those seven countries because they had been declared as ‘countries of concern’ under the previous administration (This is my point!). You keep drawing me into a debate about Obama, when all I was pointing out was the missing information in your article!
Your question: ‘considering what we know about the origins of terrorists coming to the States, why didn’t Trump change the “countries of concern”?’
I am not sure if he can just change the ‘countries of concern’. I believe the 2015 Act allows the Department of Homeland Security to add countries of concern. But the reason those seven countries were listed in 2016 (prior to the Trump administration) is because the Department of Homeland Security was concerned there was a risk that violent extremists could travel to the US from those countries due to their instability. See the following link:
Source: https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program/visa-waiver-program-improvement-and-terrorist-travel-prevention-act-faq
Anyway, I fear we are going in circles.
Yes, Obama signed the Act. Do you know of any rock-solid reasons he should not have done so? Remember, only Iraq and Syria were named in it and there had been provable threats from both countries. I cannot comment on the administrative additions because I don’t know the circumstances behind them. Neither do you, I’m prepared to say, otherwise you would have mentioned them. It’s still a Republican Act.
I did not try to draw you into a debate about Obama. If you look back at your own submissions, you will see that YOU mentioned Obama – right at the top of the very first comment you sent in.
As for Trump changing the countries of concern – this is an executive order. It can say anything he wants, and if he had added some of the countries from which terrorists have actually travelled to the US, then there might have been a little less protest about it. Don’t you think?
If we are going in circles it is because you are still arguing a lost point.