Skip to content

Donald Trump Wins UK Parliament Debate On Banning Donald Trump… Without Even Being There

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Hundreds of years of parliamentary tradition, British expectancy over free speech, and indeed decades of the “special relationship” were tossed out of the window today as hard-line left-wing Members of Parliament, combined with virtue-signalling pseudo-conservatives gathered in a British Parliament committee room to debate banning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Some of the language – “Trump’s an idiot” – was quite unparliamentary. But what was MOST unparliamentary was the way in which MPs conducted themselves today, and the fact that the debate went ahead at all.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Because around half a million lefties signed a government e-petition, Parliament was forced to debate the matter. But when half a million people signed a petition to “Stop All Immigration” into the UK – it scarcely got any news coverage.

Instead, the political and media establishments of Britain today once again coalesced to lampoon themselves unknowingly, discussing why a U.S. presidential candidate should be banned for calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration to the United States.

I’ve already written about what a joke the premise of the debate was. But the proceedings were worse than anyone could ever have expected.

Notable were the thick Scottish accents, in the packed out Committee Room, slating Donald Trump for being a “bigot” and a “racist”. Many of these are the same Scottish MPs you’d often find in their constituencies slagging off the English. But that’s not racism. That’s patriotism, right?

But what concerned me most, as a man born into a Muslim family in Britain, was the clear abdication of any modicum of “Britishness” by the Muslim Members of Parliament in the chamber.

They whinged. They whined. “Islamophobia! Our feelings are hurt!”

And their contention was as follows: Ban Donald Trump because he’s making us feel bad.

Curtail centuries of Britain’s free speech laws to make an overtly political statement against not just Mr. Trump, but the millions of Americans who support him – to placate Muslims and Muslim MPs.

Do you see what’s going on here?

When Nigel Farage talked about a fifth column in the United Kingdom, he was hung out to dry by the media.

But there’s not just a fifth column in this country living amongst us. There’s a fifth column inside our parliament. And a fifth column at the heart of our democracy.

I fully expect that this year, London will elect its first Muslim Mayor – Sadiq Khan MP. This is a man who has, as a lawyer, defended Guantanamo Bay detainees, and represented the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan.

In the debate we heard from Tulip Siddiq, who the electorate of Hampstead sent to Westminster just last year – calling for Mr. Trump to be blocked from entering the UK.

I can’t help but feel that Ms. Siddiq has a few vested interests she didn’t disclose. Her aunt is the Prime Minister of Bangladesh – a 90 per cent Muslim country. And she herself campaigned for U.S. President Barack Obama, who has been notoriously soft on radical Islam – because that’s what the Left do for votes.

There was only one person in that committee room who came remotely close to making any sense today, and that was Kwasi Kwarteng MP.

Mr. Kwarteng couldn’t help but state that he wasn’t defending Donald Trump, but at least he realised the context in which Mr. Trump’s comments were made: on the back of the San Bernardino terror attack, in a country that has routinely paused the inward migration of certain races or nationalities due to homeland security threats.

Whether you believe this to be legitimate or not: it is important to remember. America is not Britain. They left us for that very reason.

“But isn’t STOPPING immigration AGAINST the liberties you’re trying to defend, Raheem?”

No. There are no RIGHTS to enter a sovereign nation state. You might find it culturally unappealing that a country would seek to restrict inward migration. You might even find it economically unappealing. But it doesn’t run counter to defending freedom.

Around 1776, we refused to take the steps necessary to oppose a form of tyranny applied to our brethren across a body of water: taxation without representation. Our brothers on the other side of the pond did it. And look what they created.

At the time, the move was thought of as “extreme” – but another U.S. presidential candidate had it right on such measures: “Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue” (Barry Goldwater).

Today’s parliamentary debate was deeply distressing for all freedom-loving Britons. It shows that Britain is still not willing to defend liberty. And with the namby-pamby words uttered by the so-called representatives of the people in the Palace of Westminster today – it is evident that there is very little virtue left at the top of our politics.

Hands down, Donald Trump won that debate. And he didn’t even have to be there.

Follow Raheem Kassam on Twitter

WATCH THE WHOLE DEBATE: 


Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.