If attempting to develop trade deals with the new US administration or maintaining strong alliance with the US means the UK government is not able to articulate firmly our views on controversial US policy that flies in the face of these very values we’re supposed to share-not to mention International Laws/conventions-then the government is poorly representing these values and more importantly poorly representing the British people. I understand that since this press conference the PM May spokesperson said that the British government did “not agree with this kind of approach and it is not one we will be taking.” But again this in my mind is a very weak/reactionary response compared to one voiced by other European leaders and only demonstrates the feeble leadership at the helm of British politics at a very critical time in our history.

No Comments

  1. Response to Jean-Marie Schepens:

    Here is the problem with this approach;

    1. Banning people simply on the basis of country/religion violates multiple international laws/conventions including the Geneva Convention on refugees as well as human rights law that forbids discrimination on basis of religion or nationality.

    2. Justifying the ban on the basis of addressing terrorism is a flawed perception and a concept I do not accept as a matter of principle (Ends Justify the Means). Discriminating against minority communities that are particular vulnerable to racism & hate crimes only compounds the problem of terrorism and actually plays well into terrorists organization narrative and overall objectives. It also sets us onto a very slippery slope towards a level of racism/bigotry we have not seen since WWII and does nothing but complicate out efforts towards reforming our immigration/integration policies.

    3. Critical policies that affect our security but also impact our social cohesion requires detailed review by professional government bodies to assess viability/ramifications of such solutions and should not be rammed through the political system by executive order-not even considering legal implications or defining the processes/scenarios involved. Remember these are solutions that may seem short term but their impact are certain to be lasting.

    Just as a side note to say I was actually opposed to a complete open door policy on refugees at the start of the crisis and one of the reasons was my concern over security-to the extent of writing to the British PM at the time David Cameron. But when I see policy that does not make any sense whatsoever and gives the perception of racial/religious profiling-(particularly when considering previous Trump campaign rhetoric/and composition of the US administration team)-then I do have to take a stand as many did. We need prudent policy to enhance/reform and not panic politics to destroy.

    Finally, in terms of PM May, or any leader for that matter her primary obligation has to be to uphold/defend our democratic/liberal values as a nation. It’s not about leaving alliances but rather not mis-representing our values within such relationships. This is actually why after the public backlash due to her weak response on this ban she had her spokesperson provide a more firm response later that day, though as mentioned above I continue to be critical of that 2nd response.

Leave a Reply