OPINION: Are 'fascist' accusations directed at US president Trumped-up?

Such is the international outcry over Donald Trump’s immigration ban that hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets of major cities across the Western world to protest.

Apoplectic politicians practically fell over themselves in parliament on Monday to denounce Trump’s actions in signing an executive order which temporarily blocks travel to the USA for immigrants from seven “terror prone” Muslim-majority countries.

Trump’s handling of this has been characteristically crass, gaffe-strewn and undiplomatic in the extreme. It is no wonder at all that his actions have provoked such international condemnation and hostility.

But surely this has not come as a surprise to the millions of placard-waving, online-petition-signing, social-media-spouting onlookers?

President Trump is merely fulfilling one of his oft-stated election promises. He said he would place a ban on immigrants from certain countries. He’s doing just that; and he’s doing it in the way surely everyone would expect him to do it: arbitrarily and shambolically. President Barack Obama’s administration suspended processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, an action which Trump has compared to his own. But Obama didn’t impose a full travel ban - and there is the subtle difference (“subtle” being a word with which Mr Trump is clearly unfamiliar).

While the protests about the Trump travel ban gather pace, the accusations
and condemnations become more and more hysterical. And it is wearisome to witness the inevitable lowest common denominator standard of the debate which is being played out.

Godwin’s Law (which states that on any internet discussion thread, someone will inevitably mention the Nazis) kicked in immediately.

In the House of Commons on Monday, Labour veteran Dennis Skinner (the so-called “Beast of Bolsover”) declared Trump a “fascist”, comparing him to Hitler and Mussolini, while fellow Labour MP Mike Gapes likened prime minister Theresa May to Neville Chamberlain, calling her “Theresa the appeaser”. All very rough and tumble typical MP behaviour - and all very predictable.

But, as with so many hysterical reactions to things people don’t like, all this sound and fury ultimately signifies nothing.

Calling Trump a “fascist” might get the virtue-signallers of Twitter and Facebook retweeting and “liking” feverishly in agreement - but to what effect, realistically?

Trump may be brash, crass, bumptious and buffoonish, with as much tact, diplomacy and self-control as a five-year-old who’s been overdosing on blue Smarties, but the fact is that he is the democratically-elected leader of a sovereign nation state. He is not a “fascist”; he is not a dictator; and he is not a tyrant.

The good people of American voted Trump into power on November 8 - and no amount of placard-waving protesters in London can alter that. The American electorate are the only people who can alter that - and they have got four years to wait before they can do so.

“Not my president!” declared so many placards in Washington on Mr Trump’s inauguration day. Well, sorry loves, but he is.

He is the president of the United States of America; and, as such, he will come to the UK at some point this year for a state visit. And no online petition is going to prevent that – no matter how many outraged people sign it.

Trump will by no means be the most unpalatable leader of a country to make a state visit. But where were all the online (and indeed on-the-street) protesters when Xi Jinping, the president of China (that well-known upholder of democracy and human rights) paid a lavish state visit to the UK in 2015? Or when the King of Saudi Arabia visited on his state visit? Or when the tyrant Ceausescu of Romania dropped in?

Trump is the pantomime villain of the day – and he certainly lives up to his billing. He’s egregious, offensive and ridiculous. But he’s not the first foreign head of state to be so – and to be accorded a state visit to the UK.

His immigration ban is appalling. But America is a great friend and ally to the UK. And as such, its democratically elected leader will be welcomed by the Queen. It might be a word alien to Mr Trump, but it’s called diplomacy. And we Brits do it brilliantly.

READ MORE: The 48 per cent should lobby for a 'soft Brexit'

READ MORE: 2017 will be all about finding commercial opportunities in Copeland to replace lost revenue from the government

Let them – and us – eat cake

OFFICES are, apparently, becoming very dangerous places to work. Public health hazards, no less, if our esteemed civil servants are to be believed.

Not because of bad back-inducing office chairs, or the potentially brain-frazzling rays emanating from computer screens – no, it’s much worse. Communal cakes in the office are the culprits.

A Treasury official has told staff to be “mindful” of the potential harm
caused to colleagues by bringing in birthday cakes, leftover Christmas chocolates and the like.

The office cake culture, according to the official Civil Service Twitter account this week, could be a “public health hazard”.

Well, here at Evening Mail Towers, the office cake culture is thriving. There is a “usual place” for cakes, biscuits, chocolates and sweet treats from far-flung holiday destinations such as Blackpool.

Then there is the Friday Treats weekly tradition, where sweet things galore ease our way into the weekend.

As well, we have regular Bake Off competitions (fundraisers for the excellent Jo’s Appeal in honour of our much-missed colleague Jo Davies) which produce some creations which would earn a handshake from Paul Hollywood himself.

The office cake culture as a public health hazard?

Give us a break! In fact, give us a KitKat.

Mum’s no longer the word

THE phrase “political correctness gone mad” may be a cliche, but it’s the one that keeps on giving. This week’s entry into what is admittedly a very crowded field comes courtesy of the British Medical Association which has advised staff not to call pregnant women “expectant mothers” in case it upsets intersex and transgender men.

They should be referred to as “pregnant people” advises the BMA, because while “a large majority of people that have been pregnant of have given birth identify as women” (you don’t say, Sherlock...), intersex and transgender men may also get pregnant – and because of that surely minuscule sector of society, the phrase “expectant mothers” shouldn’t be used.

Did you ever her anything so daft?

Of course, it doesn’t stop there. The BMA suggests in its pamphlet to staff (issued last year but brought to the public’s attention this week) that “mankind” and “manpower” are to be avoided, “disabled lifts” should become “accessible lifts” and “family name” is to be ditched in favour of “last name”.

Really, it’s a wonder any of us dare open our mouths any more, there are so many ways of potentially offending people.

I wonder how long it will be before expectant mothers (sorry, pregnant people) are advised not to give their offspring gender-specific names such as John or Jane, just in case the future sprog decides to change sex later in life.

By LOUISE ALLONBY