No People are Beneath Dignity - Except the Scots

I'll make a confession here.  I like LBC host, and founder of the Quilliam Foundation, Maajid Nawaz. On many subjects he is one of the clearest commentators and best minds I have ever encountered.  I like his tenet, "No idea is beneath scrutiny, no people are beneath dignity."

But when it comes to Scotland and Scottish politics?  Dear, oh dear.  Maajid does not know the first thing he is talking about, and often falls into the trap of accepting everything he reads about the Scottish independence movement at face value, while not scrutinising the facts, and adding his own sensationalist and inaccurate claims to stoke the fire.

So it was when he published an article on Unherd, he fell into exactly the same trap as other London-based commentators who understand neither Scotland nor the Scots, and demand a right to reply.

"the coronavirus is putting strain on the UK, as it is on other federations like the United States and Belgium"

Watch that word, "federation".  It will become important later.

"Yet it cannot be right that the Scottish National Party should subject the good people of these Isles to yet another nationalist, divisive, separatist “little Scotlander” referendum"

The view of most supporters of independence has never been a divisive one, but rather one which seeks to live side by side with England, with neither country interfering in the affairs of the other.  The word "separatist" is a deliberate smear, and one which Maajid should realise was first used by the Tories against the SNP.  As to "little Scotlander", nothing could be further from the truth.  There is an English Scots for Independence group, a great many English living in Scotland support and even campaign for English independence, and a great many people in England actually support an independent Scotland.  Are all these English people then "little Scotlanders"?

"kicking off a new round of an entirely unsolvable political bun-fight that will tear our country apart even further."

Firstly, it is not unsolvable; independence is the key.  And it will not tear "our country" apart, because the United Kingdom is not a country, but rather a collection of countries.  It is in fact a political federation.

"We’ve had the “once in a generation” referendum and the nationalists lost."

The "once in a generation" comments from Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon were their own personal opinions, nothing more.  There is nothing in legislation to set a time limit on any future referenda.  Besides which, the situation changed in 2016, when England voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU, and Scotland voted almost completely as one voice to stay in the EU, but is now being dragged out of the EU against our will.  Perhaps Maajid would like to explain how, when we won that particular referendum, it is in any way democratic that we are being pulled out.

"Should the SNP succeed next May, Westminster — Parliament for all the United Kingdom — should simply refuse to authorise it."

And I say if Westminster does that, you will never see a faster road to independence.  If there is one thing that Scots cannot abide, it's being pushed around and told what to do.  Besides, while the Westminster parliament is indeed the UK parliament, Maajid is patently unaware that in Scotland sovereignty rests solely with the people.  Therefore, if the SNP are successful next May, that would be the sovereign voice of the people of Scotland, and any attempt to ignore that voice would indeed be an imperialist move.

"Despite being a Remain-voting liberal, my views on a second referendum have attracted the sort of racism — from Scottish nationalists — that you would usually expect to receive from the far-right. In many exchanges with SNP supporters, I have learned that that Left-wing racism against people of colour is apparently acceptable, if we veer off an approved script."

Maajid supplies links to comments on Twitter, many of which are racist, which he claims to have come from SNP and independence supporters.  Some are indeed racist, and some are not.  And not all of them come from the Indy camp.  In fact, a search of those making the comments did show some were Scots.  And some were in fact English.  And some of them showed no evidence of being independence supporters.  See for yourselves:

https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1183798073300008962

I'll be the first to admit that some of the statements were indeed odious, and indeed racist, such as "trading on his religion and colour of his skin", "two bob arab" and "Uncle Tom" - and these rightly deserve to be condemned.  However, one person commented "go back to your cave", which Maajid is painting as a racist slur towards him.  In fact, the person who made that comment was replying to another Twitter user who calls themselves CaptCaveManPete.  References to Maajid being a terrorist, while inaccurate, are not racist, but rather are comments upon his own past, which he freely admits, when he was an Islamist extremist.  One person complaining that Maajid "slanders Corbyn" is hardly likely to be an independence supporter, as Labour were a unionist party under Jeremy Corbyn, and remain unionist to this day.  And references to imperialism are not racist either; by asserting that Westminster should refuse Scotland another referendum, I would suggest that Maajid Nawaz has indeed shown himself to be an imperialist.

"But, then, as surprising as English liberals may find it, Scotland is not the progressive paradise they like to believe — and  my anecdotal experience is borne out by wider concerns. Last year more than 80 public and professional figures signed an open letter warning that the struggle against racism in Scotland is “rolling backwards”, creating a climate of “resentment towards frank discussion of race and racism” that is threatening to undo progress on race equality.

It is significant that the signatories also highlighted a trend to “silence the voices of people in Scotland who face colour-based racism”. This letter came less than two months after Scotland’s national poet laureate Jackie Kay warned openly  that Scotland had to “grow up” as it was “decades behind” in its treatment of black and ethnic minority people."

There are actually few thinking people in Scotland deny we have a racism problem.  In fact, many of us in Scotland, both within and outwith the independence movemnt, have warned that the claim that Scotland "isn't a racist country" is dangerous.  And it is important to state this exists outwith the independence movement as well.  Maajid Nawaz tries to paint this as an SNP / Independence problem, when nothing could be further from the truth.  We in the Indy movement are ever cautious about bigotry, be it racism, anti-English bigotry, sectarianism, homophobia, transphobia, or whatever it may be, and contrary to what Maajid Nawaz claims, we act upon it quickly.

Take the example during the 2014 referendum campaign, when openly-gay Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson came under attack from an anonymous Twitter user with a tirade of homophobic abuse.  Despite the fact that many of us in the Indy movement disliked the politics of Ruth Davidson, we identified that individual within 24 hours, had him thrown out of both Yes Scotland and the SNP, and shamed him into phoning Ruth to apologise.  The message then was clear; we in the Indy movement do not approve of playing the man, not the ball, and we will act quickly to shame and distance ourselves from anyone who displays bigotry.

"Too often, when minority voices such as mine — children of the colonies, born in Britain — oppose the break-up of what we now consider our country, Scottish nationalists too readily seek to silence our voices by accusing us, instead, of being English “colonists”."

But as I have illustrated above, very few actually do so, and there is no proof that all of those making those accusations are SNP / Indy supporters.  For Maajid to generalise the entire Indy movement by a tiny minority is sensationalism worthy only of gutter press red top newspapers.

"Such rhetoric is not only overly antagonistic, it also displays a fundamental ignorance about why most ethnic minorities in Britain have expressed a preference for calling ourselves British over English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish."

And that is Maajid's choice.  Just as it is the choice of any ethnic minority person.  But there are equally a number of BAME people in Scotland who will call themselves Scots first.  And interestingly enough, Jackie Kay, whom Maajid mentions above, is one of those.  But another important point here is that even if Scotland were independent, he could still call himself "British", for in the broadest of terms, we are all "British", just as we are all "European".  Herein lies another important point; despite the 2016 EU referendum, despite Brexit being triggered, I still call myself a European, I always shall do, and I am proud to be such.  No referendum shall ever strip me of my right to call myself such.

"And while I embrace being both a non-Anglo-Saxon Englishman and a Brit, it is not easy for many of us to forget the nationalist-inspired violent racism levied against us growing up, and still present today."

Here Maajid Nawaz tries to equate the passive, nonviolent movement for civic nationalism to the aggressive, often violent nationalism of the political extreme right.  Trying to paint any such parallels is an absurdity.  If Maajid were to do his homework, he would actually find that those on the racist, nationalist extreme right are actually unionists, deeply opposed to Scottish independence, and have in fact at times used violence against peaceful Indy supporters.  Ask the 80 year old man who was pushed to the ground while campaigning for Yes, breaking his arm.  Ask the Bikers for Yes, who had tin tacks thrown across their route.  Ask the homeless woman in Glasgow who was kicked in the stomach by a Better Together speaker, who had ties to the BNP - while she was pregnant.  Ask the elderly man in a Yes cafe near to my home who had a bottle thrown at his head.  There are many, many more such stories of violence from the unionist far-right, which make ignorant comments on social media from a minority of Indy supporters pale into insignificance.

"For ‘progressive’ Scottish Nationalists to draw an equivalence between ethnic minorities who oppose their separatism and British colonialism, smacks of the very colonial privilege they seek to denounce."

Well, for a start the important phrase Maajid Nawaz uses here is "British colonialism", for Scotland is not a colony of England, and never was.  Scotland and England entered into an all-encompassing union of two nations in 1707, which was supposed to be a union of equals.  However, when one nation is much larger than the other, that was never going to be equal.  And for Maajid to use that phrase highlights his own ignorance of history and the constitutional position of Scotland within the union.  But then, so does his assertion that Westminster should refuse the sovereign voice of the Scottish people.  Whether he likes it or not, Maajid Nawaz has indeed condemned himself as a UK establishment imperialist.

"The fact of the matter is that Scottish colonists profited greatly from the creation of the British Empire. Scotland’s debt to Empire is her dirty little secret, seldom acknowledged but ever-present. The “tobacco lords” of Glasgow were enriched by slavery in the Americas and Africa, while a quick visit to the former North British Rubber Company in Edinburgh serves to disabuse most naysayers suffering under such a false sense of righteousness."

Actually, those of us within (and outwith) the independence movement in Scotland are painfully aware of the part that Scots played in the building of the British Empire.  But note here that the history mentioned by Maajid has absolutely nothing to do with the call for independence, and never did.  When Glasgow was the shipbuilding centre of the world, it was known as "The second city of the Empire" (after London).  I sincerely doubt that the rich and the gentry who ran those businesses would have ever wanted an independent Scotland, as it would have meant their gravy train hitting the buffers.  So for Maajid to labour this history is absolutely pointless.

Plus, let's add where the Scots suffered under the British Empire.  Before the Battle of Quebec in 1759, General Wolfe rode up to the only Scots regiment there, and stated, "We'll send you in first.  If you fall, it's no great loss."  There are many would argue that in most cases of conflict, Whitehall ever since has adopted a "General Wolfe mentality"; sending the Scots into battle situations first.  This is why you find evidence of Scots regiments all around the former British Empire.

"The pernicious narrative peddled by Scottish nationalists that England colonised Scotland, and then the rest of the world — and so England must even now be resisted in Scotland — sounds suspiciously like an act of whitewashing Scottish culpability, at least to the ears of this descendant of a former colony."

Except that nobody in the independence movement has ever said such, and if they have, I invite Maajid Nawaz to supply the evidence for such.

"This is not something SNP supporters like to hear, but SNP supporters have gained a reputation for intimidating critics."

A reputation which has been overplayed by the London-based media, which has generalised us all on the actions of a tiny minority.

"Recently, BBC News Scotland Editor Sarah Smith learned the hard way why Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has earned the nickname “Nippie Sweetie” for adopting the  “aggressive and adversarial approach of male politicians” early on in her career."

Maajid Nawaz supplies a link to a column in The Scotsman here, and had he chosen to read it, he would have found Nicola Sturgeon explaining why she adopts such an attitude; it is because she is a woman in politics, and as such has had to adopt a strong line to make herself heard.  Is Maajid perchance suggesting that Nicola Sturgeon, as a woman, should be subdued and passive?  Sexist much?  Maajid?

"Ms Smith had made the admitted error of accidentally describing Sturgeon as  “enjoying the opportunity” to shine during lockdown, instead of saying that she was “embracing” the challenge. Ms Sturgeon’s supporters were not happy to say the least, and an online pile-on inevitably ensued. Ms Smith, though, was quick to push into reverse gear, her resultant climbdown being perhaps the swiftest and most complete of any journalist in recent years, to my mind. Scotland’s BBC chief was so remorseful, in fact, that she felt the need to issue no fewer than four swift back-to-back apologies online to Ms Sturgeon, with one of them remaining pinned to her profile page for days. Ms Sturgeon regally confirmed that she accepted her apology."

Actually, what we objected to was yet another BBC reporter using biased, innacurate language, when the BBC is supposed to be unbiased.  It was not at all helped by Sarah Smith changing her wording from "enjoying" to "embracing", as that was no apology at all.  Nicola Sturgeon herself said she neither "enjoyed" nor "embraced" reporting the deaths of people on a daily basis.  And contrary to what Maajid Nawaz is suggesting here, when Sarah Smith did apologise properly, it was then, the same day, that Nicola Sturgeon tweeted that she accepted the apology, and for her the matter was closed.  After that it was only a tiny number of hotheads who tried to keep it going, but it fizzled out within days.

"So wouldn’t it be lovely if Nicola Sturgeon also apologised for, and investigated, the racism present among all too many of her online supporting trolls?"

Actually, the SNP and the wider Indy movement do in fact often expose bigots, and Nicola Sturgeon and others in the SNP have stated, many times, that there is no room for it.  It is the London-based media, including Maajid Nawaz and LBC, who fail to highlight or publish that fact.

"While it is true that Ms Sturgeon is not personally responsible for the behaviour of her supporters, such racism appears not to be a mere bug for the SNP, but may well be a feature. Indeed, just because a nationalist party identifies as being on the Left, it does not mean that an undercurrent of racism cannot be found beneath all the cuddly talk."

Indeed.  And were it actually a serious undercurrent, which drove the movement, then I would be first to condemn it, and would even stand against it.  But this is not the case.

"Historically, many nationalist parties and nationalists have started on the Left, from the French Revolution onwards; indeed one of the most famous of 20th century nationalists, Benito Mussolini, was on the National Directorate for the Italian Socialist Party, before he turned rightward to fan the flames of nationalism."

Here Maajid Nawaz tries the old trick of trying to equate the political left with the far right, and you'll notice he again tries to condemn nationalism, and thereby equate civic nationalism with racist nationalism.  I have heard him do the same on LBC, pointing out that the Nazis were "National Socialist", and that Oswald Moseley left the Labour Party to form the British Union of Fascists.  It is a disingenious distinction, worthy only of those with a childish grasp of political theory, which is completely unworthy of comment.

"Violent hostility to outsiders and critics is in the DNA of nationalists, whether on the Left and Right, as anyone who has debated with SNP can testify to. When that outsider has different colour skin the rage seems to be heighted."

But that is not the case in civic nationalism, and to try to equate us with the very people who are violently opposed to us, extreme right nationalists, simply does not hold up to one moment's scrutiny.  It is a derisory attempt to smear us along with the far right as "all nationalists are the same".  Would Maajid not agree that one of the biggest causes of bigotry is making sweeping generalisations - as Maajid has just done here?

"As party leader, it is Nicola Sturgeon’s duty — not mine — to make minorities feel safe from the racism of too many of her supporters. And until she can do so, do not be fooled by the progressive overtures of this SNP. For too long commentators of all persuasions have harboured a policy and ethical blindspot for Scotland’s nationalists, viewing them as polar opposites to English nationalists, rather than their counterparts."

There is a dictum which I embrace in my life, and that is that the burden of proof lies upon the claimant.  Maajid Nawaz has made claims here that minorities are not safe in the SNP, or by extension Scotland, and that we in the Indy movement are no different from extreme-right English nationalists.  Yet he offers absolutely not one shred of evidence to back up those claims.  And no, I don't mean a few hand-picked Tweets, not all of which came from Scots Nats, not all of which were racist, and not all of which in fact came from Scots.

"We should beware the kid gloves with which metropolitan opinion formers treat the SNP. Their party machine is curiously similar to Momentum, and much of what we would never tolerate from Corbyn now rules in Edinburgh. As such, they are riddled with all the trappings of power, while harbouring a nasty, illiberal and authoritarian streak."

I live in Edinburgh.  Essex boy Maajid Nawaz does not. The SNP are nothing like Momentum, and they are neither illiberal nor authoritarian.  The fact is the only reason that the SNP have been in power in the Scottish Parliament since 2007 is because the people of Scotland have voted consistently for them.  Just as out of the 59 MPs Scotland sends to Westminster, 47 of them are SNP, and of the six Scottish MEPs, 3 of them are SNP - because the Scottish people voted for them, which is their sovereign right to do so.  It's not Nicola Sturgeon's fault, not mine, and not through "a nasty, illiberal and authoritarian streak" that Maajid's party, the Lib-Dems, was beaten into fifth place, behind the Scottish Greens, at the last Scottish Parliamentary election.

"Alarm bells should be ringing now, lest after lockdown we enter blindly into yet another experience like the three years before the virus struck.

And if you thought Brexit Britain got bad, just wait until Scexit."

Except that Brexit was deliberately planned to create discord between people by Brexit supporters, and did indeed create a lot of ill feeling - even among families.  The 2014 independence referendum did not create the same sort of division, no matter what the London media would have you believe.  I have friends and even family members who are unionists, and the fact that we have differing political viewpionts does not stop me loving them any less.  In fact, if anything there is a much greater acceptance and tolerance of differing viewpoints here in Scotland.

And if Maajid Nawaz lived in Scotland, rather than bumping his gums from his home in London, he would know that, and a great deal more about things he patently had no idea of which he is talking about.

No people are beneath dignity, Maajid - including the people of Scotland.

Link to Maajid's article below:

https://unherd.com/2020/05/the-racism-lurking-behind-scottish-nationalism/

An Open Letter to Ruth Davidson

Dear Ruth,

I today received a shameful Scottish Conservatives leaflet, written by you, "We need to send Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a message they CAN'T ignore".

In this leaflet, you claim "The SNP promised the 2014 independence referendum would be a 'once in a generation' vote." and accuse the First Minister and her party of breaking that promise.

In fact, no such promise was ever made. Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon both gave their opinions that the vote should be a once in a generation event. You and your party have continually tried to twist these opinions to make them sound like SNP policy, which they never have been.

Not two weeks ago your boss, Theresa May, was saying there would be no General Election until 2020. Was that a promise? And if so, is that now a broken promise?

You say "Nicola Sturgeon is demanding another independence referendum". In fact, in 2015 Scotland sent 56 out of 59 MPs to Westminster, whose goal is Scottish independence. Nicola Sturgeon stood for election as First Minister in 2016 on a mandate to seek a second referendum on independence, and the majority of the Scots electorate voted in an SNP government on that understanding.

And while we are on about broken promises, in the run up to the 2014 referendum, the Scots electorate were told that staying in the Union was the only way to stay in the EU.  The subsequent vote to leave the EU, opposed by 62% of the Scots electorate across all 32 local authority areas, gave a distinct change in constitutional matters, which gives even more impetus for the importance a second referendum on independence.

If the Scots electorate do not want a second referendum on independence, then the continued popularity of the SNP is a very strange way of showing it.

You say "We need to send her a clear message - we don't want another vote on independence." And who do you quote on that? The Scottish Daily Express, the Scottish Daily Mail, and the Scotsman; three newspapers known to be extremely sympathetic to the Conservative Party and Unionist views.

You say "Only the Scottish Conservatives can be relied on to send that message", and supply headlines of Jeremy Corbyn, saying it should be held, a "Labour Deputy" saying they would not stand against it, and Nick Clegg warning against trying to block it.

Have the Conservatives learned nothing from the 1990s, when yours was the only party to completely oppose a referendum on devolution? That referendum went ahead despite Tory opposition - and ultimately gave you the post which you hold today. Now that senior political figures are saying that a second independence referendum should be held, do you not think it would be wise to listen to them? Or are you intent on being on the wrong side of history yet again?

On the rear of the leaflet you say "her government should get back to the job they were elected to do - improving our schools and hospitals and growing our economy".

That would be the Scottish schools which are doing better than their counterparts in England in the core subjects, in a Scotland which is the best educated country in Europe. The Scottish hospitals which are outperforming hospitals in England. And yes, the Scottish economy did fall, along with the rest of the UK, in the wake of the EU Referendum. Yet Scotland has the lowest unemployment in the UK, and businesses continuing to start up and locate in Scotland. The Scottish economy is in fact doing rather well, despite the Westminster and the Union holding it back from its true potential.

When I look at the way that Westminster is mismanaging education, health and the economy, compared to Holyrood, I know which I prefer.

You say "Week in, week out, we will continue to demand the SNP drops its obsession with independence." Go ahead. And you will only make people sick to death of your continual one-issue parroting. It will be about as effect as your petition to block a second independence referendum was; not at all.

You then state that you will challenge the SNP to deliver "better public services, safer streets, and more jobs", while conveniently failing to mention that Scotland has excellent public services, crime is at an all-time low in Scotland, and - again - unemployment in Scotland is lowest in the UK.

But then, neither do you make any mention, nowhere, not once in the entire leaflet, the policies of the Scottish Conservatives on any of these issues.

All you have is negativity. All you can do is keep whinging about a second independence referendum. And given that we have local authority elections in May and a general election in June, for you to fail to make any mention of what your policies are on any of the above, indeed no mention of any Conservative policies at all, is utterly despicable.

And here's the rub, although I do want a second referendum on independence, I am not even a member of the SNP, or any political party for that matter. As such, I was completely turned off by your leaflet and all the negativity it contains. I am only writing this before I put your leaflet in the bin, which is the only fit home for it.

This is one voter you have completely failed to reach, and have only made all the more determined to vote for the SNP; who are delivering upon their election promises, despite the Westminster government doing their utmost to try and stop them doing so.

If you had any courage of your convictions, you would not oppose a second referendum on independence. That you are so vociferously against it suggests to all is that your real fear is that it would deliver a resounding YES for an independent Scotland.

If you are so sure Scotland does not want independence, put your money where your mouth is, persuade the Prime Minister to allow a second referendum, and allow the people of Scotland to decide.

Yours faithfully,

A well-informed Scot

Ban the Bum

Land of the. . . ???

Trumpeters answers questioned.

On Friday, 27 January 2017, US President (I baulk to call him that) Donald Trump signed an Executive Order banning travel visas from seven mostly-Islamic countries, which came into effect at 4:42pm Eastern Time the same day. I am sure it was purely coincidental but in a supreme irony 27 January was also Holocaust Memorial Day.

The Executive Order indefinitely bans Syrian refugees from the USA, suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days, and blocks entry for 90 days to travellers from the seven named countries.

The seven affected countries are;

Iran

Iraq

Libya

Somalia

Sudan

Syria

Yemen

The immediate effect of the ban caused chaos with flights and arrivals at airports in the USA. There were reports of hundreds of travellers arriving in the USA being detained in airports, while many about to travel to the USA from abroad were refused to fly, or even taken off planes before take-off. To add to the confusion, this included students, visitors and green-card-holding legal permanent United States residents from the seven countries. Some who had entered the USA were indeed refused entry and sent back to where they came from. Two Iraqis who had worked as interpreters for the US military were held in JFK airport, and as they were not legally on US soil, were refused access to legal representation.

On Saturday a Federal Judge in Brooklyn blocked part of the order, ruling that refugees and others being held at airports across the United States should not be sent back to their home countries. Three other Federal Judges in Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington soon followed suit, and the Massachusetts judge ruled that authorities could not detain travellers. The Department of Homeland Security agreed to comply with these rulings. On Sunday Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said that Green Card holders would not be prevented from returning to the USA “going forward”, but also added that border agents had “discretionary authority” to stop and detain any travellers – including US citizens - to additional questioning and scrutiny, should they have been to any of the seven countries mentioned in the executive order.

The ban led to huge protests in the USA and around the world. Here in the UK a petition to cancel the announced state visit of Donald Trump attracted in excess of 1 million signatures. Largely seen as an anti-Islamic move, the Trump administration has claimed it is not. It is not, but more of that later.

So, what is the rationale behind the ban, and just why has Trump implemented it?

The ban is to prevent international terrorism and keep US citizens safe.

The logic from this is that the countries affected present a terrorist threat to the USA. In fact, there has never been one terrorist attack in the USA from any citizen of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen.

Compare this to the nineteen Al Qaeda terrorists who perpetuated the worst terrorist attack in history on 9 September 2001, in the USA, with the immediate loss of 2996 lives, and the subsequent deaths of over 1000 due to effects from the attacks. Of the nineteen attackers, 15 came from Saudi Arabia, two from United Arab Emirates, one from Lebanon, and one from Egypt. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, and Egypt are not at all affected by the ban and anyone on passports from these countries may travel freely to – and even claim asylum in – the USA.

Likewise nobody would deny that the greatest terrorist threat today comes from the brutal Islamic State (IS) group. The current hotbed of IS recruitment is Tunisia, which likewise is excluded from the executive order. As are other countries which recruit Islamist terrorism, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Algeria.

But intelligence and experience show these countries are most likely to produce terrorists.

And where else have there been terrorist attacks in recent years? Ooh, let's try the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Turkey, and almost a daily occurrence in Israel. In the majority of cases, the terrorist attacks have come not from immigrants or asylum seekers, but rather from nationals of those countries. So based on that argument, all these countries should be included as a danger to US security – including Blighty.

Ah, but those attackers were the children of immigrants or asylum seekers.

In some cases they were, in some they were registered citizens of the countries they attacked. And indeed, with regard to the USA, there is one particular case which defeats this argument. Richard Reid, aka the Shoe Bomber, is a white, culturally Christian, English man, who converted to Islam, became radicalised, and attempted to ignite explosives packed into his shoes on a flight to Paris to Miami. Yet I still don't see either the UK – or France – on that list.

Omar Mateen was a home-grown US Islamist terrorist who shot dead 49 people in the Pulse nightclub in Florida, before being shot dead. His parents emigrated from Afghanistan, which is not on the list. It is also worth pointing out that Omar Mateen was a very disturbed young man, who was a regular customer of the Pulse nightclub, and his killing of 49 mostly Latinx people had much more to do with his own deeply closeted homosexuality than any religious convictions.

Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik carried out a mass shooting at the Inland Regional Centre in San Bernardino, California, on 2 December 2015, killing 22 and injuring 14. They fled in an SUV and were later both shot dead in a police shootout. Farook was a Chicago-born US citizen and the son of immigrants from Pakistan. Malik was born near Islamabad, Pakistan, had lived most of her life in Saudi Arabia, but was a lawful permanent resident of the USA. Neither Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia are among the banned countries.

Brothers Tamer and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who carried out the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombings, killing three and injuring 16 others, were naturalised US citizens, born in the Kalmyk Republic (part of the Russian Federation) and Kyrgyzstan respectively, both are half-Chechen but identify as Chechen. Kyrgyzstan is not on the list of banned countries - and neither is Russia, for reasons best known to Donald Trump.

The Executive Order was instituted on powers already there, instituted when President Obama banned Iraqis from entering the USA in 2011.

Except that President Barack Obama never instituted any such ban against entire nationalities in 2011. In fact, there never was any outright ban – merely a bureaucratic mess.

Here is exactly what happened. Two Iraqi refugees in the Bowling Green, Kentucky were arrested in May 2011 on charges of Federal Terrorism charges. Informants had told the FBI that one of the men, Waad Ramadan Alwan, had previous to fleeing to the USA, constructed improvised roadside bombs in Iraq. Alwan was fingerprinted, and his prints matched those on part of a cellphone which had been used to detonate one such bomb in 2005. The other refugee, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, was convicted of providing material to Al Qaeda, possession and export of Stinger missiles, and making a false statement on an asylum application.

The arrests led to demands in Congress to re-examine the records of Iraqis settled in the USA, and the Obama administration pledged to do so. This entailed going through the records of some 58,000 Iraqis already settled in the USA, while more stringent background checks were imposed on new applicants. The USA was still involved in the Iraq War at the time, and with them looking to pull out at the earliest opportunity, there was a rush of such applications from a great number of Iraqis.

The result of re-examining visa applications, some Iraqis already settled having to re-apply, some still in Iraq having to re-apply, while all the time new applications were pouring in - under new, more thorough rules - led to a logjam which the State Department's National Visa Center struggled to cope with. In September 2011, Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano if a hold had been placed on Iraqi visa applications. Napolitano replied;

"with respect to the 56, 57,000 who were resettled pursuant to the original resettlement program, they have all been revetted against all of the DHS databases, all of the NCTC (National Counter Terrorism Center) databases and the Department of Defense’s biometric databases and so that work has now been done and focused... ...Now I don’t know if that equates to a hold, as you say, but I can say that having done the already resettled population moving forward, they will all be reviewed against those kinds of databases.”

So, there never was a hold on visa applications for six months, only a bureaucratic jam caused by exceptional circumstances. And it was one Republican senator who asked if there was a hold, but the reply given was ambiguous, and does not confirm a hold.

Former Obama administration official Jon Finer stated in Foreign Policy;

“While the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.”

Eric P Scwartz, who was Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration in 2011, told the Washington Post;

“President Obama never imposed a six-month ban on Iraqi processing. For several months in 2011, there was a lower level of Iraqi resettlement, as the government implemented certain security enhancements. Indeed, as we identified new and valuable opportunities to enhance screening, we did so. Nobody should object to a continual effort to identify legitimate enhancements, but it is disreputable to use that as a pretext to effectively shut down a program that is overwhelmingly safe and has enabled the United States to exercise world leadership. In any event, there was never a point during that period in which Iraqi resettlement was stopped, or banned.”

Notice that both men, in separate journals, have stated the resettlement of Iraqis did indeed continue during the six month delay in processing visas. Now, either both of them are lying – or Trump's administration are lying. I know which I am going with.

But even had there been a ban, notice that the Obama administration targeted individual visa applicants. They never, not for one moment, ever placed entire nationalities, or all citizens of chosen countries, regardless of background, under suspicion of terrorism.

And even had there been call to do so, it would be because the USA was still involved in war in Iraq, which would indeed be grounds to trigger a suspension of travel into the USA from hostile countries. The USA is not at war with any of the countries on the list, and the Trump administration therefore has no legitimate nor justifiable trigger.

The ban is temporary – only for 90 days.

Try reading the Executive Order. Syrian refugees have been banned indefinitely, that ban being lifted is cognisant on the President himself. The US refugee program in it's entirety – not just among the targeted countries but affecting anyone from all around the world – has been suspended for 120 days. The 90 days applies only to the seven named countries.

There is no guarantee however that the 90 day limit may not be extended, or the 120 day ban on all entries, or that more countries may not be included in the ban.

Trump has also reduced the number of refugees to be allowed into the USA in 2017 by more than half; down from 110,000 to 50,000.

This is not a Muslim ban.

Screenprint from Trump's campaign website

No, it's not, I agree. It does not ban all Muslim-majority countries, and there are some Islamic countries which Donald Trump actually has business dealings with. Not least of which is Saudi Arabia – where most of the 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorists came from, and where there are 'charities' within the Wahhabi Muslim sect, which are nothing more than fronts for funding Islamic State terrorism.

So, does this mean that The Donald is this kind wee soul, with no religious prejudices, who embraces peoples of all the world's religions? Hmm. Let's see what he actually said in his presidential campaign.

This is a statement taken from Trump's presidential campaign website, donaldjtrump.com, which is actually titled “Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration”:

“(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

On exactly the same page, Trump himself is quoted as saying;

“Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

Notice he even said “Without looking at the various polling data” - so he was willing to actually ignore the facts. Well nothing new there. But there we see that Trump's own website specifically called for a “shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”.

That specifically targeted an entire religion. Therefore, while the ban is not a Muslim ban per se, it was and remains based upon and deeply-steeped in the populist anti-Islamic rhetoric which US citizens have been fed by right-wing politicians and their media mouthpieces ever since 9/11.

So did he have a change of heart and open his arms to Muslims? Nope, Trump simply could not have issued an Executive Order to ban all Muslims from entering the USA, because to do so would have contravened the First Amendment of the US Constitution;

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Had Trump instituted his Executive Order banning travel visas based solely on the Muslim religion, he would have effectively have established a law prohibiting the right of Muslim refugees to enter and to continue to follow their faith. To do so would have been unconstitutional, and he would have been out of the White House so fast that his feet wouldn't have touched the ground.

So instead he went for countries with Muslim-majority populations, and this has created it's own problems. Due to the ban, Christians seeking asylum from the named countries have been refused entry to the USA, in some cases sent back to their country of origin, or stopped from getting on flights in the first place.

The persecution of Christians in Islamic countries is an all too often ignored 'hidden' shame in many Islamic countries, where they are subjected to many atrocities, including being lashed, having limbs cut off, eyes gouged out, beheaded, hanged, or burnt alive. Among some of the worst countries guilty of carrying out atrocities against Christians include Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – the seven countries upon which Trump has placed a blanket ban on entry on all citizens. Oh, the irony that many 'good Christians' voted Trump in, and he has now just condemned many Middle-Eastern Christians to the tender mercies of the fundamentalist Islamist authorities in their countries of origin.

And of course, it is not just Christians this affects. Followers of other faiths are equally persecuted in these countries, as are atheists, and even those Muslims brave enough to speak out or write about the wrongs those in charge are doing in the name of Islam. By issuing a blanket ban on visas, Trump has condemned them all, and now that some may have tried to leave, the authorities in their home countries will know just who they are, and the outlook for all these 'dissenters' and 'infidels' looks very bleak indeed.

Nor will this ban stop anything to stop Islamist terrorism. We have seen in living memory just how much ill-treatment by the west has actually driven terrorism in the Middle-East, which has spread to Muslims in the west. By instituting a ban, Donald Trump, far from defeating IS, has just handed them one of the best recruiting tools they could ever have wished for. It will not be lost on those who indoctrinate young minds with fear and hatred of the west, particularly the USA – the 'Great Satan' as the Islamists call it – just how it has 'shunned' the Muslim people, and by extension, has insulted the Islamic faith and it's prophet. And once those minds are groomed and indoctrinated, there sadly can only be one inevitable outcome of that; more Islamist terrorist attacks, not less.

And as we have seen from Orlando, Boston, and San Bernardino, that need not come from outwith the USA, certainly not from the banned countries, but in the case of Saudi Arabia, is much more likely from a country which is a close US ally, and one which Donald Trump happens to have a lot of business dealings with.

Neither does this ban do anything to stop the incidents of domestic terrorism which take place within the USA, often carried out far-right extremists who profess to be Christian. Trump's election victory saw a sudden surge in racist and religiously-bigoted hate crimes. The FBI reported that in 2015 hate crimes against Muslims surged to 67% - the highest since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Jews remained the highest proportion for hate crimes at 53%, and there were 1,053 hate crimes regarding sexual orientation, 19 percent of which were committed against gay men. Where hate crime attacks result in fatalities, they are rarely reported as terrorism in the USA, but generally referred to as “lone wolf” attacks carried out by some sad loner – only when the “lone wolf” nutter happens to be Muslim does it suddenly become a 'terrorist attack'. Meanwhile, hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations continue to exist, enjoying the liberty the USA affords them, as “Christian” organisations.

Whenever a move against any racial religious group occurs, it can reverberate outwith the country it comes from. The Sunday after the Executive Order was instituted, a gunman open fired during evening prayers at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre, just across the border in Quebec City, Canada. The shooting suspect, now in custody, is 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette, a white French Canadian, whom it appears holds extreme-right, pro-Christian, anti-Islamic views, and who admires Donald Trump and French National Front leader, Marine LePen. Bissonnette was identified by the leader of a local immigration rights groups, François Deschamps, as a far-right internet troll, known to make anti-immigrant and hostile comments on the group's online page.

Pants - on - FIRE!

With absolutely no proof, the media immediately tried to make out it was an Islamist attack, Fox News - darling press outlet of the darling American right - claimed that witnesses had heard the gunman shout "Allahu akbar!" (God is great), and without a shred of evidence, went on to claim in a Tweet that the shooter was of Moroccan origin. As I write this, that Tweet has not yet been taken down.  And of course, while it was thought the attack was of Muslim origin, it was called a terrorist attack. Now the suspect has been identified as a "Christian", anti-Islamic, white supremacist, the media are portraying him as a "lone wolf" and sad nutter. Kudos therefore to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who told it like it is; "We condemn this terrorist attack on Muslims in a center of worship and refuge."

While the media was busy pouring out their anti-Islamic bile, the Trump administration was very quick to attempt to make political capital out of the atrocity. Without being cognisant of the full facts, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said of the Quebec attack;

"It’s a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the President is taking steps to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to our nation’s safety and security,"

What? Mr Spicer - and Mr Trump? Will you now impose a ban on extreme-right Christians crossing the border from Canada into the USA?

Or will you just continue to deliberately target Muslims? To abandon Muslims and others to the very regimes you claim to be against? To continue to give Islamic State a propaganda tool for further radicalisation? And to continue to stir up hatred against all Muslims, the vast majority of whom are in fact far more likely to be the victims of intolerance and violence, rather than the perpetrators of it?  

Will you in fact continue to openly flout international human rights legislation, as well as common decency?

You already have blood on your hands, Mister Trump, and your shameful actions shall cause much more to be shed.  The only person who needs to be banned is you.