[American Mind] This past February, in England, the Speaker of the House of Commons publicly admitted that normal parliamentary procedure was abandoned when members were threatened by Islamists and their leftist allies. The Scottish National Party had proposed that MPs vote in favor of or against an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, without additional conditions such as requiring the release of hostages. This presented moderate Labour MPs with a dilemma—vote, de facto, in favor of Hamas or court the wrath of the far-Left and Islamists inside England.In response, after speaking with Labour’s Keir Starmer, Speaker Lindsay Hoyle broke the rules. To relieve the pressure on Labour, Hoyle improperly ordered that MPs first vote on a Labour amendment which called for a ceasefire conditional upon the release of hostages. Therefore, moderate Labour MPs were released from the pressures of voting on the SNP motion. Hoyle not only violated parliamentary procedure, he baldly admitted doing so in order to relieve members from violent threats: "What appears to have swayed the Speaker’s decision were warnings from Labour that its MPs feared for their safety and that of their families if they couldn’t register publicly that they had voted for an unconditional, ’immediate humanitarian ceasefire.’"
Never before in its modern history has the House of Commons so cravenly capitulated to threats of violence against its members. The House stood up to the royal pretensions of Charles I, who would have neutered the Commons and ruled as an absolute monarch. The House as a whole may have appeased the Nazis out of fear of general war, but never from personal fear. In his memoirs, Churchill tells us—with barely disguised enthusiasm—that upon the eve of war, he and his trusty bodyguard Thompson armed themselves and stood guard overnight at Chartwell in case German agents or sympathizers targeted Churchill personally. Chamberlain and the appeasers were deluded, but sincerely believed that their policy was best for England. Any hint of personal threat or violent intimidation directed at the House would have been met with outrage and united fortitude. The Provisional Irish Republican Army not only assassinated members of the British elite such as Lord Mountbatten, but also attacked members of the House. The Conservative Party conference was hit with a sophisticated bomb in 1984, and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was nearly killed. But the leadership and body of the House and British state stood firm in the face of personal danger. The British continued to alternately contain and target the Provos until the latter gave up the armed struggle and, disarmed, entered politics instead.
The leftist-Islamist alliance, therefore, has succeeded where would be tyrants, Nazis, and the most proficient terrorist organization in European history all failed. the House of Commons capitulated. That the capitulation was over a procedural question is irrelevant. What was done by the Speaker cannot be undone, and presumably, since those who threatened violence achieved their goals, will be repeated in one form or another. What are the likely consequences, internally and externally, and what can we Americans learn from this event, observing, in horror and fascination, as a once great and civilized nation slowly but surely descends into barbarism?