Mayor of London Sadiq Khan (L) with young flag bearer during the Pride In London parade on July 7, 2018 in London, England. (Photo by Tristan Fewings/Getty Images for Pride In London)
Why Is Sadiq Khan a Favourite Target of Trump? You Know the Answer
Let’s not mince words: the president is attacking London’s mayor because he is Muslim, and because he is brown
Sadiq Khan really gets under Trump's skin. You can hear it in his voice when he speaks about him, or read it in his tone when he tweets about him. When interviewed on his views on British politics yesterday, the president's usual congested, out of breath and bored drawl sharpened when he came on to Khan.
Even when he was ostensibly undermining Theresa May by saying that she "didn't listen to him" about Brexit, and posturing that he would walk away from a non-favourable trade deal with the UK, his pulse didn't seem to quicken once, as he did what he usually does, which is the opposite of what anyone would expect of a president on a diplomatic mission. Outrageous as his comments were, they were still broadly reading from the same script, one that he doesn't necessarily believe in or particularly care about as long as it telegraphs his status.
But on Khan he woke up. Before you knew it, he had issued several quick condemnations of London's mayor.
"Take a look at the terrorism that is taking place. Look at what is going on in London. I think he [Khan] has done a very bad job on terrorism", Trump said. "I think he has done a bad job on crime, if you look, all of the horrible things going on there, with all of the crime that is being brought in."
I don't want to be trite, nor slip into the trap of identity politics that is poisoning our modern discourse, but what could possibly set Khan apart from, let's say, the mayor of Manchester, who also, according to Trump's logic, failed to prevent a terror attack last year and therefore also did a "very bad job" on terrorism?
I am sorry to bring race or religion into this, it's ever so tedious and I am as bored of it as you are, but the inescapable fact is that the only difference is that Khan is Muslim and brown.
That alone however is not enough to incur Trump's wrath.
Sadiq Khan is also uppity.
We take it for granted because Khan is a don, but it must be unnerving, when trying to deal with the aftermath, bloodshed and social cohesion challenges after a terrorist attack, to have the president of the United States bearing down on you to score cheap points in his domestic political game.
When Khan wisely and calmly said that there was ''no reason to be alarmed'' by the visibly increased security presence in the streets of London after the London Bridge attacks, Trump spun it as Khan trying to minimise the threat of the attacks - but didn't challenge Theresa May when she said in response to the same attacks that ''everybody needs to go about their lives as they normally would''.
The clear implication is that Khan is deliberately minimising the threat of terror attacks and cannot be trusted to police the city effectively - because he is Muslim and therefore naturally, his loyalties lie elsewhere.
Khan merely said that Trump was '"ill-informed". That's another thing that makes him a supreme irritant to the president: he's not really spoiling for a fight and will not engage so as not to dignify. And so Trump must continue to smear him the only ways he knows how to, by coming to his city and blowing a chorus of dog-whistles, by mentioning Khan in the same breath as immigration "changing the fabric of Europe", and all the crime "that is being brought in" (by immigrants obviously as, no indigenous crime in London ever existed) and "all the terrorism that is taking place".
Where is the party of government? Running to Khan's defence? Alas, I bring you more bad news that must refer to anti-Muslim prejudice. As Trump gave the interview in which he insulted Khan, Tory MP Michael Fabricant tweeted an image of Khan as a pig blimp, being sodomised by another pig, as Trump laughed in the foreground.
There was no cavalry coming to his defence.
Not to suggest that all Tory MPs are Islamophobic - not until an inquiry that has for years been demanded goes ahead anyway. Those whose prejudice credentials have not been withdrawn are not alarmed by the bullying of Khan, because they need the bully on side.
May squirmed and smiled as Trump patronised her both in the press and in person. His gendered subordination of May was clear: the subtext painted a picture of a man amused by a woman PM who would not listen to his advice, but is a tough old gal anyway.
May knows that she must swallow this if it means maintaining the peace, not bristling when she is insulted, avoiding reading the room as London teemed with protestors.
Khan, on the other hand, free from the practical constraints of government and the personal constraints of spinelessness, will not take Trump's lazy racism lying down for the sake of an invite to a state dinner.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Sadiq Khan really gets under Trump's skin. You can hear it in his voice when he speaks about him, or read it in his tone when he tweets about him. When interviewed on his views on British politics yesterday, the president's usual congested, out of breath and bored drawl sharpened when he came on to Khan.
Even when he was ostensibly undermining Theresa May by saying that she "didn't listen to him" about Brexit, and posturing that he would walk away from a non-favourable trade deal with the UK, his pulse didn't seem to quicken once, as he did what he usually does, which is the opposite of what anyone would expect of a president on a diplomatic mission. Outrageous as his comments were, they were still broadly reading from the same script, one that he doesn't necessarily believe in or particularly care about as long as it telegraphs his status.
But on Khan he woke up. Before you knew it, he had issued several quick condemnations of London's mayor.
"Take a look at the terrorism that is taking place. Look at what is going on in London. I think he [Khan] has done a very bad job on terrorism", Trump said. "I think he has done a bad job on crime, if you look, all of the horrible things going on there, with all of the crime that is being brought in."
I don't want to be trite, nor slip into the trap of identity politics that is poisoning our modern discourse, but what could possibly set Khan apart from, let's say, the mayor of Manchester, who also, according to Trump's logic, failed to prevent a terror attack last year and therefore also did a "very bad job" on terrorism?
I am sorry to bring race or religion into this, it's ever so tedious and I am as bored of it as you are, but the inescapable fact is that the only difference is that Khan is Muslim and brown.
That alone however is not enough to incur Trump's wrath.
Sadiq Khan is also uppity.
We take it for granted because Khan is a don, but it must be unnerving, when trying to deal with the aftermath, bloodshed and social cohesion challenges after a terrorist attack, to have the president of the United States bearing down on you to score cheap points in his domestic political game.
When Khan wisely and calmly said that there was ''no reason to be alarmed'' by the visibly increased security presence in the streets of London after the London Bridge attacks, Trump spun it as Khan trying to minimise the threat of the attacks - but didn't challenge Theresa May when she said in response to the same attacks that ''everybody needs to go about their lives as they normally would''.
The clear implication is that Khan is deliberately minimising the threat of terror attacks and cannot be trusted to police the city effectively - because he is Muslim and therefore naturally, his loyalties lie elsewhere.
Khan merely said that Trump was '"ill-informed". That's another thing that makes him a supreme irritant to the president: he's not really spoiling for a fight and will not engage so as not to dignify. And so Trump must continue to smear him the only ways he knows how to, by coming to his city and blowing a chorus of dog-whistles, by mentioning Khan in the same breath as immigration "changing the fabric of Europe", and all the crime "that is being brought in" (by immigrants obviously as, no indigenous crime in London ever existed) and "all the terrorism that is taking place".
Where is the party of government? Running to Khan's defence? Alas, I bring you more bad news that must refer to anti-Muslim prejudice. As Trump gave the interview in which he insulted Khan, Tory MP Michael Fabricant tweeted an image of Khan as a pig blimp, being sodomised by another pig, as Trump laughed in the foreground.
There was no cavalry coming to his defence.
Not to suggest that all Tory MPs are Islamophobic - not until an inquiry that has for years been demanded goes ahead anyway. Those whose prejudice credentials have not been withdrawn are not alarmed by the bullying of Khan, because they need the bully on side.
May squirmed and smiled as Trump patronised her both in the press and in person. His gendered subordination of May was clear: the subtext painted a picture of a man amused by a woman PM who would not listen to his advice, but is a tough old gal anyway.
May knows that she must swallow this if it means maintaining the peace, not bristling when she is insulted, avoiding reading the room as London teemed with protestors.
Khan, on the other hand, free from the practical constraints of government and the personal constraints of spinelessness, will not take Trump's lazy racism lying down for the sake of an invite to a state dinner.
Sadiq Khan really gets under Trump's skin. You can hear it in his voice when he speaks about him, or read it in his tone when he tweets about him. When interviewed on his views on British politics yesterday, the president's usual congested, out of breath and bored drawl sharpened when he came on to Khan.
Even when he was ostensibly undermining Theresa May by saying that she "didn't listen to him" about Brexit, and posturing that he would walk away from a non-favourable trade deal with the UK, his pulse didn't seem to quicken once, as he did what he usually does, which is the opposite of what anyone would expect of a president on a diplomatic mission. Outrageous as his comments were, they were still broadly reading from the same script, one that he doesn't necessarily believe in or particularly care about as long as it telegraphs his status.
But on Khan he woke up. Before you knew it, he had issued several quick condemnations of London's mayor.
"Take a look at the terrorism that is taking place. Look at what is going on in London. I think he [Khan] has done a very bad job on terrorism", Trump said. "I think he has done a bad job on crime, if you look, all of the horrible things going on there, with all of the crime that is being brought in."
I don't want to be trite, nor slip into the trap of identity politics that is poisoning our modern discourse, but what could possibly set Khan apart from, let's say, the mayor of Manchester, who also, according to Trump's logic, failed to prevent a terror attack last year and therefore also did a "very bad job" on terrorism?
I am sorry to bring race or religion into this, it's ever so tedious and I am as bored of it as you are, but the inescapable fact is that the only difference is that Khan is Muslim and brown.
That alone however is not enough to incur Trump's wrath.
Sadiq Khan is also uppity.
We take it for granted because Khan is a don, but it must be unnerving, when trying to deal with the aftermath, bloodshed and social cohesion challenges after a terrorist attack, to have the president of the United States bearing down on you to score cheap points in his domestic political game.
When Khan wisely and calmly said that there was ''no reason to be alarmed'' by the visibly increased security presence in the streets of London after the London Bridge attacks, Trump spun it as Khan trying to minimise the threat of the attacks - but didn't challenge Theresa May when she said in response to the same attacks that ''everybody needs to go about their lives as they normally would''.
The clear implication is that Khan is deliberately minimising the threat of terror attacks and cannot be trusted to police the city effectively - because he is Muslim and therefore naturally, his loyalties lie elsewhere.
Khan merely said that Trump was '"ill-informed". That's another thing that makes him a supreme irritant to the president: he's not really spoiling for a fight and will not engage so as not to dignify. And so Trump must continue to smear him the only ways he knows how to, by coming to his city and blowing a chorus of dog-whistles, by mentioning Khan in the same breath as immigration "changing the fabric of Europe", and all the crime "that is being brought in" (by immigrants obviously as, no indigenous crime in London ever existed) and "all the terrorism that is taking place".
Where is the party of government? Running to Khan's defence? Alas, I bring you more bad news that must refer to anti-Muslim prejudice. As Trump gave the interview in which he insulted Khan, Tory MP Michael Fabricant tweeted an image of Khan as a pig blimp, being sodomised by another pig, as Trump laughed in the foreground.
There was no cavalry coming to his defence.
Not to suggest that all Tory MPs are Islamophobic - not until an inquiry that has for years been demanded goes ahead anyway. Those whose prejudice credentials have not been withdrawn are not alarmed by the bullying of Khan, because they need the bully on side.
May squirmed and smiled as Trump patronised her both in the press and in person. His gendered subordination of May was clear: the subtext painted a picture of a man amused by a woman PM who would not listen to his advice, but is a tough old gal anyway.
May knows that she must swallow this if it means maintaining the peace, not bristling when she is insulted, avoiding reading the room as London teemed with protestors.
Khan, on the other hand, free from the practical constraints of government and the personal constraints of spinelessness, will not take Trump's lazy racism lying down for the sake of an invite to a state dinner.