COMMENT While mainstream opposition leaders generally seem to agree that the answer is “Yes, we should protest Donald Trump’s immigration ban on seven Muslim countries”, not everyone seems to believe so.

This was first highlighted in a report on a statement from DAP assemblyperson Chow Yu Hui, who said that DAP should not join any protest at the US embassy because this would smack of double standards.

This raised some debate in the comments section of the Malaysiakini article about his statement.

Based on these comments, and a general familiarity with readers/commentators over the years, my best guess is that among readers here, there are significant numbers who: a) Feel that Trump’s ban is unethical; and b) Support Trump’s ban.

Rationale for supporting the ban

Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion. Mine, for whatever it is worth, is as follows.

I think the differences in opinion over this ban tends to pivot on which of two potential starting points one uses to evaluate the ban.

I could be wrong, but I would guesstimate that those who support the ban are generally uncomfortable around/about Muslims, tend to feel that non-Malays are extremely maligned and discriminated against in Malaysia, and - before and after the existence of Pakatan Rakyat especially - tend to take a very dim view of PAS, and an even worse one of Umno.

Amidst that backdrop, it is perhaps easy to think that Trump (who is felt to be on their same ‘team’) is bravely putting these rascally Muslims in their place. Perhaps they see this ban as points scored in some imaginary war between Muslims and the rest of the world.

Rationale for opposing the ban

Those who oppose the ban, likely do so for ideological reasons. Perhaps people who take this view see the ban as a superpower bullying people from poorer, less powerful countries.

Perhaps they themselves are minority Malaysians, who believe that those representing a majority should not be allowed to suppress minorities - whether here, or in America.

Thus, the ban is opposed as a matter of principle: one where the idea that the powerful should be allowed to oppress the powerless is rejected, no matter what the skin colour or religious affiliations are on either side of that coin.

Trump harming Americans more than protecting them?

As is probably obvious, I am sympathetic to this view. Sadly, it feels like Trump’s actions are more likely to harm than to protect Americans.

I have long held the belief that if someone had serious enough intent to say, cause you bodily harm, or break into your house - almost no reasonable amount of protection over a sustained period of time will prevent this from happening.

There are simply too many vulnerabilities. Anyone with enough patience, dedication and intelligence is likely to be able to penetrate any practical defenses.

In much the same way, if someone wanted badly enough to hurt America through terrorism, almost no amount of isolationism and wall building is likely going to stop that. The question is, how much reason do you want to give people to want to hurt America?

Needless to say, the actual impact of terrorism on Americans, especially within America, is generally overstated. There are many, many more Americans that die at the hands of white Americans (especially police perhaps?), than there are Americans who die at the hands of truly radical Islamic terrorists - to say nothing of preventable road accidents, disease, and so on.

Recently, this trend on the part of Trump staffers was most painfully highlighted when top adviser Kellyanne Conway cited what was literally a fake terrorist attack, which in fact never happened.

The sad relationship between Trump supporters and, well, facts, continue to cause grave concern.