British House of Commons Debate on Barring Donald Trump from the U.K. CSPAN January 22, 2016 10:29pm-1:31am EST
a petition received 60,000 signatures. labor member paul flynn said it was not about the united states, but about there trump. no official decision came out of the debate. only the home office has the decision to ban someone from the country. not the parliament. this is three hours. >> order, order. >> mr. flynn to move the motion. >> thank you very much. it's always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, mr. gale and my thanks to the petitions committee under the inspired committee for letting me introduce these two petitions. it's a bit of an occasion because the first petition has been signed by more people than any other in this parliament. it's signed by 573,971 signatures. and it calls to block donald j.
trump from the u.k. entry. the second petition is don't ban trump from the united kingdom and this is a curious one. it's signed by 42,889 signatures. but 30 signatures were removed from that petition because they were thought to be suspect in coming from one source, so please beware anyone who is trying to rig the system, you will be found out and in this case, 30,000 signatures disappeared. the first petition reads "the signatories believe donald j trump should be banned from uk entry. the uk has banned entry to many individuals for hate speech. the same principles should apply to everyone who wishes to enter the uk. if the united kingdom is to continue applying the 'unacceptable behaviour' criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be
fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful." the text of the other petition states that "we shouldn't be banning people for their opinions on domestic actions in a u.s. political race that doesn't concern us. but more importantly if he does actually win the nomination, and then goes on to win the presidency. we then have to work with a man who we banned from our country in the first place lets mind our own business." the government's response to both petitions, which was not entirely helpful, said that "the government does not routinely comment on individual immigration and exclusion decisions exclusion powers are very serious and are not used lightly the prime minister has made clear that he completely disagrees with donald trump's remarks. the home secretary has said that donald trump's remarks in relation to muslims are
divisive, unhelpful and wrong. the government recognises the strength of feeling against the marginalisation amongst those we endeavour to protect." the government doesn't directly answer questions on those who are banned, but they did publish a list of 20 people who were denied entry to the united kingdom between 2008 and 2009. and if i could give you some ideas. i will not mention their names- i do not want to give them extra notoriety-but i will give some idea of the sort of people who have been banned. the first was a leader of a violent gang that beat migrants and posted films of the attacks on the internet. he was considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fomenting serious criminal activity and seeking to provoke others to serious
criminal acts. another was described as a preacher considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fomenting terrorist violence in furtherance of his political beliefs. another was considered to be engaged in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts. a fourth was a muslim writer and public speaker from india. he was excluded from the united kingdom because he had made anti-jewish statements, thus fostering hatred among others. those examples are entirely typical of the kind of people who are excluded. we should say that the situation with mr donald trump does not correspond with those cases, which are far more serious and presented an immediate threat of violence. the petitioners claim that violent attacks have been committed in boston and
elsewhere by people who quoted donald trump. when one of them attacked a hispanic person and one attacked a mexican. that is what the petitioners are basing their points on. one case does correspond with the situation with donald trump. that's the one with mr. geert wilders is a dutch person who was seen to be fomenting hatred against muslims and to be guilty of homophobia. he was banned by the home secretary in 2009. and what happened with mr wilders appealed to the court and won. the result was that he was allowed into the country, and the publicity and attention that
he gained for his islamophobia and his film were multiplied a hundredfold by the ban. i believe that's something we should bear that in mind. >> if you mind. i congratulate my hon. friend on securing and leading this debate. does he share my concern about the number of cases-the cases have come to light since mr trump's comments, but were not because of them-of british muslims being refused admission to the united states of america? does he agree with me that when that happens, whether they are muslims or not, there should be a clear indication of why people have been refused admission to america? >> the figures are worrying because we are still in a position where the president of america is
barack obama. i am sure that he would look with equal disapproval at those cases, but they need to be investigated. it is certainly of considerable concern, and mr wilders' case is of great significance to us. those who wrote the main petition said this, "freedom of any kind comes with responsibility; this includes free speech. freedom of speech is not the freedom to engage in hate. words can wound and can be a rallying cry to violence the reality of hate speech's ability to incite violent acts is why the uk's laws have stopped some 80 individuals from entering the uk to date." the petitioner quotes certain violent acts that have taken place in america, which they put down to mr trump's intervention.
i think we want to make it clear the way in which this debate has been reported throughout the world has created an enormous amount of attention, and we want to make it clear that it is no attempt to disrespect in any way americans or the american state. this is a country in which our cultures have melded together over the years, getting ever closer. this is the country that sacrificed more of its sons and daughters in the cause of creating democracy in other countries than any other nation on earth. this is the land of barack obama, martin luther king and abraham lincoln. >> does my monday -- honorable friend not agree, that the fact that it is martin luther king day today makes it
even more bizarre that this hate figure is preaching these ridiculous things that we should reject? >> yes. it is a significant day. martin luther king was a great man who left a great legacy behind. we should look at what we are doing in this case and what we are doing in pursuing a cause that would expel the- >> will the hon. gentleman give way? >> yes, of course. i appreciate the balanced way in which the hon. gentleman is presenting his argument. the election of his party leader has shown that remarkable things
happen in politics. we have to be alive to the possibility that this ridiculous individual-that is, mr trump-may be elected as president of the united states. in that event, would such a ban be overturned? were it not, that would be one almighty snub to the american citizens to whom the hon. gentleman has been referring. >> i am sure that is absolutely right. our great difficulty is that showing disrespect for mr trump might be interpreted by his supporters and others in america as showing disrespect to the american nation, but that is not what we are doing. one individual is involved. if we attack this one man, we are in danger of fixing on him a halo of victimhood. we give him the role of martyrdom, which can seem to be an advantage among those who support him. the line will go out: "here are these foreigners interfering and telling us what to do." it would be a grave error if we allowed that situation to arise
and if our deliberations today seemed anti-american. there was a number of people who said that we shouldn't discuss this issue. it shouldn't be debated today, but it is difficult to ignore a vox pop that is so thunderous and it contains the signatures of 500,000 people, and the whole purpose of the petitions committee is to say that it is not only mps, parties, governments and opposition who decide the agenda here in parliament, but the public, and the public are speaking in a very loud voice indeed. our best plan is not to give mr trump the accolade of martyrdom. we may already be in error by giving him far too much attention by way of this petition, but he has said some remarkable things that have caused a great deal of upset.
apparently. [laughter.] debate can be immediately shut down and that is a danger to democracy. debates on a range of things have been shut down in this country, and people get labelled as xenophobes, right wing or left wing. let us hear the debate and, if it is unreasonable, ignore it. share this contribution paul flynn share this contribution that is right. petitioners have drawn to our attention how mr trump mocked a man for his disability in a cruel way. he described the people of mexico as rapists and drug abusers. he made degrading remarks about women. more recently he suggested that muslims not be allowed into his country, which is an extraordinary and extremely dangerous thing to say. we are faced with the most dangerous position between the nations in my lifetime, and i can clearly remember the start of the second world war. in the world today we have al-qaeda, daesh and other similar groups, spread throughout a score of countries. they want to divide the world between christians and muslims. they have a mad plan that one day there will be a war between christians and muslims, and the
muslims will win and will establish a caliphate throughout the world. the most alarming thing is what is happening with our young people in this country, in my constituency and elsewhere. the groups have an almost irresistible appeal to adolescents. they say, "come and join us; we can right ancient wrongs. you can take part in a battle. you can have a wife or a husband. you can have a great adventure serving your religion with the possibility of martyrdom followed by eternal bliss." that is the kind of seduction that has been used by many cults over the years. sadly, hundreds of our young people are falling for it. if we react to terrorist attacks by joining in wars and battles, the world will be in a
very dangerous place. although we have no right to inform americans who they should elect as leader, we look forward with some trepidation to a future when difficult decisions have to be taken. will they be taken by a person who is seen to be impulsive and not well informed, and who has been accused of racist views? >> yes. >> i thank my honorable friend for giving way. i see that he's coming down on one side of the argument that mr trump should not be banned from entering this country. are we not in a unique position here? i cannot think, in my lifetime, of another senior politician in america or anywhere else wishing the government of their country to deny our citizens in the united kingdom free
international movement because of their religion. if the hon. gentleman is to take the position that he seems to be taking, may i ask him: what would be an appropriate response by this country to the united states of america to protect the people we represent? >> we have a significant number of members who wish to contribute to the debate. >> i must ask at this stage that any interventions be very brief. >> i think it is premature. we have had an intervention on this before-but if that was to happen, it would of course be an outrage. it would certainly be contrary to all american history-the words written on the statue of liberty-and a denial of the best in america's history and its hospitality to those who wish to live in her country. i would urge the alternative of inviting mr trump here. i would be delighted if he
could show us where the so-called no-go areas for police are in this country-i have never been able to find one. it would be a pleasure to take him down to brixton and show him the rich mixture of races and creeds that are living happily together there. perhaps it would be interesting to have a chat about why in america there are more people killed by shotguns every day than are killed every year in this country. the leader of the opposition has suggested a trip to islington around the mosques and possibly a meeting with his wife, who i understand is from mexico. i am sure they would have a very interesting conversation. i believe we should greet the extreme things that mr trump says with our own reasonableness and hospitality. we should greet him with courtesy if he comes here, but we should not build him up by our attacks.
in conclusion, another great republican said in 1990: "democrats and republicans...i salute you. and on your behalf, as well as the behalf of this entire country, i now lift my pen to sign this americans with disabilities act and say: let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down." those are the words of president bush. it was absolutely right that that act, for those who are disabled, led to similar acts in nations throughout the world. we should look to what we are seeing from donald trump at the moment and confront his words of prejudice, his lack of knowledge and intolerance.
we should greet him with a welcoming hand of friendship, knowledge and truth, and then perhaps more shameful walls of prejudice will come tumbling down. >> the question is that this house has questioned e petitions relating to the exclusion of donald trump from the u.k. could i just for the moment ask -- could i ask all honorable members who wish to speak to stand. i just want to get some idea. okay. thank you very much. i am proposing immediately to impose a -- thank you, sit down -- i am proposing immediately a time limit of six minutes. if honorable members are willing to adhere to that, we may be able to get most if not all members who wish to speak into the debate.
for the convenience of members, i do not normally do this from the chair, but given the number of members who are seeking to catch my eye it might be helpful on the opposition benches at the moment, that is to me people who indicated in advance of the debate they wish to be called. i have listed tulip siddiq, gavin robinson, naz shah, tasmina ahmed-sheikh, keith vaz, corri wilson, jack dromey and gavin newlands. from the government benches i have paul scully, sir edward leigh, tom tugendhat, victoria atkins, steve double, lucy frazer, philip davies, simon hoare and kwasi kwarteng. those who are not on my list at this point-in other words those who did not indicate in writing that they wished to speak-may choose to seek to intervene rather than to be called. i call paul scully. >> thank you, sir. i would like to congratulate the
this chamber here in westminster hall. donald trump's favorite columnist, u.k. columnist, katie hawkins actually asked on sunday, john pinot's radio program why we weren't debating other things like the immigration petition. and the reason for that, she claimed it was actually down to us being politically correct. there was nothing of that sort of we already had an immigration debate in october which was worded in a very, very similar manner. so it was more appropriate that we actually push on with this, and we don't want to duplicate, wherever possible. our honorable member from newport west forgot one petition. there's one as of this morning 75 people had signed inviting donald trump to address parliament. so maybe that's an additional one that we might want to consider. now the committee, we're not,
the debate today's not going to result in a vote. it's important that members of the public watching this understand that. it's not for us to decide whether donald trump should or should not be allowed into this country. that's a matter for the home secretary deciding whether any visit he might make is conducive to the public or not. but what it does do is allow us to have our say and she will i'm sure be listening. i know we have some examples of when people have been excluded from this country. i've heard of a number of cases where people have been excluded for incitement and stupidity. i totally agree that we shouldn't be focusing on one man. what i would like to do over the next few hours is to look at the issues that have really surrounded this and how they affect the u.k. and that's the, that's the wider
issues really of immigration, global security, the positive contribution that people with muslim faith have in this country, whether they were born in this country, whether they've come to this country and added to our economy, to our culture and to our community. as i said, i led a debate in -- please. >> on that point, is the honorable member aware that the second most populace petition on the website with 457,000 signatures is one to close the u.k. borders until isis is defeated, and does that motion show why it's important to challenge views such as donald trump's in a robust and democratic way? >> absolutely. my honorable friend makes a really, really important point. that was a very similar wording to the debate that i led in october. there are a lot of petitions out there that have quite insightful
and clumsily worded in many ways. and there is a fear and i suspect that donald trump's words were borne out of fear. he should be leading to a clearer understanding of the issues, not acceptable for him to just say, you know, we need to stop immigration of this sort until we understand what's going on. that's not acceptable for an aspiring world leader. we know the benefits of controlled immigration in this country. as a son of someone who was born in burma, i'm half anglow indian. mass uncontrolled immigration does actually put a lot of pressure on our services, infrastructure, and it does put a lot of concern into people's minds, and i suspect as in
america, the u.k. feels this as well, hence the number of signatures to this petition. but we need to tackle it in a very, very different way. we need to speak about the positive contribution to business investment, to science and medical procedures, to culture as well. many of you know that i actually have a lot to do with the british curry industry. and just that one industry alone is worth 3.5 billion pounds to 4 billion pounds, depending on who you speak to, to this country, to this country's economy. it's, it employs 100,000 people, and there are a number of people that are affected by that, and we all enjoy curry every day, and i think would be a bad thing to the u.k. economy if actually that continued to struggle, but that's just one small industry. let's look at the medical industry. let's look at business as a whole as well. and the input that immigrants have on this country. we need to tackle, though, the
glut on extremism that this government has. these are ways that are far more clever, far more positive and far more practical than an impractical case of closing the country down to people in one faith. how do you actually determine someone from one faith? do you put a badge on them? do you have them in a database? although he's not gone quite so far as to put a badge on them, donald trump has actually not excluded keeping people on a database, which is an extraordinary situation to go down. so i'll bring my remarks to a close, because we are on a very limited time. but i do think that, i hope that over the next few hours we'll be able to concentrate on practical ways that this country can tackle immigration and can tackle community cohesion rather
than worrying about the ego of one man. >> the arguments about why we're having this debate has already been articulated by the honorable members who came before me. you about i wanted to raise the question of why this online petition which has been signed by 3,000 of my constituents has yes vehicled such emotion? is it because donald trump's comments mean that he is tarnishing the entire muslim community with the views of a small group of extremists? the views of whom in ordinary muslims absolutely condemn? or is it because the world's largest economy might be excluding the world's second largest religious community over 1.6 billion people in the world. or is it because people in this country are proud of the long history that we have of welcoming immigrants, welcoming
refugees and welcoming asylum seekers. people often say that the public are apathetic about politics. this online petition signed by nearly 600,000 people shows that when people feel offensive justice, when people feel that we need to stop a poisonous crow sieve man from entering our country, they will act in good conscience. but this is not just any man we're talking about. this is a man who is extremely high profile, involved in the american show business industry for years and years. a man who is interviewing for the most important job in the world. his words are not. couldical. his words are not funny. his words are poisonous. they risk inflaming tension between vulnerable communities. and let me make one thing clear. we have legislation in our country to make sure we do not let people enter who are not conducive to the public good.
and the honorable member from newport west has outlined some of the people who have been banned by the home office for entering this country. i looked up some of the rhetoric -- yes. >> you're not talking about, you're talking about a candidate for the presidency of the united states. isn't it up to the american people to decide whether his views are objectionable? not you guys? >> the honorable gentleman's been in the house long enough to know that he has to address through the chair, and i have no view on this whatsoever, as the honorable gentleman appreciates. >> i think the question is also for the honorable gentleman. so i looked up the cases which have 84 people who have not been allowed into the country. and i want to highlight the case of one female blogger who i won't be naming but you are welcome to look it up. i looked at the rhetoric used by
this female ploger and she was banned from entering the country. she equated the entire muslim population with the view of a handful of extremists, and the home committee excluded her because we condemn all those whose behaviors and views are counter to our shared views and values and will not stand for extremism in any form. the view the of this female blogger who was stopped from coming to the country and donald trump's views that muslims are all the same are strikingly similar and have very similar resemblance in the words that they use. if legislation is in the country, should it be applied equally to everyone? or are we going to be making exceptions for billionaire politicians, even when their words are clearly falling short of the home office guidance?
yes. >> i've heard the remarks donald trump's made made by a large number of my constituents. she may disagree with them. but lots of my constituents would agree with what donald trump said, whether i like that or not. does she think that they should be expelled from the country as a result of their views? and if not, what's the difference? >> i'm afraid the honorable member should think carefully about what he just said. it's not the same as us making a decision not to let people into the country whose views are falling short of the home office guidance. the honorable member from newport west has already outlined some of the other views that donald trump has. whether that's views on mexicans, whether that's views on black people, it was donald trump, don't forget, who ran a dog whistle campaign against barack obama's birth certificate. to find out whether the president of america was really american. can you imagine in the mother of
parliaments if my colleagues decided to question ethnic minority mps about whether 24e were really british? and let he tell you -- >> i thank my honorable friend for giving way. is she aware that some of the things that people find repellant is he's not only racist but homophobic and ma sojist innic as well. >> i thank the honorable member for her intervention and i'd like to redoubt what donald trump said when asked by megan stiles on fox news. she asked him to explain why he called some women fat slobs, dogs and disgusting animals, and donald trump replied, what i say is what i say. is that the kind of man that we want in our country? the other question i wanted to ask is that i thoroughly anticipate the rebut theal that we cannot exclude people because
they merely offend us or because we do not like them. but as politicians, we have to make very difficult decisions. and one of the decisions we have to make is when freedom of speech actually insults public safety. when we are worried about the safety of our constituents he and what, the evidence i want to point to is a center for hate and extremism has pointed out that anti-muslim hate crimes has increased in lane with the rhetoric that draumt has been using in the last three months of 2015. and the honorable member for newport twes pointed out about the incident of the hispanic man who was beaten up by two brothers from south boston when he, when they beat this homeless man up, they broke his noisse. they urinated on him, and the mess said they justified it by saying donald trump was right. we should get rid of all of these illegals.
my point is that hate crime is being inflamed and stroked by the words that donald trump is using. and i will give way. >> it's very interesting the point that she seems to be making to make sure i understood it correctly. are you laying all the responsibility for the increase in hate crimes at the door of donald trump? do you not believe that some of it could have been contributed to by the acts of terrorism such as in paris? >> i thank the the honorable member for his intervention and of course i would not be laying all the blame of the increase in hate crimes at the door of donald trump, but there is a very real correlation between the words that donald trump is using and the increase in hate crime, which is the point that i'm trying to make. that a lot of his words means that there is real crime and real violence and that's where i draw the line at freedom of speech. i'll give way.
>> many things in sigcite viole. police are attacked and in one case had his head chopped off. that doesn't mean we should shut down debate. i'm afraid all kinds of things incite violence by totally irresponsible people. >> i thank the honorable member for his intervention. i draw the line at freedom of speech when it actually imports violence ideology, which is what i feel is happening. the legislation in place is to protect the public and protect the people of britain from individuals such as this. if legislation has been practiced before and other people have been stopped from coming into the country sha, th same rules need to apply to donald trump, which is why i feel he shouldn't have been given a visa to come visit the multi-cultural country that we
are so proud of. >> i think saying she was going to trash donald trump this afternoon, i'm not sure he's going to be terribly worried about this debate. [ laughter ] i do respect the honorable member, my friend, member for newport west for the measured way in which he introduced this debate. may i just say that naturally it is no surprise when i say i oppose this ban, i think it gives donald trump publicity. actually, it's the only item in the u.s. press at the moment, this debate that we're sitting in. they're not talking about brexit. why feed this machine? we saw the honorable member from newport west. in a free country, you have a right to offend people, and i
remembered making that quite clear. i offend people of this house all the time, and that's my perfect right to do. third point is that the american country is a friendly country. it has come to rescue in world wars. this man may be president of our most important ally. and fourthly, you can't translate american politics to u.k. politics, which is completely different. i was in a debate earlier this year for scotland and the labor spokesman beside me described me as an extreme right-winger, god forbid, although my amendment had been supported by a back bencher. whether he's an extreme right-winger, i don't know. but i'm strongly in favor of gun control. i voted consistently against invading iraq. i'm opposed to capital punishment. would i survive in the
republican party? although i'm told i'm extreme right-winger, so our politics is completely different. and it's a mistake to try and translate it. so petitions like this, they're good, they're a bit of good fun, but if god forbid the government was to act on it, it would only play into mr. trump's hands. his entire style of politics is to stoke controversy and say lavish things. it is only falling into the trap he has set for us. his continuing popularity amongst voters is evidence of this. and he is popular with many voters. we may not like it, but he is. i think we must be wary of demagoguery in fighting demagogu demagogues. it seems technically divisive in
the united states. most of us in this room oppose him for demonizing his opponents. if we ban him from the country, are we not in danger of doing the same? like it or not, he is also quite a contender, what is argued the most powerful country in the planet. we have welcomed to this country saudi and chinese leaders, whose crimes are far, far worse than anything mr. trump can dream up. these are people who actually don't just talk about violence, they practice violence on an extreme scale. and we have welcomed them to our country. i'm a firm believer in free speech. it's a cause i have combined with such unlikely bedfellows as the christian institute. if we only allow free speech for those we already agree with, is that free speech at all? dialog is a solution and not deeper division.
and let me end by saying that this is also an attempt to shut down honest debate about immigration. as soon as you talk about immigration, you are labeled as a right-winger, as a racist. that is not the way to solve this problem of imfrags. and it was a fantastic article today in the "times." making the good point that our muslim friends have to learn from previous ways of successful immigrants, particularly the jews and others who have chosen to integrate fully in our society. and here are some of the immigrants, all intensely identified as british, all who arrived. frederick william herschel, christina rossetti. of louis battenberg, joseph conrad, george lewis, winston
churchill, larry consultine. jeffrey elsen. this list, this is the final point i'll make, this list illustrates the fundamental point, although these figures enhanced british life, they did not make their adoptive nation cosmopolitan, their adoptive nation made these cosmopolitans british, and we should be proud of them. >> evan robbins? >> i do appreciate the opportunity to contribute. whenever i was considering my remarks for this debate, i thought i would be in conflict with the honorable member from newport west, but i'm pleased to say that's not the case. both for he and sutton, i want to make one point about
exclusion. when i was a northern ireland member, northern ireland does not exist. i'm also quite concerned, apprehensive, sir roger that the right honorable member in the chamber today, as they take parliamenta rary proponent for hillary. i wonder if there will be a debate to the detriment of donald trump. i agree with the right-winger member from gains borough. the fact that when you have a strong and a good principled position, we should stand
robustly by it, not run from it or fear the opposition or the contrary arguments that others may make, be they in this country or from afar. members of this westminster hall at present today will know of lengthen crosby. the idea of the theory is if you're losing the argument, throw a dead cat on the table and people will notice. they will stop and shed a tear in the direction of political discourse. and of course that's exactly what donald trump is doing. it's not just once or a one-of initiative. it's something that marks his campaign entirely. he throws a dead cat on the table and people stop, stop considering what they were considering. stop doing what they were doing and listen to him and take him seriously. now i think there will be those
today and there has been one already who will support the exclusion of donald trump, and while some of those contributions today will make that argument, i want to see donald trump come to this country, and either be grilled by members of parliament or grilled by andrew neil or grilled by those great interrogators we have within the public discourse in this country, i want them to challenge him. i want him to get a sense of the fury and frustration with his phobic remarks. let him leave this country feeling that there are better principles than what he has politically outlined so far. we should be proud of our values as a country, and proud of the values that we would like to see placed throughout the world. so confront him. challenge him and confine him into recognizing that what he has outlined may get you the headlines. it may change the nature of political discourse in the united states and across the
world, but it's bad policy, and it would change the nature and image and reputation of the united states irrevokably from the founding fathers. turning to the debate we have had, i think it's important, sir roger, that i do reflect today that we have the leader of the opposition who is indicating that it would be appropriate to open back channels with daesh. we have members of the same party who say we should exclude others who have airs but who is not a terrorist. to negotiate with somebody who would consider that negotiation in the context of whether they murder your wife or rape her first before they cut off your head. within this parliament today who gives succor to terrorists in our united kingdom, who
supported the ira, put into context what it is we're being asked to consider. it hasn't erred in law. hasn't promoted terrorism, hasn't promoted extremism to the extent that we lose life, that we damage and destroy communities. i will, of course. >> the honorable member think legislation in the country should be applied equally to everyone? >> i do think it does. but what i am doing is setting clear blue water between the supporters given her honorable leader and years gone by in this country for terrorists who have destroyed, maimed and killed, and somebody who is a redick list of, somebody that we don't need to promote any further, sir roger. that is the point that i wish to make. and for those who i believe will
take a hypocritical stance, those north of the border from where we now sit but still very much part of our united kingdom, those who lauded, those who applauded donald trump, those who invited him to their country, appointed him as an ambassador and regaled him with all the civic support and adoration because of brass tacks. that's the same. [ laughter ] >> thank you, thank you. i'm very obliged to you for giving way. somebody had a crystal ball and we could predict that this individual could conceivably make the comments he's made condemning an entire religion? >> sir roger, i'm very grateful for the intervention, and i'll say this. if i ever criticize someone or some party or something in this chamber, i will always give them
a chance to respond, but i have to say, sir roger, you didn't need a crystal ball. it has been referred to already, the ridiculous involvement donald trump had in the birther scandal around barack obama's lineage. was he born in hawaii or kenya, was he a christian or a muslim. that wasn't nine months ago. that was in 2008 and '09. you didn't need a crystal ball. you just needed to know who you were working with. 25 years ago, sir roger, when his wife divorced him, she took the opportunity to say her much-loved former husband used to lie in bed at night and read the works of adolf hitler. so you don't need a crystal ball to recognize that the person you're dealing with may be a success businessman, is also a buffoon and has the dangerous capability, the dangerous capability of saying the most obscene or insensitive things to attract attention. none of that should be new, sir
roger, but i don't think we will avoid the hypocrisy. as a party and individual, i could not support, could not support the exclusion of donald trump from this country. bring him here. let us have the opportunity to challenge him, and let him go home with his tail between his legs and recognize that the principles that he espouse no longer reflect this country, the united states of america or the aspirations that we should all seek to promote internationally. >> i find myself standing here for the first time i think ever agreeing wholeheartedly with the honorable member from newport west. i think none of us are quite va surprised about that as i am but i am surprised to hear the old member warmly quoting the words
of president bush, admittedly it was president bush father and not son. today is also one of the moments in this year when we will mark the anniversary, 500 years since st. thomas moore who was tried and executed not so far from this place, wrote the book "u toaupe yeah." it would express across the globe. and yet, today, a report has come out showing that the liberties he hoped for, the liberties he desired are actually in trouble. an online journal called "spite", has gone around various universities and found free
speech is being challenged. so-called safe spaces in our colleges are known as spaces of censorship, now cover some 39% of universities. that is not just a threat of freedom of thought to universities. as i see this debate covered by many of our friends from the third estate, excuse my, fourth estate, forgive me. it is worth remembering that they, too, are part of the democratic process and though we, who stand here and speak in the chamber may sometimes not like it, their role in holding us to account is equally as important as ours in speaking the truth. and, so it is with that cry of freedom and that cry of liberty that i speak in favor of considering but in favor of rejecting this motion. because liberty is not something we can take in portion or in part. it comes as one, and it comes as a whole.
and, as the first amendment of the u.s. constitution makes clear, that freedom of expression is essential for a free people. and that is why, although i may not like it, and although i can be absolutely sure that i wouldn't support it, it is no place of me or this house to criticize a man running for an elected office in a foreign country. we may not wish him here. we may not like him here. we should not vote against his ability to speak or indeed criticize his right to travel, when we, too, value those same rights of liberty. are you looking to intervene? yes. >> i just want it to be clear that the man the honorable member would see is not free to criticize, because that surely would be a curtailment of freedom of speech for those of us opposed to what he said. i'm pretty sure what he said is we do not have the right to criticize. >> you're quite right. we do have the right to cit
side, but i don't think we have the right to prevent somebody who's campaigned for elective office. the lady is right, although we have the right to cit side, we should not exercise that on people who are running for elected office in foreign countries. i believe it is for the american people to judge him. i believe it is for the american people to hold him to account. it is not -- i would argue it is bad to intervene in politics of other countries and we should do it as little as possible. i would give way. >> so what the honorable member is saying, the labor party, the honorable member is of muslim origin and under donald trump would not be allowed to travel to america. does the honorable member want to comment on that? >> i would be glad to. on the grounds that the u.s. constitution makes wonderful
provision, balance of powers. it is balanced by the congress and courts. it's a failure to understand why the united states, despite, let's face it, having one or two incumbents of the white house who may not have been mensa candidates, the country has yet succeeded all the way through to today as a bastion of liberty and economic success. now, today, as we consider martin luther king day, it is worth remembering that he, too, relied on these rights of freedom. he, too, relied on these rights when he was campaigning to deseg gait the university of alabama. and when those students bravely marched in on the 11th of june of '63, the prevailing opinion was that they should shut up. the prevailing opinion was that their rights of freedom of speech should be curtailed. and while i think this man is crazy. while i think this man has no
valid points to make, i will not be the one to silence his voice. so when i think now about what more we should do, i say we should stand aside, and we should wait for an american to come forward as the great joe wi welsh did, when he looked at senator mccarthy and said, "have you no shame, sir. at long lost, have you no sense of decency "? because if someone will say that to trump, surely it is better than for us to legislate on the freedom of travel on a person from the great country of the united states. >> i'm going to start by quoting martin luther king, because i think martin luther king deserves much more recognition today than does donald trump. our life the begin to end the
day we become silent about things that matter. so therefore, i do welcome this discussion. i'm very grateful for the petitioners who have wanted us to raise our voice and have this debate. there are two things i'd like to share with you. i had lunch earlier on with the undersecretary for public affairs. and the conversation, we agreed that actually donald trump is no more than a demagogue. he panders to people's fears as opposed to their strengths. and i should now, because i helped people get rid of the embattled west. there are two things i'd like to really point out for me, whilst i really, really value this
debate, and whilst i really understand and respect the view the of my colleagues who say we should ban this person from inciting hatred, i agree. hough, what i would also say is that i, as a member of parliament for bradford west would give an open invitation to donald trump to visit my constituency. and the reason i'd give him an open invitation to visit my constituenc constituency, i'd take him to the synagogue, to the mosque, i'd take him for a curry. we are the curry capital of britain. i would welcome him and have a conversation with hem and challenge him on his views, and i would show him -- when i've made my point, i will. i would show him that actually, i would invite him to feed the homeless with a charity that feeds so many homeless people in the city of bradford. i'd invite him to meet with the volunteers, the human appeal
foundation, muslim volunteers, and those people that work together in the issues that affect us as a country, which affected us as people, regardless of our race, regardless of our gender or ethnicity and our religion. that's what i'd show to him. >> i'm very grateful to the lady for giving way. she agreed with the ban, but at the same time, she wanted to invite him to her constituency. i don't see how this -- >> thank you for your intervention. i respect the views of my colleagu colleagues. i don't agree toe an overall ban. i would quite clearly invite donald trump to bradford west. and i think the curry is better in bradford west as well. so there you go. there's an issue for me about actually challenging that narrative. and i think it's important in the name of democracy to challenge that narrative, to challenge that hate, that hatred speech that comes out of his
mouth. i would also, by the very same token, you know, i stand here as a muslim woman, as a british, a proud, british muslim woman. and what i would say, and what i would, i would say to, you know, donald trump would like me banned from america. i wouldn't get my visa. but, you know what? in my, in my islam, and the koran that i understand, in verse 34, what it teaches me, this isn't word for word, goodness is better than evil. if someone does bad, you do good in return. so i will not allow the rhetoric of badness into my life, in my heart or for that of my constituents. what i will do is challenge that with goodness, because hatred brid breeds hate, and that is not something i will tolerate. and on a final point, given that it is martin luther king day, i have decided in his words, i
have decided to stick with love. hate is too great a burden to bear. thank you. >> laura atkins. >> thank you. it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. sir roger, i must make a declaration. i am the only member of parliament who can claim to represent the good people of new york. new york in lincolnshire. when those seeking religious sanctuary in the 1600s reached the shores of what we now know as the united states of america, this tiny hamlet in my constituency lent its name to a patch of land that grew to be one of the greatest cities on the planet. the good people of new york, the original new york wear that badge proudly, all 150 or so of
them. >> ted cruz has launched a vicious attack on the people of new york, saying they are cosmopolitans. i hope she will stand up, and will she know that actually, i've looked at the map, and not a single person from lincolnshire has signed this petition to ban donald trump. >> sir edward, you are, again, reaching my point before i am. i promise you, i'm going to deal with new york values at the end of my speech, but turning as i must to mr. trump, his comments regarding muslims are wrong. his comments regarding the border is bonkers. and if he met one or two of my constituents in one of the many excellent pubsna my constituency, they may tell him he is a wasuk for dealing with this in this way. because my constituents in new
york or in tetany feel that their values are more robust to survive anything that he might say. we in the united kingdom should have enough df dense in our values to allow him to say whatever he wants in new york, new york, in new york, lincolnshire or anywhere else in the world, because our british values are strong enough. >> does the honorable member understand it's all very well for us to say we are song and we will stand up to you, but we, her and i are not muslims living in a country where there is already a rise in islam phobia. and comments like that who has so much influence over so many people can only harm people not like us, people living out there on the street, feeling vulnerable, not feeling as
strong as she and her constituents are claiming to feel. >> i can only give the honorable member the reashierns as someone who used to prosecute criminals for a living before i came to this place, any defendant who tried that on in court would get veryshriff from me and i'm sure from the jury. we shouldn't allow people who beat up on others on the basis of their religion or beliefs, we shouldn't allow them to remove themselves from that by blaming somebody in a different continent. if they beat someone up in the streets of britain, that is their responsibility and no one else's. one of the values that best sums up our country includes the freedom to exchange thoughts and ideas within the law. the freedom to persuade or to rebut. the freedom to inspire or to eviscerate an argument. the freedom to speak, and the
freedom to listen. now this freedom is not always comfortable. my old friends have already referred to the rising problem, it seems of some of our universities fearing to allow free speech, providing safe spaces for fear that people may be offended. but the freedom of speech must mean that sometimes we are going to be offended. it means allowing those whose views we hold to be unedifying to speak their minds. and it also crucially means the freedom to reply, to say no, donald trump, you are wrong. and you are wrong for the following reasons. that freedom was hard won over centuries. and must be defended jealously, because it goes to the very essence of democracy and the rule of law. now members opposite may rely on the argument of consistency.
one may have said so-and-so has been excluded and so mr. trump must be excluded. let us remind ourselves about the threshold that must be met for this to happen. the home secretary must conclude that the person's presence in the united kingdom is not conducive to the public good. the house of commons provided a briefing note in which it provides 14 examples. of those 14 examples, 10 were considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to ferment, justify or glorify terrorist violence. nine were considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior in order to provoke others to commit terrorist act or serious crime. five were considering to be fostering hatred, which might lead to intercommunity violence
in the u.k. and one had spent p 30 years in prison for killing four soldiers and a 4 year old girl. i ask a simple question of those who would ban donald trump. are you really saying that his conduct, no matter how offensive, that his conduct meets this same criteria? i won't, thank you, i'll move on. if, and it is a big if, if donald trump poses any question for us as a country, the answer is not to fuel his publicity by banning him, which, incidentally, this debate is already doing nicely. the answer is to rebut his arguments. i'll finish my point. the answer is to challenge him in a robust, democratic argument about why he is wrong about the contribution of american and british muslims to this country.
i'll give way. >> i note the honorable member cites 14 cases of people who were banned. has the honorable member considered the 84 hate creatures. there is a striking resem blens between what donald trump is saying and two of the bloggers who were banned two years ago by the conservative home secretary and will the honorable member comment on whether the same should be applied to donald trump? >> forgive me. i've already given the house of commons briefing note, as i think most people accept as a neutral document. and, as i say, they are in a very, very different category from the category of donald trump saying, as he has done, on, on this issue and on many others. but if i may finally with the point that sir edward, my honorable friend and neighbor raised, ted cruz in the recent
republican debate accusing donald trump of having new york values. well, i can assure both of them that they would be enriched by the values of my constituents in new york and beyond, who are hard-working, generous and welcoming and who may well be rather bemused that we are fueling this man's publicity machine by having this debate at all today. thank you. >> thank you. it's a pleasure indeed to serve under your chairmanship. donald trump's comments that he would ban muslim men, women and children if he were elected president were almost universally condemned as racist and offensive, and i welcome the esteem on both sides of this debate and that members of the public have decided that this issue is serious and met its parliamentary scrutiny.
mr. trump's announcement and his subsequent remarks condemn a whole religion for the actions of a terrorist death cult. mr. trump also condemns and speaks in derogatory terms, i should say women, people with disabilities, mexicans. the list is non-exhaustive, because it is never ending. donald trump is not just wrong, his comments are indeed dangerous, and his views must be tackled seriously. donald trump's words confirm -- yes, of course. >> thank you. sir roger, does the honorable lady not think that mr. trump might well be making these comments not only because he thinks it, too, but because he wants to get lots of publicity to help his election campaign? >> i thank the honorable member for his intervention. i don't think it's for me or us to get into the mind of donald trump, but i think it would be
very important if members here would understand what it's like to be a muslim living in this country when we're facing comments made by people like mr. trump when people take what he's saying as genuine concerns about the whole of us who practice the muslim faith. it's a very uncomfortable place to be, and i would hope that the honorable member would respect my experience in that regard. in a similar vein, he condemns the chief executive of skynews and some of our greatest olympians. he condemns those for those working to overcome in iraq and syria, because mr. chairman, we are all muslims. that, for him, is the one and only common denominator. and rather than combating the serious issue of international terrorism, trump's statement has bolstered the twisted narrative promoted by the terrorist cult
daesh and others that pits the west against the muslim faith. he's fueled racial tensions across the world while undermining the national security of the u.s. and the u.k. and in the words of peter cook who said at the time that statement was made by mr. trump, anything that boosts isil's narrative is not only contrary to our values but our security. the national security of our friends in the u.s. he threatens too. our own security. since appointment to secretary in 2010, the job quite correctly is to protect public safety and promote our security. she has already explicitly excluded 84 people for hate speech under her judgment, my view is that donald trump should be number 85.
using the powers vested in her, she's excluded people who are considered extremists, criminals, homophobic extremists, and these rules should be applied to all. and if they exist, they exist for that very reason, and we have a responsibility for peace and security to ensure that whoever comes in and out of our country is treated in the same way. i am very, very proud that our government has taken a lead and in terms of questions of hypocrisy, it's an important forum for me to confirm that hayes global ambassador of state was distraught upon him by former labor administration. let that myth be dispelled here and now, but the same thing would apply. i don't think anyone, any genuine person could possibly invisage that this man would make such horrendous comments.
now i understand the argument being made by some that we should educate mr. trump, we should invite him here so he can see for himself how to build bridges with the muslim community rather than putting up barriers. this is a man who seeks to be president of the united states of america, and we think we should seek to educate him? we should be wary if a man lacking in such education seeks -- of course. >> can i not suggest that actually, this is about buffoonery, and ultimately, buffoonery should not be met with the blunt instrument of a ban but with the classic british response of ridicule. >> absolutely. >> i thank the member for his intervention, and it is within the gift of the british state about which he speaks to deal with mr. trump in the same manner as you've dealt with
other people. and i accept that you have referred to mr. trump's buffoonery, but i have to say that his remarks are condemning an entire legion of faith which i practice and it may be difficult for people to understand how that affects us, bau but it does, because he's talking about me, he's talking about my family, about my children. that is what mr. trump's talking about. mr. trump's policy would make it impossible for me or other muslim friends of the country to travel to make the same case there that we are making here. this parliament can be extremely proud of electing strong muslim mps. but mr. trump would ban the new members from entering the usa and allowing us to make our case there. i've heard others say that it would only add to mr. trump's
notoriety. it would raise his profile. that anyone who's followed the race for republican nomination for president would know that lack of profile is not an issue for mr. trump. the american people have a very important decision to make this year about who they want to lead their country, and i'm sure they will make the right choice, and it is their decision to make. mr. chairman, last week, mr. trump added insult to injury by stating that he would withdraw his investment in two scottish golf courses if he's subject to the same sort of travel restrictions he advocates for others. mr. trump is bad for business. it's already clear that -- costing the local economy dearly, while his threat to undermine offshores in the north sea have serious repercussions in scotland in this emerging
technology. donald trump has provided succor to hatred on both sides of the atlantic. he has of course a right to be wrong. but his statements are dangerous and threaten our public safety and national security. we cannot have laws which are applied differently, depending on people's income, public profile, religion or color. what does that say about us? our rules and laws must be applied consistently for all. the home secretary needs to apply her own judgment consistently in this case, and that is what i am calling upon her to do and looking forward to hearing from the minister and his response. mr. chairman, anything else would be unprincipled and quite simply wrong. >> thank you. pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to participate in this debate. i'm also a member of the petition's committee. and i'm delighted that we
brought this debate to the house today. not because we, as a committee, have a particular view, but we just felt with the number of people who signed the petition, it was right to air these very important issues. i'm sure, like the hundreds of thousands of people who signed this petition and no doubt millions of others across the country, i condemn wholeheartedly the comments made by mr. trump. not only about muslims but also about mexicans, about women, about people with disabilities and about other minority groups. however, the question ago to whether or not we should ban him from this country is a very interesting and a very important question, and one that, you know, we need to address and consider head on. this country has a long and strong tradition of free speech. although sadly i believe that that principle has been eroded,
and some of those freedoms have been eroded in recent times, i still believe that we are a country that welcomes debate and embraces a variety of views within our country. if we were to go down the road of banning mr. trump because we find his views objectionable or even offensive, where would we draw the line? there are many people who have equally intolerant views. those who come to this country, those who live in this country already. are we to ban them because we don't like the things they say or we disagree with them? the issue at stake here is how our society handles people who have different views than us, even when we find those views strongly objectionable or offensive. the issue of free speech. and i believe it is about when someone crosses a line to incite others to acts of acts.
that is the line i believe should be drawn and where we differentiate. and i personally don't believe that donald trump has crossed that line. he may do it at another time. and maybe we need to reconsider our views, but as of yet, i don't believe that he has done that. it's perfectly right that the home secretary bans extremist creatures when they tell their followers to commit acts of terrorism, to cause harm, hate, to cause pain and ultimately kill other individuals of community. that's absolutely right that the home secretary does that. but i don't believe mr. trump has done that. if we did, as a country, start to ban people because they said things we didn't like, i wonder how long the list would be? as ignorant and unpleasant as mr. trump's comments are, he is not alone. for starters, we'd have to ban
the current prime minister of hungary. he has said things equally offensive against muslims. the way we deal with prejudice is by facing it head on. i believe we'd only fuel his course even further, and in his own mind, he would see himself as a martyr, and i believe many of his supporters would feel the same. and what would it achieve, banning him? we live in a global village now. we're not going to stop his views reaching our shores purely because we ban him. in fact, i would argue the opposite, actually the promotion a ban would bring would mean that his words and his views are heard louder and stronger than they currently are. banning him would only play into his hands. so, instead of banning mr. trump, i'm with those who say let's invite him to this country. let's bring him here and confront his views head on.
let's take hem and show him what a great nation we are, based on those values of tolerance and freedom of speech. let's take him to the places that he has spoken about, and show him what life in britain is really like. the final point i would make, mr. chairman, is that i'm actually surprised at the amount of support that mr. trump has received from his own republican party. because it was ronald reagan who actually, certainly in my lifetime, was, in my view, the greatest republican president that the united states has had. >> yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. >> who, nar frfar from proposin bidding wabi building walls, to tearing down walls. he said to gorbachev, open this gate and tear down this wall.
and therefore, i'm surprised that he's getting the amount of support he is, because it seems to cut well against the heritage and values that i understand the republican party are about. of course i will. >> the fact is that in america and in britain, there is widespread disillusion with mainstream establishment of politicians who don't give a concern to many issues. we have to take on these arguments and discuss them in an open way. >> thank you. i agree with him. absolutely. but the response we're seeing is actually far more about people's frustrations and concerns than it is, i believe, about one individual man. and so, in conclusion, i believe it would be ironic if we were to take the regressive stance of banning donald trump because he has called for a ban on muslims
into the united states. i find that entirely ironic that we would surely be guilty of same thing that we are criticizing him for. it would send a signal to the world that we are scared. >> a difference between what donald trump has said and what we're saying, we are, not we, but members on this side are calling for draumt to be banned because of something very dangerous that he said. he's calling for muslims to be registered and tracked for no reason, they've done absolutely nothing wrong. that is a huge difference. >> to ban him would simply be playing into the same fears that he is promoting. it's often been said that two rights, two wrongs don't make a right. well, i want to say that two bans don't make a right. >> mr. chairman, it's a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship. america is a great country. donald trump is a fool. is he fr he is free to be a fool. he is not free to be a dangerous fool on our shores. some of the foolish things that donald trump has said, the concept of global warming was created by and four the chinese in order to make u.s. manufacturing non-competitive. it's freezing and snowing in new york. we need global warming. he, john mccain's no war hero. he's a war hero because he was captured. i like people who weren't captured. he went on to the offensive. he said i would build a great wall in relation to mexico, and nobody builds walls better than me. believe me, and i'll build them very inexpensively. i'll build a great wall on our southern border, and i will have mention could i pay for that wall, mark my words.
i will. >> the honorable man makes an excellent case as to why donald trump is a buffoon, not a criminal. a buffoon. >> those remarks are daft and offensive. i would defend people's right to be daft and offensive. i was chairman of the national council for civil lick iberty. but freedom of speech is not an absolute. neither is there an absolute right for donald trump or anyone else to come to our shores. successive governments have acted to exclude the preachers of hate whose presence would not be conducive to the public good. preachers of hate, the effect of whose actions and words would be to incite violence have no right to come to britain. and if i could give some examples of the kind of people who have been banned, michael
savage, a u.s. radio host. he said, it was said about him, he was considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior. he claimed american muslims needed deportation, be banned from coming to our country, eunice astyle, found guilty of unacceptable gabehavior. banned from coming to our country. robert spencer, founder of the stop islamization of america was banned in 2013 by the current secretary of state for the home office when they were due to speak as an edl rally held in the location of lee rigby's murder as their arrival would not be deemed to be conducive to the public good. and one other example.
sagaf o fchlf wazari. he had called for violence against jews. what has donald trump actually said? about the total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states. he then went on to say as follows, 50% of our country, of those polled agree that muslims in america should have the choice of being governed according to sharia, sharia, he said, authorizes such atrocities as murder against nonbelievers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to americans, especially women. one will wonder after those remarks there was a recorded rise in attacks against muslims in america. now why do i argue for the exclusion of donald trump? i do so because if i can turn,
in chairman to the context of us having this debate. there is a uniquely awful threat facing our country, a generational threat of evil terrorism. we are now seeing terrorist arrests at the rate of one a day in britain. key to preventing terrorist attacks has been the patient building by our police service of good relationships with the muslim community through neighborhood policing. that has been key to the successful detection of terrorist after terrorist in our country. and the nature of terrorism confronting our country takes two forms. first, it's the organized cells, organized from raqqah, and secondly, it is a strategy to radicalize the vulnerable. in particular, those were mental illness, and in particular, those who suffer from, who suffer from the victim hood
encouraged by isis. and what makes donald trump's presence in our country so dangerous is that in the current fee briel comment, isis needs donald trump, and donald trump needs isis. isis needs to say on the one hand, muslims, you are under attack. donald trump needs to be able to say on the other hand, you are under attack by muslims. and that's why i strongly believe that he should not be allowed to come to our country. just think what would happen in the current climate if he came to birmingham, to london, to glasgow and preached that message of divisive hate. it would be damaging. it would be dangerous. it would be deeply divisive. >> the gentleman's making some really interesting points. the examples he's used though
are more surely about donald trump being a bigot rather than hatred. britain is pretty good at roasting beef. do you not think it better that we just roast trump? >> i'm sorry. i don't think a debate like this calls for flippensy at a time like this. with the greatest of respect, when our police service and our security services are working night and day to prevent our country being attacked and when they need the support of the muslim community to have someone come to our shores who demonizes all of the muslim community would be fundamentally wrong and would undermine the safety and security of our citizens.out how donald trump makes them feel. however, our british values, are
they not strong enough to stand up to that? does it not help to voices on all sides of this, standing up to the values that we believe in as a nation? >> i strongly believe in the unity across the political spectrum to reject terrorism. i welcome some of these initiatives that have been taken. some of the things that we have done birmingham. but the simple reality is, if you get a vulnerable young man radicalized who has got mental illness, who believes in the victimhood promoted by isis and donald trump in london or birmingham, the consequences of that could be serious indeed. in conclusion, i don't think the donald trump should be allowed within 1000 miles of our sure. he would embolden them on the one hand and fueled the flames of terrorism on the other hand.
anald trump is free to be fool, but he's not free to be a dangerous fool in britain. >> the principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom of thought for those who thought we hate. so said justice oliver wendell of the u.s. supreme court. of course, even in a libertarian there are statements that cause real harm. but if we fear all of our greatest statements, if we fear a swell of support for unpopular views, if we fear challenge we will not only stifle free thought, we will stifle independence and liberty. we will lose the opportunity to rebirth. expense to arguments, analysis and scrutiny, losing the
opportunity to win over those who may have listened and finally supported and agreed. limiting free speech does not always quash unwelcome belief. restrictingore laws free speech than any other western democracy. it also has europe's largest far right party. in 2009 nate griffin appeared on question time, watched by 8 million people. at the time the bnp was 6.6% of the national vote. in the first election after that not only did they fail to win a seat, but they fragmented in the polls. last week it was announced by the electoral commission that they had been set for their status as a -- as an official political party. referred toesman the poor performance on question time as a fact of eroding his popularity.
those who made share the release of the speaker, we knit -- we need to do more than silence them. we need to address the real grievances. we need to listen. we need to take note. and then we need to respond. >> thank you to the honorable member and my constituents. often nick griffin appears on question time and in the 24 hours after he appears, 3000 people joined the bnp immediately. that was the platform. >> in order to have free speech, we have debate. the nick griffin discussion a question time will have evoked a number of responses. of course there will be people when there is an advocate for something. there will always be people who follow them. that may be a small minority.
what we need to do is put the voices out there in order to slam them down. ultimately that is what has happened to the bnp. donald trump's statement that all muslims should be banned from the u.s. wrongly categorizes an entire religion to a few extremists. his statements should be exposed as such. now is not the time to ban him. now is the time to say very clearly that these extremists are wrong and should be rooted out and stopped. now is the time to say that muslims have given us such things as out iraq, transforming the study of life and objects. these discoveries founded one of the basis for our modern technologies. the other real difficulty is that donald trump is a presidential candidate. if we banned the leader of every country who made offensive,
inappropriate, or inflammatory statements or who took steps within, we would have a much more limited foreign policy. we may not even have a leader of the opposition. mr. chairman, i welcome both petitions. i welcome this debate. because we live in a democracy that respects freedom of expression. when people make unacceptable statements what we need to do is use their capacity to expose these weaknesses and then ultimately defeat their argument. >> we encapsulate picturesque villages and rolling countryside's. stunningly achieving the birthplace years ago and next
week, the scottish national beard. it is also the home to one of resorts.est in 1902 willie fernie was commissioned to design a championship course. which brings me to why am speaking here today. disappointingly, we've been dragged into this debate. because of donald trump and 2014 , it is undergoing a complete refurbishment. the trump organization is investing 200 million pounds and the resort materials for the development have been sourced locally. people.g some 200 local hasddition, someone
expected 300 contractors next month. many of them also local, all of them exchanging money with the local businesses. this is a stark contrast to years ago. in the 1990's you would have been hard pressed to hear an accent among them. owner, foodevious they order the economy in london. despite promises of investment, they report closing the resort. failure to invest in the venue meant it was unsustainable. before the trump organization came in, staff wanted to shut it down altogether.
the vast majority of these people have full-time contracts with part-time staff. and a constituency that uses aroundyment, employing 84 years. i spent time there last week and i spoke to the members. they don't talk about trump is a politician. they don't talk about him is a showman. they talk about him as a man with a passion for golf and a commitment to the clear vision and future of this resort. they talk of an organization, a family-run business with local people and an ambitious plan for the future of the area, ambition backed up by action. last week i heard from a gentleman who stayed at the
course for 60 years. he talked of the respect to the ordinary members and how lucky we were to have this historic course. donald trump is a diverse character. i have no intention of standing here to defend the man. his comments about chinese people, mexican immigrants, and women have been deplorable. seems to out trump himself, no top -- no pun intended, each time he speaks. over half a million people here in the u k have chosen to call them out by standing up for the muslim community. however, we cannot afford to
spurn the business because of the right wing in this election campaign that is thousands of miles away. his ability to run off at the , being banned from the u.k., will ultimately be less for the man. a beautiful landscape of scars with 14% of the working age population. captain,rds of the pop the trump organization with its head locked out would be catastrophic for the resort and the tragedy for the local community. my role here is to speak for my constituency. someonerman, banning and wanting to ban others, in my
view, is an inappropriate response. >> philip davis? >> we find ourselves in the ridiculous position where some people are so outraged that donald trump has suggested that simplyld ban people because of their beliefs that those people want to ban donald trump for his beliefs, which is a completely ridiculous situation. all across the pond donald trump has been waging what might have been described as a one-man cap aim against political correctness for some time. as someone who has had their own campaign against political correctness for some time here in this parliament no one will be surprised to hear that i can relate to that. in the race to become the next president he has been gaining support with the political that many described as
blunt directness. i certainly applaud him for straight talking. in fact i think in this country we could do with rather less political correctness and much more straight talking across the board. i think that many of our constituents would agree. today we be clear that are debating whether or not a man who has a chance of becoming the next president of the united states of america should be physically banned from entering the united kingdom. by anyone's standard that is a rather big thing. his offense is to suggest a ban on incoming muslims to america until our countries representatives can figure out what is going on. it is extremely clear that in the western world we are andriencing difficult dangerous types. violent attacks are becoming too frequent inside these countries, perpetrated by those who want to be brought in with religious conformity.
something that all right thinking people are deeply worried about and it is also clear that one path to terrorists and those who hate our way of life, of living in our western countries is to enter as immigrants and refugees. determining what to do about that clear and worrying problem will result in people having different suggested solutions. people in allome of our constituencies who will agree with the view of donald trump. they will disagree with a view of donald trump. to disagree with donald trump's view. but whatever people think, he should truly be entitled to have it, andnion, express give the people who have that view a voice in the political process. there was actually an opinion that showss process
that in the united kingdom 65% disagree with donald trump and 24% agree with him. when that was moved into the north, with the people that agree with him out of it went from 24% to 35%. by anybody's standard that is a significant body of the population. seemof people in this room suddenly quiet when people with a minority opinion have the nerve to express it. it's amazing that the people who always preach about tolerance and how we shouldn't have any intolerance are the same people who are so intolerant of anybody who happens to have a different opinion to them. i will give way to the honorable gentleman. can i ask, does the right honorable friend think that there are any limits to freedom of speech? would there come a point for
someone like donald trump should be banned because the words were so extreme? very much on the side many feel he is inciting hatred here and across the world. well, yes, there do need to be some restrictions on free speech. people inciting violence and terrorism, we should, that free speech should be restricted. but we should certainly not go around banning everyone from the country simply for voicing their opinion that the honorable gentleman has -- happens to disagree with. , i'm sure that the honorable gentleman would agree that this motion is actually embarrassing to the u.k. and makes us look intolerant and totalitarian. i feel that we should almost apologize to the people of the united states. mr. for them to decide on
trump, not us. we should remind the people of america that these people over here represent 1% of the population of the people in this country. >> i share the sentiment. i think it is ridiculous, frankly, that we are needing to have such debates in a country that has always prided itself on freedom and free speech. all the people need to speak and i'm afraid there isn't time. lady had her say. the real issue for me is not actually donald trump us remarks, it's the reaction to them. serious threat or harm to our society in any way. because hisy be reaches wide and politically incorrect. the debate today has as much to do with political and correctness as it has to do with his comments. the free speech that might rightly americans hold very dear, as indeed do many of us here in this country, the irony
is that it is in part because of political correctness that the straight talking of donald trump became so popular with the electorate over there. people were fed up with being told with what they can and can't think, can and can't say, find it refreshing to find a politician who has the what hestand up and say thinks, even if it's controversial or unpopular. in many cases we should theseate more often politicians who say things that are controversial. it's easy for someone to stand up and suss out motherhood and apple pie from what's popular. any old fool can do that. it takes real guts to say things that are unpopular and controversial and in that regard i want to respect the leader of the opposition who has made a hallmark of saying unpopular and controversial things.
will always respect his right to do that, too. many people are tolerated in this country because of the belief of free speech. people who will be placed higher up by my constituents that double trope. those who hate all things british from our own soil. those who denounce freedom generally and hate the western way of protecting the importance of the original freedoms and values. the silence of the opinion we have seen in both countries builds up resentments. there are people in this country who stand up to the right, who criminals that they see to the port from this country and they are unable to the same people who are so keen to keep foreign criminals in this country that we are trying to deport.
we are debating whether or not donald trump should be banned? that's ridiculous and outrageous. ending on this point -- for anyone to think that they are so outraged that donald trump thinks that people should be banned from his country because of their beliefs and then they then think that the solution to the problem is to banned all and i couldn't agree less if i tried. >> gavin? >> i would like to say it's a pleasure, but instead i will i would like to pay tribute to the speeches from the new war -- newport waste honorable member.
>> forcing me to think that in the 21st century we are stealing and in the campaign? let's be clear. i try to think of something definite to describe this, but none were clear enough. the fact that the public party candidate for the united states, the most powerful job in the world, it speaks father of how his father once made the gop his phone. for presidential candidates in the u.k., the question we should ask ourselves should he because of who he is or how powerful he might become in the u.k.? regardless of how powerful they are or the lodging that they be -- that they believe in.
each and every day young people have held back based on religion and gender. each year families live in fear. the people are victims of these acts and they look to lawmakers to help them solve these issues. however, today's debate asks us to contemplate this situation where a bully might be elected to president of the united states. message that the the behavior is ok, that bigotry is commendable, and it's ok to hit people who look, speak, or act differently from you.
i am of two minds on this issue. defeating his point is some by of what'sng the facts but the society, arguments for banning him are weed on a principle shouldn't not add him to the list. in 2014 the home secretary indicated that she deported hundreds from entering ginny in the u.k.. on what grounds would it be acceptable to ban these people but not mr. trump, too? the premise is also divisive, stupid, and wrong. refusing entry for reasons related to character, conduct, there is as in which
list of unacceptable behaviors that included the remains of the be needed toay enter a community of violence. mr. chairman, that makes more potential for no reasons that his sexist been divisive views. he doesn't believe women are equal to men, though in reality i think he believes that no one is quite equal to donald. viewhave sympathy with the that we should ban him from the u.k.. i agree with a lot of the arguments. however, i want to tackle the policies he believes in head on. defeat theseto people is by showing them how outrageous their views are.
meeting with local muslims to discuss beliefs. to homeless shelters and -- lg btovi chi tea groups. where is he now? we should not be afraid to tackle the views held by people like him. the fight against racism, bigotry, sexism in general is not over. and we should send a message through the power of argument. u.k..ump come to the
he will wish that he had been banned. >> am very grateful to be called at this late stage of the debate. i think that if martin luther king were here today he would be at some of the sugarcoated version of american history that has been on display. i hate to say this, i regret to say this, but what trump has proposed has been -- has been in this to many times legislation, something which has regrettably often happened in u.s. history. you only need look at the chinese exclusion act of 1882. in which chinese laborers were banned from entering the united states.
only changed in 1952. he would be very surprised by this very sanitized version of american hit in politics that we have heard today. light your views have history? they are not something that he dreamt from his own head. it comes from a long line of nativist legislation. we can decry this and call it terrible, evil, and bad, but that is no grounds on which to ban a presidential candidate. you would even say -- and i that -- you would suggest his ban was a temporary ban, as he said in his speech in south carolina.
noted that the chinese exclusionary act lasted for 70 years. they were not temporary bans. they lasted for 30 years. so, his form of nativism is and so, donald trump is in that long tradition. but that doesn't mean that we ban him. all the arguments that have been made against ban think are absolutely valid. . will say this in this debate if the united kingdom were to banned on the trump from coming to britain, that would be the biggest boost for his campaign in america possible. in terms of publicity. in terms of the patriotism of the united states not wishing other countries to impose upon them and try to shape and determine the outcome of their elections. this would be a spectacular end
goal. i remember the guardian attempt in 2004 to stop george bush from becoming reelected in that campaign. i think it was a very german -- journalist, they had a letter campaign to the people in ohio, they identified ohio was a key swing state, and they got some of their readers to write to individual electors in that state, urging them not to vote for george w. bush. needless to say, i'm sure members of the house will not be surprised to know that he carried ohio and was indeed reelected as president of the united states. that campaign was often cited as the way in which foreigners, people try to intervene in the election of another state, could get things completely wrong. there he happy to give way. >> i am very grateful.
to improveseeking what happened in the american presidential candidate elections or the elections to follow. we are talking about what we can do here, asking everyone to be consistent in her approach and rules she has used. we are talking about the united kingdom, not anywhere else. i fully appreciate the honorable ladies remarks. as far as she's concerned, that is her case. i'm asking the people of america . they don't have the luxury of having her understand how conventions and debates work. you make my point for me. it is all well to say to let donald trump come here and have the discussion with us.
he wishes to ban people like me. to go to the united states of america and to make the case for the muslims in america who are not represented by dinesh. >> i appreciate her remark. the answer to his van is not to ban him. that does not make any sense to me. he is banning muslims. in his own mind, he is saying muslims constitute a danger to the united states. on those grounds, he is banning them. now we are doing the same thing if we were to ban him. we would say donald trump represents a danger to the united kingdom, and on that grounds, our banning him from coming. the circumstances are different but the logical force is exactly the same. i'm quite happy to give way. withthoroughly disagree
the honorable member saying it is exactly the same. it is not exactly the same. donald trump says he wants to ban all muslims because of their religion. 1.6 billion people he wants to ban because of their religion. the reason why members are asking for him to be banned is because of the rhetoric and sentiment and the values he has expressed is different from banning someone because of their religion. i hope that point is clear. very generous, but i want to clarify that point. as i repeat, the grounds upon which he is banning muslims is not because of their sex, but he believes they constitute a danger to the united states. just explaining his logic. i don't agree with it. trumpse to ban donald would be that he is a danger to
our civic well-being. logically it is the same. that point about 1.6 billion muslims, thank god there are 91.6 billion trumps. say, beyond the it ise public city, and no good to say that he only has good publicity of the moment, so anymore would not make a difference. we have seen throughout his campaign, at the beginning of his campaign, a growing crescendo of excitement of interest in the campaign. the very fact of this debate, as someone else observed, is stoking that excitement. i will not take any more interventions. i can see the lady itching in her seat. i am saying is we are
simply adding fuel to this whole media circus, and this is playing exactly into his hands. a ban would be a headline throughout the world. it would simply reignite all the publicity that he generated with his outrageous policy. and would exacerbate the situation, would make it more likely that he would be the eventual victor in the republican nomination fight and knows, win the election in november. then we would be in this absurd situation in which we would have banded the president of the united states from coming to insane. which is it is an insane situation to be in. people who say he has no chance of becoming president, this is my final point. look at the leader of the opposition. made 2000 essex
pounds, having put 10 pounds on him. chances ofe you the donald trump becoming president are far greater than 200 21. -- 200 to 1. >> the question is, is donald trump conducive to the public good? we have had a lot of talk about buffoonery, terms like blunt and direct this. if i were muslim -- and i'm not. i speak as a gentle atheist. i would find that repulsive. the thought that i should be excluded from the united states of america for no other reason than i was a muslim. i am proud to represent the dartmouth, and from dartmouth nearly 400 years ago, the pilgrims sailed to the americas to escape the kind of religious persecution that we are addressing today. we have seen the results in
happens when you demonize an entire people for no other reason from their race. so i don't think we should trivialize this discussion. i think it is a really important debate. nor do i think the results of the u.s. presidential election will be decided on whether or , whether this house the home secretary decides to exclude the donald trump. in fact, i would argue, should donald trump be excluded from oldest allies,' that would send a clear message to the people of the united dates about what we feel about those who demonize an entire people for no reason other than their religion. that said, i don't think there is any realistic prospect that the home secretary will ban donald trump. house send a clear message to muslims in this country, to british muslims,
that we value you, that we value your contributions, that we will take this petition very seriously. and perhaps those arguments about religious freedom matter as much now as they did 400 years ago. i welcome everybody across the pond in the united states who may be following this debate back to my constituency. the most beautiful constituency of britain. to come and see where the pilgrim fathers sailed from dartmouth. the anniversary is in 2020. i would say to them all and donald trump, just reflect on the consequences of your kind of religious bigotry. this is not a laughing matter. think again. and if you visit this country, take time to visit the mosques, take time to meet muslims. take time to understand just how profoundly offensive and dangerous that kind of thinking
is, and there is no place for it in this country or in the united states. >> thank you. 25 years ago, i was in new york , and i had an interest in his notoriety, so i visited -- i tower, sort ofmp a black and gold edifice to a certain narcissism. and then i read his book, "the art of the deal," which was pretty similar in many ways. these things were not edifying, and his activities since have not been more edifying. we have in this country a long tolerance,civilizing developed out of conflict, deliberation, and progress. this place, westminster hall, is
a place of particular residence in that history, where overbearing attitudes have been brought into line with the thinking of the day, sometimes with force. king charles was sentenced to a few euros from this place. mps here represent their constituents. the sensible ones keep close to mind the summary nature of the decisions of public opinion. those from whom the public withdraws their support have someone better prospects than in the past happily. no longer do political disagreements lead to duels, disembowelment, or decapitation. there is a more civilized process of elections. for this, we must all be grateful. when a terrorist menace threatens our hard-won civilization with a throwback to outdated methods of dealing with difference, and brings them to
our shores, it is right that we oppose it in the strongest terms. our american cousins feel differently. they are conscious of freedom, board of escape from religious tolerance, and the need to be self-reliant, and the desire to make their own economic destiny and their own strong and democratic legal institutions which have been formed under this agreement. when they speak, we should listen, even if we disagree. be robust with them when necessary and encourage them not to take retrograde steps. mr. trump, the orange prince of american self publicity, more public now than usual because he will be running for president, if he wins the nomination as republican candidate, and possibly close to the presidency should bernie sanders and not hillary clinton be selected as the democratic candidate. he has set things which many of us would not and the addition of celebrity has been somewhat
grotesque. to say that he would then muslims from entering the u.s. was too simplistic, unhelpful, and wrong, but i don't think there is evidence that he does not believe in democracy itself, so talk of fascism is a bit overblown, notwithstanding his bedtime reading leaving a lot to be desired. while cynically expressed by mr. trump, people's concerns about the terrorist challenge needs to be addressed. however, we need to work possibly -- positively with muslim communities, not demonize them. what better place for his mischaracterizations to be debunked than here in the u k, the crucible of modern democracy , where heads are no longer loved for dissent. andwould not want to watch be prodded on have i got news for you? bad opinions and characters have been allowed in britain before. a few of them homegrown. we would not want to allow him
any victimhood with which further to hoodwink people. i hope honest british muslims would have their say and even more people would then decide not to vote for him than to use the good sense. who knows? up close, we may get to see what is under that hair. >> thank you. let's petition with our half a million signatures. example of theme xenophobia of donald trump. i am here to sum up for the snp although many parties do not have an actual party on donald trump. thankfully it's not been needed. support aecessarily on mr. trump from entry into this country but it's
clear his bigoted remarks against muslims, mexicans, and other minorities, but particularly his remarks about deserve condemnation from all parts of this house and society. i am proud of the petitioners and all of those who signed the petition for rejecting the egregious xenophobia and islam a phobia of this man. i hope they would not take too this issue.h there have been interesting arguments on both sides today. those who are against banding but opposed donald trump and everything he stands for have talked about bringing him here to educate him. i did not really have the same understanding as other honorable members have had when they meant to buy that, taken to the
mosques to meet some muslims. perhaps they thought that maybe those people would teach him a thing or two, and they would be absolutely right to do that. feel inngest argument i favor of banning him is simply the argument of inequality. i think the minister needs to correct when other members say there are other cases that are similar, where they are treated differently? that is something he has to answer. the very fact that this petition was so popular highlights three worthy and important points. the first is that we in these islands reject wholeheartedly the notion of discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion. the second, it points out that individuals of power such as trump are happy to demonize others but could never consider that they themselves could be
treated in such a fashion. finally, the public reaction in this country and the u.s. let's not forget there was an outcry in the united states from the many good people in that country, to the statements of the public to highlight the fact that trumps statement goes past all of the enlightenment values that ties the states and the countries of the united kingdom together. while we can recognize the statement was distasteful, we should also note the hypocrisy of the son of an immigrant, advocating for being so bigoted against other migrants and religious minorities. >> [inaudible] i'm afraid this debate in the u.s. is far more nuanced. all the republican candidates in this election are expressing the traditional american view that america is a melting pot. it does not matter where you come from but you had to be
loyal to the flag and america. there is a feeling in america now that trump could be articulating this in an extreme way, but to deny that many ordinary people in america are worried about their americanness is to deny the real debate, which is a valid debate. >> [inaudible] just to say we are not so tight for time as we thought about 10 minutes ago. the debate can continue until 7:30. >> thank you. just to the honorable member, he talks about republican politicians but there are others , other activists in the u.s. who do not agree with what he has assessed of the situation. donald trump. at as his first name suggests, he is the son of a scottish immigrant. i apologize for that. others, hisss
mother left the homeland during the great depression and went to the land of liberty. this desire for economic opportunity is the same thing that motivates many migrants from many other countries to go to america today. the mexican migrants who trump so roundly defames have engaged in the same quest that his forbearers undertook. as a man who purports to be proud of his new york heritage, he would do well to look to lady liberty for some advice on immigration. of course, we would also do well to remind donald trump, as the son of a scottish presbyterian, of the countless generations of immigrants who left the shores for the u.s. in search for religious toleration. the puritans may have gotten a shock at plymouth rock but they certainly went on to forge a society where your religion was to a greater or lesser extent, a relevant thing in public life.
while some faced anti-catholic prejudice when they ran for office, they were always able to fall back on the fundamental truth that religious bigotry goes against all of the in-line values that america shares with europe. of useasy for those protected by this parliamentary bubble to consider proposals and rhetoric such as trump's from being distasteful, opportunistic. some thought it was funny and a truth. but all of us in public life have a duty to work for the common good and to oppose discrimination. i don't think anyone would disagree with that. >> [inaudible] this is a presidential candidate. if a presidential candidate was
banned and then became president theat in no circumstances, ability to discuss policy on a whole range of issues would be externally difficult. that is why i am giving, i think, both sides of the argument. inm just a bit more opposition to mr. trump as a person. the way i see it being different because he is a presidential candidate, he should be less likely to get away with these things because he has far more influence over many more people. when you have someone -- >> thank you. trump wants, donald to ban parliamentarians from this parliament from entering america, so he should not be a presidential candidate. >> i agree, he should know better.
when i heardmile arguments from members of the opposite saying we should not be interceding in this process, and yet we have tried to stop him from visiting the country. when you have someone running for the most powerful political elected position on the planet, actively encouraging discrimination divides communities. it cannot do anything else. that example leads to countless whichf bigotry and hatred will never be reported. i want to turn to some of those examples which have been rise in, and the islamophobia. a friend of mine who is a spoke after the paris attacks of his son being afraid to walk to school because he was
seeing the headlines on the front pages of newspapers. one in particular claiming that a significant percentage -- i think it may have said a majority -- of muslims supported terrorism. that child was frightened to go to school. one muslim children are going to school, they are being called terrorist and bombers. to theve no connection terroristic activities going on. today, david cameron announced an englishassist language lesson. i agree, we should be supporting people to integrate, we should be supporting people, not forcing people, but my understanding is this funding is for muslim women. what has religion got to do with the english language? how will that work? will muslim women be routinely tested to see their english language skills are up to snuff? have my friends beside me
already passed that test, does she have to take a test in english? it is ridiculous. and if the money was for muslim andn, then that is wrong, that in itself will continue in islamophobia. language is so important. we would all do well to mind the language we use. donald trump, it was not just the language he used, it was the intent behind a prepared statement. the jews were forcibly registered. forld trump not just called muslims to be banned them but to be registered and tracked. to my mind, there is no difference between that and to what we did to the jews in europe. that leads me to a number of questions i have for the minister. firstly, does he agree with his
colleagues that the impact of donald trump saying what he did is no greater and no more dangerous than their constituents saying it to each other? thatdly, is he comfortable somebody like donald trump would automatically be allowed to come into the country when i know several people who cannot get their wives or husbands into the country even for visits. are they not as deserving of the rights to visit this country? if he is a lot to be in the country, will the immigration minister be expecting donald trump to reject what he said before he comes? hadhe president of china called for all christians to be refused entry into china, would he still have been invited to , -- country last year >> [inaudible] >> he is the president or he has
the right to offend. lots of my constituents think like that. would he get the same treatment that donald trump is getting? >> on that great point about banning heads of state, it is known that mecca is banned for christians for hundreds of years, yet we entertain and have entertained the king of saudi arabia. mecca and medina. >> i would say, there are a number of other people that are cozying up to -- the u.k. government closing up to him for a number of other reasons. saudi arabia being amongst them. i am not expecting the minister to write all of these down, but i hope he agrees with me that my always getsiends passionate speeches about her
equality treatment. finally, my final question. will the minister join me in condemning the nasty, abusive, racist tweets that my honorable friend has set me receiving on her speaking out against donald trump, and does he think donald trump's statements may have contributed to the abuse that she is constantly having to put up with? i have completely lost my place now. no, i haven't. donald trump is on the record saying his second favorite book after the bible is "the art of the deal" written by donald trump. hehaps it would be better if spent more time reading the constitution of the united states. as president obama's press secretary pointed out -- >> [inaudible] >> i think the honorable lady
for the speech. one point about the constitution, donald has suggested that ted cruz cannot stand for the presidency either. he is the other republican candidate. more importantly, where is the republican party going? i agree with that, and it is a matter for that political party, but that is a good point to raise, may be a good reason for us to be supporting hillary clinton to become the next president. i'm sorry, i'm allowed on the allowed to comment on the presidential elections. as president obama's press secretary pointed out, donald trump's statements make him unfit to be president because he
cannot pledge to uphold the constitution if he doesn't believe in religious liberty and freedom from discrimination, or is he going to amend the , and howion on his own with the people of the united states put up with that? and where his right wing rhetoric may help them to pick up votes in the primary, in the general election, the mass amount of voters will be horrified that such an individual could lead them on the world stage. trump believes himself to be plainspoken but i don't believe a feeling -- and i understand the arguments around people who do not want robotic politicians who just churn out pre-rehearsed press statements -- but there is a huge difference between that and what we have here. i don't believe appealing to fear and presidents is a language in common sense of people here or in the u.s. as tempting as it is is to give trump a taste of his own medicine, tempting to bar him,
would he loved it, would we be giving a gift to him? as some have argued, would only give him more publicity? or is the argument stronger that if we let him in, we will give him publicity, because of what he said, he will be on every tv program and chat show spouting his nonsense? i do see an argument for allowing him to come in and do that because i don't believe he will be able to help himself and he will say things that will render him chargeable and guilty , able to be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred. finally, i am just going to respond to the comment that he is not a martyr. surely the argument cannot be that we only want to ban martyrs, only want to charge murderers. there is another crime that has an impact on people's lives. maybe not mine but on many
people's lives. finally, there have been many suggestions on that side that we should keep quiet about this. members of the public who signed the petition, some here today, so that they should just keep quiet. i am going to hand by letting everyone know that i have a .arking today it is martin luther king day and i'm encouraging everyone to sign that today. i will quote martin luther king who said the ultimate tragedy is not the oppression by the -- bad of the back people, but the silence of that from the good people. we will not be silenced. like many others here, i welcome this debate. it is a good thing that 600,000 or so members of public have brought this to the attention of the house. viewsy, a wide range of
amongst the public, across all political parties and across the house itself. powerful speeches and powerful interventions. but an important aspect in all of the speeches this afternoon, we are united in condemning the comments of donald trump on it issues such as mexican immigrants, muslims, and women, and we should celebrate that whenever view we take of the proposals in the petition before us. i like to take the opportunity to add my name to the list of those condemning the comments that have been made. before turning to the specific question of whether donald trump should be banned from entering the u.k., i want to spend a couple moments on a wider context. donald trump made his comments in the aftermath of the san bernardino shootings on the second of december.
that is when he was at his height in relation to those con -- comments. he was not the first and will not be the last to make comments about a community in the wake of a terrorist atrocity. we have to be clear, responsibility for terrorist , notlie with terrorists with the communities that they purport to come from. we must be clear what we say about that, even when he is not clear about what he says. that does give me the opportunity to bring to this concern about the rise in hate crime here in the u.k. hate crime has been increasing, as has been mentioned. in 2015.ne up 18% the number of offenses involving religious hatred has more than doubled in the past three years. concern, but it is
not uniform. spikes after an atrocity. there is always a reaction in terms of hate crime. just last month, in my constituency, i had convened a meeting with somali women, who i was concerned to hear from. we spent the afternoon discussing their concerns. this was in december after the paris atrocities. the one thing they raise with me over and over again was that day , muslim women in my constituency, were very concerned that they were being as ated that day, week, result of what happened in paris. they perceived it and felt it. ony said it was happening the buses, trains, when they were shopping, etc. spike after atrocities, and we had be united in our
values, that that should be done with. i know the government is now tracking muslim hate crimes, and that is welcome. i know there are a number of steps to do with hate crime. dominica -- minister can point out what else is being done. i do join with other comments in saying that many people here want to send a message to the muslim community about how much we value them and what they bring to our society. >> [inaudible] on that point, i am extremely grateful for giving way and the sentiment he makes in terms of talking about the muslim community. i also think it is important to put on record, the muslim community condemns all types of bigotry, racism, regardless of who is biking in. he seems to be a misconception
that for some reason we think it toacceptable for muslims speak in derogatory terms about people of other religions. it's important to put on record that is absolutely not the case. wherever they bigotry or hatred speech is coming from, it is not acceptable, regardless of who is delivering the message. that.nk you for i do want to say something about this debate this afternoon, about this simplistic approach. he says he wants to ban all muslims, so we should not ban him. it is far too simplistic. what lies at the heart of his belief that muslim should be banned is that he thinks they are all dangerous. that is not buffoonery. that is absolutely repugnant. that is not what leads anyone in this debate, anyone who signed this petition, to suggest that
donald trump should not come here. that is why his comments are so offensive to that whole community, and of course to women and the mexicans as well. because of the assumptions and the belief that lies behind them. i do not any way condone what donald trump said, but i do not think it is right to say that if all of them, that all of them are dangerous, whatever group they may be. ,hat you are saying is, some very few from a certain group might be dangerous. i do not condone the logic. i do not condone the policy, but in this house of commons, we have to give fair dealing to the views that have been expressed. i'm grateful for that intervention. i think we have to be very the viewsout equating
of people in this house, members of this house who have called for a ban, and that of donald trump. i'm afraid on my part, they do edge toward treating a whole community as a suspect community. each and every member, but this has happened before in history, many other contexts, were a whole community has been treated as a suspect community, and we have stood against it in the past and we should do so now. one of the measures -- >> [inaudible] this debate can be tied up into whether mr. trump has made outrageous comments or simply, as some of us believe, hate speech. are others that have been
banned from the country for saying the same things. >> i'm grateful for that intervention. i will deal with that in a second. obviously, one of the measures available to government is to ban and the individual from entry into the u.k., and that is a power that has been used by successive home secretaries in many occasions. many examples have been put before the house this afternoon. it is a power that should be applied equally to everybody, whatever their wealth or power. i think that is important. i do not hold of you that because someone is a presidential candidate, that that gives them any special category. they should be judged in the same way as everyone else, all on the basis of what they have said or done. honorable gentleman agree that the consequences of this kind of hate speech are greater when they come from high-profile individuals? at the heart of the debate is whether or not donald trump's
presence in the u.k. is conducive to the public good. we have heard repeatedly about the kind of harms -- the honorable gentleman himself has talked about the harms that we are talking about. >> i do accept the substance of it. certain words in the mouths of certain individuals are more likely to provoke a reaction. the question is what is the test for a band, whether it has to be linked to public disorder and violence rather than something offensive. i will come to that but i accept the premise that different people will provoke different reactions, sometimes according to who they are. simplye narrow point is, because he has wealth or power or a particular position should not affect the application of the rules to him as it would to anybody else. the threshold for banning is relatively high, and the power is really used. the test is whether an
, whether their exclusion would be conducive to the public good. in 2005, it was already mentioned, that was extended to unacceptable behaviors. it is worth just going through the way in which those behaviors were set up as a list of indicative factors in 2005. four examples justifying terrorist violence for the furtherance of a particular belief. seeking to provoke others into terrorist attacks. fomenting other serious criminal activity or fostering hatred which may lead to injure community violence in the u.k. the touchtone has always been words which provoke a response which has an element of disorder or violence. so it is quite high of a threshold. an example has been given of some of the cases that have
fallen under those provisions. they were given at the outset of the debate. no doubt, i think, that some of comments have been offensive, shocking, and disturbing. i join with those that say they are not funny, they are repugnant. but they are just that, offensive, shocking, and disturbing. i do not think that, in and of provoke a enough to at this stage on the basis of what has been said so far. i do go back to a principal that was set up by the european court of human rights almost a quarter-century ago in relation where our government and the sunday times were slugging it out over spy capture. isy said freedom of speech
one of the foundations of a democratic society. it is applicable not only to favorable ideas, but as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend. the point of the court was making was an important one. freedom of speech is not needed for speech which is welcomed. you do not need a protection for speech where people treat with indifference. it is only relevant, it only matters, when you get into the sphere of offensive speech, shocking speech, that is the whole point of the protection of free speech. in this context, therefore, this speech, however offensive, shocking, or disturbing, is, in fact, protected, under what we consider freedom of expression. how does that translate? i would not want donald trump around for dinner to express his views. i do agree with others that we
should invite him to join us in our various constituencies to meet with members of various religious orders, faiths, communities. you came here, he would be very busy because he would have to go to several constituencies already. it is an incredibly diverse multicultural community. see a u.k.p would very different to the picture that he painted. should he be banned from entering the country on the basis of what he said, no, in my view, he should not. , farould be met with words more powerful than his own. i do accept this is a judgment those noti respect only this afternoon but other occasions, to express the
contrary view that this is so close to the line, that donald trump should have action taken against him. but in the end, we should be guided by our own values and not those of donald trump. our own values include a deep belief in freedom of speech and a deep belief in multi faith and , where societies everyone feels secure, and everyone feels respected. thank you. it is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship. can i also asked the outset congratulated the honorable member from newport west for the manner in which he has opened this debate, underlining the reasons why we are debating this issue, the importance in this parliament that we attach to petitions, though supported by the public when they reach a threshold, so that that actually provides voice for the public in this house. i think that has been an
important addition to our processes. to underlineright that shared sense of history between the united kingdom and the united states, and the relationship we have enjoyed between us over a considerable period of time. debate has also come as we are debating issues of freedom of speech, underline the value and importance of this , and ources on that ability for all different views, different perspectives to be able to argue those points clearly and effectively through the impassioned debate that we have had this afternoon. before i respond to a number of the points raised during this debate, a few things i want to say on the outset. britain is a successful multiracial multi faith
multiethnic country. our strength derives from that diversity. life in our country is based on fundamental values that have been shaped by our history. they are supported and shared by the overwhelming majority of the population. the rule of law, democracy, and individual liberty. freedom of expression. the mutual respect, tolerance, and understanding of different faiths and beliefs. these make the foundation of our successful pluralistic nation. they unite us and help our society to thrive. i am proud that our country has so many vibrant, diverse immunities constituting people of many faiths. and i celebrate the contribution made by british muslims in this country in every sphere and in every walk of life.
from those who fought in the trenches in world war i, and thought fascism in world war ii, to the business men, doctors, nurses, teachers, members of our armed services, and members of havehouse, some of whom made powerful and impassioned speeches this afternoon, and they are proud to be both british and muslim without any contradiction. yes, the threat from terrorism both at home and abroad is serious and real. andave seen the damaging corrosive effects of extremism in our communities. but suggesting that the solution is to been muslims who have done nothing wrong ignores the fact that extremism affects all communities, and hatred can come from any part of society. it ignores that muslims are themselves far too often the targets of extremism and hatred,
and that around the world, many muslims are killed by terrorism. more than any other group. it also gives secret to the false view that muslims cannot live a purposeful and fulfilled life in the west. such assertions are fundamentally wrong, and as a country, we could not be clearer in saying that. if we are to defeat the threats we face, we need to work together. we need everyone to play a part in stopping the poisonous spread of extremism and helping to protect vulnerable people from being brought toward a twisted ideology. it is that approach this government is seeking to foster, because we have seen the devastating impact radicalization can have on individuals, families, and communities, and because around the world more than a billion and a half people of different nationalities, different outlooks, and different political persuasions live
peacefully practicing the muslim faith. we must protect those who might -- be vulnerable to the pernicious influence of faithlization, work with groups, community organizations, and mosques across the country. this is a job for all of us and we continue to work in partnership with communities of all faith backgrounds to challenge those who spread hatred and intolerance. we must work with the overwhelming majority of people of this country who abhor the twisted narrative that has seduced some people in our those whond challenge use a warped version of faith to undermine our fundamental values. many of the contributions from honorable and right honorable members this evening has focused on donald trump's call for a temporary shutdown of muslims entering the united states. the prime minister has said the comments are divisive, unhelpful, and quite simply
wrong. and i read his views and profoundly disagree. in mr. trump's comments about london inand in particular, again, he could not be further from the truth. we should all be proud of london's state as one of the most diverse and tolerant cities. and the police's role on keeping the entire city safe, working in all communities to protect people from radicalization. i pay tribute to their tireless work. i will give way. you mention the prime minister and will you commend the prime minister's articles in the time today where he said the key to good race relations is full integration, and the prime minister points out there is still a worm a large number of muslim women who do not speak english and who are not in the jobs market, and he wants to improve the situation. movie commend the prime minister?
the policy that the prime minister is right to identify today seeking to ensure that language is there to ensure that we help migrants to better participate and integrate in everyday life. that is the building block between the policy the prime minister has rightly identified. and how equally he has been prepared, i think, to look at those uncomfortable fax, on the fact that 22% of british muslim no orin 2011 spoke limited english, compared to only 9% of british muslim men. therefore, it is how we can target that support, those communities, in the greatest need. that is precisely why louise casey has been engaged in her work to go about that. >> the point that i was making earlier, making this available for migrant people who do not than english is different
saying you must do it if you are a muslim woman. it should not be a religion, it should be aimed at people who require the support. >> david, this is not a muslim only scheme. the point that i rightly make is it is targeted on those communities that are most affected. equally, why i make the point about the 22% number that i make, which the prime minister has highlighted in the context of his speech today. to address the issue of exclusion, the home secretary has the power to exclude a national from outside the european economic area and refuse them entry into the u.k. if the secretary of state has directed the persons exclusion from the u.k. is conducive to the public good. this power is derived from the royal prerogative and is exercised by the home secretary in person. exclusion decisions are not taken lightly or in isolation.
secretary makes every decision on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the information available and a wide range of policy and operational factors. these factors include views from , includingrnment from the good department of communities and local government, and the foreign commonwealth office. the factors also include consideration of any interference with the persons human rights under the european convention on human rights come as subject their article 10 rights to respect the freedom of speech. you have also underlined some of those factors, some of those elements that are part of the policy that we adopt in considering matters of exclusion . but the home secretary uses her power to exclude foreign nationals to protect us from national security threats, to protect us from radicalizing's and hate preachers, and to protect us from people who seek to undermine our core british values. at policy is not targeted
any particular community. it is targeted at all those who advocate hatred or violence, regardless of their origins or beliefs. as home secretary has prevented neo-nazis, islamist extremists, and anti-muslim hate creatures from entering the u.k.. she has excluded more preachers of hate than any other home secretary before her, 103 since 2010. and she will continue to use the exclusionary power against those who seek to do us harm. now the government has a long-standing policy of not routinely commenting on those who are being considered for exclusion, for sound legal reasons, and i will maintain that position this evening. but what i can say is that the u.s. remains our most important bilateral partner. it is in the u.k.'s interest that we engage all presidential candidates, democratic and republican, even though we may disagree profoundly on important
issues. where there are clear differences of opinion, the most effective way to influence our american partners is through a frank and open exchange of the fuse. in taking on those arguments. today's robust debate, as i think, has provided a platform to do just that. i think the minister for letting me in again. the hometer says secretary has a policy position of not commenting on people that are being considered for the exclusion list. dos that mean that he cannot confirm nor deny that donald trump is being considered for that exclusion list? >> as i say, we do not comment on individual matters, but i would say, on the chance that the exchequer has underlined -- the best way to defeat nonsense like this is to engage in robust democratic debate and make it his -- donaldt
trump's abuse -- are not welcome. we have also had comments in relation to donald trump's comments with respect to investment in scotland. that matter it is for the scottish government. the u.k. has never given mr. trump awards or appointments, honorees, or otherwise. mr. trump has threatened to withhold investment in scotland in the wake up call to ban him from the u.k. over the years, mr. trump has made a number of statements about his gale of investment in the u k and his willingness to maintain them. the u.k. is the number one destination for inward investment and the world bank has ranked the u.k. as the sixth easiest place to do business. so any organization making promises on investments in the u.k. should live up to those promises. in conclusion, we will not win extremism byinst
demonizing communities and tarring an entire religion because of the actions of a few, and we will not defeat the threats we face by acting in isolation. we will win the fight by working together, standing shoulder to shoulder of people of different faiths and backgrounds, defending our values, and by showing that division, hatred, and hostility have no place in our society. i think the triumph of today is we have had the debate, it's been seen by many people outside , including the united states, and they have seen parliament added to best. we have had a diverse debate from a diverse parliament. i believe it reinforces the need for the petition committee, a young committee, experimental committee that is going very slowly, building a role here, and this was a subject chosen not by any politicians but by people who initiated and signed
that view. i think we are all touched by the accounts by those of the muslim faith about how devastating these threats from donald trump are. i believe all that was said today will enhance the standing of this parliament and will reinforce our relationship with our great allies in the united states. question is this house has considered petition 11403 and 114907 relating to the exclusion of donald trump from the u.k.. -- the ayes have it. order, order.