tv Munk Debate on the Global Refugee Crisis CSPAN April 7, 2016 10:03pm-11:34pm EDT
>> a day-long discussion on the role of law enforcement and surveillance between african-americans and government. hosted by georgetown university law center, we'll bring it to you live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> a new proposal to fund higher education at the state level is the focus oof a discussion
hosted by the organization new america. that will be live at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span3. >> the book tells both a story of the fact that the manuscript, this national treasure isn't what we thought. while also trying to chronologically think about what was madison encountering at the time. and keeping those two narratives straight was quite tricky for a while. >> sunday night on qs a dnds a a, mary sara builder discuss her book madison's hand which takes a critical look at the notes james madison wrote during and after the constitutional convention of 1787. >> madison took the notes on sheets of paper, and then he folded those sheets in half. and so he writes on front, across the middle, on the two pages on the backside. at some point, he sewed all of these little pieces of paper
together into a manuscript. one of the really wonderful things we noticed when we were down there there was that the last quarter of the manuscript, the holes he had shone didn't match with the earlier one. this confirmed my suspicion that the end of the manuscript had been written later. but you can't see that on microfilm. it was a wonderful thing to see that in person. >> global refugee kries sus was argued at the monk debate in toronto. they argued about the humanitarian need versus the security risks for accepting refugees from syria and other con flikt zones around the world. this is an hour and a half.
>> russia's current leaders are not simply the political rulers of their nation. they're literally the country's openers. a. >> you don't know which of your arguments would be totally destroyed. >> i' not prepared to sacrifice the african continent for some free market liberal ideology. >> then you've got to come back and you're not rattled, you're shaken up. >> let's save the bleeding heart for somebody else. it's time to change. >> you don't know what the hell to say, but you've got to say something. >> i believe the 21st century will belong to china. most centuries belonged to china. >> blaming barack obama for the state that the world is in right now is like blaming a caribbean island for a hurricane. >> the lesson of north korea is
if you're third rate dysfunct n dysfunctiondysfunctio dysfunctional country, you remain a third world dysfunctional country with a couple of crude nuclear devices. >> are you seriously saying you can never revoke citizenship from somebody? >> you devalue the citizenship of every canadian in this country. >> thank you. >> welcome to the mounk debate. i have the privilege of organizing this semiannual debate series and once again serving as your moderator. i want to begin tonight's proceedings by welcoming the north american wide tv audience that is tuning into this debate right now across canada from coast to coast to coast on c-pac, canada's public affairs channel. and across the continental united states.
it's nice to have that audience this evening. also hello to our online audience. they're logging on to this debate right now on our website, www.munkdebates.com. it's great to have you as virtual participants in tonight's proceedings. it's nice to have our print media partner joining us also online. we have an online poll going on tonight. be sure to participate, be sure to be part of our online interactive discussion. and finally, hello to you, the over 3,000 people who have once again filled roy thompson hall on a friday night to capacity for yet another munk debate. all of us associated with the
foundation, we thank you. more and better debate in the public square. bravo for being part of tonight's conversation. now our ability debate in, debate out, year after year, to bring some of the world's sharpest minds and brightest thinkers here to the stage at toronto's roy thompson hall would not be possible without the generosity, the foresight, the creativity of our host tonight. please join me in a warm appreciation of aurea foundation. the moment we've been waiting for. our resolution, taken from the
inscription, the statue of liberty, be it resolved, give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free. please welcome our first speaker for the resolution. she's a former canadian supreme court justice, brief prosecutor of the international criminal tribunals for yugoslavia and rwanda and the united nations high commissioner for human rights. among many other accomplishments. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome canada's louise arbour. >> so glad you could do this. now louie's teammate is an internationally acclaimed histori historian, cultural commentator and art critic, please welcome big thinker, simon shama.
>> one great team of debaters deserves another. speaking against the resolution, be it resolved, give us your tired, your poor, your huddled mass yearning to breathe free, the calmest author and conservative human rights activist, ladies and gentlemen, mark steyn. his debate partner is a member of the european parliament. he's here tonight from the united kingdom under his leadership, ukip won almost 4 million votes in the 2015 national election in the uk. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome nigel farage.
before our debate begins, i need your help with just some last minute items. one, power up your smart phones. for those of you here, those watching online, we have a hashtag tonight. mu munddebate. let's make this the number one trending topic in north america. you can also take part in our rolling poll, for those of you watching online. www.munddebates.com/vote. you can vote and participate in tonight's debate via the web. now, our countdown clock, an invention we love at the munk debates. it keeps us ontime, keeps us on schedule. keeps our debay tors on their toes. when you see these clocks reach their final moments, it should
be a countdown to zero. join me in a round of applause and that again will let our debaters know their time is up. we had henry kissinger, he didn't think his time was up, he kept talking. he thought he was brilliant. i digress. i don't think any of our debaters will make the same mistake. this is the part i enjoy most. we ask all of you, 3,000 of you assembled to voten on the resolution on your way in. you were ask, do you support or oppose the motion, be it resolved, give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free. let's see if we' got those results for you to look at. okay, 77% agree. 23% disagree. to give a sense of hoch this debate is in play, depending on what you hear during the debate,
are you open to changing your vote? let's see that result. wow, 79-21. so this debate is very much in play. either side can take it. let's go now to our opening statements. i would like six minutes on the clock for each of our debaters. ms. arbour, your six minutes begins now. >> thank you. thank you very much, good evening. the words of the motion that i'm here to support were written by a woman, emma lazarus. and these words are engraved on a famous statue representing a woman holding a torch, and maybe less noticeably, holding also the tablets of law with a broken chain at her feet. so it should come at no surprise to you that this has considerable appeal to me. but don't let that fool you.
n not a sentimental call for do-gooders to unite or a romantic notion of what the new world is going to be all about. the it's a moving, poetic way of capturing both the spirit and the letter of the refugee convention. . the 1951 refugee convention was written essentially because and for europe. and yet remains the framework within which a world purporting to be governed by the rule of law must deal with the current refugee crisis in europe and must also stop turning a blind eye to equally pressing crises elsewhere in south sudan, for instance. this is part of the never again that the world screened loud and fear after the holocaust and betrayed on so many instances since then. today should not be one of those. i want you to look at this from both a canadian and an international perspective. the international framework is very clear. virtually all the countries that
are concerned with the current flow of refugees fleeing war-torn countries of syria, iraq, afghanistan, somalia, libya, are parties to the refugee convention and they are obligated to grant asylum to those fleeing political and other forms of persecution. the protection frame work that is set in place by the convention provides that refugees should not be penalized for illegal entry or stay in the country. the reverse would obviously be a way to completely immas cue late the right of asylum. this obviously puts a disproportionate dmaend on countries that are more easily reachable than others, such as in the case of syria the neighboring countries of lebanon, jordan and turkey in which there are currently some 4.5 million syrian refugees, as well as the countries that are
at the external borders of europe, greece, italy and so on. so this leads to another fundamental principle which underpins the refugee convention. that is the need for international cooperation and burden sharing. and i'm cautious here in using the word burden. this brings me to canada. we often define ourselves by our geography. once again, on this issue, our geography is relevant. the nature of our borders is such that we are virtually immune from a flow of asylum seekers arriving on our soil by land or sea. although apparently the result of the upcoming elections may change that. but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. [ applause ] i believe that this puts on us a special obligation to provide for a generous resettlement program, aiming both at welcoming refugees and at easing
the burden on states who are struggling to live up to their international obligation. i believe with true international cooperation in place, this is imminently feasible. and we should do it the smart way, by ensuring that asylum seekers can travel safety to places of refuge, thereby undercutting the smugglers and by deploying extraordinary resources to meet this extraordinary challenge. i am aware of the fear that an influx of foreigners will transform our social fabric in an undesirable way. but the reality is that our social fabric is changing anyway in this increasingly interconnected world. we have a choice. we could look to the past and stagnate in isolation, or we can embrace the future in which our children will develop their own culture, fully open to that of others, inspired by the choices that we are making today.
the greatest threat to western values is not an influx of people who may not share them to date, it's the hypocrisy of those claiming to protect these values and then repudiated them by their actions. i suspect we're going to hear that muslims are different. they pose a unique threat to our democracy. not only has this been the ugly response to just about every wave of new immigrant in history, but ironically, it plays right into the hands of the violent jihadist groups that are attacking us. these violent groups have a political, not a religious agenda. they seek to destroy our democracies, not by infiltrating or taking over our institutions. but by letting us slowly self-implode in response to the fear that risk turning us against ourselves, thereby destroying the very key features of our open society.
we need to be smarter than that and we need to welcome people who, like all of us who came at some point from somewhere else, will build a ever-evolving, free and strong canada. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> with thiem still on the clock. mark steyn, you're up next. this is a refugee situation that does not describe what is happening in europe the moment. the greatest question is whether the huddled masses on those teeming shores are really yearning to breathe free, or whether they're simply economic migrants who want to avail themselves of the comforts of
advanced societies. as we all would. there are 3,000 people here in roy thompson hall. and it would be nice if everyone in toronto could be in roy thompson hall. but if everyone in toronto moves into roy thompson hall, it isn't roy thompson hall anymore. and that's the situation that is faced in europe today. the people who have entered europe are not refugees as that term has traditionally been understood, and as madam arbour explained in the geneva convention. in 2015, men represented 77% of the asylum applications. that's an extraordinary population deformation. in most civil wars, this is the demographic that would be back home fighting for their country. it's as if during the american revoluti revolution, general washington and the rest of the chaps had gone off to france and left
martha and the other women and children back home to fend for themselves. what does it mean to breathe free? under the taliban, it's illegal for madam arbour to feel sunlight on her face. it's literally a crime for her to, quote, breathe free. she can breathe only through a mask approved by the man who in effect owns her. so what happens when you put a man from that kind of society in, say, a scandinavian town. northern europe has enjoyed a culture of micked public bathing since the 19th century. but a benign social activity to germans and scandinavians is something entirely different to men from a culture where women are chatle. so female patrons of public baths are now routinely asalted. and in january, sweden's
national swimming arena was forced for the first time to segregate men and women in the hot tubs. so good by to a century old tradition. migrant rights trump your culture. our response is oh, they come from a different culture. they don't know you're not meant to groeb women's breasts. so in germany, they put up picket grams with a breast and a groping hand and a red x through it. last month a mere fortnight after acing a training course on how to treat women with respect, a 15-year-old afghan dragged a woman into the basement of a refugee center and raped her. we'll fine tune it, we'll get better picket grams. but in the meantime, migrant rights trump women's rights. madam arbour was the first prosecutor ever to charge rape as a crime against humanity. in 2007, she published an
important report on the use of rape in sudan as a weapon of war. it was a distressing report. she documented 15 individual cases of sexual assault, including rape and victims as young as 14. if madam arbour were to publish a similar report on germany today, she would be able to cite more than 500 cases from just one night in just one town. cologne on new year's eve. and victims as young as 3, a 3-year-old raped by a mie grant. a 7-year-old girl was gang raped by five migrants in hamburg just a few days ago. on wednesday, a schoolgirl was gang raped on the ferry from sweden to finland. migrant rites now trump children's rights. what a pity madam arbour's successor at the u.n. isn't interested in producing a report on that rape epidemic.
in vienna, they've advised women that it's not safe to go out without company. it's easy to shrug, it's just a few disabled kids, just anecdotes. forget the anecdotes and run the numbers. in europe, with unaccompanied minors, 90% are male, which means that in one year, swedish adolescence have more sex differential than china does after 30 years of its totalitarian one-child family. there are 119 boys for every girl. among swedish adolescence just from the last year's importation, it's now 123 boys for every girl. that's a fact. a fact of life. and i hope tonight will put aside the sentimentalism that often attends this subject and stick with the facts. madam arbour said some things
that i agree with. she said recently, why are we always talking about the danger that these people will transform us? they may transform us for the better. so she and i agree that immigration on this scale is transformative. the only difference is that madam arbour thinks it's for the better and i don't. and i'm genuinely curious to know what aspects of afghan and syrian and sudanese culture that she would like us to be transformed by. women's rights, fast track justice whereby gays get thrown off roof tops, polygamy, child rights, the bracing commitment to free speech, i would like an answer on that from madam arbour tonight. thank you very much. [ applause ]
>> i'm talking about refugees or migrants. i was immediately taken off a secondary screening. those are written by a wealthy woman in new york. and she wrote them after looking at the victims of russian pagras who come to america having suffered horrendous atros fis comm -- atrocities against them. she made a distipgs b between economic migrants. by the way, your number is wrong. your number is wrong. it's not 77%. we know it's 61%.
and that's a significant -- this is an uninterrupted moment. we'll have rebuttal time after this. and the radio hosts don't usually like that. but that's the case. your house has been blown up, your children have no food, no medicine, what are you exactly? you're ter fieingly running away from catastrophe and the vast numbers of syrians who displace 4 million of them internally displaced, since those who are escaping the hell of libya and somalia and afghanistan are fleeing exactly the monsters of islamo fascism that mark accurately describes. they're not their friends.
they're not their secret co-conspirators. they're horrified. they're trying to get away from that culture. now it's fine to say well, in those days, and, you know, the reason actually why the new kol loss sus were not immediately put on the statue of liberty, they were only put there in 1903 as a result of the efforts of their friend was because at that very time, there was a froerks agitation on the part of something called the immigration restriction league. and its british equivalent, called the league of british brothers. those who do not share our language, our religion, our values are about to destroy the white race. madison grant wrote a book called "the suicide of the white race." tom wadstson, the populist
describe the million of distressed as the scum of creation. nonetheless, the united states set out in "what is america" admitted 5 million of those refugees between 1880 and 1890. and the argument will be made that well, in those days the democracy was more confident. i agree with you absolutely about that. it was more forthright. and besides, people coming from eastern europe or central you're did not bare democracy the grudge. they didn't want to overthrow it. yes, they did. yes, they did. those teaming millions that emma lazarus emotionally describe, dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism. but liberal capitalism was strong enough to let them in anyway. and as a result, the american republic and great britain thrived aflourished and prosperd
and my own grandparents were among those that had brin to thank for the more expansive view in terms of what democracy could accommodate. we're talking about a drop in the ocean. there are 1 billion of us in europe and canada and the united states. we're talking about 20,000 being admitted to britain. we're talking about 100,000 refugees in the united states proposed by the president, of whom only 25,000 will come from syria. the issue is, are they all kind of ravening sexual monsters of mike steyn's x-rated horror. muslims are not all salofists. do jihadists pose a mortal threat? you bet your life they do. there is a real war of that kind going on.
but what do we do to actually resist the poison of apocalyptic militaryians. we don't demonize all of muslims but actually engage with them. who are we engaging with? there are no muslims that want to stand up. that's not true. 150 imams in europe got um and made a statement of the abhor resistance of t rans of the acts. there are koranic scholars, one of whom is absolutely dedicated to denouncing jihadism as a perversion of the koran. and i just want to say that it quite possibly could be true that you can't have a pluralist muslim adoption of western norms. in britain, we lived with that for years and years before
jihadism became the monstrosity that it is now. my grocerier is a kurdish muslim. you turn on the radio in the morning and you hear rais raisa ikhbal for the bbc. my local news agents tells me when to look at the jewish chronicle. and his name is ahmed. [ applause ] >> nigel? >> thank you. good evening, everybody. if we're going to discuss the global refugee crisis, we better use the eu as a case study. but we must start by asking ourselves, what is a refugee. now, i speak as a family of refugees. we were french protestants being burned at the stake for our political opinions, something many in westminster would
perhaps like to bring back today, i'm sure. and i come from a country -- there's no country in europe that needs lectures about looking after refugees. the brits have done it better than anybody else. we' done it with jewish people. we've done it with uganda asians. but what is a refugee? the 1951 convention that we just talked about earlier, it's a person with a well-founded fear of persecution because of their race, religion, political opinions or orientation, who are outside their own country and fear returning to it. now look, i know it's tempting to support this motion. it sounds wonderful, give us your poor, your weak, your huddled masses, and in doing so, we can perhaps feel a sense of our own moral superiority. but just look where that idea has got the eu in the course of the last year.
the unelected european commission president who, i have to say, after a good lunch is rather fun to be with, but he has changed the definition of what a refugee is to include people who come from war-torn areas, and given that the unhcr say there are currently 59 million people displaced in the world, that's quite a big number. but he's taken it even broader. he's said to be qualified as a european refugee if you come from extreme poverty. and that would mean perhaps 3 billion people could possibly come to europe. all of this, of course, was massively compounded by chancellor merkel who effectively did say give us your weak and your poor and your huddled masses. what i think has proven to be the worst foreign policy decision in europe since 1945.
because her moral superiority was fwh my view based on still a level of war guilt that exists in germany. but she opened up the doors and a million people came in last year. but virtually none of them would qualify as refugees on any classical definition. and, in fact, most of them that came were somewhat aggressive young males. who when they arrived and got through the board e, punched the air and chanted rather like football supporters. i remember as a young man watching the bbc even seeing ewe gan dan asians landing on the tarmac in heath rrow, humble, thankful and promising they would repay the debt britain had shown them by integrating and becoming part of our society.
sadly, that is not what has happened. and there's nobody on this side of the argument trying to stay that islam is bad .3 or muslims are bad. we are not saying that. but what we are saying is if you allow a very large number of young males so come to european countries. and if they come from a culture where women are at best second class citizens, don't be surprised to see the abominations, such as that we saw outside of the train station on new year's eve. s when isis say they will use
the migrant routes to destroy the civilization of europe, i suggest we start to take them seriously. and the difference between what is going on now and any other mike migratory wave in the history of mapd kind that i can see is never before have we had a fifth column living within our communities that hates us. wants to kill us, and wants to overturn our complete way of life. i believe that we in the west should give us refugee status throughout the whole tragedy of what's going on in the middle east and north africa. not one person in serious level of politics has dared to speak up for the christians. the christians in iraq and the christians in syria.
who are now only 10% of what they were a few years ago. they're being persecuted for who they are. we have to impose this notion. they pose a threat to an entire way of life. i want us to have a proper processing mechanism. i want us to do all the things we've done, as brits particularly over centuries.
>> first of all, i think in the current client of warfare, the current state of armed conflict in my opinion virtually every civilian in a war theatre that is not a combatant qualifies for refugee protection unless he is excluded by the convention as a war criminal. i think for the most part they qualify for refugee protection. the suggestion that we see as this waves of young men come into europe are all economic migrants frankly, it's hard to believe why these economic migrants would have paid thousands of dollars for the privilege of drowning in the mediterranean, but that's another issue.
but let me raise the issue of the newborn feminists there. and i see the clock running so i reserve my right to flesh out these ideas a little more deeply, but i can assure you that for those of us feminists who came, certainly the women of my generation, from a cultural, political environment in this country, in which religion dick kated most of our rights and privileges, we've managed to start occupying our place in public life, not by pushing and trying to exclude others, and certainly not by espousing as champions people who have that kind of ideology.
i'll come on to mark and nigel. >> i'm struck by how obsessed by sex these two guys are. it's a bit sad actually. again, i just want to make the point that if you really think about the places, like afghanistan, for example, or libya or, of course, syria where most of the migrants are coming from, actually, it's extraordinary to think that they're really just interested in a moment of possible upwards social mobility. those are all desperately brutalized collapsing states. from which actually their seem to be no possibility of normal
life. it's very -- the notion that first of all, i dispute those figures about actually the 77%, as i say. and it seems to me, if you're actually a family in terrible distress, and haven't we all seen, as louise mentioned, di dinghies and rubber craft filled with children as well as elder brothers and fathers. so families are desperately trying to make it, often often at the cost of their own lives. but supposing that actually most of the people coming over, more than half are males, and it's fit with the fact that more than half of those in displaced, horrible camps, like where there are 58,000 people stuck there in syria with desperate short amgs, no sanitation, shortages of food and medicine, it would be logical to send your brothers and uncles and the men.
that's how it was in 1880s and 1890s. all of those men arriving weren't arriving with the purpose of upping their rape score either. >> i'm slightly amazed at my colleagues ability to get big laughs on gang rape. i'm not a feminist, but i draw the line at the 3-year-old getting rape and the 7-year-old getting gang raped in a
basement. and when simon tells us that we're all obsessed with sex, maybe we don't get enough action in the toronto singles bars, madam arbour, as she said, is a feminist of a certain generation. and those feminists were very clear, as madam arbour was in sudan that rape is not about sex, whatever simon may say, rape is about power, which is what madam arbour says. even we're not talking about the kind of sex i want to have. i'm not into 3-year-old girls. but the 14-year-old girl in sudan, here's a random example from ten days of german migrant crimes in january. 16-year-old boy raped inside wolvesburg city hall. 13-year-old girl sexually assaulted near a railway station. three girls sexually assaulted
at a swimming pool. 15-year-old girl raped at a railway station. attempted gang rape of a 13-year-old girl. i can go on and on. these are all rapes, gang rapes in public places, trains, streets, parks and even city hall. and i congratulate you on getting big laughs with that, simon. and you, louise. because if it known that, i would be doing open night mike on gang rape at a comedy club. it isn't funny. it isn't funny. [ applause ] >> your time is up. >> and it gets to the heart of the question -- >> your time is up here. you're going to have to sit down. we'll get into it in the moderated cross-examination. this will be harder than the election debate. i thought that was tough, but this is going to be a real challenge. mie jel nigel, you're up next. >> what mark has said is
difficult to listen to and we would all rather pretend it isn't happening. but sadly, it is happening. simon, you're in denial. i tell you what's sad, i'll tell you what's sad, what's sad, and you would know as an historian is that 100 years ago, the women went into the factories went to the pub, got to the vote. we have the mayors of towns in germany and sweden and other parts of northern europe. i find the shared hypocrisy of those who stood up and said you're going to defend female rights when actually you think migrant rights are more important than female rights in
our own community. frankly shame on you. and louise, louise, you're trying to redefine the 1951 convention on refugee status. but can i just challenge you to something? you know, maybe, just maybe you would agree with me that the australians when they faced a similar problem of people coming in boats in large numbers of sinkings and drownings, maybe the australians got it right where they said nobody will qualify as a refugee if they come through this route. but we will process people offshore, genuinely, and sincerely. and if they are people who because of their race, religion, or political believes qualify as refugees, we in australia will have them. wouldn't it make more sense, louise, rather than having an open door to the greek islands to protest people in north africa and the middle east? [ applause ]
>> we want a chance for you to respond to the latest rebuttals. louise, let's have you respond first and maybe specifically to this idea whether australia, very different than what's happening in europe is a model that should be considered. australia is hardly a model of the refugee convention. one of the key features of the refugee convention, and bear with me, let's assume we have a genuine asylum seeker. just for the sake of argument,
let's just start with a neutral proposition, somebody is knocking on the door. the refugee convention assumes this asylum seeker will have to flee his or flee its -- his or territory probably by non-legal means. that's why we have irregular people. they enter either with no documentation or through -- because there are no open channels for these people to escape their predicament. the duty on the country of transit or destination is to have a fair and humane process to determine the bona fides of their refugee claim. and australia exporting that responsibility in the same way actually that the united states, not on refugee issues, but it's exporting to mexico its processing of migrants who come from latin america, this is not the way to do it. the way to do it is for countries to receive people on the assumption actually that they may very well be people
fleeing persecution and have a fair process in their country, particularly rich countries like ours, like australia, like the u.s., who have full capacity to do that in a very decent, humane fashion. and unfortunately that's not the example australia has set out. >> but how can greece cope with this? this is the point. some people have gone to italy, and i understand that. but actually, it's greece that has faced just a vast number of people. there is no particular sign of it stopping, a so-called deal with turkey has seen routes from libya opening up again. surely the point is that of the million people that came through the greek islands last year and finished up settling in germany virtually none of them were properly processed and not one of them was security screened. and i wonder under the 1951 dechblgs definition of refugee status how many of that million that went to germany last year would have qualified as refugees?
5%? 10% maximum? this is what i'm saying. this whole debate we're talking about the global refugee crisis. i do understand there are dreadful things happening in north africa and the middle east. what i'm talking about is we've broadened the definitions of what a refugee is to a level where we cannot accept, european countries will not accept numbers on this basis. 1.8 million last year. it will be 1.8 million this year. and 1.8 million next year. and the people in the end simply won't accept it. >> nigel, there are 500 million people in europe. you think europe doesn't have -- it's not the lack of capacity. it's the lack of political will, in large part because the entire public debate is poisoned by the kind of discourse we've heard about tonight. we're supposed to talk about refugees. we talk about gang rape. >> hold on a second. >> actually, we would of course -- of course there is room in our hearts for europe, from all of europe to give
people refugee status. we just want to know that they're genuine refugees and not people coming to do us harm. that's all we want to know. >> i want to bring simon in on this and then i'll come to you, mark. >> i don't disagree with you about the need for better screening. i don't disagree at all. i just want to say to mark's fulmination that it's an appalling slander to me to the muslim religion to imply actually that -- well -- >> i never said the word muslim in my fulmination. it was a muslim-free fulmination. >> what did you say any didn't hear that. i didn't hear what you said. anyway. the implication was that if you've got a muslim immigrant he, and it's going to be he, is bound to commit a sexual crime sooner or later.
that seems to be a monstrous and grotesque falsehood about muslim communities that have been settled for a long time now in britain and the united states. dearborn, michigan is not full -- >> i will give you a muslim fulmination, then. muslims are about -- muslim men are about 1 1/2% to 2% of the population in norway. they account for half of all the rape convictions in oslo. there are differences here. there are cultural differences. and i think if you think about it -- >> what is it about islam that you're saying actually is designed to make men -- >> well, i'm not -- >> -- brutal sexual animals? >> i'm not talking -- >> and why then don't you want to deport all muslims from europe and the western -- >> because i distinguish. you're a historian. you know as well as i do how many more muslims, more muslim
men in the first and second world wars fought for king and empire than canadians. muslims have a long tradition of loyalty to the crown and service to the crown. they were getting victoria crosses for extraordinary courage on the battlefield 100 years ago today during the great war. you know that. what has changed is that we are no longer importing -- as someone who had been to -- a muslim at school in india in 1948, 1949 would have received an education not different by that much from a grade schooler in canada or in scotland -- >> you've got to tell us where you're going with this because you're losing me. what's the point? >> i'm just establishing my non-islamophobic bona fides. >> consider it done. >> but there's an issue -- >> yeah, yeah. >> let's move back on to refugees because this debate is
about the refugee crisis. that's our focus tonight. there are other dimensions we'll continue to get into. louise-i want to come to you and pick up a little bit on what mark and nigel have been saying is certain societies are better at integrating people than others. traditionally canada thinks it's done a pretty good job. the united states is called the melting pot. european countries often are not very good at integration. therefore, is this a different kind of crisis? is this time different? >> i think europe has done -- and here we might have i suspect and hope a bit of agreement. i think europe has done a pitiful job at forthrightly defending the virtues and moral decencies and political traditions of western pluralist liberal capitalist democracy. europe is essentially -- >> i agree. >> -- an organization managing the business cycle and hoping
for the best when it comes to shopping for christmas. and that is an abject surrender. if we are ever going to make any headway against militant apocalyptic salafism there has to be something to offer the refugee population, wherever they come from, whether they're from south sahara africa. and it's as though that wasn't part of what we need to do. we need to be less defensive, less mute, less muffled. they should be reading locke and milton and mill. and you know, making that tradition as passionately important and a state and citizenship, is it important as screening and putting up walls and, you know, having decent counterterrorist intelligence. >> well, i agree. i agree with you completely.
we have been abject, pathetic. we've lane prostrate on the floor. we've allowed people to come in, change large parts of our communities and our cities, and nobody amongst our leadership. and this is not about getting religious in government but no one's had the guts and the courage to stand up for our christian culture because that's what we are. >> i don't want to hear christian. i happen to be jewish. there's nothing -- >> well, we come from -- well, as you well know, it is a judeo-christian culture. and that is our culture -- >> you either believe jesus is the messiah or you don't. >> as soon as i start to talk about real values you shrink into your shell like everybody else, don't you? we have our judeo-christian culture. we have been gutless and weak in defending it. and but the real problem here is we can talk and we can look back at various migratory waves, various refugee waves, and the problem is this. nobody -- mark isn't suggesting
that islam's a bad religion. i'm certainly not suggesting that. but i am saying that what wa habism has done funded by the saudi arabians has been a cancer within islam. >> absolutely agree. zplt 1973 boom in the oil price has led to so much of what we're all suffering. but here's the problem. and here's why we're nervous and we're cautious about opening up our doors to untold millions of people from those countries. it is that never before -- integration may have been difficult but never before have we had to live with the fifth column living inside our own communities and our own country that want to kill us, blow us up, and change our way of life. and i'm arguing for having a sensible refugee policy but we must, must, must be able to screen people before they come to settle in our countries. surely that's just plain common sense. >> i'll come to louise on this point and then i'll go to you, mark.
>> well, first thing, again, we have to be very careful not to exaggerate. i think this is exactly the trap, is to exaggerate the sense of danger and fear that this idea of infiltration can generate. a couple of things. if we had assumed that most italians coming to this country, for instance, would be members of the mafia or most asians would be members of triads, i've said that a million times, we would have closed the door. there is no basis upon which to suggest that the people who are fleeing the atrocious events in syria, in libya, to take these two, northern iraq and so on, that these people are missiles that are being sent to infiltrate our communities. you know, it's going to be a lot easier and i really believe that it's part of a very sophisticated strategic plan by those who are intent on
destroying our democracies to tease us into an irrational response where we will destroy the very values we believe in. we will oversecuritize, and inevitably we will use security measures in discriminatory fashion with carding and racial profiling and so on. slowly we will destroy our very values out of the sheer fear that they're coming to do it for us. we're going to do it to ourselves if we cultivate this culture of fear with an overreaction, restriction on freedoms, oversecuritized and targeting these vulnerable minorities rather than protecting them and including th them. >> mark. >> well, we are getting to the meat of it now. and the question is people talk about european values. british values, canadian values. without ever defining it. and i think, you know, simon is right that it's not just about
car chase movies and rap songs and all the rest of it. there's something underlining it. i share entirely louise's fears of the big security state because i like to write and i like to say what i want. and my writing wound up in front of three human rights commissions in canada. so i certainly don't want to see the europeans erect a bigger security state with less free speech than canada has. i would hate -- i would hate to see that. but the reality, the reality of this situation is that if you look at what happened with the "charlie hebdo" slaughter in paris a year ago and then look at the polls of the muslim communities afterwards, they don't want to put a bullet in a cartoonist. they don't want to blow up the brussels airport. but there is no commitment to traditional western understanding of free speech. and as simon says, we don't teach them it.
we don't assimilate them. you have to have something to assimilate with. and if you don't, you have bicultural societies as you dealt with in bosnia. bicultural societies are always fundamentally unstable. sometimes more or less benignly so, like northern ireland. sometimes genocidally so as louise can tell you in rwanda. but if you don't assimilate these people coming in in europe then you will have bicultural societies and they will tear europe apart. >> hold on. mark, i assume it's been a long time since you've lived in toronto. is that a fair assumption? have you seen street signs? in languages you can't understand. this is the city we live in. we're not scared.
>> this is -- i was born in toronto. i've been away for a couple of years. you're from quebec. you're from quebec. so you know as well as i do that the differences between quebec frank o'phones and ontario anglophones are fruitling in the scheme of things. yet a majority of your quebec francophones voted they don't want to be in the same country as these guys. and you're saying that somehow -- >> talk to him about that. >> you're saying that somehow in germany or in sweden or in molenbe molenbeek, the islamic emirate inside of the kingdom of belgium, 25% of the population of brussels is muslim. you're trying to tell us that they will be more fundamentally stable and secure than northern ireland? >> well, i think the divisions
in belgium, they don't have to wait for anybody coming out of that country to have separatist tendencies. they have very home -- i lived in belgium, in brussels for five years until recently. they don't need anybody to come from any stan to have identity -- >> i know. my mum's flemish. i know about that. >> england's fairly united. scotland not always, i would agree. but england's pretty united. but the point mark's making is very interesting. we have actually got now within england the growth of a parallel society. 80% of muslim marriages in britain are not recognized under u.k. law. they're conducted under muslim law. which of course gives the women far fewer rights than they have under u.k. law. we now have 83 sharia courts existing in england. we now have tens of thousands of cases of female genital mutilation taking place every single year in england, which we think of as a country perhaps not with as big of problems as
some of the others. and yet there's not yet been one prosecution within our system. so simon and i have got some degree of agreement on this, that the law has to be equal, applied equally to everybody. we mustn't be scared of applying the law equally to ethnic minorities. if we are, we're storing up massive problems for the future. but louise, i'm sorry. you're trying to compare some of the concerns that we've got on this side of the debate with previous migrations. it's not an exaggeration, the word you used. it's not an exaggeration. unless you think the boss of europol is wrong. is we be concerned when he tells us there are 5,000 jihadists stroke terrorists that have come into europe in the last 18 months through the greek islands posing as refugees? should we be concerned? you bet your life we should be concerned. only 8 of them killed 130 people in paris. we have a problem here. get out of denial, please.
>> yes. >> the deep problem is that jihadi cells exist. for example, the san bernardino shooting was a case in point. the main shooter at san bernardino was an american citizen. his wife had a green card. a very significant number of those that are carrying out these appallingly homicidal conspiracies are british and american and french and belgians. now, you know, again i think we're agreed that this appalling degree of criminal negligence, particularly the belgian authorities, in not noticing when somebody's deported from turkey through the netherlands and is known as a terrorist, not actually picking that information up. but if you're going to do -- the
work of the quill yam foundation. >> well, i do. >> you have to start from the assumption, not from the pessimistic assumption that all muslim immigrants or refugees are necessarily going to constitute a fifth column but the possibility at least that they can lead active, decent lives of citizens. i don't disagree with you about the horror of genital mutilation. those should be prosecuted. i'm with you on this. >> what i'm urging is we don't have a complete open door to all the huddled masses so we make a problem that we already have even worse. that's the point. that's the point of this debate. >> that's already gone. that's already gone. the eu-turkey agreement is going to return, you know, vast numbers who land in greece.
though i want to say -- i just want to add a piece -- pardon? >> then let 77 million turks join the eu and have free movement. it's hardly a victory, is it? if that's a victory i'd hate to see what a defeat looks like. >> simon's point is right here. when you've got second and third generation belgians and frenchmen and germans and britons and canadians going off to join isis, blowing up paris, blowing up brussels, that ought to occasion a certain modesty among us that we -- that our skills at assimilation and inculcating our values are not as awesome and all-encompassing as they were in the 19th century. and the answer when second and third generation immigrants are blowing up the airport, that suddenly that's the reason to accelerate immigration from the
same source is very bizarre. in what sense are these people belgian? >> well, in what sense is rayez iqbal british? she's fully british, right? and she happens to be a british muslim. >> i worked with her years ago. >> how much more british can you get than doing bbc world series? >> i've got no problem with that. but that's my point. holding a passport does not make you canadian and does not make you belgian and does not make you french. >> i agree. >> what? >> i think we're -- what maybe we both want to see is some way -- this is the difference between us, i think, actually. what i and louise want to see is because as louise said at the end of her remarks we are already a globally interconnected world on a shrinking planet. there are those of us who
essentially are possibly naively optimistic humanists who think it not impossible to be an orthodox muslim and a good canadian or a good brit, a good democrat at the same time. and for that you need to be involved and engaged to a degree which actually hasn't happened in exercises of civic education, which make it clear that you can indeed go to a mosque on friday for friday prayers and still be a decent democratically participating citizen. if you go to the mosque and the imam happens to preach the destruction of the society that you're living in, bloody well turn him in. turn him in. >> that doesn't happen, unfortunately. and if you look at the mounties'
statistics of radicalized mosques, you'll understand that all over this city and montreal and calgary and edmonton and vancouver there are any number of radicalized mosques where people just sit on their hands. the thing is i go back to my point, simon, that you have to have something to assimilate wi with. >> yes. >> most of the history you know, the people in british schools haven't a clue about. they don't have a clue about. they don't teach history in north american schools. my kids are in some school where it's called social studies and they do a little bit of it and it's always the same thing. it's martin luther king comes round like the number 23 bus. that's it. >> i actually have a movement to abolish the term. >> well, i'll sign that. >> i'll sign you up. >> i want to move on to numbers because that's a big part of this debate. we're seeing countries not
simply in the middle east. turkey, 2.7 million. lebanon, a million. nigel, if you look at great britain, in terms of legally settled syrian refugees, almost infinan infinitesimal numbers. what does canada, what does britain owe the united states and its european pressure in terms of trying to take the pressure you've diagnosed, you and mark have diagnosed as so acute within their societies right now? what do we owe them? >> we have a problem in the united kingdom with this because we, having never had this before, we now have an open door to half a billion people who are european union citizens. and as a result of that and generally a pretty weak u.k. immigration policy, net migration to britain is running at a third of a million a year. that's if you believe the figures, which i really honestly don't. so we've got our population increasing by a third of a
million every year, ten times the post-war average, and it's because of that that david cameron has said he's only going to accept 20,000 syrian refugees over the course of this parliament. i'm absolutely certain that if the united kingdom had an australian-style points system for immigration and we had immigration, net migration running at average post-war levels of 30,000 a year, we'd find room for some more genuine refugees and hope when we did that we'd look at the plight of the christians who are being massacred in libya and in iraq and syria, and who from every definition -- and you shake your head at me. it fascinates me. from every definition that the united states have stood for since 1951, those christians would -- i would have thought should be guaranteed freedom and security and refugee status in the west. and so i think we are in britain and actually now in germany and
sweden, we're actually becoming very hard-hearted because of free movement of people, because of schengen in the case of those countries, we're actually becoming rather hard-hearted to things that 20 years ago we would have been happy to accept. >> mark, on the united states, in a population of over 300 million, only 1,200 syrian refugees have been legally and officially admitted into the country. again, is that the united states shouldering its burden of this crisis? >> no. but they don't look at it principally in a humanitarian way. they see it as part of the big security picture. and it's a little surreal to be holding this debate in the week following brussels, which is what the question would mean if we discussed it in the united states. because louise and simon i think want to detach the general migration question from the terrorism question.
and the americans in particular don't see it that way. we all know -- i mean, i was glad to hear that the zealots of canadian customs turned over simon at pearson earlier today. it's good to know there's always someone they don't want to let in the country. but the fascinating thing is when you look at what mr. mccallum is going to say, he says we're not going to have the chaps committing the gang rapes. no, we're screening for them. we're screening for them. no western government, if you have ever been, had the pleasure of undergoing so-called secondary interrogation as this suspicious character did earlier today, you will know that no western government has a clue about who it looks -- who it lets in. the person who committed the san bernardino crime, as you say, she had a green card. that was a -- she basically used the jihadist dating site to put
together a terrorist cell. it was an arranged marriage for the purpose of committing terrorism. and she aced something because it's money no object down south. it's not like here where it's just whatever it's called this week, the cbsa. there's just one little agency dealing with it. they've got like 97 agencies south of the border looking at this woman. she aced five separate tests and she still got into the country. america takes the view it has no idea who any of these people are and better be safe than sorry. >> great. let's come back now to you, louise. what does north america, what does canada and the united states owe in terms of its share of this crisis? >> well, i think we have to bring this debate a little bit back into less apocalyptic scale. first of all, we -- and maybe the wording of the motion -- i said at the beginning was a poetic way of capturing the spirit and the letter of their refugee convention. but i think we've drifted now
into the movement of people in fact which are for the most part unregulated by international law, international treaty. what we're talking about now, the so-called huge crisis that europe is facing, is very well defined by the refugee convention. we haven't made a dent in talking about the millions of stateless people in the world who don't have a passport. and by the way, mark, if you have a canadian passport, you're a canadian citizen. there's no other -- so we haven't made a dent into dealing with statelessness. we haven't made a dent into talking about idps, internally displaced persons, of which there are millions in syria itself, in sudan. these people are stuck in their own country against a predatory government. we have no framework to deal with them and to help them. what we're talking about are people running away from oppression, and frankly we have to assume, when you consider
immense risk that they're taking to flee, that at least the majority of them are bona fide refugee applicants. and then we have to process. so we're talking about a very small numbers. when we say millions, it's millions wanting -- knocking on the door of a billion people, if you put europe, north america, all the world's capacity of the wealthy nations together. the key, i believe, is international cooperation. there's no reason greece, which was having a lot of financial problems itself, should have been stuck with bearing the largest burden. the european partners and the western countries generally should have stepped up to the plate. and i think canada should still do so beyond the already generous signal that we have already sent. we have the luxury actually in canada of doing a full prescreening. they don't row into canada. they sit in refugee camps, where we have months and months through unhcr to do preselection
processes with the luxury of these processes in place we should be doing tons more. then everybody wants to work in that direction and stop the exaggeration, not the non-existence of security risk. i'm not saying there is zero risk. but to blow it up to such an extent that we start talking about erecting walls with barbed wires, i think this will be actually a stain and a shame on our generation if that's our response. >> we're coming to the end of our cross-examination period. but simon, i want to give you the last word in this segment and then we'll go into closing statements. >> oh, i just want to really echo what louise has said. and i just want to say just a quick piece of information that came out today. a report from amnesty international which casts a very long shadow over the turkey-eu agreement if that's going to
happen. the report, which is very, very credible, by the way, says that turkey has been forcibly deport ing refugees, syrian refugees back to the war zones from which they've come. which is a horrific thing to contemplate if true. the turks have denied this. but there seems to be a very substantial amount of evidence. it throws the issue back to the place we should have spent more time on, as louise suggested. there is this kind of universe of misery and suffering, especially one in every three displaced person in these hellish camps in syria, some in jordan and lebanon are children. and we have to really think about their plight rather than obsess quite so much on jihadis and rapists in german cities. >> very good. okay. it's time now for closing
statements. we're going to proceed in the opposite order of our opening statements. so nigel, your three minutes will go up on the clock, and you have the stage. >> thank you. well, thank you, and thank you for a very civilized debate. we started off with 77% against our side of the argument, which compared to the odds i'm against when i'm in the european parliament strikes me as being quite a good start. the -- i've tried tonight to make the point that i do think it's beholden upon people in the west to open their hearts to genuine refugees. people who are in fear of direct persecution, imprisonment, and death because of their race, their religion, their political beliefs, indeed their sexual orientation. i've tried to make that point. and i've no doubt that america and canada could do an awful lot more than they're doing. i have no doubt about that when it comes to refugees, but it's europe that has faced the front
line of this over the course of the last 18 months. and what we have done is we've thrown out of the window our classical definition of what a refugee is and we've broadened it to anybody coming from a war-torn area or frankly anybody coming from a poor country. what mrs. merkel did clearly was irresponsible, damn stupid, and is a price that germany will have to pay for many years to come. just opening up your doors and not being able in a modern world where we do have a genuine terrorist threat, ander, it's about 2% probably of the muslim communities that are coming into europe. but if only eight people can cause all that misery, all that misery in paris and half a dozen, what we saw in brussels, we have to be careful. we have to have security checks. we have to process people offshore and make sure they're
genuine refugees. and i've tried this evening to challenge the other side to see whether they would agree with me. that the christians who are being crucified and massacred in the middle east should qualify for refugee status. and i've not had one positive response from the other side on this at all. and this, ladies and gentlemen, is the point. this motion, you cannot support this motion. it is idealized nonsense. it doesn't make sense. what we need to have is a sensible proper common sense refugee policy to help those who are in peril. but just to open up our doors the way angela merkel did is bad news for germany and is bad news for the west. and we need to stand up and stop such nonsense. oppose the motion, please. thank you.
>> i don't disagree at all with your point about the christian community. the yazidis and persecuted shias as far as the islamic state is concerned, shia aren't muslim at all. so i want to end with the words of a christian, not mine. written in 1624. you will know some of them at least, i'm sure. the dean of st. paul's, john donne. no man is an island entire of itself. every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. if a clod be washed away by the sea, europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manner of thy friends were. any man's death diminishes me
because i'm involved in mankind and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls. it tolls for thee. >> louise, we're going to go to mark, and you'll get the last word. mark? >> those of us on the stage, and many of the more distinguished persons in the auditorium tonight lead privileged lives. privileged lives. we jet off to the european parliament in strasburg, to bbc television studios, to the transnational bureaucracy in geneva. and it's easy. it's easy from 30,000 feet to think that what's going on below us is swell. we will never have to live in
molenbeek in brussels or rosengard in malmoe. we will never have to leave in bradford or toulouse. we get to go to the nice places. and that should occasion in us a certain modesty when we come up with grand utopian schemes that testify to what simon called i think our naively optimistic humanism. because down there in molenbeek and in rosengard they have to live with the consequences of our attitudes, of our naively optimistic humanism. we are striking attitudes. simon talked earlier i think about his kurdish news agent who's always a very decent chap when he hands him the jewish chronicle in the morning. we all know people, we all know people like that. but at the same time the
political class is designing a solution to the great migrations of the world that will only end in tragedy. and i ask you not to vote for it. the more failed states that stay failed, the more failed states there will be. so ultimately, ultimately, it is better for syrians to be able to live in syria, for afghans to be able to live in afghanistan, for iraqis to be able to live in iraq. it is better for there to be more beacons of liberty around the world. i confess, i've never liked the emma lazarus poem that is stapled to the bottom of the statue of liberty. the french gave the americans a fabulous statue of liberty, and the americans nailed a third rai -rate poem to it and turned it into a celebration of mass migration. liberty and mass migration have nothing to do with each other.
and often, often in fact the latter can imperil the former. and that is where simon's naively optimistic humanism may take us. we cannot fix failed states by inviting millions of their people to move in with us. all that ensures is more failed states, more failure, and eventually one by one the nations of the west will join them. and then you'll really be yearning to breathe free and there will be nowhere to do it. please vote against this motion. >> ms. arbour, you'll have the last word. >> all right. well, let me say at the outset that i don't see -- i don't know of any evidence that suggests that christians from syria or druze or alawites have been excluded from refugee protection. i don't know where this is all
coming from. i think what -- at the bottom of i think today's debate i think is showing that what is being portrayed today as unique is in fact just another manifestation of the old myths and stereotypes and prejudices that have met virtually every wave of immigration, and it's particularly odious when it targets refugees, not just any other kind of migrants. in fact, doug saunders in his book and in a piece he wrote in the "globe & mail" make the point that in fact many of the things we hear today about muslim refugees penetrating our western societies with a fifth column intent on destroying it, in fact many of the characteristics we attributed to them were attributed sometimes in relatively recent parts of our histories to catholics, for instance, who were said to be backwards, had a loyalty to rome
more than to their home country, lived in poor crime-ridden neighborhoods, were very backwards, anti-democratic, authoritarian by disposition. doesn't that sound also like the yellow peril, that we were all going to be transformed into a different society, we'll all end up being of a mixed color if we let in these millions of people coming from all over the world? this plays into exactly the same stereotypes and myths that we've heard at every single point in history. the reality is despite an original knee-jerk, at times very hostile reception to newcomers, the history in this country has been a history of immense success, of integrating people coming from all kinds of different cultures and religion. and when i talk about integration, it is a two-way street. it has changed us.
and it will change us in the future. we have to have a very impoverished confidence in our democracy to think that it is so fragile that it cannot sustain the profound differences that will challenge us through our devotion to free speech, freedom of assembly and pluralism. thank you. >> well, ladies and gentlemen, it was a hard-fought debate tonight, and it reminds me of something our founder peter munk has said on many occasions. it's one thing to get up and give a speech, to have the stage as yours for 45 minutes or an hour. it's something very different, what we've seen tonight. four big minds, nour bfour big thinkers, challenging each other, putting their ideas out there and contesting this important issue. so please join me in a show of
appreciation for a phenomenal debate from these debaters. bravo. very well done. very well done. thank you. bravo. okay. let's take a look at where public opinion was at in this hall at the beginning of this evening. because all of you in the audience here are going to have the opportunity on your way out of the hall to vote again. so let's take a look at where audience was at the beginning of tonight. 77% of you agreeing with the motion. 23% opposed. then we asked you how many would be open to changing your mind to get a sense of the degree to which this debate was in play. 79% yes. so it's going to be fascinating to see how all of you decide based on what you've heard tonight, the argumen