British House of Commons Debate on Barring Donald Trump from the U.K. CSPAN January 18, 2016 11:30am-1:31pm EST
what it committed spending our money on? while i completely believe in the idea, you can take the carbon out of gas, you have then gas plants that are underachieving. but the economics are not working. pounds ofe billion capital expenditure. one billion pounds we can spend on flood defenses or schools. for health services.
certainly something of considerable concern. veryis case, is one of great significance for us. those who wrote the main , it comes with responsibilities including free free speech does not include transferring hatred. speech isy of hate the ability to incite violent acts and is why the u.k. laws have stopped 80 individuals from entering the u.k. today. certain violent acts have taken place in america. mr. trumps intervention. i think we want to make it clear
may make is conducive to the public, good or not. but what it does do is allow us and make surey they are listening. we have had examples of when people have been excluded in this country, i've heard of a number of problems were people for been excluded incitement and hatred but i've never heard of one for stupidity. i'm not sure we should be starting now. one thing i am hoping we can do is look at the issues .urrounding this global security, positive contributions by people with
muslim faith have on this country whether they were born in this country or have come to this country and added to our economy and culture. and to our community. debate.e said, i lead a >> are you aware of the second-most populous website with these immigrants -- signatures suggest closing u.k. borders until i sophisticated. -- >> that was actually very similar wording to the debate that i lead in october. there were a lot of petitions out there that have insightful and clumsily worded in many ways approaches. because there is a fear of immigration and there is a fear
of global security and i suggest that donald trump's words were born out of fear himself. although as an aspiring leader be leading to the understanding of issues. it is not acceptable for him until we understand what's going on. that is not acceptable. as somebody born in burma, i am half anglo, i have seen the contributions that have no claims on social services, that have incredible aspirations for education and hard work. but mass uncontrolled immigration does bring a lot of to the infrastructure and it does put a lot of concerns in the people's minds andt suspecting in america the fears they have as well and enhanced the number of
signatures to this position. many of you know that i have quite a bit it to with the british curry industry with my parliamentary group. just that one ancestry alone is worth 3.5 billion pounds. it employs 100,000 people. there are a number of people that are affected by that we all enjoy curry every day and it would be a bad thing for the u.k. economy if that continued to struggle that's one small industry. let's look at the medical industry, let's look at the syllable as well. and the input immigrants have on this country. we need to look at the counter
extremism and counterterrorism strategy this government has. these are ways that are far more positive and former practical than the impractical case of closing the country down upon faith. how can you ban someone from one faith. he has not gone so far as to -- as to a badge on them. situationtraordinary to go down. i bring my remarks to a close because we are on limited time. i hope over the next few hours, we can concentrate on practical ways that this country can tackle immigration. about then worrying ego of one man.
>> the argument about why we are having this debate are stipulated by the honorable members came before me. i wanted to raise the question of -- why does an online petition signed by 3000 of my constituents has evoke such a motion? is it because the donald trump comments means that he is punishing the entire muslim community or the views of a that group of extremists ordinary muslims condemn. it might be excluding the world's second-largest religious community over 1.6 million people in the world. is it because people in this country are proud of the long history we have of welcoming immigrants and refugees and welcoming asylum-seekers?
people say the public are apathetic about politics. this on my petition signed by thaty 600,000 people shows when people feel a sense of justice, when people feel we need to stop a business and those of man from entering our country, they will act in good conscience. this is not just any man we're man whoabout this is a is externally high profile involved in the american show business industry for years and years. a man interviewing for the most important job in the world. his words are not, cope it his words are not funny. his is a business. they risked inflaming tensions between vulnerable communities. 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 if 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 -- you are talking about a candidate for the presidency of the united states it it's up to the american people to decide whether his views are objectionable, not you guys. >> the honorable gentleman has been in the house long enough that he must address the chair . i have been here as long as you will appreciate. i looked up the cases which have 84 hate speeches and they have not been allowed to the country and wanted to highlight the case of a female blogger which i will not name. i had a look at the rhetoric used by this female blogger and she was banned from entering our country. our crime was that she equated the entire muslim population
with the use of a handful of extremists and a spokesperson banned her from coming into a country saying she is not allowed into the country because we condemn all those those behaviors and views run counter to our shared values and will not stand for extremism in any form. if donald trump's views are that muslims are all the same, it is similar to this bloggers views. if legislation is in the country, should be applied equally to everyone or are we going to be making exceptions for billion our politicians even when their words are clearly falling short of the home office view. ? trump remarks that donald
a large numberby of my constituents whether i like it or not. should they be expelled from the country as a result of their views? if not, what's the difference? >> i'm afraid you should think carefully about what he is just said it's not the same as us making a decision not to let people into the country's views are falling short of the home office guidance. the honorable member of the new west has already outlined some of the other views that donald trump has. whether that is ms. of mexicans or views on black people, it was donald trump, don't forget, who ran a dog whistle campaign birtht barack obama's certificate to find out whether the president of america was really american. can you imagine in parliament in my colleagues decided to question ethnic minoritymp's
about whether they were really british? >> some of the things that people find the funds about this individual, he is not only racist but [indiscernible] i thank the honorable member for intervention and i would like to read out what donald trump said when asked meg byan stiles on fox news. she explained why he called some women dogs and exam in disgusting animals and donald trump replied, what i say is what i say. is this the kind of man we want in our country? the other question i wanted to ask is that i thoroughly anticipate the rebuttal that we cannot exclude people because they merely offend us or because do not like them. as politicians, we have to make
very difficult decisions. one of the decisions we have to make is when freedom of speech ,ctually insults public safety we are worried about the safety of our constituents and the evidence i want to is a sense of hate and extremism. anti-muslim hate crimes have increased in line with the rhetoric that donald trump has been using in the last two 2015. of the honorable member from the west pointed out about the incident of the hispanic man was beaten up by two brothers south boston. when they beat this homeless man up, they broke his nose and urinated on him and the bishop said he justified it by saying donald trump right, we should get rid of all of these illegals. might it is that hate crime is being inflamed by the words donald trump is using.
>> it's very interesting the provider you seem to be making. all ofletting the responsibility at the door of donald trump? do you believe some of it may have contributed to accept terrorism? i thank the honorable member for his intervention. atould not lay all the blame the door of donald trump. there is a very real correlation between the wars that donald trump is using and the increase in hate crime which is the point i'm trying to make. a lot of his words mean there is real crime and real violence and that's where i draw the line at frame of speech. i will give way. i don't mean to undermine your debate.
regulations does not shut down debate. some of these comments are made by totally irresponsible people. >> i thank you for your intervention. i don't have much time left so i will wrap up by saying i draw the line on freedom of speech when it in its violent ideology which is what i feel is happening. the legislation in place is to protect the public and protect the public and from individuals such as this. if legislation is been practice before and other people have. from coming into the country, the same rules need to apply to donald trump which is why i feel he should be not given a visa to come visit the multicultural country is a proud of. -- we are so proud of. she said she was going to
trash donald trump. i'm not sure he is terribly worried about this debate. i do respect the honorable member, my friend, for newport west which he introduced this debate. may i say that it's no surprise i just propose this and give donald trump publicity. it's the only item in the u.s. press. they are not talking about anything, they are talking about this. right feed his machine? -- why feed his machine? it offends of free speech. in a free country, you have the right and people. to'sroduced an amendment five making the point clear. it happens in this house all the time.
the united states is a friendly country, twice in two wars they have come to our rescue. this man may conceivably become positive on our most important ally. you cannot translate american policies to you capable cities which is completely different. there was in a debate earlier this year and the labor spokesman described me as an extreme right-winger, got from it. .- god forbid it happens, i am strongly in favor of gun control anti-voted consistently against a bombing syria and a been a -- an invading iraq. i'm opposed to capital investment. would i survive in the republican party? i'm accused of being a right-winger so our politics are
different so it's a mistake to to translate it. of good bit ofre fun but if the government would play into mr. tron's hands, his entire style of politics is to stoke controversy and say outrageous things lavishing with is only falling into the trap he has set for us. his continuing popularity is evidence of this and he is popular with many voters. we may not like it but he is. we must be wary of lowering ourselves to the demagoguery in fighting demagogues. viewed from afar from our side, this looks divisive in the united states. like this help? we oppose mr. trumpet demonizing his comments, most of us oppose
him by 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 quite a contender for head of state for the most powerful country on the planet who is a vital ally. we have welcome saudi and chinese leaders not to mention ur. chow chow skew --cicesc whose crimes are worse than donald trump. they practice violence on extreme scale that we welcome them to our country. i am a firm leader in free speech. it is a cause i have combined with such unlikely bedfellows as the national secular society and the christian institute. if we only allow free speech but as we agree with, is it free speech? dialogue is a solution and not deeper division. let me end by saying this is also an attempt to shutdown and honest debate about immigration.
when you talk about immigration, you're labeled as a right-winger and that's not the to solve this problem. it was a fantastic article the minister wrote making the worthwhile and good point that our muslim friends have to learn from previous ways of successful immigrants, the jews in the 19 century and others would have chosen to integrate fully in our society. immigrants,e of the all intensely identified as british in all of whom arrived long before great britain's s.esent or immigration way
this list intimates a fundamental. although these figures immensely enhanced british life, they did not make their adopted nation cosmopolitan. theseadopted nation made cosmopolitans british and we should be proud of that. >> thank you very much. thank you for the opportunity to contribute so early. whenever i was considering my remarks for this debate, i thought i would be in conflict with the honorable member for newport west but i am pleased to say that's not the case. for both he and the honorable member, i want to make one bit about exclusion. when i log on as a northern ireland member, northern ireland is not exist.
issue of an exclusion i hope that's one that can be addressed. i am also quite concerned and apprehensive that the right honorable member for chelmsford is in the member today as the chief thing for hillary. i wonder if there will be an intervention. i never thought i would say it but i agree i did late -- but i agree wholeheartedly with that right-winger. i have to sayd that in this debate, it's important we consider the doubles of democracy, the principles of pro-debate and the fact that when you have a strong and good principled position, leases stand -- we should stand robustly by it.
members present today will know of lynton crosby, the political advisor and analyst and he talks it ifthe table clearing you are losing the argument or it, itting prepared for on the table and people notice. they will stop you will change the political discourse and that's exactly what donald trump is doing. it's not just a one off initiative, it's something that marks his campaign entirely. he throws a dead cat on the ande and people stop listen to him and take him seriously. there will be those today in the who will support the exclusion of donald trump.
some of those contributions argument, i get an want to see donald trump come to this country and either be crippled by members of thosement or grilled by 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 remarks. let him leave this country with better principles than what he has politically shown so far the we should be out of our values as a country and out of the values we would like to see throughout the world. so confront him. to what he has outline may get you headlines and give you the legal discourse in the united states or across the world but it's bad policy and it would change the nature and image of and reputation of
the united states irrevocably from its founding fathers and the individuals are both up so much over the last three centuries. turning to the debate we have had, i think it's important, sir roger, that we have the leader of the opposition who was indicating it will be up. to daesh. back channels for what? reasonably negotiate with someone who will consider that negotiation in the context of orther they murder your wife cut off their hands? that's the same leader of the opposition that is a chancellor with them is parliament who ines succor to terrorists this country over the last 30 ,ears and supported the ira murdering our countrymen. put it into context, we have
been asked to believe the humble member is that it would be appropriate to ban somebody who has erred in ideology. but has not voted terrorism, has not promoted extremism to the extent that we lose life and destroy communities. do you think this should be applied equally to everyone? >> what i am doing is sailing clear blue water between the support given by her on a relator in years gone by in this country for terrorists we have destroyed and have been killed result --dy who is a a ridiculous xenophobe. that's the point i wish to make. for those quite believe will take a hypocritical stance, those north of the border but still very much part of our
united kingdom, those who applauded donald trump, those invited him to their country, up him as an ambassador and regaled him with all the civic support and adoration they could because of brass tacks, -- it's the same. >> thank you. if somebody had a crystal ball and we could predict that this individual could conceivably down an entire religion -- >> i'm very grateful for the intervention. if i ever criticize someone or some party or something in this chamber, i will always give a right to respond. you don't need a crystal ball. it has been apparent already the
ridiculous involvement donald trump had in the bursar scandal around the barack obama lineage scandal was he a christian or a muslim? that was not my months ago. that was 2008 and you don't need a crystal ball. when his wife divorced him, she said her much loved former would lie in bed and read the work of adolf hitler. you don't need a crystal ball to recognize that the person you're dealing with may be successful businessman but 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 news but i don't think we will avoid the hypocrisy.
i have been given additional minutes and i am grateful for the time. as a party in an individual, i 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 sensible he espouses no longer reflect this country, the united states of america, or the aspirations we should all seek to promote internationally. >> i find myself standing here for the first time ever agreeing hardly worth the honorable member of newport west. i am more surprised to hear the general member quoting warmly the words of president/. bush. it was his father, not his son. today is also one of the moments
this year when we will mark the anniversary, five years of tall is more who was tried and executed not so far from this place. he wrote the book utopia in which he envisioned a new future and new ideals. he wrote it expressing in his heart the liberties of thought and faith of what he called and would then express across the globe. yet today, a report has come out that the liberties he hoped for, the liberties he desired, are actually in trouble. spikeine journal called has gone around universities and found the freedom of speech being challenged. colleges spaces in our also could be known as spaces of censorship now cover 39
universities. this is not just a threat to freedom in those universities. debate covered by many of our friends and -- fourth estate and it's worth remembering that they are part of the democratic process and that we stand here speak in the chamber may sometimes not like it. their role in holding us to account is equally as important as ours and speaking the truth. so it is with that cry of freedom and the cry of liberty that i speak in favor of considering or in favor of rejecting this motion. liberty is not something we can take an action or in part. it comes as one and it comes as a whole. as the first amendment of the u.s. constitution makes clear, the freedom of expression is essential for free people.
andough i may not like it although i can be actually sure that i would not support him, it is no place for me or this house to criticize a man running for elected office in a foreign country. we may not wish them here and we may not like him here but we should not vote against him toaking or spite his right travel when we, too, value the same rights of liberty. are you looking to intervene? clear,nt to be criticizing would pay curtailment of freedom of speech. you are saying we do not have the right to criticize? but i are quite right don't think we have the right to prevent somebody who is campaigning 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 told him to account. policy argue it is bad and bad judgment to intervene in the electoral process of a foreign country and i would wish to do it as little as possible. i will give way. mea culpa from the labour , woulds of muslim origin you comment on donald trump not traveling to the u.k.? states makes wonderful permission for the balance of powers. the president of the united states is not a sovereign and a despot but is balanced by the congress and by the courts. it's a failure to understand why the united states despite having
one or two incumbents for the white house may not have been meant for candidates. the country has yet succeeded all the way through to today as a bastion of liberty and economic success. as we consider this, marx martin luther king day in it's worth remembering that he, relied on these rights of freedom. he, too, relied on these rights when he was campaigning to desegregate the university of those studentsn bravely marched in on the 11th of june, 1963, the prevailing opinion was that they should shut up. the prevailing opinion was that their right to freedom of speech should be curtailed. while i think this man is crazy and i think this man has no valid points to make, i will not be the one to silence his voice. 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 welch did in the united states army and he looked at senator mccarthy in the 1954 trials and he said have you no shame, sir? at long last, have you left no sense of decency? if somebody will say that to donald trump, surely, that is better than for us to legislate freedom of expression and freedom of travel. >> i will start by quoting martin luther king because i think martin luther king deserves more recognition today ben does donald trump. our lives begin to end of the day we become silent about things that matter. there, i do welcome this decision. i am very grateful for the
petitioners wanted us to raise our voice and have this debate. there are two things i would like to share with you if i had lunch earlier with a very interesting lunch with a number of people including the undersecretary of state for public affairs. we agreed that donald trump is no more than a demagogue. fearsonders to people's as opposed to their strength and i should know because constituents help me get rid of another demagogue. it's not the first time i've dealt with a demagogue. the two things i would like to point out me, whilst i value this debate and whilst i accept immodest is a very
subject and i understand and respect the views of my colleagues say we should plan this person, i agree. sayver, what i would also is that i come as a member of would give an open invitation for donald trump to visit my constituency. the reason is i would take until synagogue and a church and a mosque. i would invite him for curry . i would welcome him and have a conversation with him and challenge him on his views. -- i wouldure him show him that i would invite him to feed the homeless and muslim charities. i would invite him to meet with with the human or, muslim volunteers and those people that work together on the
issues which affect us as a asntry which affect all people regardless of our race, regardless of our gender, or ethnicity and our religion. that's what i would show to him. i give way. >> i am very grateful. agreed but wanted to invite him to a constituency. >> i respect the views of my colleagues. i do not agree to total ban. i would invite him. there you go. me aboutan issue for challenging that narrative. i think it's important and then aim of democracy to challenge that narrative and challenge that hatred speech that comes out of his mouth. i stand here as a muslim woman, as a proud british muslim woman.
donald trump would like me banned from america. i would not get my visa. islam, inhat, in my the car on that i understand, what it teaches me, what i get from micah ron is that goodness is better than evil. if someone does bad, you do good in return. i would not allow the red brick -- rhetoric of badness into my life come into my heart. what i will do is challenge that with goodness. to hate.ads that's not something i would tolerate. on the final point, given that it is martin luther king day, i everyone with this. i have decided to stick with
love. hate is too great a burden to bear. >> or roger, i'm the only number of parliament who can claim to represent the good people of new york. this time he -- tiny hamlet lent cityame's to the greatest on the planet. the good people of new york, the , all 150 or sork of them. >> ted cruz has launched a vicious attack on the people of new york, saying that they are
cosmopolitan. i hope that she will stand up for the people of new york. [laughter] i've looked at the map, not a single person from lincolnshire has signed this petition. [laughter] >> you are again reaching my point before i am. promise to talk about new york values by the end of my speech. turning as i must to trump, his comments are wrong. his policy to close borders if he is elected bonkers is -- president is bonkers. if they go to one of the excellent pubs in my constituency they may tell him what he is for dealing with the issue in this way. i sense that my constituents feel that their values are more than robust enough to survive anything that mr. trump may say.
that we in lincolnshire, we in the united kingdom should have enough confidence in our values to allow him to say whatever he york, newew york, new york, lincolnshire, or anywhere else in the world. because our british values are stronger than some amongst us here today appear to fear. >> is all very well to say that we feel strong and understand, we will stand up to it. are not muslims living in a country where there is already a rise in his mama phobia and comments like that from someone who has such influence over so many people with so much media explosion over it can only hand people who are feeling vulnerable and not feeling a strong as the constituents are claiming. >> i can only give the honorable
member the reassurance that as someone who used to prosecute criminals for living before i came to this place, any defendant who tried that in court would get short shrift from me and i'm sure, the jury. the point is that we mustn't allow people who behave in that disgraceful way, we mustn't allow such criminals, people who beat up others on the basis of the religious police, we mustn't allow them to somehow remove themselves by blaming someone on a different continent. if they beat up a muslim on the streets of britain, that's their responsibility and no one else's . now, one of the values that i think asked sums up our country of thecourse, the phrase exchange of thoughts and ideas within the law. the freedom to persuade or rebut. the freedom to inspire or if this rate in argument. the freedom to speak and the freedom to listen. now, this freedom is not always comfortable.
indeed, my friends have already referred to the rising problem, it seems, of some of our universities fearing to allow free speech, providing safe bases for fear the people maybe 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 edifying for speaking their minds. crucially it also means the freedom to reply. to say no, donald trump, you are wrong and 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. rely on thesite may specific. one already has.
let us remind ourselves about the threshold that must be met for this to happen. secretary must conclude that the person's presence in the united kingdom is not conducive to the public good. the house of commons library helpfully provided a briefing for this in which there are 14 examples of people excluded by labor home secretaries in may of 2009. of those 14 examples, 10 were considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to cement, justify, or glorify terrorist violence. nine were considered to be engaging in unacceptable provoke in order to others to commit terrorist acts or serious crimes. five were considered to be posturing hatred, which might lead him community violence in the u.k..
one spent 30 years in prison for killing four soldiers and a four-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? thank you, i will move on. , thend it is a big if answer is not the fuel publicity by banning him, which incidentally this debate is already doing nicely. the answer is to rebut his argument. the answer is to challenge him in a robust, democratic argument about why he is wrong about the contribution of america and of british muslims to this country.
>> has the honorable member considered the 84 hate preachers that were banned in total? the honorable member would see that there is a striking resemblance between what donald trump is saying and two of the bloggers that were banned for years ago. i secretary. offorgive me, the house commons already has my briefing note edit is a useful document. those are the examples. i have used all of the examples given. as i say, they are in a very different category from the category that donald trump has said, which he has done on this issue and many others. but if i may on 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 might be rather bemused that we are feeling this -- fueling this man's a list of the machine by having this debate at all today. >> thank you, it is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. donald trump's comments to ban muslim men, women, and children if he were to be elected as president were almost universally condemned as racist and offensive and i absolutely welcome the condemnation given by all sides of the house and both sides of this debate and that members of the public have decided that this issue is serious and merits parliamentary scrutiny related to the debate we are having today. condemn auent remarks
whole religion for the actions of a terrorist death cult. mr. trump also condemns and speaks in the rogge poured terms, i should say, about women, people of disabilities, mexicans. the list is exhaust -- not exhaustive because it is never-ending. his comments are dangerous and his views must be tackled seriously. -- ld trump's words confirm >> thank you. >> does the honorable lady not think that mr. trump might well be making these comments not only because he thinks them but because he wants to get lots of publicity to help his election campaign? >> thank you to the honorable member for his intervention. i don't think it's for us to try to get into the mind of donald trump. i think it would be important as members to understand what it is like to be a muslim living in this country when facing
comments made by evil like mr. trump and what seemed to be his general concerns about the whole of us the practice muslim faith. it's an uncomfortable place to be in. mr. trump condemns my family. in a similar vein he condemns the political editor of sky news and some of our greatest olympians. he condemns the leaders of are currently working together to overcome it in a rock in syria. because, mr. chairman, we are all muslims. for him that is the one and only common denominator. rather than combating the serious issues of international -- hassm, he is bolstered the twisted narrative brought from others.
he has fueled racial tensions while the world undermining the national , and peter the u.s. cook, who said at that time, that anything that bolsters the narrative and pits the united states against muslim states is not only contrary to their values, but contrary to national security. he also referenced their own security. her job quite correctly is to protect public safety and promote security. she has already explicitly included hate speech and in her judgment, my view is that donald trump should be number 85. using the powers vested in her she has included criminals, far right extremists, homophobic
extremists, and these rules should be applied consistently and equally to all. if they exist they exist for that very reason and we have a responsibility to ensure that whoever comes in and out of our country is treated in the same way. that they have removed him from status as a global ambassador. perhaps it is important for me to confirm that his global ambassador spot state was conferred upon him by former later -- former labor administrators, let that myth be dispelled here and now. i don't think that any genuine person could possibly have envisioned that this man would make such horrendous comments. the u.k. government needs to demonstrate commitment by applying their own rules
consistently in this case. understand the arguments being made by some that we should invite him here and so he can see for himself how to build bridges rather than setting up barriers. this is a man who seeks to be president of the united states of america. of course. actuallynot suggest that this is about buffoonery and ultimately buffoonery should not be met with a blunt instrument like a band but with a classic british response of ridicule? [laughter] for hisnk the member intervention and it is for them the gift of the british state about which he speaks. i accept that you have referred to this but i have to say that
his remarks are condemning an faith that ion of practice and it maybe difficult for people to understand how that affects us, but it does, he's talking about me, my family, my children. that is what he is talking about. it's worthy of note, however, that his policy would make it possible for me and other muslims in america to travel to make the same case there that we are making here. this parliament can be extremely proud of its improving wreck -- in representing constituent interests. but mr. trump has banned the new entering the u.s. state and allowing us to make our case there. i have heard others say that it would only add to his notoriety consistently in those cases. raising his profile, but anyone who has followed the race for
republican nomination for president will know that lack of profile is not an issue for mr. trump. the american people have an important decision to make this year. about who they want to leave their country. it is their decision to make. mr.chairman, last week trump added insult to injury by saying that he would stop his investment into scottish golf courses if he is subject to the same type of travel restrictions he advocates for others. contrary to what others say, he's bad for business. costing the local economy dearly , he actively undermines investment in the north sea and it may have serious repercussions in scotland and its development as a world leader. provided succor to terrorists and provided hatred on both sides of the atlantic.
of course he has a right to be wrong, but his statements are dangerous and threaten our public safety and national security. we cannot have laws apply differently depending on people's income, public profile, or color. what does that say about us? our rules and laws must be applied consistently for all. applyme secretary must her own judgment consistently, which is what i am calling on her to do and i look forward to hearing from the minister. anything else would be on principle quite simply wrong. >> i am also a member of the petitions committee and i am delighted that we brought this debate to the house today. committeee we as a
held a particular view, but we felt that with the number of people that signed the petition it was right to air these very important issues. i am sure that like the hundreds of thousands 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 by -- about women, people with disabilities, and about other minority groups. however, the question as to whether or not he should be banned from this country is a very interesting and very and one thatstion 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 the country. if we were to go down the road of banning him because refined his views objectionable or even offensive, where would we draw the line? many people have equally intolerant views. those who come to this country, some who live in this country already. are we to ban them because we don't like the things that they say when we disagree with them? issue at stake here is how our society handles people who have different views from us even when we find those views strongly objectionable or offensive. .he issue of free speech and i believe it is about when someone crosses a line to incite others to acts of violence, to criminal acts. that is the line that i believe is to be drawn.
i don't personally believe that donald trump has crossed that line. he may do at another time and then maybe we would need to reconsider our views, but as of yet i don't believe he's done that. it's perfectly right that the home secretary bands extremist preachers when they tell their followers to commit acts of , to cause harm, to cause pain and ultimately kill other individuals. that's absolutely right that the home secretary does that, but i don't believe that mr. trump has done that. if as a country we started to ban people because they said things we didn't like, i wonder how long the list would the? as ignorant and unpleasant as his comments are, he's not alone. for starters, we have to ban the current prime minister of hungry because he has said equally offensive things about muslims. mr. chairman, the way that we
deal with the good tree in prejudice is by confronting it had on, not by trying to avoid it. banning someone like donald trump would risk making him a martyr. i believe it would only fuel his causal even further and in his own mind he would see himself as a martyr and i believe that his supporters would believe the same. what would it achieve? we live in a global village now. we are not going to stop his views from reaching our shores. because we ban him. i would argue the opposite. the promotion of the ban would mean that his words and views are heard louder and stronger than they currently are. banning him would only play into his hands. so, instead of banning him, i'm with those who say -- invite him. bring him here, confront those views had on. take him 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 he is spoken about and show him what life in britain is really like. i will like to make, mr. chairman, is that i at theen surprised 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. far from proposing building walls he was all about tearing down walls. it was he who said to president gorge -- president gorbachev of russia -- if you seek globalization, come here, mr. gober chaffed. open the gate and tear down the wall. that he issed getting the amount of support that he is because it seems to
heritage against the and the values that i understand the republican party to have. >> the fact is that in america and britain there is widespread disillusionment with the mainstream establishment politicians who don't seem to give an honest answer to people over the concerns of immigration and many issues. there's no point just badmouthing these guys, we have to take on these arguments and discuss them in an open way. >> thank you, i agree, absolutely. the response that we are seeing is far more about people's frustrations and concerns than it is, i believe, about an individual man. 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. we would shortly be guilty of
the same thing that we are criticizing him for. it would send a signal to the world that we are scared. >> members on the site are calling for him to be banned because of something very dangerous that he said. he is calling for muslims to be registered and tracked for no reason. is a huge difference. >> i respect the view of the gentle member and personally a take of different view, banning him would play into the same fears that he is promoting. it has often been said that two wrongs don't make a right. well, i want to say the two bands don't make a right. >> is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. the land of the free, america, one of our oldest allies.
donald trump is a fool, he is free to be a fool, but he's not free to be a dangerous fool on our shores. some of the foolish things that he has said? the concept of global warning was created by and for the chinese to make u.s. manufacturing noncompetitive. it's freezing and snowing in new york, we need global warming. john mccain is a war hero because he was captured? who were not captured, i hate to tell you. he then went on to the offensive thing that he would build a great wall with relation to mexico and that no one builds walls better than him. and then he went on to say he would build them very inexpensively and that he would have mexico pay for the wall. >> the honorable member makes an excellent case as to why he's a
buffoon, not a criminal. >> 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 liberties and i fought to defend freedom of speech throughout my life. but freedom of speech is not an absolute. an absolutehere 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 effective whose actions and words would be to incite violence have no right to come to britain. if i could give some examples of the kind of people who have been banned. michael savage, a u.s. radio host.
it was said about him that he was considered to be engaging and unacceptable behavior, fostering hatred, claiming that american muslims needed deportation. banned from coming to our country. found to begain guilty of unacceptable behavior, he had made a series of anti-somatic remarks, banned from coming to our country. robert spencer, pandora -- geller, founders of the american freedom defense initiative, banned in 2013 by the current secretary of state for the home office when they were due to speak at an edl rally held on the location of leave rigby's murder as their arrival would not be deemed to be conducive to the public good. one other example, an ejection television preacher who was in the words of the home office considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by glorifying terrorist violence,
he had called for violence against jews. first of all, what have donald trump actually said? legendarily about the total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states, but he then went on to say as follows -- that 50% of our country is -- of the people the country agree that muslims in america should have the choice of being governed according to sharia, which he said authorizes such atrocities as murder against nonbelievers who want to burn to the headings and more unthinkable acts that cause great harm to americans, especially women. little wonder that after those remarks there was a recorded rise in attacks against muslims in america. why do i argue for the exclusion of donald trump? turn you to the context of 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 per day in britain. key to preventing attacks has been the patient building out crease service of good communities and neighborhood policing. that has been key to the successful detection of terrorist after terrorist in this country. the nature of terrorism takes twog a country forms. first, the organized cells. it is a strategy to radicalize the vulnerable. in particular those with mental illness. and in particular those who the victimhood encouraged by isis.
what makes donald trump's presence in our country so dangerous is that in the current climate, isis needs donald trump and donald trump needs isis. isis needs to be able to say on undere hand that they are attack. donald trump needs to say on the other hand the you are under attack by muslims. that is 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 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 is making some interesting points. these examples are more shortly about donald trump being a bigot rather than hatred. britain is pretty good at
roasting beets. shouldn't we just roast trump? think aorry, i don't debate like this calls for flippancy at this time. with the greatest of respect, when our police service and our security services are working night and day to prevent our country from being attacked, when they believe the support of the muslim community, to have someone come to our shores who demonizes the entire community would be fundamentally wrong and would undermine the safety and security of our citizens. that's not a risk i am prepared to take. >> i hear what the right honorable gentleman is saying. partly it has been echoed by the muslim members who have given powerful evidence about 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.