tv British House of Commons Debate on Barring Donald Trump from the U.K. CSPAN January 18, 2016 8:00pm-10:01pm EST
>> i have seen people using a broadband connection to build their businesses who in a previous era either would have had to migrate one of the coasts but because of that connection they are now able to innovate. that is something that is really powerful especially in rural america. communicators at 8:00 on c-span2. coming up tonight, the british house of commons debates banning donald trump from the united kingdom over his remarks about muslims. then we bring you mr. trump speaking at liberty university. later ohio governor and presidential candidate john kasich is in new hampshire. talking about teen drug and alcohol abuse.
been signed by more people than any other in this parliament. 573,971 signatures. it costs to block donald j trump from u.k. entry. the second petition is don't ban .rump buted by 42,898 signatures 30 signatures were removed because they were thought to be suspect coming from one source. anyone who is trying to break the system you will be found out. case 30,000 signatures disappeared. says donaldtitions j trump should be banned from u.k. entry. the u.k. has banned entry to many individuals for hate
speech. the same principle should apply to everyone who wishes to enter the united kingdom. this country is to continue applying their unacceptable behavior criteria to those who wish to enter its borders must be fairly applied to the rich as well as the poor and the weak as well as the powerful. petition says we should be banning anyone for their opinions or their legal actions in a u.s. political race that doesn't concern us. if he goes on to win the presidency we then have to work with a man that we banned from our country. let's might a run business. if i can summarize the government response which was entirely helpful to both petitions the government said the government does not routinely comment on individual exclusion decisions. exclusion powers a very serious
and are not used lightly. the prime minister has made clear that he completely disagrees with mr. trump's remarks. thatome secretary has said his remarks are devices and unhelpful and wrong. the government recognizes the strength of feeling against the marginalization of those it endeavors to protect. the government doesn't directly answer the question. they did publish a list of 20 who were denied entry to the 2008 andngdom between 2009. the sort of people who are banned. gang thatf a violent beat migrants and posted films
of their attacks on the internet. he was considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by fomenting serious criminal activity and seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts. another one was described as a preacher considered to be engaged in the unacceptable furthering his political beliefs. another one was seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts. a muslim writer and public speaker from india who was excluded from the united kingdom because he had made anti-jewish statements and thus fostering hatred among others. ofse are entirely typical the kind of people who were excluded. i think we should say that the situation with donald trump doesn't apply in those cases.
serious andr more presented an immediate threat of violence. the petitioners claim that there have been violent attacks taking place in boston and elsewhere with people who quoted donald trump when they, one of them attacked a hispanic person and another attacked a mexican it is alleged. that is with the petitioners are making their points on. thatieve there is one case does represent the situation of donald trump. of geerthe one wilkdens, a dutch person who was seen as fomenting hatred against muslims and homophobia. he was banned by the home secretary.
in 2009. he appealed to the court and won the case. the result was that he was allowed into the country. the publicity and attention he wasfor his islamophobia multiplied a hundred fold by the band. . that is something we should bear in mind. >> i congratulate him on leaving this debate. aboute share my concern the number of cases that have come to light since the comments made by mr. trump but not because of what mr. trump said? british muslims who have been refused admission to the united states of america and does he agree with me that when that happens whether they are muslims are not there should be a clear indication of why people have been refused admission to america?
flynn: we are still in a position where the president of the united states is barack but these incidents need to be investigated. it is something of considerable concern. in wilders case is of great significance. kind comes with responsibility and this includes free speech. freedom of speech is not the freedom to an gauge and hatred. words can wound and words can be a rallying cry to violence. laws havey the u.k. stopped some 80 individuals from entering the united kingdom to date.
the quote from the petitioners about certain violent acts in they put down to mr. trump's intervention. i think we want to make it clear the way that this is been reported throughout the world it has caused an enormous amount of attention, this is no attempt to disrespect in any way americans or the american state. that our cultures have melded together over the years getting ever closer. this is a country that sacrificed its sons and daughters in the cause of creating democracy in other countries. more than any other nation on earth. obamas the land of barack , of martin luther king, and
abraham lincoln. would you not agree with me the fact that this is martin luther king day today makes it even more bizarre is that this hate figure is preaching these ridiculous things that we should reject? flynn: martin luther king was a great man who left a great legacy behind him. what wed look to see are doing in this case and what we were doing by pursuing a >> thehich would expel election of his own party leader has shown that remarkable things happen in politics. we have to be alive to the possibility that this ridiculous
mayvidual that is mr. trump be elected as president of the united states. in that event, would such a ban be overturned? it was not it would be one almighty snub to the american citizens to which is been referring? flynn: the great difficulty we are in is in showing disrespect for mr. trump it might well be interpreted i supporters and others in america as showing disrespect to the american nation. this is not what we are saying. it is one individual who is involved in this. could i put it to the committee that the great danger of attacking this one man is that we can fix on hand my halo of victimhood, give him the role of the martyrdom, which could seem to be an advantage among those
who supported. here are the foreigners interfering telling us what to do. that would be a grave error if andave that situation allowed our deliberations today to seem to be anti-american. there were a number of people who said that we should discuss but shouldn't be debated today. it would be very difficult to vox pop that contains the signatures of half a million people. the members of parliament to decide what the agenda is. decides. public that the side our best plan is not to give him
that accolade of martyrdom in that way. i think we may already be in error by giving him far too much attention in the way that this is signaled on hand. he has done some remarkable things. does he not feel that particularly today it seems that anyone who offends anyone and we'll do it almost on a daily time and i do it all the debate is immediately shut down? this is the danger to democracy. debate about a whole range of things has been shut down because they are labeled as set a right wing or left-wing, whichever it may be.
maybe it is best to ignore it. flynn: the instances that have been drawn to our attention by the petitioners is that mr. trump mocks in a cruel way a man for his disability. mexico,to the people of he bundled them up as people who are racists and drug abusers. he made some degrading remarks about women. the latest one is to suggest that the muslims not be allowed into his country which is an extraordinary and extremely dangerous thing to say. what we are faced with is the most dangerous position between the nations in my lifetime. i can clearly remember the start of the second world war. the situation we have in the with the al qaeda
and isis and similar groups spread throughout the countries is to divide the world between christians and muslims. d plan thatman pl there will be a war between christians and muslims and the muslims will win. and they will establish their caliphate throughout the world. the most alarming thing is what is happening with our young people in this country in my constituency and elsewhere. almosthey have this irresistible appeal to adolescence to say, come and join us, we can write ancient wrongs. you can take part in a battle. you can have a great adventure. and theyour religion possibility of the end of it is martyrdom followed by eternal bliss. way of thiskind of
seduction used by many cults over the years. sadly there are hundreds of our young people falling for this. if we react in the way we do to the terrorist attacks by joining in wars and battles the world is in a very dangerous place. no right to inform americans on who they should elect's leader, we do look forward with some trepidation to a future where difficult decisions have to be taken and should they be taken by a person ,ho is seems to be impulsive not well informed, someone who has been accused of racial views. i see he is coming down one side of the argument that mr. trump should not be banned from
entering the country. are we not in a unique position here? i cannot think in my lifetime of another senior politician in america or anywhere else wishing the government of that country to deny our citizens in the united kingdom free international movement because of their religion. if my honorable friend is to take the position that he is doing can i ask van, what would be an appropriate response for this country to the united pre protectder to the people that we represent. ? true that it is very we have had an intervention on this before. it would be an outrage if this were to happen. it is contrary to all of american history. the words written on the statue .f liberty i denial of the best in
america's history and hospitality to those who wish to live in that country. i would urge the alternative of inviting him here and i would be delighted if he could show us where the so-called no go areas for police are in this country. i have never been able to find them. it would be a pleasure to take them down to brixton and show him the rich mixture of races and creeds their living happily together there. perhaps it would be interesting to have a chat about why in america there are more people killed by guns every day that are killed every year in this country. the leader of the opposition has suggested a trip to islington around the mosques and possibly a meeting with his wife who understand is from mexico. i am sure that would be a very interesting conversation they would have there. should greett we
the extreme things that this man says why our own reasonableness at our own hospitality. we should greet him with courtesy if you came here. we should not build him up by our attacks. thate say in conclusion there was another great 1990,ican who said in democrats and republicans i salute you. countryf of the entire i now lift to sign the americans with disabilities act and say let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down. those the words of president bush. .t was absolutely right that act for those who are disabled led to similar acts in nations throughout the world. seehould look to what we
from donald trump at the moment and who must confront his words , lack of knowledge, intolerance, and what we should greet him with is a welcoming hand of friendship and knowledge and truth. perhaps all shameful walls of prejudice will come tumbling down. is should this house continue to consider the petition relating to the exclusion of donald trump from the united kingdom? ask all honorable members who wish to speak to stand? i just want to get some idea. thank you. i am proposing immediately to a time limit of six
minutes. if honorable members are willing to hear to that then it may be or all can get most members who wish to speak into the debate. for the convenience of members, on the normally do this, opposition benches, those who vindicated in advance that they wish to be called. those who are not on the list at may choose to seek to
intervene rather than seek to be called. paul scully. scully: i like to congratulate the honorable member for newport west for leading this debate. i was keen to participate in this debate not just for the but also to echo the sentiment that the honorable member has said about why we have decided to have this debate. it has caught the eye of the media and some people have been concerned about our discussion. mechanismy have the in place for anything over 100,000 signatures we will seek to at least allow members in public to have a voice in this place. whether it be in a select committee or a wider debate that is already going on. research that we are doing. for example we are doing things as committee in looking at researching to brain tumors.
in this instance as has been the case and several others it is appropriate for us to give the members of the public a voice in this chamber here in westminster. donald trump's favorite asked on katie hopkins sunday on the radio program why we weren't debating other things like the immigration debate that the petition had gone through. , she claimedr that it was us being politically correct. we had already had an immigration debate which i lead back in october. it was more appropriate that we push on with this. we don't want to duplicate work wherever possible. the honorable member for newport west forgot one petition that
, in hiding donald trump to address parliaments. that is one we might want to consider. the debate is not going to result in a vote. for us to decide whether donald trump should or should not be allowed into this country. that is a matter for the home secretary deciding whether any visit that he might make is conducive to the public good or not. what it does do is it allows us and she will i am sure be listening. we have some examples of when people have been excluded. people have been excluded for incitement and hatred. i have never heard of one for stupidity. i'm not sure that we should be starting now. we should be focusing on one man.
not be focusing on one man. look at the issues that surround this and how it affects the united kingdom. the wider issues are immigration, global security, the positive contribution that muslims have in this country whether they were born here or what they have added to our community. is the honorable member aware that the second-most popular petition on the petitions website is one to debate stop all immigration and close the u.k. borders and does that motion show why it is important to challenge views such as donald trump's in a robust and evidence-based and democratic way? scully: that was a very
similar wording to the debate that i made in october. there are a lot of petitions out have quite insightful and clumsily worded approaches. there is a fear of immigration. there is a fear on global security. donald trump's words were probably born out of fear himself. although as one who aspires to be a leader he should be trying to clear up these issues. it is not acceptable for him to say we need to stop immigration and so we understand what is going on. for is not acceptable someone who aspires to be a world leader. we know the benefits of controlled immigration in this country. i am the son of someone who was born in burma. have seen the benefits of immigration. people contribute to this country. they make no claims on social services. they have incredible aspirations
for education, for hard work. immigrationolled does put a lot of pressure on our services at our infrastructure and it does put a lot of concern to people's mind thespect as in america, u.k. feels this as well. it's the number of signatures on the petition. need to tackle it in a very different way. we need to speak about the positive contribution. to culture as well. lot to do with the british curry industry. ist that one industry alone worth three and a half billion pounds. it employs a hundred thousand people. we all enjoy curry every day. it would be a bad thing for the u.k. economy if that continue to
struggle. that is just one small industry. let's look at the medical industry. look at business as a whole. the inputs that immigrants have on this country. we need to look at the counter extremism strategy that this government has. the counterterrorism strategy that this government has. these are ways that are far more clever, far more positive, far more practical than the impractical case of just closing the country down to people of one faith. have you actually determine someone's faith? do you put a badge on them? do you have them in a database? i think donald trump has keeping people on a database which is an extraordinary situation to to go down. i will bring my remarks to a close. as we have a limited time.
i do think, i hope that over the next few hours we will be a but concentrate on practical ways that this country can tackle can tackle and community cohesion rather than worrying about the ego of one man. >> the arguments about why we are having this debate have already been articulated by the members who came before me. i wanted to raise this question hashy this online petition evoked such emotion. is it because donald trump's comments mean that he is tarnishing the entire vessel community with the views of a small group of extremists, the views of home and ordinary absolutely condemns? or is it because the world's largest economy id excluding the world's second-largest religious community over 1.6 billion
people in the world? or people often say that the public are apathetic about politics. this petition, signed by nearly 600,000 people, shows that when people feel a sense of justicewhen they feel that we need to stop a poisonous, corrosive man from entering our countrythey will act in good conscience. but this is not just any man we are talking about. this is a man with an extremely high profile who has been involved in the american show-business industry for yearsa man who is now interviewing for the most important job in the world. his words are not comical. his words are not funny. his words are poisonous and risk inflaming tensions between vulnerable communities. let me make one thing clear. we have legislation in our country to ensure that we do not
let people who are not conducive to the public good enter. the honorable member has outlined some of the people the home office has banned from entering this country. i looked up some of the rhetoric. >> you are talking about a candidate for the presidency of the united states. it is up to the american people to decide whether his views are objectionable, not you guys. >> order. the hon. gentleman has been in the house long enough to know that he has to address the chamber through the chair. i have no view on this matter whatever, as he will appreciate. tulip siddiq: i think the question has been answered for the hon. gentleman. i looked at the cases of the 84 hate preachers who have not been allowed into the country. i want to highlight the case of a female bloggeri will not name
her, but hon. members are welcome to look her upwho was banned from entering our country. i looked at the rhetoric she used. her crime was to equate the views of the entire muslim population with those of a handful of extremists. the home office spokesperson banned her from coming into our country and said, and i quote, she is not allowed into the country because we condemn all those whose behaviours and views run counter to our shared values and will not stand for extremism in any form. if donald her views and those of donald trump, who thinks that muslims are all the same, are strikingly similar. they use very similar words. will we apply our legislation equally to everyone or will we make exceptions for billionaire politicians, even when their
words clearly fall short of the home office guidance? >> i have heard the remarks that donald trump has made by a large number of my constituents. she may disagree with them, but lots of my constituents agree with what donald trump said, whether i like it or not. does she think that they should be expelled from the country as a result of their views? if not, what is the difference? tulip siddiq: the hon. gentleman should think carefully about what he just said. that is not the same as our making a decision not to let into the country someone whose views fall short of the home office guidance. the honorable member for newport west outlined donald trump's views about mexicans and black people. do not forget that donald trump ran a dog-whistle campaign to see barack obama's birth certificate to find out whether
the president of america is really american. can you imagine in the mother of parliaments, my colleagues decided to question ethnic minority mps about whether they are really british. dr huq: is my hon. friend aware that people find that individual repellent about this individual is he is not only racist but homophobic and misogynistic? tulip siddiq: i thank my hon. friend for her intervention. i'd like to read out what donald on foxaid when asked news, she asked him to explain why he called some women 'fat pigs', 'dogs', 'slobs' and 'disgusting animals', he replied, what i say is what i say. is that 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 merely because they offend us or because we do not like them, but as politicians we have to make difficult decisions. one of the decisions we have to make is when freedom of speech actually insults public safety. we are worried about our constituents' safety. and the evidence i want to point to is the center for hate and extremism pointed out that anti-muslim crime has increased in line with the rhetoric that donald trump used in the last three months of 2015. the honorable member for newport west mentioned the homeless hispanic man who was beaten up by two brothers from south boston. when they beat him up, they broke his nose and urinated on him. the police report said that one of them justified the act by
saying donald trump was rightall -- we should get rid of all of these illegals. my point is that hate crime is by thenflamed and stoked rhetoric that donald trump is using. >> i am interested in the point that the hon. lady seems to be making. to make sure i have understood her correctly, is she laying all the responsibility for the increase in hate crime against muslims at donald trump's door? does she not believe that acts of terrorism, such as those in paris, contributed to it? tulip siddiq: of course, i do not lay all the blame for the increase in hate crime at donald trump's door, but there is a very real correlation between the words he uses and the increase in hate crime. which is the point i'm trying to make, that a lot of his words lead to real crime and violence. that is where i draw the line on freedom of speech.
i will give way. richard drax: i do not mean to undermine the hon. lady's argument, but many things incite violence. for example, parliamentary regulations that we pass incite violence. policemen have been attacked, and one had his head chopped off. that is not to say that we should shut down debate. i'm afraid all kinds of things incite violencealways by totally irresponsible people. tulip siddiq: i do not have much time, so i will wrap up by saying that i draw the line on freedom of speech when it leads to violent ideology being imported, which is what i feel is happening. the legislation in place to protect the people of britain from such individuals. if legislation has been practiced before and other people have been stopped from coming into the country the same , rules should apply to donald trump, which is why i feel he should not be given a visa to
visit the multicultural country that we are so proud of. >> the member was widely quoted this morning as saying she was going to trash donald trump this afternoon. i am not sure he is going to be terribly worried about this debate. [laughter] i respect the honorable member for newport west for the measured way in which he introduced the debate. it will be of no surprise that i oppose the ban. first, it just gives donald trump publicity. actually it is the only item about british politics in the us press at the moment. they are not talking about corbynmania, brexit or anything else. they are talking about this debate. why feed the machine? we saw what happened with geert wilders. did that do any good? i do not think so. the hon. gentleman made that point in his measured speech. secondly, it offends free
speech. in a free country, people have a right to offend others. i introduced an amendment to section 5 of the public order act 1986 to make that clear. i offend people in this house all the time, and that is my perfect right to do so. thirdly, the united states is a friendly country that came to our rescue twice in two world wars. this man may conceivably become president of our most important ally. fourthly, we cannot translate american politics to uk politics, which is completely different. i was in a debate earlier this year on full fiscal autonomy for scotland, and the labour spokesman described me as an extreme right wingergod forbid. my amendment was supported by the shadow chancellor when he was a back bencher; whether he is an extreme right winger, i do not know. as it happens, i am strongly in in favor of gun control. i voted consistently against
bombing syria and invading iraq. i am strongly in favour of the nhs, which i use exclusively; and i oppose capital punishmentwould i survive in the republican party? nevertheless, i am told that i am an extreme right winger. our politics are completely different, and it would be a great mistake to try to translate them. petitions such as this are a bit of good fun, but if the government were to act on this onegod forbidthey would be playing into mr trump's hands. his entire style of politics is to stoke controversy by saying outrageous things. lavishing him with attention, even if our intent is to condemn or deride, is falling into the trap he set for us. his continuing popularity among voters 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 demagoguery in fighting demagogues. we all lament the divisiveness of politics, which seem particularly divisive in the united states when viewed from afar, from our side of the pond.
does a debate such as this really help? would banning mr trump, which would be even worse, really help? most of us in this room oppose mr trump for demonising his opponents. if we ban him from the country, are we not in danger of doing the same? like it or not, mr trump is also a contender to be the head of state of arguably the most powerful country on the planet, a country which is a vital ally of ours. we have welcomed to this country saudi and chinese leaders, not to mention mr ceau?escu, whose crimes are far worse than anything mr trump can dream up. these people do not just talk about violence, they practice violence on an extreme scale, but we have welcomed them to our country. i am a firm believer in free speech, which is a cause i have combined with such unlikely bedfellows as the national secular society and the christian institute. if we allow free speech only for those with whom we already
agree, is that free speech at all? dialogue is a solution not , deeper division. let me end by saying that this is also an attempt to shut down an honest debate about immigration. as soon as one mentions immigration, one is labelled a right winger or a racist. that is not the way to solve the problem of integration. it was a fantastic article the prime minister wrote in the times today, making the worthwhile and good point that our muslim friends must learn from previous waves of immigrants, particularly the jews of the 19th century, who have chosen to integrate fully in our society. here are some of the prominent immigrants and children of immigrants, all intensely and identifiably british, all of whom arrived long before britain's post-war immigration waves: hans holbein, george frederick handel, frederick william herschel, isaac and benjamin disraeli, christina rossetti, gustav holst, augustus pugin, louis of battenberg and
his son louis mountbatten, hilaire belloc, joseph conrad, george louis du maurier, winston churchill, leo amery, t.s. eliot, lewis namier, learie constantine, alexander korda, emeric pressburger, nikolaus pevsner, isaiah berlin, geoffrey elton, the two michael howards, and solly zuckerman. the list illustrates a fundamental point: although those figures immensely enhanced british life, they did not make their adopted nation cosmopolitan. their adopted nation made these cosmopolitans british, and we should be proud of them. gavin robinson: i appreciate the opportunity to contribute so early, sir roger. when considering my remarks for this debate, i thought that i would be in conflict with the hon. member for newport west but i am , pleased to say that that is not the case. however, i want to make one
point about exclusion to him, because when i log on as a northern ireland member and try to access the committee's online map, northern ireland does not exist. if there is an issue of exclusion, i hope that that can be addressed when the licensing is sorted out with ordnance survey. i am also concerned and apprehensive that the right hon. member for chelmsford (sir simon burns is present. , he is the chief parliamentary proponent of hillary clinton. i wonder whether an intervention will be made to the detriment of donald trump. i never thought i would say it, but i agree wholeheartedly with that dreadful right winger the hon. member for gainsborough. that in thissay debate, it is important that we consider the principles of democracy and of firm and thorough debate.
and the fact that when you have a strong and good principled position, we should stand robustly by it, not run from fear or opposition or the contrary arguments that others may make, be they in this country or abroad. members present will know of lynton crosby, the political adviser and analyst, who has talked about the dead cat on the table theory. the idea is that, if one is losing an argument or not being referred to at all, throw a dead cat on the table and people will notice. they will stop and the direction of political discourse will change. that is exactly what donald trump is doing it is not a one-off initiative; it marks his campaign entirely. he throws a dead cat on the table, people stop considering what they were considering and stop doing what they were doing. they listen to him and take him seriously.
there will be those todaythe hon. member for hempstead and kilborn who will support the exclusion of donald trump. i want to see donald trump come to this country and be grilled either by members of parliament, by andrew neil or one of this country's great interrogators in public discourse. i want them to challenge him. i want him to get a sense of the fury and the frustration caused by his xenophobic remarks. let him leave this country feeling that there are better principles than what he has outlined so far. we as a country should be proud of our values, which we would like to see throughout the world. confront him. challenge him and confound him into recognising that what he outlines may get headlines and may change the nature of
political discourse in the united states or across the world, but it is bad policy and would change the nature, image and reputation of the united states irrevocably from that created by the founding fathers and by those who have built up so much over the past three centuries. turning to the abate we have had, i think it is important that i do reflect today that we had the leader of the opposition indicates that it would be appropriate to open back channels with daesh, yet we have members of the same party saying that we should exclude somebody who has erred politically, but who is not a terrorist. for what should we open back channels with daesh? to negotiate reasonably with somebody who would consider that negotiation in the context of whether to murder someone's wife or rape her first before cutting off her head? the same leader of the opposition and the shadow chancellor gave succour to terrorists in our united kingdom over the past 30 years.
they supported the ira murdering citizens in northern ireland and murdering our countrymen. to put into context what the hon. member for hampstead and kilburn would have us believe, she thinks it would be appropriate to ban somebody who has erred in political ideology, but who has not erred in law. this person has not promoted terrorism or extremism to the extent that lives have been lost and communities have been damaged or destroyed. but i will, of course. tulip siddiq: does the hon. gentleman think that this country's legislation should be applied equally to everyone? gavin robinson: i think that it does. however, i am setting clear blue water between the support given by the hon. lady's leader in years gone by for terrorists who have destroyed, maimed and killed, and somebody who is a ridiculous xenophobe, but who we do not need to promote any further.
that is my point. for those who i believe will take a hypocritical stance, such as those north of the border from where we now sit, who are still very much part of our united kingdom. they lauded and applauded donald trump. they invited him to their country, appointed him as an ambassador and regaled him with civic support and adoration because of brass tacks. [laughter] i am obliged to the hon. gentleman for giving way. is he suggesting that somebody had a crystal ball and could predict that this individual would conceivably make comments condemning an entire religion? gavin robinson: i am grateful for the hon. lady's intervention. if i ever criticize someone,
some party or something in this chamber i will always allow the , right to respond, but a crystal ball was unnecessary. it has been referred to already, the ridiculous involvement donald trump had in the birther scandal around barack obama's lineagewas he born in hawaii or in kenya? is he a christian or is he a muslim? that was not nine months ago, but in 2008 or 2009. they did not need a crystal ball. they just needed to know who they were working with. when his wife divorced him some 25 years ago, she took the opportunity to say that her much-loved former husband used to lie in bed at night and read the works of adolf hitler. we do not need a crystal ball to recognize that the person we are dealing with is not only a successful businessman, but a buffoon, and he has the dangerous capability of saying
the most obscene or insensitive things to attract attention. none of that should be news, but we will not avoid the hypocrisy around it. you have given me an additional minute, it seems, sir roger, because of the interventions, and i am grateful. however, my party and i as an individual cannot 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, recognising that the principles that he espouses no longer reflect this country, the united states of america or the aspirations that we should all seek to promote internationally. >> sir roger it is a great , pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. i find myself standing here and, for the first time ever, agreeing wholeheartedly with the hon. member for newport west. none of us can be as surprised about that as i am, but i was even more surprised to hear him
warmly quoting the words of president bush. bushadmittedly, president bush the father and not the son. today is also one of the times this year when we will mark the 500th anniversary of a book called utopia, by saint thomas more, who was tried and executed not so far from this place. in it he envisaged a new future and a new ideal, writing from his heart about the liberties of thought and faith that he hoped what he called englishmenthose whom mr hannan refers to as the anglospherewould express across the globe. yet today a report has come out showing that the liberties thomas more hoped for and desired are in trouble. an online journal called spiked has gone around various universities and found that freedom of speech is being
challenged. in our colleges, so-called safe spaces, which might also be known as spaces of censorship, now cover some 39% of universities. that is a threat to freedom of thought not only in those universities. we can see that this debate is being covered by many of our friends from the third estate, -- sorry, fourth estate. and it is worth remembering that they, too, are part of the democratic process. although we who stand here and speak in the chamber might sometimes not like it, their role in holding us to account is equally as important as our role to speak the truth. with that cry for freedom and liberty, i speak in favour of considering the motion, but rejecting exclusion, because liberty is not something that we can take in portion or in part.
it comes as one and as a whole. as the first amendment to the us constitution makes clear, freedom of expression is essential for a free people. that is why, although i may not like it, and although i am absolutely sure that i would not support it, it is no place for me or this house to criticise a man running for elected office in a foreign country. we might not wish him here, we might not like him here, but we should not vote against his ability to speak or his right to travel when we, too, value the same rights of liberty. tom tugendhat: are you looking to intervene? >> no, i am not. anne mclaughlin: to be clear, did the hon.
gentleman say that it was not our place to criticise? surely that would be a curtailment of freedom of speech for those of us who are opposed to what donald trump said. i am pretty sure that the hon. gentleman said that we do not have the right to criticise. tom tugendhat: the hon. lady is quite right: we have the right to criticise. however, i do not think that we should exercise that right on people who are running for elected office in foreign countries. it is for the american people to judge donald trump and to hold him to account. i would argue it is bad politics and bad judgment to intervene in the electoral processes of other countries and i would wish to do it as little as possible. i will give way. tulip siddiq: the london mayoral candidate from the labour party, my right hon. member is of muslim origin. under donald trump, he would not be allowed to travel to america. will the hon. gentleman comment on that? tom tugendhat: i am delighted to comment on that, on the grounds that the united states makes wonderful provision for the balance of powers.
and that her failure to understand that the president of the united states is neither a sovereign nor a despot, but is balanced by congress and the courts, is a failure to understand why the united states, despite ithaving had one or two incumbents of the white house who might not have been mensa candidates, the country has yet succeeded all the way through to today as a bastion of liberty and of economic success. today is also martin luther king day and it is worth remembering that he, too, relied on those rights and freedoms. he, too, relied on those rights while he was campaigning to desegregate the university of alabama. when those students bravely marched in on 11 june 1963, the prevailing opinion was that they should shut up and that their right to freedom of speech should be curtailed. i think that donald trump is crazy and has no valid points to
make, but i will not be the one to silence his voice. when i think about what more we should do, i say that we should stand aside and wait for an american to come forward as the great joseph welch, the chief counsel for the us army, did. in the 1954 trials, he looked at senator mccarthy and asked, have you no shame, sir? at long last, have you left no sense of decency? for someone to say that to trump is surely better than for us to legislate on the freedom of expression or of travel of a citizen of that great country, the united states. >> i congratulate my hon. friend the member for newport west on leading the debate.
i will start by quoting martin luther king, because he deserves much more recognition today than does donald trump: our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. therefore, i welcome this discussion and i am grateful to the petitioners, who wanted us to raise our voices and to have the debate. i want to share two things with you. i had an interesting lunch earlier with a number of people, including rick stengel, the us under secretary for public diplomacy and public affairs. in our conversationi said that i had to get back for this donald trump debatewe agreed that donald trump was no more than a demagogue, who panders to people's fears, rather than their strengths. i should know, because the people of bradford west helped me to get rid of one in the general electionso it is not the first time that i have dealt with a demagogue.
there are two things i would like to really point out. while i really value this debate and accept that the subject is emotive. i understand and respect the views of my colleagues who say that we should ban this person for inciting hatredi agree. however, as the member of parliament for bradford west, i would give an open invitation to donald trump to visit my constituency. i would take him to the synagogue, the church and the mosque and i would invite him for a currywe are the curry capital of britain. i would welcome him, then have a conversation with him and challenge him about his views. >> will the hon. lady give way? naz shah: i will make my point first. i would invite donald trump to join us in feeding the homeless at the intouch foundation, a muslim charity that feeds homeless people in the city of
bradford. i would invite him to meet the muslim volunteers who help at human appeal a foundation based , in a colleague's constituency, and all those people who work together on issues that affect us as a country and as people, regardless of our race, gender, ethnicity or religion. that is what i would show to him. >> i give way. x i am a little confused. the hon. lady said that she agreed with the ban, but at the same time she wants to invite him to her constituency. i do not see how that would work. naz shah: i respect the views of my colleagues, but i do not agree with an overall ban. i would invite donald trump to bradford west. i also think that the curries are better in bradford west, but there we go. there is an issue for me about
challenging that narrative. in the name of democracy, it is important for us to challenge the hatred speech that comes out of donald trump's mouth. by the same token, i stand here as a proud british muslim woman, and what i would say, and donald trump would like me to be banned from america. i would not get a visa but my islam and, as i understand it, surah 41, verse 34 teach methis is not word for word, but what i take from my koranthat goodness is better than evil. if someone does bad, you do good in return. i will not allow the rhetoric of badness into my life and my heart or those of my constituents. what i will do is challenge that with goodness, because hatred breeds hate and that is not something that i will tolerate. on a final point, given that it
is martin luther king day, i leave everyone with his words: i have decided to stick with love. hate is too great a burden to bear. victoria adkins: it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, sir roger. i must make a declaration: i am the only member of parliament who can claim to represent the good people of new yorknew york in lincolnshire. when those seeking religious sanctuary in the 1600s reached the shores of what we now know as the united states of america, that tiny hamlet in my constituency lent its name to a patch of land that grew to be one of the greatest cities on the planet. the good people of the original new york where that honor lightly.
all 150 of them. sir edward leigh: ted cruz has launched a vicious attack on the people of new york, saying they are cosmopolitan. so i hope she will stand up for the people of new york. will she note, as i have, having looked at the map, that not a single person from lincolnshire has signed the petition to ban donald trump? victoria atkins: my hon. friend reaches my point before me. i promise to deal with new york values at the end of my speech. i turn, as i must, to mr trump. his comments about muslims are wrong. his policy to close borders, if he is elected as president, is bonkers. if he met one or two of my constituents in one of the many excellent pubs in my constituency, they may well tell him that he is a wazzock for dealing with the issue in that way. i sense that my constituents, whether in new york or tetney,
in minting or mablethorpe, feel that their values are more than robust enough to survive anything that mr trump may say. fact, wecolnshire, in in the united kingdom, should have enough confidence in our values to allow him to say whatever he wants in new york, new york, or in new york, lincolnshire, or anywhere else in the world, because our british values are stronger than some among us here today appear to fear. anne mclaughlin: does the hon. lady understand that it is all very well for us to say, we feel strong and we can withstand this, so you can criticise and offend and we will stand up to you, but she and i are not muslims living in a country where islamophobia is already rising? comments such as his, from someone who has such influence over so many people and is getting so much media exposure, can only harm not people like
us, but those on the streets who feel vulnerable. they do not feel as strong as she and her constituents claim to feel. victoria atkins: i can only give the hon. lady reassurance. as someone who used to prosecute criminals for a living before i came to this place, any defendant who tried that on in court would get very short shrift from me and, i am sure, from the jury. we must not allow people who behave in such a disgraceful allow criminals who beat up other people on the basis of their religion or beliefs to remove themselves from that by blaming someone on a different continent. if they beat up a muslim on the streets of britain, that is their responsibility and no one else's. one of the values that best sums up our country is the freedom to exchange thoughts and ideas within the law. the freedom to persuade or to rebut. the freedom to inspire or
eviscerate in argument; the freedom to speak and the freedom , to listen. that freedom is not always comfortable. indeed, my hon. friends for south dorset referred to the rising problem in some of our universities about allowing free speech and providing safe spaces for it, for fear that people may be offended, but the freedom of speech must mean that we will sometimes be offended. it means allowing those whose views we hold to be unedifying to speak their minds. crucially, it also means the freedom to reply, to say no, , donald trump, you are wrong, and you are wrong for the following reasons. that freedom was hard won over centuries and it must be defended jealously, because it goes to the essence of democracy and the rule of law.
opposition members may rely on the argument of consistency. indeed one member said, , so-and-so has been excluded, so mr trump must be excluded. let us remind ourselves of the threshold that must be met for that to happen. the home secretary must conclude that the person's presence in the united kingdom is not conducive to the public good. the house of commons library helpfully provided a briefing paper for the debate, which gives 14 examples of people who had been excluded by labour home secretaries by may 2009. of those, 10 were considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence. nine were considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior in order to provoke others to commit terrorist acts or serious crimes.
five were considered to be fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence in the uk and one had 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 they really saying that his conduct, no matter how offensive it may be, meets those criteria? if donald trump poses any question for us as a country, the answer is not to fuel his publicity by banning him, which himincidentally, this debate is doing nicely, but the answer is to rebut his arguments. the answer is to challenge him in a robust, democratic argument on why he is wrong about the
contribution of american and british muslims to this country. i will give way. tulip siddiq: the hon. lady cites 14 cases of people who have been banned. has she considered the 84 hate preachers who are banned? if so, she will see that there is a striking resemblance between what was said by donald trump and by two bloggers who were banned two years ago by the conservative home secretary. will she comment on whether the same should apply to donald trump? victoria atkins: forgive me, but i have already answered that. the house of commons library paper, as i think most people would accept, is a neutral document and those were its examples. i used every single one of the 14 examples given, and they are in a very different category from what donald trump has said on this issue and many others. finally, i will deal with the point raised by my neighbour, my
hon. friend and neighbor raised. in a recent republican debate, ted cruz accused donald trump of having new york values. 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. they may be rather bemused that we are fuelling that man's publicity machine by having the debate at all. thank you. >> it is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, sir roger. donald trump's comments that he would ban muslim men, women and children from the usa, if he were to be elected as president, were almost universally condemned as racist and offensive. i welcome the condemnation that his statement received from all parts of the house and, indeed, in this debate. i also welcome the fact that members of the public have
decided that this issue is serious and merits parliamentary scrutiny in relation to the base that -- to the debate that we are having today. in making his announcement and subsequent remarks, mr trump condemns a whole religion because of the actions of a terrorist death cult. he also speaks in derogatory terms about women, people with disabilities and mexicans. the list is never-ending. he is not just wrong his , comments are dangerous, and his views must be tackled seriously. >> thank you, sir roger. does the hon. lady not think that mr trump might well be making these comments because he not only thinks they are true, but wants lots of publicity to help his election campaign? ms ahmed-sheikh: it is not for
us to try to get into donald trump's mind. however, it is important for members here to understand what it is like for muslims in this country when people take comments made by those such as mr trump as expressing genuine concerns about those of us who practise the muslim faith. that is a very uncomfortable place to be in, and i hope the member would accept my personal experience in that respect. mr trump condemns my family. in a similar vein, in the ridiculous situation he has created, he condemns the political editor of sky news, the chief executive of tate and lyle, and some of our greatest olympians. he condemns the leaders of bahrain, the united arab emirates and jordan for the actions of the very terrorists they are working together to overcome in iraq and syria. because we are all muslims. that for him, is the one and , only common denominator. rather than combatting the
serious issue of international terrorism, trump's statements have bolstered the twisted narrative promoted by the terrorist cult daesh and others, which pits the west against the muslim faith. he has fuelled racial tensions across the world, while undermining the national security of the us and the uk. indeed, in the words of pentagon spokesman peter cook at the time mr trump made his statement: anything that bolsters isil's narrative and pits the united states against the muslim faith is certainly not only contrary to our values but contrary to our national security. donald trump threatens not only the national security of our friends in the usa, but our security. since her appointment in 2010, the home secretary has banned hundreds of individuals from the uk. quite correctly, her job is to protect public safety and to promote our security. she has already explicitly excluded 84 people for hate speech, and she should make
donald trump no. 85. using the powers vested in her, she has excluded serious criminals, far-right extremists and homophobic extremists, and the same rules should be applied consistently and equally to all, because if they exist they , should exist for that very reason. we have a responsibility to ensure peace and security, and we should ensure that whoever enters or leaves our country is treated in the same way. i am proud that the scottish government have taken a lead by removing trump's status as a globalscot ambassador. as for questions about hypocrisy, it is important for me to confirm that that status was bestowed on him by a former labour administration, so let any myth about that be dispelled now. the same thing would apply, i don't think any genuine person could possibly have envisaged that this man would make such
horrendous comments. the uk government now need to demonstrate their commitment to promoting religious harmony by applying their own rules consistently in this case. i understand the argument made by some that we should educate mr trump and that we should invite him here to see for himself how to build bridges with the muslim community, rather than putting up barriers. this is a man who seeks to be president of the united states of america, and we think we need to educate him. we should be very worried if a man lacking such education seeks to lead a nation. i just want to finish my sentence. >> the hon. lady is making a powerful speech, but may i suggest that this is actually about buffoonery? ultimately, buffoonery should be met not with the blunt instrument of a ban, but with the classic british response of ridicule. ms ahmed-sheikh: it is within the gift of the british state to
deal with mr trump in the same manner it has dealt with other people. i accept that you have referred to mr trump's buffoonery, but his remarks condemn an entire religion, a faith which i practice. it may be difficult to understand how that affects us, but it does. he is talking about me, my family and my children. that is what mr. trump is talking about. it is worthy of note, however, that mr trump's policy would make it impossible for me or other muslim friends of america to travel to his country to make the same case that we are making here. parliament can be extremely proud of the improving record of strong muslim mps being elected to both sides of the house to represent their constituents' interests. however, mr trump would ban new members such as the hon. members for ealing central and others from entering the usa and
making their case there. i have heard others say that applying the rules consistently in mr trump's case would only add to his notoriety and raise his profile. anyone who has followed the race for the 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 lead their country. i am sure they will make the right choice, and it is their choice to make. mr. chairman, last week, mr trump added insult to injury by stating that he will withdraw his investment in two scottish golf courses if he is subject to the same travel restrictions he advocates for others. however, contrary to his own assertions, he is bad for business. it is already clear that the royal and ancient will not include turnberry on the open rota while it is still owned by trump, costing the local economy dearly. while his work to actively undermine a vital offshore renewables investment in the north sea may have serious repercussions for scotland's development as a world leader in
that emerging technology. donald trump has provided succour to terrorists and promoted racial hatred on both sides of the atlantic. of course, he has a right to be wrong, but his statements are dangerous, and they threaten our public safety and national security. we cannot have laws that are applied differently, depending on people's income, public profile, religion or colour. what does that say about us? our rules and laws must be applied consistently to all. i call on the home secretary to apply her judgment consistently in this case, and i look forward to hearing the minister's response. for her to do anything else would be unprincipled and quite simply wrong. steve double: it is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, sir roger, and to participate in the debate. i, too, am a member of the petitions committee, and i am delighted that we brought the debate to the house today. that is not because the committee held a particular view, but because we felt that it was right, given the number of people who signed the petition, to air these important issues. like the hundreds of thousands of people who signed the petition, and no doubt millions of others across the country, i condemn wholeheartedly the comments mr trump made about not only muslims, but mexicans, women, people with disabilities and other minority groups. however, the question whether we should ban him from this country is interesting and important, and we need to address it head on. this country has a long and strong tradition of free speech. although, sadly, that principle
and some of those freedoms have been eroded recently, we are still a country that welcomes debate and embraces a variety of views. if we were to go down the road of banning mr trump because we find his views objectionable or even offensive, where would we draw the line? there are many people with equally intolerant views. those who come to this country and some, as we have heard, already live here. are we to ban them because we do not like the things they say or we disagree with them? the issue at stake is how our society handles people with different views from us when we find those views strongly objectionable or offensivethe -- or offensive. the issue of free speech. i believe it is about when
someone crosses a line to incite others to ask of violence, to criminal acts. that is the line that i believe must be drawn, and at which we differentiate. i do not believe that donald trump has crossed that line. he may do it another time, and then we might need to reconsider, but i do not believe he has done it yet. it is perfectly right that the home secretary bans extremist preachers when they tell their followers to commit acts of terrorism and to cause harm and pain and ultimately kill other individuals or communities. that is absolutely right if the home secretary does that, but i do not believe that mr trump has done that. i wonder how long the list would be if our country began to ban people because they said things we did not like. ignorant and unpleasant as donald trump's comments are, he
is not alone. for starters, we would have to ban the prime minister of hungary who has, i believe, said equally offensive things about muslims. mr. chairman the way we deal , with bigotry and prejudice is by confronting it head on, not trying to avoid it. banning someone like donald trump risks making him a martyr. i believe we would only fuel his cause and he would see himself as a martyr. i believe many of his supporters would feel the same. what would banning donald trump achieve? we live in a global village. we will not stop his views reaching our shores purely because we ban him. in fact, i would argue the opposite. the promotion that would come from a ban would mean his views would be heard louder and stronger than they are now. banning him would only play into his hands. instead of wanting to ban mr trump, i am with those who say, let's invite him to this country.
let's bring him here and confront his views head on. let's take 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 that he has spoken about and show him what life in britain is really like. my final point is that i have been surprised at the amount of support mr trump has received from the republican party. it was ronald reagan, who certainly in my lifetime was the greatest republican president the united states have had. far from proposing building walls, was all about tearing them down. he said to president gorbachev of russia, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate.
mr. gorbachev, open this gate. mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall! therefore, i am surprised that donald trump is getting the support he is. it seems to cut against the heritage and values that i understand the republican party to be about. sir edward leigh: i am not surprised at all. the fact is that in america and britain there is widespread disillusion with mainstream establishment politicians, who do not seem to give an honest answer to people's concerns about immigration and many issues. therefore, there is no point in just bad-mouthing this guy. we have to take on these arguments and discuss them in an open way. steve double: i agree with my hon. friend that the response we are seeing is far more about people's frustrations and concerns than about an individual man. so in conclusion, i believe it would be ironic if we were to take the regressive stance of
banning donald trump because he has called for a ban on muslims entering the united states. i find that entirely ironic, and we would surely be guilty of the thing we criticise him for. it would send a signal to the world that we are scared. anne mclaughlin: does the hon. gentleman understand the difference between what donald trump has said and what we are saying? members on the opposition side are calling for donald trump to be banned because of something dangerous that he said. he is calling for muslims to be registered and tracked for no reason, because they have done nothing wrong. there is a huge difference. steve double: i respect the hon. lady's view, but personally i take a different view. to ban him would simply play into the same fears that he promotes. it has often been said that two wrongs do not make a right. i want to say that two bans do not make a right.
>> it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, sir roger. america is a great countrythe -- country, the land of the free and one of our oldest allies. donald trump is a fool. he is free to be a fool; he is not free to be a dangerous fool on our shores. here are some of the foolish things that donald trump has said: the concept of global warming was created by and for the chinese in order to make u.s. manufacturing non-competitive. it's freezing and snowing in new york. we need global warming! of john mccain he said: he's not a war hero. he's a war hero because he was captured. i like people that weren't captured, ok, i hate to tell you. then he went on the offensive. he said a great wall in relation to mexico and nobody builds , walls better than me, believe me, and i'll build them very inexpensively, i will build a great, great wall on our southern border. and i will have mexico pay for that wall.
mark my words. >> the honorable member makes an excellent case as to why donald trump is a buffoon, not a criminal. jack dromey: the remarks are daft and offensive. i defend people's right to be daft and offensive. i was chairman of the national council for civil liberties, now liberty, and i have fought to defend freedom of speech throughout my life, but freedom of speech is not an absolute. neither is there an absolute right for donald trump or anyone else to come to our shores. successive governments have acted to exclude the preachers of hate whose presence would not be conducive to the public good. preachers of hate, the effect of whose actions and words would be to incite violence, have no right to come to britain.
i have some examples of the kinds of people who have been banned. michael savage, a us radio host, was considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior and fostering hatred. he claimed that american muslims need deportation and was banned from coming to our country. yunis al astal, the hamas mp and preacher, was found to be guilty of unacceptable behaviour. he had made a series of anti-semitic remarks and was banned from coming to our country. pamela geller and robert spencer, founders of stop islamization of america and the american freedom defence initiative, were banned in 2013 by the current secretary of state for the home office when they were due to speak at an english defence league rally to be held on the location of lee rigby's murder, as their arrival was deemed not conducive to the public good.
one other example, safwat hegazi, an egyptian television preacher, 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. what has donald trump actually said? of course, legendarily he spoke about a total and complete shutdown on muslims entering the united states. he went on to say that 51% of those polled, 'agreed that muslims in america should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.' he said: shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to americans, especially women. it is little wonder that after those remarks a rise in attacks against muslims in america was recorded. why do i argue for the exclusion of donald trump?
it is because of the context in which we are having this debate. there is a uniquely awful threat facing our country, a generational threat of evil terrorism. we are seeing terrorist arrests day inarrest one a britain. key to preventing terrorist the patientbeen building by our police service of good relationships with the muslim community through neighborhood policing. that has been key to the successful detection of terrorist in our country and the nature of terrorism confronting our country takes two formts. forms. organized cells and secondly, it is a strategy to radicalize the vulnerable, in particular, those with mental illness and in particular, those
sufferfer from -- who from the victimhood encouraged by isis. what makes donald trump's presence in our country so that in the current climate, isis needs donald trump and donald trump needs isis. isis needs to be able to say on you arehand, muslims, under attack. donald trump needs to say on the attackand, you are under by muslims. that's why i strongly believe that he should not be allowed to to our country. just think what would happen in cameurrent climate if he tofirmingham, to london, glass go, and preached that hate.e of decisive it would be damaging, it would be dangerous, it would be deeply
divisive. >> the honorable gentleman is making really interesting points. he's used are more surely about donald trump being bigot rather than hatred. britain is pretty good at roasting beef. think it's better that we roast trump. sorry, i don'tm think a debate like this calls likelippancy at a time this, with the greatest of respect, when our police service security services are working night and day to prevent being attacked and when they need the support of haveuslim community to someone come to our shores who demonizes all of the muslim community would be fundamentally wrong and would undermine the safety and security of our citizens and that's not a risk i am prepared to take. >> i hear what the right honorable gentleman is saying that has also been echoed by
the muslim members who have evidencee powerful about how donald trump makes them feel. not british values strong enough to stand up to that? muslimsn't it help the community to hear voices on all sides of the house stand up to believe in ast we a nation? jack dromey: i strongly believe the unity of all faiths across the political spectrum to reject terrorism and i welcome some of the initiatives that been taken and i think awful our members have been involved in the respective constituencies. if you get a vulnerable young who has gotzed mental illness who believes in victimhood promoted by isis and he is, donald trump, in london or birmingham, the consequences could be very serious. mr. chairman, in conclusion, i
don't think donald trump should be allowed within 1,000 miles of our shore because he would embolden the e.d.l. on the one hand and fuel the flames of terrorism on the other hand. donald trump is free to be a fool but he's not free to be a fool in britain. thank you very much. the principle of free thought is thought for those who agree with us, but freedom of for those who have thoughts we hate. wendelljustice oliver of the u.s. supreme court. of course, there are limits to of expression, even in a libertarian democracy where real harm will cause but if we fear all outrageous we fear a swell unpopulace views, if we fear challenge, we will thought, wefle free
will stifle independence and liberty. opportunity toe rebut, expose to arguments, scrutiny and he'll lose the opportunity to win over ande who may have listened silently supported and agreed. limiting free speech does not beliefs.ush unwelcome france has more laws restricting free speech than any other western democracy. it also has europe's largest far right party. 2009, nick griffin appeared on question time, watched by eight million people. time, the bnp polled national vote. in the first january election after that, not only did they theyto win a seat but fragmented in the polls. and last week, it was announced by the electoral commission that the bnp had been stripped of its official political
party. let me just finish the point. the new statesman referred to the poor performance "question time" as a factor in eroding griffin's popularity and the support of the bnp. sharesuade those who may the beliefs of the speaker, we need to do more than silence them. to address the real grievance of those who may support them. to listen. we need to take note and then we need to respond. >> thank the honorable member givingconstituent for way. does the honorable lady know that often nick griffin appeared on "question time" in the 24 3,000after he appeared, people joined the bnp immediately after he had a platform? lucy frazer: it's important to have free speech so we have debate so nick griffin's
appearance on "question time" responses.mber of of course there will always be people who follow an advocate minoritymay be a small but what we need to do is put those voices out there in order to slam them down. and that's ultimately what has bnp.ned to the donald trump's statement that all muslims should be banned u.s. wrongly categorizes an entire religion with 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 extremist islamists wrong and must be rooted out and stopped. now is the time to say that the community is not daesh. now is the time to say that have given us such things as algebra and lightormed the study of and optics. these discoveries have founded our modernbases for
technologies. but the other real difficulty is that donald trump is a candidate.l if we ban the leader of every country who made offensive, or inflammatory statements or we took steps that wouldn't approve of, we have a much more limited foreign policy. adeed, we may not even have leader of the opposition. mr. chairman, i welcome both petitions. i welcome this debate because we democracy which respects freedom of expression makehen people unacceptable statements, what we need to do is to use our to expose their weaknesses and then ultimately argument.ir incorporating picturesque --
countryside, famous for its rugged coastline, some 237nd birthplace national, scotland's beard. the also the home to one of most popular golf resorts. was902, the golf designer commissioned to create a haspionship course which subsequently staged the open championships four times which brings me to why i'm speaking here today. disappointingly, the course has been dragged into the debate because the course and resort it sits on was bought by donald trump in 2014. undergoing complete refurbishment as we speak. organization is investing 200 million pounds in theresort and to date, materials for the development
have been sourced locally. they use local produce in the and employing some 200 local people. isaddition, the resort expecting 300 contractors on site next month, many of them local, spending money in local businesses and thus contributing to the local economy. is a stark contrast to the ago.a few short years throughout the 1990's, you would hear ann hard pushed to accent among them. now 80% of the staff are local. now local farmers are consulted development. theite the investment, previous owners proposed closing the resort from october to easter as their failure to venue meant it was
unsustainable year-round. before trump organization came worried we'd shut down altogether. to employe looking 400 people. part-timeajority with staff guaranteed an average of week and the theployment rate above 5%, resort will employ around 80 24-year-olds, many of whom whom -- i spent time at turnbury and spoke to staff, contractors and members. talk of trump being a politician. they don't talk about trump, the shoreman, but they talk about trump with a passion with golf and a commitment for the future of this reintrort. they talk about an organization business that
consults with local people. ambitious plan has been backed up by action. i heard last week from a played at thehas course for 60 years who talked of the respect that had been ordinary member, who talked about how lucky we historic course, that laid languishing for years, an engaged benefactor. donald trump is a divisive have nor and i intention of standing here to defend the man. his comments on chinese people mexican immigrants and women have been deplorable, and definitely aren't the taste of politics we aspire to in scotland. i am delighted that over half a million people here in the u.k. have chosen to call him out on racist statements by
standing up for our muslim community and signing that petition. the resort can't afford ability to run's off at the mouth may well prove detrimental but being banned u.k. will be more than -- one in three children in are growing up in -- beautiful landscape, almost 14% of the working age population earn out-of-work benefits. if the trump organization of turnbury because its head is locked out, it would catastrophic for the resort and a tragedy for the local community. others i agree with
sentiments here, i feel my role my constituency. banning someone for wanting to in my view is an inappropriate response and mr. trump's not just who would benefit from words -- "oh,the the power to see ourselves as other see us." >> find ourselves in the ridiculous position where some outraged that trump has snagged we should ban people simplyn because of their beliefs that those people want to ban donald for his beliefs. which is a completely ridiculous situation. pond, donald trump has been waging what might be campaign as a one-man against political correctness for some time. and as someone who has had their own campaign against political correctness for some time here in this parliament, nobody will that i cand to hear relate to that and in the race
to become the next president, gaining support with a political manner that can be described as blunt directness. he is definitely straight-talking and as a yorkshireman, a, fluid him for that, too. i think in this country we could do with less political correctness and much more straight talking across the board and i think many of our would agree. now, we should be absolutely clear that today we're debating not a man who has a chance of becoming the next president of the united states physicallyshould be banned from entering the united kingdom. by anyone's standards, that is a rather big thing. banoffense is to suggest a on incoming muslims to america until as he puts it our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. extremely clear that in the western world we are experiencing very difficult and dangerous times. violent attacks are all too
frequent inside free countries, by those who seek to replace freedom with religion conformity. the sickening march of islamic state is something that all are deeplying people worried about and it's also clear that one path for terrorists and those who hate our way of life, living in our western countries, is to enter immigrants and refugees. now, determining what to do about that clear and worrying problem will obviously result in people having different suggested solutions. some people -- and i may be so bold as to say that there will people in all of our constituents who will agree with donald trump's view, and some disagree with donald trump's view. happen toens, i disagree with donald trump's view but what other people benk, surely he should entitled to have this opinion and to express it and to give all of those people who have voice in the
political process. an, there was actually opinion poll on this matter which actually showed that in 65% disagreedgdom 24% agreed trump and with it. when that was moved into the north of the country, the people with donald trump went from 24% to 35%. isanybody's standards, that a significant body of the population. lots of people in this room who about the talking rights of minorities, seem quiet all of a sudden when people who have a minority opinion have the norve express it. what about the right of those minorities in this country? it's amazing that the people who always preach about tolerance and we shouldn't have any intolerance are always the very same people who are so anybody whof happens to have a different opinion. the honorable
gentleman. >> i thank my honorable friend for giving way. he think are, does there any limits to freedom of speech then? pointll there come a where someone like donald trump should be banned because the extreme said are so because many of us feel already incitingitate red against the muslim community in this country and around the world. >> yes, there needs to be some on free speech and that is people inciting violence that free speech should be restricted and is unacceptable but we certainly should not go around banning everyone from the country simply opinion that the honorable gentleman happens to disagree with it. sir david, i'm sure the honorable gentleman would agree motion is actually embarrassing to the u.k. and intolerant and
totalitarian and i feel we theld almost apologize to people of the united states. it's for them to decide on views, not us. and i think we should also remind people in america that here representer less than 1% of the population of this country. >> i share the sentiment. that weit is ridiculous are needing have such a debate in a country that has always prided itself on freedom and free speech. no, i won't, because other people need to speak. there isn't time. the real issue for me, young lady will have her say. is notl issue for me actually donald trump's remarks to them.eaction he's not a serious threat of in any way.society the uproar is largely because he's reached wide and is politically incorrect and that's the crux of the issue. the debate today has as much to political correctness as
to do with his comments. the political correctness attacks free speech. the free speech which quite very dearericans hold as do many of us here in this country and the irony is, in part, because of political correctness that the straight hav talking of donald trump has proved so popular with the electorate over there. fed up being told what they can and can't think, say andy can and can't find it refreshing whether they agree with him or disagree with him. find it refreshing to find a politician who has the guts to and say what he thinks even when controversial or should celebrate more often politicians who stand arend say things that unpopular and controversial. it's easy for somebody to stand and shout out motherhood and apple pie. to saytakes real guts things unpopular and
controversial and in that regard i have a lot of respect for the opposition who makes a hallmark of saying unpopular things and controversial things and i will always defend his right to do that, too. aree are many people who tolerated in this country because of what we believe in who i think people will be placed higher up by many my constituents than donald trump. those who preach their hatred of all things british from our own soil. those who denounce freedom generally and hate the western our importanting individual freedoms and values. silencing of opinion we've seen in both countries only otherwiseentment that would never exist. there are people in this country the rights ofor foreign criminals who we seek to from this country and are unable to do so because of human rights laws. keen tothe people so
ban donald trump from entering the country are exactly the same keep foreignn to criminals in this country who we're trying to deport from the country. we're debating whether or not donald trump should be band it'ssolutely ridiculous, absolutely outrageous and i end, david, on the point i made at the start. for anybody to think that outraged that donald trump thinks that people should be banned from his country beliefs canheir think that the solution to that problem is to ban donald trump beliefs is absolutely ridiculous. you couldn't make it up and i than that ife less i tried. sir david, i'd like to say a pleasure, but i will those who have convened unintentionally to bring this debate to parliament
and pay tribute to previous speeches made by honorable colleagues and honorable member for newport west who made his debate in a balanced matter. like to think in the 21st we're dealing with issues of racism, sexism, any other form of prejudice donald trump can squeeze into his campaign. is's be clear, donald trump an idiot. idiot. the fact that such a person can get so deep into the election battle to be the republican party candidate for the president of the united states, the most powerful job in the volumes about how far the g.o.p. of lincoln and roosevelt has fallen. they've asked us to consider banning a presidential candidate from entering the u.k. the question we should be asking is should trump be treated differently because of who he is, how powerful, what business
interests he may have in the u.k. if we are to ban extremists, we consider banning christian extremists in the same consider banning muslim extremists from traveling to the u.k. each and every day young people are held back on the basis of skin, theer, color of areality, and families feared because they've had the audacity to flee a war-torn country. to lawmakers to solve the issue and protect them in the future. however, today's debate asks us to contemplate the situation a bigot and bully will be elected to position of president of the united states. if trump takes the oath of send a message, saying to bullies that your bigotry is ok,
commendable and it's ok to hit people that act differently than you. how to defeatf the hateful politics of donald trump and others like him. trump headhallenge on showing how ridiculous his views are and defeating his poison by highlighting the everyone makesat to society. but i also want to treat mr. trump in the same way to treat everyone else banned from the u.k. banning hims for are based on the argument that we ban all hateful preachers in and why shouldn't we add trump to the undesirable list. it's unclear how many individuals the u.k. government has banned from visiting the secretaryhe home indicated she disqualified hundreds from entering the u.k. so on what grounds would it be these people but not ban donald trump. secretary was unable
to refuse entry to the u.k. for person'selated to the deemed notconduct, good.ive to the public that basis,, on feeling that we are operating in noonsistent matter, i see reason why trump should be -- to visit u.k. racist, sexist views are dangerous and divisive. he doesn't believe women are equal to men although in reality, he doesn't believe are equal to men but in reality i think he believes that quite equal to the donald. because he wants to ban muslims entering the united states, the u.k. ban him from many of the arguments put forward by those who would ban him. the poison that
trump uses head-on. viewsg how outrageous his are, sunlight is the best disenfectant. invitation to be extended to donald trump to visit a local mosque and hear about their beliefs, to meet feminists to quality, to homeless shelters and so on. these issues and he'll soon be found out for what he is, an idiot. trump's rhetoric is not so much that disputed by the bnp. cannot and should not be afraid to tackle the views held like him.nd others to do -- the fight against racism, bigotry, sexism, prejudice in general is not over. way to go toong ensure we see equality and world.s throughout the bullies like trump to continue people based on who
they are and what they believe in. we should send a message saying to trump and his bigoted politics but by no means should out the red carpet. sir.ank you, it's been an interesting debate, heldof very sincerely views. now, as a matter of fact, it is martin luther king day and i were if martin luther king here today, he'd be very surprised at some of the sugar-coated version of american history that has been on display today. say it, i regret to say this, but what trump has proposed manyeen times in american legislation. the outright ban of people on race or color or ethnicity is something which, regrettably, has often happened in united states' history. theonly need to look at chinese exclusion act of 1882 on
for 61 years in which chinese laborers were banned from entering the united states. the immigration act of 1974 and asians. king would beher surprised by the very sanitized andion of american history politics that we've heard today. and in that light, donald j. trump's objectionable, hateful views, have a history in the american political arena. they're not unusual, they're not dreamt up from his own head. they come in a long line of legislation. we can object to this, we can decry this, we can say it's evil and bad but that is no grounds on which to candidate.dential we would even say, and i would suggest that
his ban was a temporary ban. that's what he said in his speech in south carolina. you will note that the chinese exclusion act was not a ban.rary it lasted 60 years. the immigration acts of 1924 not a temporary ban on asians and reasons. arabs. they lasted 30 years. so his form of nativism is i'm afraid toh say and martin luther king would sure agree with me is something which the history of the united states regrettably is full of. trump is in a long tradition but that doesn't mean we should ban him. arguments that have been made against the ban, i think are absolutely valid and i will this, no one has said it but i will say it in this debate. the united kingdom were to ban donald trump from coming be theitain, that would biggest boost for his campaign in america that we could possibly give in terms of publicity, in