tv Munk Debate on the Global Refugee Crisis CSPAN April 1, 2016 7:00pm-8:31pm EDT
. this is going to require a significant generation of combat power. so right now,teve warren: there is certainly no race on, but we will have to see what the future holds. >> finally, colonel -- announcer: we leave this and take you live to toronto for the semiannual munk debate, a look at the noble refugee crisis and how developed nations to deal with it. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the ideology -- >> and then you have got to come back, you are sick enough. >> it is time to change. >> i don't know what the hell is said it, but you have got to say something. >> i believe the 21st century will belong to china, because
most centuries have belonged to china. >> blaming barack obama for the state the world is in right now is like blaming a caribbean island for hurricane. >> north korea has said, if you are a third rate country that manages to acquire nuclear devices, you remain a third world dysfunctional economy. >> we will never be able to take this from somebody. the canadian and, the citizenship of every canadian in this country. ♪ [applause] you.ank welcome to the munk debate on the global refugee crisis. my name is roger griffis, and i have the privilege of organizing this semiannual debate series, and once again serving as your moderator.
i want to begin tonight's proceedings by welcoming the ide tv audiencew that is tuning into this debate across canada and coast to coast to coast on cpac, canada's public affairs channel, and across the united states on c-span. it is the first time the munk debate have been live throughout the continent of north america. it is terrific to have that viewing audience joining us this evening. [applause] a warm hello also to our online audience. we are logging on our website, debbie ww -- www.munk debate.com. our print media partners joining us also online. we have an online poll going on tonight. be sure to participate, be sure
to be part of our online interactive discussions. and hello to you, over 3000 people who once again feel roy thomson hall on a friday night to capacity forget another munk debate. all of this associated with the oriole foundation. we thank you for your idea that this is dedicated to. that is up more and better public debates in the public squares. bravo, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being part of tonight's conversation. [applause] now, our ability to debate in and debate out year after year to bring in the world is sharpest minds and brightest thinkers here to the stage, toronto's roy thomson hall would not be possible without the generosity, the foresight, the creativity, of our hosts tonight. join me in the appreciation of the founders peter and melanie
munk. bravo, guys. [applause] the moment we have been waiting for, our two teams of debaters out here, centerstage, and debate underway. the debate resolution, taken from the inscription, studied to liberty. give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. please welcome our first speaker for the resolution. she is a former canadian supreme court's justice, she prosecutor of the international criminal tribunal for yugoslavia and rwanda and the united nations high commissioner for human rights among many other accomplishments. ladies and gentlemen, please canada's louise arbour. [applause] us.lad you could be with
louise's teammate is an internationally acclaimed historian, cultural commentator and art critic. please welcome, big thinker simon schama. [applause] you mr. schama. debaters great team of deserves another. speaking against the resolution, give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses earning to breathe free, the renowned columnist, author and conservative human rights activist, ladies and gentlemen, mark steyn. [applause] while market -- mark's debating partner is the leader of the
united kingdom debating party, and a member of parliament. he is here from the united kingdom under his leadership, ukip one almost 40 million votes in a 2013 national election in the u.k.. please welcome nigel farage. [applause] ok, before debates begin, i need your help with some last-minute items. one, power off your smartphones. for those of you here, watching is#munkthe hastag debate. let's make this the number one trending topic in north america. you can also take the poll for those of you watching online. we have a poll at www.munkkd
debates.org/vote. loveountdown clock, we this at the munk debate. it keeps us on time, keeps us on onedule, keeps debaters their toes. when you see the clocks reach their final moments, it should be a countdown to zero, join me in a round of applause, and we will let debaters know their well, we hadnd, henry kissinger. he did not take his time. but i digress. in a bank any of our debaters will make the same mistake. this is the part i enjoy most. 3000k all of you, assembled, to vote on the resolution on your way in. you are asked to support or oppose the motion give us your tired, your poor, your huddled .asses, yearning to be free let's see if we have got those
results for you to look at. ok, 77% agreed. [applause] 23% -- [laughter] disagreed. to get a sense of how much the debate is in play, depending on what you hear during the debate, are you open to changing your votes? let's see that result. , 21%.9 percent this debate is very much in play. either side can take it. let's now go to our opening statements. six minutes on the clock for each of our debaters. mrs. arbour, your six minutes begins now. louise arbour: good evening, ladies and gentlemen. the words of the motion i'm here to support were written by a and a lazarus. these words are engraved on a famous statue representing a
woman holding a torch and may be less noticeably holding also the tablets of law with a broken chain at her feet. it should come as no surprise to you that this has considerable appeal to me. but don't let that for you, this is not a sentimental call for do-gooders to unite, nor a romantic rejection of what the new world is going to be all about. understood in today's terms, it is a moving poetic way of capturing both the spirit and the liturgy of the convention. he was written essentially because and for europe. he remains the framework in which the world promoting to be governed by the rule of law must refugeethe current crisis in europe and stop passing blind eye to equally pressing crises elsewhere, in south sudan for instance. this is part of the never again
that the world screamed loud and clear after the holocaust, and betrayed on so many occasions since then. today cannot be one of those. to look at this from a canadian and international perspective. the international framework is very clear. virtually all the countries that are concerned with the current flow of refugees fleeing war-torn countries of syria, iraq, afghanistan, somalia, libya, are part of the convention, and they are obligated to grant asylum to those fleeing political and other forms of persecution. the protection framework set in place by the convention provides that refugees should not be penalized for the illegal entry or stay in the country. the reverse would obviously be a way to completely immaculate the right of asylum. -- emasculate the right of asylum. and returning them to countries where they are at risk.
this obviously put a disproportionate demand on countries that are more easily reachable than others, such as, in the case of syria, neighboring countries of lebanon, jordan, and turkey, in which the currency is -- there are currently some 4.5 million refugees, as all as governments of the external borders of europe, greece, italy, and so on. and so the other principle which underpins the refugee convention, that is the need for international cooperation and heard and sharing. i am cautious here using the word burden. this brings me to canada. we often define ourselves by our geography. once again, this is not right. geography is relevant. the nature of our borders is we from theally immune flow of asylum seekers arriving on our soil i land or sea, although apparently the result of the upcoming american
election may change that -- [laughter] we will cross that bridge when we get to it. [applause] i believe this puts enough that special obligation to provide for a generous resettlement program, aiming both at welcoming refugees and at using the burden on states were struggling to live up to their international obligation. i believe with true international cooperation in place, this is eminently feasible. and we should do it the smart way by answering the file and seekers -- the asylum seekers to be placed in refuge, undercutting smugglers and deploying extraordinary resources to this extraordinary challenge. i am aware of the fear that an influx of foreigners will transform the social fabric in an undesirable way. but the reality is that our social fabric is changing anyway in this increasingly
interconnected world. we have a choice. we can look to the past and stagnate in isolation, or we can embrace the future in which our children will develop their own cultures, fully open to that of others, inspired by the choices that we are making today three to westernt threat values is not an influx of people who may not share them today. it is the high copper see -- hypocrisy of those claiming to protect these values and then repudiating them by their actions. i expect we would hear tonight that muslims are different, that they propose a unique, nigel -- novel and is essential threat to our democracy. this has been the ugly response to just about every wave of new immigrants in history, but ironically, it plays right into the hands of the violent jihadist groups attacking us. these violent groups have a political, not a religious,
agenda. they seek to destroy our democracies not by illustrating -- infiltrating or taking over by letting usbut slowly implode that turning risks against ourselves, thereby destroying the very key features of our own society. we need to be smarter than that and welcome people who, like all of us, came at some point from somewhere else. we will build an ever evolving free and strong canada. thank you very much. [applause] rudyard: time still on the clock. mark steyn, you are up next. your six minutes begins now. mark steyn: madame arbour
describes a refugee situation that is not what is happening in the europe right now. the big question is whether the huddled masses on those teeming shores are really yearning to breathe free or whether they are simply economic migrants who want to avail themselves of the comforts of advanced society. there are 3000 people here in roy thomson hall. it would be nice if everyone in toronto could be in roy thomson hall. if everyone in toronto moves into roy thomson hall, it is not roy thomson hall anymore. that is the situation that is based in europe today. -- faced in europe today. the people who are refugees are not that term as traditionally europe,d. in 2015 in men represented 77% of the asylum applications.
that is extraordinary population d formation. in most civil wars, this is the demographic that would be back home, fighting for their country. the american revolution, general washington and the rest of the chaps had gone off to france and left martha and the other women and children back home to and for themselves. what does it mean to breathe free? under the taliban, it is illegal to feel somebour light her face. it is literally a crime for her free. e, be she could wear a mask by the man who in effect owns her. when you put a man from that kind of society in a scandinavian town? northern europe has enjoyed a culture of mixed public bathing since the 19th century, but a
benign social activity to germans and scandinavians is something entirely different to men from a culture where women are chattel. patrons of public baths are now routinely assaulted. in january, sweden's national semi arena for the first time was forced to segregate men and women in the hot tubs. goodbye to a century old tradition. migrants rights from fewer culture. -- pure culture. they come from a different culture, they are unaware you are not supposed to grow women's breasts. so they put up a picture with a hand and a woman's breast and a red x. [laughter] after a training course on how to treat women with respect, a dragged ad afghan woman into a basement and rates her.
we'll fine-tune the course of treating women with respect. we will get better pictograms. migrant rightst, are women's rights. published an woman important report on the use of rape in sudan as a weapon of war. it was distressing report. she documented 15 individual cases of sexual assault, including rape and victims as young as 14. if madame arbour were to put a similar report on germany today, she would be able to cite more than 500 cases from just one , colognejust one town on new year's eve. victims as young as three, three years old, a three-year-old raped by a migrant, a seven-year-old was gang raped i-5 migrants in -- by five
migrants. a girl was raped on the ferry from sweden to finland. -- rights trump women's rights. but they are not interesting in producing the mess report. the end has advised women it is no longer safe to go out on accompanied. migrant rights trump the freedom of movement. it is easy to say it is just a few disabled anecdotes. forget the anecdotes and run the numbers. in europe, with unaccompanied minors, 90% are male, which means that in one year, swedish as a lessons -- adolescence now have a more distorted sex differential then china does after 30 years of its totalitarian one child policy. in china, there are 119 boys for every girl. among swedish adolescence, just in the last year's importation,
it is 123 boys for every girl. that is a fact, a fact of life. i hope tonight we'll put aside the sentimentalism that often attend this subject and stick with the facts. madame arbour says some things i agree with. she said, why are we always talking about the danger that these people will transform us? they may transform us the better. she and i agreed that immigration on this scale is transported of. the only difference is that madame arbour thinks it is for the better, and i don't. i am genuinely serious to know what aspects of afghan and syrian and sudanese culture that she would like us to be transformed by, women's rights, just as where gays get thrown off of rooftops, polygamy, child rights, the grading commitment of free speech?
i would like an answer on that from art of -- from madame arbour tonight. thank you very much. [laughter] [applause] simon schama, over to you. simon schama: i want to start saying, o canada, your borders are safe. i tell you why, because actually what i was asked this morning at toronto airport when i was doing. i said i have got to talk about refugees 30 i was taken off for secondary screening. [laughter] it is not only dangerous to talk about it, it is dangerous to be known for talking about it. by annanes are written lazarus, she was a world woman, wealthy in new york. she wrote in 1863 after looking pagre victims of russian who had come to americaa and
suffered. on the islands. she made a distinction between economic migrants -- your number is wrong. not 77% read we know from the united nations agencies, it is 61%, and that is significant. this is an honor interrupted moment. we will have rebuttal time afterwards. [laughter] that is the case. she did that because when you are fleeing from a place of cruelty and atrocity, your house , your wholewn up possibility of likelihood has been taken away from you, your children have no food, no medicine, what are you exactly? your terrifyingly running away from catastrophe, and that vast numbers of syrians who displaced 4 million of them, internally
displaced as those who are escaping the hell of libya and somalia and afghanistan are fleeing exactly the monsters of mofascism that market described. describes.k they are trained to get away from that culture. days,fine to say in those the reason actually white the lines from anna lazarus' new home and not immediately put on the statue of liberty they were only put there in 1983, by her friend, at that time there was a ferocious agitation on the parts of something called the ,mmigration restriction league and this british equivalent called the league of british brothers, all of whom said the unwashed, the filthy, those who do not share our language, our
religion, our values are about to destroy the white race. called theote a book suicide of the white race. thompson described the millions at this gum, the scum of creation. nonetheless, the united states in honor to its traditions set out what is an american in 1782, admitting that 5 million of those refugees between 1800 and 1890. democracyt was made was more confident, i agree with you. it was. it was more articulate and less defensive. it was more forthright. and the size. evil coming from eastern europe -- people coming from eastern europe, they did not want to overthrow democracy. yes, they did. those teeming millions that anna
lazarus emotionally described were full of anarchists and communists, but liberal capitalism was strong enough to let them in any way. as a result, the american republic and great britain thrived and florist and prospered, and my own grandparents were among those who had written to thank. for that more expansive view of what democracy could accommodate. we are talking about a drop in the ocean, really. one billion of us in europe and canada and the united states. we are talking about 20,000 being admitted to britain. we are talking about 100,000 refugees in the united states, proposed by the president, assuming only 25,000 will come from syria. are they all kind of ravening over? monsters of x-rated [laughter]
horror? d they are not all policies -- fallacists. thethe palace is -- do what do weihadists, actually do to resist the poison of apocalyptic era? it is not to demonize all of muslims but also to engage with them. who are you engaging with? there are no muslims who want to stand up. that is not true. paris,acks in brussels, 150 in arms made a statement about the abhorrence of the act. ,here are even koranic scholars and if you don't know their work, look it up. this man is actually dedicated to do nothing jihadism as a
perversion of the koran. --ust want to say that it is it can't possibly be true. you can't have a pluralist muslim adoption of western norms. we live with that for years and became asre jihadism obstructive as it is now. [applause] , turn on theuslim radio in the morning and you hear him. from the bbc. melocal news anchor tells from the jewish chronicle, and he is named ahmed. [applause] rudyard: nigel. nigel farage: good evening, everyone.
we need to use the eu as a case study. but we must start by asking ourselves what is a refugee? i speak as a family of refugees. we were french protestants, being burned at the stake for political opinions, something many in westminster would like to bring back today, i am sure. [laughter] and i come from a country that is, there is no country in europe with these lectures about looking after refugees. the french have done it better than anyone else. we have done it with jewish people, uganda, asians. but we talked about this earlier. it is a person with a well-founded fear of persecution because of their race, religion, political opinions, or orientation who are outside their own country and fear returning to it. now, i know it is tempting to support this motion.
it sounds wonderful. itr huddled masses, and shows we can feel a sense of our own moral superiority. gotten, that idea has the eu in the past year. , i have to say, after a good lunch, is rather fun to be with -- [laughter] but he has change the definition of what a refugee is to include people who come from war-torn cr saysand given that unh there are 39 million people displaced in the world, that is a big number. but it gets even broader. he says to be qualified as a european refugee, if you come from extreme property. -- poverty.
that would mean 3 billion people could possibly come to europe. all of this was massively compounded by chancellor merkel, who effectively did say, give us your week, your poor, and your hope masses. theuddled masses. it is poorest decision in europe since 1945. [applause] superioritymoral was in my view based on still a level of war guilt that exists in germany. but she opened up the doors and one million people came in last year. but virtually none of them was on anyed as refugees classical definition. and in fact, most of them that came were somewhat aggressive young males who only arrived and got through the border, punched the air, chanted like football
supporters. i remember a young man, watching the bbc, and seeing asians landing on the -- people from uganda humble, thankful, they would repay the debt by integrating and becoming part of our society. sadly, that is not what has happened. and there is nobody on this side of the argument trying to say that islam is bad. all muslims are bad, we are not saying that. but what we are saying is that if you allow a very large number of young males to come to european countries, and if they come from a culture where women are at best second class citizens, don't be surprised that the abominations such as that we saw outside the train station on new year's eve. and don't be surprised that the formally rather sleepy swedish
city of malmo is the rape capital of europe. but that is nothing compared to what the bulk of europe is. six weeks ago, there are no i jihadid -- now 5000 victims, who has gotten back to europe, posing as migrants. isis says they will use migrant routes to destroy civilization of europe, i suggest we start to take them seriously. between what is going on now and any other either migratory wave or refugee wave in the history of mankind that i can see is that never column.ave we had a a fifth column living within our communities that hates us. once to kill us and wants to overturn the complete way of
life. i believe that we in the west should give people refugee status throughout the whole tragedy. what is going on in the middle ,ast and africa -- north africa not one person has dared to speak up for the christians, the christians in iraq, and the christians in syria. who are now only 10% of what they were just a few years ago. they qualify for refugee status because they are being persecuted for who they are. we have to oppose this motion, this motion at best is in practical -- impractical, and poses a threat to our entire way of life. a proper processing activism, i want this because of all the things we have done. as the french particularly, i want this to welcome general refugees, not the disaster that is engulfing much of europe today. thank you. [applause]
rudyard: very strong opening statements from the groups, so thank you. we will now go into to timed rebuttals. we will get reaction from each team. ms. arbour, we will put time on the clock. give us your reaction. louise arbour: two issues. on the definition of refugees, i think in the current climate of warfare, the current state of armed conflict, in my opinion, virtually every civilian in a war theater that is not a combatant qualifies to refugee protection unless he is excluded by the convention as a war criminal. and the reality, the protection of civilians is nonexistent. they are targeted by all sides, and therefore, i think for the most part they qualify for refugee protection.
the suggestion that what we see these waves of young men coming into europe are all economic migrants frankly is hard to believe why the economic migrants would have stayed -- saved thousands of dollars for the privilege of driving in the mediterranean, but that is another issue. let me address -- and i hope we can return to that -- the issues raised by the newborn senator there. [laughter] [applause] and i see the clock running, so i reserve my right to flesh out these ideas a little more deeply, but i can assure you that for those of us who came, certainly the women of my generation, from a cultural political environment in this country, in which religion dictated most of our rights and privileges, we have managed to start occupying our place in
public life not by pushing and trying to exclude others, and certainly not by espousing as champions people who have that ideology. [applause] rudyard: thank you. i want to hear from the pro-team back to back. simon, let's have your rebuttal, and then we get to mark and nigel. by howeyn: i have struck awesome these two are. it is a bit sad, really. [laughter] wanted to make the point that if you really think about actually the places, from afghanistan, for example, or syria, where most of the migrants are coming from actually, it is extraordinary to think that they are really just interested in a moment of
possible upwards social mobility. those are all desperately brutalized, collapsing states there- to me, from which seemed to be no possibility of normal life. --is very -- the notion that i dispute those figures about the 77%, i say. if you are a family in terrible distress, and haven't we all seen, as louise mentioned, rubber craft full of children as well as with their elder brothers and fathers? the families are desperately trying to make it at the cost of their own lives. supposing actually most of the people, you know, who are coming over, more than half are males, and is fixed with the fact that more than half of those in
displaced horrible all camps, are akmar, where there 58,000 people stuck in syria with desperate strategies -- , you wouldsanitation definitely take your brothers and uncles and the men. that is how it was actually in -- 1890s and 1880s. most of them were going there as well. [applause] time in we have lots of the cross-examination to get into these issues. i will come over to the other side. mark steyn. mark steyn: i made a decision, and i was going to be deadly serious. i am amazed at our colleagues
getting big laughs on gang rape. [applause] madame arbour scolded the newfound feminists over here. i am not much of a feminist, but i draw the line at the three-year-old getting raped and the seven-year-old getting gang raped and investment -- in a basement. [applause] us, finallyon tells enough, maybe we don't get enough action in the toronto singles club, madame arbour, madame arbour as she said, is a feminist of the generation. those feminists were very clear, as she was in sudan. race is not about sex, whatever assignment may say -- rape is not about sex, whatever assignment may say. about the talking kind of sex i want to have.
a four-year-old girl in sudan, here is a random example from german migrant crimes. a six-year-old boy raped inside of roxbury hall. assaulted -- 15 year old girl assaulted near it train station. a 16-year-old girl raped in a railway station. attempted gang rape of a 13-year-old girl in another city. i can go on and on. these are all rapes, gang rapes parks,ic places, streets, and even city hall. i congratulate you on getting big laughs with that, sign and, and you, louise. it is not fine. it is not funny. [applause] ok, we will be able to get into this later.
your time is up. you are going to have to sit down. ladies and gentlemen, this'll be harder than the election debate. i thought that was tough, but this is going to be a real challenge. nigel, your rebuttal. nigel farage: what simon said was difficult to listen to, and we pretend it is not happening. simon, you are in denial. i tell you what is sad -- [applause] what is sad, and you being a historian, is 100 years ago women went into factories, pay packets, went to the pub, got the vote, we have lived through 100 years of female liberation and emancipation, and now we have the mayors of towns in germany and in sweden and other parts of northern europe telling women not to walk out after dark on their own, and in the wake of the cologne sex attacks, the mayor of cologne said to those women, they really ought to
dress differently and behave differently in public. that, simon, is what is sad, and actually, i fear this controversy of those of you that stood up -- hypocrisy of those defenduld stand up and been all right when really you think migrant rights are more important. frankly, shame on you. [applause] and louise, you are trying to redefine the 1951 convention on refugee status. let me challenge you to something. , that whenjust maybe the australian space a similar problem of people coming in boats of large numbers of sinking and drowning, maybe you got it right when they said nobody would qualify as a refugee if they come through this route, but we will protest people offshore genuinely and --
ross s people offshore genuinely and sincerely, and if they qualify, we in australia will have them. would it makes more sense to have an open door to the greek islands to process people in north africa and the middle east? [applause] rudyard: now we are going to do -- move on to the moderated portion of the discussion. we will go to the issues that have been raised to date. it has been a hot exchange so far. i want to give louise and simon a chance to respond to the heard.rebuttals we have louise, because you are mentioned at last here by nigel, we will have you respond. specifically, the idea of whether australia, very different from what is happening in europe, is a model that should be considered. nigel, it will come as no surprise that i can't agree with.
australia is hardly a model of compliance with the refugee convention. i mentioned before, one of the key features of the refugee convention, let's assume we have a genuine asylum seeker as opposed to a gang rapist, just for the sake of argument. let's just start with a neutral proposition. somebody is knocking on the door. the refugee convention assumes this asylum seeker will have to flee his territory probably bite non-legal means. non-legal means. they enter with no documentation or through -- because there are no open channels for the sequel to escape their predicament. the duty on the transit or destination is to have a fair and your main process to determine -- humane process to determine their situation.
australia exporting the response ability in the same way the united states, not on refugee issues, but is exporting to mexico, protesting migrants that come from latin america, this is not the way to do it. the way to do it is for countries to receive people on the assumption actually that they may very well be people fleeing persecution and have a fair process in their country, particularly rich countries like ours, like australia, like the u.s., who have had that capacity to do that in a very decent and humane dachshund. that is not the example australia has set up. rudyard: but how do we cope with this? this is the point, isn't it? nigel farage: actually, it is greece. there is no end to this deal, seeing roots in libya. the point is that of the million to the greekame
island last year and ended up settling in germany, virtually none of them were properly processed, and not one of them was security free. i wonder, under the 1951 definition of refugee status, how many of that million that went to germany last year, would have qualified as refugees? 5%? 10% maximum? this is what i am talking about. i do understand there are dreadful things happening in northern africa and the middle east. it i am talking about is that we brought in the definitions of what a refugee is to a level where we cannot accept -- european countries will not accept numbers on the spaces. 1.8 million last year. it will be 1.8 million this year, and 1.8 million xdr. the people will not accept it. louise arbour: there are 500 million people in europe. you think europe -- it is not lack of capacity and lack of
political will. in large part because the entire public debate is poisoned by the kind of discourses we have heard about tonight on which focus on gang rape. [applause] we would, of course there is room in our hearts from all of europe to give people refugee status. we just want to know that the are genuine refugees and not people coming to do us harm. that is always want to know. rudyard: i will bring simon in on this and then come to you, mark. simon schama: we definitely need better screening. i just want to say to mark's fulminations, it is an appalling slander to me to the muslim religion to employ -- imply actually -- simon schama -- mark steyn: i never said muslim.
simon schama: i did not hear that. i did not hear what he said, anyway. the implication was that if you have got a muslim immigrant, he, , is goingng to be key to commit sexual crimes sooner or later. that is monstrous anchors ask. -- and grotesque. michigan is not full -- mark steyn: i will give you a muslim fulmination then. 2% inre 1.5 percent to norway. the account of more than half of all the rapes in northway. -- norway. aboutschama: what is it islam that you are saying actually is designed to make men
brutal sexual animals? and why then don't you want to deport all muslims from europe and the western society? mark steyn: as you are a historian, you know as well as i do how many more muslims, more muslim men in the first and second world wars fought for king and empire than canadians. they have a long tradition of loyalty to the ground and service to the ground. crown and to the service to the crown. a hundred years ago today, during the great war. you know that. what has changed is that we are no longer importing -- someone who had been to, a muslim school in india in 1948, 1949, would have received an education not different by that much from a grade schooler in canada or
scotland -- rudyard: you are losing me. what is the point? mark steyn: i am just establishing my non-islam ophobia. rudyard: the debate is about the refugee crisis. that is the focus tonight. other dimensions will continue to get into. i went to pick up on what mark and nigel have been saying. certain societies are better at integrating people than others. in canada, we have done a good job. the united states is called littleton pot. european countries are not good integration. therefore, is this a different kind of crisis? is this time different? i think europe is done, and i suspect we have a bit of an agreement. i think europe has done a pitiful job at fourth rightly
right -- -- fourth forthrightly defending the views of western pluralist capitalism society. europe is essentially an organization managing the business cycle and hoping for the best when it comes to shopping for christmas. that is an abject horror. if we are against militant apocalyptic phalluses him -- fallacism, we cannot be against anywhere that they come from. it was as though it was not a part of what we need to do. we need to be less defensive, mince,llions -- less less muscles. you should be reading l --
locke,ould be reading and it is not like putting up walls. having decent counterterrorism intelligence. i agree with you. we had been abject, pathetic. we have allowed people to come in, changed large parts of offices, and nobody amongst our leadership -- and this is not about getting religion in government, but no one has the guts with acreage to stand up or the courage-- to stand up for our culture. simon schama: i happen to be jewish. nigel farage: it is judeo christianity culture. [indiscernible] as soon as i start to talk about
real values, you shrink into your shell like everybody else, don't you go to her we have judeo-christian culture. we have been weak in defending it. the real problem is, we can talk and look back at various migratory waves, refugee waves, and the problem is this. nobody, mark even suggesting, islam is a bad religion. i certainly not saying that. what we have done -- the jihad ism -- hasboost in the oil price led to suffering. but here is the problem, and here is why we are nervous and cautious about opening up our doors to millions of people from those countries. never before, integration may be the cold, but never before have we had to live with the fifth column, living inside our own communities and our own country who want to kill us, blow us up,
-- our way of let life. i am arguing for the policy, but we must be able to screen people before they come federal in our countries. plain common sense. rudyard: i will go to mark. we have got to be very careful not to exaggerate. the trap is to exaggerate the and fear thatrs this idea of infiltration can generate. a couple of things. if we had assumed that most italians coming to this country, for instance, would be members of the mafia, or most asians , wed be members of triage would not close the door. there is no basis upon which to suggest that the people who are fleeing the atrocious events in syria, in libya, northern iraq, are missilesople
that are being sent to infiltrate communities. you know what? it is going to be easier, and i really believe it is part of the sophisticated strategic plan in our intent on destroying our democracies to tease us into an irrational response where we will destroy the very values we believe in. andill over securitize, inevitably we would use security measures in a discriminatory fashion with carding and racial profiling and so far. we will destroy the very values out of the sheer fear that is coming in to do it for us. we will do it to ourselves if we cultivate this culture of fear with an overreaction, restriction on freedom, over vulnerablein these minorities rather than protecting them and including them. [applause]
rudyard: mark. we are getting to that meat of it now, and the question is, people talk about european values, british values, canadian values, without ever defining it. and i think simon is right, it is not just about movies and rap songs and the rest of it. there is something underlying it. i share entirely the wii's'-- louise's fears of a big security states. i like to write and say what i want. my writings round up in the free human rights commissions in canada, so i certainly don't want to see europeans erect a bigger security state with less free speech than canada has. i would hate to see that. but the reality of the situation is that if you looked at what happened with the charlie hebdo slaughter in paris a year ago and then look at the polls of
the muslim community, they don't the to put a boulder in cartoonist, they don't want to blow up the brussels airport. but there is no commitment to dish additional -- to traditional western free speech. and we we done teach them at. we need to a simulate. and if you don't, you have bicultural societies as you dealt with in bosnia. bicultural societies are fundamentally unstable. sometimes more or less benignly so like northern ireland, sometimes genocidally so like louise and to you in rwanda. you don't assimilate these people coming in in europe, then you will have bicultural societies, and they will tear your apart. -- europe apart. [applause] market, i assume
it has been a long time since you have lived in toronto? signs, the languages you can't understand? this is the city we live in. we are not scared. [applause] i was, i was born in toronto. i have been away for a couple of years. you are from quebec. so you know as well as i do that the differences between quebec francophones and ontario anglophones are in the scheme of things. a majority ofgo, quebec francophones voted that they did not want to be in the same country as these guys, and you are saying, you are saying that somehow -- mark steyn: [indiscernible] you are saying that in germany or in sweden or in molenbeek,
the islamic emirates inside of the kingdom of belgium, 25% of the population is muslim. you are trying to tell us they will be more fundamentally stable and secure then northern ireland? louise arbour: the traditions in belgium, they don't have to wait for anyone waiting in the country to have separatist tendencies. they are home minded. they don't need anybody to come from any stand to have the identification -- mark steyn: i know about it. is fairlyma: england united, though in scotland, i would not agree. [laughter] the point mark is making is very interesting. in england, we have got the growth of parallel society. at 80% of the muslim ridges in britain are not recognized under u.k. law. they are conducted under muslim
law, where the women have far fewer rights than they would have on the u.k. law. we have 83 sharia courts existing in england. we have tens of thousands of female genital mutilation taking place every year in england, not as big a problem as some of the and yet there has not been one prosecution within our system. we have some degree of agreement. the law has to be equal. we mustn't be scared of applying the law equally to ethnic minorities. i am sorry. you are trying to compare some of the concerns on the side of the debate with previous migrations. it is not an exaggeration, the thinkg used, unless you it is wrong. should we be concerned that
jihadi's coming through the greek islands? should we be concerned? you bet your life. only eight of them killed 130 people in paris. we have a problem here. get out of denial, please. [applause] the deep problem is jihadi cells exist, for example for the san bernardino's shooting. the main shooter was an american citizen. number ofnificant those carrying out these homicidal conspiracies are british and american and french and built-in. belgian.
we agree this appalling degree of criminal negligence, not noticing when somebody is deported from turkey to the netherlands and is known as a terrorist, not picking that up. but if you can do something homegrown jihadists, you have to engage with the muslim community, not demonize them. you have to start from the assumption, not the pessimistic assumption that all immigrants are necessarily going to constitute a fifth column, but the possibility that they can live active decent lives. i don't disagree about the horror. though should be prosecuted. we are with you. we have a problem in our countries. , we don't have a
complete open door so we have a problem even worse. >> that is already gone. agreement is going to return vast numbers. so let them join the eu. >> the point is, these are second and third generation elgin's. frenchman. germans. canadians. isis.re going off to join ought to occasion a certain modesty, that our skills at
awesometion are not as as they were in the 19th century. andanswer, when second third generation immigrants are blowing up the airports, that that is suddenly the reason to accelerate immigration from the same source, is very bizarre. are these people belgian? in what sense is she british? she happens to be a british muslim. how more british can you get than doing bbc world service? >> i got no problem with that. that is my point. holding a passport does not make you canadian. >> i think what we both
want to see is some way -- this is the difference between us. because ast to see, louise said, we are a globally interconnected world on a shrinking planet. those of us are essentially possibly, naively optimistic humanists that think it is not impossible to be an orthodox muslim and a good canadian or a good britt. a good democrat at the same time. for that, you need to be involved and engaged to a degree which hasn't happened. exercises in civic education, which make it clear you can go to a mosque on friday for friday prayers in still be a decent, democratically participating citizen. if you go to mosque in the imam
happens to preach the destruction of the society you are living in, bloody well turn him in. turn him in. that doesn't happen, unfortunately. if you look at the statistics of you willed mosques, understand all over this city and calgary, there are any number of radicalized mosques where people just sit on their hands. i go back to my point, simon. you have to have something to assimilate with. most of the history you know our people in british schools, they haven't a clue about. they don't have a clue about. they don't teach history and north american schools. kids are in a school where it is called social studies. it is always the same thing.
it is martin luther king comes around like the number 23 bus. >> i have a movement to abolish the term. >> i want to move on to numbers. of thisa big part debate. we are seeing countries, not just in the middle east. turkey, two point 7 million. lebanon, one billion -- million. if you look at legally settled syrian refugees, almost if it is has small -- infinitesimal numbers compared to other countries. what do you oh european neighbors? what do we go them? owe them? open door to
people who are european union citizens. weak immigration policy, net migration is a third of a million. our population increasing by one third of a million every year and it is because of that the david cameron has said, he will only accept 20,000 syrian refugees. i am certain that if the united a point system, we would find room for more genuine refugees. when we did that, we would look at the plight of the christians who are being massacred in libya, iraq, syria. from every definition, you shake your head at me.
definition, the united nations have stood for since 1951, those questions i would have thought should be guaranteed freedom and security and refugee status. britain, and actually now in germany and sweden, we are becoming very hardhearted because of free movement of people. we are becoming rather hardhearted to things that 20 years ago we would have been happy to accept. >> mark, the united states, a population over 300 million, refugees havean been legally and officially admitted. is that the u.s. shouldering its burden? >> no, but they do not look at as a humanitarian way, they look at it as part of the security picture.
we are holding this debate in the week following brussels. and simon want to attach the general migration question from the terrorism question. the americans in particular do not see it that way. we all know, i was glad to hear the canadian customs turned over simon earlier today. don'tis somebody they want to let in the country. the fascinating thing is, when you look at what mr. mccallum is going to say, we are not going to have the chaps committing the gang rapes. we are screening for them. no western government, if you have ever had the pleasure of
undergoing second-degree interrogation, as this suspicious character did, you know no western government has a who it lets in. the person who committed san bernardino, she had a green card. she basically used a jihadist dating site to put together a terrorist cell. it is money no object, down south. there is just one agency. they have like 97 agencies south of the border, looking at this woman. she aced five separate tests and still got into the country. america takes the view it has no idea who these people are an better be safe than sorry. >> what does north america, owe in terms u.s.
of this crisis? >> we have to bring this date back into less apocalyptic spaces. wording of the motion was a poetic way of capturing the spirit of the refugee convention. we have drifted into the movement of people, which is for the most part unregulated by international law or treaty. what we are talking about now is a so-called crisis europe is facing. it is well defined by the refugee convention. we have not made a dent talking about the millions of stateless people without a passport. a passport, you are a citizen, there is no other way. we haven't made a dent dealing with statelessness. we haven't made a dent dealing internallyre called
displaced persons, of which there are millions. stuck in theire own country. we have no framework to deal with them. what we are talking about our people running away from oppression and frankly, we have to assume when you consider immense risk, the majority of them are bona fide refugee applicants. a verytalking about small number. when we say millions, it is oflions knocking on the door one billion people, europe, north america, all the capacity together. the key is international cooperation. there is no reason greece, which was having a lot of financial problems, should have been stuck with bearing the largest burden. the european partners and the western countries generally should have that up to the plate. beyondshould still do so
the general signal that we have already sent. we have the luxury of doing a full prescreening. they don't row into canada. they sit in refugee camps where we have months to do theelection processes with luxury of these processes in place, we should be doing tons more. everybody has to work in that direction. stop the exaggeration. at the nonexistence of security risk, i am not saying there is zero, but to blow it up to such an extent we start talking about erecting walls with barbed wire. be actually aill stain and shame. [applause] and ofre coming to the our cross examination. simon, i want to give you the
last word. >> i want to echo what louise said. just a quick piece of information that came out today. a report from amnesty international, which cast a long shadow over the turkey eu agreement. it says turkey has been forcibly syrianng refugees, refugees back to the war zones from which they have come. which is horrific. if true, the turks have denied it, but there seems to be a substantial amount of evidence. it takes us back to the place where perhaps we should have spent more time on. there is a universe of misery everyffering, one in three displaced persons in these hellish camps in syria, jordan,
and lebanon our children. about theirhink plight, rather than obsess so much on jihadi's and rapists in german cities. >> very good. ok. time for closing statements. we will proceed in the opposite order of our opening statements. nigel, your three minutes will go up. >> thank you for a very civilized debate. we started off with 77% against to thee, which compared odds i am against in the parliament strikes me as a good start. i have tried tonight to make the do think it is the holden on people to the west to to genuinehearts refugees. people in fear of imprisonment
and death because of their race, religion, political police. indeed, their sexual orientation. i have tried to make that point. i have no doubt america and canada could do more than they are doing. i have no doubt about that refugees. -- that, when it comes to refugees. it is europe that has faced the front line could we have thrown out the window the classical definition of what a refugee is to anybodydened it coming from a war-torn area or a poor country. clearly wasrkel did irresponsible, stupid, and a price germany will have to pay for years to come. just opening up your doors and not been able in a modern world, where we do have a genuine terrorist threat, and yes, it is about 2% of the muslim
communities coming into europe. but if only eight people can cause all that misery in paris, and what we saw in brussels, we have to be careful. security checks. we have to process people offshore and make sure they are genuine refugees. i have tried this evening to challenge the other side see whether they could agree with me the christians who are being crucified and massacred in the forle east should qualify refugee status. i have not had one positive other side.m this this is the point. this motion, you cannot support this motion. nonsense.lized it doesn't make sense. what we need to have is a sensible, common sense refugee policy to help those in peril. just to open up our doors, the
weight angela merkel did, is bad news for germany and the west. we need to stand up and stop such nonsense. oppose the motion, please. thank you. [applause] >> i don't disagree at all with your point about the christian spirit -- the christians. the islamic state, shia are not muslim at all. i want to and with the words of a christian, written in 1624. you all know some of them at least. doane. no man is an island. every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
parliament, to bbc television studios. to the transnational bureaucracy in geneva. from 30,000 feet, to think what is going on below us is swell. we will never have to live in brussels. live innever have to toulouse. we get to go to the nice places. that should occasion in us a certain modesty when we come up utopian schemes that testify to what simon calls naivelyively -- our optimistic humanism. down there, they have to live with the consequences of our attitudes. of our naively optimistic humanism.
we are striking attitudes. simon talked about his kurdish news agent who is a decent chap when he hands him the jewish chronicle in the morning. that. know people like at the same time, the political solution toigning a the great migrations of the world that will only end in tragedy. i ask you not to vote for it. the more failed states that stay failed, the more failed states there will be. is better for syrians to live in syria. for afghans to live in afghanistan. for iraqis to live in iraq. it is better for there to be more beacons of liberty around the world. i confess, i have never liked poem that is
stapled to the bottom of the statue of liberty. the americans nailed a third rate poem to it and turned it into a celebration of mass migration to be liberty and a mass migration have nothing to do with each other. in fact, the latter can imperil the former. naivelywhere the optimistic humanism may take us. we cannot fix failed states by inviting millions of their people to move in with us. all that inch or's is more failed states and eventually, one by one, the nations of the west will join them. please vote against this motion. [applause]
>> you will have the last word. >> let's say at the outset, i don't know of any evidence that suggests christians from syria have been excluded from refugee protection. i don't know where this is coming from. , at the bottom of the debate today, it is showing what is being portrayed today as manifestationher of the old myths and stereotypes metprejudices that have nearly every wave of immigration. it is odious when it targets refugees, not just any other type of migrants. be point, a writer may
many of the things -- and made it the point that many of what we hear about muslims penetrating our muslim societies, many of the things we attribute to them were to catholics, for instance. who were said to be backwards, had a loyalty to rome more than their home country. lived in poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods. were very backwards. anti-democratic, authoritarian by disposition. sounds like the yellow peril we were all going to be transformed into a different society? we would all be of mixed color if we let in these millions of people coming from all over the world? this plays into the same we havepes and myths heard at every point in history. the reality is, despite a
knee-jerk, sometimes hostile reception to newcomers, the history in this country has been a history of amends success integrating people coming from all kinds of cultures and religions. integration,bout it is a two-way street. it has changed us it it will change us in the future. we have to have a very impoverished confidence in our democracy to think it is so fragile, it cannot sustain the profound differences that will tollenge us to our devotion free speech and pluralism. thank you. [applause] >> ladies in gentlemen, it was a hard-fought debate. oureminds me of something
founder has said. it is one thing to give a speech and have the stage as yours. it is very different, what we have seen tonight. four big minds, big thinkers, challenging each other. putting their ideas out there. contesting this important issue. please join me in a show of appreciation for phenomenal debate. [applause] >> ok. let's take a look at where public opinion was at at the beginning of this evening. all of you in the audience are going to have the opportunity on your way out to vote again. the audience was at the beginning. 77% of you agreeing with the motion. 23% opposed.
then we asked you, how many would be opening to -- open to changing your mind? 79% yes. it will be fascinating to see how you decide, based on what you heard today. on thisu will come down debate. i just want to end by thanking the foundation for staging this debate. they are a great part of canada. something available from coast to coast and across because and across the continental u.s.. in the meantime, keep watching and learning. thank you for joining us at the debate. [applause]
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> and from toronto, we moved to wisconsin. the republican party hosting a dinner for their candidates. john kasich. ted cruz, and on the half of