that is what it is all about. the problem is different for solids and liquids. many, many, many challenges. that does not mean we are hopeless. the investments are in the early stages of how you get there and when you will have

enough information with power,power, scaling, size, weight, and power progression meeting down to field a credible solution. here is a chart i like to talk about. i wanted to provide power, density,, comparisons and get you a feel for where you guys were with airborne laser. the power density was 55 kilograms per kilowatt. fiber combined in the lab for 35 to 40. where we need to be is down below 5 kilograms per kilowatt window. to have any chance of fielding it on a high-altitude platform that can be sustained. you see my goal, that is where we need to be.

wewe are not going to just work on the technology alone. how do you scale the amplifiers and technology down into a package that could be fielded. so what is the timeframe? i know people are taking pictures. i put that caveat out. working hard on scaling, efficiency, and power. they are the three areas we are focused on. competitive the drive toward a decision in 2019 with all of these efforts progress on is it feasible to scale this up to a platform or not? and we will no a lot by the 2019 timeframe. since lower power is required for discrimination capability we can do that.

the challenges can you do lethal intercept or not. to me this is an important progression on how we get there.there. you have heard a lot about boeing shown on the left. that helped us learn about pet for425 platform jenner and the altitude it went to in the importance of high-altitude. we're doing a lot of work with the reapers and eventually getting to a low-power demonstrated to prove discrimination altitude and from a parametric standpoint, lethality with the lower power level. the next chart,next chart, get a lot of questions, where are you with space.

the most near-term discussion beside the partnership discussions that are ongoing with the other services and agencies are is this experimented. this was with the help of congress with reprogramming the residual pts as money that allowed us to develop a new term capability to run an experiment on ir detectors to capture intercept signatures of testing. i talked at the beginning of the importance of hidden kill assessment. these sensors will be launched on a series of commercial house that will allow us to put a network up that will get to that experimentation point which is one of the missions that will be important for us when we go to space on how

to do hate and kill assessment from space. the other important aspect is, what is your path for consistent midcourse and tracking? worldwide sensor coverage for the homeland and regional defense is a harder problem and certainly there are multiple parts that are focused on the future of space in the partnerships that will be required in the think you will and we are engaged and an active participant in terms of where does the missile-defense system fit in. next line. and i am back to reality. in terms of near-term i wanted to talk a little bit about romania and poland.

those that have watched the press no that we delivered from a technical capability standpoint the system in romania to the navy on december 18. it means the navy is in the.to the.of testing and training and readying for initial operation capability followed by nato cut and, acceptance by the summit the summer. very important time peerco. the system is done essentially. they are training today as we speak. it is manned. the navy has assumed operation. the handover was important. you willimportant. you will see us to a much more broad ceremony later this spring. poland follows shortly thereafter. we are very close, meaning the army corps in awarding

the contract for poland, working with our polish counterparts on complementary to implementing arrangements which will follow the same schedule as romania. and all systems go for poland. >> there are pictures if you have not seen it. ait. a picture of the deck house and romania. the vertical launch system shown,, as m3 being offloaded from the c1 70 craiova and then a broader view of the facility shown from the far in the lower right, and just aa huge effort across not only our department but the state department policy, the

romanian government, all government, all parties involved in making this a reality from four years ago were really six years ago when it was announced, four years ago when it was started in the finnish when we said we would is a testament to the entire team in government that was behind this. certainly tcd of phase ii will augment the phase one architecture, not just romania but the ships that are now in spain, additional block 1 b missiles, enhancements and then the whole recommendation and my signature included, the whole succession of flight tests that culminated in the declaration that gave us confidence for the 1st time ever that and as m3

engagement could be conducted from ashore. to me the engineering behind that is incredible. it was not me. the folks that thought of this to take a deck house essentially unmodified and put it sure to meet the timeline necessary would not have happened if it had been a different design. so i cannot go without showing your flight test video. i wanted to show what was one of the more important tests command we did a whole bunch that culminated in terms of the intercept of an irb m target than sn 31 b target. the layout was way down to the southwest and the shore system intercept.

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> those that have been there or that picked it up from the video, you could see that the missile was launched 3 miles away from the deck house. that is the arrangement. we are used to having missiles in front of us. but under the radar. you think about what went

into making sure that happened successfully and engineering that when in to acquire and detect that missile from that range, again, it is i'm difference that was necessitated by the layout but worked perfectly and never had an issue with applicable performance. that slide and i will get your questions, i want to leave you with 44 interceptors were 2017 for reliability upgrades in progress, kill vehicle on track along with radar, epa on track, tcd which happened in phase iii in the end of 2018, advanced technologies funded and progressing effort that i believe is the right place and begin with this idea of where are you

on the cost curve and how are you addressing that in my view is ait is a combination and balanced approach of getting the most you can out of the current system and making it the most capable and effective that you can and at the same time not forgetting what could be provided which is the strategy we are pursuing with that, thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, have no. appreciate it. turn to questions now. great videos, by the way. have to credit your graphics team. so let me step back from digging into details and go

to the really big superhigh level which is the identity of the missile-defense agency. again, i run the missile-defense project. thank youproject. thank you for coming. going to the identity of the missile-defense agency it has not been going. the public statement is to outpace the threat and the continue to keep the emphasis.emphasis. in fact, they have been under stress taking on procurement in this to the pushing out procurement services has been retained largely. you have different colors of money including in recent years five to 9 percent which adds up. so what is the future of the agency going to be?

some folks suggested is becoming a, support agency, or should it go go back to its roots and focus on r&d? >> i hope everybody heard the question. my thinking on where we are today and what the balance of resources, and i am under the same budget challenges is everyone. it is not just dod in terms of where we are with resources. it is a matter of what we can do to complete the mission and under the fiscal constraints we are under at the same time as we have systems that are maturing in the production now in terms of now the capability has been tested and fielded and this a matter of numbers, that starts to chew up

bigger parts of the top line has not come down. so, you know, when i think about that problem certainly our charters to start transition programs and services we can have those discussions,, for example, are ongoing. what is the right point to transition? the way i think about it is that those missiles, interceptors need to be procured by somebody. and if -- and once we understand those balances and resources we can have that discussion. from the department stand point you are not reducing the requirement that the combatant commanders have given us. yes, given the resources and mr. campbellmr. campbell has

been eloquent on this, more advanced research can be done. and we have those areas identified. but it gets back to making the smartest investments with the technologies you are pursuing at a smart, affordable, well thought out pace with technology as opposed to putting that programming for freeze phase intercept and submitting a 5 billion, $2 million program. for that program in particular we have thehave the right measurement points to form a larger program with the technology. >> you mentioned the numbers issue. it isit is predicted and has come true that the demand is far outstripping supply.

codevelopers japan, what opportunities are there? there is a lot of demand signal out there. help them and help us. and what we are doing with development funding. we just had a successful series. you will see us work closely on a single coproduction agreement that we have which is good for them in the united states.

it is a great example, and other countries are equally important. >> the slide that you have. you know, in some ways not that far removed from what was done in the 1990s. that is what makes it hard and so significant. talk about the technologies in the connectivity between where we are today and the vision you laid out for multiple count and why we have to go through. >> i get that question a lot. the technical problem is

scaling up to multiple vehicles it's another degree of difficulty. given the fact that the system engineering cycle was cut short to field rapidly and i think and believe having studied the design carefully than what we know where we need to do better with the design and what it can do in terms of increasing the reliability and i believe that the path we are on to not just informed with design principles but to be able to take a highly reliable kill vehicle and get it fielded

back to the fleet to sustain it for decades to come is the right path. the engineering and testing in the program and the concept and they are great ideas on how to do that, i am viewing the necessary 1st step for us to produce a highly reliable producible testable kill vehicle. >> why don't we opened up to questions from the floor. if you want to raise your hand and identify yourself and wait for the mic. >> thank you. have any decisions been made with regard to whether to upgrade or replace the radar of the patriot system and potentially developing new vertical systems?

>> i am going to have to defer to the patriot program in the army in particular. i am not up to speed. i do not know what is in the budget for program. [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> i wouldi would view it as important as anything i have. in terms of the priority of not just how you protect program information but what your vulnerabilities are. i would say it is at or near the top of our priority of how we should be concerned and"will do in the future to address that exact point. we do pretty well in terms of department of defense agencies in terms of current protections it will be much more and you will see is down that path in the future.

>> lingering problems of cost management. >> sure. the quality, i could go all day on that in terms of where it is to where it is now. it is not going focus and every program. complete 100%? no. much better no. much better than they were five years ago, absolutely. taking it very seriously. you have to remember we were in a three and a half for four-year production break

including the right resources has been our focus in terms of making sure all the correct efforts were funded in the cross control cost control and management controls are in place to cover it. two great points and i agree entirely.i agree entirely. i'll also see a lot of progress has been made. given the challenges of the program just what i have seen has gotten much, much better. >> ask you the north koreans and what the assessment is and whether they have had any significant impact what

your doing in the payson temple. >> i would have thought that the technical capability has not increased. everything that they are doing continues to be alarming. and provoking. brief interactions every day are vitally important to stay ahead of that potential threat. continue to watch it closely and watch his actions with scrutiny. >> there is no change.

>> there was no change before. there is no change now. if it was warranted we will see how it changed.changed. i believe we are on the right path. >> thank you. cyber was touched on. providing for modeling of complex interactions. supercomputing provides for help in reducing the number of flight tests necessary.

keeping other people like that thinking through how much more we can do giving up that capability. pretty limited in terms of what it actually shows you. it shows you the interceptor or intercept work but in terms of the capability around the envelope, the capability we believe, in that area can be expanded greatly. i truly believe more can be done. [speaking in native tongue] [inaudible question]

>> as you know formally there are no discussions are considerations. continue to work with south korea on a wide range of potential capability. i will leave it at that. the equipment provider. >> thank you for coming out here and thanks to all of you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> on the next washington journal we are asking viewers for their thoughts on the iran hostage crisis which ended with the release of 50 americans. colin with your comments. later on adam green about progressive voters the 2016 election, and we will talk to russell more about evangelical voters in 2016 and rachel: on her recent cover story in the american prospect about planned parenthood in the political debate over abortion. >> watching the campaign this year, far more

interesting to look at the republicans which may have something to do with why there is more interest in these candidates and their books. >> sunday night books written by the 2016 presidential candidates. >> everyone has interesting stories and their lives in politicians who are so single-minded could have particularly interesting ones. when they put out memoirs they are sanitized. they did, there are minimum controversy. >> in britain 560,000 people signed a petition to ban the

entry of presidential candidate donald trump following controversial statements about muslims. the british house of commons debated the proposal. >> order, order. letting me introduce these two petitions. it is a bit of an occasion. it is signed by 573,971 signatures, and because the block donald j trump from uk entry.

don't ban trump from the united kingdom which is a curious one signed by 42,898 signatures the 30 signatures were removed because they were thought to be suspects. please beware, anyone trying to make the system, you will be found out. 30,000 signatures disappeared. the 1st petition reads the signatory is believed mr. donald j trump should be banned from uk entry. the same principle should apply to everyone who wishes to enter the uk. the united kingdom is to continue applying unacceptable behavior criteria to those who wish

to enter the borders. it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor and weak as well as powerful. the other petition reads we should not be banning anyone in the us political race that does not concern us. more importantly if he does win the nomination and goes on to win the presidency we have to work with a man who was banned from our country. let's mind our own business. i can summarize the government's response to both petitions the government does not routinely comment on individual immigration and exclusion decisions. exclusion powers are serious and not use lightly.

the government recognizes the strength of feeling against marginalization amongst those it endeavors to protect. and the government does not directly answer questions on those that are banned. they did publish a list of 24 denied entry to the united kingdom between 2008 and nine. if i can give you some idea. the sort of people who are banned, andbanned, the 1st one was a leader of a violent gang that posted films of attacks on the internet, considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by permitting serious criminal activity and seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts.

another was described as a teacher considered to be engaged in unacceptable behavior. another was considered to be engaged in unacceptable behavior is seeking to promote others. a 4th was excluded from the united kingdom because he has made anti- jewish statements in this fostered hatred among others which are entirely typical of the kind of people were excluded. we should say that the situation does not apply in those cases. far more serious. the petition claims that there has been violent attacks taking place in boston and elsewhere when

one of them attacked a hispanic person and another a mexican. and that is what the petitioners are making there points on. i believe that there is one case that does represent the situation with mr. donald trump, the one, a dutch person who was seen to be fermenting hatred against muslims and guilty of homophobia and warned the home secretary and what happened with the appeals to the court, the result was that he was allowed into the country of the publicity and attention, islamic phobia,

multiplied 100 fold. and i believe that is something we should bear in mind. >> congratulate him. as he share my concern but the number of cases that have come to light since the comments made by mr. trump, british muslims have been refused admission in this he agreed that when that happens, whether they are muslims are not there should be a clear indication of what people have been refused admission. >> the figures are worrying but the customer is left in the position where the pres.

is barack obama. they need to to be investigated. it is something of considerable concern. and the case is one of great significance to us. those who wrote the main petitions, freedom of any kind, the responsibility including free speech. freedomfreedom of speech is not the freedom to engage in hatred. words can wound. the reality of his speech and its ability to incite violent acts is one of the uk laws of stopped some 18 individuals from entering the candidate. and the petitioners, file fax, mr. trump's intervention.

we want to make it clear, caused an enormous amount of attention, but this is no attempt to disrespect americans with the american state. this is a country of which are cultures have melded together and over the years we haven't ever closer to five the country that has sacrificed more of its sons and daughters in the cause of creating democracy than any other nation. the land of barack obama martin luther king and abraham lincoln. this is a. >> do you not agree with me.

>> i think it is a significant day. we should look and see what we are doing in this case a cause which would. >> presenting his argument. we have to be allow the possibility. [laughter] in that event would such a

bana ban be overturned? it would be one almighty snub. >> i am sure that is absolutely right. the great difficulty showing disrespect may well be interpreted by supporters and others. this is not what we are saying. one individual is involved. but put it to the committee interfering, telling us what to do. that would be a grave error, the deliberations today seem

to be anti-american. there were a number of people who said that we should not discuss this issue. it should not be debated. but it would be difficult to ignore something so thunderous the whole purpose of the petitions committee harpies, got this is the public speaking with voice deep. i think this plan is not stated that accolade on this attention in the way that

this petition, but he has done a remarkable things. does he not feel particularly today and you and who offends anyone command we all the initially shut down. shut down because they are labeled the benefit. >> the instances a man for his disability that he did

say to the people of mexico as people who are rapists and drug abusers, he made some degrading remarks about winning in the latest as to suggest not be allowed in this country which was an extraordinary thing to say. will be are faced with is the most dangerous position between the nations in my lifetime and i can clearlyi can clearly remember the start of the 2nd world war but the situation we have today with the al qaeda - and the other similar groups spread throughout is to divide the world between christians and muslims.

to a future of when difficult decisions have to be taken and should they be taken by a person who is thought to be impulsive, not well-informed and someone accused of racial abuse or should it be yes? >> coming down on one side of the argument, are we not in a unique position? i cannot think of another senior politician in america or anywhere else to deny our citizens in the united kingdom free international movement because of

religion. and my honorable friend is to take the position that he is doing, what would be an appropriate response for this country to the united states of america in order to protect the people we represent? >> i must ask that any interventions be brief. >> we had an intervention on this before and it would be an outrage if that were to happen and is contrary to all american history, the words written on the statue of liberty is the best in america's history and hospitality to those who wish to live in our country. i would urge the alternative of inviting in here and would be delighted if he can show us where the so-called no go areas for police are

in this country. i have never been able to find one. it will be a pleasure to take them to brixton and show him the recs -- rich mixture of races and creeds living happily together and it will be interesting to have a chat about life and more people killed by shotguns every day than there are in a year in this country. possibly a meeting with his wife who i understand this from mexico. i'm sure that will be an interesting conversation, but i believe that we should great the extreme things this man says by our unreasonableness and hospitality, greet him with courtesy, but we should not build him up with attacks. in conclusion there was

another great republican who set in 1990 democrats and republicans, i salute you. and on your behalf i now lift my pen to sign this americans with disabilities act and say that this shameful war of exclusion finally comes tumbling down. the words of president bush. for those who are disabled and lead. weat that. we should look to what we are seeing from donald trump and confront his prejudice and lack of knowledge and

greet him with a welcoming hand of friendship and knowledge and truth. >> could i just for the moment ask all honorable bruce. >> i am proposing immediately. i am proposing immediately. if honorable members going to adhere seeking might be

helpful. and the opposition the moment, people who indicated in advance, i have several. victoria atkins some of the work. the sewer novelist, not indicated in writing that they may choose to seek to intervene. >> i would like to congratulate the member.

the honorable member talked about why we decided to have this from day-to-day because it is something that has caught the eyes of the media people have been concerned about our discussions. we have the mechanism in place. you will seek to at least allow members of the public to have a voice,a voice, whether it be through select community or wider debate. doing things as a committee. in this instance it is appropriate for us to give the members of the public a voice in this chamber here.

donald trump's favorite columnist asked joan peter on sunday while we won't debate other things like the immigration debate and the reason for that there is nothing about it. we had an immigration debate which worked in a similar manner. it was more appropriate that we push on and not duplicate work wherever possible. as of this morning 75 people signed it is not for us to

decide. have our say. >> we had some examples. a number of cases of people have been treated for incitement and hatred. i am not sure we should be starting now. i totally agree we should not be focusing on one man. i would like us to look at the issues and how they affect the uk. the wider issues really are immigration, global security , positive

contribution that people have on this country where they were born here or came here. as i said -- >> on that point. aware that the 2nd most populous position with 457,000 signatures is going to close the borders and is that missions show why it is important to challenge? >> absolutely. that was a very similar wording to the debate in october. there are many petitions that have quite insightful and clumsily worded in many ways approaches because there is a fear of

immigration in global security. i suspect donald trumps was born out of that. he should be leading to clearer understanding, not acceptable for him to say we need to stop immigration of this sort until we understand what is going on. we know the benefits of control of immigration. as a son of someone born in burma have seen the benefit that make no claims on social services with incredible aspiration. uncontrolled immigration puts a lot of pressure on services and infrastructure and a lot of concern in the people's mind. i suspect has in america they feel this as well and

the number of signatures. but we need to tackle it in a different way and speak about the positive contribution to business investment, science and medical procedures. many of you know they have quite a bit to do with the british and just that one industry alone is worth three and a half billion pounds before billion to this country, to the country's economy. it employs hundred thousand people and there are number of which affected by that. that. it would be a bad thing if that continued to struggle. let's look at business as a whole. we need to tackle the

strategy, the counterterrorism strategy. these are ways that are far more clever and positive and practical than just closing the company down. how do you determine? do you put a badge of them? have them on a database? donald trump has actually not excluded them which is an extraordinary situation i hope that we can concentrate on practical ways that this country can tackle immigration i wanted to

raise the question the motion because donald trump comments mean that they are tarnishing the entire community with a small group of extremists ordinary muslims absolutely condemn because the world's largest economy might be excluding the world's second-largest religious community over 1.6 billion people in the world or is it because people in this country are prevalent long history we have a welcoming immigrants and refugees.

when people feel a sense of justice of poisonous, corrosive man it will act in good conscience. this is not just any man the one who is extremely high profile involved in the american show business industry for years and years. .. man who is externally high profile involved in the american show business industry for years and years. a man interviewing for the most important job in the world. his words are not, cope it his words are not funny. his is a business. they risked inflaming tensions between vulnerable communities. make one thing clear, we have legislation in our country to make sure we do not let people enter who are not conducive to the public good if the honorable member from newport west has outlined some

of the people who have been banned by the home office for entering this country. i looked up some of the rhetoric -- you are talking about a candidate for the presidency of the united states it it's up to the american people to decide whether his views are objectionable, not you guys. >> the honorable gentleman has been in the house long enough that he must address the chair . i have been here as long as you will appreciate. i looked up the cases which have 84 hate speeches and they have not been allowed to the country and wanted to highlight the case of a female blogger which i will not name. i had a look at the rhetoric used by this female blogger and she was banned from entering our country. our crime was that she equated

the entire muslim population with the use of a handful of extremists and a spokesperson banned her from coming into a country saying she is not allowed into the country because we condemn all those those behaviors and views run counter to our shared values and will not stand for extremism in any form. if donald trump's views are that muslims are all the same, it is similar to this bloggers views. if legislation is in the country, should be applied equally to everyone or are we going to be making exceptions for billion our politicians even when their words are clearly falling short of the home office view. ? trump remarks that donald

a large numberby of my constituents whether i like it or not. should they be expelled from the country as a result of their views? if not, what's the difference? >> i'm afraid you should think carefully about what he is just said it's not the same as us making a decision not to let people into the country's views are falling short of the home office guidance. the honorable member of the new west has already outlined some of the other views that donald trump has. whether that is ms. of mexicans or views on black people, it was donald trump, don't forget, who ran a dog whistle campaign birtht barack obama's certificate to find out whether the president of america was really american. can you imagine in parliament in my colleagues decided to question ethnic minoritymp's

about whether they were really british? >> some of the things that people find the funds about this individual, he is not only racist but [indiscernible] i thank the honorable member for intervention and i would like to read out what donald trump said when asked meg byan stiles on fox news. she explained why he called some women dogs and exam in disgusting animals and donald trump replied, what i say is what i say. is this the kind of man we want in our country? the other question i wanted to ask is that i thoroughly anticipate the rebuttal that we cannot exclude people because they merely offend us or because do not like them.

as politicians, we have to make very difficult decisions. one of the decisions we have to make is when freedom of speech ,ctually insults public safety we are worried about the safety of our constituents and the evidence i want to is a sense of hate and extremism. anti-muslim hate crimes have increased in line with the rhetoric that donald trump has been using in the last two 2015. of the honorable member from the west pointed out about the incident of the hispanic man was beaten up by two brothers south boston. when they beat this homeless man up, they broke his nose and urinated on him and the bishop said he justified it by saying donald trump right, we should get rid of all of these illegals. might it is that hate crime is being inflamed by the words

donald trump is using. >> it's very interesting the provider you seem to be making. all ofletting the responsibility at the door of donald trump? do you believe some of it may have contributed to accept terrorism? i thank the honorable member for his intervention. atould not lay all the blame the door of donald trump. there is a very real correlation between the wars that donald trump is using and the increase in hate crime which is the point i'm trying to make. a lot of his words mean there is real crime and real violence and that's where i draw the line at frame of speech. i will give way. i don't mean to undermine your debate.

regulations does not shut down debate. some of these comments are made by totally irresponsible people. >> i thank you for your intervention. i don't have much time left so i will wrap up by saying i draw the line on freedom of speech when it in its violent ideology which is what i feel is happening. the legislation in place is to protect the public and protect the public and from individuals such as this. if legislation is been practice before and other people have. from coming into the country, the same rules need to apply to donald trump which is why i feel he should be not given a visa to come visit the multicultural country is a proud of. -- we are so proud of. she said she was going to

trash donald trump. i'm not sure he is terribly worried about this debate. i do respect the honorable member, my friend, for newport west which he introduced this debate. may i say that it's no surprise i just propose this and give donald trump publicity. it's the only item in the u.s. press. they are not talking about anything, they are talking about this. right feed his machine? -- why feed his machine? it offends of free speech. in a free country, you have the right and people. to'sroduced an amendment five making the point clear. it happens in this house all the

time. the united states is a friendly country, twice in two wars they have come to our rescue. this man may conceivably become positive on our most important ally. you cannot translate american policies to you capable cities which is completely different. there was in a debate earlier this year and the labor spokesman described me as an extreme right-winger, got from it. .- god forbid it happens, i am strongly in favor of gun control anti-voted consistently against a bombing syria and a been a -- an invading iraq. i'm opposed to capital investment. would i survive in the republican party? i'm accused of being a right-winger so our politics are

different so it's a mistake to to translate it. of good bit ofre fun but if the government would play into mr. tron's hands, his entire style of politics is to stoke controversy and say outrageous things lavishing with is only falling into the trap he has set for us. his continuing popularity is evidence of this and he is popular with many voters. we may not like it but he is. we must be wary of lowering ourselves to the demagoguery in fighting demagogues. viewed from afar from our side, this looks divisive in the united states. like this help? we oppose mr. trumpet demonizing his comments, most of us oppose

him by demonizing his opponents. if we ban him from the country, are we not in danger of doing the same? like it or not, he is quite a contender for head of state for the most powerful country on the planet who is a vital ally. we have welcome saudi and chinese leaders not to mention ur. chow chow skew --cicesc whose crimes are worse than donald trump. they practice violence on extreme scale that we welcome them to our country. i am a firm leader in free speech. it is a cause i have combined with such unlikely bedfellows as the national secular society and the christian institute. if we only allow free speech but as we agree with, is it free speech? dialogue is a solution and not deeper division. let me end by saying this is also an attempt to shutdown and

honest debate about immigration. when you talk about immigration, you're labeled as a right-winger and that's not the to solve this problem. it was a fantastic article the minister wrote making the worthwhile and good point that our muslim friends have to learn from previous ways of successful immigrants, the jews in the 19 century and others would have chosen to integrate fully in our society. immigrants,e of the all intensely identified as british in all of whom arrived long before great britain's s.esent or immigration way

this list intimates a fundamental. although these figures immensely enhanced british life, they did not make their adopted nation cosmopolitan. theseadopted nation made cosmopolitans british and we should be proud of that. >> thank you very much. thank you for the opportunity to contribute so early. whenever i was considering my remarks for this debate, i thought i would be in conflict with the honorable member for newport west but i am pleased to say that's not the case. for both he and the honorable member, i want to make one bit about exclusion. when i log on as a northern ireland member, northern ireland is not exist.

issue of an exclusion i hope that's one that can be addressed. i am also quite concerned and apprehensive that the right honorable member for chelmsford is in the member today as the chief thing for hillary. i wonder if there will be an intervention. i never thought i would say it but i agree i did late -- but i agree wholeheartedly with that right-winger. i have to sayd that in this debate, it's important we consider the doubles of democracy, the principles of pro-debate and the fact that when you have a strong and good principled position, leases stand -- we should stand robustly by it.

members present today will know of lynton crosby, the political advisor and analyst and he talks it ifthe table clearing you are losing the argument or it, itting prepared for on the table and people notice. they will stop you will change the political discourse and that's exactly what donald trump is doing. it's not just a one off initiative, it's something that marks his campaign entirely. he throws a dead cat on the ande and people stop listen to him and take him seriously. there will be those today in the who will support the exclusion of donald trump.

some of those contributions argument, i get an want to see donald trump come to this country and either be crippled by members of thosement or grilled by great interrogators we have within the public discourse in this country. i want them to challenge him. i want him to get a sense of the fury and frustration with his remarks. let him leave this country with better principles than what he has politically shown so far the we should be out of our values as a country and out of the values we would like to see throughout the world. so confront him. to what he has outline may get you headlines and give you the legal discourse in the united states or across the world but it's bad policy and it would change the nature and image of and reputation of

the united states irrevocably from its founding fathers and the individuals are both up so much over the last three centuries. turning to the debate we have had, i think it's important, sir roger, that we have the leader of the opposition who was indicating it will be up. to daesh. back channels for what? reasonably negotiate with someone who will consider that negotiation in the context of orther they murder your wife cut off their hands? that's the same leader of the opposition that is a chancellor with them is parliament who ines succor to terrorists this country over the last 30 ,ears and supported the ira murdering our countrymen.

put it into context, we have been asked to believe the humble member is that it would be appropriate to ban somebody who has erred in ideology. but has not voted terrorism, has not promoted extremism to the extent that we lose life and destroy communities. do you think this should be applied equally to everyone? >> what i am doing is sailing clear blue water between the support given by her on a relator in years gone by in this country for terrorists we have destroyed and have been killed result --dy who is a a ridiculous xenophobe. that's the point i wish to make. for those quite believe will take a hypocritical stance, those north of the border but

still very much part of our united kingdom, those who applauded donald trump, those invited him to their country, up him as an ambassador and regaled him with all the civic support and adoration they could because of brass tacks, -- it's the same. >> thank you. if somebody had a crystal ball and we could predict that this individual could conceivably down an entire religion -- >> i'm very grateful for the intervention. if i ever criticize someone or some party or something in this chamber, i will always give a right to respond. you don't need a crystal ball. it has been apparent already the

ridiculous involvement donald trump had in the bursar scandal around the barack obama lineage scandal was he a christian or a muslim? that was not my months ago. that was 2008 and you don't need a crystal ball. when his wife divorced him, she said her much loved former would lie in bed and read the work of adolf hitler. you don't need a crystal ball to recognize that the person you're dealing with may be successful businessman but is also a buffoon and has the dangerous capability, the dangerous capability of saying the most obscene or insensitive things to attract attention. none of that should be news but i don't think we will avoid the hypocrisy.

i have been given additional minutes and i am grateful for the time. as a party in an individual, i could not support the exclusion of donald trump from this country. bring him here. let us have the opportunity to challenge him and let him go home with his tail between his legs and recognize that the sensible he espouses no longer reflect this country, the united states of america, or the aspirations we should all seek to promote internationally. >> i find myself standing here for the first time ever agreeing hardly worth the honorable member of newport west. i am more surprised to hear the general member quoting warmly the words of president/. bush. it was his father, not his son.

today is also one of the moments this year when we will mark the anniversary, five years of tall is more who was tried and executed not so far from this place. he wrote the book utopia in which he envisioned a new future and new ideals. he wrote it expressing in his heart the liberties of thought and faith of what he called and would then express across the globe. yet today, a report has come out that the liberties he hoped for, the liberties he desired, are actually in trouble. spikeine journal called has gone around universities and found the freedom of speech being challenged. colleges spaces in our also could be known as spaces of censorship now cover 39

universities. this is not just a threat to freedom in those universities. debate covered by many of our friends and -- fourth estate and it's worth remembering that they are part of the democratic process and that we stand here speak in the chamber may sometimes not like it. their role in holding us to account is equally as important as ours and speaking the truth. so it is with that cry of freedom and the cry of liberty that i speak in favor of considering or in favor of rejecting this motion. liberty is not something we can take an action or in part. it comes as one and it comes as a whole. as the first amendment of the u.s. constitution makes clear, the freedom of expression is

essential for free people. andough i may not like it although i can be actually sure that i would not support him, it is no place for me or this house to criticize a man running for elected office in a foreign country. we may not wish them here and we may not like him here but we should not vote against him toaking or spite his right travel when we, too, value the same rights of liberty. are you looking to intervene? clear,nt to be criticizing would pay curtailment of freedom of speech. you are saying we do not have the right to criticize? but i are quite right don't think we have the right to prevent somebody who is campaigning for elected office

in foreign countries. i believe it is for the american people to judge him. i believe it is for the american people told him to account. policy argue it is bad and bad judgment to intervene in the electoral process of a foreign country and i would wish to do it as little as possible. i will give way. mea culpa from the labour , woulds of muslim origin you comment on donald trump not traveling to the u.k.? states makes wonderful permission for the balance of powers. the president of the united states is not a sovereign and a despot but is balanced by the congress and by the courts. it's a failure to understand why

the united states despite having one or two incumbents for the white house may not have been meant for candidates. the country has yet succeeded all the way through to today as a bastion of liberty and economic success. as we consider this, marx martin luther king day in it's worth remembering that he, relied on these rights of freedom. he, too, relied on these rights when he was campaigning to desegregate the university of those studentsn bravely marched in on the 11th of june, 1963, the prevailing opinion was that they should shut up. the prevailing opinion was that their right to freedom of speech should be curtailed. while i think this man is crazy and i think this man has no valid points to make, i will not be the one to silence his voice. when i think now about what more we should do, i say we should

stand aside and we should wait for an american to come forward as the great joe welch did in the united states army and he looked at senator mccarthy in the 1954 trials and he said have you no shame, sir? at long last, have you left no sense of decency? if somebody will say that to donald trump, surely, that is better than for us to legislate freedom of expression and freedom of travel. >> i will start by quoting martin luther king because i think martin luther king deserves more recognition today ben does donald trump. our lives begin to end of the day we become silent about things that matter. there, i do welcome this

decision. i am very grateful for the petitioners wanted us to raise our voice and have this debate. there are two things i would like to share with you if i had lunch earlier with a very interesting lunch with a number of people including the undersecretary of state for public affairs. we agreed that donald trump is no more than a demagogue. fearsonders to people's as opposed to their strength and i should know because constituents help me get rid of another demagogue. it's not the first time i've dealt with a demagogue. the two things i would like to point out me, whilst i value this debate and whilst i accept immodest is a very

subject and i understand and respect the views of my colleagues say we should plan this person, i agree. sayver, what i would also is that i come as a member of would give an open invitation for donald trump to visit my constituency. the reason is i would take until synagogue and a church and a mosque. i would invite him for curry . i would welcome him and have a conversation with him and challenge him on his views. -- i wouldure him show him that i would invite him to feed the homeless and muslim charities. i would invite him to meet with with the human or, muslim volunteers and those people that work together on the

issues which affect us as a asntry which affect all people regardless of our race, regardless of our gender, or ethnicity and our religion. that's what i would show to him. i give way. >> i am very grateful. agreed but wanted to invite him to a constituency. >> i respect the views of my colleagues. i do not agree to total ban. i would invite him. there you go. me aboutan issue for challenging that narrative. i think it's important and then aim of democracy to challenge that narrative and challenge that hatred speech that comes out of his mouth. i stand here as a muslim woman, as a proud british muslim woman.

donald trump would like me banned from america. i would not get my visa. islam, inhat, in my the car on that i understand, what it teaches me, what i get from micah ron is that goodness is better than evil. if someone does bad, you do good in return. i would not allow the red brick -- rhetoric of badness into my life come into my heart. what i will do is challenge that with goodness. to hate.ads that's not something i would tolerate. on the final point, given that it is martin luther king day, i everyone with this. i have decided to stick with

love. hate is too great a burden to bear. >> or roger, i'm the only number of parliament who can claim to represent the good people of new york. this time he -- tiny hamlet lent cityame's to the greatest on the planet. the good people of new york, the , all 150 or sork of them. >> ted cruz has launched a vicious attack on the people of new york, saying that they are

cosmopolitan. i hope that she will stand up for the people of new york. [laughter] i've looked at the map, not a single person from lincolnshire has signed this petition. [laughter] >> you are again reaching my point before i am. promise to talk about new york values by the end of my speech. turning as i must to trump, his comments are wrong. his policy to close borders if he is elected bonkers is -- president is bonkers. if they go to one of the excellent pubs in my constituency they may tell him what he is for dealing with the issue in this way. i sense that my constituents feel that their values are more than robust enough to survive anything that mr. trump may say.

that we in lincolnshire, we in the united kingdom should have enough confidence in our values to allow him to say whatever he york, newew york, new york, lincolnshire, or anywhere else in the world. because our british values are stronger than some amongst us here today appear to fear. >> is all very well to say that we feel strong and understand, we will stand up to it. are not muslims living in a country where there is already a rise in his mama phobia and comments like that from someone who has such influence over so many people with so much media explosion over it can only hand people who are feeling vulnerable and not feeling a strong as the constituents are claiming. >> i can only give the honorable

member the reassurance that as someone who used to prosecute criminals for living before i came to this place, any defendant who tried that in court would get short shrift from me and i'm sure, the jury. the point is that we mustn't allow people who behave in that disgraceful way, we mustn't allow such criminals, people who beat up others on the basis of the religious police, we mustn't allow them to somehow remove themselves by blaming someone on a different continent. if they beat up a muslim on the streets of britain, that's their responsibility and no one else's . now, one of the values that i think asked sums up our country of thecourse, the phrase exchange of thoughts and ideas within the law. the freedom to persuade or rebut. the freedom to inspire or if this rate in argument. the freedom to speak and the freedom to listen. now, this freedom is not always

comfortable. indeed, my friends have already referred to the rising problem, it seems, of some of our universities fearing to allow free speech, providing safe bases for fear the people maybe offended. but the freedom of speech must mean that sometimes we are going to be offended. it means allowing those whose views we hold to be edifying for speaking their minds. crucially it also means the freedom to reply. to say no, donald trump, you are wrong and wrong for the following reasons. that freedom was hard-won over centuries and must be defended jealously because it goes to the very essence of democracy and the rule of law. rely on thesite may specific. one already has.

let us remind ourselves about the threshold that must be met for this to happen. secretary must conclude that the person's presence in the united kingdom is not conducive to the public good. the house of commons library helpfully provided a briefing for this in which there are 14 examples of people excluded by labor home secretaries in may of 2009. of those 14 examples, 10 were considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to cement, justify, or glorify terrorist violence. nine were considered to be engaging in unacceptable provoke in order to others to commit terrorist acts or serious crimes. five were considered to be posturing hatred, which might lead him community violence in the u.k..

one spent 30 years in prison for killing four soldiers and a four-year-old girl. i ask a simple question of those who would ban donald trump -- are you really saying that his conduct, no matter how offensive, that his conduct meets this same criteria? thank you, i will move on. , thend it is a big if answer is not the fuel publicity by banning him, which incidentally this debate is already doing nicely. the answer is to rebut his argument. the answer is to challenge him in a robust, democratic argument about why he is wrong about the contribution of america and of british muslims to this country.

>> has the honorable member considered the 84 hate preachers that were banned in total? the honorable member would see that there is a striking resemblance between what donald trump is saying and two of the bloggers that were banned for years ago. i secretary. offorgive me, the house commons already has my briefing note edit is a useful document. those are the examples. i have used all of the examples given. as i say, they are in a very different category from the category that donald trump has said, which he has done on this issue and many others. but if i may on the point that sir edward, my honorable friend and neighbor raised, ted cruz in the recent republican debate accusing donald trump of having new york values. well, i can assure both of them

that they would be enriched by the values of my constituents in new york and beyond, who are hard-working, generous, and welcoming, and who might be rather bemused that we are feeling this -- fueling this man's a list of the machine by having this debate at all today. >> thank you, it is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. donald trump's comments to ban muslim men, women, and children if he were to be elected as president were almost universally condemned as racist and offensive and i absolutely welcome the condemnation given by all sides of the house and both sides of this debate and that members of the public have decided that this issue is serious and merits parliamentary scrutiny related to the debate we are having today. condemn auent remarks

whole religion for the actions of a terrorist death cult. mr. trump also condemns and speaks in the rogge poured terms, i should say, about women, people of disabilities, mexicans. the list is exhaust -- not exhaustive because it is never-ending. his comments are dangerous and his views must be tackled seriously. -- ld trump's words confirm >> thank you. >> does the honorable lady not think that mr. trump might well be making these comments not only because he thinks them but because he wants to get lots of publicity to help his election campaign? >> thank you to the honorable member for his intervention. i don't think it's for us to try to get into the mind of donald trump. i think it would be important as members to understand what it is like to be a muslim living in

this country when facing comments made by evil like mr. trump and what seemed to be his general concerns about the whole of us the practice muslim faith. it's an uncomfortable place to be in. mr. trump condemns my family. in a similar vein he condemns the political editor of sky news and some of our greatest olympians. he condemns the leaders of are currently working together to overcome it in a rock in syria. because, mr. chairman, we are all muslims. for him that is the one and only common denominator. rather than combating the serious issues of international -- hassm, he is bolstered the twisted narrative

brought from others. he has fueled racial tensions while the world undermining the national , and peter the u.s. cook, who said at that time, that anything that bolsters the narrative and pits the united states against muslim states is not only contrary to their values, but contrary to national security. he also referenced their own security. her job quite correctly is to protect public safety and promote security. she has already explicitly included hate speech and in her judgment, my view is that donald trump should be number 85. using the powers vested in her she has included criminals, far

right extremists, homophobic extremists, and these rules should be applied consistently and equally to all. if they exist they exist for that very reason and we have a responsibility to ensure that whoever comes in and out of our country is treated in the same way. that they have removed him from status as a global ambassador. perhaps it is important for me to confirm that his global ambassador spot state was conferred upon him by former later -- former labor administrators, let that myth be dispelled here and now. i don't think that any genuine person could possibly have envisioned that this man would make such horrendous comments. the u.k. government needs to demonstrate commitment by

applying their own rules consistently in this case. understand the arguments being made by some that we should invite him here and so he can see for himself how to build bridges rather than setting up barriers. this is a man who seeks to be president of the united states of america. of course. actuallynot suggest that this is about buffoonery and ultimately buffoonery should not be met with a blunt instrument like a band but with a classic british response of ridicule? [laughter] for hisnk the member intervention and it is for them the gift of the british state about which he speaks. i accept that you have referred to this but i have to say that

his remarks are condemning an faith that ion of practice and it maybe difficult for people to understand how that affects us, but it does, he's talking about me, my family, my children. that is what he is talking about. it's worthy of note, however, that his policy would make it possible for me and other muslims in america to travel to make the same case there that we are making here. this parliament can be extremely proud of its improving wreck -- in representing constituent interests. but mr. trump has banned the new entering the u.s. state and allowing us to make our case there. i have heard others say that it would only add to his notoriety consistently in those cases. raising his profile, but anyone

who has followed the race for republican nomination for president will know that lack of profile is not an issue for mr. trump. the american people have an important decision to make this year. about who they want to leave their country. it is their decision to make. mr.chairman, last week trump added insult to injury by saying that he would stop his investment into scottish golf courses if he is subject to the same type of travel restrictions he advocates for others. contrary to what others say, he's bad for business. costing the local economy dearly , he actively undermines investment in the north sea and it may have serious repercussions in scotland and its development as a world leader. provided succor to terrorists and provided hatred on both sides of the atlantic.

of course he has a right to be wrong, but his statements are dangerous and threaten our public safety and national security. we cannot have laws apply differently depending on people's income, public profile, or color. what does that say about us? our rules and laws must be applied consistently for all. applyme secretary must her own judgment consistently, which is what i am calling on her to do and i look forward to hearing from the minister. anything else would be on principle quite simply wrong. >> i am also a member of the petitions committee and i am delighted that we brought this debate to the house today.

committeee we as a held a particular view, but we felt that with the number of people that signed the petition it was right to air these very important issues. i am sure that like the hundreds of thousands who signed this petition and no doubt millions of others across the country, i condemn wholeheartedly the comments made by mr. trump. not only about muslims, but by -- about women, people with disabilities, and about other minority groups. however, the question as to whether or not he should be banned from this country is a very interesting and very and one thatstion we need to address and consider head on. this country has a long and strong tradition of free speech. although sadly, i believe that that principle has been eroded and some of those freedoms have been eroded in recent times, i still believe that we are a

country that welcomes debate and embraces a variety of views within the country. if we were to go down the road of banning him because refined his views objectionable or even offensive, where would we draw the line? many people have equally intolerant views. those who come to this country, some who live in this country already. are we to ban them because we don't like the things that they say when we disagree with them? issue at stake here is how our society handles people who have different views from us even when we find those views strongly objectionable or offensive. .he issue of free speech and i believe it is about when someone crosses a line to incite others to acts of violence, to criminal acts. that is the line that i believe is to be drawn.

i don't personally believe that donald trump has crossed that line. he may do at another time and then maybe we would need to reconsider our views, but as of yet i don't believe he's done that. it's perfectly right that the home secretary bands extremist preachers when they tell their followers to commit acts of , to cause harm, to cause pain and ultimately kill other individuals. that's absolutely right that the home secretary does that, but i don't believe that mr. trump has done that. if as a country we started to ban people because they said things we didn't like, i wonder how long the list would the? as ignorant and unpleasant as his comments are, he's not alone. for starters, we have to ban the current prime minister of hungry because he has said equally offensive things about muslims.

mr. chairman, the way that we deal with the good tree in prejudice is by confronting it had on, not by trying to avoid it. banning someone like donald trump would risk making him a martyr. i believe it would only fuel his causal even further and in his own mind he would see himself as a martyr and i believe that his supporters would believe the same. what would it achieve? we live in a global village now. we are not going to stop his views from reaching our shores. because we ban him. i would argue the opposite. the promotion of the ban would mean that his words and views are heard louder and stronger than they currently are. banning him would only play into his hands. so, instead of banning him, i'm with those who say -- invite him. bring him here, confront those views had on. take him and show him what a great nation we are based on

those values of tolerance and freedom of speech. let's take him to the places he is spoken about and show him what life in britain is really like. i will like to make, mr. chairman, is that i at theen surprised amount of support that mr. trump has received from his own republican party. because it was ronald reagan who actually, certainly in my lifetime, was in my view the greatest republican president that the united states has had. far from proposing building walls he was all about tearing down walls. it was he who said to president gorge -- president gorbachev of russia -- if you seek globalization, come here, mr. gober chaffed. open the gate and tear down the wall. that he issed getting the amount of support

that he is because it seems to heritage against the and the values that i understand the republican party to have. >> the fact is that in america and britain there is widespread disillusionment with the mainstream establishment politicians who don't seem to give an honest answer to people over the concerns of immigration and many issues. there's no point just badmouthing these guys, we have to take on these arguments and discuss them in an open way. >> thank you, i agree, absolutely. the response that we are seeing is far more about people's frustrations and concerns than it is, i believe, about an individual man. in conclusion i believe it would be ironic if we were to take the regressive stance of banning donald trump because he has called for a ban on muslims into the united states. i find that entirely ironic.

we would shortly be guilty of the same thing that we are criticizing him for. it would send a signal to the world that we are scared. >> members on the site are calling for him to be banned because of something very dangerous that he said. he is calling for muslims to be registered and tracked for no reason. is a huge difference. >> i respect the view of the gentle member and personally a take of different view, banning him would play into the same fears that he is promoting. it has often been said that two wrongs don't make a right. well, i want to say the two bands don't make a right. >> is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. the land of the free, america, one of our oldest allies.

donald trump is a fool, he is free to be a fool, but he's not free to be a dangerous fool on our shores. some of the foolish things that he has said? the concept of global warning was created by and for the chinese to make u.s. manufacturing noncompetitive. it's freezing and snowing in new york, we need global warming. john mccain is a war hero because he was captured? who were not captured, i hate to tell you. he then went on to the offensive thing that he would build a great wall with relation to mexico and that no one builds walls better than him. and then he went on to say he would build them very inexpensively and that he would have mexico pay for the wall. >> the honorable member makes an excellent case as to why he's a

buffoon, not a criminal. >> those remarks are daft and offensive. i would defend people's right to be daft and offensive. i was chairman of the national council for civil liberties and i fought to defend freedom of speech throughout my life. but freedom of speech is not an absolute. an absolutehere right for donald trump or anyone else to come to our shores. successive governments have acted to exclude the preachers of hate whose presence would not be conducive to the public good. preachers of hate, the effective whose actions and words would be to incite violence have no right to come to britain. if i could give some examples of the kind of people who have been banned. michael savage, a u.s. radio host.

it was said about him that he was considered to be engaging and unacceptable behavior, fostering hatred, claiming that american muslims needed deportation. banned from coming to our country. found to begain guilty of unacceptable behavior, he had made a series of anti-somatic remarks, banned from coming to our country. robert spencer, pandora -- geller, founders of the american freedom defense initiative, banned in 2013 by the current secretary of state for the home office when they were due to speak at an edl rally held on the location of leave rigby's murder as their arrival would not be deemed to be conducive to the public good. one other example, an ejection television preacher who was in the words of the home office considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by glorifying terrorist violence,

he had called for violence against jews. first of all, what have donald trump actually said? legendarily about the total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states, but he then went on to say as follows -- that 50% of our country is -- of the people the country agree that muslims in america should have the choice of being governed according to sharia, which he said authorizes such atrocities as murder against nonbelievers who want to burn to the headings and more unthinkable acts that cause great harm to americans, especially women. little wonder that after those remarks there was a recorded rise in attacks against muslims in america. why do i argue for the exclusion of donald trump? turn you to the context of this debate, there is a uniquely