amendment which in a oral argument justice scalia had dismissed as the darling of the prof sor yacht as an -- >> i don't think he meant that as a compliment. [laughter] >> he did not mean it as a compliment. [laughter] and at the journal we have people on both sides that question. >> uh-huh. >> so what's your view about whether -- and as you know, the relevance of this is that there are many, there are some libertarians -- >> right. >> -- who want to revive the privileges and immunities clause as a way to, which has basically been considered by many scholars a dead letter since the slaughterhouse cases of 1873, i think, but they want to revive it as a way to protect individual liberty under the constitution. where do you come down on this? >> so the case in question concerned in corporation of the original second amendment against the states, and with many of the constitutional amendments in the bill of rights, of course, the supreme court over time under the guise

of the 14th amendment had decide canned, okay, yes, the first amendment, protection for free freedom of speech, applies not just against the federal government, but against the state government. analytically in the end it doesn't matter which home it has, but the court over time had uncorporated all of these rights -- can incorporated all of these rights. the second amendment that had not happened yet until the mcdonald case, and the question really was are we going to treat these amendments like the other amendments in the bill of rights that have been incorporated against the state governments, and the court concluded, yes, we are, because there's no reason really to distinguish the second amendment from the other amendments on that basis. ..

what do you call the privileges and immunities or due process is a test the a test the court will recognize unenumerated right deeply rooted in the nations history and tradition. now, how do you apply that to particular right? about level of generality due to find the right to figure out whether something is rooted in

history has been the battleground in the unenumerated rights cases. i don't think whether it's two processor privileges and immunities are some new font for courts to go around authority, for courts to go around and create a bunch of new rights that we think ourselves are important. we need to stick to what the supreme court has articulated essay tests were enumerated right deeply rooted in history and tradition. otherwise, courts really will become politicians or political policymaking bodies. this is important to me. i will find it in the 14th amendment. judge ulrich of coors rails against that kind of judicial creation of unenumerated rights willy-nilly and that is something the supreme court itself has largely it. certainly the test deeply rooted

in history and tradition is a test that race back soaring vision emir of judicial role in a merit judicial role is appropriate in that kind. >> but there has been criticism for finding the right, the gun right for individuals in the second amendment after 200 years of the court not having discovered that right in heller, jrp welcome then have suggested that was in fact an example of a today's conservative judging and finding exactly the sort of enumerated right that conservatives like and that is not what they might have done. >> well, the differences between unenumerated rights and enumerated rights.

the right to possess arms or my keep and bear arms is right they are. >> at the liberal justices in heller said -- actually says those rights are foreign militia. >> way. that required analysis of the text and the preparatory class and that is one of justice scalia's landmark opinions. they are of course the careful analysis of the text and history of the precise word of the second amendment. but it's interesting on that point about justice scalia is all nine justices today have a textual analysis. to your point about his methodology having a lasting impact. that's what they all did it they disagreed about how to interpret the preparatory cross. but no one said you cares what the words say. they all went deep into the words and that really was a

legacy of justice scalia. you could see it right there in all nine justices. he disagreed very much without they interpreted those words, but he would've applauded the methodology of them looking at the words. >> going forward, i was struck in the album which followed heather on chad heller into the state that they didn't give any ground. they were held very firmware is a menace that look, since heller is established precedent into the main bill of rights to the states. we should go along here and maybe they could've influenced the majority opinion in a way to say here is the possibility for marketing regulation. they said very firmly against incorporation and suggesting me that maybe heller is in some

peril if the justices change on the quarter. wonder if you agree with that. >> i don't notice the short answer in terms of supreme court that case, the donald and let the center's state of the tough thing for decide on some end they disagreed with, but the majority went the other way to reconcile yourself to the majority opinion. and punishes you say the court has so held in the forward accordingly on some issues in the sister of every justice in modern time is that on the court. you just can't get thereafter. you continue to descend into say the decision is wrong and should be overruled. i will point out a second amendment case a couple weeks ago. stun guns and a two-page opinion injustices applied to a particular massachusetts and

that is a huge significance but it was an interesting data point in a discussion about second amendment going forward. one of the area is difficult the second amendment is just as an individual right, but to what extent are regulations of arms, of guns permissible under heller. section two is all about why there is an individual right in section three is what exceptions to that right will be allowed in justice scalia's majority opinion. the estate history tradition-based test in place to allow certain kinds of neural regulation that guns would be permissible. the question in many lowercase courses that once the appropriate test to apply, what kinds of other regulations are permissible and that has been a real battle plan in the lower court decision since heller. i thought justice scalia pretty

much said history and tradition-based approach to figuring out an exception. i've been a lonely voice i will say in reading heller that way. >> are you surprised the court hasn't taken any more second amendment cases because some had moved to the court in the habit take them. this is the individual jurisdictions that pass gun regulations. >> i don't know. they deny what the strategic behavior might be for just the approach and the difficult things to analyze when the court decided to let something percolate to use the language often used in to see more lower court decisions before jumping back into a controversial area. it's obvious the court doesn't quite continually jumping to

controversial areas. some control to at least manage how authentic it in the something they know so nationally and locally divisive and divisive on the court. they are careful about doing that too often. >> another area involving the bill of rights. free speech. your opinion on emily's list versus the federal election commission struck down federal limit on the amount of money that nonprofits can spend on campaign speech. this would suggest to me that you have some sympathy for the supreme court jurisprudence on campaign spending and speech such as citizens united. is that a fair inference? >> our job in the animal escaped that that was to apply the supreme court precedent as existed.

do i agree with the whole edifice that was started in 1976? i don't know where it even began to analyze the question. i think the court itself and certainly my job on emily's list was to figure out where the jurisprudence led on a question like that. the question seemed to me the court's jurisprudence led to the idea which are court subsequently confirmed in the case that outside groups have an ability to express their views about issues of the day in and support an opposition to candidates and to express your views you have to raise money to do that and that is what our court held unanimously in the wake of citizens united good annoyance list was before citizens united so i was analyzing the case of to reach that conclusion but i thought that is where the court's jurisprudence led us. i will say one thing about the campaign finance jurisprudence.

there is clearly a structure set up as a result of the jurisprudence for the political parties and candidates can't raise large sums of money and outside groups can. the candidates sparred about. they have more to raise and outside in this is not as 2003. not a surprise that outside groups therefore have a much more prominent role in our political system today than they did when parties could raise a lot of money. you can say it's good or bad that the parties have less power vis-à-vis the outside groups, but that's the reality i think the reality directly attributable to the supreme court's jurisprudence which has maintained the limit on contributions to parties, but

has not allowed limit on contributions to outside entities. i guess different groups of justices would resolve that disparity in different ways. some would eliminate the caps-on contributions to parties. the court summarily affirmed the jurisprudence 6-primus justice kennedy, justice scalia and justice thomas in just a short order of the decision not to take it up. should we now allow the parties to raise the money again and overruled the part of mcconnell. as of now, the jurisprudence seems stable for the moment. stable in the sense of outside groups to raise unlimited amounts and parties and. >> did you agree with the trend of the supreme court jurisprudence that money spent during campaign does represent speech and therefore deserves

first amendment protection for at least her scrutiny of any of them in on that spending. >> absolutely. that's what the supreme court has said in the emily's list opinion. political speeches at the the core of the first amendment and to make your voice heard, and you need to raise money to be able to communicate to others in any kind of effect is way. and so i think that lies at the core of the first amendment. >> i want to open it up to the audience. if anyone has any questions for judge kavanaugh, i would love to hear from you. thank you. yes, ma'am. to have a microphone? we do come in a period >> thanks for all of your presentation.

i think the judicial system and judge ginsburg -- [inaudible] [inaudible] iv on that

[inaudible] >> you raise a good question that access to courts and this is one of the things i'm not the jurisprudential site but the administration said of the court system, federal and state. we are all to do a better job, which is making access to courts affordable and making a consumer friendly and there are 50 state systems and a whole federal system. we work hard to ensure access to fair, expeditious resolution cases. i don't think we achieved that objective as well as they can and should but we are striving to do better and so were many state court systems. >> gentleman in the rear. >> thank you.

judge, what is your opinion as to when the supreme court justices with decisive -- it seems to me that liberal judges have no qualms about doing so, but that may be just my bias on this. is there a criterion which one could use as to when the core should overturn a decision which at least the majority feels is incorrectly decided. >> i think justices of all stripes agree it is important, but not an addict stripper bowl command. it is not inflexible. it's not absolute. if you were, you would have some horrible decisions still on the books. plessy versus ferguson overruled in brown v. board and many others. so the court, it is appropriate

that the court overruled precedent in certain circumstances. it's also appropriate in my view of the court has said many times they be the starting point. you can't reinvent the wheel necessarily every time you confront an issue. the hard question is when is it appropriate and when is it not? i would love to have a perfect answer, setting the rules of the road in advance, which is a general thing i think about and everything related to jurisprudence. i think it's really hard to have a set formula for overruling that's going to work in all cases. when it's really wrong and has really significant practical effects and there hasn't been reliant entrance of the conduit had with the property or contract decision, that seems to

be a descriptive of when the court will overrule something. it is not a formula that tells you in advance which a visit to find strike, when to do it and went to now? not really. that's when it happened. really wrong and really significant and not a case where their specific reliance interests. i would love to have a formula. to go to idealism versus realism, one of my goals which is probably unachievable that doesn't mean i shouldn't strive for it is that judges from a variety of philosophical and policy viewpoints could agree on jurisprudential methodology. we do in large numbers of cases, but there are some were obviously we don't. an issue. there is a formula, but it is not one that gives much predict ability or guidance to particular judges and so these

to the criticism you articulated. i think you could go to a different crowd across town and find the exact critique in reverse as everyone thinks the other people are doing it in a less principled way than they are doing it. that is one of the problems with the doctrine. >> can you think of the case that deserves to be overturned? >> yes. [laughter] >> would you volunteer one? >> no. >> pending confirmation hearing. >> yes thomas there. right here. >> thank you very much. that the independent counsel statute is. >> it's been effectively overruled but i would put the final nail in.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. two quick questions. melissa said some very nice words about the chief judge garland and about his nomination process it then you talk about heller and your certainty about whether heller could survive a challenge from an individual right to bear arms itself could potentially be overruled. only a 5-for decision. chief judge garland has a history of not encouraging. he had a history on the m. bond issue as well. so what is it in view a valid issue for republican senators to consider whether a man who may be perfectly suited temperament wise, very qualified but potentially overruled one of the most important achievements of the justice he will be replacing ironically. the second thing is i finished a five-year spin on capitol hill. one of the observations i have is that congress is further and

further losing ground to the executive. the committee i work for his current litigation with the executive over documents. when congress is in the battle with the executive, the agencies have gotten so powerful and the executive has recently run over congress that once they've essentially given up the power, it has nothing left. my question to you is do you think there's the roles to restore the bit at the ballot for every just going to see executive expansion for the rest of time. >> under second question, the courts resolve cases. we don't have a free brother and commission to go out and try and get things right in the balance between the branches. our job is i explained and historically starting with marbury v. madison, of the

recess appointments case. it is absolutely to dig in and make sure what congress is doing is consistent with the structure set up in the constitution. as far as a broader commission, i don't know. the power of the purse is the most powerful. i'm chief judge garland, i will reiterate an excellent judge and an excellent and peered in terms of judicial heat and how that should plan to the comp admission decisions end quote will the senate should play it during and how they should factor in judicial philosophy is really for the senate to consider the direction of the court. that has been a debate of course throughout our history, with the senate's proper role is in the confirmation process and how to do that. i leave that discussion of judicial philosophy and direction of the court to the

senate and the president in that process. i was talking about my experience with a friend and colleague, chief judge garland. >> we are running out of time out of time out of time but we have a gentleman right here. >> things. my question is on the spending power. i want to go back to that because it is a rallying cry for many constitutionalists. you answered with discussion so i'm wondering if there's an important difference between the two when the president engages in acts that are unlawful, knows that the law applies to him. it may not be enforced in a particular instant. he may get lucky. maybe the fed's resources are there, but he knows there's always the risk. whereas the spending power by definition says there's the whole class of law that no longer applies. not because it was appealed to the president, but because the

president -- >> is a question of can you do categorical prosecutorial discretion. that is one that has been done in some instances historically that people can point to. it's usually justified by resource allocation at dulles discomfort or widespread belief of some kind of law is past its prime so to speak. as an unanswered question. you look at the pardon power is a potential source, but also the constitution take care of the law be painfully executed. as i said, it's a great unanswered question. i think it is difficult to get an answer in the separation of powers for 10 years that i've been trying to get an answer and i feel like i'm further away now than i was when i started digging about getting into their i'm not at the question in particular is a very, very

challenging question of cause additional law. >> one more question. the moment right here. >> that afternoon, your honor. your honor. i'm dana shapiro at george mason university. i was just wondering when it comes to judicial deference to agency interpretation, our agencies created equal and then a different end for agencies involved in foreign policy and national security intelligence. and the federated authority of foreign policy. >> the answer is there is a qualitative difference in the deference, the congress tends to raise statute much more broadly and flexibly and the foreign policy. not always. when someone was standing, which there often isn't, i do think

our job is to hold fast the mind that congress has drawn. the curtiss wright case than that which was dated like i'm not the justice department in every case for the last 60 years the supreme court basically turned that aside in a couple paragraphs and you don't cite that from the old curtiss wright case any longer, which was a decent guess at an idea even broader deference to the executive branch. there is elsewhere. if congress says that the boundaries, some of my standing with the case or controversy. it is not our job to clean. it's not our job to be scared. it not our job to be cowed or the executives. think about the youngstown case. think about marbury versus madison. united states versus richard nixon. some of the most important landmark cases in supreme court history as where they stood firm

against the political branches, upheld the constitution and the rule of law, including cases involving the president and youngstown including national security cases be in the and went to this day is still very influential in lower courts in supreme court. >> i want to thank everybody for listening. i want to thank judge kavanaugh. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> state department official, should and will testify about

the iran nuclear agreement. i'll take questions from senate foreign relations committee members live today at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> next, debate and the global refugee crisis you google your u.k. from u.k. independence party peter and a former u.n. high commissioner for human rights.

the semi annual munk debate was held in toronto last week. >> russia's current bidders are not simply the political ruler of their nation. they are literally the country's owners. >> the arguments to be totally destroyed. >> i'm not prepared to sacrifice the ideology. >> and then you come back. you're shaken out. >> let's say the bleeding heart for somebody else. >> we don't know what to say, but she's got to say something. >> twenty-first century will belong to china because most centuries have belong to china. >> claiming barack obama for the state that the world is in right

now with like blaming a caribbean island for a hurricane. >> the lesson of north korea has been a third-rate dysfunctional country that manages to acquire a couple of crude nuclear devices, you remain a third world dysfunctional country with crude nuclear devices. >> are you saying never revoke citizenship? is a canadian view -- every canadian in this country. [applause] >> thank you. welcome to the debate on the global refugee crisis. i had the privilege of organizing the semi annual debate series. once again serving as your moderator. i want to begin tonight's proceedings by welcoming the north american white tv audience

tuning in to this debate right now across canada from coast to coast on the path. and across the continental united states on c-span. the first time the munk debate has been my threat the constant of north america and it's terrific to have the viewing audience joining us this evening. [applause] a warm hello also to our online audience. they are logging onto this debate right now on a website www.munk debates.com. it's great to have you as virtual participant a terrific to have the print media partner joining us also online. this online poll tonight. be sure to participate and be part of our online anorak of discussion. finally, hello to you. over 3000 people once again

filled with thomson hall on friday night to capacity for yet another debate. all of these associated in the thank you for your support for this simple idea this debate series of dedicated two. that is more and better public debate. bravo, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being part of teammates conversation. [applause] now, our ability, debate and come the debate out, year after year to bring the world sharpest minds in brightest thinkers here to the state at toronto's roy thomson hall would not be possible without the generosity, foresight, creativity of our host tonight. please join me in a warm appreciation of the orient foundation and its founders, peter and melanie munk. bravo, guys. [applause]

well, the moment we have been waiting for ticket are two our two teams of debaters out here centerstage. our resolution taken from the inscription, the statue of liberty. give us your tired, your poor, your huddled yearning to breathe free. please welcome our first speaker for the resolution. she is a former canadian supreme court justice chief prosecutor of the international criminal tribunals for yugoslavia and rwanda to and the united nations high commissioner for human rights among many other combatants. ladies and gentlemen, please vote and canada as louise arbour. [applause]

>> believes teammate is a historian from a cultural and art critic. this outgoing big thinker, simon schama. [applause] >> one great term of debaters deserves another. speaking against the resolution be resolved, give us your tired, poor, huddled masses to a renowned columnist, author and conservative human rights act to this. ladies and gentlemen, mark steyn. [applause] >> while debating the partner has a leader of the united kingdom independence party and a member of the european parliament here tonight for the united kingdom under his

leadership, one almost 4 million votes in the 2015 national election in the u.k. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome nigel farage. [applause] okay. before debates began, i need your help with some last-minute and ends. one, powered smartphones. for of you here, those watching online, the hash tag tonight munk debate. let's make this a number when trending topic in north america. you can also take part in our bowling polls for those of you watching online. we have a poll, w. w..munk debate.com/about. you can vote and participate via the web. our countdown clock, an invention be the that keeps us

on time, keeps us on schedule and keeps our debaters on their toes. when you see these clocks reach their final moment, count down to zero. join me and a round of applause then again at our debaters know that their time is a period we had henry kissinger. he didn't think his time is up yet he kept talking, that he was so brilliant. but i digress. i don't think any of our debaters will make the same mistakes. this is the part i enjoy most. we asked all of you come the 3000 of the assembled to vote on the resolution on your way and. you are asked if you support or oppose to give us your tired, your poor, huddled masses, yearning to be free. let's see if we've got those results to look at. 77% agree.

[applause] 23% disagree. not to give a sense of how much this debate is in play, depending what you hear during the debate, are you open to changing your vote? let's see that result. while common 7921. this debate is very much in play. either side can take it. let's now go to her opening statement. six minutes on the clock for each of our debaters. your six minutes begins now. >> thank you. thank you very much. good evening, ladies and gentlemen. the worst of motion in here to support were written by women, as the lazarus. his words are engraved on the famous duchy of representing a woman holding a torch and maybe less noticeably holding the tablets of law with a broken chain at her feet.

it should come as no surprise to you that says considerable appeal to me. don't let that fool you. this is not a sentimental call for do-gooders to unite nor a romantic projection of what the new world is going to be all about. understood in today's term it is a moving, poetic way of capturing the spirit of the refugee convention. the 1951 refugee convention was written essentially because and for europe and it remains the framework within which a world purporting to be governed by the rule of law must feel that the current refugee crisis in europe and must also not turning a blind eye to equally pressing crises elsewhere in south sudan, for his sins. this is part of the never again that the world screamed loud and clear after the holocaust and betrayed on so many occasions. today should not be one of

those. i want to look at this issue from a canadian and from an international is. the international free market is very clear. virtually all the countries concerned with the current flow of refugees fleeing war-torn countries in syria, iraq, and, libya are parties to the refugee convention and they are obligated to grant asylum to those fleeing political and other forms of persecution. the protection framework that is set in place by the convention provides that refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay in the country. the reverse with obvious to be a way to completely emasculate the right of asylum. the principle propose returning refugees to countries where they are risks. this obviously puts a disproportionate demand that countries that are more easily reachable than others such as in

the case of syria to neighboring countries of lebanon, jordan and turkey in which there is currently some 4.5 million syrian refugees as well as the countries that are at the external borders of europe. greece and italy and so on. so this leads to another fundamental principle which underpins the refugee convention that is a need for international cooperation and burden sharing and i am cautious here using the word burden. this brings me to canada. we often define ourselves by our geography. once again, on this issue are geography is relevant. the nature of our borders is such that we are virtually immune from a flow of asylum seekers arriving on our soil by land or sea although the result of the upcoming american elections may change that. we will cross that bridge when we get there. [applause] i believe that this puts a

special obligation to provide very generous resettlement program aiming both the welcoming refugees and the burden on states who are struggling to that but to their international obligations. i believe a true international cooperation in place amid this is eminently feasible and we should do it the smart way, by ensuring that this pilot teachers can travel safely to places of refuge, thereby undercutting the smugglers and by deploying extraordinary resources to make this extraordinary challenge. i am aware of this aware of the fear that an influx of foreigners will transform our social fabric in an undesirable way. the reality is our social fabric is changing anyway in this increasingly interconnected world. we have a choice. we could do to the past in stagnated in isolation or we can embrace the future in which our

children will develop their own culture. fully open to that of others in my big choices we are making today. the greatest threat to western values is not an influx of people who may not share them today. it's the hypocrisy of those claiming to protect these values and then repudiating them by their actions. i expect we will hear tonight that muslims are different, that they pose a unique commendable in existential threat to our democracy is. not only has this been the ugly was bonds 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 democracy is not by infiltrating or taking over institutions,

that by letting us lowly self implode in response to the fear that risks turning us against ourselves, thereby destroying the very key features of our open society. we need to be smarter than that and we need to welcome people who like all of us who came at some point from somewhere else will build an ever evolving free and strong canada. thank you very much. [applause] the mac and still on the clock. mark steyn, you are up next. your six minutes starts now. >> -- describes the refugee situation that is not what is that man in europe at moment. the great question tonight is

whether the huddled masses on those teeming shores are really yearning to breathe free or whether they simply economic migrants who want to avail themselves in the comforts of the society. there are 3000 people here and roy thomson hall and it would be nice if everyone in toronto could be in roy thomson hall. but if everyone goes into roy thomson hall, it isn't roy thomson hall anymore. that is the situation that is faced in europe today. the people who invented europe are not refugees as the term has tritionally been understood -- not in louise arbour x land in the geneva convention. in 2015 in europe, and then represented 77% of the asylum applications. that's an extraordinary population to formation. in most civil wars, this is the

demographic that would be back home fighting for their country. during the american revolution, general washington and the rest of the shots had gone off to friend and left the other women and children that can't defend for themselves. what does it mean to breathe free? under the taliban, it is illegal to feel some light on her face. it is literally a crime for her to breathe free. she can breathe only through a mask approved by the man who in effect owes her. so what happens when you put a man from that society in a scandinavian town. northern europe since the 19th century that of the nine social activity to germans and scandinavians is something entirely different from a culture where women chattels.

female patrons, that routinely assaulted in mid-january sweden's national arena was forced for the first time to segregate men and women in the hot tub. so good right to a century-old tradition. by grim rights trump your culture. our responses that come from a different culture. they don't know that you are not meant to women's. in germany they put up pictograms with the and hand and a red x through it. last month -- last month after it is saved in a training course on how to treat women with respect from a 15-year-old afghan drag a belgian refugee into the basement. we will fine-tune the course and trading with respect. we will get better pictograms, but in the meantime, migrant

rights trump women's rights. adam arber was the first rescued her ever to charge us a crime against humanity. in 2007 she published an important report on the use of rape in sudan as a weapon of war. it was distressing. she documented 15 individual cases of assault including rape and victims as young as 14. if the amount of wood publishes similar report today, she would be able to cite one in 500 cases for just one night and just one town on new year's eve. and big guns as young as three, three years old, a 3-year-old rape by a migrant. on wednesday, a schoolgirl was gaining rape on the train from

sweden to a man. my great rights not trump children's rights. the police chief of vienna has advised by meant that it no longer safe to go out unaccompanied. migrant rights trump the right to freedom of movement. it's easy to shrug a few disabled kid. so forget the panic to run the numbers. in europe, with unaccompanied minors, 90% are male, which means that in one year, swedish adolescents now have a more distorted sex differential than china does a the 30 years that its totalitarian bunch of policy. in china there are 119 boys for every girl. among swedish adolescents, just from the it is now 123 boys for every girl. that is a.

a of life and i hope tonight will put aside the sentimentalism that often attends the subject is sick with the facts. madam arbor said recently why are we always talking about the danger that these people will transform us? they may transfer much of the better. so she admired her that immigration on this scale is transformative. the only difference a sheet sets for the better and i don't and i'm genuinely curious to know what aspects to what aspects of the sudanese culture that she would like us to be transformed by it. women's rights, fast-track justice whereby they get thrown off rooftops. the bracing commitment to free speech. [applause] i would like an answer of that tonight. thank you very much.

[applause] >> i want to stop by saying canada, your borders are safe. i will tell you why because actually i was asked this morning at toronto airport. i said let's talk about refugees and migrants. i was immediately taken off of secondary screening. [laughter] is not only dangerous type about it. it's dangerous to be known to be talking about it. look, both lines written by emma lazarus. she was a wealthy woman in new york. she wrote the master of looking out for the domes of russian pogroms having suffered horrendous atrocities committed against.

i should make a distinction between economic migrants. either way, your number is wrong. not 77% enough for the united nations agencies and the pew is 61%. this is not interrupted moment. we will have rebuttal time after this. radio hosts don't usually like that, but that is the case. she did that because when you are fleeing from a place of cruelty and atrocity come to your house has been blown up. your whole possibility of livelihood has been taken away from you. your children have no medicine. but you're terrifyingly running away from catastrophe and the vast numbers of serious or displaced 4 million of them internally displaced those who are escaping the of libya and somalia and afghanistan are

fleeing exactly as the monsters of islamic fascism that mark accurately describes. they are secret co-conspirators. they are trying to get away from the culture. in those days, the reason why they were not immediately put on the statue of liberty, they really put their 1903 as a result of the effort of the french are gina schuyler was because that that time, there was ferocious agitation on the part of the restrictions laid and its british equivalent of the lake of british brothers, all of whom said the unwashed that filthy, those who do not share our language, religion, are about to destroy the white

race. madison would've called the suicide of the white race. tom watson, the populace described the millions of distress as the of creation. nonetheless, the united states is an honor to its tradition set out in 1782, admitted 5 million of those refugees between 1880 and 1890. in the argument will be made that in those days democracy was more confident. i agree with you absolutely about that. it was more articulate. with less offensive. it was more forthright. besides people coming from eastern europe or central europe did not air democracy. they didn't want to overthrow it. guess they did. those steamy melons on trade millions were followed and anarchists and communists dedicated to capitalism. liberal capitalism was strong

enough to let them in any way. as a result, the american republic and great britain derived and flourished in my own grandparents were among those who had written the thing. the more expansive view of what democracy could accommodate. we are talking about a drop in the ocean now. there are 1 billion of us in europe and canada and the united states. we're talking about 20,000. 100,000 refugees in the united states of whom only 25,000 will come from area. the issue is are they all kind of broadening monsters of mark stein's x-rated horror. at north, actually all phalluses

eiji hyades either. today pose a mortal threat? you bet your life they do. there's a real real worth that kind going on. what we do to actually breathe asked the poison of apocalyptic area? it is not to demonize muslims, but to engage with them. who are we engaging with? there are no muslims that want to sign appeared that is not true. after the attack in paris and brussels, 150 imams in new york made a statement at the points of the acts. there are even scholars, oxide homey d. if you don't know his work, look at a, who is absolutely dedicated to denouncing jihadist on as they are wrong. it can't possibly be true that

you can't have a pluralist muslim adoption of western norms. in britain, would lift her that for years and years before they became the monstrosity it is now. [applause] you turn on the radio in the morning and you hear the bbc. my news agent tells me when to look in his name is document. [applause] >> thank you. good evening, everybody. the global refugee crisis that are used the e.u. as a case study. we must start by asking ourselves what is a refugee.

i speak as a family of refugees. we were fresh protestants being burned at the stake for our political opinions, some in many at westminster would perhaps like to bring back today our jobs. i come from a country that there is no country in europe that lectures about looking after refugees. the birds do it better than anybody else. we've done it for jewish people. but what is a refugee? in 1951 convention that we just talked about earlier.a person wd fear ofersecution because of their race of opinions or orientation outside their own country and they are returning to it. i know it's tempting to support this notion. it sounds wonderful. give us your huddled masses and

in doing so, we can perhaps feel a sense of our own moral superiority. but just look at where that idea is that the e.u. in the course of the last year. the unelected european commission president to have to say after a good lunch is rather fun to be with. [laughter] again grows change the definition of what a refugee is to include people who come from war-torn area and given that the u.n. hcr are currently 59 million people displaced in the world, that is quite a big number. that is even broader. he said to me, quantified the european refugee if you come from extreme poverty. that would mean perhaps 3 billion people could possibly come to europe. all of this of course was massively compounded by chancellor merkel.

give us your week in your huddled masses. what i think is proved to be the worst foreign policy decision in europe since 1945. [applause] because her moral superiority was in my view based on still a level of war guilt that exists in germany. but you open up the doors and a million people came in last year. virtually none of them will qualify as refugees on and a classical definition. in fact, most of them that came were somewhat aggressive young males who when they arrived and got through the border, touch via air and shouted, i remember as a young man watching the bbc inseam ugandan asians landed on

the tarmac. humble, thankful and promising that they would repay the debt rates britain had shown them by becoming part of our society. .. don't be surprised to see the abominations such as that we saw outside the train station on new year's eve and don't be surprised if a swedish city has

become that rape capital of europe, but that is nothing compared to what was said three weeks ago. he said there are now 5000 jihadi fighters, every one of them potentially a terrorist that has gone back into europe through the greek islands, posing as migrants. when i say they will use the migrant routes to destroy the civilization of europe, i suggest we start to take them seriously and that the difference between what is going on now and any other either migration wave or refugee wade in the history of mankind that i can see is that never before have we had a fifth column, albeit a small one, thank god, but a fifth column living within our communities that hates us, want to kill us and wants to overturn our complete with life. i believe that we in the west should give people refugee enter

at this whole tragedy with what is going on in the middle east and north africa not an one person and serious level of politics has dared to speak up for the christians. the christians in iraq, the christians in syria who are now only 10% of what they were just a few years ago. they qualify as refugees because they are being persecuted for who they are. we have to oppose this motion. this motion, at best is impractical and at worst poses a threat to our entire way of life. i want us to have a proper processing mechanism. i want us to do all of the things we have done as britts particularly over centuries. i want us to welcome genuine refugees, not the disaster that is engulfing much of europe today. thank you. [applause].

>> very strong opening statements from the groups. think you. we will now go into timed rebuttals with quick reaction from each team. we will put two minutes on the clock. to give us your reaction to what you have heard from the other side. >> first of all on the daffy jewett-- definition of refugee, i think in the current climate of warfare, the current state of conflict, in my opinion virtually every civilian in a war theater that is not a combatant qualifies for refugee protection unless he is excluded by the convection as a war criminal and that reality is that the protection of civilian currently in our conflict is nonexistent. they are targeted by all sides and therefore, i think are the most part they qualify for refugee protection. now, the suggestion that what we see these waves of young men

coming into europe are all economic migrants frankly, it's hard to believe why these economic migrants would have paid thousands of dollars for the privilege of doubt-- drowning in the mediterranean, but that's another issue. let me address briefly and i hope we have an opportunity to return to the issues raised by these newborn feminists there. [applause]. >> and i see the clock running, so i reserve my right to flesh out these ideas more deeply, but i can assure you that for those of us feminists who came certainly the women of my generation to make 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 is

certainly not by espousing as champions people who have that kind of ideology. [applause]. >> i want to hear from the pro team back to back, so simon, let's have your rebuttal and then i will go on to mark and nigel. >> i was struck with how obsessed with sex these two guys are. it's a bit sad, actually. again, i just wanted to make the point that if you really think about actually the places from afghanistan, for example, or libya or syria where most of migrants coming from, actually, is extraordinary to think that they are really just interested in a moment of possible upward social mobility.

of those are all desperately brutalized collapsing states from-- from which actually there seems to be no possibility of normal life. it's very-- the notion-- first of all i'd dispute this vigorously about the 77%. it seems to me if you are actually family and terrible distress and haven't we all seen as louis has mentioned dean's and rubber crafts full of children as well as with their elder brothers and fathers and families are desperately trying to make it often to the cost of their own lives, but supposing most of the people who are coming over more than half the males and it fits with the factor that more than half of those have been displaced with horrible accounts like where there are 50000 people stuck

there in syria with desperate shortages, note sanitation, shortages of food and it would be logical to send your brothers and uncles and the men. that's how it was actually in that 1880s and 1890s and all of those men arriving once arriving with a purpose of-- [applause]. >> of being-- [inaudible] >> we will have lots of time in the cross-examination to get into these issues, but i went to the other side to get your quick reaction. >> i made a decision to night that i wasn't going to do funny step and be deadly serious and i'm slightly amazed at at colleagues ability to get the class on gang rapes. [applause].

>> madam scoffs at the newfound feminists over here. are not much of a feminists, but i draw the line at the 3-year old getting raped and at the 7-year old getting gang raped in a basement. [applause]. select and when assignment tells us funding the enough that we are obsessed and maybe we don't get enough action in the toronto singles bar, madam as she said is a feminists of a certain generation and those feminists were clear as it she was very clear in sudan that rape is not about sex, whatever simon may say, rape is about power, which is what madam maribor says and we are not talking about the kind of sex i want to have. i'm not into 3-year old girls, but the 14-year old girl in sudan, here's a random example

from 10 days of german migrant crimes in january. 16-year old boy raped inside whispered city hall. 17-year old girl sexually assaulted near a railway station. three girls sexually assaulted at a swimming pool. 15-year old girl raped at a railway station and attempted gang rape of a 13-year old girl. i can go on and on. these are all rates, gang rapes in public places, trains, streets, parks and even city hall and i congratulate you on getting big laughs with that, simon and you, louise because if i had known that i would be doing open mic on gang rape at a comedy club. it isn't funny. it isn't funny. [applause]. [applause]. >> and it gets to the heart of the question. a gets to the heart of the

question. >> ladies and gentlemen, this will be harder than that election debates. nigel, you are up next for your rebuttal is the neck what mark has just said is difficult to listen to and we would all rather pretend it's not happening, but sadly it is happening. simon, you are in denial. i will tell you what is said-- [applause]. >> what is sad as you as a historian is a hundred years ago the women went to the factories, earned their first decent pay packet i'm a went to the pub, got the vote and we have lived through 100 years of female liberation and emancipation and now, we have the mayors of towns in germany and sweden and other parts of northern europe telling women not to walk out after dark on their own and in the wake of the sex attacks. the mayor of colonna said to those women they really ought to dress differently and behave differently in public.

that, simon, is what is sad and actually i find the sheer hypocrisy of those of you that have stood up and said you would defend female rights, when actually you think migrant rights are more important than female rights in our own community. frankly, shame on you. [applause]. [applause]. >> louise, you are trying to redefine the 1951 convention on refugees status, but can i just challenge you to something? maybe, just maybe you would agree with me that the australians when they face a similar problem of people coming in both in large numbers with sinking's and drownings, maybe australians got it right when they said no one will call up i is a refugee if they come through this route, but we will process people offshore genuinely and sincerely and if they are people who because of

their race, religion or political beliefs qualify as refugees, we in australia will have them. would not make more sense, louise, rather than an open door to the greek islands to process people in north africa and the middle east? back. [applause]. [applause]. >> now, we will move on to our moderated portion of discussion and we would get into some the issues that have been raised to date. it's been a hot exchange so far and i want to give louise and simon on opportunity to respond to that latest rebuttal that we have heard and louise, because you were mentioned the last by nigel, let's have you respond first and maybe specifically to the idea whether australia, very different than what is happening in europe is a model that should be considered. >> yeah, well, nigel it will come as no surprise to you that i cannot think of much that i would agree with you on tonight and this is not one of them.

australia is hardly a model of compliance with the refugee convention. i mentioned before one of the key features of the refugee convention and bear with me for minute, let's assume we have a genuine asylum seeker as opposed to a gang rapists for the sake of argument let's just art with that neutral proposition. someone is knocking on the door. their refugee convention assumes this asylum seeker will have to flee his or her territory probably by non- legal means of that's why we have a regular people. they enter either with no documentation or through means because there are no open channels for these people to escape their predicament. the duty on the country of transit or destination is to have a fair and humane process to determine the bona fide if their refugee. australia exported next line the in the same way, actually, that the united estate not on refugee issue, but sporting domestic and

processing of migrants that come from latin america, this is not the way to do it. of belly to do it is for countries to receive people on the assumption that they may very well be people fleeing persecution and have a fair process in the country particularly rich countries like ours, australia, the us who have full capacity to do that in a very decent humane fashion and unfortunately that is not the example that australia has set up. >> this is the point that actually-- some people have gone to italy, but actually it is grace that has faced these vast number of people and there is no side of it stopping a so-called deal with turkey with roots from libya opening up again. surely the point is that of the million people that came to the greek islands of last year and finished settling in germany, virtually none of the more

properly processed and not one of them will was security screened and i wonder of the 1951 definition of refugee status, how many of that million that went to germany last year could have qualified as refugees 5%? 10%, maximum? this is what i'm saying, the whole debate we are talking about with global refugee crisis i understand there are dreadful things happening in north africa the and ddle east. on talking about we draw-- broadened the definition of what a refugee is to a level well you cannot accept european countries will not accept numbers on the spaces. 1.8 million last year and will be 1.8 million this year and 1.8 million next year and the people in the end simply won't accept it. >> nigel, there are 500 million people in europe. you think europe-- it's not the lack of capacity. is a lack of political will in large part because the entire public debate is poisoned by the

kind of discourse that we have heard about tonight. we are supposed to talk about refugees and we talk about gang at rates. >> actually, we have-- of course, of course there is room in our hearts for europe from all of europe to give people refugee status. we just want to know that they are genuine refugees and not people coming to do us harm. that's all we want to know. [applause]. [applause]. >> i want to bring simon in on this. >> i don't disagree with you at the need for better screening pic i don't disagree with that at all. i just want to say, though, to marx comments that it's an appalling slander to me to the muslim religion to apply, actually, that-- well-- >> i never said the word muslim. muslim free fulminations. [applause]. [applause]. >> i didn't hear that.

i did not hear what he said. anyway, the implication was that if you have got a muslim immigrants he and there will be key is bound to commit a sexual crime sooner or later. that seems to be monstrous and grotesque falsehood about muslim canadians that have been settled for a long time in britain and the united states. dearborn, michigan, is not full -- dearborn, michigan-- >> i will give you muslim fulminations and. muslim men are about one and a half to 2% of the population in norway. they account for half of all the rape convictions. there are differences here. there are cultural differences and i think if you think about it-- >> what is it about islam that you are saying actually that is designed to make men-- >> well--

>> why then don't you want to deport all muslims from europe and the western-- >> i distinguish-- you are a historian and you know as well as i do how many more muslims, more muslim men in the first and second world wars fought for king and empire than canadians. muslims have a long tradition of loyalty to the crown and service to the ground. they were getting victoria crosses with extraordinary courage on the battlefield, 100 years ago today are the great work. 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 not different by that much from a grade school in canada or in scotland--

>> you have two tell us where you're going with this because you are losing me. >> i'm just establishing my non- islamic phobia, but there is an issue scenic let's move back to refugees because this debate is about the refugee crisis. that's our focus tonight. other dimensions we will continue to get into, but louise over to pick up on what mark and nigel have been saying which is that certain societies are better integrating people than others, traditionally canada has done a good job and he that united states is called a melting pot in european countries are often not good at integration. therefore, is this a different kind of crisis? is this time different? >> i think europe has done and here we might have-- i suspect and hope a bit of agreement. i think europe has done a wonderful job at forthrightly defending the virtues and more decencies and political

tradition of western liberal capitalist democracy. 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 surrender. if we are ever going to make headway against militant apocalyptic there has to be something to offer the refugee population whether they-- wherever they come from, whether they are from africa and it is those that wasn't part of what we need to do. we need to be less defensive. less muffled. they should be reading locke and milton and mills and making that tradition as passionately important and a state citizenship isn't as important

as screening and putting up walls and you know, having decent counter terrorists. >> well, i agree with you completely. we have been abject pathetic. we have laying prostrate on the floor and allowed people to come in, change large hearts of our communities and no one amongst our leadership, which is not about getting religious and government, but no one has had the guts and courage to stand up for our christian culture because-- >> i happen to be jewish. >> well, as you well know it is a judeo-christian culture and that is our culture-- that is our culture-- as soon as i start to talk about real values you shrink into your shell like everyone else, don't you?

we have our judeo-christian culture and having gutless and weak in defending it, but the real problem here is we can look back at various migration waves, refugee waves and the problem is this, no one-- mark is not suggesting that islam is about religion. i'm certainly not suggesting that, but what i am saying is that what has been done by the saudi arabians has been a cancer within islam and that 1974 boom in the oil price has led to so much of what we are all suffering. here is why we are nervous and we are cautious about opening our doors to untold millions of people from those countries. is that never before-- integration may have been difficult, but never before have we had to live with a fifth column living inside our own communities on our own country that went to kill us, blow us up and change our way of life and i am arguing for having a sense of

refugee policy, but we must, must, must be able to screen people before they come to settle in our countries. surely that is plain common sense. [applause]. [applause]. is the mecca will go this point. >> well, first thing again, we have to be very careful not to exaggerate. i think this is the track to exaggerate the sense of danger and fear that this idea of infiltration can generate. couple of things, if we had assumed that most italians coming to this country would be members of the mafia or most asians would be members of-- we would close the doors. there is no basis upon which to suggest that the people who are fleeing the atrocious events and serious in libya that these people are missiles that are

being sent to infiltrate our communities. it's going to be a lot easier and i really believe that it's part of a very sophisticated strategic plan by those who are intent on destroying our democracies to tease us into one irrational response where we will destroy the very values we believe in. we will over security i and inevitably we will use a security measures in discriminatory fashion with racial profiling and so on, slowly we will destroy our very values out of the sheer fear they are coming in to do it for a stick we will do it to ourselves if we cultivate this culture of fear with an overreaction, restriction on freedom, over securitize and the targeting of these vulnerable minorities rather than protecting them and including them. [applause].

>> we are getting to the meat of it now and the question is people talk about european values, british values, canadian values. without ever defining it and i think simon is right that it's not just about car chase movies and rap songs and the rest of it. there is something underlying it. i ate-- chair entirely louise's fears of the big security state because i like to write and say what i want in my writing wound up in front of free human rights commission in canada, so i certainly do want to see the europeans erect a bigger security state with less of free speech than canada has. i would hate to see that, but the reality of this situation is that if you look at what happened with that charlie hebdo slaughter in paris a year ago and then look at the polls of the muslim community, they don't want to put a bullet in the

cartoonists. they don't want to blow up the brussels airport, but there is no commitment to traditional western understanding of free speech and as simon says, we don't teach them it. we don't deselect them. you have to have something to assimilate with and if you don't you have bicultural societies as you have dealt with in bosnia, bicultural societies are always fundamentally unstable. sometimes more or less benignly so like northern ireland, some times genocidal he so like always can tell you in rwanda, but if you don't assimilate these people coming in in europe then you will have bicultural societies and they will terry europe apart. [applause]. [applause]. >> mark, i assume it's been a long time since you have lived in toronto.

have you seen street signs in languages you can't understand? this is the city we live in. we are not scared. [applause]. >> i was born in toronto. i have been away for a couple of years. you are from québec, so you know as well as i do that the differences between this are pulling in the scheme of things, yet 20 years ago a majority of your fellow québec voted that they did not want to be in the same country as these guys-- [applause]. >> and you are saying that somehow in germany or in sweden or in mozambique that islamic emirates inside the kingdom of

belgium, 25% of the population of brussels is muslim and you are trying to tell us that they will be more fundamentally stable and secure a northern ireland-- northern ireland to mecca i think the division the ultimate is they don't have to wait for anyone coming out of that country to have separate descendent sees. i lived in belgium and brussels for five years until recently, so they don't need anyone to come from any stand to have-- >> i know. >> england is fairly united. ingrid is pretty united, but the point mark is making is interesting. we have actually gotten now with england the growth and power in all society and 80% of muslim marriages in britain are not recognized under uk law they are conducted under muslim law which gives the women's far fewer rights than they would have under uk law and we now have 83

sharia courts existing in england. we now have tens of thousands of cases of female genital relation taking place every year in england, not with as big of problems as some of the others and yet there has not yet been one prosecution within our system, so simon and i have some degree of agreement on this that the law has to be equal applied equally to everyone. we mustn't be scared of applying the law equally to ethnic minorities if we are restoring up problems in the future, but louise, i'm sorry. you are trying to compare some of the concerns we have on the side of the debate with previous migrations. .. concerned?

you bet your life we should be concerned. eight of them killed number 30 people in paris. we have a problem. get out of the nile please. [applause] >> the problem is jihadi cells exist, the san bernardino shooting was a case in point. this san bernardino shooter was an american citizen. his wife had a green card. a significant number of those carrying out these homicidal conspiracies are british, american, french and belgian. we are agreed this is appalling degree of criminal negligence, belgian authorities, not

noticing when someone from turkey to the netherlands is known as a terrorist, not picking that information up. to do something about homegrown jihadists him. and days for the muslim community not demonized en masse. you have to start from the assumption. all muslim immigrants, refugees, not necessarily going to constitute a fifth column but the possibility they can lead active, decent lives of citizens, i don't disagree with you about the horror of genital mutilation, those should be prosecuted. >> we have a problem already in our countries when we have a complete open-door, even worse.

it is already gone. the e.u. turkey agreement is going to return advanced numbers to greece. i wanted to say -- >> 77 turks joined the e.u. and have a freeman moment. >> simon that's point is right. when you have second and third generation belgians and frenchmen and germans and britons and canadians going off to join isis, blowing up paris, blowing up brussels, that ought to occasion a certain modesty among us that are still to the simulation inculcating our values not as awesome and all encompassing as they were in the

19th century and the answer when second and third generation immigrants are blowing up the airport, that is the reason to accelerate immigration from the same source is very bizarre. in what sense are these people belgian? >> she is fully british and happens to be a british muslim. >> getting bbc world service. >> i have no problem with that. holding a passport does not make you canadian. >> maybe we both want to see some way, this is the difference

between us. what we want to see, because at the end of her remarks, we are already a globally interconnected world on a shrinking planet. those of us who are possibly naïvely optimistic humanists who think it not possible to be a orthodox muslim and a good canadian or good brit, good democrat at the same time. [applause] >> you need to be involved and engaged in exercises of civic education which make it clear you can indeed go to a mosque on friday for friday prayers and still be a democratically participating citizen. if you go to mosque and the e mom happens to preach the destruction of the society you are living in, turn him in.

turn him in. >> that doesn't happen unfortunately. if you look at mounting statistics of radicalized mosques you will understand all over this city and montréal and calgary there are radicalized mosques where people sit on their hands. you have to have something to assimilate with. most of the history you know, the people in british schools haven't a clue about. they don't teach history in north american schools was my kids are in some school where it is called social studies and it is always the same thing. it is martin luther king comes around like the number 23 --

>> i have a movement to abolish the turks. >> i want to move on to numbers. that is a big part of this debate, countries not simply in the middle east, but turkey, 2.7 million, lebanon, 1 million, if you look at great britain in terms of legally settled syrian refugees compared to european counterparts, with european allies in terms of taking the pressure you diagnosed as so acute, what do we owe them? >> we have a problem in the united kingdom. having never had this before we have an open door to half 1 million people and the result of that generally pretty weak uk immigration policy, net

migration to britain running a third of 1 million a year according to figures i don't. a population increasing by a third every year, ten times the postwar average and because of that david cameron has said accepting syrian refugees over the course of this parliament, absolutely certain the united kingdom, the point system for immigration, immigration, net migration running an average postwar level of $30,000 a year we find room for more genuine refugees and i hope when we did that we look at the plight of christians who are being massacred in libya, iraq, syria and every definition, shake your head at me, fascinates me, every definition, the united states, those christians i would have

thought would be guaranteed freedom of security and refugee statement in the west. in britain and germany and sweden we are becoming very hardhearted because in the case of those countries we are becoming hardhearted when 20 years ago we would have been happy to accept. >> a population of 300 million, only 1200 syrian refugees have been legally and officially admitted into the country. is that the united states shouldering its burden in this crisis? >> they don't look at it in a humanitarian way. they see it as part of the big security picture. it is a little surreal to be holding this debate in the week following brussels which is what

the question would mean if we discussed it in the united states. they want to detach the general migration question from the terrorism question. americans in particular don't see it that way. these canadian customs over pearson earlier today, someone they don't want to let in the country. the fascinating thing is when you look at what mister mccallum is going to say we won't have the chaps committing the gangways, we are screening for them. no western government, if you have ever been, has the pleasure of undergoing so-called secondary interrogation as this suspicious character did earlier today. no western government has a clue

about who it lets in. the person who committed the san bernardino crimes had a green card, basically use the jihadist dating site to put together a terrorist cell. it was an arranged marriage committing terrorism and it is money no object down south, not like here where it is cold this week, one little agency dealing with it, 97 agencies south of the border looking at this woman, she aced five separate tests and got into the country. america takes the view it has no idea who any of these people are. >> let come back, canada and the united states in terms of its share of the crisis. >> into less apocalyptic scales, first of all, maybe the wording

i said at the beginning was a poetic way of capturing the spirit and letter of the refugee convention but we drifted now into the movement of people who are unregulated for the most part by international law, international treaty, we are talking now about this huge crisis europe is facing, well defined by the refugees coming at you. talking about stateless people in the world who don't have a passport and a canadian passport, there is no other. [applause] >> we haven't made a dent in dealing with statelessness or talking about internally displaced persons of which there are millions in syria, sudan, these people are stuck in their

own countries against a predatory government, we have no framework to deal with them and told them. people running away from oppression and frankly we have to assume when you consider immense risk that the majority of them are refugee applicants and we have to process it. we are talking about a very small number. when we say millions, it is millions knocking on the door of 1 billion people when you look at all the world's capacity of wealthy nations together. the key, i believe, 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. european partners and western countries generally should have stepped up to the plate and canada should still do so beyond the generous signal we have already sent. we have the luxury in canada of

doing a full prescreening. the refugee camps, we have months and months to dupree selection processes with the luxury of these processes in place we should be doing tons more but everybody has to work in that direction and stop the exaggerating, not the exaggeration of security risk, not saying there is zero risk but to blow it up to such an extent that we talk about directing walls with barbed wires, it is a shame if that is our response. >> we are coming to the end of our cross-examination period. >> i want to echo what lewis said, what came out today,

report from amnesty international which casts a long shadow over the turkey/e.u. agreement, but what is credible is turkey has been forcibly deporting refugees, syrian refugees back where they have come which is a horrific thing to contemplate. there seems to be a substantial amount of evidence that throws the issue back where we should have spent more time, that there is this universe of misery and suffering, when in every three displaced persons in these hellish camps in syria, some in jordan and lebanon are children. we have to think about their plight rather than obsess quite

so much on jihadi's and rapists. >> okay. time for closing statements, we are going to proceed in the opposite order of opening statements so your three minutes will go up on the clock. >> thank you. a very civilized debate. we start with 77% against our side of the argument which compared to the other side in the european parliament strikes me as quite a good start. i tried tonight to make the point that i do think it is beholden upon people in the west to open their hearts to genuine refugees, people in fear of direct persecution, imprisonment and death because of their race, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation. i try to make that point and i

have no doubt america and canada could do an awful lot more than they are doing. it is europe that has faced the front line of this over the last 18 months. what we have done is thrown out of the window our classical definition of what a refugee is and broadened it to anybody coming from a war-torn area or anybody coming from a poor country. what uncle a merkel did -- angela merkel did was stupid but the price germany will have to pay for many years to come. just opening up your doors and not being able in the modern world, a genuine terrorist threat is about 2% of the muslim communities, and eight people

who cause that misery. and have to be careful, have to have security checks, process people, and make sure they are genuine refugees. and see if they would agree with me that the christians who are being crucified in the middle east should qualify for refugee status. i have not had one positive response from the other side on this at all. this, ladies and gentlemen, is the point. this motion, you cannot support this motion, it is idealized nonsense. it doesn't make sense. what we need to have is a sensible, proper, common sense refugee policy to help those who are in parol. to open up our doors the way angela merkel did is bad news for germany and the west, and we need to stand up and stop such

nonsense, oppose the motion please. [applause] >> i don't disagree at all with your points about the christians. and persecuted shia, as far as the islamic state is concerned, shia are not muslim at all. i went to end with words of the scripture, not mine, written in 1624. you will note some of them i am sure. john done, no man is an island and tire of himself. every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.

europe is the less as if a promontory were, as if a manner of your friends were, any man's death diminishes me because i am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee. [applause] >> you get the last word. >> those of us on the stage and many of the more distinguished persons in the auditorium lead privileged lives, privileged lives. we just off to the european parliament in stroudsburg to bbc television studios, the transnational bureaucracy in

geneva. it is easy from 30,000 feet the things that are going on below us was swell. we will never have to live in mozambique and brussels, and bradford and to lose, we get to go to the nice place. that should occasion a certain modesty when we come up with grand utopian schemes to testify to what simon called naïvely optimistic humanism because down there in mozambique and rosen guard they have to live with the consequences of our attitudes, our naïvely optimistic humanism. we are striking attitudes. simon talked about his kurdish

newsagent, a very decent chap when he hands in the jewish chronicle in the morning. we all know people like that, but at the same time the political class is designing a solution to the great migrations of the world that will only end in tragedy. i ask you not to vote for it. the more failed states that stay failed, the more failed states there will be. so ultimately, ultimately it is better for syrians to live in syria, for afghans to be able to live in afghanistan, for iraqis to be able to live in iraq. it is better for there to be more beacons of liberty around the world. i confess i never liked the emma lazarus poem that is at the bottom of the statue of liberty. the french gave the americans a fabulous statue of liberty and

the americans nailed a third rate poem to it and turned it into a celebration of mass migration. liberty and mass migration have nothing to do with each other. and often, in fact, the latter can imperil the former. that is where simon's naïvely optimistic humanism may take it. we cannot fix failed states by inviting millions of their people to move in with us. all that ensures is more failed states, more failure and eventually one by one the nations of the west will join them and then you will really yearning to be free and there will be nowhere to do it. please vote against this motion. [applause] >> you have the last word, louise arbour.

>> i don't know if any evidence that suggests christians from syria have been excluded from refugee protection. i don't know where this is coming from. i think at the bottom of today's debate is showing what is being portrayed today as unique is just another manifestation of the old myths and stereotypes and prejudices of every wave of immigration, and it is particularly odious when it targets refugees, not just any other kind of migrants. dog saunders in a piece he wrote in the golden nails, and many of the things we hear today about muslim refugees penetrating western societies, the fifth column intent on destroying it, many of the characteristics we

attribute to them were attributed sometimes in relatively recent parts of our histories foster catholics for instance who were said to be backwards, had loyalty to rome more than their home country, lived in poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods, very backwards, antidemocratic, authoritarian by disposition, but does that also sound like the yellow peril, that we would all be transformed into a different society, we will all end up being mixed color if we let in millions of people coming from all over the world? displays into exactly the same stereotypes and myths we have heard at every single point in history. the reality is despite an original knee-jerk, hostile reception to newcomers, the history in this country has been

a history of success, of integrating people coming from all kinds of different cultures and religions. when i talk about integration, it is a two waste read. it has changed us and it will change us in the future. we have to have very impoverished confidence in our democracy to think that it is so fragile that it cannot sustain the profound differences that will challenge us through devotion to free speech, freedom of assembly, thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, it was a hard-fought debate tonight that reminds me of something our founder said on many occasions, it is one thing to get up and give a speech, to have the stage as yours for 45 minutes or an

hour. something different from what we have seen tonight, four big mind, big thinkers challenging each other, putting their ideas out there and contesting this important issue. join us in a show of appreciation. bravo. [applause] >> bravo. let's take a look at where public opinion was in this hall in the beginning of this evening because all of you in the audience here are going to have the opportunity on your way out of the hall to vote again. let's look at where the audience was at the beginning of tonight's, 77% of you agreeing with the motion, 23% opposed, we asked how many would be open to change your mind and get a sense to which degree the debate was

in place, 79% yes, so it will be fascinating to see how all of you decide based on what you heard tonight, the arguments pro and con, where you will come down on this debate. i want to thank the foundation for staging these debates, they are a great part of toronto, great part of canada and something that has been available to people from coast-to-coast in canada and across the continental united states. we will do this all again next autumn. in the meantime keep watching, keep learning, keep reading. thank you for joining us at the munk debate. ♪

♪ ♪ >> campaign 2016 continues today with the wisconsin primary. live coverage begins tonight at 9:00 eastern. tune in for complete results in -- election results and viewer reaction, taking you on the road to the white house on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> the u.s. senate is about a gavel in for the day on long-term funding for the federal aviation administration. legislation authorizing

$33.1 billion for funding faa program until september 30th of next year, senators meet with president obama's supreme court nominee merrick garland, he is expected to sit down with republicans and democrats jean shaheen and joe mansion of west virginia. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, though we cannot see you with our eyes, or touch you with our hands, we daily experience the reality of your presence and power. abide with our lawmakers throughout