fourth estate and it's worth remembering that they are part of the democratic process and that we stand here speak in the chamber may sometimes not like it. their role in holding us to account is equally as important as ours and speaking the truth. so it is with that cry of freedom and the cry of liberty that i speak in favor of considering or in favor of rejecting this motion. liberty is not something we can take an action or in part. it comes as one and it comes as a whole. as the first amendment of the u.s. constitution makes clear, the freedom of expression is essential for free people. andough i may not like it although i can be actually sure that i would not support him, it is no place for me or this house to criticize a man running for

elected office in a foreign country. we may not wish them here and we may not like him here but we should not vote against him toaking or spite his right travel when we, too, value the same rights of liberty. are you looking to intervene? clear,nt to be criticizing would pay curtailment of freedom of speech. you are saying we do not have the right to criticize? but i are quite right don't think we have the right to prevent somebody who is campaigning for elected office in foreign countries. i believe it is for the american people to judge him. i believe it is for the american people told him to account.

policy argue it is bad and bad judgment to intervene in the electoral process of a foreign country and i would wish to do it as little as possible. i will give way. mea culpa from the labour , woulds of muslim origin you comment on donald trump not traveling to the u.k.? states makes wonderful permission for the balance of powers. the president of the united states is not a sovereign and a despot but is balanced by the congress and by the courts. it's a failure to understand why the united states despite having one or two incumbents for the white house may not have been meant for candidates. the country has yet succeeded all the way through to today as a bastion of liberty and economic success.

as we consider this, marx martin luther king day in it's worth remembering that he, relied on these rights of freedom. he, too, relied on these rights when he was campaigning to desegregate the university of those studentsn bravely marched in on the 11th of june, 1963, the prevailing opinion was that they should shut up. the prevailing opinion was that their right to freedom of speech should be curtailed. while i think this man is crazy and i think this man has no valid points to make, i will not be the one to silence his voice. when i think now about what more we should do, i say we should stand aside and we should wait for an american to come forward as the great joe welch did in the united states army and he looked at senator mccarthy in the 1954 trials and he said have

you no shame, sir? at long last, have you left no sense of decency? if somebody will say that to donald trump, surely, that is better than for us to legislate freedom of expression and freedom of travel. >> i will start by quoting martin luther king because i think martin luther king deserves more recognition today ben does donald trump. our lives begin to end of the day we become silent about things that matter. there, i do welcome this decision. i am very grateful for the petitioners wanted us to raise our voice and have this debate. there are two things i would like to share with you if i had lunch earlier with a very interesting lunch with a number of people including the

undersecretary of state for public affairs. we agreed that donald trump is no more than a demagogue. fearsonders to people's as opposed to their strength and i should know because constituents help me get rid of another demagogue. it's not the first time i've dealt with a demagogue. the two things i would like to point out me, whilst i value this debate and whilst i accept immodest is a very subject and i understand and respect the views of my colleagues say we should plan this person, i agree. sayver, what i would also is that i come as a member of would give an open

invitation for donald trump to visit my constituency. the reason is i would take until synagogue and a church and a mosque. i would invite him for curry . i would welcome him and have a conversation with him and challenge him on his views. -- i wouldure him show him that i would invite him to feed the homeless and muslim charities. i would invite him to meet with with the human or, muslim volunteers and those people that work together on the issues which affect us as a asntry which affect all people regardless of our race, regardless of our gender, or ethnicity and our religion. that's what i would show to him. i give way. >> i am very grateful.

agreed but wanted to invite him to a constituency. >> i respect the views of my colleagues. i do not agree to total ban. i would invite him. there you go. me aboutan issue for challenging that narrative. i think it's important and then aim of democracy to challenge that narrative and challenge that hatred speech that comes out of his mouth. i stand here as a muslim woman, as a proud british muslim woman. donald trump would like me banned from america. i would not get my visa. islam, inhat, in my

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

>> or roger, i'm the only number of parliament who can claim to represent the good people of new york. this time he -- tiny hamlet lent cityame's to the greatest on the planet. the good people of new york, the , all 150 or sork of them. >> ted cruz has launched a vicious attack on the people of new york, saying that they are cosmopolitan. i hope that she will stand up for the people of new york. [laughter] i've looked at the map, not a single person from lincolnshire has signed this petition. [laughter]

>> you are again reaching my point before i am. promise to talk about new york values by the end of my speech. turning as i must to trump, his comments are wrong. his policy to close borders if he is elected bonkers is -- president is bonkers. if they go to one of the excellent pubs in my constituency they may tell him what he is for dealing with the issue in this way. i sense that my constituents feel that their values are more than robust enough to survive anything that mr. trump may say. that we in lincolnshire, we in the united kingdom should have enough confidence in our values to allow him to say whatever he york, newew york, new

york, lincolnshire, or anywhere else in the world. because our british values are stronger than some amongst us here today appear to fear. >> is all very well to say that we feel strong and understand, we will stand up to it. are not muslims living in a country where there is already a rise in his mama phobia and comments like that from someone who has such influence over so many people with so much media explosion over it can only hand people who are feeling vulnerable and not feeling a strong as the constituents are claiming. >> i can only give the honorable member the reassurance that as someone who used to prosecute criminals for living before i came to this place, any defendant who tried that in court would get short shrift from me and i'm sure, the jury. the point is that we mustn't allow people who behave in that

disgraceful way, we mustn't allow such criminals, people who beat up others on the basis of the religious police, we mustn't allow them to somehow remove themselves by blaming someone on a different continent. if they beat up a muslim on the streets of britain, that's their responsibility and no one else's . now, one of the values that i think asked sums up our country of thecourse, the phrase exchange of thoughts and ideas within the law. the freedom to persuade or rebut. the freedom to inspire or if this rate in argument. the freedom to speak and the freedom to listen. now, this freedom is not always comfortable. indeed, my friends have already referred to the rising problem, it seems, of some of our universities fearing to allow free speech, providing safe

bases for fear the people maybe offended. but the freedom of speech must mean that sometimes we are going to be offended. it means allowing those whose views we hold to be edifying for speaking their minds. crucially it also means the freedom to reply. to say no, donald trump, you are wrong and wrong for the following reasons. that freedom was hard-won over centuries and must be defended jealously because it goes to the very essence of democracy and the rule of law. rely on thesite may specific. one already has. let us remind ourselves about the threshold that must be met for this to happen. secretary must conclude that the person's presence in the united kingdom is not conducive to the public good.

the house of commons library helpfully provided a briefing for this in which there are 14 examples of people excluded by labor home secretaries in may of 2009. of those 14 examples, 10 were considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to cement, justify, or glorify terrorist violence. nine were considered to be engaging in unacceptable provoke in order to others to commit terrorist acts or serious crimes. five were considered to be posturing hatred, which might lead him community violence in the u.k.. one spent 30 years in prison for killing four soldiers and a four-year-old girl. i ask a simple question of those who would ban donald trump -- are you really saying that his conduct, no matter how

offensive, that his conduct meets this same criteria? thank you, i will move on. , thend it is a big if answer is not the fuel publicity by banning him, which incidentally this debate is already doing nicely. the answer is to rebut his argument. the answer is to challenge him in a robust, democratic argument about why he is wrong about the contribution of america and of british muslims to this country. >> has the honorable member considered the 84 hate preachers that were banned in total? the honorable member would see that there is a striking resemblance between what donald trump is saying and two of the

bloggers that were banned for years ago. i secretary. offorgive me, the house commons already has my briefing note edit is a useful document. those are the examples. i have used all of the examples given. as i say, they are in a very different category from the category that donald trump has said, which he has done on this issue and many others. but if i may on the point that sir edward, my honorable friend and neighbor raised, ted cruz in the recent republican debate accusing donald trump of having new york values. well, i can assure both of them that they would be enriched by the values of my constituents in new york and beyond, who are hard-working, generous, and welcoming, and who might be rather bemused that we are feeling this -- fueling this

man's a list of the machine by having this debate at all today. >> thank you, it is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. donald trump's comments to ban muslim men, women, and children if he were to be elected as president were almost universally condemned as racist and offensive and i absolutely welcome the condemnation given by all sides of the house and both sides of this debate and that members of the public have decided that this issue is serious and merits parliamentary scrutiny related to the debate we are having today. condemn auent remarks whole religion for the actions of a terrorist death cult. mr. trump also condemns and speaks in the rogge poured terms, i should say, about women, people of disabilities, mexicans. the list is exhaust -- not

exhaustive because it is never-ending. his comments are dangerous and his views must be tackled seriously. -- ld trump's words confirm >> thank you. >> does the honorable lady not think that mr. trump might well be making these comments not only because he thinks them but because he wants to get lots of publicity to help his election campaign? >> thank you to the honorable member for his intervention. i don't think it's for us to try to get into the mind of donald trump. i think it would be important as members to understand what it is like to be a muslim living in this country when facing comments made by evil like mr. trump and what seemed to be his general concerns about the whole of us the practice muslim faith. it's an uncomfortable place to be in.

mr. trump condemns my family. in a similar vein he condemns the political editor of sky news and some of our greatest olympians. he condemns the leaders of are currently working together to overcome it in a rock in syria. because, mr. chairman, we are all muslims. for him that is the one and only common denominator. rather than combating the serious issues of international -- hassm, he is bolstered the twisted narrative brought from others. he has fueled racial tensions while the world undermining the national , and peter the u.s. cook, who said at that time, that anything that bolsters the

narrative and pits the united states against muslim states is not only contrary to their values, but contrary to national security. he also referenced their own security. her job quite correctly is to protect public safety and promote security. she has already explicitly included hate speech and in her judgment, my view is that donald trump should be number 85. using the powers vested in her she has included criminals, far right extremists, homophobic extremists, and these rules should be applied consistently and equally to all. if they exist they exist for that very reason and we have a responsibility to ensure that whoever comes in and out of our

country is treated in the same way. that they have removed him from status as a global ambassador. perhaps it is important for me to confirm that his global ambassador spot state was conferred upon him by former later -- former labor administrators, let that myth be dispelled here and now. i don't think that any genuine person could possibly have envisioned that this man would make such horrendous comments. the u.k. government needs to demonstrate commitment by applying their own rules consistently in this case. understand the arguments being made by some that we should invite him here and so he can see for himself how to build bridges rather than setting up barriers. this is a man who seeks to be president of the united states

of america. of course. actuallynot suggest that this is about buffoonery and ultimately buffoonery should not be met with a blunt instrument like a band but with a classic british response of ridicule? [laughter] for hisnk the member intervention and it is for them the gift of the british state about which he speaks. i accept that you have referred to this but i have to say that his remarks are condemning an faith that ion of practice and it maybe difficult for people to understand how that affects us, but it does, he's talking about me, my family, my children.

that is what he is talking about. it's worthy of note, however, that his policy would make it possible for me and other muslims in america to travel to make the same case there that we are making here. this parliament can be extremely proud of its improving wreck -- in representing constituent interests. but mr. trump has banned the new entering the u.s. state and allowing us to make our case there. i have heard others say that it would only add to his notoriety consistently in those cases. raising his profile, but anyone who has followed the race for republican nomination for president will know that lack of profile is not an issue for mr. trump. the american people have an important decision to make this year. about who they want to leave their country. it is their decision to make.

mr.chairman, last week trump added insult to injury by saying that he would stop his investment into scottish golf courses if he is subject to the same type of travel restrictions he advocates for others. contrary to what others say, he's bad for business. costing the local economy dearly , he actively undermines investment in the north sea and it may have serious repercussions in scotland and its development as a world leader. provided succor to terrorists and provided hatred on both sides of the atlantic. of course he has a right to be wrong, but his statements are dangerous and threaten our public safety and national security. we cannot have laws apply differently depending on people's income, public profile,

or color. what does that say about us? our rules and laws must be applied consistently for all. applyme secretary must her own judgment consistently, which is what i am calling on her to do and i look forward to hearing from the minister. anything else would be on principle quite simply wrong. >> i am also a member of the petitions committee and i am delighted that we brought this debate to the house today. committeee we as a held a particular view, but we felt that with the number of people that signed the petition it was right to air these very important issues. i am sure that like the hundreds of thousands who signed this petition and no doubt millions of others across the country, i

condemn wholeheartedly the comments made by mr. trump. not only about muslims, but by -- about women, people with disabilities, and about other minority groups. however, the question as to whether or not he should be banned from this country is a very interesting and very and one thatstion we need to address and consider head on. this country has a long and strong tradition of free speech. although sadly, i believe that that principle has been eroded and some of those freedoms have been eroded in recent times, i still believe that we are a country that welcomes debate and embraces a variety of views within the country. if we were to go down the road of banning him because refined his views objectionable or even offensive, where would we draw the line?

many people have equally intolerant views. those who come to this country, some who live in this country already. are we to ban them because we don't like the things that they say when we disagree with them? issue at stake here is how our society handles people who have different views from us even when we find those views strongly objectionable or offensive. .he issue of free speech and i believe it is about when someone crosses a line to incite others to acts of violence, to criminal acts. that is the line that i believe is to be drawn. i don't personally believe that donald trump has crossed that line. he may do at another time and then maybe we would need to reconsider our views, but as of yet i don't believe he's done that. it's perfectly right that the home secretary bands extremist

preachers when they tell their followers to commit acts of , to cause harm, to cause pain and ultimately kill other individuals. that's absolutely right that the home secretary does that, but i don't believe that mr. trump has done that. if as a country we started to ban people because they said things we didn't like, i wonder how long the list would the? as ignorant and unpleasant as his comments are, he's not alone. for starters, we have to ban the current prime minister of hungry because he has said equally offensive things about muslims. mr. chairman, the way that we deal with the good tree in prejudice is by confronting it had on, not by trying to avoid it. banning someone like donald trump would risk making him a martyr. i believe it would only fuel his causal even further and in his

own mind he would see himself as a martyr and i believe that his supporters would believe the same. what would it achieve? we live in a global village now. we are not going to stop his views from reaching our shores. because we ban him. i would argue the opposite. the promotion of the ban would mean that his words and views are heard louder and stronger than they currently are. banning him would only play into his hands. so, instead of banning him, i'm with those who say -- invite him. bring him here, confront those views had on. take him and show him what a great nation we are based on those values of tolerance and freedom of speech. let's take him to the places he is spoken about and show him what life in britain is really like. i will like to make, mr. chairman, is that i at theen surprised

amount of support that mr. trump has received from his own republican party. because it was ronald reagan who actually, certainly in my lifetime, was in my view the greatest republican president that the united states has had. far from proposing building walls he was all about tearing down walls. it was he who said to president gorge -- president gorbachev of russia -- if you seek globalization, come here, mr. gober chaffed. open the gate and tear down the wall. that he issed getting the amount of support that he is because it seems to heritage against the and the values that i understand the republican party to have. >> the fact is that in america and britain there is widespread disillusionment with the

mainstream establishment politicians who don't seem to give an honest answer to people over the concerns of immigration and many issues. there's no point just badmouthing these guys, we have to take on these arguments and discuss them in an open way. >> thank you, i agree, absolutely. the response that we are seeing is far more about people's frustrations and concerns than it is, i believe, about an individual man. in conclusion i believe it would be ironic if we were to take the regressive stance of banning donald trump because he has called for a ban on muslims into the united states. i find that entirely ironic. we would shortly be guilty of the same thing that we are criticizing him for. it would send a signal to the world that we are scared. >> members on the site are

calling for him to be banned because of something very dangerous that he said. he is calling for muslims to be registered and tracked for no reason. is a huge difference. >> i respect the view of the gentle member and personally a take of different view, banning him would play into the same fears that he is promoting. it has often been said that two wrongs don't make a right. well, i want to say the two bands don't make a right. >> is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. the land of the free, america, one of our oldest allies. donald trump is a fool, he is free to be a fool, but he's not free to be a dangerous fool on our shores. some of the foolish things that he has said? the concept of global warning was created by and for the

chinese to make u.s. manufacturing noncompetitive. it's freezing and snowing in new york, we need global warming. john mccain is a war hero because he was captured? who were not captured, i hate to tell you. he then went on to the offensive thing that he would build a great wall with relation to mexico and that no one builds walls better than him. and then he went on to say he would build them very inexpensively and that he would have mexico pay for the wall. >> the honorable member makes an excellent case as to why he's a buffoon, not a criminal. >> those remarks are daft and offensive. i would defend people's right to be daft and offensive. i was chairman of the national

council for civil liberties and i fought to defend freedom of speech throughout my life. but freedom of speech is not an absolute. an absolutehere right for donald trump or anyone else to come to our shores. successive governments have acted to exclude the preachers of hate whose presence would not be conducive to the public good. preachers of hate, the effective whose actions and words would be to incite violence have no right to come to britain. if i could give some examples of the kind of people who have been banned. michael savage, a u.s. radio host. it was said about him that he was considered to be engaging and unacceptable behavior, fostering hatred, claiming that american muslims needed deportation. banned from coming to our country. found to begain

guilty of unacceptable behavior, he had made a series of anti-somatic remarks, banned from coming to our country. robert spencer, pandora -- geller, founders of the american freedom defense initiative, banned in 2013 by the current secretary of state for the home office when they were due to speak at an edl rally held on the location of leave rigby's murder as their arrival would not be deemed to be conducive to the public good. one other example, an ejection television preacher who was in the words of the home office considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by glorifying terrorist violence, he had called for violence against jews. first of all, what have donald trump actually said? legendarily about the total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states, but

he then went on to say as follows -- that 50% of our country is -- of the people the country agree that muslims in america should have the choice of being governed according to sharia, which he said authorizes such atrocities as murder against nonbelievers who want to burn to the headings and more unthinkable acts that cause great harm to americans, especially women. little wonder that after those remarks there was a recorded rise in attacks against muslims in america. why do i argue for the exclusion of donald trump? turn you to the context of this debate, there is a uniquely awful threat facing our country. a generational threat of evil terrorism. we are now seeing terrorist arrests at the rate of one per day in britain.

key to preventing attacks has been the patient building out crease service of good communities and neighborhood policing. that has been key to the successful detection of terrorist after terrorist in this country. the nature of terrorism takes twog a country forms. first, the organized cells. it is a strategy to radicalize the vulnerable. in particular those with mental illness. and in particular those who the victimhood encouraged by isis. what makes donald trump's presence in our country so dangerous is that in the current climate, isis needs donald trump and donald trump needs isis. isis needs to be able to say on undere hand that they are

attack. donald trump needs to say on the other hand the you are under attack by muslims. that is why i strongly believe that he should not be allowed to come to our country. just think what would happen in the current climate. if he came to london, to glasgow and preached that message of divisive hate, it would be damaging, it would be dangerous, it would be deeply divisive. >> the gentleman is making some interesting points. these examples are more shortly about donald trump being a bigot rather than hatred. britain is pretty good at roasting beets. shouldn't we just roast trump? think aorry, i don't debate like this calls for flippancy at this time.

with the greatest of respect, when our police service and our security services are working night and day to prevent our country from being attacked, when they believe the support of the muslim community, to have someone come to our shores who demonizes the entire community would be fundamentally wrong and would undermine the safety and security of our citizens. that's not a risk i am prepared to take. >> i hear what the right honorable gentleman is saying. partly it has been echoed by the muslim members who have given powerful evidence about how donald trump makes them feel. however, our british values, are they not strong enough to stand up to that? does it not help to voices on all sides of this, standing up to the values that we believe in as a nation? >> i strongly believe in the unity across the political

spectrum to reject terrorism. i welcome some of these initiatives that have been taken. some of the things that we have done birmingham. but the simple reality is, if you get a vulnerable young man radicalized who has got mental illness, who believes in the victimhood promoted by isis and donald trump in london or birmingham, the consequences of that could be serious indeed. in conclusion, i don't think the donald trump should be allowed within 1000 miles of our sure. he would embolden them on the one hand and fueled the flames of terrorism on the other hand. anald trump is free to be fool, but he's not free to be a dangerous fool in britain. >> the principle of free thought is not free thought for those

who agree with us, but freedom of thought for those who thought we hate. so said justice oliver wendell of the u.s. supreme court. of course, even in a libertarian there are statements that cause real harm. but if we fear all of our greatest statements, if we fear a swell of support for unpopular views, if we fear challenge we will not only stifle free thought, we will stifle independence and liberty. we will lose the opportunity to rebirth. expense to arguments, analysis and scrutiny, losing the opportunity to win over those who may have listened and finally supported and agreed. limiting free speech does not always quash unwelcome belief. restrictingore laws

free speech than any other western democracy. it also has europe's largest far right party. in 2009 nate griffin appeared on question time, watched by 8 million people. at the time the bnp was 6.6% of the national vote. in the first election after that not only did they fail to win a seat, but they fragmented in the polls. last week it was announced by the electoral commission that they had been set for their status as a -- as an official political party. referred toesman the poor performance on question time as a fact of eroding his popularity. those who made share the release of the speaker, we knit -- we need to do more than silence them. we need to address the real grievances. we need to listen. we need to take note.

and then we need to respond. >> thank you to the honorable member and my constituents. often nick griffin appears on question time and in the 24 hours after he appears, 3000 people joined the bnp immediately. that was the platform. >> in order to have free speech, we have debate. the nick griffin discussion a question time will have evoked a number of responses. of course there will be people when there is an advocate for something. there will always be people who follow them. that may be a small minority. what we need to do is put the voices out there in order to slam them down. ultimately that is what has happened to the bnp. donald trump's statement that all muslims should be banned from the u.s. wrongly categorizes an entire religion

to a few extremists. his statements should be exposed as such. now is not the time to ban him. now is the time to say very clearly that these extremists are wrong and should be rooted out and stopped. now is the time to say that muslims have given us such things as out iraq, transforming the study of life and objects. these discoveries founded one of the basis for our modern technologies. the other real difficulty is that donald trump is a presidential candidate. if we banned the leader of every country who made offensive, inappropriate, or inflammatory statements or who took steps within, we would have a much more limited foreign policy. we may not even have a leader of the opposition. mr. chairman, i welcome both petitions.

i welcome this debate. because we live in a democracy that respects freedom of expression. when people make unacceptable statements what we need to do is use their capacity to expose these weaknesses and then ultimately defeat their argument. >> we encapsulate picturesque villages and rolling countryside's. stunningly achieving the birthplace years ago and next week, the scottish national beard. it is also the home to one of resorts.est in 1902 willie fernie was commissioned to design a

championship course. which brings me to why am speaking here today. disappointingly, we've been dragged into this debate. because of donald trump and 2014 , it is undergoing a complete refurbishment. the trump organization is investing 200 million pounds and the resort materials for the development have been sourced locally. people.g some 200 local hasddition, someone expected 300 contractors next month. many of them also local, all of them exchanging money with the local businesses. this is a stark contrast to

years ago. in the 1990's you would have been hard pressed to hear an accent among them. owner, foodevious they order the economy in london. despite promises of investment, they report closing the resort. failure to invest in the venue meant it was unsustainable. before the trump organization came in, staff wanted to shut it down altogether. the vast majority of these people have full-time contracts with part-time staff. and a constituency that uses aroundyment, employing 84 years.

i spent time there last week and i spoke to the members. they don't talk about trump is a politician. they don't talk about him is a showman. they talk about him as a man with a passion for golf and a commitment to the clear vision and future of this resort. they talk of an organization, a family-run business with local people and an ambitious plan for the future of the area, ambition backed up by action. last week i heard from a gentleman who stayed at the course for 60 years. he talked of the respect to the ordinary members and how lucky we were to have this historic course.

donald trump is a diverse character. i have no intention of standing here to defend the man. his comments about chinese people, mexican immigrants, and women have been deplorable. seems to out trump himself, no top -- no pun intended, each time he speaks. over half a million people here in the u k have chosen to call them out by standing up for the muslim community. however, we cannot afford to spurn the business because of the right wing in this election campaign that is thousands of miles away. his ability to run off at the , being banned from the

u.k., will ultimately be less for the man. a beautiful landscape of scars with 14% of the working age population. captain,rds of the pop the trump organization with its head locked out would be catastrophic for the resort and the tragedy for the local community. my role here is to speak for my constituency. someonerman, banning and wanting to ban others, in my view, is an inappropriate response. >> philip davis? >> we find ourselves in the

ridiculous position where some people are so outraged that donald trump has suggested that simplyld ban people because of their beliefs that those people want to ban donald trump for his beliefs, which is a completely ridiculous situation. all across the pond donald trump has been waging what might have been described as a one-man cap aim against political correctness for some time. as someone who has had their own campaign against political correctness for some time here in this parliament no one will be surprised to hear that i can relate to that. in the race to become the next president he has been gaining support with the political that many described as blunt directness. i certainly applaud him for straight talking. in fact i think in this country we could do with rather less political correctness and much more straight talking across the board. i think that many of our constituents would agree.

today we be clear that are debating whether or not a man who has a chance of becoming the next president of the united states of america should be physically banned from entering the united kingdom. by anyone's standard that is a rather big thing. his offense is to suggest a ban on incoming muslims to america until our countries representatives can figure out what is going on. it is extremely clear that in the western world we are andriencing difficult dangerous types. violent attacks are becoming too frequent inside these countries, perpetrated by those who want to be brought in with religious conformity. something that all right thinking people are deeply worried about and it is also clear that one path to terrorists and those who hate our way of life, of living in our western countries is to enter as immigrants and

refugees. determining what to do about that clear and worrying problem will result in people having different suggested solutions. people in allome of our constituencies who will agree with the view of donald trump. they will disagree with a view of donald trump. to disagree with donald trump's view. but whatever people think, he should truly be entitled to have it, andnion, express give the people who have that view a voice in the political process. there was actually an opinion that showss process that in the united kingdom 65% disagree with donald trump and 24% agree with him. when that was moved into the north, with the people that agree with him out of it went from 24% to 35%. by anybody's standard that is a

significant body of the population. seemof people in this room suddenly quiet when people with a minority opinion have the nerve to express it. it's amazing that the people who always preach about tolerance and how we shouldn't have any intolerance are the same people who are so intolerant of anybody who happens to have a different opinion to them. i will give way to the honorable gentleman. can i ask, does the right honorable friend think that there are any limits to freedom of speech? would there come a point for someone like donald trump should be banned because the words were so extreme? very much on the side many feel he is inciting hatred here and across the world. well, yes, there do need to

be some restrictions on free speech. people inciting violence and terrorism, we should, that free speech should be restricted. but we should certainly not go around banning everyone from the country simply for voicing their opinion that the honorable gentleman has -- happens to disagree with. , i'm sure that the honorable gentleman would agree that this motion is actually embarrassing to the u.k. and makes us look intolerant and totalitarian. i feel that we should almost apologize to the people of the united states. mr. for them to decide on trump, not us. we should remind the people of america that these people over here represent 1% of the population of the people in this country. >> i share the sentiment. i think it is ridiculous, frankly, that we are needing to

have such debates in a country that has always prided itself on freedom and free speech. all the people need to speak and i'm afraid there isn't time. lady had her say. the real issue for me is not actually donald trump us remarks, it's the reaction to them. serious threat or harm to our society in any way. because hisy be reaches wide and politically incorrect. the debate today has as much to do with political and correctness as it has to do with his comments. the free speech that might rightly americans hold very dear, as indeed do many of us here in this country, the irony is that it is in part because of political correctness that the straight talking of donald trump became so popular with the electorate over there. people were fed up with being told with what they can and

can't think, can and can't say, find it refreshing to find a politician who has the what hestand up and say thinks, even if it's controversial or unpopular. in many cases we should theseate more often politicians who say things that are controversial. it's easy for someone to stand up and suss out motherhood and apple pie from what's popular. any old fool can do that. it takes real guts to say things that are unpopular and controversial and in that regard i want to respect the leader of the opposition who has made a hallmark of saying unpopular and controversial things. will always respect his right to do that, too. many people are tolerated in this country because of the belief of free speech. people who will be placed higher up by my constituents that double trope.

those who hate all things british from our own soil. those who denounce freedom generally and hate the western way of protecting the importance of the original freedoms and values. the silence of the opinion we have seen in both countries builds up resentments. there are people in this country who stand up to the right, who criminals that they see to the port from this country and they are unable to the same people who are so keen to keep foreign criminals in this country that we are trying to deport. we are debating whether or not donald trump should be banned? that's ridiculous and outrageous. ending on this point -- for anyone to think that they are so outraged that donald trump

thinks that people should be banned from his country because of their beliefs and then they then think that the solution to the problem is to banned all and i couldn't agree less if i tried. >> gavin? >> i would like to say it's a pleasure, but instead i will i would like to pay tribute to the speeches from the new war -- newport waste honorable member. >> forcing me to think that in the 21st century we are stealing and in the campaign? let's be clear.

i try to think of something definite to describe this, but none were clear enough. the fact that the public party candidate for the united states, the most powerful job in the world, it speaks father of how his father once made the gop his phone. for presidential candidates in the u.k., the question we should ask ourselves should he because of who he is or how powerful he might become in the u.k.? regardless of how powerful they are or the lodging that they be -- that they believe in. each and every day young people have held back based on religion and gender. each year families live in fear.

the people are victims of these acts and they look to lawmakers to help them solve these issues. however, today's debate asks us to contemplate this situation where a bully might be elected to president of the united states. message that the the behavior is ok, that bigotry is commendable, and it's ok to hit people who look, speak, or act differently from you. i am of two minds on this issue. defeating his point is some by of what'sng the facts but the society,

arguments for banning him are weed on a principle shouldn't not add him to the list. in 2014 the home secretary indicated that she deported hundreds from entering ginny in the u.k.. on what grounds would it be acceptable to ban these people but not mr. trump, too? the premise is also divisive, stupid, and wrong. refusing entry for reasons related to character, conduct, there is as in which list of unacceptable behaviors that included the remains of the be needed toay enter a community of violence. mr. chairman, that makes more potential for no reasons that his sexist been

divisive views. he doesn't believe women are equal to men, though in reality i think he believes that no one is quite equal to donald. viewhave sympathy with the that we should ban him from the u.k.. i agree with a lot of the arguments. however, i want to tackle the policies he believes in head on. defeat theseto people is by showing them how outrageous their views are. meeting with local muslims to discuss beliefs. to homeless shelters and -- lg btovi chi tea

groups. where is he now? we should not be afraid to tackle the views held by people like him. the fight against racism, bigotry, sexism in general is not over. and we should send a message through the power of argument. u.k..ump come to the he will wish that he had been banned. >> am very grateful to be called at this late stage of the debate.

i think that if martin luther king were here today he would be at some of the sugarcoated version of american history that has been on display. i hate to say this, i regret to say this, but what trump has proposed has been -- has been in this to many times legislation, something which has regrettably often happened in u.s. history. you only need look at the chinese exclusion act of 1882. in which chinese laborers were banned from entering the united states. only changed in 1952. he would be very surprised by this very sanitized version of american hit in politics that we

have heard today. light your views have history? they are not something that he dreamt from his own head. it comes from a long line of nativist legislation. we can decry this and call it terrible, evil, and bad, but that is no grounds on which to ban a presidential candidate. you would even say -- and i that -- you would suggest his ban was a temporary ban, as he said in his speech in south carolina. noted that the chinese exclusionary act lasted for 70 years. they were not temporary bans. they lasted for 30 years. so, his form of nativism is and so, donald trump

is in that long tradition. but that doesn't mean that we ban him. all the arguments that have been made against ban think are absolutely valid. . will say this in this debate if the united kingdom were to banned on the trump from coming to britain, that would be the biggest boost for his campaign in america possible. in terms of publicity. in terms of the patriotism of the united states not wishing other countries to impose upon them and try to shape and determine the outcome of their elections. this would be a spectacular end goal. i remember the guardian attempt in 2004 to stop george bush from becoming reelected in that campaign. i think it was a very german -- journalist, they had a letter

campaign to the people in ohio, they identified ohio was a key swing state, and they got some of their readers to write to individual electors in that state, urging them not to vote for george w. bush. needless to say, i'm sure members of the house will not be surprised to know that he carried ohio and was indeed reelected as president of the united states. that campaign was often cited as the way in which foreigners, people try to intervene in the election of another state, could get things completely wrong. there he happy to give way. >> i am very grateful. to improveseeking what happened in the american presidential candidate elections or the elections to follow. we are talking about what we can do here, asking everyone to be

consistent in her approach and rules she has used. we are talking about the united kingdom, not anywhere else. i fully appreciate the honorable ladies remarks. as far as she's concerned, that is her case. i'm asking the people of america . they don't have the luxury of having her understand how conventions and debates work. you make my point for me. it is all well to say to let donald trump come here and have the discussion with us. he wishes to ban people like me. to go to the united states of america and to make the case for the muslims in america who are not represented by dinesh. >> i appreciate her remark.

the answer to his van is not to ban him. that does not make any sense to me. he is banning muslims. in his own mind, he is saying muslims constitute a danger to the united states. on those grounds, he is banning them. now we are doing the same thing if we were to ban him. we would say donald trump represents a danger to the united kingdom, and on that grounds, our banning him from coming. the circumstances are different but the logical force is exactly the same. i'm quite happy to give way. withthoroughly disagree the honorable member saying it is exactly the same. it is not exactly the same. donald trump says he wants to ban all muslims because of their religion. 1.6 billion people he wants to ban because of their religion. the reason why members are

asking for him to be banned is because of the rhetoric and sentiment and the values he has expressed is different from banning someone because of their religion. i hope that point is clear. very generous, but i want to clarify that point. as i repeat, the grounds upon which he is banning muslims is not because of their sex, but he believes they constitute a danger to the united states. just explaining his logic. i don't agree with it. trumpse to ban donald would be that he is a danger to our civic well-being. logically it is the same. that point about 1.6 billion muslims, thank god there are 91.6 billion trumps. say, beyond the

it ise public city, and no good to say that he only has good publicity of the moment, so anymore would not make a difference. we have seen throughout his campaign, at the beginning of his campaign, a growing crescendo of excitement of interest in the campaign. the very fact of this debate, as someone else observed, is stoking that excitement. i will not take any more interventions. i can see the lady itching in her seat. i am saying is we are simply adding fuel to this whole media circus, and this is playing exactly into his hands. a ban would be a headline throughout the world. it would simply reignite all the publicity that he generated with

his outrageous policy. and would exacerbate the situation, would make it more likely that he would be the eventual victor in the republican nomination fight and knows, win the election in november. then we would be in this absurd situation in which we would have banded the president of the united states from coming to insane. which is it is an insane situation to be in. people who say he has no chance of becoming president, this is my final point. look at the leader of the opposition. made 2000 essex pounds, having put 10 pounds on him. chances ofe you the donald trump becoming president are far greater than 200 21. -- 200 to 1. >> the question is, is donald

trump conducive to the public good? we have had a lot of talk about buffoonery, terms like blunt and direct this. if i were muslim -- and i'm not. i speak as a gentle atheist. i would find that repulsive. the thought that i should be excluded from the united states of america for no other reason than i was a muslim. i am proud to represent the dartmouth, and from dartmouth nearly 400 years ago, the pilgrims sailed to the americas to escape the kind of religious persecution that we are addressing today. we have seen the results in happens when you demonize an entire people for no other reason from their race. so i don't think we should trivialize this discussion. i think it is a really important debate. nor do i think the results of the u.s. presidential election

will be decided on whether or , whether this house the home secretary decides to exclude the donald trump. in fact, i would argue, should donald trump be excluded from oldest allies,' that would send a clear message to the people of the united dates about what we feel about those who demonize an entire people for no reason other than their religion. that said, i don't think there is any realistic prospect that the home secretary will ban donald trump. house send a clear message to muslims in this country, to british muslims, that we value you, that we value your contributions, that we will take this petition very seriously. and perhaps those arguments about religious freedom matter as much now as they did 400 years ago. i welcome everybody across the

pond in the united states who may be following this debate back to my constituency. the most beautiful constituency of britain. to come and see where the pilgrim fathers sailed from dartmouth. the anniversary is in 2020. i would say to them all and donald trump, just reflect on the consequences of your kind of religious bigotry. this is not a laughing matter. think again. and if you visit this country, take time to visit the mosques, take time to meet muslims. take time to understand just how profoundly offensive and dangerous that kind of thinking is, and there is no place for it in this country or in the united states. >> thank you. 25 years ago, i was in new york , and i had an interest in

his notoriety, so i visited -- i tower, sort ofmp a black and gold edifice to a certain narcissism. and then i read his book, "the art of the deal," which was pretty similar in many ways. these things were not edifying, and his activities since have not been more edifying. we have in this country a long tolerance,civilizing developed out of conflict, deliberation, and progress. this place, westminster hall, is a place of particular residence in that history, where overbearing attitudes have been brought into line with the thinking of the day, sometimes with force. king charles was sentenced to a few euros from

this place. mps here represent their constituents. the sensible ones keep close to mind the summary nature of the decisions of public opinion. those from whom the public withdraws their support have someone better prospects than in the past happily. no longer do political disagreements lead to duels, disembowelment, or decapitation. there is a more civilized process of elections. for this, we must all be grateful. when a terrorist menace threatens our hard-won civilization with a throwback to outdated methods of dealing with difference, and brings them to our shores, it is right that we oppose it in the strongest terms. our american cousins feel differently. they are conscious of freedom, board of escape from religious tolerance, and the need to be self-reliant, and the desire to make their own economic destiny

and their own strong and democratic legal institutions which have been formed under this agreement. when they speak, we should listen, even if we disagree. be robust with them when necessary and encourage them not to take retrograde steps. mr. trump, the orange prince of american self publicity, more public now than usual because he will be running for president, if he wins the nomination as republican candidate, and possibly close to the presidency should bernie sanders and not hillary clinton be selected as the democratic candidate. he has set things which many of us would not and the addition of celebrity has been somewhat grotesque. to say that he would then muslims from entering the u.s. was too simplistic, unhelpful, and wrong, but i don't think there is evidence that he does not believe in democracy itself, so talk of fascism is a bit overblown, notwithstanding his bedtime reading leaving a lot to

be desired. while cynically expressed by mr. trump, people's concerns about the terrorist challenge needs to be addressed. however, we need to work possibly -- positively with muslim communities, not demonize them. what better place for his mischaracterizations to be debunked than here in the u k, the crucible of modern democracy , where heads are no longer loved for dissent. andwould not want to watch be prodded on have i got news for you? bad opinions and characters have been allowed in britain before. a few of them homegrown. we would not want to allow him any victimhood with which further to hoodwink people. i hope honest british muslims would have their say and even more people would then decide not to vote for him than to use the good sense.

who knows? up close, we may get to see what is under that hair. >> thank you. let's petition with our half a million signatures. example of theme xenophobia of donald trump. i am here to sum up for the snp although many parties do not have an actual party on donald trump. thankfully it's not been needed. support aecessarily on mr. trump from entry into this country but it's clear his bigoted remarks against muslims, mexicans, and other minorities, but particularly his remarks about deserve condemnation from all parts of this house and society. i am proud of the petitioners and all of those who signed the

petition for rejecting the egregious xenophobia and islam a phobia of this man. i hope they would not take too this issue.h there have been interesting arguments on both sides today. those who are against banding but opposed donald trump and everything he stands for have talked about bringing him here to educate him. i did not really have the same understanding as other honorable members have had when they meant to buy that, taken to the mosques to meet some muslims. perhaps they thought that maybe those people would teach him a thing or two, and they would be absolutely right to do that. feel inngest argument i favor of banning him is simply

the argument of inequality. i think the minister needs to correct when other members say there are other cases that are similar, where they are treated differently? that is something he has to answer. the very fact that this petition was so popular highlights three worthy and important points. the first is that we in these islands reject wholeheartedly the notion of discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion. the second, it points out that individuals of power such as trump are happy to demonize others but could never consider that they themselves could be treated in such a fashion. finally, the public reaction in this country and the u.s. let's not forget there was an outcry in the united states from the many good people in that country, to the statements of the public to highlight the fact that trumps statement goes past

all of the enlightenment values that ties the states and the countries of the united kingdom together. while we can recognize the statement was distasteful, we should also note the hypocrisy of the son of an immigrant, advocating for being so bigoted against other migrants and religious minorities. >> [inaudible] i'm afraid this debate in the u.s. is far more nuanced. all the republican candidates in this election are expressing the traditional american view that america is a melting pot. it does not matter where you come from but you had to be loyal to the flag and america. there is a feeling in america now that trump could be articulating this in an extreme way, but to deny that many ordinary people in america are worried about their americanness

is to deny the real debate, which is a valid debate. >> [inaudible] just to say we are not so tight for time as we thought about 10 minutes ago. the debate can continue until 7:30. >> thank you. just to the honorable member, he talks about republican politicians but there are others , other activists in the u.s. who do not agree with what he has assessed of the situation. donald trump. at as his first name suggests, he is the son of a scottish immigrant. i apologize for that. others, hisss mother left the homeland during the great depression and went to the land of liberty. this desire for economic opportunity is the same thing that motivates many migrants from many other countries to go to america today. the mexican migrants who trump

so roundly defames have engaged in the same quest that his forbearers undertook. as a man who purports to be proud of his new york heritage, he would do well to look to lady liberty for some advice on immigration. of course, we would also do well to remind donald trump, as the son of a scottish presbyterian, of the countless generations of immigrants who left the shores for the u.s. in search for religious toleration. the puritans may have gotten a shock at plymouth rock but they certainly went on to forge a society where your religion was to a greater or lesser extent, a relevant thing in public life. while some faced anti-catholic prejudice when they ran for office, they were always able to fall back on the fundamental truth that religious bigotry goes against all of the in-line values that america shares with europe. of useasy for those protected by this parliamentary

bubble to consider proposals and rhetoric such as trump's from being distasteful, opportunistic. some thought it was funny and a truth. but all of us in public life have a duty to work for the common good and to oppose discrimination. i don't think anyone would disagree with that. >> [inaudible] this is a presidential candidate. if a presidential candidate was banned and then became president theat in no circumstances, ability to discuss policy on a whole range of issues would be externally difficult. that is why i am giving, i

think, both sides of the argument. inm just a bit more opposition to mr. trump as a person. the way i see it being different because he is a presidential candidate, he should be less likely to get away with these things because he has far more influence over many more people. when you have someone -- >> thank you. trump wants, donald to ban parliamentarians from this parliament from entering america, so he should not be a presidential candidate. >> i agree, he should know better. when i heardmile arguments from members of the opposite saying we should not be interceding in this process, and yet we have tried to stop him

from visiting the country. when you have someone running for the most powerful political elected position on the planet, actively encouraging discrimination divides communities. it cannot do anything else. that example leads to countless whichf bigotry and hatred will never be reported. i want to turn to some of those examples which have been rise in, and the islamophobia. a friend of mine who is a spoke after the paris attacks of his son being afraid to walk to school because he was seeing the headlines on the front pages of newspapers. one in particular claiming that a significant percentage -- i think it may have said a majority -- of muslims supported terrorism. that child was frightened to go to school.

one muslim children are going to school, they are being called terrorist and bombers. to theve no connection terroristic activities going on. today, david cameron announced an englishassist language lesson. i agree, we should be supporting people to integrate, we should be supporting people, not forcing people, but my understanding is this funding is for muslim women. what has religion got to do with the english language? how will that work? will muslim women be routinely tested to see their english language skills are up to snuff? have my friends beside me already passed that test, does she have to take a test in english? it is ridiculous. and if the money was for muslim andn, then that is wrong,

that in itself will continue in islamophobia. language is so important. we would all do well to mind the language we use. donald trump, it was not just the language he used, it was the intent behind a prepared statement. the jews were forcibly registered. forld trump not just called muslims to be banned them but to be registered and tracked. to my mind, there is no difference between that and to what we did to the jews in europe. that leads me to a number of questions i have for the minister. firstly, does he agree with his colleagues that the impact of donald trump saying what he did is no greater and no more dangerous than their constituents saying it to each other? thatdly, is he comfortable somebody like donald trump would automatically be allowed to come

into the country when i know several people who cannot get their wives or husbands into the country even for visits. are they not as deserving of the rights to visit this country? if he is a lot to be in the country, will the immigration minister be expecting donald trump to reject what he said before he comes? hadhe president of china called for all christians to be refused entry into china, would he still have been invited to , -- country last year >> [inaudible] >> he is the president or he has the right to offend. lots of my constituents think like that. would he get the same treatment that donald trump is getting? >> on that great point about banning heads of state, it is known that mecca is banned for

christians for hundreds of years, yet we entertain and have entertained the king of saudi arabia. mecca and medina. >> i would say, there are a number of other people that are cozying up to -- the u.k. government closing up to him for a number of other reasons. saudi arabia being amongst them. i am not expecting the minister to write all of these down, but i hope he agrees with me that my always getsiends passionate speeches about her equality treatment. finally, my final question. will the minister join me in condemning the nasty, abusive, racist tweets that my honorable

friend has set me receiving on her speaking out against donald trump, and does he think donald trump's statements may have contributed to the abuse that she is constantly having to put up with? i have completely lost my place now. no, i haven't. donald trump is on the record saying his second favorite book after the bible is "the art of the deal" written by donald trump. hehaps it would be better if spent more time reading the constitution of the united states. as president obama's press secretary pointed out -- >> [inaudible] >> i think the honorable lady for the speech. one point about the constitution, donald has suggested that ted cruz cannot stand for the presidency either. he is the other republican candidate.

more importantly, where is the republican party going? i agree with that, and it is a matter for that political party, but that is a good point to raise, may be a good reason for us to be supporting hillary clinton to become the next president. i'm sorry, i'm allowed on the allowed to comment on the presidential elections. as president obama's press secretary pointed out, donald trump's statements make him unfit to be president because he cannot pledge to uphold the constitution if he doesn't believe in religious liberty and freedom from discrimination, or is he going to amend the , and howion on his own with the people of the united states put up with that? and where his right wing

rhetoric may help them to pick up votes in the primary, in the general election, the mass amount of voters will be horrified that such an individual could lead them on the world stage. trump believes himself to be plainspoken but i don't believe a feeling -- and i understand the arguments around people who do not want robotic politicians who just churn out pre-rehearsed press statements -- but there is a huge difference between that and what we have here. i don't believe appealing to fear and presidents is a language in common sense of people here or in the u.s. as tempting as it is is to give trump a taste of his own medicine, tempting to bar him, would he loved it, would we be giving a gift to him? as some have argued, would only give him more publicity? or is the argument stronger that if we let him in, we will give him publicity, because of what

he said, he will be on every tv program and chat show spouting his nonsense? i do see an argument for allowing him to come in and do that because i don't believe he will be able to help himself and he will say things that will render him chargeable and guilty , able to be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred. finally, i am just going to respond to the comment that he is not a martyr. surely the argument cannot be that we only want to ban martyrs, only want to charge murderers. there is another crime that has an impact on people's lives. maybe not mine but on many people's lives. finally, there have been many suggestions on that side that we should keep quiet about this. members of the public who signed the petition, some here today, so that they should just keep quiet.

i am going to hand by letting everyone know that i have a .arking today it is martin luther king day and i'm encouraging everyone to sign that today. i will quote martin luther king who said the ultimate tragedy is not the oppression by the -- bad of the back people, but the silence of that from the good people. we will not be silenced. like many others here, i welcome this debate. it is a good thing that 600,000 or so members of public have brought this to the attention of the house. viewsy, a wide range of amongst the public, across all political parties and across the house itself. powerful speeches and powerful interventions. but an important aspect in all of the speeches this afternoon,

we are united in condemning the comments of donald trump on it issues such as mexican immigrants, muslims, and women, and we should celebrate that whenever view we take of the proposals in the petition before us. i like to take the opportunity to add my name to the list of those condemning the comments that have been made. before turning to the specific question of whether donald trump should be banned from entering the u.k., i want to spend a couple moments on a wider context. donald trump made his comments in the aftermath of the san bernardino shootings on the second of december. that is when he was at his height in relation to those con -- comments. he was not the first and will not be the last to make comments about a community in the wake of a terrorist atrocity.

we have to be clear, responsibility for terrorist , notlie with terrorists with the communities that they purport to come from. we must be clear what we say about that, even when he is not clear about what he says. that does give me the opportunity to bring to this concern about the rise in hate crime here in the u.k. hate crime has been increasing, as has been mentioned. in 2015.ne up 18% the number of offenses involving religious hatred has more than doubled in the past three years. concern, but it is not uniform. spikes after an atrocity. there is always a reaction in terms of hate crime. just last month, in my constituency, i had convened a meeting with somali women, who i

was concerned to hear from. we spent the afternoon discussing their concerns. this was in december after the paris atrocities. the one thing they raise with me over and over again was that day , muslim women in my constituency, were very concerned that they were being as ated that day, week, result of what happened in paris. they perceived it and felt it. ony said it was happening the buses, trains, when they were shopping, etc. spike after atrocities, and we had be united in our values, that that should be done with. i know the government is now tracking muslim hate crimes, and that is welcome. i know there are a number of steps to do with hate crime. dominica -- minister can point

out what else is being done. i do join with other comments in saying that many people here want to send a message to the muslim community about how much we value them and what they bring to our society. >> [inaudible] on that point, i am extremely grateful for giving way and the sentiment he makes in terms of talking about the muslim community. i also think it is important to put on record, the muslim community condemns all types of bigotry, racism, regardless of who is biking in. he seems to be a misconception that for some reason we think it toacceptable for muslims speak in derogatory terms about people of other religions. it's important to put on record that is absolutely not the case.

wherever they bigotry or hatred speech is coming from, it is not acceptable, regardless of who is delivering the message. that.nk you for i do want to say something about this debate this afternoon, about this simplistic approach. he says he wants to ban all muslims, so we should not ban him. it is far too simplistic. what lies at the heart of his belief that muslim should be banned is that he thinks they are all dangerous. that is not buffoonery. that is absolutely repugnant. that is not what leads anyone in this debate, anyone who signed this petition, to suggest that donald trump should not come here. that is why his comments are so offensive to that whole community, and of course to women and the mexicans as well. because of the assumptions and the belief that lies behind them.

i do not any way condone what donald trump said, but i do not think it is right to say that if all of them, that all of them are dangerous, whatever group they may be. ,hat you are saying is, some very few from a certain group might be dangerous. i do not condone the logic. i do not condone the policy, but in this house of commons, we have to give fair dealing to the views that have been expressed. i'm grateful for that intervention. i think we have to be very the viewsout equating of people in this house, members of this house who have called for a ban, and that of donald trump. i'm afraid on my part, they do edge toward treating a whole community as a suspect community.

each and every member, but this has happened before in history, many other contexts, were a whole community has been treated as a suspect community, and we have stood against it in the past and we should do so now. one of the measures -- >> [inaudible] this debate can be tied up into whether mr. trump has made outrageous comments or simply, as some of us believe, hate speech. are others that have been banned from the country for saying the same things. >> i'm grateful for that intervention. i will deal with that in a second. obviously, one of the measures available to government is to ban and the individual from entry into the u.k., and that is

a power that has been used by successive home secretaries in many occasions. many examples have been put before the house this afternoon. it is a power that should be applied equally to everybody, whatever their wealth or power. i think that is important. i do not hold of you that because someone is a presidential candidate, that that gives them any special category. they should be judged in the same way as everyone else, all on the basis of what they have said or done. honorable gentleman agree that the consequences of this kind of hate speech are greater when they come from high-profile individuals? at the heart of the debate is whether or not donald trump's presence in the u.k. is conducive to the public good. we have heard repeatedly about the kind of harms -- the honorable gentleman himself has talked about the harms that we are talking about. >> i do accept the substance of it.

certain words in the mouths of certain individuals are more likely to provoke a reaction. the question is what is the test for a band, whether it has to be linked to public disorder and violence rather than something offensive. i will come to that but i accept the premise that different people will provoke different reactions, sometimes according to who they are. simplye narrow point is, because he has wealth or power or a particular position should not affect the application of the rules to him as it would to anybody else. the threshold for banning is relatively high, and the power is really used. the test is whether an , whether their exclusion would be conducive to the public good. in 2005, it was already mentioned, that was extended to unacceptable behaviors.

it is worth just going through the way in which those behaviors were set up as a list of indicative factors in 2005. four examples justifying terrorist violence for the furtherance of a particular belief. seeking to provoke others into terrorist attacks. fomenting other serious criminal activity or fostering hatred which may lead to injure community violence in the u.k. the touchtone has always been words which provoke a response which has an element of disorder or violence. so it is quite high of a threshold. an example has been given of some of the cases that have fallen under those provisions. they were given at the outset of the debate. no doubt, i think, that some of comments have been offensive, shocking, and

disturbing. i join with those that say they are not funny, they are repugnant. but they are just that, offensive, shocking, and disturbing. i do not think that, in and of provoke a enough to at this stage on the basis of what has been said so far. i do go back to a principal that was set up by the european court of human rights almost a quarter-century ago in relation where our government and the sunday times were slugging it out over spy capture. isy said freedom of speech one of the foundations of a democratic society. it is applicable not only to favorable ideas, but as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend. the point of the court was making was an important one. freedom of speech is not needed

for speech which is welcomed. you do not need a protection for speech where people treat with indifference. it is only relevant, it only matters, when you get into the sphere of offensive speech, shocking speech, that is the whole point of the protection of free speech. in this context, therefore, this speech, however offensive, shocking, or disturbing, is, in fact, protected, under what we consider freedom of expression. how does that translate? i would not want donald trump around for dinner to express his views. i do agree with others that we should invite him to join us in our various constituencies to meet with members of various religious orders, faiths, communities. you came here, he would be

very busy because he would have to go to several constituencies already. it is an incredibly diverse multicultural community. see a u.k.p would very different to the picture that he painted. should he be banned from entering the country on the basis of what he said, no, in my view, he should not. , farould be met with words more powerful than his own. i do accept this is a judgment those noti respect only this afternoon but other occasions, to express the contrary view that this is so close to the line, that donald trump should have action taken against him. but in the end, we should be guided by our own values and not those of donald trump. our own values include a deep belief in freedom of speech and

a deep belief in multi faith and , where societies everyone feels secure, and everyone feels respected. thank you. it is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship. can i also asked the outset congratulated the honorable member from newport west for the manner in which he has opened this debate, underlining the reasons why we are debating this issue, the importance in this parliament that we attach to petitions, though supported by the public when they reach a threshold, so that that actually provides voice for the public in this house. i think that has been an important addition to our processes. to underlineright that shared sense of history between the united kingdom and the united states, and the

relationship we have enjoyed between us over a considerable period of time. debate has also come as we are debating issues of freedom of speech, underline the value and importance of this , and ources on that ability for all different views, different perspectives to be able to argue those points clearly and effectively through the impassioned debate that we have had this afternoon. before i respond to a number of the points raised during this debate, a few things i want to say on the outset. britain is a successful multiracial multi faith multiethnic country. our strength derives from that diversity. life in our country is based on fundamental values that have been shaped by our history. they are supported and shared by

the overwhelming majority of the population. the rule of law, democracy, and individual liberty. freedom of expression. the mutual respect, tolerance, and understanding of different faiths and beliefs. these make the foundation of our successful pluralistic nation. they unite us and help our society to thrive. i am proud that our country has so many vibrant, diverse immunities constituting people of many faiths. and i celebrate the contribution made by british muslims in this country in every sphere and in every walk of life. from those who fought in the trenches in world war i, and thought fascism in world war ii, to the business men, doctors, nurses, teachers, members of our armed services, and members of havehouse, some of whom

made powerful and impassioned speeches this afternoon, and they are proud to be both british and muslim without any contradiction. yes, the threat from terrorism both at home and abroad is serious and real. andave seen the damaging corrosive effects of extremism in our communities. but suggesting that the solution is to been muslims who have done nothing wrong ignores the fact that extremism affects all communities, and hatred can come from any part of society. it ignores that muslims are themselves far too often the targets of extremism and hatred, and that around the world, many muslims are killed by terrorism. more than any other group. it also gives secret to the false view that muslims cannot live a purposeful and fulfilled life in the west.

such assertions are fundamentally wrong, and as a country, we could not be clearer in saying that. if we are to defeat the threats we face, we need to work together. we need everyone to play a part in stopping the poisonous spread of extremism and helping to protect vulnerable people from being brought toward a twisted ideology. it is that approach this government is seeking to foster, because we have seen the devastating impact radicalization can have on individuals, families, and communities, and because around the world more than a billion and a half people of different nationalities, different outlooks, and different political persuasions live peacefully practicing the muslim faith. we must protect those who might -- be vulnerable to the pernicious influence of faithlization, work with groups, community organizations, and mosques across the country.

this is a job for all of us and we continue to work in partnership with communities of all faith backgrounds to challenge those who spread hatred and intolerance. we must work with the overwhelming majority of people of this country who abhor the twisted narrative that has seduced some people in our those whond challenge use a warped version of faith to undermine our fundamental values. many of the contributions from honorable and right honorable members this evening has focused on donald trump's call for a temporary shutdown of muslims entering the united states. the prime minister has said the comments are divisive, unhelpful, and quite simply wrong. and i read his views and profoundly disagree. in mr. trump's comments about london inand in particular, again, he could not be further from the truth.

we should all be proud of london's state as one of the most diverse and tolerant cities. and the police's role on keeping the entire city safe, working in all communities to protect people from radicalization. i pay tribute to their tireless work. i will give way. you mention the prime minister and will you commend the prime minister's articles in the time today where he said the key to good race relations is full integration, and the prime minister points out there is still a worm a large number of muslim women who do not speak english and who are not in the jobs market, and he wants to improve the situation. movie commend the prime minister? the policy that the prime minister is right to identify today seeking to ensure that language is there to ensure that we help migrants to better participate and integrate in everyday life. that is the building block

between the policy the prime minister has rightly identified. and how equally he has been prepared, i think, to look at those uncomfortable fax, on the fact that 22% of british muslim no orin 2011 spoke limited english, compared to only 9% of british muslim men. therefore, it is how we can target that support, those communities, in the greatest need. that is precisely why louise casey has been engaged in her work to go about that. >> the point that i was making earlier, making this available for migrant people who do not than english is different saying you must do it if you are a muslim woman. it should not be a religion, it should be aimed at people who require the support. >> david, this is not a muslim

only scheme. the point that i rightly make is it is targeted on those communities that are most affected. equally, why i make the point about the 22% number that i make, which the prime minister has highlighted in the context of his speech today. to address the issue of exclusion, the home secretary has the power to exclude a national from outside the european economic area and refuse them entry into the u.k. if the secretary of state has directed the persons exclusion from the u.k. is conducive to the public good. this power is derived from the royal prerogative and is exercised by the home secretary in person. exclusion decisions are not taken lightly or in isolation. secretary makes every decision on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the information available and a wide range of policy and operational factors. these factors include views from across government