in the 18th century? and what sort of prosecutions came with the espionage act during world war ii? for example, the internment of japanese citizens, could they have been used or later on during the vietnam period? beverly: i will take the second question and throw the first one over to tom. one of the things that is interesting about the second world war and the way that people in national government look at the second world war is that they really actually don't want to do the things they were doing in the first world war, which is to say the raids, press censorship, some of the free-speech restrictions in place during the first world war. there is actually sort of a concerted effort not to do some of those things. on the other hand of course, you get japanese interment, you do get the prosecutions of some

political radicals, and so you see variations on a theme. a lot of the president of the first world war, for instance german internment becomes something people look back to when they are beginning japanese interment. other precedents are rejected. franklin roosevelt and j edgar hoover, in charge of the things, by the second world war they want to avoid their mistakes but particular the criticism directed at the government for some of these. susan: the other question was about tracing lineage back to the civil war and adams. thomas: the caller is exactly right. there was a national history in which the government got the authority to clamp down on expressions of opposition, we had internal dissent, and the civil war.

i think the courts and the congress were relatively comfortable with the idea that these kinds of restrictions in a time of war, were not undue restrictions on free speech. susan: carl in delaware. what is your question? >> susan, thank you for a high-quality broadcast. i want to say, that was a really good insight about edward snowden, our attitudes as a society affect his prosecution. just to pick up on the last caller, if your guests could take the schenck decision forward, if you see any parallels to the patriot act, in terms of the first amendment and any protections we have. thomas: while the courts have gotten a lot more protective of the first amendment, there are other areas of the law in which they had reacted to wartime or kind of wartime by apparently limiting civil liberties.

when you look at the patriot act, it is not going to have free-speech restrictions. the government would have a hard time limiting that. we really do believe in the marketplace of ideas. but in the name of national security and presidential powers, the courts are much more deferential, and it is harder to get into court to challenge those measures, mostly because people don't know their are being spied on, but also a great reticence of the court to inlve themselves in questions that are technological and can involve the risk of terrorism and the like. the general theme that the courts are more respectful of the government in times of war, and more willing to restrict civil liberties is true in a context like the patriot act, just like in free-speech in the time of schenck. susan: a prior caller mentioned

japanese interment. next week's case will be on that, and a japanese-american who protested his internment all the way to the supreme court. the next caller, is steve in connecticut. you are on the air. >> hi, thank you very much and i appreciate the program. i have two questions. how do you see this case being similar or different to the debs and abrams case? i don't know if there is a real connection to this and another case, i know that they are draft dodgers that went to mexico during the war. i was curious as to whether this had any bearing on the outcome of that case. susan: do you want to take the debs and abrams?

thomas: eugene debbs, abrams and schenck were three that came to the justices in 1919. eugene debs was doing different things. but the general notion in them was that there was an effort to undermine people mobilizing for the war, supporting the war, without some direct imminent threat that someone was going to cause violence and the like. the question in all of the cases was can the government prohibit speech in that circumstance. they are mostly notable for the fact that holmes doesn't shift between schenck at the beginning and abrams at the end of the year and how far he is willing to go. the cases are all the very first set of four challenge to the constitutionality of the espionage act, and what it means for the birth of first amendment free-speech law. beverly: it's great you brought that is the case that continues

the conversation into the 1920's. they were not committed for the killing of a payroll guard. this became not only a national sensation but a global sensation, in part because it was understood their political radicalism, they were anarchists, italian american, that that has somehow biased, it is noticeable this was in boston were many of these figures we have been hearing about were in fact situated. there is a very interesting legal conversation going on there. at any rate, this case does become the case where a lot of these debates continue into the 1920's, and they are ultimately executed in 1927.

even though once again you are having these debates, the rest of the government is still to go against the radicals who are challenging these laws. susan: in today's modern court, justice antonin scalia upheld the act. we are going to have a bit of justice scalia talking about that along with ruth bader ginsburg. let's listen. [video clip] justice scalia: you can be using your first amendment rights and it could be abominable that you are using your first amendment rights. i will defend your right to use it, but i will not defend the appropriateness of the manner in which you are using it now. that could be very wrong. justice ginsburg: justice scalia was praised by some, criticize for others for his decision in the flagburning case.

i imagine, the act itself was reprehensible. justice scalia: i would have sent that guy to jail if i was king. [laughter] >> but by your ruling you have the right. justice scalia: yes, you have your right to express content -- contempt for the government. it does not mean it was a good thing for him to do that, in that manner by burning a symbol that meant so much to so many other people. but he had the right to do it. susan: two of the justices on today's supreme court talking about the evolution of free speech in society. he said that the schenck case was an opening salvo on the modern discussion on the right to speech. where are we today? thomas: we are in a much more protective place for free-speech. we like ideas. some people think it goes too

far, because for example, it prevents the right for campaign contributions. but in general, the supreme court says if you want to communicate with people, we are going to protect you. if your ideas are bad, they are going to be rejected. we are not afraid of what you have to say. susan: what is the legacy of schenck v. united states? beverly: the thing schenck did start is a conversation about the first amendment, and what it really means. but i also think schenck symbolizes a relatively dark moment in american history, which is to say it is a moment when the federal government really mobilizes at a lot of levels for the first time, to begin to actually contain american opinion. i think we see both of these trends continue. susan: thank you to beverly and tom for being with us in our discussion of schenck v. united states, in c-span's landmark cases series.

thank you to those of you at home watching and contributing your questions and ideas to the discussion. ♪ >>

let ourre presentation cases continues tomorrow night with korematsu versus the united states. and a 6-3 decision the supreme court in 1944 upheld the government's forceful removal of 120,000 people of japanese descent. taken from their homes on the west coast to interment camps in remote areas of western and midwestern states during world war ii. learn more about the case tomorrow night at 10:00 eastern on c-span. i reminder, you can watch all of the episodes in the series on our website. c-span.org. >> american history tv on c-span3, this weekend, saturday night at 10:00 eastern on railamerica, -- >> tough, dirty, unpleasant are generally referred to as -- labor.

understandably, then, this is the only areas in which the american farm labor supply fall short. mexicanpplemented by citizens, sometimes called nationals, or mexican nationals. the term is commonly used as percent rose. in spanish, this means a man who works with his arms and hands. in short, the big question in many minds is, why these people? >> this 20 minute film produced by the council of california growers noted that program. a guestworker agreement between the united states and mexico from 1942-1964. sunday morning at 10:00 eastern, unread to the white house rewind. are aggressive. they have overstated in afghanistan, they have been out more than in my judgment they should be allowed to buy down. the best answer to it, is for them to know the

united states is going to keep its commitment. >> i agree completely. where people want to be free, soviet or cuban domination, where the proxy troops are used for the cubans, united states that should be willing to provide weapons to any man that wants to fight for his freedom against those hostile forces. >> the 1980 texas republican primary debate between former california governor ronald reagan and former cia director, george h.w. bush. at 6:00, and american artifacts. >> it is also the least of the classical buildings. the building is very neoclassical. has an imagelding of a neoclassical building. the hart building is very modern. some people have compared it to a large ice cube tray. very different looking building. store and emeritus don ritchie cases inside the newest of the three office buildings.

1983 hart senate office building, to mine about the construction and placing congressional history. on the presidency at 8:00. smithsonian national portrait gallery senior historian david ward chronicles abraham lincoln's life through photographs and portraits. >> rather exasperated lincoln takes time out from writing the inaugural address to sit for this last photograph in which he does the kind of peevish. you notice again the eyes disappeared. his presence to the public and is suffering. >> for the complete american history tv we can schedule, that is c-span.org. >> this month, we showcased our student can winners. our annual competition for high school and middle school students. this year's theme is wrote to the white house. what issues do you want presidential candidates to discuss.

they want presidential candidates to discuss russian and american relations. in their video, "russia and america: cold snap or permafrost?" president obama: we cannot stand by when the territorial integrity of a nation is violated. if that happens without consequence in ukraine, it could happen to any nation gathered here today. >> for two centuries come our relationship with russia has been complicated. we've always been rivals who depend on each other. although we were allies in world war ii, mistrust dates from the russian revolution.

u.s. russian relations have improved with a new approach to russia. vladimir putin has started a new age of military aggression. >> the administration in late august asked the russians, what are you up to, what are you doing? they said "we are fortifying our interests there. we are just as scared of the islamic state as you are." the administration in response to this adopted this watch and wait, wishful thinking posture. >> i think our relationship with russia is one of the most complicated in the world. it has gotten much worse over the past few years in large part because of russia's invasion of ukraine. at the same time, we have been

cooperating with them on very important issues like the nuclear agreement with iran. and important counterterrorism programs. >> we must not forget our relationship is still fragile. >> he can't even play nice with putin. >> russia is lying through their teeth when they tell us they are on our side. sometimes they are fighting isis. other times, they are fighting the syrian opposition. >> let isis fight. russia is in syria already. let them fight isis. >> while some approaches are completely passive, some are much more aggressive. >> i would not talk to him at all. we've talked way too much to

him. i would begin rebuilding the fleet. >> it is really about finding the right balance and delivering tough messages with consequences for russia when they overstepped the bounds of international norms like they did in ukraine. >> i have been, i remain convinced that we need a concerted effort to really up the costs on russia and prudent. >> we needed to make it clear to russia that their invasion of ukraine cannot stand. we will never recognize their occupation of crimea or eastern ukraine. president obama: the russian economy has been seriously weakened.

foreign investment is down, inflation is up, the russian central bank has lost more than $130 billion in reserves. russian banks and firms are locked out of international markets. >> keep it off a lot more he could chew -- he bit off a lot more than he could chew. russia's military budget is small because their economy is shrinking. their gdp fell by 4% last year. because of the low price of oil, which is the biggest growth sector in the russian economy. that creates an environment where he is looking to flexes muscle to get popular support at home. he is popular in the most recent polls, but not because of his handling of the economy. >> government controlled media in russia is slamming america,

claiming we are impeding legitimate interests. russia perceived this as a threat to their national security, giving them cover to continue operations in ukraine and syria. the russian press speaks positively of our recent joint progress in iran. >>[speaking russian] >> in conclusion, america and russia still have a precarious relationship. too little force could result in russian invasion of other countries and too much could start a war. it is up to the next president to find a perfect balance. they must try carefully, for the result of this decision will have lasting effects on the world's future. >> to watch all of the prize-winning documentaries and

this year's student cam competition, visit studentcam.org. begin inent obama's today's nuclear security summit and washington, d.c. followed by debate on how the developed nations should respond to the global refugee crisis. later, present or candidate ted cruz and john kasich attending a republican dinner in milwaukee. >> more than 50 world leaders were in washington, d.c. this week for a nuclear security summit. in 2010 to highlight level cooperation secure nuclear materials. as host of this year summit, president obama held a closing news conference to take questions from reporters.

president obama: good morning, everybody. it is my privilege to welcome you to washington and to formally convene our fourth nuclear security summit. i want to thank everybody who participate in our meetings and more than 50 leaders from every region of the world and key international organizations. our previous summits, we do not come here to talk, but we came here to act. i know the technical nature of nuclear security does not always make for flashy headlines, over the past six years, we have made significant, meaningful progress in securing the world nuclear materials so they never fall into the hands of terrorists. i want to take a few moments to step back and lay out exactly what we have accomplished.

together we remove the most of the materials from nuclear facilities around the world. with japan's announcement today, we have removed or secured all the highly enriched uranium and plutonium for more than 50 facilities in 30 countries. tons, which is more than enough to crater hundred and 50 nuclear weapons. material will never fall into the hands of terrorists. taiwan, countries as diverse as argentina and chile to libya and turkey to serbia and vietnam, have now rid themselves of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. i want to point out that successfully moving all of ukraine's highly enriched uranium four years ago meant that the difficult situation in ukraine over the past two years was not made more dangerous by the presence of these materials.

as of today, south america, the entire continent, is completely free of these dangerous materials. when poland complete its removal this year, central europe will be free of them as well. when indonesia complete its work this year, so will all of southeast asia. in other words, as terrorists and criminal gangs and arms merchants around for deadly ingredients for a nuclear device, vast regions of the world are now off limits, and that is a remarkable achievement. we have made important progress in the united states as well, and in addition to the steps i announced, we have improved nuclear security and training. we've consolidated nuclear materials at fewer facilities, eliminated 130 tons of our surplus highly enriched uranium, enough for 5500 nuclear weapons. working with russia we are on track to eliminate enough russian highly enriched uranium for about 20,000 nuclear

weapons, which we are converting to electricity here in the united states. more specifically, as result of these summits, every single one of the more than 50 nations represented here at taking concrete steps to enhance security at your nuclear facilities and storage sites, and includes improved physical security, stronger regulations, abiding by international guidelines, greater transparency, and that includes international peer reviews. 15 new centers have been created around the world to prevent nuclear security technology to share best practices. today we agree to keep strengthening our defenses against cyber attacks. we bolstered international efforts to disrupt nuclear smuggling, and the initiative has grown to more than 100 nations, including exercises to improve our ability to interdict shipments. the united states and are countries have installed equipment at more than 300

international border crossings, airports, and ports, and we are developing new mobile detection systems as well. as i noted this morning, we are strengthened treaties and international partnerships that are the foundation for so many of our efforts. we have made significant progress, and everyone involved in this room, especially those who have worked on this for years, take pride in our achievements. as i said earlier, our work is by no means finished. there's still a great deal of nuclear material around the world needs to be secured. global stocks of plutonium are growing, nuclear arsenals are expanding in some countries, with more small tactical nuclear weapons, which could be at greater risk of theft. and as a consequence, one of the central goals of this summit was, how do we build on the work

that has been done so we have an international architecture that can continue the efforts even though this is the last formal leaders summit? even as this is the last of those leader-level summits, today we agreed to maintain a strong architecture, including through the united nations, the international atomic energy agency, and interpol to carry on this work and provide the support that is needed to continue this mission. we are creating a new nuclear security contact group, senior-level experts from more than 30 of our countries, who will meet regularly to preserve the network of corporation, to institutionalize this work, and keep driving this progress for years to come. at our session on isil, there was agreement that defeating terrorist groups like isil requires more information sharing. everybody understands the

urgency in the wake of what has happened in brussels and turkey, pakistan, and so many other countries around the world. as a consequence, our director of national intelligence, jim clapper, is continuing to engage with leaders from an number of our european partners on deepening cooperation, and today i invited all the nations represent it at the summit to join a broader discussion among our intelligence and security services how we can improve among all nations to prevent all manner of attacks, especially those that might involve weapons of mass destruction. in closing, i want to say that preventing nuclear terrorism is one part of a broader agenda that i outlined of years ago in prague, stopping a world of nuclear weapons. and in recent days there has been no shortage of analysis on whether we have achieved our vision, and i am the first to

acknowledge the great deal of work that remains, on negotiating for the reduction with russian to dealing with north korea's nuclear program. as i indicated, realizing our vision will not happen quickly, perhaps will not happen in my lifetime. but we have begun. united states and russian nuclear arsenals are on track to be the lowest that they have been in six decades. i have reduced the number of nuclear weapons in our nuclear security strategy. in a historic deal, we have prevented the spread of nuclear weapons to iran. civil nuclear cooperation is being encouraged. we will keep pushing forward wherever we can, as i hope future administrations do, to bring us closer to the day when these nuclear dangers no longer hang over the heads of our children and grandchildren.

with that, let me take a few questions, and i will start with roberta from reuters. >> thank you. i want to ask about iran, and three weeks ago the supreme leader complained his country has not been getting actual business deals since the nuclear agreement. and non-u.s. companies are saying it is hard or impossible to do much business with iran without at some point accessing the u.s. financial system to do u.s.-dollar-denominated transactions. are you considering allowing such transactions, and if so, is that not a betrayal of your assurances that most u.s. stations would stay in place? president obama: that is not the course we are on. let me say broadly that so long as iran is carrying out its end of the bargain, we think it is important for the world community to carry out our end of the bargain. they had in fact, based on the

presentations that were made by the iaea this morning to the p5 plus 1, had in fact followed the steps that -- part of the challenges that they face is that companies have not been doing business there for a long time, and they need to get comfortable with the prospects of this deal holding. one of the things that secretary lew and his counterpart within the p5 plus 1 and elsewhere are going to be doing is providing clarity to businesses about what transactions are in fact allow, and it is going to take time over the next several months for companies and their legal department to feel confident

that impact there may not be risks of liability if they do business with iran. and so some of the concerns that iran has expressed we are going to work with them to address. it is not necessary that we take the approach of them going through dollar-denominated transactions. it is possible for them to work through european financial institutions as well. but there is going to need to be continued clarification provided to businesses in order for deal flows to begin. now, what i would say is also important is iran's own behavior in generating confidence that iran is a safe place to do business. in a deal like this, my first priority, my first concern is making sure that we got there nuclear program stopped and material that they already had that would give them a very

short breakout capacity, that that has shipped out. that has happened. and i always said i cannot promise that iran would take advantage of this opportunity in this window to reenter the international community. iran so far has followed the letter of the agreement. but the spirit of the agreement involves iran also sending signals to the world community of businesses that it is not going to be engaging in a range of provocative action that might scare business off. when they launch ballistic missiles with slogans calling for the destruction of israel, that makes businesses nervous. there is some geopolitical risk that is heightened when they see that taking place.

if iran continues to ship missiles to hezbollah, that get businesses nervous. and so part of what i hope happens is that we have a responsibility to provide clarity about the rules that govern so that iran can in fact benefit the iranian people, can benefit from the improved economic situation. but iran has understand what every you interrupt understands, ages businesses want to go where they feel safe, where they do not see massive controversy, where they can be confident that transactions are going to operate normally, and that is an adjustment that iran is going to have to make as well. and frankly, within iran, i suspect there are different views, in the same way to hardliners here in united who even after we have certified this deal is working, even after

our intelligence teams, israeli intelligence teams say this has been a game changer, are opposed to this deal on principle. there are hardliners inside iran who do not want to see iran opened itself up to the broader world community. and are doing things to potentially undermined the deal. and so those forces that seek the benefits of the deal, not just in their own terms, but more broadly, we want to make sure over time they are in the position to realize those benefits. david? >> thank you, mr. president. as you mentioned, you finished a working session with 50 world leaders about combating terrorism. i wanted to ask you about one of the strategies your administrations is using in that

effort. in the past several weeks, your administration has killed well over 200 people in airstrikes in somalia, libya, and yemen, according to the department of defense. how can you know that all people killed pose an imminent threat to the united states, and why is the united states now kill scores of people at a time rather than eliminating individuals in very targeted strikes? thank you. president obama: we have constructed a fairly rigid and vigorous set of criteria for us evaluating the intelligence that we receive about isil, where it might be operating. these involve a whole range of agencies consulting extensively, and are then checked, double checked, triple checked before kinetic actions are taken.

for the most part, actions are taken against high-value targets in the countries you described, outside the theater of iraq in syria. in some cases, what we are seeing our camps that after long times of monitoring it becomes clear that are involved in directing plots that could do the united states harm, for supporting isil activities for al qaeda activities elsewhere in the world. so if after a long period of observation we are seeing that in fact explosive materials are being loaded onto trucks and individuals are engaging in training in small arms and there are some of those individuals who are identified as couriers

for isil or al qaeda, then based on this evaluations a strike would be taken. but what we have been very cautious about is making sure that we are not taking strikes in situations where, for example, we think there is the presence of women or children or if it is in a normally populated area. and recently, we laid out the criteria by which we are making these decisions. we declassified many elements of this. we are going to be putting forward and trying to institutionalize on a regular basis how we make these evaluations and these analyses. in terms of the broader debate that is taking place, david, i

think there has been in the past legitimate criticism that the architecture, the legal architecture around the use of drone strikes or other kinetic strength was not as precise as it should have been, and there is no doubt that civilians were killed that should not have been. i think that over the last several years we have worked very hard to avoid and prevent those kinds of tragedies from taking place. in situations of war, we have to take responsibility when we are not acting appropriately, or where we have just made mistakes, even with the best of intentions, and that is what we are going to continue to try to do. and what i can say with great

confidence is that our operating procedures are as rigorous as they have ever been and that there is a constant evaluation of precisely what we do. >> thank you, mr. president. you spent seven years now working on nonproliferation issues, and you said in your remarks that you hope that future administrations do the same. this week one of the republican frontrunners to replace you said that perhaps south korea and japan should have nuclear weapons and would not rule out nuclear weapons in europe. what message does it send when a major party candidate is articulating such a reversal in u.s. foreign policy? and also, who did you vote for in the democratic primary? [laughter]

president obama: first of all, it is a secret ballot, isn't it? no, i am not going to tell you now. the statements you mentioned -- what do they tell us? they tell us the person who made the statement does not know much about foreign policy or nuclear policy or the korean peninsula or the world in general. it came up on the sidelines. i have said before that people pay attention to american elections. what we do is really important to the rest of the world. and even in those countries that are used to a carnival atmosphere in their own politics want sobriety and clarity when it comes to u.s. elections

because they understand the president of the united states needs to know what is going on around the world and has to put in place the kinds of policies that lead not only to our security and prosperity, but will have an impact on everybody else's security and prosperity. our alliance with japan and the republic of korea is one of foundations, one of the cornerstones of our presence in the asia-pacific region. it has underwritten the peace and prosperity of that region. it has been an enormous boon to american commerce and american influence, and it has prevented the possibilities of a nuclear

escalation and conflict between countries that in the past and throughout history have been engaged in hugely destructive conflict and controversies. so you do not mess with that. it is an investment that rests on the sacrifices that our men and women made back in world war ii, when they were fighting throughout the pacific. it is because of their sacrifices and the wisdom that american foreign-policy makers showed after world ii, we have been able to avoid catastrophe in those regions. we don't want somebody in the oval office who does not

recognize how important that is. andrew. yesterday you met with the president of turkey after scenes. do you consider him an authoritarian? president obama: they're an important partner against isil. it is a country with him we have a long and strategic relationship with. the present is somebody who i've dealt with since i came into office. a whole range of areas we have had a productive partnership. is also true, and i've express this to them directly, that someo secret

trends within turkey, that i've been troubled with. i'm a strong believer in freedom of the press. i'm a strong believer in freedom of religion. and rule of law. and democracy. there is no doubt that the president has repeatedly been elected to the democratic think the approach of a have been taking toward the lead is one that could turkey down a path that would be very troubling. we are going to continue to said to theand i president, reminding him that he came into office. democracy and of turkey has historically been a

country in which deep islamic faith has lived side-by-side with modernity and increasing openness, and that is the legacy which he should pursue, rather than a strategy which involves repression of information and shutting down democratic debate. having said that, i want to emphasize the degree to which their cooperation has been critical on a range of international and regional issues and will continue to be. as is true with a lot of our friends and partners, we work with them, we cooperate with them, we are appreciative of their efforts, and there will be some differences. where there are differences, we will say so, and that is what i have tried to do here.

i will take one last question. this young lady right there. >> thank you, president. president obama: where are you from, by the way? >> i am from azerbaijan. how can azerbaijan support in this nuclear security issue? president obama: azerbaijan, like many countries that participated, has already taken a number of steps. each country has put forward a national action plan. some countries had stockpiles of highly enriched uranium that they agreed to get rid of. other countries had civilian nuclear facilities but not necessarily the best security practices, so they have adopted better security practices.

there are countries that could potentially be transit points for the smuggling of nuclear materials, so they have worked with us on border controls and detection. because of azerbaijan's location, it is a critical partner in this process. i should point out, by the way, that although the focus of these summits has been on securing nuclear materials and making sure they do not all into the hands of terrorists, the relationships, the information sharing, the stitching together of domestic law enforcement, international law enforcement, intelligence, military agencies, both within countries and between countries -- this set of

relationships internationally will be useful not just for nuclear material, but it is useful in preventing terrorism generally. it is useful in identifying threats of chemical weapons or biological weapons. one of the clear messages coming out of this summit and our experiences over the last seven years is an increasing awareness that some of the most important threats we face are transnational threats, so we are slowly developing a web of relationships around the world that allow us to match and keep up with the transnational organizations that all too often are involved in terrorist activity, criminal activity, human trafficking -- a whole range of issues that can

ultimately do our citizens harm. seeing the strengthening of these institutions i think will be one of the most important legacies of this entire process. since you have your hand up, i will call on you one last question. >> thank you, mr. president. i wanted to ask a question about nuclear policy. when you pushed to rid the world of nuclear material and fissile material, the u.s. nuclear history has worked to improve miniaturization of warheads. while it has not developed new classes of warheads, it has improved the technology, which has prompted some in china and russia to say that they need to keep up. are you concerned the technological advances in the united states have had the effect of undermining some of the progress you have made on

the prevention side? president obama: i think that is a legitimate question, and i am concerned. here is the balance we have had to strike -- we have a nuclear stockpile that we have to make sure is safe and reliable. after the treaty we entered into with russia, we have brought down significantly the number of weapons that are active, but we also have to make sure that they are up to date, that their command and control systems that might have been developed a while ago are up to snuff, given all the technology that has changed since that time, and we have to make sure that our

deterrence continues to work. even as we brought down the number of weapons that we have, i have wanted to make sure that what we do retain functions, that it is not subject to a cyber intrusion, that there is sufficient confidence in the system that we do not create a stabilizing activity. -- we do not create the stabilizing activity -- we do not create destabilizing activity. after we completed the treaty, our team approach the russians in terms of looking at a next phase for arms reductions. because mr. putin came into power or returned to his office as president because of a vision

he has been pursuing of emphasizing military might over development inside of russia and diversifying the economy, we have not seen the kind of progress i would have hoped for with russia. the good news is that the possibilities of progress remain. we are abiding by the treaty. we are seeing implementation, and although we are not likely to see further reductions during my presidency, my hope is that we have built the mechanisms and systems of verification and so forth that will allow us to continue to reduce them in the future. we do have to guard against in the interim ramping up new and

more deadly and more effective systems that end up leading to a whole new escalation of the arms race. in our modernization plan, i have tried to strike the proper balance, making sure that the triad and our systems work properly, that they are effective, but also to make sure we are leaving the door open to further reductions in the future. but one of the challenges we will have here is that it is very difficult to see huge reductions in our nuclear arsenal unless the united states and russia, as the two largest possessors of nuclear weapons, are prepared to lead the way. the other area where i think we would need to see progress is pakistan and india, that

subcontinent, making sure that as they develop military doctrines, that they are not continually moving in the wrong direction. we have to take a look at the korean peninsula because north korea is in a whole different category. it poses the most immediate set of concerns for all of us, one that we are working internationally to focus on, and that's one of the reasons why we had the trilateral meeting with japan and korea. thank you very much, everybody. have a good weekend. >> on this weakens these makers, are guest is dave mcintosh.

he shares thoughts on 2016 presidential race. the club is already endorsing texas senator ted cruz for president. and behind a string of anti-donald trump ads in several primary states. you can watch the interview sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on seas and. >> the media teaches us that the democrats and republicans are supposed to be at odds with each other. and i think that people need to recognize that we need to be respectful toward each other and we need to understand that senators are respectful toward each other and that will be more conducive to getting the policy done instead of just acrimony and patrol. >> the truth is that these people was on television and on c-span are real people. when we saw president obama, perhaps the thing that most it out to me was that he had bags under his eyes and he was tired, he was a real person doing with real things. so i thought that that was perhaps most interesting.

>> sunday night on q&a, high school students from around the country attend a 54th annual theyand it use program, spoke with us about their experiences in the weeklong government and leadership program, plus the plans for the future. the students met with members of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government, plus military and media representative's. >> washington post journalists, came to talk to us and i really loved the insight that he gave us about being the outside source. and theg back to us, electorate about what is going on in our government. ruth bader ginsburg was the most inspirational person that we have met this week. >> she has been one of my idols for a long time, i either want to be in the legal profession, or possibly a senator. >> i understand the need for bipartisanship at times, but i also think that it is important that politicians go to washington whether state capitals with their eyes on a goal, and they are determined to

meet the goal instead of sacrificing it in the light of money or the light of bipartisanship or whatever it is. >> constructive discourse, like the one i've had here. when he to go back to respecting all americans are matter what the background and to make in this country more respectable place for people to give their opinions. >> sunday night 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. the situation in syria has led to the worst humanitarian crisis since world war ii. with more than four and half million people fleeing the country is refugees. a debate on the role that developed nation should have an addressing refugee crisis. this is part of the semiannual must debate in toronto. it is 90 minutes. ♪

>> russia's current leaders are not political rulers of their nation, they are literally the country's owners. >> would be totally destroyed. not prepared to sacrifice the african continent for some free market neoliberalism ideology. >> let's say the bleeding hearts for somebody else. it is time to change. >> you don't know what to say the draft to say something. >> i believe the 21st century will belong to china. but most injuries have belong to china. for theng barack obama state of the world is in right now is like blaming a caribbean islands for a hurricane. >> north korea has said, if you are a third rate country that manages to acquire nuclear devices, you remain a third world dysfunctional economy. >> we will never be able to take this from somebody.

>> we will never be able to take this from somebody. the canadian, and the citizenship of every canadian in this country. ♪ [applause] rudyard: thank you. welcome to the munk debate on the global refugee crisis. my name is rudyard griffiths, and i have the privilege of organizing this semiannual debate series, and once again serving as your moderator. i want to begin tonight's proceedings by welcoming the north american-wide tv audience that is tuning into this debate

across canada and coast to coast to coast on cpac, canada's public affairs channel, and across the united states on c-span. it is the first time the munk debates have been live throughout the continent of north america. it is terrific to have that viewing audience joining us this evening. [applause] a warm hello also to our online audience. we are logging on our website, www.munkdebates.org. our print media partners joining us also online. we have an online poll going on tonight. be sure to participate, be sure to be part of our online interactive discussions. and hello to you, over 3000 people who once again fill roy thomson hall on a friday night to capacity forget another munk debate. all of this associated with the oriole foundation. we thank you for your idea that this is dedicated to. that is more and better public debates in the public squares. bravo, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being part of

tonight's conversation. [applause] now, our ability to debate in and debate out year after year to bring in the world's sharpest minds and brightest thinkers here to the stage, toronto's roy thomson hall would not be possible without the generosity, the foresight, the creativity, of our hosts tonight. join me in the appreciation of the founders peter and melanie munk. bravo, guys. [applause] the moment we have been waiting for, our two teams of debaters out here, centerstage, and debate underway. the debate resolution, taken from the inscription, studied to liberty. "be it resolved, give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." please welcome our first speaker

for the resolution. she is a former canadian supreme court justice, prosecutor of the international criminal tribunal for yugoslavia and rwanda and the united nations high commissioner for human rights, among many other accomplishments. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome canada's louise arbour. [applause] so glad you could be with us. now, louise's teammate is an internationally-acclaimed historian, cultural commentator, and art critic. please welcome big thinker simon schama. [applause] thank you, mr. schama. well, one great team of debaters deserves another. speaking against the resolution,

"be it resolved, give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," the renowned columnist, author, and conservative human rights activist, ladies and gentlemen, mark steyn. [applause] while mark's debating partner is the leader of the united kingdom debating party, and a member of parliament. he is here from the united kingdom under his leadership, ukip won almost 40 million votes in a 2013 national election in the u.k. please welcome nigel farage. [applause] ok, before debates begin, i need your help with some last-minute

items. one, power off your smartphones. for those of you here, watching online, the hastag is #munkdebate. let's make this the number one trending topic in north america. you can also take the poll for those of you watching online. we have a poll at www.munkdebates.org/vote. the countdown clock, we love this at the munk debate. it keeps us on time, keeps us on schedule, keeps debaters on their toes. when you see the clocks reach their final moments, it should be a countdown to zero, join me in a round of applause, and we will let debaters know their time is up, and -- well, we had henry kissinger. he did not take his time. but i digress.

i don't think any of our debaters will make the same mistake. this is the part i enjoy most. we asked all of you, 3000 assembled, to vote on the resolution on your way in. you are asked to support or oppose the motion "give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free." let's see if we have got those results for you to look at. ok, 77% agreed. [applause] 23% -- [laughter] disagreed. to get a sense of how much the debate is in play, depending on what you hear during the debate, are you open to changing your votes? let's see that result. wow, 79%-21%.

this debate is very much in play. either side can take it. let's now go to our opening statements. six minutes on the clock for each of our debaters. mrs. arbour, your six minutes begins now. louise arbour: good evening, ladies and gentlemen. the words of the motion i'm here to support were written by a woman, anna lazarus. these words are engraved on a famous statue representing a woman holding a torch and maybe less noticeably holding also the tablets of law with a broken chain at her feet. it should come as no surprise to you that this has considerable appeal to me. but don't let that fool you, this is not a sentimental call for do-gooders to unite, nor a romantic rejection of what the new world is going to be all about. understood in today's terms, it is a moving, poetic way of capturing both the spirit and the liturgy of the convention.

it was written essentially because of and for europe. it remains the framework in which the world promoting to be governed by the rule of law must be with the current refugee crisis in europe and stop passing a blind eye to equally pressing crises elsewhere, in south sudan for instance. this is part of the "never again" that the world screamed loud and clear after the holocaust and betrayed on so many occasions since then. today cannot be one of those. i want to look at this from a canadian and international perspective. the international framework is very clear. virtually all the countries that are concerned with the current flow of refugees fleeing war-torn countries of syria, iraq, afghanistan, somalia,

libya, are part of the convention, and they are obligated to grant asylum to those fleeing political and other forms of persecution. the protection framework set in place by the convention provides that refugees should not be penalized for the illegal entry or stay in the country. the reverse would obviously be a way to completely emasculate the right of asylum. and returning them to countries where they are at risk. this obviously put a disproportionate demand on countries that are more easily reachable than others, such as, in the case of syria, neighboring countries of lebanon, jordan, and turkey, in which there are currently some 4.5 million refugees, as all as governments of the external borders of europe, greece, italy, and so on. and so the other principle which underpins the refugee convention, that is the need for

international cooperation and burden-sharing. i am cautious here using the word burden. this brings me to canada. we often define ourselves by our geography. once again, this is not right. geography is relevant. the nature of our borders is we are virtually immune from the flow of asylum seekers arriving on our soil by land or sea, although apparently the result of the upcoming american election may change that. [laughter] we will cross that bridge when we get to it. [applause] i believe this puts enough that special obligation to provide for a generous resettlement program, aiming both at welcoming refugees and at easing the burden on states who are struggling to live up to their international obligation. i believe with true international cooperation in place, this is eminently

feasible. and we should do it the smart way by answering the asylum seekers to be placed in refuge, undercutting smugglers and deploying extraordinary resources to this extraordinary challenge. i am aware of the fear that an influx of foreigners will transform the social fabric in an undesirable way. but the reality is that our social fabric is changing anyway in this increasingly interconnected world. we have a choice. we can look to the past and stagnate in isolation, or we can embrace the future in which our children will develop their own cultures, fully open to that of others, inspired by the choices that we are making today. the greatest threat to western values is not an influx of people who may not share them today. it is the hypocrisy of those claiming to protect these values

and then repudiating them by their actions. i expect we would hear tonight that muslims are different, that they propose a unique, novel, and essential threat to our democracy. this has been the ugly response to just about every wave of new immigrants in history, but ironically, it plays right into the hands of the violent jihadist groups attacking us. these violent groups have a political, not a religious, agenda. they seek to destroy our democracies not by infiltrating or taking over institutions, but by letting us slowly implode that turning risks against ourselves, thereby destroying the very key features of our own society. we need to be smarter than that and welcome people who, like all of us, came at some point from somewhere else.

we will build an ever evolving free and strong canada. thank you very much. [applause] rudyard: time still on the clock. mark steyn, you are up next. your six minutes begins now. mark steyn: madame arbour describes a refugee situation that is not what is happening in the europe right now. the big question is whether the huddled masses on those teeming shores are really yearning to breathe free or whether they are simply economic migrants who want to avail themselves of the comforts of advanced society. there are 3000 people here in roy thomson hall. it would be nice if everyone in toronto could be in roy thomson

hall. if everyone in toronto moves into roy thomson hall, it is not roy thomson hall anymore. that is the situation that is faced in europe today. the people who are refugees are not that term as traditionally explained. in 2015 in europe, men represented 77% of the asylum applications. that is extraordinary population deformation. 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 chaps had gone off to france and left martha and the other women and children back home to fend for themselves. what does it mean to breathe free?

under the taliban, it is illegal for madame arbour to feel some light her face. it is literally a crime for her to quote, be free. she could wear a mask by the man who in effect owns her. when you put a man from that kind of society in a scandinavian town? northern europe has enjoyed a culture of mixed public bathing since the 19th century, but a benign social activity to germans and scandinavians is something entirely different to men from a culture where women are chattel. patrons of public baths are now routinely assaulted. in january, sweden's national semi arena for the first time was forced to segregate men and women in the hot tubs. goodbye to a century old tradition. migrants rights from pure -- trump your culture.

they come from a different culture, they are unaware you are not supposed to grope women's breasts. so they put up a picture with a hand and a woman's breast and a red x. [laughter] after a training course on how to treat women with respect, a 15-year-old afghan dragged a woman into a basement and rates her. we'll fine-tune the course of treating women with respect. we will get better pictograms. but in the right, migrant rights are women's rights. in 2007, this woman published an important report on the use of rape in sudan as a weapon of war. it was distressing report. she documented 15 individual cases of sexual assault,

including rape and victims as young as 14. if madame arbour were to put a similar report on germany today, she would be able to cite more than 500 cases from just one night in just one town, cologne on new year's eve. victims as young as three, three years old, a three-year-old raped by a migrant, a seven-year-old was gang raped by five migrants. a girl was raped on the ferry from sweden to finland. migrant rights trump women's rights. but they are not interesting in producing the mess report. the end has advised women it is no longer safe to go out on accompanied. migrant rights trump the freedom of movement. it is easy to say it is just a

few disabled anecdotes. forget the anecdotes and run the numbers. in europe, with unaccompanied minors, 90% are male, which means that in one year, swedish adolescents now have a more distorted sex differential then china does after 30 years of its totalitarian one child policy. in china, there are 119 boys for every girl. among swedish adolescence, just in the last year's importation, it is 123 boys for every girl. that is a fact, a fact of life. i hope tonight we'll put aside the sentimentalism that often attend this subject and stick with the facts. madame arbour says some things i agree with. she said, why are we always talking about the danger that

these people will transform us? they may transform us the better. she and i agreed that immigration on this scale is transported of. the only difference is that madame arbour thinks it is for the better, and i don't. i am genuinely serious to know what aspects of afghan and syrian and sudanese culture that she would like us to be transformed by, women's rights, just as where gays get thrown off of rooftops, polygamy, child rights, the grating commitment of free speech? i would like an answer on that from madame arbour tonight. thank you very much. [applause] rudyard: simon schama, over to you. simon schama: i want to start saying, o canada, your borders are safe. i tell you why, because actually what i was asked this morning at toronto airport when i was doing. i said, i have got to talk about

refugees. i was taken off for secondary screening. [laughter] it is not only dangerous to talk about it, it is dangerous to be known for talking about it. those lines are written by anna lazarus, she was a world woman, wealthy in new york. she wrote in 1863 after looking at the victims of russian pogroms who had come to america and suffered. they suffered on the islands. she made a distinction between economic migrants -- your number is wrong. not 77%. we know from the united nations agencies, it is 61%, and that is significant. this is an honor interrupted moment. we will have rebuttal time afterwards. [laughter]

that is the case. she did that because when you are fleeing from a place of cruelty and atrocity, your house has been blown up, your whole possibility of likelihood has been taken away from you, your children have no food, no medicine, what are you exactly? your terrifyingly running away from catastrophe, and that vast numbers of syrians who displaced 4 million of them, internally displaced as those who are escaping the hell of libya and somalia and afghanistan are fleeing exactly the monsters of islamofascism that mark describes. they are trying to get away from that culture. it is fine to say in those days, the reason actually why the

lines from anna lazarus' new home and not immediately put on the statue of liberty, they were only put there in 1983, by her friend, at that time there was a ferocious agitation on the parts of something called the immigration restriction league, and this british equivalent called the league of british brothers, all of whom said the unwashed, the filthy, those who do not share our language, our religion, our values are about to destroy the white race. madison wrote a book called "the suicide of the white race." thompson described the millions of distress at this scum, the scum of creation. nonetheless, the united states in honor to its traditions set out what is an american in 1782, admitting that 5 million of

those refugees between 1800 and 1890. an argument was made democracy was more confident, i agree with you. it was. it was more articulate and less defensive. it was more forthright. and besides, people coming from eastern europe, they did not want to overthrow democracy. yes, they did. those teeming millions that anna lazarus emotionally described were full of anarchists and communists, but liberal capitalism was strong enough to let them in any way. as a result, the american republic and great britain thrived and florist and prospered, and my own grandparents were among those who had written to thank. for that more expansive view of what democracy could accommodate. we are talking about a drop in the ocean, really.

one billion of us in europe and canada and the united states. we are talking about 20,000 being admitted to britain. we are talking about 100,000 refugees in the united states, proposed by the president, assuming only 25,000 will come from syria. are they all kind of ravening sexual monsters of x-rated horror? [laughter] they are not all fallacists. do the fallacist jihadists, what do we actually do to resist the poison of apocalyptic era? it is not to demonize all of muslims but also to engage with them.

who are you engaging with? there are no muslims who want to stand up. that is not true. the attacks in brussels, paris, 150 imams made a statement about the abhorrence of the act. there are even koranic scholars, and if you don't know their work, look it up. this man is actually dedicated to denouncing jihadism as a perversion of the koran. i just want to say that it is -- it can't possibly be true. you can't have a pluralist muslim adoption of western norms. we live with that for years and years before jihadism became as obstructive as it is now. [applause] the kurdish muslim, turn on the radio in the morning and you hear him.

from the bbc. my local news anchor tells me from the jewish chronicle, and he is named ahmed. [applause] rudyard: nigel. nigel farage: good evening, everyone. we need to use the eu as a case study. but we must start by asking ourselves, what is a refugee? i speak from a family of refugees. we were french protestants, being burned at the stake for political opinions, something many in westminster would like to bring back today, i am sure. [laughter] and i come from a country that is, there is no country in

europe with these lectures about looking after refugees. the french have done it better than anyone else. we have done it with jewish people, ugandesian. but we talked about this earlier. it is a person with a well-founded fear of persecution because of their race, religion, political opinions, or orientation who are outside their own country and fear returning to it. now, i know it is tempting to support this motion. it sounds wonderful. your huddled masses, and it shows we can feel a sense of our own moral superiority. because, that idea has gotten the eu in the past year. the president, i have to say, after a good lunch, is rather fun to be with -- [laughter]

but he has change the definition of what a refugee is to include people who come from war-torn areas, and given that unhcr says there are 39 million people displaced in the world, that is a big number. but it gets even broader. he says to be qualified as a european refugee, if you come from extreme poverty. that would mean 3 billion people could possibly come to europe. all of this was massively compounded by chancellor merkel, who effectively did say, "give us your weak, your poor, and your huddled masses." it is the poorest 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 she opened up the doors and one million people came in last year. but virtually none of them was qualified as refugees on any classical definition. and in fact, most of them that came were somewhat aggressive young males who only arrived and got through the border, punched the air, chanted like football supporters. i remember a young man, watching the bbc, and seeing ugandesians humble, thankful, they would repay the debt by integrating and becoming part of our society. sadly, that is not what has happened. and there is nobody on this side of the argument trying to say that islam is bad. all muslims are bad, we are not

saying that. but what we are saying is that if you allow a very large number of young males to come to european countries, and if they come from a culture where women are at best second class citizens, don't be surprised that the abominations such as that we saw outside the train station on new year's eve. and don't be surprised that the formally rather sleepy swedish city of malmo is the rape capital of europe. but that is nothing compared to what the bulk of europe is. six weeks ago, there are now 5000 jihadi victims, who has gotten back to europe, posing as migrants. isis says they will use migrant routes to destroy civilization

of europe, i suggest we start to take them seriously. the difference between what is going on now and any other either migratory wave or refugee wave in the history of mankind that i can see is that never before have we had a column. a fifth column living within our communities that hates us. wants to kill us and wants to overturn the complete way of life. i believe that we in the west should give people refugee status throughout the whole tragedy. what is going on in the middle east and north africa, not one person has dared to speak up for the christians, the christians in iraq, and the christians in syria. who are now only 10% of what they were just a few years ago. they qualify for refugee status

because they are being persecuted for who they are. we have to oppose this motion, this motion at best is impractical, and poses a threat to our entire way of life. a proper processing activism, i want this because of all the things we have done. as the french particularly, i want this to welcome general refugees, not the disaster that is engulfing much of europe today. thank you. [applause] rudyard: very strong opening statements from the groups, so thank you. we will now go into to timed rebuttals. we will get reaction from each team. ms. arbour, we will put time on the clock.

give us your reaction. louise arbour: two issues. on the definition of refugees, i think in the current climate of warfare, the current state of armed conflict, in my opinion, virtually every civilian in a war theater that is not a combatant qualifies to refugee protection unless he is excluded by the convention as a war criminal. and the reality, the protection of civilians is nonexistent. they are targeted by all sides, and therefore, i think for the most part they qualify for refugee protection. the suggestion that what we see these waves of young men coming into europe are all economic migrants frankly is hard to believe why the economic migrants would have saved thousands of dollars for the privilege of driving in the mediterranean, but that is another issue. let me address -- and i hope we can return to that -- the issues

raised by the newborn feminists there. [laughter] [applause] and i see the clock running, so i reserve my right to flesh out these ideas a little more deeply, but i can assure you that for those of us who came, certainly the women of my generation, from a cultural political environment in this country, in which religion dictated most of our rights and privileges, we have managed to start occupying our place in public life not by pushing and trying to exclude others, and certainly not by espousing as champions people who have that ideology. [applause] rudyard: thank you. i want to hear from the pro-team back to back. simon, let's have your rebuttal, and then we get to mark and nigel. mark steyn: i have struck by how awesome these two are.

it is a bit sad, really. [laughter] 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 the migrants are coming from actually, it is extraordinary to think that they are really just interested in a moment of possible upwards social mobility. those are all desperately brutalized, collapsing states from, to me, from which there seemed to be no possibility of normal life. it is very -- the notion that -- i dispute those figures about the 77%, i say. if you are a family in terrible

distress, and haven't we all seen, as louise mentioned, rubber craft full of children as well as with their elder brothers and fathers? the families are desperately trying to make it at the cost of their own lives. supposing actually most of the people, you know, who are coming over, more than half are males, and is fixed with the fact that more than half of those in displaced horrible all camps, like akmar, where there are 58,000 people stuck in syria with desperate situations, no sanitation, you would definitely take your brothers and uncles and the men. that is how it was actually in the 1880's and 1890's. most of them were going there as well.

[applause] rudyard: we have lots of time in the cross-examination to get into these issues. i will come over to the other side. mark steyn. mark steyn: i made a decision, and i was going to be deadly serious. i am amazed at our colleagues getting big laughs on gang rape. [applause] madame arbour scolded the newfound feminists over here. i am not much of a feminist, but i draw the line at the three-year-old getting raped and the seven-year-old getting gang raped and investment -- in a basement. [applause] and when simon tells us, finally enough, maybe we don't get enough action in the toronto

singles club, madame arbour, madame arbour as she said, is a feminist of the generation. those feminists were very clear, as she was in sudan. rape is not about sex, whatever simon may say. we are not talking about the kind of sex i want to have. a four-year-old girl in sudan, here is a random example from german migrant crimes. a six-year-old boy raped inside of roxbury hall. a 15 year old girl assaulted near it train station. a 16-year-old girl raped in a railway station. attempted gang rape of a 13-year-old girl in another city. i can go on and on.

these are all rapes, gang rapes in public places, parks, streets, and even city hall. i congratulate you on getting big laughs with that, simon, and you, louise. it is not funny. it is not funny. [applause] rudyard: ok, we will be able to get into this later. your time is up. you are going to have to sit down. ladies and gentlemen, this'll be harder than the election debate. i thought that was tough, but this is going to be a real challenge. nigel, your rebuttal. nigel farage: what simon said was difficult to listen to, and we pretend it is not happening. sadly, it is happening. simon, you are in denial. i tell you what is sad --

[applause] what is sad, and you being a historian, is 100 years ago women went into factories, pay packets, went to the pub, got the vote, we have lived through 100 years of female liberation and emancipation, and now we have the mayors of towns in germany and in sweden and other parts of northern europe telling women not to walk out after dark on their own, and in the wake of the cologne sex attacks, the mayor of cologne said to those women, they really ought to dress differently and behave differently in public. that, simon, is what is sad, and actually, i fear this hypocrisy of those that would stand up and defend female rights when really you think migrant rights are more important. frankly, shame on you. [applause] and louise, you are trying to

redefine the 1951 convention on refugee status. let me challenge you to something. it may be, just maybe, that when the australian space a similar problem of people coming in boats of large numbers of sinking and drowning, maybe you got it right when they said nobody would qualify as a refugee if they come through this route, but we will process people offshore genuinely and -- ross s people offshore genuinely and sincerely, and if they qualify, we in australia will have them. would it makes more sense to have an open door to the greek islands to process people in north africa and the middle east? [applause] rudyard: now we are going to move on to the moderated portion of the discussion. we will go to the issues that have been raised to date.

it has been a hot exchange so far. i want to give louise and simon a chance to respond to the latest rebuttals we have heard. louise, because you are mentioned at last here by nigel, we will have you respond. specifically, the idea of whether australia, very different from what is happening in europe, is a model that should be considered. louise arbour: nigel, it will come as no surprise that i can't much of do agree with. australia is hardly a model of compliance with the refugee convention. i mentioned before, one of the key features of the refugee convention, let's assume we have a genuine asylum seeker as opposed to a gang rapist, just for the sake of argument. let's just start with a neutral proposition. somebody is knocking on the door. the refugee convention assumes this asylum seeker will have to

flee his territory probably by non-legal means. they enter with no documentation or through -- because there are no open channels for these people to escape their predicament. the duty on the transit or destination is to have a fair and humane process to determine their situation. australia exporting the response ability in the same way the united states, not on refugee issues, but is exporting to mexico, protesting migrants that come from latin america, this is not the way to do it. the way to do it is for countries to receive people on the assumption actually that they may very well be people fleeing persecution and have a fair process in their country, particularly rich countries like ours, like australia, like the u.s., who have had that capacity

to do that in a very decent and example -- that is not the example australia has set up. rudyard: but how do we cope with this? this is the point, isn't it? nigel farage: actually, it is greece. there is no end to this deal, seeing roots in libya. the point is that of the million people that came to the greek island last year and ended up settling in germany, virtually none of them were properly processed, and not one of them was security free. i wonder, under the 1951 definition of refugee status, how many of that million that went to germany last year, would have qualified as refugees? 5%? 10% maximum? this is what i am talking about. i do understand there are dreadful things happening in northern africa and the middle

east. it i am talking about is that we brought in the definitions of what a refugee is to a level where we cannot accept -- european countries will not accept numbers on the spaces. 1.8 million last year. it will be 1.8 million this year, and 1.8 million next year. the people will not accept it. louise arbour: there are 500 million people in europe. you think europe -- it is not lack of capacity and lack of political will. in large part because the entire public debate is poisoned by the kind of discourses we have heard about tonight on which focus on gang rape. [applause] nigel farage: we would, of course there is room in our hearts from all of europe to give people refugee status. we just want to know that the are genuine refugees and not people coming to do us harm. that is always want to know. rudyard: i will bring simon in

on this and then come to you, mark. simon schama: we definitely need better screening. i just want to say to mark's fulmination, it is an appalling slander to me to the muslim religion to imply actually -- mark steyn: i never said muslim. it was a muslim-free fulmination. simon schama: i did not hear that. i did not hear what he said, anyway. the implication was that if you have got a muslim immigrant, he, and is going to be he, is going to commit sexual crimes sooner or later. that is monstrous and grotesque. in the united states, michigan

is not full -- mark steyn: i will give you a muslim fulmination then. they are 1.5% to 2% in norway. the account of more than half of all the rapes in norway. simon schama: what is it about islam that you are saying actually is designed to make men brutal sexual animals? and why then don't you want to deport all muslims from europe and the western society? mark steyn: as you are a historian, you know as well as i do how many more muslims, more muslim men in the first and second world wars fought for king and empire than canadians. they have a long tradition of loyalty to the crown and service to the crown.

a hundred years ago today, during the great war. you know that. what has changed is that we are no longer importing -- someone who had been to a muslim school in india in 1948, 1949, would have received an education not different by that much from a grade schooler in canada or scotland -- rudyard: you are losing me. what is the point? mark steyn: i am just establishing my non-islamophobia. rudyard: the debate is about the refugee crisis. that is the focus tonight. other dimensions will continue to get into. i went to pick up on what mark and nigel have been saying.

certain societies are better at integrating people than others. in canada, we have done a good job. the united states is called melting pot. european countries are not good integration. therefore, is this a different kind of crisis? is this time different? simon schama: i think europe is done, and i suspect we have a bit of an agreement. i think europe has done a pitiful job at forthrightly defending the views of western pluralist capitalism society. [applause] europe is essentially an organization managing the business cycle and hoping for the best when it comes to shopping for christmas. that is an abject horror. -- surrender.

if we are against militant apocalyptic fallacism, we cannot be against anywhere that they come from. it was as though it was not a part of what we need to do. we need to be less defensive, less mince, less muscle. they should be reading locke, milton, it is as important and putting up walls. having decent counterterrorism intelligence. nigel farage: i agree with you. we had been abject, pathetic. we have allowed people to come in, changed large parts of offices, and nobody amongst our

leadership -- and this is not about getting religion in government, but no one has the guts or the courage to stand up for our christian culture. simon schama: i happen to be jewish. nigel farage: it is judeo-christian culture. that is our culture. as soon as i start to talk about real values, you shrink into your shell like everybody else, don't you. we have judeo-christian culture. we have been weak in defending it. the real problem is, we can talk and look back at various migratory waves, refugee waves, and the problem is this. nobody, mark even suggesting, islam is a bad religion. i certainly not saying that.

has been -- the jihadism -- has been a cancer in islam, the boost in the oil price has led to suffering. but here is the problem, and here is why we are nervous and cautious about opening up our doors to millions of people from those countries. never before, integration may be the cold, but never before have we had to live with the fifth column, living inside our own communities and our own country who want to kill us, blow us up, and change our way of life. i am arguing for the policy, but we must be able to screen people before they come federal in our countries. surely that is plain common sense. [applause] rudyard: i will go to louise and then mark. louise arbour: we have got to be very careful not to exaggerate.

the trap is to exaggerate the sense of dangers and fear that this idea of infiltration can generate. a couple of things. if we had assumed that most italians coming to this country, for instance, would be members of the mafia, or most asians would be members of triage, we close the door. there is no basis upon which to suggest that the people who are fleeing the atrocious events in syria, in libya, northern iraq, that these people are missiles that are being sent to infiltrate communities. you know what? it is going to be easier, and i really believe it is part of the sophisticated strategic plan in our intent on destroying our democracies to tease us into an irrational response where we will destroy the very values we believe in. we will over securitize, and inevitably we would use security

measures in a discriminatory fashion with carding and racial profiling and so far. we will destroy the very values out of the sheer fear that is coming in to do it for us. we will do it to ourselves if we cultivate this culture of fear with an overreaction, restriction on freedom, over-securitize in these vulnerable minorities rather than protecting them and including them. [applause] rudyard: mark. mark steyn: we are getting to that meat of it now, and the question is, people talk about european values, british values, canadian values, without ever defining it. and i think simon is right, it is not just about movies and rap songs and the rest of it. there is something underlying it. i share entirely louise's fears of a big security states.

i like to write and say what i want. my writings round up in the free human rights commissions in canada, so i certainly don't want to see europeans erect a bigger security state with less free speech than canada has. i would hate to see that. but the reality of the situation is that if you looked at what happened with the charlie hebdo slaughter in paris a year ago and then look at the polls of the muslim community, they don't want to put a boulder in the cartoonist. they don't want to blow up the brussels airport. but there is no commitment to traditional western free speech. we don't teach them it. we need to a simulate. and if you don't, you have bicultural societies as you dealt with in bosnia. bicultural societies are

fundamentally unstable. sometimes more or less benignly so like northern ireland, sometimes genocidally so like louise can tell you in rwanda. you don't assimilate these people coming in in europe, then you will have bicultural societies, and they will tear europe apart. [applause] louise arbour: market, i assume -- mark, i assume it has been a long time since you have lived in toronto? the street signs, the languages you can't understand? this is the city we live in. we are not scared. [applause] mark steyn: i was, i was born in toronto. i have been away for a couple of years. you are from quebec.

so you know as well as i do that the differences between quebec francophones and ontario anglophones are in the scheme of things. but 20 years ago, a majority of quebec francophones voted that they did not want to be in the same country as these guys, and you are saying, you are saying that somehow -- you are saying that in germany or in sweden or in molenbeek, the islamic emirates inside of the kingdom of belgium, 25% of the population is muslim. you are trying to tell us they will be more fundamentally stable and secure then northern ireland? louise arbour: the divisions in belgium, they don't have to wait for anyone waiting in the country to have separatist tendencies. they are home-minded.

they don't need anybody to come from any stan to have the identification -- mark steyn: i know about it. nigel farage: england is fairly united, though in scotland, i would not agree. [laughter] the point mark is making is very interesting. in england, we have got the growth of parallel society. at 80% of the muslim marriages in britain are not recognized under u.k. law. they are conducted under muslim law, where the women have far fewer rights than they would have on the u.k. law. we have 83 sharia courts existing in england. we have tens of thousands of cases of female genital mutilation taking place every year in england, not as big a problem as some of the other countries. and yet there has not been one

prosecution within our system. we have some degree of agreement. the law has to be equal. we mustn't be scared of applying the law equally to ethnic minorities. if we are, we are storing massibve problems for the future. i am sorry. you are trying to compare some of the concerns on the side of the debate with previous migrations. it is not an exaggeration, the wording used, unless you think it is wrong. should we be concerned that there are 5000 jihadis coming through the greek islands? should we be concerned? you bet your life. only eight of them killed 130 people in paris. we have a problem here. get out of denial, please. [applause] >> the deep problem is jihadi

cells exist, for example the san bernardino shooting. the main shooter was an american citizen. is wife had a his wife had a green card. a very significant number of those carrying out these homicidal conspiracies are british and american and french and belgian. we agree this appalling degree of criminal negligence, not noticing when somebody is deported from turkey to the netherlands and is known as a terrorist, not picking that p. but if you can do something about homegrown jihadists, you have to engage with the muslim community, not demonize their own mafments