Go Back to Where You Came From: The Backlash against Immigration and the Fate of Western Democracy

TIME: 18:00 – 19:00, 9th November 2017

VENUE:  The Henry Jackson Society, Millbank Tower
21-24 Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP


Sasha Polakow-Suransky
Author of Go Back to Where You Came From
Open Society Foundations Fellow

Timothy Stafford: Hello ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Henry Jackson Society. My name is Timothy Stafford and I’m the Director of Research here at HJS. We are delighted to have Sasha, who is an Open Society Fellow and who was an Op-Ed Editor at the New York Times. Today he will be talking about his book his first book, no second book, Go Back to Where You Came from: The Backlash Against Immigration & the Fate of Western Democracy. So Sasha I will ask you to kick things off and speak and then we will proceed to take some questions. Thank you Sasha.

Sasha Polakow-Suransky: So, I will talk for around half an hour and then I am happy to have an open discussion questions and answers to follow and perhaps dare I say even a debate. Thank you very much for having me it’s a real honour to be here at the Henry Jackson Society. I was in the State of Washington just around 10 days ago giving a similar talk and I had the opportunity to talk to some of the Washington State politicians about Henry Jackson’s Legacy in the state before he became a national figure, which was quite, well interesting for me. Prior to hearing about his local legacy, I learnt about what Scoop Jackson is universal known for and that is for the key role that he played in helping Soviet Jews leave to reach Israel and other countries as well, countries like the United States and he also had another factor that is less talked about but just as important to acknowledge and that was during World War II when he was an active proponents of Japanese internment like many politicians in the West of the United States and as this organisation has acknowledged in its own tribute to him this was perhaps one of his greatest miss judgements politically. Jackson was a moral man but he made dubious choices throughout his life, as all of us do when faced with geopolitical challenges. I therefore think it’s important to remember these twin legacies of Scoop Jackson at a moment like this in Europe when the continent is facing difficult choices. Not easy ones but choices that if we take the wrong road, could lead us to a dangerous place politically and I believe that if Europe and indeed the United States makes the wrong political choices then it could lead to the decay of the liberal democratic values that I hold dear, and I think the Henry Jackson Society does too.

So, I want to talk a little bit about my research and my book and how those ideas tie into my complex views on the subject matter. I began my book during the summer of 2015. It was just as the refugee crisis throughout Europe was beginning to peak. At this time there were many populist anti-immigrations the continent and many of the ideas that we hear from politicians like Marie le Pen were already present in the discussion, but I think that for their political popularity to take off they needed a catalyst and that’s just what’s the Refugee crisis of 2015 gave politicians like Marie le Pen what was in my view a greatest of political gifts. Suddenly the message that she has been pushing for a long time it gained a new currency and people began to see a stream of people coming into Europe and suddenly the message that a mass Muslim influx was coming at you and transforming Europe for the worst caught on. I think the part of the reason that that message caught on so effectively was the politicians like le Pen conflated desperate refugees that were fleeing ISIS with the terrorists who are committing atrocities. Once those two groups, who just happened to be Muslim became conflated in the public mind, it was very easy to paint a picture that painted them as a cause of the majority of the continence problems. Other things that happened at this particular moment in September or October of 2015, is that there was a revival of that old thing known as fear in France and you started to fear names that haven’t been on the agenda for a long time. One of them was (inaudible) – a novelist in the early 1970s. Many of you have probably heard of it, perhaps some of your even read it. In this book a boat leaves India with 800 refugees and a gradually approach is the shores of Europe before eventually reach in the Southern shores of France and the heroes in this book are the people who try to ram the boat at sea, ram it before it reaches the shores of Europe. Or more shockingly those who shoot the refugees before they come ashore and this may have been just a small little literacy interlude, that is if it hadn’t been for people like Marie le Pen actively promoting that novel and the ideas within it, at this particular moment of chaos in Europe. So as people were screaming into Europe in the late 2015 Marie le Pen tweeted to her several million followers; “Read this book. Europe is being submerged”. This book was also referenced by some key components to the Trump electoral campaign. One of his key campaign aides actually tweeted that the situation in America was “parallel to this novel”. Now I appreciate fully that I am probably speaking to an audience that does not agree with me fully if not at all on these issues but and I want to acknowledge that many people who vote for the le Pens and the Danish People’s Parties of the world, have reasonable and legitimate concerns about the pace of change in their neighbourhoods in their cities and in their children’s schools. The numbers of people who are coming and the speed of which those people are arriving. My argument is that those legitimate fears have been hijacked by politicians who did not have a liberal democratic agenda. Whose end game is not something that reflects liberal democratic values, the kind of values that I think this society holds quite dear. I think that one of the things that we’ve seen in the wake of the Refugee Crisis and the political campaigns of the past two years is an entire religious group has been scapegoated for the crimes of a few of its members. So after terrorist attacks we see a strain of backlash occur. And there is a theme to this backlash that is actually quite familiar. Whether it was after the Brussels Airport Attack in March of last year, when the French Magazine published an editorial equating the terrorist with a banker or a valid mother walking through his neighbourhood and therefore saying that all of these people for some of the responsibility for The Terror that struck… Or you see it also in the burkini ban.  Which many people see as a very silly little debate that would only happen in a place like France. However, what happened after the Nice terrorist attack which killed 86 people, was that there was a moral panic throughout southern France and some Mayors decided to ban a form of modest swimwear that was favoured by many Muslim woman and I would go on to add many Orthodox Jewish women and indeed other religious women from other places in the world who choose not go to the beach in revealing swimwear. But in France was about religion. He was Framed as a method of terrorist allegiance. So the municipal officials in places like Cannes said that this is a symbol of affiliation with ISIS and we therefore need to ban it. Without being hyperbolic is it is important to remember how collective blame operates add moments of sheer fear in Society. It is the 79th anniversary of that occasion when a young do in France shot a German diplomat and that event that the act of violence was capitalised on by Hitler to justify a mad wave of violence. Now I am not calling the acts morally equivalent, but I am saying there is a similarity in the mechanics of the backlash one of violent act occurs and a member of the group commits act and the collective blame is then contributed to the entire group. I think that it is dangerous and I think that on this anniversary in particular, it is worth us pausing to remember. Another thing that emerged in the 2016 campaigns throughout Europe, is this idea of civilizational war. Not that immigration is happening too quickly or that too many people are cramming into small areas. That there appears to be this belief that the people coming across are incompatible with the European way of life and that in their incompatibility that they are attempting to colonise us by overtaking Europe, by outbreeding Europe. The fear of these people is that in 10 to 15 years we will all be speaking Arabic, or Turkish rather than English German or French. These are ideas that you see in the literature and I’m not talking her about academics, I’m talking about the bestselling authors in places like France and Germany whose books have spread some of these ideas and they’ve exploited the fact that there is a fear of Muslims often for legitimate reasons in the wake of terrorist attacks and that is turned into an excuse I believed to blame all Muslims and to ferment hatred towards all Muslims as a group. In some of this rhetoric we see a recycling of ideas that we’ve seen before in Europe, there’s a rhetoric from an earlier era and the themes are familiar; a threat to the nation, a foreign body, a possible invasion or the dilution of a pure national Identity. These are ideas which we’ve seen in France and the we have seen again in Germany in the 1930s. Except then it was the Jews who was the target of those hateful ideas. Now that scapegoat of the Jew has been replaced with the scapegoat of the Muslim and this has been populated by writers such as those in Germany who claims that in 20 to 30 years’ time Germany will no longer be as economically competitive. This is based on the belief that immigration from Turkey and places such as Syria produces people who are intellectually inferior and therefore will cause a failure to the economy. I think a lot of this however, simply ignores the demographic conversion of birth rates between natives and immigrants in any of these countries and of course the secularisation of many second and third generation immigrants but nevertheless these ideas are out there and they are being expressed by a prominent author. And of course if you look at the France with the author who produced the book The Great replacement, which is something that you will often see cited by anti-migrant and anti-refugee activist outside of the Jungle in Calais when the jungle refugee camp was still there.

It is a revival of these same ideas. The idea that take France for example, that there is a real France and legal France. The idea that is that there is this purity of national French people and then there is the legal France which is the France that we see on paper. By this it is meant that there are paper citizens who are not purely French and all of these ideas are combined together with this notion of colonisation, that immigration into Europe is not simply the result of the guest worker policies of the 1960s and 70s all adjustment refugee flows today but that it’s actually an undercurrent movement an attempt to invade Europe in an opportunity to take territory and this is an idea that comes up again and again and again and is the work of many of these European writers and I would argue that these arguments have gone far beyond the intellectual grounds and they are being transferred across the Atlantic in a way that as an American I find very, very dangerous. I’m not sure how much coverage these events got in this country but a few months ago there was a white supremacist demonstration in the town of Charlottesville Virginia. Many of you must have heard about it on the news. During this event the chants by the Klu Klux Klan members and other white nationalist groups in Charlottesville was that ” they will not replace us” and the “Jews will not replace us”. So the rhetoric whether they are talking to each other or not, is very, very similar to the messages that are being propagandised if you like buy people here in Europe. These ideas are now becoming more and more prevalent, not so mainstream, but much more prevalent than they were just 4 or 5 years ago in the United States. I would argue that the left shares a significant degree of the blame for all of this. I think that the parties of the left in the centre left in the United States and in Western Europe ignored anger over this issue of immigration too long and I think that many is centre right parties did so as well but when they finally began to pay attention and to respond to the fear of many of their voters the response was not to push back against that rhetoric. It was quite the opposite; it was mainly to Cave into that rhetoric. So what do you see in countries such as Denmark or Holland, where Social Democrat parties have been completely defeated. They were so afraid of losing elections to those parties they actually adopted their manifestos taking on their beliefs. Therefore, they actually absorbed the far rights agenda and made it part of their own policy. The far rights response was quite ingenious, I would argue, because what happened is that they moved from a certain point on the political compass, to somewhere to very different. Now let me explain. Now if you think back to the late 1980s early 1990s, most far right parties, in Europe had a strongly anti-immigration nativist platform. They said they had a fellow free-market response, when I came to economic policy. This was not a successful political formula in a place like Denmark or Holland and what happened in recent years in the last decade in particular and even more recently, in a place like Denmark is that they realise that they were starting to pull votes from places like the Social Democrats and from the Labour Party. So if they started to adopt a leftist orientation they would actually gain votes. So what they then do this actually presented themselves as more socialist than the socialists and once this started happening, especially in a place like Denmark they started to win. When you talk to the leaders of the people’s Danish party like I did quite extensively in the course of my research for this book they are actually very open about their tactics and they will tell you quite bluntly this was our strategy, it was deliberate we were wrong during the 90s and early 2000s, when we were only getting 10 to 12% of the vote and now we are the second largest party in the country and that is because we are pulling the old left voters with us. Happening in France too and I want to read you a short quote of an interview that I did with Marie le Pen around the year before the election, this past May, and I asked her what she thought about the notion of the welfare state and she said “well, I reject that. It’s a socialist concept” but then she went on and she said “I defend fraternity. The idea that a developed country should be able to provide the poorest of our society to live with freedom and dignity as human beings. The French state I’m afraid no longer does that were in the world today where you can either defend the interests of the people for the interests of the banks”. I asked, Marie le Pen where that rhetoric had got her and she replied “well I’ve just won 45% in the northern region of France” and of course in the last election in May she took 52% in this region. So this strategy is very clearly of working for people like her and for the likes of the Danish People Party and of course for many other parties across Europe who have combined their old anti-immigration stance with a modified economic policy that draws largely on the traditions of the political left. Now they are reasonable objections two immigration policy in all European countries and in the United States and the argument that I make in this book is that you can actually acknowledged those arguments, you can engage with people who voice those objections, but on the other hand you should not make concessions to immoral non liberal populists. I think we need to discern between groups who are arguing for a protest multi ethnic society perhaps with restrictions on the speed and number of immigrants coming into the country and those who are promoting the pollution of Native peoples. Both exist in both Europe and the United States now I think as somebody who identifies with the political left I believe that too many on the left have not engaged with the former group and group them in entirely with the latter and I can prove that that is a huge political mistake. But I also think that there are members of the latter group that couch the political rhetoric in the language of the former and despite the fact that they are not committed to a pluralist multi-ethnic society attempt to make their arguments as if they are familiar with from the Commentary Magazine he wrote a spectacular article about this very subject, about 9 months ago,  about a liberalism in the United States in Europe and he put this very succinctly in this article and I quote ” the new populace have a point, but they offer solutions that are monstrous irrational and illiberal” and I think that this quote is worth having in mind when we have those debates. I think that one can by all means have a legitimate and quite serious debate about immigration policy without whitewashing the English Defence League or the equivalent in Germany and what I find so disheartening in much of the Debate going on now is that those parties are being described as mainstream or moderate and they are not. I think that in this description of them being mainstream on moderate will adjust my as them and I think that by all means have the Debate but do not whitewash parties who have very prominent members who are actually promoting a very liberal society. I want to know give you one example because I need to create that image in your mind, research in Germany two of the distant members of Angela Markel’s party. These are people who are opposed to welcoming of the refugees in 2015. They were opposed in party debates and they lost and I asked them what their argument have been in internal party meetings and what they did afterwards and they actually said to me well look Merkel is the leader of our party and we voice their objections and we failed so we follow our leader but I think they really offer an example of how the modernist restriction list right on the immigration issue can voice their objections without promoting what I see has Anna liberal agenda. This a liberal agenda must be protected from those who wish to turn back the tide of time and push us back to her I say into an illiberal Society. One of these politicians has even since been tapped as a potential new Chancellor. He said to me look these people are in the country now we have to deal with it. We are a democracy we have the rule of law, we have procedures for everything so you can’t just say go and I think that that is a very different message then what you hear from some of the organisations that I have described earlier on tonight or talking to people like Marie le pen in France and I think that that offers a window into what one side of this debate could look like if it was more honest. These two people might add the members the dissidents of Merkel by no means accept the fact that immigration will be positive for Germany in the end, they admitted to me that they think that the current immigration levels would be detrimental to the German economy they said maybe in 10 to 15 years’ time that it will. However, they are committed to integration those people as quickly as possible getting them into apprenticeships and jobs and schools so that they learn German and become part of the society. And then you have to look at people like marine le pen who are not committed to that vision of Europe and that I think is an important decision. I am almost done and then I’ll be happy to take your questions.

So the largest theme here that I’m trying to get across is that there are genuine Liberal Democrats who have reasonable concerns about immigration and then on the other hand there were these populous who are not interested in liberal democracy at all or in cheques or balances or Judas Tyrol independence and when you hear policy proposals and the stripping of nationalities from certain people, doing away with birth right citizenship and countries that it actually wants existed, sending people back to their countries of origin or the country of their parents origin in the worst of circumstances if they commit certain crimes that I challenge you is not a liberal democratic Society. When president Trump as he did last week attacks our legal system in the United States as a joke and after the terrorist attack in New York says our legal system is a joke let’s just send him to a camp that is not is what we should expect of a leader in a liberal democratic Society.  You did the same in the campaign attacking judges, the band first came into effect. And it was stated in her campaign day during Washington that should there be another terrorist attack and they will be judges in the country that have blood on their hands who stayed my executive Order. The former prosecutor who was sacked by president trump argued after the terrorist attack in New York our legal system have the tools necessary to deal with this sort of crisis and that he would have been more than happy had he is still been appointed to have prosecuted this terrorist so I think again we need to be very careful not to ever go down that road and promote policies in the name of immigration restrictions that would make Europe or the United States less liberal and therefore less democratic. A majoritarian agenda will just lead us down a very dangerous road.  So before I conclude,  I would just like to read you one more quote this is something that you may have come across in the days after the horrific Manchester Attack, when Katie Hopkins wrote in the Mail on Sunday or actually sorry, no, declared on Twitter I apologise ” we need a final solution ” Nazi slogan and apologise but 2 weeks later she said our process for dealing with terror cannot be words or visuals it must be intimate followed by deportation and we must keep supporting until a house is in order and I would argue that down the road is far from liberal democracy but the erosion of Liberal democracy and as I was preparing to come here tonight I was rereading your statement of principles and I was very pleased to see that in principle number 8 Henry Jackson Society states that it also has a strong commitment two individuals civil liberties in democratic States even them especially when we are under attack and I wholeheartedly agree with that principle and I would argue that as Jackson evolved from his position on Japanese internment in the 1940s to his heroic defence of the Soviet Union and his assistants and helping them get out and go to Israel thereby upholding the principles of defending individual civil liberties, especially when we’re under attack that we can preserve and promote the liberal democratic constitutionalism that makes Western societies strong. Thank you.

Timothy Stafford: Let me start by what I hope will not necessarily be a disagreement but I would like to tease out something that you said you talked about and if I can ask the first question the populist authoritarian on the right of course we all recognise that, and you went on to mention and I like the phrase a modernist restriction Mr Right. So where does the line fall when does one stop being on this restriction it right and start to be on the authoritarian side because there will be some who say, you talked about these politicians in German who said that these people are here so they may as well integrate they need to learn German, however there are some that can quite reasonably replied to that will look there are some that will never integrate there is some that will never learn the language and this will always happen when you take large numbers of refugees migrants or whatever you would like to label these people. So there is a level of scepticism that that can ever happen in a way that the United States of course have always been more believing in the strategy that it can integrate or her foreign citizens into its country then say France or indeed Great Britain. So if a politician comes out and says look I believe that the total of number of immigrants should be zero does that then straight into the authoritarian even if it is couched in very moderate terms. Question number two and the reason I’m interested in this is because I spent a lot of time in the Balkans. And of course here they had the first wave of immigration they said that these people aren’t refugees that they are all majority young men not women and children alike the media with trainers these are economic migrants rather than refugees just trying to get to the European Union for a bit of a place in life. So I suppose my question really is that somebody can leave a country where there is real fighting has a refugee become a migrant wants a desired look I don’t want to be in Turkey let’s go to Germany, so is it feasible at all to make a distinction between a refugee or migrant is it fair for societies in the West to label people as a refugee or migrant and therefore where does one draw the line even if one takes the view look we’ll have some restrictions?

 Sasha Polakow-Suransky: Please let me answer the second question first as I believe it is more clear cut. I believe that it is a point that people on the left refuse to make and I think that that is both silly and apolitical Dead end. I think that one needs to discern whether or not one has a claim under the human refugee convention. Now I met a lot of people on Greek islands who were coming from Pakistan or Bangladesh you told me you look it’s a s*** situation back home I can’t find a job I can do better in Europe so I’m going to go and I would absolutely agree that those people have no claim under the Refugee convention and that if they want to lodger claim and I think the we need to be very clear about that so we need to look at ourselves as European countries that are very serious about absorbing real genuine refugees. But these countries and by that I mean European countries need to save people the Dangerous journeys in inflatable rubber boats with 20 other people and save them look the we’re taking refugees only and there’s no reason that this determination of people should not be assessed on the other side a lot of people who are dying and a lot of people are risking their lives. If the Germans had just taking the time to set up just, 10 consular offices in Southern Turkey assessing these people and saying, “yes you’re a real refugee” or “you’re not” and if the first that “you can get on the next flight” then that would have been a far safer way of doing things. I don’t think however that we should go down the road of off sourcing or just loading the way that Australia has because I think that that is what I just lead to a real nasty situation and I think we can go into more detail about but Australia has essentially diverted boats and has led to people being detained indefinitely on small islands and left them with no possibility of getting asylum on Australian mainland, but just the possibility of indefinite detainment on the small Civic Islands and I think that this situation in Australia could get very ugly if it were to happen in places like Libya where is already stunted a shape. Distinguish between the two groups, but seriously and generally accept claims of people who are fleeing war in a place like Syria or if it was ongoing in another country like Yemen or Afghanistan and they have a legitimate claim than it should be obsessed and accepted. One of the other points of which I think is highly important is the idea of the first safe States in between. It is indeed a real issue to raise. The problems however are often that some of the places where these refugees placed through are not components of the or sorry signed up partners of the Refugee convention so they can actually not claim asylum in these countries this happens in the Australian context to and you see it with the Australian government now who are going mainly to Bangladesh but and but, I imagine at some stage they will try and push the people out. So proud of this I guess there has to be labelled as a failure of an international agreement and of course the regional failures of the problems. So your first question where do you draw the line. I think that this is the most crucial question in this debate. So I will try to answer this one briefly. To me as I tried to make clear in my talk. The key here is whether someone is committed to a pluralist multi-ethnic society and believes that they can exist. This may be coloured by the fact that I am an American and I regularly acknowledge that fact as part of my everyday life. I believe in multi ethnic democracy. I believe that that exists in the US and I believe that it exists in this country and indeed in Europe. I am not by any means saying that it is easy. I’m not claiming nothing happens overnight. I’m not saying that integration is not fraught with difficulty and that it requires efforts and sacrifices by the immigrants themselves as one of the host society, but what I find absolutely unacceptable is the sort of nativist civilizational war rhetoric that paints these people often free in places of war as invaders. Invaders that are polluting the nation and there is too much of this rhetoric going around and I think that it needs to be called out and shamed. This needs to be done forcibly, excessively and immediately. I think that that is actually quite crucial to people who believe in immigration on the moderate right to separate themselves from people who do not have a vision for a porous Society and while people are entitled to have those views. I reject those views and I believe that most of our societies have become multi-ethnic pluralist societies and I do believe that there is value in that and I believe that it will actually contribute towards them and enhance them and not go down this road it’s a dangerous road.

Question: Thank you for the speech you kept on saying so many times that would that phrase liberal democracy. Now I believe in liberal democracy. I am proud of my liberal democracy. But the groups that we are seeing come to European countries they just don’t recognise the concept of liberalism. And this is a problem not with immigrants we’ve had immigrants for years. But this is an ideological problem with Muslims. Recent history you, spoke a lot about recent history. Now I am an Indian my country was divided the Arabs invaded it and converted by Force a lot of people and since then you’ve got two countries it’s already there clear for you to see. Now take Uganda in the 1970s ok we have a little problem, but they’re fully integrated now and every time, I hear discussion on the television and in the media you never mentioned the Hindus all the Buddhists for that matter. Why? There is something wrong here there is one thing and that is that the Muslims by their very religion have to carry their baggage with them all the time they won’t integrate and we have that here in the UK. So you’ve got to find another way?

Timothy Stafford: Thank you for your question. I’m just going to pick up on that so I think the question that you wanted to ask was that a Sasha, you kept mentioning the words “liberal democracy” but a lot of people who are coming to this country, let’s use the Syrians for an example are people who are coming from countries that even before the war was not a democratic country and these people do not understand Democracy in the way that we understand and dare I say cherish the concept of democracy. So with this in mind how easy is it going to be to integrate them into the culture that you are trying to preserve?

Sasha Polakow-Suransky: Look, I think that it’s a legitimate, concern but what I would say first of all, the gentleman’s statement, in fact I digress…. Looking further back we saw similar arguments in the United States in the 19th century about Catholics. It was quite a popular position until the campaign of John F Kennedy two brand Catholics as a non-liberal and almost foreign because of their inability to get over their allegiance to a foreign church and dare I say a foreign Head of State in that of the Pope or the Office of the Papacy. This very argument is something that’s been raised about the Jews both in the 19th century and later and a lot of the white nationalist groups in the United States initially targeted Catholics in the early 20th century the Ku Klux Klan was not only lynching black people but they were also blowing up Catholic churches and killing priests, so I think that it is important to see that this very argument was happening on the left of the United States where there is hatred of the Catholics as a foreign and anime similar bull force it was associated with Irish IRA terrorism at a certain point. So this kind of denunciation of a certain group has occurred before and it hasn’t always been focused on Muslims. This isn’t to deny the fact that there are integrating challenges ahead but I would of course and wholeheartedly caution against focusing on a single group now because this very argument has happened to (inaudible) and the results have been a very, very ugly historically and if you look at the case of American Catholics or American Jews or even German Jews (inaudible), that reference is no longer applied to those groups in factors frowned upon and now I have a new target and new scapegoats and often there is some legitimate basis for that initial rhetoric, that fear, but I would strongly reject the notion that Muslim immigrants are somehow unassailable. If you look at the United States for example where we have fewer immigrants from Muslim countries the assimilation and the integration has been quite effective. I think that there are issues and I think that in a liberal Society this needs to be taken very, very seriously and so let’s just say if somebody is engaging in FGM or if there are honour killings going on then, we must brand these as unacceptable and punish them under the law of the nation state, but it is also worth thinking about natives who harbour the liberal values, in liberal societies there are many people in this country or indeed in France who are not fully beholden to liberal ideals it doesn’t mean that they should not be citizens. Just look at the United States, there are people who hate gay people and yet that’s the argument being used as why we should not allow Muslims into our Society. We cannot ban people because they just happened to find themselves incompatible or at odds with what’s going on in US Society. If they harbour these reviews we might find them unsavoury, but unless they cross the line, that is the legal line, incite violence against the groups they hate, then they are entitled to have these views and we are entitled to try at least try to make them liberal, but if they cross that line then they should expect to feel the full force of the law. I would argue that the American system does the British system and at the systems in place in European countries is perfectly adequate to do with this situation. We therefore don’t need to call for additional measures against specific groups because they’re somehow different.

Timothy Stafford: On behalf of the Henry Jackson Society, I would like to thank you all, very much for attending this evening. I believe that copies of Sasha’s book can be purchased outside and Sasha has said that he is more than willing to sign them. Many thanks.


Lost your password?

Not a member? Please click here