Even in Canada the compassion argument for refugees doesn’t cut it
Apr 4, 2016, 5:35 AM | Updated: Apr 18, 2016, 11:11 am
After a very civil debate over Muslim refugees at the University of Toronto, support on the pro-refugee side had dropped 22 percent after 90 minutes of debate. UK Independent party leader argued that "we do have a genuine terrorist threat." (AP)
(AP)
Suppose there was a sober refugee debate.
Donald Trump has been blamed for stoking an irrational fear of Muslim refugees. But suppose the refugee issue was debated in a sober, rational way. Well, there WAS just such a debate at the University of Toronto over the weekend.
Related: Don’t get too warm and fuzzy about this thwarted mass shooting
First, the audience voted on the poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your, tired your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free …” And 77 percent were in favor of that kind of compassion.
Then the debate began.
Speaking in favor taking refugees was Professor Simon Schama, Columbia University.
“Families are desperately trying to make it often the cost of their own lives,” he said.
He argues they are good people.
“There are those of us who think it not impossible to be an Orthodox Muslim and a good Canadian,” he continued.
On the other side was Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independent party.
“It is idealized nonsense,” he said.
These people are too dangerous, he says.
“We do have a genuine terrorist threat,” Farage said. “And, yes, it’s about 2 percent of the Muslim communities that are coming into Europe. But if only eight people can cause all that misery we have to be careful…”
It was all very civil, and at the conclusion, when the audience voted again, the pro-refugee side was still ahead, but support had dropped 22 percent after 90 minutes of debate. The anti-refugee side was declared the winner.
Even in Canada, the compassion argument couldn’t cut it.
-
Tune in to KIRO Newsradio weekdays at 5am for Dave Ross on Seattle's Morning News.
