What do you think?
Rate this book
The Global Refugee Crisis: How Should We Respond?
The world is facing the worst humanitarian crisis since the Second World War. Over 300,000 are dead in Syria, and one and half million are either injured or disabled. Four and a half million people are trying to flee the country. And Syria is just one of a growing number of failed or failing states in the Middle East and North Africa. How should developed nations respond to human suffering on this mass scale? Do the prosperous societies of the West, including Canada and the U.S., have a moral imperative to assist as many refugees as they reasonably and responsibly can? Or, is this a time for vigilance and restraint in the face of a wave of mass migration that risks upending the tolerance and openness of the West?
The eighteenth semi-annual Munk Debate, which was held on April 1, 2016, pits former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour and leading historian Simon Schama against former leader of the UK Independence Party Nigel Farage and bestselling author Mark Steyn to debate the West’s response to the global refugee crisis.
The eighteenth semi-annual Munk Debate, which was held on April 1, 2016, pits former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour and leading historian Simon Schama against former leader of the UK Independence Party Nigel Farage and bestselling author Mark Steyn to debate the West’s response to the global refugee crisis.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
112 pages, Paperback
Published March 14, 2017
4 people are currently reading
94 people want to read
About the author
Louise Arbour
17 books4 followersLouise Arbour, CC GOQ, is the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Court of Appeal for Ontario and a former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. She has since July 2009 served as President and CEO of the International Crisis Group.
From 1972-73, Louise Arbour was research officer for the Law Reform Commission of Canada. She then taught at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, first as a Lecturer (1974), then as Assistant Professor (1975), Associate Professor (1977–1987), and finally as Associate Professor and Associate Dean (1987). She also was Vice-President of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association until her appointment to the Supreme Court of Ontario (High Court of Justice) in 1987 and to the Court of Appeal for Ontario in 1990.
In 1995, Madam Louise Arbour was appointed as President of a Commission of Inquiry, under the Inquiries Act, for the purpose of investigating and reporting on events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, Ontario, following allegations by prisoners of abuse.
In 1996, she was appointed Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. In that capacity she indicted then Serbian President Slobodan Milošević for war crimes, the first time a serving head of State was called to account before an international court. Also indicted were Milan Milutinović, President of the Republic of Serbia, Nikola Šainović, Deputy Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Dragoljub Ojdanić, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and Vlajko Stojiljković, Minister of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia.
In 1999, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien appointed Arbour to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Throughout her career, Arbour has published in the area of criminal procedure and criminal law, in both French and English. At various times, she has served as an editor for the Criminal Reports, the Canadian Rights Reporter, and the Osgoode Hall Law Journal.
Arbour has been awarded honorary doctorates by twenty-seven universities. In 2005, Arbour was awarded the Thomas J. Dodd Prize in International Justice and Human Rights, along with Justice Richard Goldstone, in recognition of her work on the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
She is also the subject of a 2005 fact-based Canadian-German made-for-television movie, entitled Hunt For Justice which follows her quest to indict Bosnian war criminals. Arbour was played by Canadian actress Wendy Crewson.
From 1972-73, Louise Arbour was research officer for the Law Reform Commission of Canada. She then taught at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, first as a Lecturer (1974), then as Assistant Professor (1975), Associate Professor (1977–1987), and finally as Associate Professor and Associate Dean (1987). She also was Vice-President of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association until her appointment to the Supreme Court of Ontario (High Court of Justice) in 1987 and to the Court of Appeal for Ontario in 1990.
In 1995, Madam Louise Arbour was appointed as President of a Commission of Inquiry, under the Inquiries Act, for the purpose of investigating and reporting on events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, Ontario, following allegations by prisoners of abuse.
In 1996, she was appointed Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. In that capacity she indicted then Serbian President Slobodan Milošević for war crimes, the first time a serving head of State was called to account before an international court. Also indicted were Milan Milutinović, President of the Republic of Serbia, Nikola Šainović, Deputy Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Dragoljub Ojdanić, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and Vlajko Stojiljković, Minister of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia.
In 1999, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien appointed Arbour to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Throughout her career, Arbour has published in the area of criminal procedure and criminal law, in both French and English. At various times, she has served as an editor for the Criminal Reports, the Canadian Rights Reporter, and the Osgoode Hall Law Journal.
Arbour has been awarded honorary doctorates by twenty-seven universities. In 2005, Arbour was awarded the Thomas J. Dodd Prize in International Justice and Human Rights, along with Justice Richard Goldstone, in recognition of her work on the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
She is also the subject of a 2005 fact-based Canadian-German made-for-television movie, entitled Hunt For Justice which follows her quest to indict Bosnian war criminals. Arbour was played by Canadian actress Wendy Crewson.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
April 6, 2018
How Should We Respond to the Global Refugee Crisis? is a transcript of a debate and interview at the Munk School in Toronto, Canada, looking at the question "Do you support the motion: Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore." On the pro side was Louise Arbour, a Canadian human rights advocate who has worked with the UN and a former Canadian Supreme Court Justice, and Simon Schama, a historian and art critic. On the negative side, sat Mark Steyn, a conservative author and human rights advocate, and Nigel Farage, a UKIP politician from Britain. The debate was won by the neigh side, as they sifted the audience the most toward their viewpoint.
The debate revolved around the definition of refugees - something the negative side brought up to try and discredit those fleeing from war torn areas in the Middle East. Closet racism was present targeting Muslims and accusing them of being rapists and being incompatible with so called Western norms. The pro side argued that this refugee crisis closely mirrors other migration waves Western countries have seen throughout history, and similar criticisms existed against those immigrant communities as well. Catholics were poor, authoritarian, and loyal only to Rome, Italians were Mafia and criminals, Asians were dangerous and trying to convert our nations toward a more Asiatic way of life - etc. etc.
I largely agreed with the pro side here. I dislike arguments based on hysteria, poor factual evidence, and weak and mewling calls to Western idealism or Christian tradition. The negative side of the argument represents the weakest links in Western societies; the fearful, the uninformed, the manipulators, and so on. To me, these are the instruments of our decline in modern times, as they are closing doors to opportunities and people that could continue to benefit and improve our nations. On a technical level, the negative side also argued for increasing screenings based on racial profiling - something that is wholly against Western traditions to begin with. They argued for more radical deportation issues for citizen terrorists - another hypocrisy in my opinion. If they are a citizen, regardless of their crime, they deserve the exact same systems of justice we all abide by. Denying them this due to personal outrage alone is a step away from our traditional systems of justice, morality and ethics. It always boggles my mind when someone argues for protecting our traditions by trying to erode them. It makes me think they are being disingenuous with there arguments, and indeed, in this case they are. Farage and Steyn are racists, pure and simple, and should remain fringe analysts at best.
From a Canadian perspective, our historical tradition has literally been to accept large amounts of migrants, refugees and settlers to the country, for better or worse. Although this has implications for Aboriginal rights in the nation, it has certainly been a boon for our economy, our way of life, and our overall political traditions. This policy of refugee acceptance should be continued, and those that threaten it are truly working against the fabric of our society, often influenced by news and media coming from the US and Europe.
This was an interesting debate, as it shows the increasingly polarized viewpoints emerging. On one side, the globalists, who wish to solve issues through greater integration, acceptance of migrants, and a sense of global community. On the other, nationalists, who fear change, and seek to denigrate people based on their otherness. I do not fit comfortably into either camp, but suffice to say, nationalism is a tired and worthless ideology, and its resurgence after only 60 years of slumber is leading to increasing tensions, violence and suffering. The globalists may be naively optimistic in some respects, but optimism is more constructive then the whining, pleating defeatism we see from some political circles. A good read, if polarizing, and certainly interesting for those looking at the topic or its overarching ideology.
The debate revolved around the definition of refugees - something the negative side brought up to try and discredit those fleeing from war torn areas in the Middle East. Closet racism was present targeting Muslims and accusing them of being rapists and being incompatible with so called Western norms. The pro side argued that this refugee crisis closely mirrors other migration waves Western countries have seen throughout history, and similar criticisms existed against those immigrant communities as well. Catholics were poor, authoritarian, and loyal only to Rome, Italians were Mafia and criminals, Asians were dangerous and trying to convert our nations toward a more Asiatic way of life - etc. etc.
I largely agreed with the pro side here. I dislike arguments based on hysteria, poor factual evidence, and weak and mewling calls to Western idealism or Christian tradition. The negative side of the argument represents the weakest links in Western societies; the fearful, the uninformed, the manipulators, and so on. To me, these are the instruments of our decline in modern times, as they are closing doors to opportunities and people that could continue to benefit and improve our nations. On a technical level, the negative side also argued for increasing screenings based on racial profiling - something that is wholly against Western traditions to begin with. They argued for more radical deportation issues for citizen terrorists - another hypocrisy in my opinion. If they are a citizen, regardless of their crime, they deserve the exact same systems of justice we all abide by. Denying them this due to personal outrage alone is a step away from our traditional systems of justice, morality and ethics. It always boggles my mind when someone argues for protecting our traditions by trying to erode them. It makes me think they are being disingenuous with there arguments, and indeed, in this case they are. Farage and Steyn are racists, pure and simple, and should remain fringe analysts at best.
From a Canadian perspective, our historical tradition has literally been to accept large amounts of migrants, refugees and settlers to the country, for better or worse. Although this has implications for Aboriginal rights in the nation, it has certainly been a boon for our economy, our way of life, and our overall political traditions. This policy of refugee acceptance should be continued, and those that threaten it are truly working against the fabric of our society, often influenced by news and media coming from the US and Europe.
This was an interesting debate, as it shows the increasingly polarized viewpoints emerging. On one side, the globalists, who wish to solve issues through greater integration, acceptance of migrants, and a sense of global community. On the other, nationalists, who fear change, and seek to denigrate people based on their otherness. I do not fit comfortably into either camp, but suffice to say, nationalism is a tired and worthless ideology, and its resurgence after only 60 years of slumber is leading to increasing tensions, violence and suffering. The globalists may be naively optimistic in some respects, but optimism is more constructive then the whining, pleating defeatism we see from some political circles. A good read, if polarizing, and certainly interesting for those looking at the topic or its overarching ideology.
August 2, 2017
An interesting debate, in which it seems the debate itself was won by the side I disagree with more. Worrying.
February 26, 2017
I was interested to see what the other side of the debate was and as expected the more "conservative" side had blatant out lies in their arguments. My favourite was when one of them claimed that China had 119 male for every female. That's just false. I looked up where the number comes from and it's 119 for every 100 FEMALE. That's a huge difference. The fear mongering rhetoric was painful to read from Mark Steyn and Nigel Farage but it just reaffirmed how privileged some people can be when they speak about the refugee crisis and how security trumps the basics of human decency apparently. The debate definitely gave me some laughs that's for sure.
June 18, 2020
The Global Refugee Crisis: How Should We Respond? by Louise Arbour is one in a series of Munk Debates, so named for the Munk School in Toronto, Canada where they are held. As you could guess from the title, two pro and two con participants debated liberal and conservative positions on the refugee crisis centered in the Middle East and Syria in particular. It was kicked off by asking both sides if they support the phrase "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore." In brief, as expected the liberal position was let everyone in while conservatives wanted checks in place and rules about exactly who is coming in. Depending on your personal viewpoint, the winners were either side. It was fairly well balanced with a controlled and time limited debate. The book also includes transcripts of the debate, one-on-one interviews, and biographical information about the series and the participants. Regardless which side you are on, you will learn something of opposing viewpoints in a civilized back and forth. They did survey the audience of 3,000 before the debate and after the date and found a significant swing to the conservative viewpoint from a pre-debate overwhelming liberal preference. When the publicly stated goal of Islamic extremists is to infiltrate the stream of refugees to the west in order to disrupt and bring down their governments as we see happening today, it is only prudent to screen them out by any means necessary for the safety of our societies. That is not a locked door against refugees, it is a door with rules for entry. Any legitimate refugee fleeing persecution has the legal right to make their case. Anyway, I found that parts of the actual debate are on YouTube and probably elsewhere as well. I also found that all four of the interviews are there in their entirety. I learned something and will look for additional debate topics.
December 31, 2025
مناظره بحران جهانی پناهندگان با بررسی نوشته موجود روی مجسمه آزادی آغاز میشود که چنین است:
دو نفر علیه این گزاره استدلال میکنند و دونفر له آن. میشود از این مناظره خط فکری و استدلالهای کلی دو جریان را متوجه شد و در کل نقطه خوبی برای شروع یادگیری درباره این موضوع است.
با این حال میشود گفت زاویه دید مناظره، کاملا از سمت شهروندان غربیست حتی وقتی له این گزاره استدلال میشود. در این موضوعات بهتر است فردی از گروهی که درباره آنها صحبت میشود وجود داشته باشد که به جوانبی که اکثریت فرادست به آن توجهی نمیکنند اشاره کند و نشان دهد یک پناهنده چگونه به ماجرا نگاه میکند و از حق گروه خود دفاع کند.
یکی از مناظره کنندگان که علیه پناهندگی استدلال میآورد ادعا کرد که پناهندگان معمولا سیاسی نیستند و مهاجران اقتصادی هستند که میخواهند از اقتصاد قوی غربی استفاده کنند. هیچ کسی البته این پرسش را مطرح نمیکند که از ابتدا این اقتصاد چگونه شکوفا شد. به طور کلی مسئله استثمار و استعمار هیچ جایی در این مناظره مطرح نمیشود.
به مسائل امنیتی و تروریسم، حقوق شهروندان زن غربی و تجاوز هم بسیار اشاره میشود اما این مسئله طرح نمیشود که چه قدر حمله علیه مهاجران و پناهندگان و تیراندازی به آنها وجود دارد. درباره حقوق زنان و کودکان به این اشاره نمیشود که مطالعات مختلف این را نشان داده که پلیسها در متهم کردن پناهندگان سوگیری دارند.
در جایی مناظره کنندهای می گوید اگر پاسپورت بلژیکی و کانادایی دارید لزوما بلژیکی و کانادایی نیستید، به این معنا که باید ارزشهای غربی نظیر آزادی و احترام به حقوق دیگران را آموخته باشید و به رسمیت بشناسید. این گزاره را علیه مهاجران مسلمان مطرح میکند اما به این اشارهای ندارد که خود شهروندان غیرمهاجر چه قدر از این اصول دور شدهاند. آیا با این استدلال خود سفیدپوستان بلژیکی هم دیگری بلژیکی نیستند؟
اینها و بیشتر از اینها مواردی هستند که شاید یک مهاجر میتوانست به آنها اشاره کند ولی مناظره کنندگان سفیدپوست از این زاویه دید مسائل را نمیبینند.
«بیایید همه بپذیریم، بگذارید مردم خسته از سرکوب و ستم به سرزمین ما بیایند و آزاد باشند.»
دو نفر علیه این گزاره استدلال میکنند و دونفر له آن. میشود از این مناظره خط فکری و استدلالهای کلی دو جریان را متوجه شد و در کل نقطه خوبی برای شروع یادگیری درباره این موضوع است.
با این حال میشود گفت زاویه دید مناظره، کاملا از سمت شهروندان غربیست حتی وقتی له این گزاره استدلال میشود. در این موضوعات بهتر است فردی از گروهی که درباره آنها صحبت میشود وجود داشته باشد که به جوانبی که اکثریت فرادست به آن توجهی نمیکنند اشاره کند و نشان دهد یک پناهنده چگونه به ماجرا نگاه میکند و از حق گروه خود دفاع کند.
یکی از مناظره کنندگان که علیه پناهندگی استدلال میآورد ادعا کرد که پناهندگان معمولا سیاسی نیستند و مهاجران اقتصادی هستند که میخواهند از اقتصاد قوی غربی استفاده کنند. هیچ کسی البته این پرسش را مطرح نمیکند که از ابتدا این اقتصاد چگونه شکوفا شد. به طور کلی مسئله استثمار و استعمار هیچ جایی در این مناظره مطرح نمیشود.
به مسائل امنیتی و تروریسم، حقوق شهروندان زن غربی و تجاوز هم بسیار اشاره میشود اما این مسئله طرح نمیشود که چه قدر حمله علیه مهاجران و پناهندگان و تیراندازی به آنها وجود دارد. درباره حقوق زنان و کودکان به این اشاره نمیشود که مطالعات مختلف این را نشان داده که پلیسها در متهم کردن پناهندگان سوگیری دارند.
در جایی مناظره کنندهای می گوید اگر پاسپورت بلژیکی و کانادایی دارید لزوما بلژیکی و کانادایی نیستید، به این معنا که باید ارزشهای غربی نظیر آزادی و احترام به حقوق دیگران را آموخته باشید و به رسمیت بشناسید. این گزاره را علیه مهاجران مسلمان مطرح میکند اما به این اشارهای ندارد که خود شهروندان غیرمهاجر چه قدر از این اصول دور شدهاند. آیا با این استدلال خود سفیدپوستان بلژیکی هم دیگری بلژیکی نیستند؟
اینها و بیشتر از اینها مواردی هستند که شاید یک مهاجر میتوانست به آنها اشاره کند ولی مناظره کنندگان سفیدپوست از این زاویه دید مسائل را نمیبینند.
July 3, 2017
A fascinating pro/con look at the refugee crisis with the transcript of the debate and pre-debate interviews of the four participants. I learned quite a bit. They poll the audience before and after and the difference is quite substantial with one side winning the audience over with their argument. They certainly helped me decide!
March 8, 2018
The well-reasoned arguments of the pro-refugee side must be discovered in their pre-debate interviews. The debate arguments presented by the opposing side are mostly based on the guttural emotional feelings related to sexual violence perpetrated by immigrant/refugees. Statistics are called into question and the reader is left to parse out the truth from the spun truth.
July 11, 2017
Excellent. Thought provoking insight from a few very bright minds.
December 12, 2023
من بیشتر با نظر آقای نایجل فاراج موافق بودم. خوشبینی امثال خانم لوئیس آربور در کنار آمار وحشتناکی که در همین چند ساله از اروپا، خصوصا آلمان، ارائه شد ترسناک و ناامید کننده ست.
April 28, 2024
Now a little bit dated. Irreconciliable points of vue. Now the problem is the same and the arguments of both parties haven't changed.
November 3, 2016
Regardless of your political views, The Munk Debates always help educate on the most pressing concerns of our times. This debate, which explores the world's worst humanitarian crisis since the Second World War, is no different.
April 10, 2018
Mark Styne put's 'em in their place everytime.
April 20, 2017
This is a published version of a debate that was held in Toronto in April of 2016 regarding the Syrian refugee crisis. It presents the opinions of four people (2 pro, 2 con) regarding opening up the doors in Canada to huge numbers of refugees. Both the individuals arguing against it, and one individual arguing for it are rather unbearable when reading through this. The only voice I found myself interested in was Ms. Louise Arbour's, who was the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and on the Supreme Court of Canada in the early 2000s (p. 87). I would rather have read a book-length discussion written solely by her. Some benefits: 2 of the authors are British and therefore cover some of the dynamics in the UK. The book highlights some serious issues going on in Europe over the last year (notably Sweden and Germany), but the debaters do so in order to push their own political (often Islamaphobic) agenda. Look elsewhere for info on the refugee crisis.
July 25, 2018
Too short in my opinion, because the views shared were interesting. I wasn't a fan of the fear-mongering used by the con side, and there were a few slight personal insults used that I thought were out of place. It was more useful for seeing what 'the other side' thought than for learning about the crisis itself.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews