Episode 10 Sunday Morning Live

Welcome to Sunday Morning Live. On today's programme, it has been a

lovely one weekend and thousands of us have been heading to the beach

but if you were in France and you turned up to paddle in one of these,

a burkini, you might have been in trouble. Does what women wear on the

beach pose a threat to public safety? Damage to Timbuktu's

treasured monuments has been declared a war crime but should the

destruction of cultural sites be treated the same as genocide? Never

in all my life did I know there was such suffering in the world as I

have seen here. A new film is released in tribute to the life of

Mother Teresa one week before she is due to be canonised by the Pope. We

ask, is it too easy to become a saint? And BBC presenter Nick

Robinson tells Hardeep Singh Kohli what it was like when he became a

political story. I had often been attacked but never had I had a

banner this big with my photograph on it, with the work, -- with the

word, nick of the liar Robinson. Our panellists earring to go. Tommy is

ready to share all of your thoughts with us. Good morning. It is really

important that you get in touch. We want to hear from you and you can

contact us through our Facebook page or Twitter. If you are tweeting,

don't forget to use our hashtag: Or call us on our number: Standard

charges from landlines and mobiles apply.

Text us if you have your mobile handy:

Or email us at [email protected].

And if you do get in touch, please don't forget to include your name.

Let's meet our guests this week. Deborah Orr is a political and

social commentator and Guardian columnist. Tim Stanley is a writer

for the Telegraph and Catholic Herald. Kate Williams is an author,

historian and broadcaster. And finally to paint is the ticket of

director of the muscle women's network UK. -- Muslim women's

network. Perhaps you wouldn't have thought that what women wear to the

beach would become an international story. That is what is happening in

France at the moment after a string of towns banned the wearing of the

burkini. The recent is that it is beach where that ostentatiously

displays religious affiliation. On Friday, however, a court suspended

the burkini ban in one bands and other places dropped it, too.

Somehow kept it. Meanwhile, Nicolas Sarkozy says that the ban should be

throughout France. Tommy took a trip to Brighton beach to see what people

there think. What a beautiful summer stay. But

just across the channel a political row has erupted over the burkini

ban. Women are being prohibited from wearing this on French beaches. But

how would the people operating field of something similar was to come

into force Reggie? It is ridiculous that people are trying to ban people

from covering the body. -- into force right here. I don't think it

is comfortable on the beach. It is freedom of expression and that is

what we end other nations are built on. How would you feel if you saw

somebody wearing this on the beach? I would say, you look hot. If you do

not look comfortable without a T-shirt, I will not wear a T-shirt.

I want it banned because they are coming to the beach and they may be

offended by people in bikinis. Then don't come to the beach. My dad

lives in Bahrain and I do not wear it out there. I think it is there

enough that they should have the right to wear it here. It is

individual freedom. Like now, I can swim perfectly with my scarf and my

hijab. We live in a free society and we are free to make our own choices.

She might get offended by what I am wearing! Can you not understand that

people were killed on Bastille Day and people are quite concerned when

they see somebody in a perk up. It is nothing to do with the muscle

religion at all. It is these specific people. It is ridiculous.

Terrorists can look like anybody. It can be anybody. I do not understand

it, sorry. This is my face, I can speak and do anything. I am not

hiding, I am following my religion. And I do not disturb others because

I am not doing anything wrong. Tommy, sampling opinion in Brighton.

Let's see what our guests think this morning. Is it right to ban the

burkini? Tim, Nicolas Sarkozy called the burkini a provocation. Is that

true? Certainly not for the people wearing out. That is something that

is misunderstood. It is all -- it is not about covering completely. If

you ban it, you undermine integration because those people

will not be able to go to the beach. But let's be realistic. I am against

the ban and it is impractical. I am a religious conservative and I wish

that people would dress more modestly although I would not force

them to. Let's be realistic. We do police the way that people dress. If

somebody went on to that beach completely nude, some people would

feel uncomfortable. Secondly, the assault on the burkini takes place

in a context that France feels, wrongly, that it is losing the war

on terror. Over a month ago, 86 people were killed in Nice by a

fanatic. If they are losing the military war, they are looking to

win it existentially by reasserting what Frenchness is. And for them

Frenchness is secular, and about showing off your body. There is a

reason why so often figures of liberty and the liberal goddess in

French liberty are presented as topless. They are trying to reassert

Frenchness. I am against the ban but we should be realistic and recognise

the context and background to it. Tim touched upon this briefly but

how does the burkini differ from the burqa? The core difference is that a

burqa is usually a face covering this not. This is a wet suit with a

hood. We need to remember that yes that might be true in context, where

globally we are fighting a context of extremism, but we do not fight

extremism by saying to a woman, you are not allowed to wear a particular

type of dress. I find the French approach to be extreme. I think it

is secular extremism. Nicolas Sarkozy saying this needs to be a

national ban, I find that a warrant and I think someone in Europe should

not be seeing this. Europeans, we have certain values that we need to

adhere to and freedom of religion and freedom of expression are?

Valspar use which I take really seriously. I do not think that

singling out a particular group is the way to tackle extremism.

Obviously it is incredible destructive to go around trying to

police what people wear. The sign of -- the site of armed men on a beach

demanding that a woman Arms should not be happening anywhere in the

world, not in Europe either. When secular liberals reduce the issue to

just being about women's choice and women's bodies, they are

oversimplifying something that is paradoxical, which is that in the

West you have religiously prescribed clothing which says that women need

to hide their bodies. In order to go out in public. You are dissed ending

something that is absolutely the opposite of what you think you are

defending. So you are saying that this is adopting religious clothing

is a choice of religious freedom and it is simply not. I think we need to

listen to the voices of women themselves. Very few Muslim women

will say that they wear the headscarf because they were told to.

Most of them they will say that they have chosen to win it for a number

of reasons and these vary. So I think that we should listen to

women's voices instead of other people speaking for them, men or

not. And the word provocation is disturbing here because I think we

have just about managed to get away from the idea that what women wear

is a provocation to men, that it matters what women wear. And here we

are being told that a woman who wears a certain form of swimwear is

provoking. This is a cheap shot and it is ahead of the elections next

year in which the people are trying to appeal to a certain level of

racism, it is a cheap shot against immigration. Sometimes we have seen

works in political context. -- sometimes we have seen it work. It

is simply a logical, though, because we know that a habit is fine for a

none, and many people wear a burkini not for religious reasons. In

Australia they wear it for skincare. So you think you can separate it

from religion? Yes. There are questions in France that politicians

need to engage in, about security and freedom of speech but it is

being reduced to whether or not people wear a certain type of skin

where. And I have to say, as a very pale person, I tend to wear that

kind of thing to the beach anyway. The French report agrees with you.

That is significant. When politicians in the West go too far

and say dumb things, we tend to denounce the whole of western

society and Western liberalism, saying that we are edging towards

tyranny because of one populist moron. But the reality is that

Western society remains liberal and comparatively free and we should

remember that in the context of other societies that are not so

free. This debate in Saudi Arabia is on a different level.

I want to bring this back to France because there were figures this week

from the French newspaper as saying that 60 for percent of French people

are in favour of the ban on the burkini. It reflects that there is a

significant number of people who are uncomfortable, who feel alienate it

by this style of dress. How do you address that? That is the issue

because it says to me that people in France are feeling very insecure and

fearful right now of the wider attacks they are facing,

particularly following the terrorism attacks in Nice not long ago. We

need to be working on why the policies -- wider policies of

cohesion but this type of band goes against those policies because it

further isolate the communities and it takes them away from a cohesive

model. -- this type of Ann. Your thoughts on isolating communities? I

think that the French want to ban the burkini because they feel

powerless in other respects. And that is why it is not just about

what women wear. It is about a wider context where the French are afraid

of Islamic terrorism. A man did not plough in a lorry through a crowd of

people in order to make it easier for women to wear burkinis. In the

end, it is Muslim extremism that is stalking this problem and stalking

this hatred and we have to ask ourselves, why would a Muslim

extremism want to make it more difficult for muscle of women in

France, and make Muslim women in France have to deal with 60 for

percent of people wanting their clothes replaced? And it is because

they want to damage and humiliate liberal secularism, and by banning,

the French are playing into their hands, and also by saying it is not

about religious fundamentalism at all, it is just about women's

choices, that is also avoiding the issue. And the issue is that on the

extremes, people are stalking division and hatred in the West in

order to complete their own very dangerous and nasty agenda. I think

we need to be clear that there are certainly a number of

interpretations. The muscle and community is not homogenous, we are

a diverse community with different backgrounds and different approaches

to religion. But that does not mean that the extremes speak for the

majority. I think we need to remember that. You are right that

this particular type of band feeds into the rhetoric that Islamic State

are pushing. -- this type of ban. Kate, Tommy went to Brighton to

gauge opinion and most of the opinion is live and let live, where

what you want. Do you think that if we had experienced what happened in

Nice, our attitudes would have changed? Certainly, in France my

concern is that the more they criticise them, the more they dig in

their heels. I have seen criticism on Fox news where people think it is

going too far. And that can be very extreme on this kind of subject. I

think this is a very different country at the moment. Because we

have not gone through the terror, as Debra was saying, that French people

are going through, and the fear that they feel, whether they blame us is

or not, they feel under attack. I think we do accept that 99.9% of

Muslims in Britain, and across the world, want to live in peace and

harmony and there are few people who engage in terrorism. And when we

look at terrorist profiles, they tend to have histories of petty

crime or psychological disturbance. These cannot be associated with the

peace-loving Muslims who give so much to this country, who give so

much to our institutions and the NHS. I think the burkini ban is

never going to happen here. In France, it is going to be seen as a

mistake because already this is not the kind of criticism that France is

wanting. This is not the image they want to project to the world,

particularly of their beaches. Because they see themselves as a

place of freedom and liberty and this is not what is going on here.

The French define liberty in a different way to we do. We in this

country, the people on the beach in Brighton, say you should be free to

do whatever you like. Like. This is the only part of the world where

people see liberty in that way, but France doesn't. They feel sometimes

you have to compel people to be free, so a lot of religious

symbolism is already banned. That's common. The same in Mexico. In

Russia they are trying to force Russian identity on its population.

We tend to feel that anyone should be able to do whatever they like,

but we are part of a shrinking group of countries that feel that way. I

would say if French secularism says research should be kept apart of

state matters, why are the state enforcing a dress code on religious

dress? If the approach you want to take is keep religion out of all

state rulings, then do that, but don't put on these bans which are

ludicrous, in my mind. I think Britain is different. I think it's

great that it is different. We have to remember we did have the 7/7

bombings in Britain and our response years later is not the same as the

French response. And that's credit, but we do have issues in Britain

too. Let's not pretend that we are perfect either. But I definitely

think that the people in Brighton spoke quite clearly. Deborah, you

mentioned the picture earlier which we showed. Many people are

discussing whether or not this is a set-up of a picture and what this

picture actually does in some ways enforcing IS's message, Islamic

State's message, because it works almost as propaganda on that side.

Well, we do know a suspiciously small amount. Most people nowadays

had that happened to them on a beach would be on social media saying,

what on earth has just happened to me? And you would know about it, so

it is a little bit suspicious. But at the same time I think that one

important point has to be made about this whole burkini issue is that

you've got an enormous back story of global clashes and violence and

idealogical breaks and arguments. And it's all falling on individual

women and their bodies. And somehow these huge historical and

geopolitical clashes are being acted out on women, on the beach. You have

to say to yourself, how can we let this happen? How can we not protect

individual women trying to live their lives from these huge,

terrible problems that are occurring. And part of the reason

why I don't like conservative Islam is that it seems very women-blaming,

and that is becoming bigger and bigger and bigger and moving out

into western countries that are only just beginning to address these

issues themselves. I'm sorry to interrupt, but IS, that photo isn't

just about the woman on the beach being policed by the men. They also

want people to look at the women semi naked around the women. Let's

not forget that's really what the Islamic State hates, not the

policing of women in the West. We make mistakes but my goodness it

doesn't compare to the policing of women that goes on in other

countries. You've been spending your texts and tweets on this. This.

Tommy, you've been gathering reaction. A lot of people talking

about what the laws of the land are. People agreeing people should have

the right to wear what they want. Want. Bill says I don't see a

problem with the burkini, it is no different to a wet suit and

shouldn't be banned. Jenny says, I'm a Christian and I think all women

and men should be able to wear the swim wear of their choice. Jeff says

it is not so long ago Victorian women wore similar clothing to

protect their modesty. Julie says if they want to ban it, live in a

western country, not the western world. Sally says if we non-Muslims

go to a Muslim country we have to cover up. Is it a law to uncover

yourself in Great Britain? It is not our law is it? I would worry if it

was. It is true you can go on the beach in jeans, jumper and a hat if

you want to. The lady on the beach was saying her father lived in

Bahrain I think and she wore what she liked in Bahrain and in Dubai as

well. I find it strange to say that we have to cover up there, so you

can't do what you want here. Sally made the point that it is respect on

both sides. If you go to one country you respect its cultural

differences, and if you come here you should expect the rich cal

differences as well. Well. It would be awkward I imagine, Faezza, to

take your clothes off to respect cultural differences to someone who

has chosen to cover up. A lot of those countries will pretend to be

liberal. We are in Britain, where freedom of choice is really

important. That's something we should be proud of. We shouldn't

have this tit for tat argument about if we are told something in this

country we should have the same human rights. It is important in

this country, while you are absolutely in defence of women

wearing what they like, even if it is bibs over their face which is

they have to flick up to eat, which I've seen in Selfridges while the

males in the family are dressed in western clothes which Selfridges

sells. Why it is right to support women who want to make that

prescribed religious choice, it is also important to be able to say, I

don't like it, and say I don't like that. I don't like seeing women

completely shrouded and covered walking around the streets. I don't

like the idea that it is immodest to show your leg. But there's a

difference in saying I don't like it and banning it. Absolutely. I'm

completely against banning and I'm completely against being pilloried

for saying, I really don't like these things. That's a fair point.

But I think women's clothes are policed throughout society. It was

only a couple of months ago I believe a woman was sent home from a

job for wearing flat shoes. We are expected to wear high heels and

make-up frequently in the business world and to dress a southern way.

There are scholarships saying, making a comparison between the

veil, hair and make-up. Visions of what is a woman, whether in terms of

covering up, or in terms of undressing. We though that there are

a lot of women who are supported and congratulated for taking clothes

off. It is not necessarily a free choice for what women wear. Thank

you very much. We could talk about this a lot longer but we've got a

lot more to talk about. Thank you for your comments. Still to come on

Sunday Morning Live, should destroying historic buildings like

this one be treated the same as a war crime? BBC presenter Nick

Robinson has been a political editor and is now a ringmaster on the

battleground of movers and shakers on Radio 4's Today programme. He

isn't afraid of a scrap. But when confronted with cancer last year it

was a challenge on a different scale. Hardeep Singh Kohli has been

talking to Nick about that time and the past that shaped his future.

You're listening to Today on BBC Radio 4 with John Humphrys and Nick

Robinson. Nick, when you are grilling incredibly powerful people,

what are you thinking when asking those questions? I am always

thinking, what would I want this person to be asked if I were at home

listening or watching? What's the question that needs to be asked? And

that maybe they don't necessarily want to give a clear answer to. What

happened to all those Bulgarians and Romanians taking people's jobs? We

don't know. You don't know? We don't know at all. You are used to

ruffling feathers but you became a big of a target in the Scottish

referendum where some accused you of bias. That was pretty uncomfortable,

I had often been attacked by never before had I had a photograph this

big with Nick the Liar Robinson written on it. It was a really

uncomfortable place to be. I'm not saying the BBC couldn't get it more

right than it did. And I did make some mistakes, but overall can

people report that referendum doing their best to ask the questions of

all sides that needed to be asked? I think yes they did. On a more

personal note there've been other great challenges in your life. When

you were 18 you were involved in a tragic car accident. Can you talk me

through exactly what happened there? It was post A-levels. I had planned

to go on a big trip, as lots of kids do as lots of kids do after their

A-levels. We planned to go in a little Beetle with our trip to

travel around Europe. Sadly we had a big head-on collision near Calais.

The car caught fire. I was the lucky one, because I was stuck in the back

of the car. My two friends in the front didn't make it, they died. I

was in the back, unable, it seemed to me, to get out of the car, but I

did. You carry the scars and the burns from that day. Not that one

can ever make up for the loss of those friends and the trauma you

suffered, but there was a phoenix that Rose from the flames of that

yellow Beetle. You just look forward when you are that age. Maybe it is

partly in my personality. Not that there are frankly many weeks where I

don't still think about my friends, but there are moments where you just

think, now what do I do? I suddenly had a year off, unplanned. I

couldn't travel the world. I couldn't travel anywhere really,

because I had regular hospital appointments, but I did write to my

local radio stations in Manchester and said, how about a job. Last year

as BBC's political editor, the general election, you found out you

had cancer. That must have been a massive blow. Of course. You think,

my God! What now? What am I going to do? And I had the added complication

that dealing with the cancer was general election, you found out you

had cancer. That must have been a massive blow. Of course. You think,

my God! What now? What am I going to do? And I had the added complication

that Far from getting in back to work in

a matter of weeks it took many months to get some of my voice back.

Thank you, sorry about the croaky voice. It is still recovering after

an operation. There is part of you that's a private person which we

don't see. I wonder where Nick Robinson went to find that strength.

Partly I went back to being 18. I kept thinking, hold on, I because in

a fatal car crash, I lost two of my friends in this car crash. There was

a time in which it wasn't clear that I wassen a, that I would make it. I

was a on a ventilator to breathe for a week. Part of me thought, focus on

what you do know, don't obsess with what you don't. In our darkest times

and most trying of experiences we often revert to our up bringing. Was

there much faith around when you were growing up? There wasn't, in

truth. My father was a classic COE, it was the label as to who he was,

but he almost never went beyond Christmas and Easter. My mother was

the child of German Jewish refugees, so I was fascinated by my Jewish

background. In a cultural and political way. I once read a

biography of Isaiah Berlin, the philosopher, who said he

enindividual people with faith. That's always been my position. I

haven't got it, but far from being contemptuous of people with faith, I

slightly envy them. You are a member of a club called the Survivors Club.

My colleague and friend Frank Gardner, the extraordinary security

correspondent shot in the back in Saudi Arabia, joked to me one day we

should have a survivors club, those of us who've got through. Andrew

Marr had a terrible stroke. George Alagiah had very bad cans Kerr. I

wrote in a diary piece in the Spectator, not really thinking we

would ever do it, and Frank said we had better have this meeting once a

month. We then had a meal in a restaurant intending to be private.

Frank had the waiter take a picture, and said, can I put it on Twitter, I

copied it and it was the most extraordinary phenomenon. If you are

on Facebook and you get things that are liked. This was like watching

the dial on a petrol pump. It just went viral. It is a good news

picture. Four guys who had a tough time and made it. You moved recently

from your role as BBC political editor straight into the relative

comfort of the Today programme studios, but it is a beautiful full

circumstance until a sense. Why is it a full circle? Well, my friend

Will, the boy who my son is named after who died in that car crash,

his dad was presenter of the Today programme. His dad was a man called

Brian redhead and I now do Brian's old job. It is the job I always

wanted. In a time but if the tables were

turned, which MP would make you the most nervous if you got interviewed

by them? Probably Alex Salmond. He is incredibly bright and sharp. And

he might have the motive for asking the difficult question. That would

be an interesting one. It would be very interesting. Nick Robinson back

on top form. Timbuktu has a fabled name and a fabulous past. When

Islamic State took over at the town months ago, various relics were

destroyed. The leader of the rebels was this week brought to trial at

the International Criminal Court, charged with cultural disruption. It

is the first time such an offence has been tried as a war crime. He

pleaded guilty and was told he would face a long period in prison. Do you

understand that the crime you are pleading guilty to can't carry a

maximum term of 50 years? By eradicating the mausoleums

intentionally you destroy something that is intangible and immeasurable.

The court in The Hague is normally the setting for trials of genocide

cases and similar crimes against humanity. We are asking if

destroying monuments should be classed as a war crime. Joining now

is a blogger on culture and Islam and an architecture critic with the

Evening Standard. Welcome to you both. What is a war crime? The

reason I am asking this is why this case is being held in The Hague.

There are lots of different war crimes covering matters from the

treatment of prisoners to bombing civilians and on culture. Attacks on

culture are protected in various international laws. Including the

ones that govern the International Criminal Court in The Hague. What is

unique about this case isn't that it is being tried as a war crime,

because it has been done before in the tribunal is that covered the

crimes in Yugoslavia, Milosevic was being tried for crimes against

culture as well as workarounds and crimes against humanity. The

difference in this case is that it is the first time that somebody has

been tried solely for war crimes which cover attacks on cultural

property and that is why it is a first. So should destroying cultural

heritage be a war crime? It almost certainly should. Partly because it

is a facet of genocide. The attempt to eradicate people almost always

goes in league with an attempt to eradicate in memory of them. In the

initial stages of the Holocaust, the attacks upon Jews, there was a

target on property, symbols, the representations of Jewishness in

everyday life, synagogues. It makes perfect sense. Should it be classed

alongside this? People are hearing that it is being tried in The Hague

alongside genocide. Is it as important? Getting the language

precise is important. I think it is a facet and an aspect of genocide. I

think if people thought someone was prosecuted for that in isolation it

might be concerning. In the case of Malley, it is my understanding that

this person is the only person currently being prosecuted for

crimes in Mali and people might struggle to understand why someone

is on trial for attacking things rather than people. It is a facet of

genocide. Most people will think, if you why in the business of blowing

up mausoleums, you are probably killing people as well. People would

expect to see a focus on damage to human life are first in principle

before moving on to historical and cultural memory. Can you see this as

one group of cultural crimes rather than just the destruction of

cultural Heritage? I think it is an interesting case. From a number of

different angles. I think the fact that this case has been tried for

cultural disruption and also there are other crimes which are actually

against people and this has been singled out, and it is also

interesting in terms of the light it sheds on other things. While there

are war crimes happening and cultural sites are being destroyed,

there is equally a lot of disruption taking place that is not linked to a

war as such. If you look at Saudi Arabia, 95% of the historical sites

have been destroyed in expansions that have been going on during

peacetime. It is interesting in terms of the questions it throws up,

how do you deal with destruction of a roll of historical sites? So how

important our religious cultural monuments to people as part of their

culture and sense of belonging. I think they are very crucial and that

is why it is important that they are tried as workarounds. You cannot

blame -- claim equivalence with killing millions of people. The

reason this has come to trial as opposed to the death of people in

Mali is because they have evidence which cannot be denied on CCTV. That

is clear evidence that they thought it would succeed. Obviously he has

pled guilty and said he is sorry. But I do believe that basically the

point of war crimes and genocide, the same as sexual assault, the

point is to undermine people's identity and pride in themselves.

This is doing the same kind of thing, and from a horse Oracle point

of view they are vibrant and it is heartbreaking but more than that,

they are people's stories and crucial to their identity.

Destroying them is destroying a whole culture and a whole people.

That is the point and that is why it is an attempt to wipe out a people's

perception of themselves as much as it would wipe out their knowledge.

It cannot be claimed as the same as killing millions but it is a war

crime all the same. He is the first person to admit to this, to plead

guilty in this court. The question arises, is it easier to plead guilty

to cultural destruction than the mass killing of human beings? He

might want to mitigate his sentence by pleading guilty. But the point we

are discussing here is, it is a war crime, technically, already, but

should it be a crime against humanity, to? It is not at the

moment. We have a problem in that the conduct of war is governed by

certain laws but the destruction of culture as an attack, a crime

against humanity, isn't. Rafinha Limited, the man who coined the word

genocide and was instrumental in getting the genocide convention

through in 1948, he wanted there to be vandalism clauses within the

convention that dealt with this issue that genocide is not just

attacks on people and the means of production, is also at tax on what

made them who they are, their collective identities. -- it is also

attacks. Since the post-war international law, we have had this

disjunction, seeing attacks on culture as a tax on people and the

links between human rights and heritage needs to be brought back

together. People will still be thinking about this comparison

because this has taken place in The Hague. People will be asking, for

example Radovan Karadzic last year he was found guilty of the massacre

of 8000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica in 1995. Is that

comparable? I don't think it is. I was concerned during the early

stages of the Syrian conflict that a lot of Western focus was on the fate

of Palmyra at a time when there were practical steps that could have been

taken through military intervention or taking refugees that were not

being taken. I am not suggesting that you cannot be concerned about

both. I am not concerning suggesting that concern about one eclipses the

other. -- I am not suggesting. Our focus should be the fate of human

beings rather than cultural artefacts, important though they are

to humanity. If you are trying people for genocide, cultural

destruction is part of that. But I share concern over this focus over

what is happening to antiquities rather than what is happening to

people. Let's find out what you think about this. Lots of you have

been sending in your thoughts. Tommy, you have some of those. Lots

of people in agreement that destroying historical buildings is

wrong but is it a war crime? That is where opinion differs. Most

definitely, says Robert. They should be tried and convicted. Nigel says :

And we have at this video message from Peter Higgins. If it was a war

crime to destroy monuments, then surely the Allies could be indicted

retrospectively for destroying half of Germany's cultural civilisation.

This is a silly idea. Send in your videos, e-mail them to us at: What

was that gentleman's name? Peter. You had a wry smile on your

face when he was saying that. I think it is interesting. What that

gentleman is saying feeds into what I was saying earlier. When you try

one person for these crimes, it suddenly opens up a raft of history

and crimes that you could try people for because yes, some people would

say what happened in Germany was a crime against the German

civilisation. As I said earlier, there are acts that happen around

the world all the time. With the Mali Muslims, it was said that these

things were very important to the people. But there are things that

happen around the world that are important to those people. It could

be viewed as being important to all of mankind. In terms of the

destruction in the Middle East or Palmyra, that is the cradle of

civilisation in the same way that Greece was. If you go to the Indus

Valley. There are sites where... But the deliberate murder of people, is

that different? To me, I would always plays human life above

anything else. That is first and foremost but I think, I agree with

what was being said earlier in terms of this eradication of history. You

are deleting memory. And that is systematically happening around the

world at the moment. I don't think it is an either or. It is important

to remember that people like Lincoln said that burning bodies is not the

same as burning books. When you intervene, you may stop the burning.

The two are linked and you often find that attacks on, as Tim said,

synagogues result in attacks on people later. We see the removal of

people from the cities before the removal of people themselves. It is

not an either or, the idea that one is more important than the other is

a false dichotomy. It is recognising the link between the two. Thank you

for your thoughts. And thank you for your thoughts. One week from now

Mother Teresa will become a saint. The nun who became known as the

angel of mercy achieved worldwide recognition for her work among the

dying and the destitute in Calcutta. Mother Teresa will be canonised at a

special ceremony led by Pope Francis in Rome and tomorrow the film,

Letters to Mother Teresa will be released in the UK. It stars Juliet

Stevenson. Dear father, never in all my life

did I know there was so much suffering in the world as I see

here. There are so many people interested in knowing about you. If

you want to know the story, look outside. The poor are there. Night

was an amazing role. I love you as God loves you. What a privilege and

joy to be asked to play her. This work is far more difficult than I

had MPed it would be. How long will my heart suffer. Mother Teresa

dedicated her life to caring for helpers and the dying in the slums

of one of India's biggest cities. She died in 1997, owning just two

Sarries and a bucket to wash them in. In most cases you need two

miracles attributed to you to become a saint. Pope John Paul II

recognised this. The present Pope acknowledged her second miracle

after man with multiple brain tumours recovered. In life Mother

Teresa was often described as a living saint, and had many admirers,

and had many admirers, including princess dinena. In death once she

officially becomes a saint, the faithful can pray to her to

intercede on their behalf with God. Her dedication and good work earned

her a Nobel Peace Prize. Even so, the speed of which her progression

to sainthood was achieved was regarded by some was too rapid. Is

it too easy to become a saint, and are there too many? We are joined by

the editor of The Sceptic magazine. What is a saint? In a common all

garden way you can say it is a role model, someone with a virtuous

personality. But it is a word that you can only apply it with a top

down process through the Catholic Church. Kate, what is a saint to

you? It is someone who is meant to have led a life of great holiness

but increasingly now we are expecting a saint to have been

involved in good works and helped others, and you can't think of

anyone who devoted herself more selflessly than Mother Teresa. . .

My Catholic school, where someone was free from sin, but from an

Islamic tradition it is someone who is extremely holy and close to God

and can intercede on your behalf. A saint is an ordinary person who we

know is in Heaven and is an example to the rest of us ordinary people to

get there. So what does it take to become a saint? It is complicated.

If you were martyred for the faith, you died for your Christian faith,

it is recognised that sainthood is inevitable. A father of that was the

French Father who died recently. The second is someone who lived a holy

life. Not necessarily all of their life. All Saints were born in sin,

but at some stage they led a holy life. It is recognised and

understood at a local level, they are venerated, that they were a very

good person. The Church takes evidence of two miracles. Analyses

it meticulously. It goes before various committees. People make the

case for the miracles better accurate and people make the case

against. And at the end of that process that person is recognised as

a saint. A very important definitional point, the Church never

creates Saints. The Church only recognises Saints. Saint is someone

who we have evidence is in Heaven and all the Church is doing is

saying we recognise that evidence. It is OK to venerate this person,

because we are pretty sure they've made it. So from this process, what

can ordinary people recognise from this process and the process of

being made a saint. What can we get from this? I think in the current

day it is that thing of seeing goodness out there. I think we are

living in an increasingly commercial society. I think faith is becoming

more and more, it is moving into boxes. I think people like Mother

Teresa provide a role model. It is that general humanity and

spirituality and that ability to go good. For someone like me from an

everyday point of view, that is what I would gain from it. It is a real

role model that somebody would dedicate their life in this way when

we have such short attention spans. I agree. We live in a world that's

increasingly obsessed with spending and a world that rewards riches,

fame, and we see in Centrica lar examples we see the honours system.

Many of us might suggest this has been compromised, that we see people

who are wealthy, donors or political chums getting honours. We do need a

way of recognising people who've selflessly devoted themselves to

goodness. The problem is it has to be within the structures of the

Church. You can't have someone who was outside of the Church helping

each other. Mother Teresa only owned two Sarries and a bucket. Others

have devoted their lives but can't be canonised in the same way. It was

interesting talking about the miracles. Many people will be

thinking, how do you distinguish between a religious miracle and an

amazing occurrence. We talk about Mother Teresa is attributed to

someone with brain tallers and cancer. The first miracle was proven

not to be a miracle but was dui to modern modern medicine. Is it was a

cyst that was amenable to medicine, but she felt it was because of the

intervention of mother mother. I'm sure faith helped her mentally but I

don't think there's a good enough evidence-based system to think there

was something supernatural going on. Is it dangerous the believe in

miracles? Absolutely. You can end up avoiding getting normal medical

treatment, you can see that with homeopathy, with lack of

vaccination. If you are waiting for God to community and help you, then

you can die. Which actually you are free to do, to be honest. We can all

dispose of our lives as we want to. But when you do that on behalf of

people you are responsible for, such as children, it is absolutely

criminal. There are many different definitions of miracle. Miracle on a

simple level is evidence of divine intervention in the world. But if

you look closely enough and your mind is open enough you can see that

in so many ways. The tragic earthquake in unfortunatelibury

Yahoo! The priest described his rescue as a miracle. Of course it

was people pulling him out and it was luck, but he regards it as a

miracle. Another example from the earthquake was an older sister who

threw herself upon her younger sister to protects her when the roof

fell in. I was say that's the miracle of love. It is not science

but is an example of God moving through the world in acts of love.

But love is rational. There is no way we wouldn't have love if we

don't have God. I think the thing with miracles, to me it seems a box

ticking exercise with Mother Teresa. She deserved to be a saint in terms

of what she has done in holiness, but these two... There's been an

awful lot of evidence that she was very much into the dedication of

suffering to Jesus Christ. As such she had a lot of resources at her,

available to her. She could have used them for morphine for end stage

pain relief, could have used them for medical cures. But she didn't of

the people lay there and they died in pain. Do you think she shouldn't

be recognised as a saint? That's down to the Catholic Church. You are

talking about a trademark term within the Catholic Church. There's

a difference in being a saint and a virtuous person. I don't think she

was a virtuous person. This is why miracles are person. If as Kate

framed it the Church made a decision to make someone a saint on the

outward appearance of good works, it is possible they could decide

someone is a saint who privately wasn't saintly at all. One of the

reasons the Church looks for the miracles is for metaphysical proof

that someone is in Heaven, as that's the truth someone led a holy life.

Our viewers have views as well. We are keen to hear what you are

saying. All of the comments at home are questioning the role of a saint

in modern-day society. There's onlien Saints in this

studio. Studio. And you are saintly Tommy. That's not true. The figures,

the estimates are that there are between 7,000 and 10,000 Saints.

That's one saint for every 100,000 of the world's 1 billion-plus

Catholics alone. The question is, are there too many Saints? Is it too

easy to be a saint? I think the question of who whether it's too

easy to be a saint, that's something for the Catholic Church to decide.

And Islam? And Islam. Islam doesn't have the same kind of structure that

the Church does where people are canonised. With Islam it is more of

a grass roots movement. There are probably five people who are

recognised as being free from sin. That's prophet and some members of

his family. Other Saints are home-grown. It is holy men who are

either holy and have been able to help people. Or people, shrines

where people have seen miracles. I was interested in what you said

earlier in terms of miracles. The idea of miracles provides hope for

people as well. There is, there are things that science does not

understand. We can't dismiss that. Actually it is dangerous if people

go just for the miracle rather than medicine as well. But the

combination of the two can be extremely powerful. I have to finish

this conversation. I'm so sorry. We do this every week, cut short as

soon as we get to of the really good bits. Thank you so much for your

time. Thank you as well for taking part with the programme. This week

has been dominated by the news of the earthquake in Italy. Close to

300 people died, including 3 Britons. In tribute to those who

lost their lives, the principal soprano of the London festival opera

is singing soprano of the London festival opera

is Pie Jesu. Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis

requiem, dona eis requiem. Dona eis domine, dona eis requiem,

sempiternam requiem, sempiternam requiem.