Episode 9 Sunday Morning Live

Welcome to Sunday Morning Live, I'm Naga Munchetty.

On today's programme: For many, he was the most dangerous

Anjem Choudary is now set for an extended stay behind bars.

But does cracking down on extremists like him threaten

And could he be more dangerous in prison than out?

A new pregnancy screening test making it easier to detect

Down's Syndrome looks set to be rolled out on the NHS.

Critics say it will lead to more abortions.

An MP calls for a dedicated Minister for Faith.

And Tommy Sandhu meets Bollywood legend Anil Kapoor.

150 films, over four decades in the business, where does your drive and

energy come from? God. And fresh from his brush

with Bollywood royalty, Tommy's here to share

all your thoughts with us. Slumming it with us?! I have come

down from Bollywood royalty to hang with you guys!

You can contact us by Facebook and Twitter -

don't forget to use the hashtag #bbcsml.

Standard geographic charges from landlines

Texts will be charged at your standard message rate.

Or email us at [email protected].

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

It is nice to know who you are! Absolutely.

Chris Phillips is a former head of the National Counter

Luke Gittos is a criminal law solicitor and author.

Henna Rai is the founder of the Women Against

Radicalisation Network, and Rabbi Doctor Jonathan Romain

is a writer, broadcaster and minister of Maidenhead

Britain's most notorious radical Muslim preacher,

Anjem Choudary, has been convicted of inviting support

For two decades, Choudary had been free to promote extremist

views on our streets and screens whilst staying on the

But after inviting support for Isis online, he finally went too far.

So, where does this leave freedom of speech

in Britain when it comes to religious extremism?

Our first question of the week, how much freedom of speech should

religious extremists have? Chris, what threat did Anjem

Choudary pose? He is a remote global -- revolting man. He has done more

damage to Muslim people within this country, he has caused enormous

damage. Nobody actually knows how many people have died as a result of

his words. I think the best thing ever is that he is locked up away

from society. Look, happy to see him behind bars? Absolutely not. I think

his conviction is an outrage. He has been locked up for what he thinks

believes. The idea he has caused any damage at all is ridiculous.

Don't think it is damaging when somebody invites people to support

terrorists? Let's be clear what that means, he pledged support Isis in a

pub with his mates and made a bunch of loonie YouTube videos. Which

people watch and influenced by. We have freedom of speech and freedom

of expression so that nutty ideas like Anjem Choudary's can receive

the full ports of public scrutiny. All you do with censorship is push

the idea is underground. The idea that he can cause the British state

to fall into such a complete state of panic shows how laughable our

anti-terrorism situation is. Henna, nutty ideas that are harmless? If

only they were. We already know exactly how harmless Anjem Choudary

has been. His group has been instrumental with the radicalisation

of people who were the killers and murderers of Lee Rigby. He has

destroyed countless families by infighting and encouraging young

people to go to Syria. He is spreading venomous lies and vitriol

about Islam which are baseless. He needs to be challenged. I admit

that, he needs to be challenged. That is what organisations like mine

do. At the same time, we need to protect those who are most

vulnerable against this form of radicalisation, and telling them

what the truth and the narratives are against this. Jonathan, as Henna

says, this has gone on for more than 20 years. Why only now is something

being done? Until now he has been very clever, he is a trained lawyer,

so he knows how to sail close to the wind and stay just within the law. I

suppose that is a credit to his cleverness, and to our liberal

attitude. We have freedom of speech, that is very powerful. Much as I

detest everything that Choudary stands for, I would detest even more

for us to change our way of life that British values. That is partly

on principle, because freedom of speech is so important to our

culture. Frankly, we survived by it. The people did not have the freedom

to challenge the elite on women's emancipation or slavery, for

example, nothing would change. And how do you define an extremist? One

person's sensible view is another's blasphemy. He crossed the line. The

red line we had was inciting to violence. You can say reports of a

defensive things, I don't want people to say they have the right to

be offensive. But when he crossed the line of encouraging people to

violence, then it was right. He crossed the line? He has been

investigated for the best part of the decade, they had no evidence...

Until the very end. They never had any evidence that he actively

incited anyone to violence, which is why they charged him in the way they

did. In today's culture, people say they believe in free speech, but

when it comes down to difficult cases like Anjem Choudary,

they are happy to see people locked away for what they think and

believe. This is whether Western values get compromised, people

pretend to believe in freedom of speech, but people will say, not in

his case. This conviction was one offence of inviting support for

so-called Islamic State, contrary to section 12 of the terrorism act

2000. There is an offence. But you love to have your freedoms, you love

to walk around the streets. Because of this man, there is so much danger

in society across the West, because of his actions, inciting people in

his group to kill people. Do you think that Michael Ida Barger was an

ordinary man, then he watched videos of Anjem Choudary and became an

extremist?! -- that Michael Adelaide show. That he has been manipulating

vulnerabilities and making people believe this is the true path of

Islam, when it is not. He has presented a false expression of

Islam. As far as freedom of speech, he does not allow it for women,

other sex, he calls out other sects as heretics, he has called me one

because I Shia believe. -- he does not allow it for women or other

sects. This keeps happening, because he does not believe in free speech,

we should not allow him to have it. He's eight years arguing that belief

in democracy, free speech and freedom of thought was artificial.

-- he spent years. In convicting him of these ludicrous offences, he has

been proven absolutely right. He is right when he says that belief in

freedom of speech only goes so far. Improving him right, we have given

him the status of a Mahtre amongst those who listen to him. -- in

proving him right, we have given him the status of a martyr. We hear that

the Government plans to isolate people convicted of terrorism

offences. He has said he plans to radicalise more people in prison.

There are a large group of vulnerable people. Sometimes you

could call them the mad, bad and sad. Very small numbers, but just

one of them turning into a terrorist because of his actions and words is

too much, we have to do something about it. We have a prison and

policing system that is at full stretch. It has been unable to deal

with the radicalisation within prisons until now. It is pleasing to

hear that it reporters, that has reviewed this and has come out with

good ideas. We expect the Government to announce tomorrow, Jonathan? If

there was a murderer in prison, you would not give him razor blades. His

weapon is words. The last thing we want to do was give him, literally,

a captive audience. So some form of isolation, may be within a limited

circle of fellow jihadis, not exposing him to hundreds of people

who could become radicalised. When you hear about prison conditions and

you hear that people go into prison and become more criminally inclined

aster, the situation in place is not good or strong enough to contain

that? It has not been strong enough, anyone in the prison service would

tell you their problems. It is mostly caused by underfunding, not

having enough staff, having really out of date prisons. There is very

little rehabilitation going on. Somebody charismatic like him can

talk to people, he is very communicative. People are looking

for somebody to grab hold of, he can offer them a new way, but that way

is to commit murder. We must not beat about the bush, he is

responsible for people dying across the world. It is very important that

we focus on that. The guy in Nice could get into a van, having become

radicalised. He did not pick that up from the Internet, he would have had

breaches of one form or another turning him into something he was

probably not before that's -- he would have had preachers. So we are

now saying -- is that we are now saying that Anjem Choudary is

responsible for all terrorism? Saying that the killers of Lee Rigby

or the man from Nice just watched his videos, it is ridiculous. They

are disturbed individuals with nothing else to live for, they are

suicidal more than anything else. When this becomes a medium to attack

freedom of speech, we realise we are taking the most deranged individuals

in society and reorganising our whole way of life around them. That

is so dangerous. When you take these isolated, deranged individuals about

barometers for running society, all freedoms will be put into question.

It will not just be people like Anjem Choudary ending up in prison.

What about the argument that mentally ill individuals who can be

influenced by simply like Anjem Choudary, what about the

responsibility on somebody like him who has the power to influence

people through the power of speech to incite people to radicalism and

violence? When you directly encourage somebody, believing they

will carry out violence, that crosses the line. We have had that

since time the memorial. The point with the Terrorism Act is that it

introduces a new offence of inviting support for a group, it criminalises

people for what they believe and say, that is what happened with

Anjem Choudary. If you do not stand up for him, you do not believe in

freedom of speech. I think you had 20 years of freedom and he dug his

own hole. Although I think Choudary is 100% responsible for his own

downfall, maybe we need to look into ourselves as well and say, why did

these people believe in his message? Maybe we have not been vociferous

enough in promoting democracy and freedom of speech. Interestingly

enough, some of that has gone towards social media. Twitter and

YouTube have been active in trying to remove some but not all of his

accounts. He stayed a certain side of the law, Henna? He was a

manipulative individual, he knows how to manipulate the system. We

need to understand that we're not turning around and saying we will be

isolating people like him, this is an isolated incident. It is not. We

see preachers like those on a daily basis, people vulnerable to that

kind of vitriol and narrative coming to us for help, thinking, is this

the right expression of Islam? The responsibility is on all of us to

combat this. This is why organisations like mine saw

important in countering this. We are asking how much freedom of

speech religious extremists should have.

You've been sending us your texts and tweets on this.

Let's hear some of your reactions from Tommy.

There is an extreme split in the messages, people saying the

extremists should have no freedom and others say the errant I'd like

everyone else. Robert says Garin title to exactly the same amount of

freedom is anyone else under the law. -- they are entitled to exactly

the same amount. Alan says none whatsoever, it should

be banned and he should be deported, along with his followers.

Mick says they should have freedom of expression until they reach the

point where they step over the line into inciting hatred.

Vincenzo says that religious freedom is fine, encouraging hate, violence

and terrorism has nothing to do with religion and is, rightly, against

the law. Sarah says that if it offends our sense of decency, that

is where the line should be drawn. Lots of people questioning whether

liners. We have a tradition in Islam saying

freedom of speech is only correct if it is just and if it is preventing

harm. So the responsibility lies with us to work out where that harm

is. People like Anjem Choudary and his acolytes are consistently

encouraging acts of violence and manipulating young people by lies to

go to Syria and carry out acts of violence here in this country. This

is why my organisation is so important. We keep mentioning your

organisation. You said something a little bit dangerous, when you said

deciding if people's views are just. But who decides who is just? We

don't want to go down the route of America where Donald Trump said we

must prosecute papers that don't tell the truth. Whose truth, his?

Unfortunately there's a right to say things that I hate, loathe and

detest, but I must allow people that freedom. Luke, is there a line in

your mind that you can define as one you don't cross? Incitement. If you

go out and encourage someone to commit violence, we've always

recognised that as a criminal offence, but Anjem Choudary never

did that. The reason he was charged under the Terrorism Act is they

couldn't receive he had ever encouraged someone.er massively

overestimating the influence of Anjem Choudary. I think most Muslims

see him as a bit of a windbag spouting nonsense on the internet. I

don't think he's had any influence really. Most people see him as a

windbag. Of course they do. He is a windbag. He is ridiculous. However,

there's a percentage of people who react to what he is saying and will

go and kill people. I love Liberals who say we must do this and that,

but they go quiet when a terrorist attack has happened, like it has

nothing to do with me at this stage. He has incited people. People that

have followed him have gone off to commit murder. We don't knee how

many people have died as a result of his actions. Luke, I want you to

comment on Chris's comment that Liberals go quiet when terrorism

happens. We have to advance our idea of western democracy more

vociferously, to have more freedom of speech. That's the answer. Thank

you. One in every 1,000 babies in the UK

is born with Down's syndrome. Now a new test to detect that

condition and others before birth looks set to be

rolled out on the NHS. Supporters of the technique say it

will give parents more choice and be The campaign group Don't Screen Us

Out says the programme will result in "a profound increase

in the number of children with Down's syndrome screened

out by termination". Samanthi Flanagan went to find out

more about the new test and to see what life is like living

with Down's Syndrome. It won't even fit you. Maybe give it

back. Why? Because she's older than you. Sarah Gordy has been a

professional actor, dancer and model for 15 years, appearing in various

BBC dramas, including Call The Midwife. I went to meet her and her

mother, Jane, at their home in Sussex. This is another

professional. You don't have to do any more takes for her than you do

for another actor. You've got this fantastic acting career, you model,

you dance and you have Down's syndrome. Does that define you? Of

course not. It doesn't affect me in any way. Way. When I'm working and

concentrating on my acting work, it doesn't affect me at all. It's not a

big deal. I'm an actor and woman first. In the late '70s screening

for Down's syndrome wasn't as advanced and Jane didn't know she

had the condition until Sarah was born. The paediatrician told me what

Down's syndrome was and it was a terrible shock, as far as I could

see she was the strongest and most beautiful baby in the nursery. If

you had been able to have a test that would have told you she had

Down's syndrome, what difference would it have made to you? I suppose

I would have looked up and found out what Down's syndrome met. To be

completely frank, I don't know what I would have done. I went to King's

College Hospital in London to meet this professor, a world-renowned

expert or foetal med sin, who explained the simpler blood test.

The number of babies with down identified by the new test is 99%.

More importantly, instead of having to do an unnecessary invasive test

in 5% of the population, like the previous test, we only need to do an

unnecessary invasive test in 0.1% of the population with the new test.

Down's syndrome campaign groups are worried that a higher rate of

diagnoses in prenatal tests might lead to more abortions It is a

woman's decision and not to guilt trip her. Women are in different

situations. I could afford to give up work. There's a lot of women who

can't. I can't turn around to a woman and tell her what is saintly

thing is to do. She has to make her own decision. There are some parents

that want to know. There are others that don't. Our responsibility is to

respect their views. What Sarah would like to have is for our

industry to start looking at people who are different as part of society

and not just a medical condition. They are part of life. It's just

more interesting. Samanthi Flanagan there with

Sarah Gordy and her mother, Jane. So our question is: Do parents

need to know everything Joining the panel now

are Lynn Murray from Don't Screen Us Out,

and Evan Harris, a medical He was a member of the Medical

Ethics Committee. What are your concerns? Our concerns are around

the recommendations, that say there'll be 25 less miscarriages a

year as what's seen as a more efficient test added to the pathway

for screening, while there'll be 102 more babies with Down's syndrome

detected. We have very high abortion rates around that, so overall

there'll be a greater loss of life. It will lead to a reduction in the

community of people with Down's syndrome. That makes life more

difficult for them. There is already discrimination within the system.

When these reputations were made we should have been looking more around

the ethics of one of we are doing. D Harris, how worried should we be

that this will lead to more abortions? There is no evidence that

that will be the case. The aim of these is to make the am any

iocentesis test more specific, so it is done less off. So far it hasn't

shown an increased abortion rate, because everyone who is likely to

want to know is already having a less specific test. Campaigners say

90% of babies pretest ready aborted. I don't think that is right. Even if

it did increase the abortion rate, that's still giving people the

choice. It is absolutely nothing. I want to make this clear. Nothing to

do with the way people with Down's syndrome, who can live happy and

fulfilled lives, no doubt hat, are treated. It is just to allow parents

to have a safer choice if they want to terminate. No-one is suggesting

that anyone who wouldn't want to make that choice should have these

tests. It is entirely up to the patient. Henna, many parents say

they feel they wouldn't be able to cope with a child with a disability.

Should they have the right to terminate a pregnancy? Again, that

is entirely up to the individual. I can't speak on behalf of parents,

because each parents knows what their own challenges are when bring

up a child. What I can say is having come from a family where I had an

uncle who had Down's. We lost him last year to dementia and

Alzheimer's, but he lived an extremely fulfilling life. Despite

when we were growing up in the '70s and '80s there was little or no

support given to people with Down's syndrome. We never truly understood

what his condition was coming from an Asian background, as it wasn't

one of those things understood and spoke about. At the same time he had

a fulfilled life. He married, he had a child. He became a grandfather

before he died. He had seen every possible opportunity. When he passed

away he had almost 1,000 people attend his funeral just because of

his own social persona. Jonathan, you've advised people and counselled

people in this situation and seen both sides when it comes the the

decision making and the agony that parents go through. Yes, the key

word is that people have got the options. There is no down that

Down's syndrome people can leave fulfilled, especially the children,

loving, loyal and affectionate, but there is an enormous difference

between a life that already exists and one that's in potential. Parents

do have the right to know if people can leave fulfilled, especially the

children, loving, loyal and affectionate, but there is an

enormous difference between a life that already exists and one that's

in potential. Parents do have the right to know if their parents have

-- if their child has Down's syndrome. Some will love it to

piece. Others will say I cannot bring up this child either on

emotional grounds, or some will say on moral grounds. What is the point

of bringing into the world a child or adult that cannot sustain itself,

that will never live independently? We can allow parents to make that

distinction. They are the ones that are going to carry the burden and

the responsibility. And yes, they may have a very happy household to

begin with, but eventually they'll have to give up that child to a care

institution and worry about nothing being able to visit and what will

happen after they have had died. There's a big burden. We can't

discuss on behalf of people, when it's they who have to look after

that child. Lynn, surely by informing adults, people are

entitled to make their own decisions, and to come to a

conclusion that perhaps they are not adequately equipped to brick up a

child with a disability. Surely that's not wrong? Key word there,

information. You've got two different views there, one a lived

experience and another an outdated idea of Down's syndrome. In the NHS

many people are having terrible experiences in the screening system.

That's a fact. Someone this year had a diagnosis at 36 weeks and was

offered a determination. The information that the NHS gives in

genetic counselling after these tests is more accurate these days.

Of course, as you know, the picture for any individual with Down's

syndrome is highly variable. The extent to which they have physical

problems, congenital heart problems, that's variable and the extent to

which they have learning difficulties is different. Every one

is different, every person born. What you seemed to be saying before

is instead of providing more support through the state and through the

NHS and through social care for children with, and adults with

Down's syndrome, we need to have more of them, because you indicated

that screening more out would leave them isolated, the ones that

remaybe. I think that's the wrong approach. I think to require more

women to not have the choice and to go through unnecessary invasive

tests and have unnecessary miscarriages is not justified by

your concern to not screen out the campaign. Our campaign is not around

choice. Our campaign is asking the Government to do the right thing. A

suggestion that scientists have produced a new test. That's great.

But you have to look at the ethics of that in the 21st century. It is

unethical not to offer it. It is interesting talking about the

ethics. What this conversation leads to, Jonathan, is the idea of

so-called designer babies, and anything being screened out, not

just Down's, but any disability to the point where parents are choosing

on eye colour. Exactly, and people who talk about this as a step

towards designer babies or eugenics are hijacking the event. That's

about colour of eyes, hair, IQ. The only debate is whether they go to

Oxford or Harvard. We are talking about a child that may or may not

survive, may or may not have the skills to even sustain itself and be

independent. That's a different debate, so we should put that to one

side and say we are not going to start designing children. We are

talking about, do you want to bring into the world, rather, do you want

to force parents to bring into the world against their will a child

that cannot sustain itself? I think they should have the option to say

yes please or no, thank you. Many of you have been sending your thoughts

on this. Test says we don't need to know

trivial things like gender and eye colour but we need to know the key

health issues. Heather says I have a very bright

17-year-old who has Down's syndrome and I hate having to explain to her

why so many people think it is something to be avoided at all costs

and why so many people think that people with her condition should not

exist. Henna under what circumstances is it

acceptable to decide on abortion because of a disability? I think it

is all down to individual circumstances. I can't answer when

it is acceptable, because my moral compass is different from somebody

else's and I would not want to start judging people on whether their

choice or their decision is right, correct or incorrect. What I can

draw from my own experiences of having an uncle who had Down's

syndrome, having nieces and nephews who has Down's syndrome, having a

nephew who is autistic, there is nothing stopping but individual from

attaining opportunity and living a fully sustained and independent

life. The opportunities are there if we are open to them. There needs to

be greater information available and greater support, I admit that. At

the same time there is nothing to prevent that child from excelling in

their life. Lynn? I just wanted to say but I don't think we should

dismiss anything. Let's not talk about eugenics or anything like

that. You are talking about designer babies... I think it suits people to

think that some people are not happy about test. I am not unhappy about

the test, it can be implemented, if done properly, including this one.

It will lead other things. The first step is that this is the first thing

they can screen for, in a few years they will be screening for other

things? Are you against abortion in general? No, we are about the

discrimination that has come out of screening. This is the implication,

how the NHS or how the medical system and the Government system, in

looking after people with disabilities, how that moves on.

Lynn says it is a slippery slope. It is a slippery slope to testing for

conditions which are not serious medical conditions. The law does not

allow abortion in those cases, it is unethical for doctors to provide

tests were things like gender when they believe that the patient is

asking about that test in order to access an abortion. The law and

medical ethics operate. The fact that this test has to go to the

National screening committee for approval based on safety and

effectiveness is what prevents this alleged slippery slope. This

decision is not being made lightly? I think it has not taken all the

legislation into consideration. We have the equality act, if you change

a public service you have ensure there will be no negative impact on

vulnerable. Would you like there to be a law, as there is an gender,

Lynn, which I want to make clear, that you cannot decide on an

abortion because the child has Down's syndrome? That is not what

the campaign is about. I know, but this is the distinction, if you say

that this new test is damaging and means people will make this choice,

if this choice was taken away it would not be damaging, it would not

go down the slippery slope you are concerned about? MPs that people

have written to this year are not aware of the fact that people with

Down's syndrome are being aborted under the grounds of the abortion

act, so I suppose the abortion act is pretty hazy. Who is to say what

we will abort people for? The abortion act is pretty clear in this

area. The principle is that you cannot force a woman to go through

pregnancy and give birth to a child with serious medical conditions.

Down's syndrome is clearly not at the most serious end of that, it is

very variable, but most live fulfilled lives now. It is very

important that parents given the diagnosis prenatally are given the

correct information. The NHS says go to the Down's Syndrome Association

Websites... It does not always say that. If you go to the NHS Choices

website, there is very clearly a link. You have some examples of when

you have spoken to parents who went through this and the information

they were given and how they were treated? It goes both ways. I know

of a family in my own community in Maidenhead, they had an

amniocentesis, the old-fashioned method, it was a perfectly normal,

healthy child, except the amniocentesis damaged him. So this

poor child had a whole series of operations throughout its childhood

and teens, it was only in adult herds that it became relatively

fully functioning. This will prevent that sort of thing. -- only in

adulthood. Amniocentesis will only be done in more specific cases.

Other parents, when they had a diagnosis of a severely disabled a

Down's syndrome child said, look, we cannot bring it up and they opted

for termination. I had to support them. That is the woman who will

carry it was seven, eight, nine months and look after it for 40 or

50 years, they have the right to know. Evan, with these tests will we

get to a point that there are no children born with disabilities?

That everyone is healthy? It is extremely unlikely. Not all

disabilities and serious medical conditions can be detected, for a

start. Would that be the goal? Madson is moving on to ensure that

more people have choice, OK? -- medicine is moving on. So you have

the option not to bring a child is known to be suffering from reduced

life expectancy, children are born who very sadly died within weeks or

months of birth because they have a syndrome. This test does not just

detect Down's syndrome but Edwards syndrome and other syndromes which

have very reduced life expectancy is for the children. Secondly, there

will be parents who, because of their beliefs against abortion, for

example, or because of what they feel is their ability to manage,

they will either not have the test or they will have the tests but

decide not to terminate. Lynn, the final word? We do not mind a test

being implemented, but the campaigners around the ethics of the

21st-century, before introducing any more tests. Thank you for your

comments. And thank you for getting involved.

Actor and producer Anil Kapoor rose to fame as a massive Bollywood star,

but he made the transition to Hollywood too with films like

His latest venture is an Indian television version of

Tommy went to meet Anil to talk about that and the hugely successful

Smile, you'll be fine! 150 films, over four decades in the business,

where does this drive and energy come from? God. Really? Absolutely.

I feel ultimately it is the Almighty who blesses you, there are people

much more talented, more good looking and more hard-working.

Somewhere, I feel, very, very grateful. Why do you feel that you

are blessed? Why has God chose a new? It is not that, of course.

There is no substitute to hard work and it's a combination of so many

other things. I have travelled all over the world, especially in India

there is so much poverty. That is why I feel very, very blessed.

That is something shown in Slumdog Millionaire. Do you think that is

still a case now, that is still the world in India, two extreme worlds?

Yes, obviously we are all trying our best and trying to see that the gap

between the haves and have-nots becomes less and less, but it is a

long way to go. When did you realise you had made it? When I did my first

film as a young man in Hindi, which made me a bankable commodity. The

film was called Seven Days. It gave me a expose here De Jager exposure

in India and worldwide. It became a cult classic. A very bloody does not

know, you play somebody with invisible powers. I remember

watching it in thinking, this is amazing, I have never seen anything

like it. I was actually the lead, and half the time I was invisible.

So for more than 50% of the film you are not visible, you are putting

your own money into it, but I believed in it.

I think what makes you view is that you don't really take yourself that

seriously? There is a phase in your life when you have to have that

drive and that feeling that you were the best. And the time comes when

you really become successful and you get a little bit of success, that is

the time you should not take yourself seriously, that is one of

the reasons for my longevity. You have had an amazing career in Indian

cinema, then Slumdog lands, then Tom Cruise and Mission: Impossible, has

that felt strange? People say there was a time when you were the biggest

star of India, there were times when you were really down. I don't

remember them. You just get it in the morning and do your next film,

the next job. I have been very successful. There has never been a

dearth of work. For me, work is very important, I had to keep working,

working, working. You are an opportunity taker, which is really

where 24 came from, and the Indian version. Telus about how useful that

opportunity, how it came to mind? 24, I was shooting the international

version in Los Angeles, I read the scripts. I said, I have been reading

quite a few Indian scripts, but in this genre, I think it is the mother

of all thrillers, I had to do this in India.

You are a machine when it comes to your fitness and how you treat

yourself physically? I feel God has given me 24 others to enjoy myself,

physically, mentally and intellectually, so why don't I give

one at a half two I to myself, not my wife, my children, my friends, my

work. That is my time. It is like a re-creation, being physically fit.

So I give that two hours only to myself. That makes me happy. Then I

can make everybody happy, because I am happy. That is what I think

everybody should do. With all the experience and wisdom you have, what

advice would you give a younger you? I would definitely give more time to

myself, you know? And to my family. There were certain things which I

did... No problem, let's do it. Then other things that I did because I

needed the money. Why? So you have this thing can't not always be so

Russian your decisions -- so you have to think and not always be so

rush in your decisions. I would love to live the same life again. If you

were 22 years old now, could you be a star? Can I ask you a question?

What do you think? Personally? Without a doubt. Thank you so much.

You know that, because I am a big fan. He would not have dared say

anything else! Now, you might not have

noticed it but Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth is the new minister

with responsibilities But Lord Bourne is also responsible

for overseeing community cohesion, race equality, troubled families,

domestic refugees, travellers' policy and is in charge

of the Syrian refugees programme. Two of his predecessors,

Eric Pickles and Baroness Warsi, And this week Labour MP

Jonathan Reynolds, who is part of a Christian group in Parliament,

called for a beefing up of the role and a stand-alone

Minister for Faith. Is religion in danger of becoming

sidelined in Government? And if so, would that

be a bad thing? We are joined now by

Labour MP and barrister Yasmin Qureshi, and Theo Hobson,

a writer and theologian. Let's start with you, Yasmin, why do

we need a Minister for Faith? For three reasons. Firstly if you look

at the way that religion is taught in schools across the country, it is

very hit and miss, the content is also very hit and miss. It is

important, I think, that the material is good material and

consistent throughout the whole country. Secondly, I think it is

important because we need to have accurate representation of religion.

When I say accurate, in the sense that perhaps there needs to be a

body of experts of all different faiths, and non-faiths as well, that

is really important. When the wrist reference made to a particular

original group, then that is accurately reflected -- when there

is a reference made. In recent years you have seen people who visibly

look as if they might represent a particular faith are coming under

increasing attacks. Whilst the criminal law is that and the police

and the agencies are dealing with these things, we need to look at why

sometimes this sort of hate is coming from, why the need to attack.

Finally, for me, it is really important that this is not about

trying to encourage people to have faith, it is not about proselytising

any particular religion, it is about recognising that like we have a

minister for equality, and Minister for women, it is recognising that

there is a vulnerable group, we need to look at it from that perspective.

Evan, is it necessary? Firstly, if you want to deal with

the inadequacy and variability of religion in our school, stick it in

the curriculum and don't allow religious schools to design and

inspect their own institutions. You don't need a Minister for Faith. If

you want to deal with integration, fine. Government policy throughout

departments should be about integration and tackling

Islamophobia and hate crime associated with it. Calling someone

a Minister for Faith, not even a Minister for Faith and belief, which

would cover 50% of the population who aren't religious is bizarre. Is

it a Minister for inheritable, competing but mutually exclusive

unshakeable beliefs in the supernatural? Is it a Minister

that's designed to promote the segregation that occurs in faith

schools? That's what previous faith Ministers have done. Baroness Warsi

and Eric Pickles have been clear. They say as Minister of faith our

job is to make sure people feel for confident in their faith. Good for

them but that's not the Government's role. The Government shouldn't have

a role in promoting religious privilege. I think it was a mistake

for Cameron to create a high profile Minister for Faith position. It was

a cynical bit of gesture politics really. I think he did it to balance

out his gay marriage plans so that, really it was Minister for

reassuring religious Conservatives that the Government's on their side.

In a sense also a Minister for pretending that religion is simple

and united and a nice benevolent force, evading the issue that we

have problems with extremism and so on. That the Minister of faith,

especially Baroness Warsi, really just picked a fight with secularists

and made culture war worse. It was a low point in recent times when she

came out insulting secularists and saying that the Government should

simply promote faith rather than secularism. That sort of thing is

just divisive. Jonathan, you are shaking your head. Yes, I think it

is a sensible move. It is not to promote faith, and I'm happy to have

faith and belief. It is there to take account of it. Nietzsche said

God is dead, when it's the other way around. Faith is important to

people. Their religious culture in whiches not only the way they live

at home but their workplace, interpersonal relationships. The

public sphere. We need to take account of faith in legislation. Let

me give two examples. On the one hand it might be positive, so for

instance the Government recognising religious beliefs about death and

developing noninvasive post-mortems. On the other hand it says no, we do

not believe in polygamy, we are not going to allow it. You don't need a

Minister for Faith. Of faith. For faith in order to make sensible

public policy. There is 600 members of Parliament who are capable of

logical thought. The history of this role has been to use it to promote,

for Government to promote belief in God, and to attack people who don't

believe in God. Baroness Warsi went to a theocratic dictatorship, the

Vatican... Let me make this minute. Briefly please,ev van. She did not

argue about the antigay practices and beliefs of that religion, the

anti-women practices and belief, the cover-up of child sexual abuse. She

used it to attack secularism. I think this sends us down the

American path, which we want to avoid. Yasmin. I think you can't

define the whole ministry by the fact of one person who occupies that

office and what she chose to do with that. Eric Pickles was no better.

What it is a chance to look at is what I can do. I'm not talking about

it from the point of view of pushing faith or religion down anyone's

throat. I'm looking at it from (Inaudible). Yes you can change the

National Curriculum, you can do this as politicians, you can say why do

we need a Minister for Women, or one for disabilities? You will get a lot

of pressure on one representative to embody the Government or state's

position on religion. That's impossible in our context, as we

have secular, universal, humanist values that unite us as a country.

But that's on a basis of Christian religion especially, and other

religions come into it. One person, however well meaning, can't sum that

up and say I represent this whole tradition. It is necessarily a

dialogue with different backgrounds. Can I just finish, what I'm trying

to say is you can redefine what a department is supposed to do. You

can say that this department has been set up, or this Minister's

responsibility will be A, B, C and D, and in that you can say this is

not about promoting God or faith. I think just because previous office

holders have used it for that purpose, you can redefine the

functions of the department and make it more about the issues that I talk

about, which is important. A Minister for Women is not in itself

divisive. Men could say why not? There is clearly a role for

Government, I think we would all agree, on tackling equal pay and

violence against women. But there is no role for Government in a western,

secular dibble democracy for promoting a religion or religious

belief over nonreligious belief. That's what a Minister of faith, for

faith, is supposed to do. My interpretation of what the Minister

for Faith is about is not about promoting a religion or God. I'm

happy with the (Inaudible) faith and belief. Communities then. Fine, you

can call it by whatever name you want it. Call it communities or

people. ALL TALK AT ONCE. It is

understanding what matters to millions of people in this country

and what drives them. I would be happy if either of you two, liberal

secularists, were to be the Minister. Or a liberal Christian.

They understand what makes it tick and drives the legislation properly,

and works toward social cohesion. Ot about what they should be doing? We

spoke about radicalisation earlier. If there is an effort to focus on

radicalisation as the Minister for Faith, would you see that as

positive? That's obviously an important role for someone. What I

think might be needed is a Minister for values. The universal values

that really do bind us together, whatever religion you are from, or

non-religion you are from. I think we've got a problem in this country

of being too quiet about what does unite us. I would call it humanism

from a nonreligious point of view, although it's not antireligious it

acknowledges that religion feeds into it understand we have a basis

of religion that our secular humanist values are based on. I

think that needs promotion and talking about. Instead we get this

division of religion versus secularism that's unhelpful. If we

had a Minister in thissy who said what we are going to do is get rid

of segregation in state schools, where children are not allowed into

their local state-funded school because their parents have failed to

pretend to be of the right religion. That we get rid of the idea that we

have an established church which by its dogma is antigay, because it

doesn't allow practising homosexuality among the Bishops. It

has only recently moved into the 20th century on women Bishops. We

have reserved places in Parliament. That's the agenda, no promoting

religion. It is interesting you are promoting a Minister for values.

That will resonate with many of our viewers. We can find out now. It is

a waste of money. That's what people are saying. That religion has no

place in politics. Sharon says ban religion in public. Faith should be

a private matter and it should not interfere with day-to-day work. Man

that saying it could be a good thing if it it is for the right purposes

and has a real value. Euan says it won't work unless everyone is

prepared to unite under a secularist culture and preserve their faith.

And this one, it's time to ditch the special advantages that so-called

faith gives to people in authority. The Lords and Government should be

secular. And findly, I think people who come to settle in any country

should want to integrate into its society. If the role of this

Minister of faith is to help people do that, it is great. A variety of

views there. Yasmin, we only have one minute. We heard that it's the

promoting advantages, special advantages. No, that's not what it

is about. The way I'm looking at it is the fact that there are issues,

as the Rabbi said, about religious people, but this is not about

religion. This is where a lot of people have misunderstood. It is not

about promoting religion. I'm not looking at it as promoting any

religion or religious ideology. What I'm saying is that religion does

exist and it's the way it is taught in schools. It should be accurate.

Accurate. And in the media. But scepticism in schools. If there's a

Minister for teaching sceptical inquiry... Please let Yasmin finish.

I'm happy with that. I'm just saying there is a need there for a Minister

of faith, values, beliefs, whatever you want to call it. I'm not talking

about Judeo Christian faith, but not faiths as well. I'm talking about

people who don't have a faith either. I think there is a rise of

prejudice against people who do have faith of some sort. Or have visible

representation. That's the kind of thing we need to look at. Just as we

have a Minister for equality and disability, look at disadvantaged

people. Yasmin Qureshi, Dr Evan Harris, Theo Hobson and Dr Jonathan

Romain, thank you. We could say more but we don't have time.

That's just about all from us for today.

Many thanks to all our guests and to you for taking part.

As we near the end of Britain's most successful Olympics of all time,

we mark it with a special performance from Kelly Oliver, whose

song Rio was inspired by the Games host city.

# Walking on the street, lost in a sea of people living.

# And walking on the beach, lost in a sea of sunlight beaming.

# I would say, "Oh, thanks for having me."

# Filling my heart with dreams and memories.

# Walking round the town, hearing all the voices come

# And the sound of a people praying to the Lord on the mountain.

# I would say, "Oh, thanks for having me."

# Filling my heart with dreams and memories.

# I would say thanks for the rhythm and the music.

# I would say thanks for the fire and the magic.

# I was your guest, a travelling girl.

# But you'll stay with me as I walk this world.

# For the passion, the dreams and the prayers.

# Walking on the street, walking to the beat of a people dancing.

# Music in the heat, and we meet and we feast

# I would say, "Oh, thanks for having me."

# Filling my heart with dreams and memories.

# I would say, "Oh, thanks for having me."

# Filling my heart with dreams and memories.