05/04/2016 Newsnight


With Kirsty Wark. Should the UK impose direct rule on overseas tax havens? The latest on the steel crisis. And why Justin Bieber is accused of offending African cultural heritage.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Iceland's Prime Minister quits


after revelations in the Panama Papers.


Our Prime minister insists he's tough on corruption,


so is it time to impose direct rule


on the tax havens who answer to Britain?


As trouble brews in paradise, we'll put that


Companies in Bermuda pay taxes, I am the taxman, I am the finance


minister, I can tell you, that we pay taxes.


And the former foreign office minister who took


back control of the Turks and Caicos tells us how he would do it now.


One week on from news that Port Talbot is up for sale, ministers are


to consider loaning money for a new power plant to bring down its huge


energy bills. How much our energy costs and the government energy


policy really to blame for the problems. And will anyone pay up for


its multi-billion pound pension burden? We will ask the former


pensions Minister for his view. the new prince of pop is under


attack for his hair style. Are Justin Bieber's white


dreadlocks an insult The Panama Papers have


claimed their first scalp. A big one, the Prime Minister


of Iceland, Sigmundur Gunnauggson, who, the papers revealed,


set up a company in the British Virgin Islands


with his wife and then, when he entered parliament,


failed to declare it. Our own Prime minister who had been


under pressure over the revelation of his late father's involvement


in a Panama based fund for investors, today insisted he had


no shares, no offshore trusts


and no offshore funds. It is the central role which British


dependencies have played in what Jeremy Corbyn today called


the encouragement of tax avoidance on an industrial scale that led him


to echo the call made by the former Business Secretary Vince Cable


on Newsnight last night for the imposition of direct rule


on British overseas territories VOICEOVER: The Panama papers have


claimed their first big scalp. CHEERING


A crowd here in Reykjavik have been demanding the resignation of


Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson, the prime on a stir of Iceland, if you days ago


he was dismissing claims that he had hidden wealth offshore in Panama and


today he quit over the scandal, his finance minister also implicated is


still hanging on. David Cameron has come in for some heat as well, his


late father, who worked in finance, used Panama as well. I own no


shares, I have a salary as Prime Minister, and I have some savings,


which I get some interest from, and I have a house which we used to live


in, which we now let out while we are living in Downing Street, that


is all I have. No shares, no offshore trust, no offshore funds,


nothing like that. The Labour leader focused today not an Panama but on


some of the British Overseas Territories, 14 of them, former


crown Colonies, still dependent on the UK. Many, like Montserrat and


the Falklands, have not become financial centres, others, have made


their way onto lists of tax havens. There is particular attention on bee


media, in the Atlantic, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman


Islands in the Caribbean, and Gibraltar, in Europe. These


territories are accused of enabling excessive secrecy, of the sort that


allow the Icelandic Prime Minister to keep his investments hidden in


Panama. You can go through the British Virgin Islands, classic


case, you can incorporate a company very cheaply there, and then you


can, that company can own assets, and even though you, the rich


person, are the beneficial owner of the company, you can put nominees in


the way. If you go to the British Virgin Islands and try to find out


more about the company, and I have done that myself, you bang your head


against a brick wall. To give you a sense of what this secrecy means on


the ground, this is a company filing from the British Virgin Islands, LW


group Limited, 350578. It tells you the number of the lawyers who set up


the company and their address, the company current lawyers, and their


address. What it does not tell you is that this company is the owner of


a number of large British companies, namely, yodel, the delivery company,


and Littlewoods, the shop, it is not tell you who the shareholders are,


it is the Barclay brothers in this case. We can work out from filings


elsewhere what the Barclay brothers company is but other owners have


stayed off the radar. What can the Foreign Office do? Jeremy Corbyn


alluded to the fact that in 2009, London imposed a wrecked role on the


Turks and Caicos Islands because of local corruption, he suggested the


Foreign Office to do the same for overseas Territories who do not play


ball on secrecy. Actually it is more likely they would use another power.


The Foreign Office's final big lever is legal, it can pass laws or order


council through the Privy Council Office the territories into line,


that relies upon the overseas territories doing as they are told,


and not declaring independence. Some of the bigger overseas territories,


like Bermuda, may be tempted by that path. The Foreign Office considers


this a nuclear option, they would prefer to chivvy and encourage but


use little bargaining chips. The dramatic pressure is there preferred


weapon. It is seen as a bunch of banana republics, people can dismiss


that, what we are intimately involved in this issue, in this


problem, we in Britain, and in Europe. European tax savings, the


United States as well, the rich world is part of the problem, that


is where the tax havens are, you are not going to stash money into


Nigeria, you will stash it somewhere rich and developed. One thing has


become clear, Ireland's tax havens are only one corner of the


controversy around tax. -- island. STUDIO: Earlier I spoke


to the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister


of Bermuda Bob Richards and asked him what he says


to Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion that places like Bermuda should be


brought under direct rule. I would say that the need is a


country that has its own constitution.


We have a democratically elected government that operates under the


rule of law under the Constitution, and the Constitution is an agreed


document with the United Kingdom government. We would not expect the


United Kingdom, a government that has great respect for the rule of


law, to breach their own covenants. How do you justify to British


taxpayers that you provide a place for people to hide the they are due


to pay in the countries where they are based? That is a question based


on a full is assumption. We have our own laws, our own taxes. Every


company that incorporates in Bermuda has two provide the government


agency, the bemused and monetary authority, the names of the


beneficial owners of those companies. -- the Bermudan monetary


authority. That includes trusts. It is a beneficial ownership register.


You provide the information but you do not deny that they are not paying


the taxes they are due to pay in their own country, for example,


Britain. If the British authorities think that some Britain has a


company in Bermuda, and they are not paying their taxes, we will assist


the UK Government, your government's laws around taxes, are for them.


Anything that we can do, the only thing we can do, is cooperate and


assist with you when asked through the proper channels. Why do you


think that in 2013, David Cameron said to Bermuda that you had to get


your house in order? I think that he misspoke, quite frankly, because


insofar as a business concern, the United Kingdom is planning to


construct a beneficial ownership registry. So that you know that. --


I'm sure that you know that. The media has had such a registry for 70


years, 70... It does not mean that you are not a tax haven. Yes it


does? Yes, it does, the people of Bermuda pay taxes, companies pay


taxes, I am the taxman, I am the finance minister, I can tell you,


the taxes come to about 18% of GDP. We pay taxes. Every time I put up


taxes I get howls of from residents, as I did in this budget session. The


notion that we can run a country, run a government, without taxes, is


not really realistic. Do you put yourself in a different bracket from


the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands? I'm not going to


comment on overseas territories, the only thing I can say to you is this:


there seems to be a tendency on the part of not just the UK but the UK


included and other countries to treat all overseas territories the


same. One size fits all. I continue categorically, one size does not fit


all. The constitutions of those islands that you mention are


different from Bermuda, we have a higher level of self-government,


than they do. From the beginning, from 1947, our forebears had the


notion that we did not want just anybody doing business in Bermuda,


we would screen them and we would approve them, and discard the ones


that did not meet our standards. That is the reason that you do not


see the new dimensions in those Panama papers. By the way, I must


remind you, the UK is mentioned in the Panama papers! But, not Bermuda.


Thank you for joining us. STUDIO: Joining me now from Cardiff


is Chris Bryant Labour MP who was the minister responsible


for the last time we took powers imposed direct rule on the Turks


and Caicos Islands in March 2009, though in that instance it was to do


with a corruption scandal. Wait a minute, what a load of


baloney you have heard, Bermuda certainly has no income tax, no


property tax, no sales tax, no inheritance tax! It is a tax haven!


The whole point of the way some overseas territories have


constructed their tax regime is not just to be competitive, but is to


attract people to try to hide their international assets there. Do you


agree with Jeremy Corbyn that direct rule should be imposed on the


territories and dependencies? The one thing that was said that was


right, we should not treat them all exactly the same way. You have


criticised Bermuda, could there be direct rule? Not tomorrow, no there


should not, there are plenty of other powers that the UK Government


already has, which it has, for some reason for the last six years it has


been choosing not to exercise. Sorry to enter, let me clarify the


position, is Jeremy Corbyn wrong to lump them together? He has not lump


them together, we are not saying that we should suddenly install


direct rule over the Falkland Islands, Pitcairn, the British


Indian Ocean Territory! The point is really important, in Turks and


Caicos, the cavernous is still chaired by the British governor. --


the cabinet. All legislation must receive Royal assent, because they


are part of the British Crown. There are plenty of powers that the


government has. Let me give you one instance, when I was Foreign Office


minister, in 2009/10, several of the financial services overseas


territories, which Jeremy Peace writes 2.2, they were insignificant


financial problems and they needed to borrow a lot of money. -- which


is right to point to. I refuse to allow them to borrow more money,


until such time as they brought in some broader tax basis, because it


is one thing to try to have a competitive tax regime, I understand


that, but it is another to have a set of rules which means that you


can hide the beneficial ownership of significant assets from the rest of


the world. It is worth bearing in mind that 8% of the worlds wealth is


hidden. Let's be clear, a lot of what is being revealed and will


still be revealed and is yet to be revealed was during Labour's watch.


This is a long-standing problem. I agree.


It is not one-sided fits all but is there an argument for taking Turks


and Caicos under direct control and how would you do it? You would have


two order in Council, a pretty straightforward process. But it is


the implications of it. Of doing that, what would they be? They would


be dramatic. That would be the nuclear option. I would say you need


to use all the other powers and I'm mystified why why the Conservative


government in 2010 or Coalition Government, decided to allow all bad


are linked to go forward for all those other countries without


requiring them to move forward on transparency. The one point in


relation to Bermuda, which is key, it is all very well to gather


information within Bermuda, on beneficial ownership, but you need


to share that between all the different dependencies, overseas


territories and the UK Government, to make sure you're doing it


properly. And in the end, my constituents spit with fury when


they hear that there is one set of rules for the ultra rich and another


set of rules for everyone else. Everyone else has got to pay their


fair share of tax and why should these big corporations not. Why


should wash and go or kitten able to hide ownership of properties through


companies in BBI or why should we in the UK not be able to know that the


president of the United Arab Emirates owns vast chunks of the


London property market. Thank you very much for that, Chris Bryant.


There are two big imepdiments to a potential sale of Tata Steel,


we'll deal with the massive pension burden in a moment,


but the other is the cost of energy, twice what Germany pays.


Industry, and not just the steel industry,


But is there an inventive way to tempt a buyer in,


through an energy deal, or is energy a red herring?


Here's the FT's energy correspondent Kiran Stacey,


who we asked to shed some light on the issue.


Among the attempts to save steel-making at Port Talbot,


one intriguing idea sits on the table.


Supposing the government could lend the money


for a buyer to build their own gas power station


The cripplingly high energy costs, about which Tata has


repeatedly complained, would no longer be an impediment.


But how much are energy costs and the government energy


policy really to blame for the company's problems?


When steel companies are put under pressure and profit


margins are squeezed, or even wiped out completely,


those fixed costs and costs with reasonable variations,


like electricity, become a much bigger issue.


And that is what we have seen over the last two or three years.


There is no question that electricity prices for heavy


Higher in fact than any other country in the EU.


One explanation is the subsidies given to renewables such as wind


Like us, their subsidies are paid for by putting levies


But unlike us, the German government has given large industrial users


9 billion euros back on their bills since 2013.


In that time the UK has paid out just ?160 million.


Melting steel at temperatures of almost 1300 Celsius


But how much of an impact do energy prices and green subsidies actually


Of that 9.5p per kilowatt hour of electricity that UK heavy


industry paid in 2014, this is how it broke down.


The raw electricity accounts for 55% of the cost.


Delivering it accounts for another 27%.


And energy and climate change policies account for 15%.


Of the overall costs of running a blast furnace such


as those at Port Talbot, electricity accounts for about 6%.


Altogether therefore, green policy accounts for around 1%


of what it costs to melt steel at the South Wales site.


The figures you have seen are about electricity.


We are talking in Port Talbot largely about gas.


And gas is not affected by this at all.


And British Gas prices are about medium for the whole of Europe.


So it cannot be this, i.e., green taxes, which has affected


the closure or the threat of closure of Port Talbot.


There are lots of other things that could have done it, but above all,


it is the international price of steel which has


The government could of course remove green levies altogether.


It could, in the words attributed to David Cameron,


That would give you your one, maybe 2% saving on the cost


But compared to the 30% drop in the price of some steel products


worldwide in the last year, I'm not sure that that is going


to make the difference needed to save the British steel industry.


It is possible that generous government subsidies could pull


companies on the cusp of going under back from the brink.


But it seems that in the case of Tata, their problems


The other huge issue surrounding Tata or any other potential buyer is


pensions. With me now in the studio


is Steve Webb, who was Pensions Minister for the five years


of the coalition government. In your view is any potential buyer


going to take on the pension burden? It looks pretty toxic to me. You


have enough trouble making money selling steel but if you're worried


also about the cost of pension promises already made but the fact


that the pension deficit could blow up again in the future, you just


never knew a pension fund deficit and any purchaser would not want


that level of uncertainty. What would the most likely outcome be


question mark in a normal situation, if a business is running and become


insolvent, the pension fund if it is short of money as this is, and it


changes by the day. Potentially it runs into billions by some measures.


140,000 people involved, not just the workers working for Tata at the


moment. Yes, the people actively working, and another 30,000 who have


not yet retired, a round 80,000 to have retired. If the money goes into


the Pension Protection Fund, would you think is most likely, they will


not get 100% of their action. -- pension. It will not replace every


penny of the pension you're going to get. So men and women would lose


their pension. And the hardest-hit would be the longest serving. Just


explain why that is. No one is getting a full pay-out. If you have


not yet reached pension age you get 90% of something, that something is


capped. If you've worked in the industry man and boy all your life,


you could build up a pension or perhaps 60,000 a year but the cap


would take you down to around 30. You could lose potentially up to


half your pension. There is also an issue over whether it was index


linked. Again that would be the long serving workers who lose out. You


have brought in something to try to amend this, but it was not passed. I


thought it was wrong to cap long-term workers. If you have a


decent pension because you worked in a scheme of your life, it is not


their that it is capped so hard. So last year, I legislated for a bigger


cap for longer workers but that has not been implemented. It is that cap


plus 3%. And why has it not been implemented? I guess it has not been


a priority, to be fair to the new government, they have been doing


other things, but it ought to be a priority. Long serving workers need


this. And there is no impediment to David Cameron for example doing this


tomorrow. Detailed regulations could be done in a matter of months. So


before all this happens, it could be done. One of the other ideas being


floated is the idea that the government as it did with Royal


Mail, would take on the pension burden. And you rules would preclude


that, do you think, or not? It would be challenging to say the industry


is a special case. And the government would be worried that the


car industry, defence, aerospace, they would be worried about the


president. Not that they could not afford to, today they would not be a


problem but promises would need to be kept for decades to come. I think


the worried would be the president. Anti-EU? You're not allowed to


subsidise your own industries where the complete with other people. So


the EU takes the view there is too much steel capacity so that is hard


to see that working for the government.


The Canadian singer songwriter Justin Bieber has been accused


of cultural appropriation for wearing his blond


As someone who in the past defended US reality TV star Kylie Jenner's


right to style her hair in corn rows,


he is not unaware of the implications of his new hairstyle.


But are the Rolling Stones guilty because they appropriated soul blues


What is cultural appropriation and what is cultural appreciation?


This programme, the proud boast would be meaningless first with


Justin Bieber news if we were not all over his latest hairstyle.


The Canadian pop star has been dividing opinion with his new


hairdo. Are these dreadlocks and if so is it cultural appropriation as


some have claimed? Another man got into trouble on a San Francisco


campus for his haircut. You say I cannot have the hairstyle because of


your culture? Are you Egyptian? I have certainly been told, made aware


in no uncertain terms that the hairstyle I have had have been


deemed too black or not appropriate for that situation. So again of


white person is able to just kind of experiment with these hairstyles as


though there some of costume and is not subject to any of the same


stigma that a black person might be. It is frustrating.


At this busy mixed barbershop in London this evening the reaction to


the Justin Bieber Barnet Fair Rory seemed to be, keep your hair on. I


wish I had that amount of hair! Why not. If you've got the hair, you can


do whatever you want with it. I think they look nice. I do. The


crossover between cultures, it is predominately known as an


Afro-Caribbean type of thing. It looks a bit like punk. Not raster or


anything. That does not look very good! He is copying the black spiral


of dreadlocks I suppose. But he has changed it up a bit. It is like Mick


Hucknall and boy George, they tried to do something like that. If he had


come to you what would you have said this remark he would be in the chair


right there! I would ask one customer to get up and get him


straight in the chair, Justin Bieber!


Joining me in the studio to discuss this further is Ian Dunt the Editor


of "politics.co.uk", Emma Dabri an academic and writer.


And from our BBC studios in New York writer Chimene Suleyman.


Good evening. It is a particular debate in the United States. Do you


think that Justin Bieber has done something wrong? I think we should


not necessarily hold celebrities to a higher status than the rest of us.


The issue really, he is allowed to do what he wants to do with his own


hairstyle. But we have a responsibility to each other and


responsibility to marginalised communities to listen to why this


had them or if there is something we are doing is harmful. What might be


harmful about that. And then make an informed decision. In your opinion


what is harmful? I think there is a fine line between cultural


appropriation and cultural appreciation. It is a fine line. But


a line nonetheless. Appropriation I think, there has been a lot of


miscommunication about what the word means. It is not about necessarily


enjoying someone else's cultural aesthetic. It is about taking an


aspect of something that belongs to someone else, without their


permission, and profiting from it. Let me put that to Ian Durrant. It


is someone taking something from another culture, taking advantage


for example of a marginalised culture. Like chicken tikka masala


or Elvis Presley and the blues, which basically created rock 'n'


roll. Exactly that. We are people, we mix cultures and we mix


artistically. And bank god we do because if we do not we are


functioning in an almost identical way to the way the far right has


always asked us to in our little identity ghettos. That seems more


severe than the haircut of Justin Bieber. Does it matter? I think


saying that Elvis began rock 'n' roll is typical of what happens when


we see cultural appropriation at its finest. One generally of white


artist discredited and history will credit this person as being


responsible for something that has been born often out of black


struggle. You say that about the Rolling Stones as well? If you are


going to save the invented rock 'n' roll, that is a problem. Two said


they invented it, it is spurious. It is inaccurate. And it is crucial as


well the idea that the question was, is it an insult to African culture.


I think when we live in a time when African culture is diverse, is it


still routinely stigmatised and presented as letter, as primitive


and underdeveloped. But at the same time there is a systematic


extraction of African resources, physical, material and cultural.


That is when it gets into appropriation. It is not


appreciation, we do not actually appreciate African culture when


black people are participating in that. But only when a white person


starts to take ownership. Was Elvis taking the blues and doing


something with it, was that an act of cultural appropriation? The fact


that he is now known as the king of rock and roll... It speaks to the


fact that a white person will always end up with being predicted with an


innovation that has come from black struggle and creativity. So that was


a bad thing, most people would say that started a rich cultural


heritage we have all enjoyed. Often when something is taken, in the


past, they get the credit for it? And we live in a racist society,


unfair, but this is not a sensible way of dealing with that.


What would you regard as being an act of cultural appreciation? It


tends to happen more organically, I grew up in London, there is a


diverse community there, often what happens is that subcultures are


formed through that process. It has the be an organic thing. To go back


to what has been said about erasure, in the last week, with the debate


that was happening around Rory Goldstein, who was wearing


dreadlocks at a San Francisco University, there was a lot of real


commitment to the history behind the dreadlocks, how may people wanted to


mention that the Celts also wore dreadlocks. And Vikings. What


happened in that conversation, even in that debate was that the


African-American community, the black community, the Rastafarian


community, were deleted from the discussion. -- Corey Goldstein. To


favour a group of people that has not existed for the last thousand


years. It is... It is this level of erasure that we are talking about. A


different type of erasure, as you might call it, if you look at John


Cena walls, who got a lot of flak for taking a Bollywood theme in


India as part of a cold play music video. Was she guilty of cultural


appropriation? -- Beyonce Knowles. Cultural appropriation is not just


about taking the signifiers of a different cultural group and wearing


them and using them, it is about power dynamics, as far as I'm aware,


there is not such a discrepancy of power dynamics between


African-Americans and Indians, there is not a systematic use of Indian


culture by African-Americans for their own material and cultural


gain, in the same way that global popular culture takes and takes and


takes from black culture, lack people are rarely credited. Do you


accept the difference, Ian, that if Beyonce Knowles, for instance,


because there is similarity in terms of power, between African-American


culture and England's culture, is it OK for her to wear dreadlocks? --


and Indian culture. You are saying there is a difference, yes. Power


dynamic start important that does not mean that one thing is immoral


one and moral another, we should not do some assessment of relative


levels of the scrum and nation. Is there a danger that this will lead


to more division, the more this has been emphasised. I think that there


is an organic exchange of cultures that happen, that kind of


contributes to London culture and too many manifestations of


contemporary culture. There is actually a far more... There is a


far more raw and cynical use of, within popular culture, really of


things that come from blackness, bearing in mind, blackness and


African this is still routinely subjected to this concept of being


inferior and lesser. And yet at the same time every blue seems to be


obsessed with the cultural output. -- Africaness. The calculation on


this, when I look at someone, I need to look at the race when I make an


evaluation of whether they are culturally appropriating or not...


Anti-racist teaching has been to look at what some things rather than


how they look, this runs against that. Thank you all very much


indeed. Riad Sattouf is a Franco-Syrian


graphic novelist who worked on Charlie Hebdo for a decade,


before the attack, won a Cesar for his first film and has now


put his own nomadic childhood between France, Libya and Syria


into a graphic novel memoir. It's a best seller in France,


has been translated into 15 languages,


and is about to be published here. The title of the memoir,


The Arab of the Future, refers to his father's belief that


Arab nationalism, as evinced by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi,


would transform the Arab world. And so in 1980 he takes his French


wife, whom he met at the Sorbonne in Paris, and toddler Riad off,


first to Libya and then to his family village near Homs


in Syria where comically nothing ever appears to go right for this


idealist bombastic man. We witness all this


through the the sensory the urine smell from


Libyan men and the sharp


and spicy air in France. But the book doesn't shy away


from his Syrian family's First of all, why have you begun


this odyssey, this is only the first part of what will eventually be your


life in the graphic novel. In 2011I had to help a part of my family that


were still living in Homs to come to France and I had difficulty


obtaining authorisation in France for them. So I wanted to tell, buy


comics, what was happening in the French administration. To tell the


story, I had to tell it from the beginning. So I started this


project. Early on the cartoon, you allude to your own ability as a


draw. -- in the cartoon. When other kids are drawing pictures, you are


drawing pictures of the French president! I tell the story of my


future, with my father, who was Syrian, my mother, French, I tell


the story, the birth of the ambition to become a cartoonist. Sometimes


people say that you are gifted to music, to drawing, I was very


interested to show that I think it does not exist! For me, for example,


one day, I had drawn a character like that, my grandmother, she


thought that it was the president, Pompidou, so in her eyes, I was a


genius. But then, you scribble, and you are rude and so forth, it is


more that you are controversial, as you are as a cartoonist. I was very


good at drawing when I was a child. To be like other people, I faked it!


One of your earliest memories is seeing Colonel Gaddafi, when you go


to Libya, your father idealises what he stands for, you see him


everywhere, you see him in the school, on the billboards. This idea


that dictators, early on in your life, become a very big thing for


you. My father was an educated man but from a very poor family, he was


for education, modernity, he was against religion. He had very strong


paradox, for example, he was admiring Colonel Gaddafi, he was


admiring Bashar al-Assad, he was dreaming of making one day a coup.


He wanted to execute everybody! He was obsessed... He wanted to become


somebody powerful. As a boy, it is what I am telling in the book, I


admired my father, and I thought that everything he was telling me


was the truth. Actually, difficult and dark elements in the book, what


happens when you go to the village, near Homs, where your father was


raised, you meet, first of all, children that you play with and your


cousins. Children are playing with plastic soldiers, and saying that


these are is really soldiers, cut off their heads, they are Jewish. My


father was from a Syrian family, he became a doctor. He had been offered


to become a teacher at Oxford. He preferred to go back to the Arabic


world and Syria, we went to live in his village, to this small peasant


village. Near Homs. In the village, a very rude life. Syria was obsessed


with Israel, all of the children... You were inculcated at an early age,


your cousins thought you looked Jewish, they beat you up. They did


not think I looked Jewish, but it was because I was French origin, so


when you are from foreign origin, it was analysed that France was an ally


of the United States, the United States is an ally of Israel! When


you were French, you were Israelis! LAUGHTER


They were telling me that I was a Jewish! The first Arabic word I


heard was the word who Jewish. You produced this book am which has been


fated by both the left and the right in France, very good response to it.


-- feted. I wonder if some in the Arabic world think you have been


disrespectful, you are very funny about what you see as a medieval


view, actually... LAUGHTER ... Of the village near Homs, you


would presumably say on the other side, your grandmother was French. I


am telling the story of my family and my life. My family in Syria,


some of them read that there was a book, they said, it was like that.


It is very known. I'm just telling the point of view of the children in


a small village, near Homs, and I let the reader make their own


judgment on it. Thank you very much for joining us.


Before we go, let's take a look out of the windows.


Well, this studio doesn't have any, but the artist Gillian Wearing,


in a collaborative project with people all round the world,


has created a new artwork that celebrates the very different


views that people enjoy from their windows.


Your Views will premiere at the University of Brighton Gallery


from 30 April to 29 May as part of the 50th anniversary edition


of Brighton Festival and HOUSE festival.


Here are a few windows. Goodnight.


Good evening to you, looks like the weather is going to be very


changeable across the UK during Wednesday, and so from our two hour


With Kirsty Wark. Should the UK impose direct rule on overseas tax havens? The latest on the steel crisis. Graphic novelist Riad Sattouf. And why Justin Bieber is accused of offending African cultural heritage.

Download Subtitles