In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Emily Maitlis.
Browse content similar to 19/02/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Tonight, powerful images
from Washington as America's young
stage a lie-in outside White House
to demand a change to gun laws.
President Trump backs
calls for checks
on those buying weapons.
Nobody is now better
placed to bring gun owners
into a more reasoned debate.
But will he choose
to fight the fight?
We'll ask the NRA.
Does exploitation cut both ways?
I'll ask the Chippendales if they
feel objectified for their looks.
Do you enjoy the touching?
enjoy the touching but it is mostly
because... It isn't so much the
touching itself, people are having
And as Iceland proposes a ban
on male circumcision,
we'll ask whether the practice
is a violation or a religious right?
The pressure to talk about gun laws
is now coming from America's young.
Students in Florida who survived
last week's mass shooting have
received the support of others
around the nation.
Marches are being planned all over
America to amplify their message
of stricter gun control.
And when school kids,
showing a maturity and a drive
their elders may have lost,
threaten to march on Washington,
the optics don't look
good for a President.
Perhaps with that in mind,
President Trump today
signalled his support
for a cross-party effort
to improve the national system
of background checks.
It's a small move.
And, since being in office,
he's rolled back more
checks than he's created.
But the irony is perhaps this one -
a man who has no particular affinity
with gun culture but is backed
squarely by the rump
of those who do - including
the National Rifle Association -
could not be better placed to change
one of the most critical,
corrosive terrors of modern America.
Having mulled it over at his Florida
country club this weekend, President
Trump is ready to shift ground on
Donald Trump has
signalled through his press
secretary that he is interested in
considering and potentially
supporting a bipartisan bill by two
senators that were tried to close
loopholes in the national and
criminal background check system to
make it harder for felons to
purchase guns and to be more
effective in checking registration
and licensing before things are
sold. I would not call that a
rethink. This legislation has been
floating around for a while.
small step, for sure, but the
Americans love their guns and it's
striking for the fact it is almost
exactly one year ago President Trump
rolled back Obama registration rolls
that made it harder for those
mentally ill to buy guns.
emphatic support for what he'd turn
gun rights, a pro-gun position, the
measure you are referring to be
obtained to people with mental
issues being able to buy guns. More
broadly, he has been extremely
supportive of those who favour the
With the first of
the Florida victims buried yesterday
and further funerals do -- chew,
this could signal a change. A huge
march has been called for next month
and the massacre's survivors are
taking aim at the gun lobby and its
This is our
opportunity to talk to President
Trump, Governor Rick Scott and the
State Senator to make sure that they
know we are talking directly to them
and all other members of the United
States government that are being
funded by the NRA to tell them now
is the time to get on the right side
So, Trump consulted people
at his golf club, reportedly asking
about tighter checks and bans on
selling assault weapons to under
21s. Quite different from his pledge
at the NRA convention.
You have a
true friend and champion in the
White House, no longer will federal
agencies be coming after law-abiding
Until today, the
president focused on first
responders and characterise the
Florida shooting in terms of mental
illness but gun-control is creeping
onto the agenda. Years ago,
trumpeted right in favour of it but,
given the millions he has taken from
the gun lobby, today's move may be
tactical in nature.
It seems as
though his new-found support for gun
control, especially this very basic
not at all controversial
legislation, is a way to regain
cover, to say he's doing something,
to show he cares. Even though it
isn't much of anything he has done.
But the Florida victims, both those
whose names were recited by
protesters today, and the articulate
survivors, are having an impact. If
they can build momentum, Trump could
face a more serious reckoning, one
which would require him to push it
-- position himself as the NRA's
friend and in favour of
Joining me now from Dallas
is Antonia Okafor - she's a member
of the National Rifle Association
and founded Empowered,
an organisation to promote armed
self defence in US colleges.
You support an organisation most
people marching today find abhorrent
and vile, what is your response to
That isn't true for all young
people in America. As a millennial,
I support the NRA and the gun rights
movements and groups, and there are
thousands if not millions of young
people who also believe it is about
empowering few law-abiding citizens
who are doing the right and correct
thing, the rights we want to protect
and defend when the situation comes.
So I don't think... Groups like
Bloomberg, they are not
representative of all young people
This is a hard one, as I
know you know, for a British
audience. Take us inside the mind of
an NRA member. Did what happened in
Florida shift your support at all?
Did what happened in Vegas last year
shift your support at all? Do these
register for you? Absolutely and it
registered for millions of
If not worldwide. There
was a study which showed that
American people are sick and tired
of what people would call
gun-control, it isn't working. I
grew up in an era when we had
Columbine, and those situations are
why I have the position that
law-abiding citizens, even students
on campus, should be able to protect
themselves. Just because these
things happen doesn't mean we are
going to come to agreement on how we
should proceed in the future. I
The solution is more
guns? More arming, more students? Is
that honestly how you see it?
solution is that the right people
have firearms, the right people are
the ones when something like what
happened at the shooting in Florida,
when we expect the students and
administrators to defend our
students, but we don't give them to
the tools to defend them, that is
the problem. People are ready,
especially now, to try something
different because what has been
happening before isn't working.
trying something different been
making gun laws tighter? When you
see the impassioned voice of Emma
Gonzalez, when you see the students
staging a sit in to represent
corpses of their colleagues and
friends killed, do you not start to
think you might be on the wrong side
of history here?
No. I am not on the
wrong side of history, I am on the
right side of history. If anything,
we can look at Baltimore, Saint
Lewis, Chicago who have the
strictest gun laws in America to
date but, yet, we are seeing
hundreds of people killed every day.
What has been going on in terms of
gun control isn't working so I am
saying people are sick of gun
control when nothing is changing.
The presidency looks worried today.
Probably the optics of young people
marching on Washington after their
colleagues and friends have died
isn't good for a president that has
been so heavily financially backed
by the NRA. Is he right to start to
look again at background checks?
Well, Sandy Hook happened during
President Obama's term.
And he did
look at those checks.
did try to introduce measures, that
is the difference between them,
No, President Trump has
said he was going to look at mental
health reform. He said he's going to
look into a background check system.
The bill we are talking about, that
took place in November after what
happened in Texas. It is really
looking into what we should already
have implemented. The Air Force one
to talk about the domestic abuse
that happened in South Texas with
the perpetrator. They failed with
the FBI to go multiple times to
restrict this person from having a
firearm. Nobody is against that. We
are against making it harder for
Laura biding citizens who just want
to make sure they are able to
protect themselves. One of the
suggestions is we should change it
from 18 to 21. We have people as
young as seven who grew up with
With the greatest
respect, though, the young people
marching on Washington today are not
looking at that. They are saying we
need, altogether, stronger controls
and we will go after the legislators
that are supported and financed by
the NRA. Should that worry
No, it shouldn't.
Again, I am saying these people are
not representative of all Americans
when it comes to this issue. We have
to make different ideas of what it
looks like. Of course, we want to
make sure students are safer. But
unfortunately we continue to think
gun control is the answer. I'm here
to say that isn't true and there are
millions behind me who believe that
Thank you for joining us.
You can read it as reassurance or as
a climb-down but are the Brexit
secretary will seek to quell fears.
David Davis will talk of those
who sense Brexit leading
to an Anglo-Saxon race
to the bottom, a Mad Max style world
borrowed from dystopian fiction.
And he will explain why that's
not going to happen.
Our political editor,
Nick Watt, has some
of the details and joins me now.
So, that is good news? That
arresting phrase, Mad Max, that
should make the front page of the
What is David Davis
saying? He says there are people in
the EU who are concerned the UK will
use brake-mac said. He says they
fear Brexit could fear to an
Anglo-Saxon race to the bottom with
Britain plunged into a Mad Max style
world borrowed from dystopian
fiction. What is he saying? He's
saying the UK has high standards and
will continue to have high standards
and doesn't want to use Brexit to
undercut the EU bike/ it taxes and
regulation. And what he is doing is
burying the Singapore model. This
was the model in the dim distance
past of January last year when
Philip Hammond said if the EU fails
to agree a deal with the UK, maybe
the UK will have to think of
remodelling its economy. There is
and if in his speech. He says the EU
does need to agree a free-trade deal
the UK. That needs to include
financial services and, if that
happens, you can then have the
mutual recognition by the UK and EU
of those high standards.
Who is he
talking to? Remainers? The hard-core
This is one of a series
of speeches by Cabinet ministers in
the run-up to the march summit where
EU leaders are meant to agree the
guidelines on the future trade
negotiations. Interestingly, the CBI
tonight, they say that they are
pleased David Davis is talking about
high standards. They say it is
important to align rules and have no
divergence. The government is saying
you're missing the point. What we're
talking about is mutual recognition,
as I was saying, for financial
services that is breaking new ground
because it isn't going to be about
passports, and it isn't about this
idea of equivalence where the UK
would say we will have the
equivalent rules to the EU. That
wouldn't be any good because that
would be a supplicant. This is going
along with mutual recognition, an
idea that has been put together by
Mark Hoban, the former Conservative
OK, thank you.
When Formula One confirmed
at the end of last month that
grid girls would no longer be used
in its world championships,
a new conversation began.
Are the women who do a job
they enjoy now told they're
demeaning themselves by doing them?
And should the same standards apply
to men who use their looks,
their bodies and their sexuality
in their daily work?
Or do we have different standards?
I went to meet one of the most famed
male adult entertainment
acts in the business,
They dance, they striptease,
and they get endlessly
touched by their audience.
I wanted to know if they felt
a cultural shift now
and if they would describe their own
jobs as exploitative and demeaning?
The Chippendales describe their work
as half show, half party -
a male revue that, in their words,
reveals a little more.
They call it having
fun with the audience.
You'll see hen nights
and birthday girls celebrating
at the Rio Theater in Las Vegas,
but you'll see men here too -
gay and straight.
Some women even
bring their partners.
It's just a fun night out.
Have you seen the
I'm actually a regular,
I'm a local groupie,
I love to come out and support them,
the guys are awesome.
They dance with you,
sometimes they'll pick you up,
it's just clean fun.
You don't have to worry
about anyone trying to go home
like if you went out to a club,
it's just good, clean fun.
During the course of the evening,
15 dance routines, fancy
costume changes and roleplay,
women are able to participate
as much or as little as they like.
Touching is encouraged -
above the waist only.
But the hands, they confided,
tend to get everywhere.
So what brings me to
a Chippendales show?
Well, we've all been asking
a lot of questions recently -
about abuse, objectification,
on where to draw the line
and inappropriate sexual behaviour.
We have mainly, rightly,
focused on women -
be it at the Presidents Club dinners
or on the Formula One grid.
But what happens if we turn
it around and ask professional
men the same questions?
Are the responses the same?
Do they feel objectified, belittled,
in the same way many
women have described?
I was here anyway on holiday,
so I thought I'd try to find out
if the Me Too movement
had left its mark
on men who choose striptease
entertainment for a living.
I talked to Ryan Kelsey,
the Chippendales' dance captain.
He's 32, and he's been with
the company for four years.
On an average night, how many hands
would you say touch you?
Oh, that is a great question.
Probably somewhere in the 40,
50 range, I would guess.
I mean, we run through our crowd,
our house holds a max of about 350
here, so even in a totally full
night, if you pass through
the audience, you're interacting
with a bunch of people.
We call them crowd runs,
so my crowd run, you know,
tries to get to as
many people as we can.
We try not to stay in one area
so everyone gets the maximum
And do you enjoy that?
I love it.
Do you enjoy the touching?
I do, I do enjoy the touching.
But it's mostly because...
It's not so much the touching
itself, I mean, people
are having fun, you know,
yes, again, it's cheeky,
but you see the brightness
in their eyes, they're smiling,
they're laughing, they're giggly,
you walk away, they giggle
with their friends.
Like it's more the joy
that is created from it, rather
than the actual sensation itself.
Would you say it makes you feel
or it doesn't make you
The big difference here is that,
you know, I know what this job is.
I willingly show up
to work every day.
So it's not a surprise,
it's not getting, you know,
catcalled on the street,
maybe something unwanted.
So it's not belittling to me,
because it's voluntary.
You know what I mean?
I willingly show up every day,
I know what I'm getting in for.
If I was uncomfortable,
then it would be moved me to find
other work that was more in line
with my comfortibility.
Are there than incidents
where the fans
have got a little too physical?
Yeah, it has happened,
the nails are usually...
If something happens,
which is very rare...
It's usually out of excitement,
they're having fun,
hands on the chest,
they're getting excited,
and you get a little claw mark,
but it's usually not from a place
of malice or weird intent -
again, not knowing
quite where the line is.
But you don't come off stage
thinking, "That was really painful"?
I mean, you know,
a scratch is a scratch.
But again, I know where I work,
I understand that even though
that is not really in our rules,
that it's in the scope
of possibility, you know,
and if you feel someone
starts to do it, again,
"Hey, no, that is not OK."
"You can touch, don't do that."
Do you see yourselves
as having the same job
as female strippers, strip dancers?
We have no tipping at our show,
so there's no dollars,
there's no interaction based
on how much money
you have that day or that moment.
It's one of my favourite
things about the show.
So the idea behind the no tipping
is that nobody is paying
for sex or sexual favours?
Well, not even so much
it's just you can't even influence,
you know, attention,
you know, if someone, you know,
if someone is well off
and well to do, they can't just...
I'm sure it would spread
very quickly through the cast,
"My God, this lady is loaded,
she's throwing out 20s,
she's throwing out hundreds,"
and we could gravitate there.
Somebody else who maybe saved
up their whole allowance for weeks
and months and got this trip
to Vegas and barely scraped by
to get our show could get ignored.
The Me Too movement has raised
awareness of the way women
have been abused or objectified.
Does the question also need to be
asked about men, do you think?
These kind of roles?
Well, I mean, I think it is,
in general, great to...
I love what the Me Too movement
is doing, and I love the amount
of awareness it's created,
including in myself.
You know, I like theoretically
knew some of my friends' stories,
but watching them actually type them
out on Facebook, and hearing them,
just made it tangible
to something I haven't experienced.
As far as it relates to our show,
again, kind of like I said earlier,
I think it's a little different,
because we are voluntary
participants, you know what I mean?
You're not going about your day,
you're not getting a coffee,
or even thinking you're on a nice
date and get forced into a corner,
your theoretical or your literal
back against a wall,
trying to escape.
This is somewhere I choose to work,
I choose to be employed here.
So I think, you know,
just participating in that way
changes the dynamic.
You know, I know that
I'm going to be looked at
just strictly for my muscles,
but I've engaged in that
agreement, I work here.
Do you feel objectified?
No, because, again,
I'm participating, so I feel like
I'm being admired for my
physicality, you know what I mean?
Objectification means someone
is reducing you against your will,
which is not against my will,
like, hey, I worked hard,
I did some push-ups,
and I enjoy it, you're enjoying it,
it's going to be wonderful
That is what's so great,
that if you're not OK with that,
you can go get a different job,
you can work somewhere else where
you're going to feel comfortable,
which is what's different
from the Me Too thing.
You know, if everyone, you know,
trying to crack into Hollywood
has to go through Harvey Weinstein,
it's a little bit
of a tougher situation.
We've seen a move in the UK,
the disappearance, we hear,
of grid girls or walk-on girls
or the same in boxing -
what is your sense, is that a move
in the right direction,
or do think that is a denial of...?
Yeah, it's complicated,
because if anyone of those girls
was, you know, proud to do
that, proud to be there,
may be proud of their body,
you know, enjoy the money,
thought it was easy,
thought it was a fun job -
if they were there 100% voluntarily,
then it's hard to argue against it.
But that said, though,
things have been clearly,
as all the stories are coming out,
things have been wrong for so long,
you know, that we might need
to overcompensate for a while
before we find the middle ground
that we all want to live at.
So just a basic premise of taking
away something that looks,
on the surface, especially
because females have been
repressed for so long,
I know there is a lot of guys
with stories too, but as a whole
females have been pushed back
or been objectified so many times
and so often that, you know,
things that sort of personified
that old guard might need
to drop off for a second.
So like socially I feel one way,
then towards individual rights
I feel another - it's tricky.
That was the Chippendales dance
That was the Chippendales dance
captain, Ryan Kelsey.
One of the stories of the last
election was Labour winning
heavily amongst the young.
Today was time for the Tory
fightback with a speech
from the Prime Minister in Derby
on higher and further education.
The current system, she explained,
is broken, and her government
is working out a way to fix it,
just as soon as the review
she ordered today wraps
up in 12 months' time.
So what happens now?
Chris Cook been covering education
since the last such review in 2010,
and he's with me now.
What do you think of
all this, then, Chris?
Well, the big thing today from the
sector is just a sort of weary sigh.
Starting in 2010, we had the Browne
review now to reshape the system,
then we raised fees, we got rid of
the rules on how big universities
could be, then we introduced this
teaching excellence, giving gongs to
universities for academic teaching,
huge structural reforms. And we have
this enormous evidence base about
how it is working, there is an
active conversation within higher
education on how to reform itself,
so there is a sense of, we know all
of this, ministers just have to
choose. And this review goes into
further education, where the
situation is more extreme. They had
their last big structural review on
further education only 18 months
ago, so recently that the
consultation on how to implement
that review only closed 11 days ago.
We are literally going from review
into review, back-to-back, without
any time in between.
With me in the studio
is Universities Minister Sam Gyimah.
This must be very frustrating for
you as a new minister, to hotfoot
from one change, one reform,
straight into a new one, it doesn't
instil confidence, does it?
It is a
time of opportunity. I think Chris
Meares characterised the
opportunity, but since 2010 a lot of
us happened in higher education, we
have more disadvantaged people going
to university than ever before as a
result of those changes.
be more or fewer, what do you think?
We also have world-class
universities, four in the top ten,
so these reviews have actually
So should it be more now
or fewer, is the number about right,
the number going to university?
are not capping aspiration, we want
anyone who is capable going to
Does that mean more
The numbers that can go to
university as no limit, we do not
put a limit.
You must have a broad
idea whether this feels like the
right number or whether people are
going to university when they should
be doing more practical courses,
more practical degrees, or do you
think it is about right? What is
What the Prime Minister
said, and what I agree with, is that
we want more options at the 18th
stage, and you do not want the
default to be university, because if
you do not go, you do not feel
bright enough, and that means having
more technical options, there are
some great technical options within
universities, like Southbank
University, not far away, great
technical options in construction,
but there are also technical options
outside of universities, and within
the system we want different types
of options, two year degrees,
community degrees, degree
of options, two year degrees,
community degrees, degree and
and the Secretary of
and the Secretary of
State was signalling at the weekend,
courses varying depending on cost,
benefit they give to our country,
you are backing that, are you?
is a review, there is a panel which
will make recommendations. There is
no point in writing the outcome of
the review before the review.
you here to tell us something, you
are presumably backing your boss.
you would bear with me, there are
500,000 people accept the university
place every year. It can't be that
all of them have the same desires
and aspirations when it comes to the
type of course they have to study.
And yet the default option at most
of our institutions is three years
on campus, pulled agree, and we say
there should be more variety.
have me that point well, but one of
the things we heard was that fees
should vary according to cost,
according to the benefits to the
individual and the benefit they give
our country. Would you back that?
think the review should look at it.
The review should definitely look at
value for money that every course
provides for the student.
So if you
are looking, for example, at value
for money, you might say an English
degree would have a lower rate of
return than a science degree?
you know that?
Well, I am asking, it
is not your idea, your Secretary of
State has said we will look at cost
and benefits to the country, so is
that something you can quantify?
Steve Jobs studied calligraphy. Who
would have known the value of that?
So you cannot agree with your own
It is not for ministers
to say which causes have value, but
it is right for a review to look at
the different courses, different
institutions, and the returns, for
independent experts to look at it
and make recommendations.
independent experts decide, if you
like, a pecking order of degrees
that you value? Will some be worth
more to the country and some less?
Of course not.
I don't understand
it, then. What is the point of
getting independent reviewers to
decide that some degrees with more
and some less?
I think you can look
at is, does every different
institution have different
offerings? Every institution does
not have to have the same offering
for every subject across the
country, it can have diversity of
provision. You can have English in
one university that is a two year
degree, in another it is three
years. They will not prescribe that
they can look at what has happened
across the system and look at ways
in which we can have that diversity
What are you doing in the education
department, then? The sector has
been in the state of reform since
2010. We know the options. We know
you've looked at them for years. New
stuff happens every year and now you
have to make the choices, you have
to show leadership on theirs.
think you've misunderstood what has
happened. In 2012, a big move, the
student invested a huge amount of
money in their own education. As a
result of that change, the whole
architecture around student finance
had to change and we had to go
through a system...
And now you've
decided that change was the wrong
Can I finish? The architecture.
For example, if students are now
investing their money, someone needs
to be there to make sure they are
getting value for money and that is
why we have a new regulator coming
into force. Those changes were
necessary to reflect those changes.
No one is saying £9,000 is wrong. A
good degree is a good investment.
The point is you're making it very
easy for Labour now and making them
I think you are making it
very easy for Labour.
He is the
point. If you are confident in what
your project was, and if you're
confident because you are in power
for a long time... You've been
unable to tell me anything.
know... We know that if you make
university education free, the
numbers will be capped and therefore
it will be exclusive. Ward
Mandelson, a former Labour minister,
said it would be a bonanza for the
well off. That is the labour offer.
Our offer is we want world-class
universities that are properly
funded, open to the disadvantaged.
You're -- I'm going to invite you
back in 12 months and ask you what
you've decided about. Thank you very
The Icelandic parliament
is considering legislation that
would make male circumcision
illegal, the first country
in Europe to do so.
It would jail any practitioner
of the surgical operation
for up to six years.
Muslims and Jews both practice male
circumcision on newborn babies.
Leaders of both faiths have
condemned the plans as an attack
on religious freedom.
So, is it a violation of the rights
of boys too young to choose?
Or an unnecessary and
alienating cultural ban?
Joining me now is Jonathan Arkush,
who is President of the Board
of Deputies of British Jews,
and Dr Antony Lempert, a GP and
Chair of the Secular Medical Forum,
is in our Birmingham studio.
Dr Antony Lempert, would you,
do you feel uncomfortable
performing these operations?
Certainly, every operation that any
doctor or surgeon performed should
have a valid medical reason and the
absence of one, the person
themselves should be in the position
to give consent to that. Children of
a young age are not yet mature
enough to have the capacity to
consent to this procedure. And every
procedure has risks but particularly
a procedure on the most intimate
part of a child's body should be
something a person chooses for
Let me ask you, you were
brought up in a Jewish home, you
understand the cultural significance
this means to dues and Muslims.
understand it and I realise that
many people... Actually haven't
given it much thought because I was
one of them. Even into adulthood. It
wasn't something you gave much
thought, it was a minor slip that
didn't cause much harm. The reality,
when you look at the evidence is
quite different. This is something
that if you ask many intact men
would you like us to snip of this
bit of body, they'd say, no! This is
one of the most sensitive and
important parts of my body. And,
really, to assume any child is going
to belong to the religion of their
parents and even if they choose that
belief, they are going to want to
have a branding procedure, to be
marked. It is extraordinary.
accept we don't think about that
enough, that people go ahead with
that procedure because it is ritual
and cultural, they don't think?
Jewish father myself
of a son, I absolutely thought about
it, as did my wife, and we had no
doubt whatsoever we wanted our son
brought up in traditional Jewish
religious values and complying with
what we understand to be the divine
commandment in the Torah.
hadn't gone ahead with it, how would
you have felt, your wife and your
son have felt?
I wouldn't have
wanted my son to have grown up with
other Jewish boys, going into the
changing rooms, swimming pool and
being different. I wouldn't have
thanked my parents if, under Antony
Lempert's rule, and 16 I was asked
whether I want the procedure, and
told it is painful and hazardous. I
much rather they did it at eight
days old and I thank them that they
You pulled it branding a
second ago. Identity, that is what
Jonathan is talking about, isn't it?
It is forcing your child to adopt
the identity of its parents choice.
We do it all the time, whether it is
the language we teach them or their
religion whether or not we pierce
their ears, all of these are choices
Any permanent modification
is something that shouldn't be done
by parents. Parents should share
their values with their children but
there are limits to this. Sharing
ideas is one thing but making a
permanent bodily change particularly
to the most intimate part is really
going too far and breaks all the
codes of child safeguarding that I
am involved in. I'd like to say one
It is the
irreversibility, isn't it, that
makes this different thing else, a
child has no chance and no choice.
don't know any Jewish boy who would
ever want to reverse it. We are
proud of the way we look, it is
integral to our core values and our
identity, and I am delighted that my
parents enabled me to have the
procedure, to be part of that
identity and I wouldn't want to have
If Iceland goes ahead and
the parliament bans it, how will you
feel about that?
The most amazing
thing is that Iceland is a liberal
country and is doing something
something extremely liberal. Just
banning something because you don't
approve it. Why don't you ban
smoking which causes real harm,
including two people that don't
I wonder what message the
Icelandic parliament sends out by
I think it sends out a
message of protecting religious
freedom. True religious freedom
means allowing people to choose for
themselves. Jonathan Arkush
articulated it well when he said I
don't know any Jewish boy who... I
do remember his final sentence, that
doesn't like it. He ignores the
people that don't want it because
perhaps they are not Jewish or...
There are a lot of Jewish people
having a peaceful welcome ceremony
into the world without cutting a bit
Is it possible to go
through the understanding and
ceremony without getting surgical?
Not in Jewish religious law. And it
is an attack on religious freedom in
Iceland, not a protection. It is a
straightforward attack and the
Bishop of Reykjavik, and the
catholic bishops of Europe, have
criticised this ban as an
infringement of religious freedom
and they are right to do so.
Gentlemen, thank you very much
indeed. Let's take you through the
front pages of the papers and we
start with the Guardian, which you
heard from Nick talks about that Mad
Max dystopia or rather what David
Davis is promising Brexit will not
be. And then they've got a picture
of Britain's most schnmoozed
councillor. In the Times, the
University strike puts the final
exams in danger. And an Oxfam chief
investigated over the sex claims.
And our interview with the
Chippendales at the top. The Daily
Telegraph, call been urged to
relieve his Stasi file. Theresa May
puts the Labour leader under
pressure to authorise release of
East German records. He is denying
all of that, it goes without saying.
That is all we have time for
We'd like to reflect on the fowl
news that might have troubled
many of you who felt
a bit peckish today.
KFC were forced to close most
of their 900 restaurants
after the firm had its wings clipped
by a shortage of chicken.
The news ruffled more than a few
feathers across country
but there was one group who may have
felt relieved that, for now
at least, they won't be
kicking the bucket.
I promise you I didn't write these.
We leave you with a chick flick made
specially for Newsnight viewers.
MUSIC: "One Day I'll Fly Away"
by Randy Crawford
# One day I'll fly away
# Leave your love to yesterday
# What more can your love do for me?
# When will love
be through with me? #