19/02/2018 Newsnight

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.

Also tonight...

Does exploitation cut both ways?

I'll ask the Chippendales if they

feel objectified for their looks.

Do you enjoy the touching?

I do

enjoy the touching but it is mostly

because... It isn't so much the

touching itself, people are having

fun.

And as Iceland proposes a ban

on male circumcision,

we'll ask whether the practice

is a violation or a religious right?

Good evening.

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.

Will he?

Having mulled it over at his Florida

country club this weekend, President

Trump is ready to shift ground on

gun control.

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.

It's a

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.

Given his

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

second Amendment.

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

captive politicians.

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

of this.

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

gun owners.

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

restrictions.

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

them?

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

in America.

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

Americans.

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

believe that...

The solution is more

guns? More arming, more students? Is

that honestly how you see it?

The

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.

Quds

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.

I'm sorry?

He

did try to introduce measures, that

is the difference between them,

isn't it?

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

hunting rifles.

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

legislators?

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

as well.

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

Guardian.

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

Brexiteers?

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

city minister.

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,

the Chippendales.

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?

MUSIC PLAYS

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

Chippendales before?

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,

encompassing around

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

between appropriate

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

too long

so everyone gets the maximum

Chippendales experience.

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

empowered, then,

or it doesn't make you

feel belittled?

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

sexual favours,

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

symbiotic relationship.

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.

Should it

be more or fewer, what do you think?

We also have world-class

universities, four in the top ten,

so these reviews have actually

brought...

So should it be more now

or fewer, is the number about right,

the number going to university?

We

are not capping aspiration, we want

anyone who is capable going to

university.

Does that mean more

people?

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

your sense?

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

apprenticeships

and the Secretary of

State was

apprenticeships

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?

There

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.

But

you here to tell us something, you

are presumably backing your boss.

If

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.

You

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?

I

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?

How do

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

boss, right?

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.

Would

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

of choice.

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.

I

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

one.

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

happy...

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.

We

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

You're -- I'm going to invite you

back in 12 months and ask you what

you've decided about. Thank you very

much.

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

themselves.

Let me ask you, you were

brought up in a Jewish home, you

understand the cultural significance

this means to dues and Muslims.

I do

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.

Do you

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?

As a

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.

If you

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

did it.

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

we make.

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

more thing...

It is the

irreversibility, isn't it, that

makes this different thing else, a

child has no chance and no choice.

I

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

to choose.

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

smoke?

I wonder what message the

Icelandic parliament sends out by

doing this?

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

of body.

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

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

tonight.

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.

Goodnight.

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? #