23/05/2013 Question Time

welcome to Question Time. And good evening to you watching at home.

Good evening to our audience, and to our panel, Conservative Northern

Ireland Secretary, Theresa Villiers, her Labour shadow, Vernon

Coaker, the Democratic Unionist party MP at Westminster, Ian paid is

in, education Minister in Northern Ireland, John O'Dowd of Sinn Fein.

Gay rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, and Maajid Nawaz, former

Islamist radical now runs an How is the UK going to protect

itself from the style of terror attack scene in Woolwich yesterday?

Maajid Nawaz. The sad fact is that we are unable to predict such terror

attacks. We are unable to stop somebody who has already adopted an

ideology of hate from going into their kitchen, as Al-Qaeda has

encouraged them to do for many years now, since their operational command

has been weakened due to the constant onslaught against their

leadership. We are unable to stop somebody going into their kitchen,

pulling out a butcher knife, walking onto the street and attacking random

passers-by. That is the sad state of affairs. In dealing with that

situation, we cannot reasonably expect the security services in this

country, the police, to be able to detect every individual who is

hell-bent on engaging in this sort of action. So what do we do? There

is another option ahead of us. The answer lies in a question which I

would pose to everyone. Do we ever wonder why there are not thousands

of young people joining a line to apply for membership to, or to join

organisations that subscribe to Soviet coming as today? The reason

why they do not, despite the fact that the same frameworks could be

used to interpret foreign-policy grievances today, by viewing them

through the Soviet Communist Stalinist lens, the reason there are

not thousands of young people queueing up to join soggy at coming

as is because it is no longer fashionable, trendy, no longer a

brand. - macro Soviet communism. The way forward is to make the ideology

of Islamism, not the same as Islam, to make it as unfashionable as

commie and as has become. Did you join because you were -- because it

was fashionable? How many years ago? I am 35 now, despite my silver

fox look. At 16, there were two things that I was facing. One was

violent racism on the streets of Essex 's, and I include

institutional racism from Essex police force. Much has changed since

then but this was the days before the Stephen Lawrence enquiry and the

MacPherson enquiry concluded there was institutional racism in English

police forces. The second thing was the Bosnian jump -- genocide. Those

two things came to a head for our generation and it meant that the

trend of our era in the 90s in the UK, if you wanted a form of

resistance ideology, you would join the Islamist ideology. Why would

Afghanistan not provide the same basis that you were attracted by

when you were 16? At the moment, it is. I am trying to say that the way

forward, because it is so difficult to predict these attacks when they

are as amateurish as this, when someone gets a meat cleaver and

attacks somebody on the street, it is so difficult to stop or predict.

The way forward is to stop the recruitment flow. How you do that is

to make the ideology as unfashionable as communism has

become. That requires civil society activism on the grassroots,

challenging the validity and credibility of that ideology,

promoting alternative symbols and leaders, promoting alternative

narratives. The most interesting thing you said was the reason is

that you were attracted, which seemed to be paralleled. And the

summary seems to be that there is not very much that you can do about

individual acts like this. Do you agree with that? Or is there

something government can do? There is action that government can take

and is taking to combat terrorism in all its forms. It is sad that we are

discussing this issue in a place that has suffered so much at the

hands of terrorists and has worked so hard to move on from that, but

where still police officers and prison officers and members of the

military face a daily risk from domestic terrorism. But we have a

multistranded approach to combating the evil people responsible for

terrorism. We need to give all the support we possibly can to police

and security services in stopping these attacks in their tracks. We

need to be utterly vigilant in bringing to justice those

responsible, and we also need to combat the poisonous narrative of

hate that these terrorists feed off. To demonstrate that our arguments

are the strong ones, that we are a vibrant, forward-looking, inclusive

democracy and we will not be deterred by these kind of attacks.

It only serves to unite us in our condemnation of the horrific scenes

we saw on the streets of Woolwich. Would you like to see the powers

that allegedly the Liberal Democrats prevented you imposing to snoop on

Facebook restored as a result of this? There is ongoing debate about

this draft red -- legislation. Presumably it will be speeded up

because of this. We will continue to talk to our coalition partners. It

is difficult to get the balance but -- between protecting our security

and protecting our Civil Liberties. So you are not arguing for what I

thought the Tory party of the coalition was arguing for, the

ability to tap into Facebook? You are saying you do not want that?

am very supportive of that. It would help in commenting terrorism, but we

have to the issue right. John O'Dowd, our British soldiers

legitimate targets? First, mice and that these to the family of the

young man who lost his life yesterday in a terrible incident. --

my sympathies to the family. I certainly do not want to see death

on the streets of London any more than on the streets of Afghanistan

or Iraq. There is no justification for what happened in my opinion. But

I am also conscious that there are four suspects currently in custody.

If they are charged, they will have two face a jury trial and we should

be very careful about what we say about whether these people, or

others, may have been connected to an organisation, whether this was

terrorist related, or whatever the motivations were. From the Irish

experience we have to learn to allow the police to do their job, away

from media agendas, political agendas, or any other agenda. Allow

the police to do their job and justice to prevail in these

circumstances. That is how you combat many of the issues which you

referred to. Where people believe there is a system in place which

will lay and deal with their fears, ensure that they are treated as

equal citizens going forward, that will attract people from joining

these organisations. This term of radicalisation, I am always

conscious that we refer to members of the Muslim community as

radicalised. We never hear of Christians being radicalised.

sitting in Belfast, where over 600 British soldiers were killed in

Northern Ireland, some on the mainland and some here. Do you

think, as an act of the people who oppose what the British government

is doing in Afghanistan, the killing of a British soldier on the streets

of Woolwich is justified, in the way that Sinn Fein justify the killing

of people here in Northern Ireland? Sinn Fein did not justify the

killing of people here. There was a conflict which raged and Sinn Fein

was involved in bringing to an end. We brought a conflict to an end

because we entered a peace process. The answer is that I do not believe

it was justified. I do not believe the death of that young man was

justified. Lee Rigby was a father with a two-year-old son and he was

brutally and hellishly murdered in front of the pool on the streets of

Woolwich. It must be condemned, and I am glad there has been no

equivocation in the condemnation of his brutal and evil murderer. I am

glad we are discussing this in Belfast to Mike, because we see the

parallel. 25 years ago, a short way from here, we would have seen the

murder of two soldiers, dragged from their car by Republicans and

butchered in front of people. I am glad those days are over here, and

there are things we have to learn. Between 2005 and 2013, the number of

terrorist murders in Northern Ireland stands at six people. The

number of terrorist murders on the mainland presently stands, during

the same period of time, at 57 people, and 700 murdered. Ten years

ago I would not have believed I could have said that statistic, but

it is turned on its head. That is a wake-up call that we have moved on

in Northern Ireland, and we have two ensure we learn from our experience

and pass it to the rest of the citizens of the UK. Three things we

should do. Respect for the rule of law. We have to have leadership to

say it at every given opportunity. We have to get people within the

community that have been radicalised to say it and to show that they have

turned from it. And we have to give up people within these communities

who have been radicalised and bring them to justice. You talk about

making the argument, very good arguments. If I am a young

Palestinian or Saudi, I hear these ideas. I am walking down my street

and it hit her plastic lid and I think, who is paying for those

bullets, who is paying for that soldier? Saudi Arabia is backed by

the West. It is contradictory if I am in the Middle East looking for

democracy and my masters are dictated by those in the West. Do

you not find your argument contradictory? I do not think it is

contradictory to say that all of us condemned terrorism wherever it

occurs and there can be no justification for it on the streets

of our country. That is what the Muslim Council written very quickly

came out and condemned it. In this country, in our democracy, if you

want to change things, there is a way of doing it. You can

legitimately protest and try to bring about change. I do not think

there is anyone at all in our country who would see what happened

on the streets of London yesterday, or has been seen sometimes

throughout Northern Ireland, and turn around and say in any way

anything that happens anywhere can possibly justify that. We have to

stand up and say it is wrong and we will condemn it. That is the first

thing you do with any of these outrages and that is all people

throughout Northern Ireland and the UK will thank you as well. You said

the Muslim Council of Britain condemned the attack. Why did they

have to do that? That one person who did that act, it was horrific and I

think we can all agree on that, that one person does not represent all

Muslims. In the same way, when the tragedy happened in Norway a few

years ago, all white people did not have to apologise for what that

white person had done. So the Muslim Council should have stayed silent?

am saying it is not as simple as people are making it out to be.

think we have a big problem with Islamism. Not Islam the religion,

but political Islam. People who have turned their hardline interpretation

of Islam into a political movement which seeks to have state power and

has suppressed democracy and human rights around the world. Globally,

the main victims of Islamism are Muslim people. In Pakistan, Iraq,

Afghanistan and elsewhere, the number one victim of Islamism is

fellow Muslims. In terms of the government was my response, I do not

think the government response is anywhere near adequate. I think the

government pays lip service but in reality it does very little to

counter the ideas. I think in a democracy, countering the ideas is

the way we will defeat Islamism. Right now we have in our

universities many different Islamist style organisations who openly

recruit, who hold public meetings on university campuses, where they

advise and encourage anti-Semitism, the killing of women who have sex

outside of marriage, attacks on gay people. There are people who are

hosted by universities. Some universities host gender segregation

where women are forced to sit separately from men at these

meetings. You think the chancellors at the University should just ban

them? They should not tolerate gender segregation and those who

advocate violence should be prohibitive. But those who do not

advocate violence, I think they need to be challenged. The ideas need to

be challenged. The government needs to fund and empower people within

the Muslim community who are standing up against these extremists

but who are not getting sufficient support. I did a proposal recently

to counter extremism, and the way in which anti-Semitism, homophobia and

misogyny are the gateway to extremism. That is how it begins.

These people do not do this overnight. They start by imbibing

offensive hostile views towards Jewish people, gay people, women,

and towards fellow Muslims who do not share their hardline

interpretation. And if we challenge that kind of ideology at the

grassroots, we will stop them progressing to the next stage, which

is to condone the horrific events we have seen many parts of the world.

Maajid, is that an interpretation you accept? Word for word. 100%. We

were involved in the same proposal. But the role of universities being

wimpish about clamping down on these things, is that true? I don't think

it about being wimpish. There's a level of ignorance out there.

Really? No, about what the difference is between

multiculturalism and respecting different cultures and Islamism and

the role of Islam. Just to pick up on a point made about the West and

the United Kingdom supporting other nations. I don't think this is the

time for anybody to be trying to score any political points, because

this was an absolutely horrific act that happened and was perpetrated by

two deranged loners. Can I just say, the cub scout leader who stood up to

this man is an inspiration. The best way that we should not doubt our own

democracy and rule of law, because then we are playing into the hands

of the people that seek to do us harm.

APPLAUSE I think at times such as this you

should always be in a position to question democracy and the rule of

law. You should never deny you have that regard. Regardless of whatever

action anybody else takes, you should challenge yourself and

challenge that your democracy and rule of law is fit for purpose. With

regards to tackling extremism, of whatever grade, I would be concerned

if we talked about banning meetings, but you should challenge those

behind those meetings and force them to explain their ideology against

yours. I wasn't saying meetings should be banned but I don't think

on University campuses they should be able to have meetings... It is

about applying that existing policy. One of the guys speaking to the

camera mention mentioned one of his motivations been the troops in

Afghanistan, and you mention mentioned radicalise radicalisation

by Bosnian. It is inevitable if the West continues to pursue an

aggressive policy? APPLAUSE

I believe very strongly that there is nothing in UK foreign policy that

could possibly justify or excuse this horrific act. He wasn't is

saying that. He was saying radicalisation will happen if you

have Government policies that a group of people strongly oppose, and

is that inevitable? No, I'm much more optimistic than some of the

audience are on this. I think it is possible to persuade people that

Islam Islamism of an extreme form is destructive and should be abandoned.

There are a range of UK Government programmes that we are undertaking.

The crucial thing is to engage with the Muslim community in our efforts

to reradicalise the small number of individuals who espouse these brutal

and vile things. Fundamentally disagree with this chap's point. I

will tell you why, because if you are right we have the rule of

jungle, not the rule of law. We have to get back to the rule of law. This

country has free speech. We demonstrated in response to that

crime, the police officers. In the United States those guys would have

been not only shot but shot dead. I look forward to them being brought

to the courts, held responsible for their crime and punished for their

crime. That will be the biggest lesson for the perpetrators of the

crime. In relation to this murder in Woolwich yesterday, there are a lot

of eloquent expressions are coming across here tonight. Indeed Boris

Johnson has said his rousing rhetoric on the matter, quite well

in fairness, however, the security forces were allegedly aware of these

perpetrators. They were on the radar, to use the quote. Surely the

Government and the police were caught on the hop, and unfortunately

they are going to be caught on the hop again. Vernon Coaker? Clearly

whenever anything happens the police and the intelligence services look

at what's happened, how it has happened and what they need to do to

try to prevent it happening again. You are right to raise that, but at

the present time we must not do anything that impedes to work of the

police and intelligence services trying to see what went on and see

what they need to do in the future. I think at the heart of your

question is the, it goes back to earlier questions, we need to

understand what it is that leads one or two individuals to turn from

hearing radical preachers preaching things that we ourselves would

fundamentally disagree with, what moves one or two individuals to move

from that to do the wicked and terrible acts that we saw on our

streets yesterday. That's the challenge for the police and the

intelligence services. Let me add one other thing. When you say that,

Northern Ireland saw exactly that didn't it? A massive collision of

political ambitions and aim which is led to violence for many years. You

can't be that surprised. You don't have to ask questions about it, it

is here in this part of the United Kingdom, you can find out about it.

What I was saying in this instance the intelligence service, what they

need to try and understand is how some people move from attending

radical mosques and hearing radical preachers and one or two moved from

that and stay within the ambit of the intelligence service and moving

to that violence. Let me add one important that is really important.

Of course it is a policing and intelligence service response, but

it is also the work that goes on in the different communities. Working

with different organisations, with communities, with individuals, with

schools, with the universities, to work with them to try and have a

better understanding of what's happening. That's been shown true in

Northern Ireland and it will be shown true in the whole of the UK in

dealing with this threat. I think we should go on. We've only one woman

on the panel and we will go on to another question. I would like to

contradict John O'Dowd. If you look on the websites people are very

angry indeed. It only takes build-up of that anger to explode intoed a

calisation of anybody. Potentially it is there, if attacks continue on

the country. The reason I raised that. The difficulty is this, you

are only dealing with one part of the equation, with the radicalised

Muslims. Their attacks in England last night taking place by far right

groups who are largely Christian, if not all Christian, but largely

white. Who radicalised the man who stabbed the 75-year-old man in

Birmingham last week, a 75-year-old man. If you don't deal with the

entire equation you are not going to answer the question. I'm not sitting

here condemning Christians or HMS, but in each element of our society

there are people on the extreme side of it. You need to deal with them

all or you lose the entire situation.

APPLAUSE Another question. Before we do, you

can join in the debate tonight by If you are listening on BBC Five

Live tonight, welcome. The debate will carry on when we have finished

here. Another question. This one is from Alan Scott.

Is Parliament taking steps to introduce same sex marriage, is it

time for the Northern Ireland Assembly to follow suit?

APPLAUSE It seems to be not quite so popular

in the Parliament here as in the Parliament, well it is not the

Parliament here, the Assembly here. Ian Paisley, you had better kick off

on this. Why ever should I? Look, I'm unapologetic on this, I take a

very traditional view on marriage. I know it is very unpopular nowadays

and I will be accused of being a dinosaur and being behind history

and the rest of it. But I believe marriage is fundamentally about

children. It is about creating children, who in turn create society

and create family and society and create stability in that way. That's

my interpretation that I have of it. I know I will be vilified now for

having that view. No doubt I will be accused of being homophobic and

close to be racist and everything that is nasty and bad in the world,

because it is a traditional Christian view. The reason

Christians are vilified about this view is because we are to be be

scared off from expressing that point of view. But I will express it

proudly and honestly. It is how frankly the majority of my

constituents feel. Over the last year-and-a-half I received a postbag

on this issue, especially whenever the Prime Minister turned from his

position of not having this in his manifesto to suddenly making it a

primary party policy for the Parliament. I received some 3,000

individual contacts from constituents saying to me, you must

stand up against this. I received five letters of opposition to it. I

must say, that is only a vox pop in my own constituency, I believe I'm

in tune with the people who sent me to Parliament to say to Government,

think again about. This it is divisive. It has divided your own

Parliament, your own party. Indeed I walked through the lobby with more

Conservatives than Theresa was able to walk through the lobby with on

this point. It is ripping people apart. We've seen in the last

election that the UKIP made significant inroads and chalked up

this divisive policy on that road. I'm not opposed to homosexuals. I

believe that homosexuals have... You Sarah Palin pretty repulsed -- you

say you are pretty repulsed. ALL TALK AT ONC I would never

bulldoze David. In that case let me give you this quote, I am pretty

repulsed by gay and lesbianism, I think it is wrong. You can't then

say you are not against. I was talking about the actions, not the

specific individuals. I'm repulsed on occasion by other individuals as

well who are not homosexuals. Immoral and obnoxious, you say. You

do stand by that? APPLAUSE

I'm entitled to those views and indeed I will be challenged by them

and accused of have having opposition You said you weren't

against gay relationships and now it seems that you are probably. Are

said I'm not against individuals. Parliament has now put this forward.

It goes to the next session of Parliament with regards to the House

of Lords. It will be interesting to see what comes back to us.

Parliament is incredibly divided by it. We've got to recognise that it

wasn't in any manifesto. There was no significant mandate and I can't

for the life of me understand why this Government has decided to

champion it at this particular time. No doubt it is an unpopular point of

view. APPLAUSE

Not entirely. Peter Tatchell? think the British people have spoken

very clearly. All the opinion poles show that 71% of the British people

believe that gay couples should have the right to marry in civil

ceremonies and Register Offices. In total, 58% of religious people also

agreed that gay people should be able to get married if they wish. Of

people intending to vote Conservative at the next election,

57% of would-be Conservative voters support equal marriage too. I think

you would be hard pressed to find any issue in British public life

where so many people were in favour. Your point, I'm sorry and sad that

you've got these intolerant views but that's your right. Thank you.

But in a democracy we are all supposed to be equal before the law.

I object to the fact that you want to impose your particular religious

faith and interpretation of religious faith on the rest of us.

No I don't. Using the law of the land. You are saying that because

you believe homosexuality is wrong, or obnoxious and repulsive you want

to impose it on the rest of us. you can get married tomorrow, Peter,

but not to a man. I think most people will see through that, but

anyway. The point is, in a democratic society we should all be

equal before the law. That includes the right of heterosexual coups to

have a civil partnership. I supported the moves to open up civil

partnerships to heterosexual couples and I'm sad and disappointed that

the Government, which claims it is legislating equality for gay people

in law won't have civil partnerships for straight people. That isn't

consistent. When you talk about marriage, the main thing about

marriage being the creation of children, that is a slap in the face

to any couple who choose not to have children, or who cannot have

children. You are shaking your head, but it is. Do you want me to answer?

When you are talking about the issue of equal marriage that was tearing

apart parties, the real thing that tears people apart is when our

politicians are getting on a public platform and telling young lesbian,

gay, bisexual and transsexual people that being gay is obnoxious and

repulsive and disgusting. I feel sorry for you that you have those

views. You have made your point. I want to come back to the Northern

Irish issue and the element in it, with John O'Dowd. What is going on

in the assembly? Parliament in Westminster has not yet passed, and

it has to go to the House of Lords, but what is going on here and how

can Northern Ireland stop something that happens in Manchester? If you

go there and get married, and come back here, will you be told you are

not married? My party brought forward recently about to the

assembly calling for equal marriage which was defeated on the basis that

the system here can work on the toes. D U P used their veto. I think

that was the wrong to do. I fully support the right for a loving

couple to have -- to get married. Ian concentrates on the sexual act

and this sort of thing. Concentrate on the fact that there is a couple

in love. Concentrate on the fact that there is a couple in love who

want to come together under that marriage ban now. I think we should

be supporting them in doing that. I respect his point of view. I am not

going to label him with anything, but I would say to him that he is

standing in the way of the wishes of the vast majority of people. I get

mail bags of letters to, from both sides of the argument. I get mail

bags from people concerned about it for a variety of reasons and

supportive for a variety of reasons, but if there are two people in love,

we should allow them to get married if they so wish. Here here. When I

was 15, growing up in Essex, as I have mentioned before, if somebody

had said the president of America would be black, the most lithic

rapper would be white -- prolific rapper, and the Conservative Prime

Minister would legalise gay marriage, I would have laughed. That

tells us, Ian Paisley Jr, that you are yesterday's news, basically.

Because the president of America is black and one of the most prolific

rappers is white. The world has turned upside down, whether you like

it or not, and the Conservative minister has forced through gay

marriage equality. And what you just said almost sounded like, I am not

racist, Mark -- my best friend is black, but... You have the right to

your opinion but it is the equivalent of me, as I used to say,

sitting here promoting bigotry, homophobia, anti-Semitism, wanting

to kill women because they had sex before marriage and saying, these

are my opinions and I want to lobby to bring them about. The fact is

that they are bigoted opinions. You did not want to say it, but I will.

They are bigoted opinions and they need to be challenged. You have the

right to speak, but I have a right to challenge those views.

Absolutely, and I accept your position. And what you said to Peter

was below the belt. Frankly, you have the right to those opinions but

do not have the right to stop somebody else expressing themselves

in their own way, so long as they are not harming you, not entering

your bedroom and forcing you to sleep with a man. Do not force them

to sleep with a woman. Is there anybody here who would side with Ian

Paisley's view? Because we do not want a 1-sided argument. I do not

have hate in my heart. I do not have anger or vilification in my heart. I

do not have anything against anyone else. But throughout centuries, the

traditional understanding of marriage has intrinsically and

inherently being between a man and a woman. That is how I understand it.

I do not hate anyone, gay, black man was limp. I am not angry, but I

think you have two understand, and I speak on the half of millions of

people, that we understand traditional marriage as between a

man and a woman. And to redefine something so fundamental is

tantamount to trying to redefine dogs so that it includes cats. Do

not have a go at me because I am not angry against anyone. I am standing

up for what I believe is the traditional way of marriage.

Conservative party would once have taken exactly that view. I am a

former sliver lied to loony, for the record. -- swivel eyed loony.

supporter of marriage as an institution. I think it keeps

couples together and supports families, and I simply did not think

I could justify denying access to that institution merely on the

ground of someone's sexuality. I was very struck when I was in Derry

Londonderry a few weeks ago, where there was a lecturer and Sir Ian

McKellen gave the lecture. He pointed out how over the last 30

years, bit by bit, the legal discrimination against the gay

community has been dismantled, but there is this last bastions that had

yet to be dismantled, and that was the law on marriage. It is a

difficult issue and I respect people's views. It is vital that no

religion, no faith is compelled to conduct same-sex marriage, but it is

a vital step forward in removing any stigma that could be attached to gay

relationships, and it sends a strong signal to young people who may be

grappling with their sexuality, who may be confused, seeking acceptance

that it is OK to express themselves in whatever way they want to. It was

a good day's work when the House of Commons voted for this. We were once

told Northern Ireland was as British as Finchley, but Northern Ireland is

being left out of this same-sex marriage bill. Either we have the

same rights and liberties as people in Finchley, or not. We are British,

or we are not. What is the position, that the assembly will not vote, or

it has voted? Maria Miller made a statement in the house. She made it

when questioned about Northern Ireland, that a marriage in

England, a same-sex marriage in England, when those people if they

were to move to Northern Ireland it would be recognised only as a civil

partnership. What is the difference anyway? We were told it was a matter

of words. Campaigners are campaigning for the right to be

married. No one is talking about imposing this on any of the

churches. Hold on. If you are married as a gay couple, married in

England and you come to Northern Ireland, and suddenly it is a civil

partnership and not a marriage, in what sense is it different? What

does it mean? It is in relation to inheritance. Inheritance is there in

a civil partnership. It is tax breaks. I don't think anybody knows

this. You need to ask Maria Miller because it is Conservative party

policy, introduced on Monday night. I think people should be able to

choose. If same-sex marriage is available to couples in England and

Wales and Scotland, it should be available to people in Northern

Ireland. What I would say to the Northern Ireland executive is to

think again and actually allow that to happen. This is about love, about

equality before the law. People in Northern Ireland should have the

same rights as everybody else across the rest of the UK and that is what

I want to see happen. You are saying it is about love and equality, but

how can you have something that is defined as a same-sex marriage? How

do you define that when the definition of it does not add up. It

is not equal. Ian Paisley Jr actually made a point that you have

a male and a female. Mail and mail is not equal to male and female.

That does not add up. You are talking about love. You can commit

adultery with a woman because you love her but it does not make it

right. When you boil it all down to this, it becomes a moral issue. And

you are talking about what churches say, or what they should do. A

problem with the churches, and it is interesting that when you read in

the Bill, some of the legislation about how churches should deal with

this, part of the problem is that you are not going to get churches to

step into some wing where their creed, their doctrine says clearly

that that is not what you do. When you talk about equality, you cannot

have equality simply because of the definition of same-sex marriage

compared with heterosexual marriage. Can I remind everybody that the main

marriage law in this country, the 1949 marriage act does not stipulate

that marriage partners have to be male and female. The ban on same-sex

marriage was only introduced in this country in 1971. Until that time

there was no legal impediment to people of the same-sex getting

married. So this discrimination is relatively recent. Marriage has

evolved. Centuries ago it used to involve child brides and polygamy.

Until recently, rape was legal in marriage, a man could rape his

wife. Marriage has evolved and this is part of the revolution. My final

point to Ian is this. Are you telling me that you have looked your

own do you gay members in the face, members who are in same-sex

relationships, and you have told them you would not countenance them

having equal rights? Have you told them that? I have told them I

believe there is equality but the law should be like this. They are

entitled to disagree with me. That is the beauty of this democracy. If

I am wrong on this issue, Parliament will vote that way. If I am right,

it is my conscience that I have to answer for. When did you say

same-sex marriages were taking place, until when? They were not

taking place but there was no legal impediment until 1971. Why did

nobody take advantage of it? They tried, and that is why the law was

introduced. They tried.Not many, but there were a few cases.

cannot use tradition as a sole justification for anything. Slavery

was a tradition for many thousands of years. We have moved aeons that.

Second of all, I would like to ask Ian Paisley, what aspect of allowing

gay people to get married and enjoy the same legal privileges as anyone

else who wants to get married, what aspect of that prevents you or

anyone else practising traditional marriage? This is the vilification.

If you have this point of view, you can be scared from making it. I am

for the interpretation of traditional marriage between a man

and a woman. That is what I believe and that is what I think marriage

should be. If you want to call your same-sex relationship something

else, that is fine, but do not call it marriage, because that is not

what it is. Invent a new word for it. Call it what you want, but do

not call it marriage, something that it is not. It is not a marriage of a

man and a woman. The question was that you feel threatened as a

married person. What aspect of allowing other people to get married

prevents you or anyone else practising marriage in the

traditional sense. I do not feel threatened. Do I look like a guy

under threat, mate? A little bit, yes.

I think the position that is taken by Ian Paisley and other Unionist

politicians on this is hypocritical. We see it in relation to gay

marriage and other things, like abortion legislation. They go on

about how much they value British citizenship and Northern Ireland's

place in the union right up to the point where that clashes with their

personal prejudice, up to the point where somebody tries to exercise a

right that is available across the water, and then the mask slip 's,

and you see that they are British went it suits them and they are

Ulstermen when it does not. subtext of those opposed to same sex

marriage is they don't belief gay people are fit and worthy, and that

is pro foundly and deeply offensive. APPLAUSE

We move on. A question from Aubrey Calderwood, please. Is the Republic

of Ireland a safe haven for international corporate tax

avoidance? John O'Dowd? Listening to the events happening in the Senate

and information coming forward on Europe, it is up to the Irish

Government to answer that question. If Apple is right they have a

special arrangement with the Irish Government to pay 2% corporation

tax, that's scandalous. The ordinary citizens in the republic are under

severe pressure from austerity cuts which mean that many, many people,

their lifestyles are crumbling before them. They are losing their

homes, all their worldly possessions and hope, which is the most

devastating impact of this. I think the Irish Government have a lot of

questions to ask in relation to this. But there is a question for

the international community, the European Commission and hopefully

the G8 when they come to these shore. If corporation corporations

can set up ghost companies to funnel through billions of doll, a I think

they were alleging that $30 billion went through one of those companies

in the Republic, that's disgraceful. You want Northern Ireland to become

a tax haven? No, we want corporation tax here at the same rate. The

corporation tax in the south is 12%. Apple are alleging they have a

special arrangement with the Irish Government of 2%. Some are

suggesting zero. 5%. That is not the arrangement. We can't corporations

paying a fair share of tax, the tax which is set through legislation.

You want a lower tax rate than the rest of the United Kingdom, correct?

I want to set up an economy here separate to the United Kingdom.

could unite with Dublin and therefore keep... No It is unfair

to... Ordinary citizens in the south of Ireland are being nailed over

tax. They are losing their homes had, losing their worldly

possessions, and the worst thing they are losing is hope for the

future. Multinational corporations are using it as a base to funnel

through billions of pounds and dollars, whatever currency they are

operating in. And that is not right, it is not proper and it should be

brought to an end. Theresa Villiers? I don't think the problem is the

rate of corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland. The problem is

how big business is gaming the system to aggressively avoid paying

their fair share of taxes. The UK Government is committed to a

competitive tax system. We are reducing corporation tax but we want

to make sure that big business actually pay their fair share.

That's why David Cameron is putting it firmly and squarely on the agenda

for the G8. That is the only way we will deal with this problem, if we

act internationally together to crack down on this aggressive

avoidance. And change the law? They are only obeying the law aren't

they? Google say you make the rules and we obey them and if we can get

away with this amount of tax, so be it. If we do it unilaterally it is

going to be much more effective to do it internationally. It is very

difficult to deal it with the problem completely on a unilateral

basis. You would first of all try to do it internationally. I think any

Government worth its salt seeing the way big corporations are

aggressively avoiding paying their fair share, any Government should

say we are not having that. It is not fair. Companies are making

billions of pounds of profit in the UK and rerouting that into other

countries. In my own constituency and throughout the land you see

sometimes people pursued by HMRC for a few pounds. They are threatened

with court, threatened with action. And we see big corporations actling

according to a completely different set moral code. I think people think

it is unacceptable. They want something done about it. What we

should see at the G8 and at the European level is action at an

international level to say to companies, enough is enough, you pay

the fair share of tax, stop trying to avoid it, and I think if we did

that, people would accept it. But let me say this, if the G8 or others

can't do it, the Government should take action on their own. I said

David Cameron but it was Ed Miliband who would take action. What action

could they take against Google who are acting in Dublin? It is hot air

isn't it? I make this prediction. With him to go to Google and say

what you've done is wrong and to say the UK Government will look at what

rules they will introduce, the I make this prediction, you will see

lots of big companies paying tax. The morality will affect them.

Customers will tell them and we should see that done as soon as

possible. I think that's what people think across the board with that.

APPLAUSE Peter Tatchell? What we are talking

about is a global problem. The tax justice network estimates that

between 21 and 32 trillion US dollars hidden in tax havens. 21 to

32 trillion US dollar as hidden in US tax haven which is Governments

have allowed corporations and individuals to use and exploit.

Christian Aid did a report which suggested that every year a minimum

of 160 billion is lost in pricing transfer trickery and falsified

accounts. In those two mechanisms $160 billion US lost in tax revenue

worldwide. We do need Government action at an international level.

And I don't see it from the G8, the G20, the IMF and World Bank. I don't

see them taking the initiative. We need those big institutions to take

a stand and not to constantly be blackmailed by big business. That's

what big business does. Big business says, if you don't give us what we

want, we'll close down the plant and move abroad. That's a form of

economic blackmail. These people are damaging this country and every

country. We need to call them out. If they truly love this country or

every country in which they reside, they should pay their fair share

ofta. It is in their own self interest, because the the world

economy goes bottom up they will lose much more. Because they are not

paying enough tax? This should and would, they should pay tax, but why

should they if they are not forced to? They can't all lose customers.

I'm saying politicians have got to force them. Google is right.

Dublin will be saying we can get all this business here. What Dublin said

and what we are arguing is there should be a 12% corporation tax.

There is a special arrangement between the Dublin Government and

major corporations to pay less. That's totally unjust and unfair.

What we are hearing is cloud-cuckoo economics. These companies whether

we like it or not are obeying the law. They are residing and they are

getting tax advice, the best place to reside your business in this

instance is the Republic of Ireland. If the tax regime is change there

had to attack them they will move to Hong Kong, where it is 10%, or to

Canada where it is something else else. We do need an international

agreement where people will obey the law. Us in Northern Ireland and us

the United Kingdom, is reduce the corporation tax to below Northern

Ireland, 10%, and your take-up of tax will increase and we'll have

more money to spend and the British public. This is something which your

Government failed to do and which the current Government is failing to

do. What was the rate you want, 10%? I would like it to be 10%. Is that

fair for the rest of the UK? No, for the whole of the UK. Maajid? I think

we've got Google, Amazon, Apple and Starbucks, these are big American

companies. The we just wonder who pays taxes and who doesn't. When

you've got these companies that are acting within the law, then what

needs to happen, as Nick Clegg said toer Mick Schmidt and as Ed Miliband

said, if the law was change changed they would change because it doesn't

make sense. The tax laws as they stand are antiquated and out of

date. They must be reformed. That must be could with efforts

internationally. If we reduce corporation tax rates in the UK on

the assumption that we are not competitive and we are judging

competitiveness with only the economic value that comes from it,

what we are doing is underestimating what the United Kingdom provides to

the market. Companies may want to move to Hong Kong but I don't Hong

Kong has the level of people pro efficient in the English language

that the United Kingdom has. And the many other skills of the European

Union and the history of the United Kingdom are assets this country has

beyond the corporation tax rate. APPLAUSE

I take the point about it being an international issue but at the same

time the UK Government needs to be asking questions of institutions it

has control over. We bailed out banks in London and the UK

Government has to ask whether we bailed them out just to help large

companies avoid tax. OK.Surely the reason why there is no scandal of

the tax avoidance in Northern Ireland is because we don't have a

lot of big business. Surely that's the real scandal. The fact that we

just have this dearth of industry that's left us below the UK. That's

why we need the tax rate to get the businesses in here. And you, Sir.

is interesting you mentioned corporation tax being 12%. These

instances of Google and Apple are special deals that people wouldn't

know about. It is interesting Eric Schmidt's response to Ed Miliband,

and it was supposed to be less than 1% was the accusation. He said we do

want to pay tax but you have to draw the line somewhere or it could be

three or four times amount. Even at four times amount of less than 1%

could be only 3%. It is one tenth of what the standard sort of tax that a

normal working person would pay. They need to get a reality check,

Schmidt and Tim Cook. I agree with much of what you just said. The key

thing is people just didn't know how much of this was going on. I

honestly think one of the biggest things we can do is make this much

more transparent so people can see what's going on with the companies

and the big corporations, in terms of the amount they are getting in

profit and the amount they are paying in tax and how they are

arriving at that amount. I think people have been genuinely shock

shocked by... At what the Labour Government failed to spot? No. If

you look at it the last Labour Government introduced a number of

things about transparency. What I'm saying is if we shine a light on

this practice I think you will get the big corporations to change. It

is millennium moral. I want to hear from frank Allen. When will the

recession end and get us back to the good old days? I wanted to ask you

what the good old days were? Your view? In my day it was always good.

That's worth going back to. We have to stop there. We are going to be in

London next week. We have Alan Johnston for Labour, Diane James for

UKIP and Julian Fellowes, the creator of Downton Abbey on the

panel. The week that have we'll be in Blackburn. If you would like to

be in Blackburn in a fortnight or be in Blackburn in a fortnight or

London next week go via our website. That's the easiest way. If you have

been listening on 5Live you can continue the debate. It is presented

by Steven Nolan and John Pienaar. LAUGHTER Why? It is the Nolan they

are laughing at. He is called Steve Nolan. He can't help it. I don't

think that's what he is known for. He's big over here. He is certainly

big! APPLAUSE

Big over there too. And he is on 5Live tonight. And you will be on