:00:12. > :00:18.MPs say the Human Rights Act is stopping us deporting foreign
:00:18. > :00:23.criminals. Is that a mark of a civilised society or is it the nine
:00:23. > :00:33.victims justice? Do immigrant criminals deserve human rights? --
:00:33. > :00:44.
:00:44. > :00:49.Good morning. Welcome to a new series of Sunday Morning Live,
:00:49. > :00:54.where you debate the big issues of the day. MPs say foreign criminals
:00:55. > :01:00.here get more protection than innocent Britons. After 60 years of
:01:00. > :01:07.the refugee Convention, one man has had enough. Immigrant criminals
:01:07. > :01:17.should not have human rights. Galliano is on trial for insulting
:01:17. > :01:23.a woman who was Jewish. Should he face their law for saying it? And
:01:23. > :01:31.more Muslim and Christian women are rejecting skimpy dressing. Are they
:01:31. > :01:41.on to something? Nick Ferrari is a radio tabloid editor and a shock
:01:41. > :01:44.
:01:44. > :01:52.jock. Kishwar Desai won the novel Booker Prize. Was she incensed by
:01:52. > :01:58.one of today's debates? And Richard D North, long a thorn in the side
:01:58. > :02:03.of opinion. He has talked about getting rid of the BBC. Not before
:02:03. > :02:13.the end of this programme! You can join in it using all of these
:02:13. > :02:25.
:02:25. > :02:30.This week's big issue is the Human Rights Act. It is meant to shield
:02:30. > :02:35.the vulnerable, but some MPs say it is protecting foreign criminals. It
:02:35. > :02:38.also happens to be refugee Week, celebrating those fleeing
:02:38. > :02:43.oppression and the laws which help protect them. But Nick Ferrari says
:02:43. > :02:48.we have got the balance wrong. Here's his Sunday stand from a
:02:48. > :02:53.rainy London. Immigrants who commit crimes do not deserve human rights.
:02:53. > :02:56.We should be able to deport them. At the moment, if an illegal
:02:56. > :02:59.immigrant killed or daughter, they would go to jail, but when we tried
:02:59. > :03:03.to deport them, we would not be able to it because they would argue
:03:03. > :03:10.they have a right to a family life here, had a right they denied their
:03:10. > :03:16.victim. I am not against immigration, as my last name
:03:16. > :03:21.suggests. My grandfather came to this country, from the Italian part
:03:21. > :03:28.of Switzerland. But why can't we send a torture were back to his
:03:28. > :03:32.country in case he gets tortured himself? -- a torturer. We cannot
:03:32. > :03:37.be held responsible for the actions of others. The flotsam and jetsam
:03:37. > :03:42.would soon stop trying to get in if we were tougher. I think the law
:03:42. > :03:48.that protects these criminals is an affront to ordinary people and to
:03:48. > :03:53.law-abiding, genuine immigrants and refugees. If we were to have a
:03:53. > :03:59.referendum today, every sane person, every political party, from
:03:59. > :04:07.Conservative to Labour, from Lib Dem to UKIP, should bring this down.
:04:07. > :04:13.It is a moral duty to get rid of it. Richard D North, do immigrants part
:04:13. > :04:20.their rights at the border? No, of course not. The European Convention
:04:20. > :04:27.on Human Rights is an attempt to be civilised across Europe, even the
:04:27. > :04:32.old USSR and so on, and indeed, the grandfathers of our Supreme Court
:04:32. > :04:38.now make these balances for us. They wrote it. It is hugely in the
:04:38. > :04:44.spirit of what we are about. In the cases I think Nick is referring to,
:04:44. > :04:48.we cannot send a torturer back to be tortured because we simply have
:04:48. > :04:55.the view that due process is what happens to torturers. Let's hope
:04:55. > :05:00.that happens in Zimbabwe, and soon. I know Nick monster comes straight
:05:00. > :05:10.back on that, but that is a question to you today. Do it
:05:10. > :05:19.
:05:19. > :05:25.foreign criminals deserve human Stay tuned until the end of the
:05:25. > :05:30.programme, because that is when we will show you how you voted. Nick,
:05:30. > :05:36.the point about the Zimbabwe torture were not being sent back in
:05:36. > :05:41.case he is tortured. You see it being ironic but Richard sees it as
:05:41. > :05:47.a fair application of human rights to all. And that is a mark of our
:05:47. > :05:51.civilised society? And that is wrong. This bill came round after
:05:51. > :05:55.World War II, when the world and Europe was a very different place.
:05:55. > :06:00.And she will refer to that in the conversation about John Galliano.
:06:00. > :06:04.The fact is, we have laws to protect these people. Even David
:06:04. > :06:08.Cameron says it needs to be replaced by a British Bill of Human
:06:08. > :06:16.Rights. The man to which Richard refers, and I will not go into
:06:16. > :06:24.graphic detail, but he took a jury in killing and raping his victims.
:06:24. > :06:29.He told a pensioner that he would rape but their daughter. People
:06:29. > :06:35.doubt the teeth of one victim with pliers. We don't send him back
:06:35. > :06:44.because he might be tortured there. I don't care. Shall I give you two
:06:44. > :06:51.more? Well, before you do, Rishi, this is a case that will stick in a
:06:51. > :06:55.lot of people's throats. Why are we not sending back a torturer to face
:06:55. > :07:00.whatever justice he may face? Why protect him and his human rights
:07:00. > :07:03.when he did not seem to take much notice of those of others? I feel
:07:03. > :07:08.very strongly on this because I think one of the best things about
:07:08. > :07:11.this country that makes me so proud is the fact that this is a
:07:11. > :07:16.compassionate country and a very, very civilised country which obeys
:07:16. > :07:22.the law, unlike many others, like we might mention, Zimbabwe, where
:07:22. > :07:25.horrid things are done to people all the time. Just because this
:07:25. > :07:30.Human Rights Act was passed after the Second World War does not in
:07:30. > :07:36.any way naked irrelevant to the things happening today. -- in any
:07:36. > :07:42.way make it irrelevant. Many things are happening today. They follow a
:07:42. > :07:49.different kind of law in other countries. To the UK stands out
:07:49. > :07:54.because it is different... No. It is a dumping ground. No, you are
:07:54. > :08:00.taking... This is typical tabloid sensationalism. What is tabloid
:08:00. > :08:04.about that? The drug dealer from Trinidad? But you have people
:08:04. > :08:12.behaving like that, so you cannot just say, take them and throw them
:08:12. > :08:18.out of the country! We do not apply a different standard of justice to
:08:18. > :08:23.criminals because they are immigrants. Is this not anti-
:08:23. > :08:28.immigration? I would love to get rid of all the murderers and
:08:28. > :08:34.rapists. But if you cannot treat British people like that, why treat
:08:34. > :08:41.foreign people like that? It is like if you join a golf club or a
:08:41. > :08:45.hockey club. You don't get drunk and run around topless! You have
:08:45. > :08:51.earned the right to come and live in a great country. You which is
:08:51. > :08:56.the make-up here. It is fantastic. But we owe it to the people here
:08:56. > :09:01.already, to the people who have come here from Asia and Africa. We
:09:01. > :09:07.cannot just allow everybody to come here. But hang on... Justice is
:09:07. > :09:13.being done. It is not! This guy has been identified as a criminal and
:09:13. > :09:17.been put in jail. He is going to receive a punishment... But it is
:09:17. > :09:22.more expensive than an education at Eton! You have to send out the
:09:22. > :09:28.right message, which is that there has been a court case and the
:09:28. > :09:34.police has done its investigation. But why keeps him? Because he is in
:09:34. > :09:40.this country. But now you switch to the case of somebody who comes here
:09:40. > :09:44.and seeks asylum, even illegally, and commits a crime and is in jail
:09:44. > :09:48.here. And once he comes out, you cannot deport him. The problem
:09:48. > :09:52.there is that we have a principle that you don't punish somebody
:09:52. > :09:56.twice. He has done his time. He then becomes an ordinary human
:09:56. > :10:00.being. You say it would be nice to get rid of him, but there we have
:10:00. > :10:05.the difficulty that we simply are bound up in a system which is
:10:05. > :10:11.trying to get through to the idea that you do not send people back to
:10:11. > :10:21.summary justice. You don't believe in reform or that people do feel
:10:21. > :10:23.guilty, bad, that they deserve a second chance. No! Why?! I am
:10:23. > :10:29.loathe to to interrupt the liveliness of the discussion, but
:10:29. > :10:35.we do have guests who want to get in on this debate. Let's go to Mark
:10:35. > :10:41.Sutton, who is part of the charity fighting for justice. The Human
:10:42. > :10:46.Rights Act applies to all. Is that not justice? Yeah, it should apply
:10:46. > :10:51.to everybody, but if your neighbour knocked on your door and said they
:10:51. > :10:56.had been abused, you would look after them. But if he started
:10:56. > :11:03.pinching your staff comedy would throw them out, and that is that. -
:11:03. > :11:08.- pinching your stuff, you would throw them out. If you go in and
:11:08. > :11:12.abuse somebody, people give you that right to come into that
:11:12. > :11:16.country and you don't go into somebody else's country, abuse them
:11:16. > :11:21.and then expect to be looked after at the same time. Can I just say
:11:21. > :11:25.something? We are now living in a globalised world. We are no longer
:11:26. > :11:31.living in countries hung up on their nationalisms. You have
:11:31. > :11:39.different countries living in different places. -- you have
:11:39. > :11:47.people from different countries. You forgot to eight word -
:11:47. > :11:57.criminals. You can say that if there is a person coming in...
:11:57. > :12:03.you commit a crime, that is it. I'm sorry. Let's put that to an
:12:03. > :12:09.immigration and human rights lawyer. We have heard this morning,
:12:09. > :12:14.particularly from Mark Sutton, families for justice, that if you
:12:14. > :12:21.abuse the right of perhaps being in this country, then you should not
:12:21. > :12:28.then have the right to stay. Is that a good use of the Human Rights
:12:28. > :12:32.Act or and abuse? Of course they should be able to defend themselves
:12:32. > :12:38.in a quarter of law against the potential break-up of their
:12:38. > :12:44.families and even the likelihood of persecution. -- in a court of law.
:12:44. > :12:47.In reality, very few deportation appeals succeed but we should trust
:12:47. > :12:52.our judges to make the right decision, and by and large, I think
:12:52. > :12:56.they get it right. By the way, you cannot blame the law and the courts
:12:56. > :13:03.if the Home Office does not end forced removal. And that is what
:13:03. > :13:07.happened in the Iraqi Kurd hit and run case. I say to the Prime
:13:07. > :13:11.Minister that scrapping the Human Rights Act will not mitigate
:13:11. > :13:17.against government incompetence and failure to enforce the law.
:13:17. > :13:23.mentioned the Iraqi Kurd case. I knew able to briefly outline that
:13:23. > :13:29.as a principal example? -- are you able? He came here over a decade
:13:29. > :13:33.ago and should have been removed, in my view, back in 2002. The Home
:13:33. > :13:41.Office sat on this case and did not do anything for eight years.
:13:41. > :13:47.Because it was blocked? It is not the case at all. Get the facts
:13:47. > :13:51.straight. There is a lot of misinformation here. I say, don't
:13:51. > :13:56.blame the courts and the law for the Government's failure to remove
:13:56. > :14:00.these people when they should be removed. And just one more point,
:14:00. > :14:04.this is somebody whose application to stay was initially refused and
:14:04. > :14:09.they were then involved in a car accident in which a young girl was
:14:09. > :14:16.killed, but they now, years later, do have the right to stay under the
:14:16. > :14:25.article which allows the right to family life. And again, many people
:14:25. > :14:29.might say... Are he has lost that right. But he has children.
:14:29. > :14:34.Exactly! What about the family of the victim of the girl he left to
:14:34. > :14:40.die? Are their views worthless? we get rid of you back to
:14:40. > :14:46.Switzerland if you commit a crime? No, because I was British born.
:14:46. > :14:50.This man came here. I believe it is people in his profession and that
:14:50. > :14:55.is why the Home Office cannot act. He should have gone but he did not
:14:55. > :15:00.go and now perversely, somebody who killed a 12-year-old is allowed to
:15:00. > :15:07.stay. It is not that perverse because he now has a British family.
:15:07. > :15:13.He has children. He now has a family, right or role. What a
:15:13. > :15:23.fantastic role model! It is a difficult balance of rights, isn't
:15:23. > :15:29.The home of his position was this person should be removed, not
:15:29. > :15:33.deported, so he could easily go back to Iraq, or Jordan, and making
:15:33. > :15:38.application for entry clearance. The Home Office were not trying to
:15:38. > :15:44.get rid of him permanently, he could come back in three months.
:15:44. > :15:51.Let's go to the chair of the refugee Action Group. He is a
:15:51. > :15:58.refugee himself. The EU understand people's concern here? Yes, I do
:15:58. > :16:02.understand perfectly. But I believe there are two separate things. If
:16:02. > :16:11.someone has committed a crime, they should be punished for the crime
:16:11. > :16:17.they have committed. Their legal status should be decided when the
:16:17. > :16:22.person has been charged. It is two separate things. They should be
:16:22. > :16:29.regarded as such. Nick, under your suggestion you would be punishing
:16:29. > :16:34.people twice, which is something we do not do? No, you would not,
:16:34. > :16:39.because they would leave the country. Once they are convicted...
:16:39. > :16:43.For many of them, that would be an extra punishment? They would not
:16:43. > :16:50.serve their time here, once convicted they would go back to
:16:50. > :16:53.Zimbabwe, to Iraq. Can I taught about the Trinidad father? He is a
:16:53. > :16:56.convicted drug dealer who was allowed to stay in the country
:16:56. > :17:03.because he has a four year-old docker who he neither sees nor
:17:04. > :17:07.offers any financial maintenance. - - a four year-old daughter. I have
:17:07. > :17:16.not mentioned the Bolivian who stayed here because he has a pet
:17:16. > :17:23.cat. THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE The problem here is that we have Nick's
:17:23. > :17:27.reading of these cases against... Paul Bonner second. We have his
:17:27. > :17:32.reading of the case against let's say, the reading of the Supreme
:17:32. > :17:38.Court. The Supreme Court is riddled with liberals, way too liberal for
:17:38. > :17:42.my taste, but when you read their judgments, the day seems sound. I
:17:42. > :17:47.think we would have a huge muddle between the Home Office and the
:17:47. > :17:55.court, absurdities, but we're groping towards much better
:17:55. > :17:59.principles and Nick's is enshrining. -- are than Nick is enshrining.
:17:59. > :18:05.Joining me now is the mother of Gary making in who is fighting
:18:05. > :18:10.extradition to the United States for computer hacking. Is your son
:18:10. > :18:16.having his human rights represented? Absolutely not. For
:18:16. > :18:21.example, someone from a poll, they had thrown a man into the River
:18:21. > :18:25.Thames, murdered him, the son of figure could, and he was allowed
:18:25. > :18:32.not to be deported because his right to family life, as he was
:18:32. > :18:38.single, 22 years old, and had no children. My son was refused a
:18:38. > :18:43.trial in his own country, and denied his human rights even though
:18:43. > :18:50.he has Asperger's syndrome and was suicidal. He has a terror of travel
:18:50. > :18:56.and never leaves the UK. There is no equalities year. As far as
:18:56. > :19:00.extradition is concerned, there were two extradition people -- two
:19:00. > :19:07.American people. They refused extradition because of mental
:19:07. > :19:12.fragility. A husband and a wife in 2006. There was someone accused of
:19:12. > :19:22.IRA terrorism, accused of blowing up barracks in Germany and she was
:19:22. > :19:22.
:19:22. > :19:26.refused to be extradited in 2007. There was a man from Latvia, and
:19:27. > :19:32.under his human rights he was refused to be extradited to Latvia.
:19:32. > :19:37.And you feel that right has not applied to your son? These are
:19:37. > :19:44.entirely different things. You. Was about immigrants coming into this
:19:44. > :19:54.country. -- a year point was about immigrants. He should get a pet
:19:54. > :19:57.
:19:57. > :20:04.cat! Hang on a minute... Gary McKinnon has less rights than his
:20:04. > :20:07.Zimbabwean torturer. We are speaking about little bits of
:20:07. > :20:11.different cases. The courts go through this with a fine-tooth comb
:20:11. > :20:16.and I would respect their judgment much more than I would respect the
:20:16. > :20:20.judgment of the tabloids. I want to let the viewers have their views
:20:20. > :20:24.represented so let's go through a couple of females. One man says
:20:24. > :20:30.that many foreign criminals have claimed the right to family life as
:20:30. > :20:35.a method of living in the UK. We cannot hold their human rights by
:20:35. > :20:41.allowing them to take their family with them. It is their choice.
:20:41. > :20:45.Martin says we gave so much liberty in England it has become a joke. A
:20:45. > :20:48.man from Gloucester says that surely the point of human rights is
:20:48. > :20:53.that they extended to all humans, whether they have committed crimes
:20:53. > :20:58.are not. To the best of my knowledge immigrant criminals are
:20:58. > :21:03.human. Nick, you mentioned in your report that you would like a
:21:03. > :21:10.referendum on this. Yes. In it is not the same thing, but we do have
:21:10. > :21:16.a text vote on that. It is a start. The immigrant criminals deserve
:21:17. > :21:22.human rights? If you think they do, text the word DS. Our text number
:21:22. > :21:32.is on the screen. You have around 20 minutes before the opinion poll
:21:32. > :21:33.
:21:33. > :21:39.Stay tuned until the end of the programme because we will bring you
:21:39. > :21:44.the result. John Galliano is the man in the dock. He blames drink,
:21:44. > :21:47.drugs and stress for his anti- Semitic outburst. The outrageous
:21:47. > :21:53.fashion designer is not the first celebrity accused of anti-Jewish
:21:53. > :21:58.ranting, but he is the only one to be prosecuted. The offensive words
:21:58. > :22:03.cause real damage our however appalling the insult, is free
:22:03. > :22:07.speech at state? Are warning, as you might expect, this video
:22:07. > :22:11.contains offensive comments and flash photography.
:22:11. > :22:16.Renowned British fashion designer John Galliano was hauled before a
:22:16. > :22:22.French court this week. His crime, an alleged drunken, anti-Semitic
:22:22. > :22:28.and racist rant in his local bar. He is not the only celebrity to
:22:28. > :22:32.assault the Jewish community. Film- maker Lars Von Trier, actor Mel
:22:32. > :22:38.Gibson and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have all been accused of
:22:38. > :22:44.anti-Semitism. But Galliano is the only one to be prosecuted. He faces
:22:45. > :22:50.a possible jail sentence or a hefty fine. As in France, anti-Semitic
:22:50. > :22:54.and racist insults can lead to prosecution in Britain. Galliano
:22:55. > :22:58.says he could not remember what he said and blames drink and drugs. He
:22:58. > :23:04.has already apologised to the victims and he was sacked from his
:23:04. > :23:08.glamorous fashion job, but should his words have put him in court?
:23:08. > :23:14.The Law argues that Hague speech must be illegal because words can
:23:14. > :23:19.lead to deeds, rants can provoke violence. Even the words anti-
:23:19. > :23:24.Semitism conjure up the Nazis and images of the Holocaust. Anti-
:23:24. > :23:29.Semitic crimes are still shockingly frequent. Some argue that
:23:29. > :23:34.accusations of racism can also be used to stifle genuine political
:23:35. > :23:41.debate. Critics of Israel say they are too quickly labelled as anti-
:23:41. > :23:45.Semitic if they criticise the Israeli state. The right wing Dutch
:23:45. > :23:51.politician in these pictures was prosecuted for our hate speech
:23:51. > :24:01.against the Muslim community. But it was ruled that what he said was
:24:01. > :24:02.
:24:02. > :24:07.within the boundaries of reasonable criticism. Some people are forced
:24:07. > :24:11.to endure bigotry at football grounds around the country. His
:24:12. > :24:18.public disapproval now enough to punish hate speech are should rants
:24:18. > :24:23.against religions and races put you in jail. What do you think? If you
:24:23. > :24:30.have a webcam, you can make your point on the programme this morning.
:24:30. > :24:35.You can join us on Twitter or Skype. All the details are on the screen.
:24:35. > :24:38.Richard, people who have not been to football matches might be
:24:38. > :24:44.particularly shot, perhaps those people who go to football matches
:24:44. > :24:49.may be shocked by the words used in that report. But should the land
:24:49. > :24:56.those people in court? I think there is a difference. I did not
:24:56. > :25:00.know about the idea of a train full of yobs shouting like that. I would
:25:00. > :25:07.make a huge difference between that and a fashion designer late at
:25:07. > :25:13.night in a bar being goaded by people, laughingly, and then making
:25:13. > :25:20.these absurd remarks. He seems to me at completely harmless man, not
:25:20. > :25:27.a stunt. Harmless to tell someone that their grandparents should have
:25:27. > :25:32.been gassed? Define harmless? idea that these idiot remarks by
:25:32. > :25:38.him are somehow connected to unpleasantness and worse at
:25:38. > :25:44.synagogues seems ridiculous. Harmless to suggest to someone
:25:44. > :25:51.their grandparents should have been gassed? Late at night, in a bar...
:25:51. > :25:57.I agree with Nick. The EU have come to the dark side. I think it is
:25:57. > :26:01.absolutely unforgivable. No matter how much of an radiate he is, we
:26:01. > :26:08.can call him all kinds of things, and try and forgive him for
:26:08. > :26:13.everything he has done, but what he said was unforgivable. To make you
:26:13. > :26:17.defence out if the fact that you are drunk, it is not the first time
:26:17. > :26:24.he has done it. He has been encouraged by others but that does
:26:24. > :26:28.not mean he has licence to say what he did. My next guest is from a
:26:28. > :26:34.trust which defends the Jewish community from anti-Semitic attacks.
:26:34. > :26:40.Are misguided comments by a drunk celebrity in a bar on the same
:26:40. > :26:43.continuum as those who chant about Auschwitz at a football match?
:26:43. > :26:48.There is obviously a difference between an individual in a bar
:26:48. > :26:53.making comments to people and a whole bunch of drunken thugs on a
:26:53. > :26:58.train who could very easily turn to violence. But I think we are
:26:58. > :27:03.missing the point somewhat. Both acts are illegal and if you're a
:27:03. > :27:08.victim, if you happen to be in the bar experiencing this, especially
:27:08. > :27:15.if no one comes to you or aid, it is a serious matter. We should care
:27:15. > :27:20.more about the victim. The response to a drunk in a bar mousing office
:27:20. > :27:26.to get up and leave. Can I say one thing? I have been the victim of
:27:26. > :27:31.racist abuse in London, and this was many years ago, 10 years ago,
:27:31. > :27:36.and I know how exactly how you feel. You feel totally defenceless and it
:27:36. > :27:42.makes you feel like you want to go home, you do not want to stay there,
:27:42. > :27:46.and you feel you are being made to feel negligible, inferior. As a
:27:46. > :27:53.result it does have a huge effect on your mind. Did you bring
:27:53. > :27:59.charges? No, I did not, because it was a bunch of children in a tube
:27:59. > :28:03.station. I did not live here, I was a tourist at that time. I am just
:28:03. > :28:08.trying to say that it was very harmful and I did not want to come
:28:08. > :28:14.back to the UK for many years because I was too scared. If it
:28:14. > :28:19.could happen to year on the street, it could happen to anyone else.
:28:19. > :28:23.free-speech campaigner joins us. The effect of these words is very
:28:23. > :28:29.damaging on the individual, so should we prosecute them in court
:28:29. > :28:33.to make sure they stop? I think there is a vital distinction to be
:28:33. > :28:38.made which has not been made yet given that you mentioned Boat race
:28:38. > :28:41.and religion in your introduction. The difference between attacking in
:28:41. > :28:46.a religion and being insulting to people on the basis of their
:28:46. > :28:51.religion, especially when you intend to cost them distress and
:28:51. > :28:59.alarm. It is vital in a free society that we have a full
:28:59. > :29:02.exchange of ideas about religious or non-religious matters. Race is
:29:03. > :29:08.somewhat different because it is your innate characteristics, and
:29:08. > :29:14.there are different rules, but I think that criminalising people for
:29:14. > :29:20.racist outbursts when no harm is done, except to themselves and
:29:20. > :29:25.their reputation, that is fond. It creates martyrs and it is not a
:29:25. > :29:28.very effective way and it will not deter people when they are in Mr
:29:28. > :29:34.Galliano's position from doing it again.
:29:34. > :29:40.I completely disagree! I think taking him to court was the right
:29:41. > :29:43.decision because it puts the entire debate at a different level. It
:29:43. > :29:46.goes out of the spaces being abusive insults being hurled at
:29:46. > :29:51.each other, you are getting into court and examining the
:29:51. > :29:57.circumstances. It also puts the onus on the person who was the
:29:57. > :30:04.abuser to take stock of what he did. He has lost his job, for million-
:30:04. > :30:14.pound job. That has given him a sense of what could have been the
:30:14. > :30:19.
:30:19. > :30:27.I'm sorry, Evan was trying to come back on that point. Mark, does it
:30:27. > :30:32.not actually give these remarks greater publicity? I agree, but it
:30:32. > :30:37.is the media that have made it such a big deal. What happened in that
:30:37. > :30:47.bar is very typical. We are a charity that cares for the victims
:30:47. > :30:52.of racist attacks. Last year we had over 400 reports from people
:30:52. > :31:00.subjected to anti-Semitic abuse. We do hear this horrible language and
:31:00. > :31:05.on average, it happens more than once a day. It is far too often.
:31:05. > :31:09.Let's bring Bevan back in. I have no doubt that these things happen
:31:09. > :31:16.but I do not think we should be filling out chords with that these
:31:16. > :31:21.cases, especially when the language is not threatening and it is not
:31:21. > :31:31.intentional. And John Galliano lost his job irrespective of the outcome
:31:31. > :31:33.
:31:33. > :31:43.of the court case. I don't agree with that Dutch politician at all.
:31:43. > :31:48.But to make him a martyr, and the same with Nick Griffin and his
:31:48. > :31:58.anti-Islamic comments, it actually helps those people and you see the
:31:58. > :32:00.
:32:00. > :32:08.haranguing of shock-jocks, like Nick Ferrari. Let's not make this
:32:08. > :32:13.personal. We now have a Muslim campaigner. Do you think that anti-
:32:13. > :32:19.Islamic comments should see people in court? Are think they should, in
:32:19. > :32:22.the sense of sending a very strong message that this is not acceptable,
:32:23. > :32:28.and what we are actually seeing, and three or introduction there was
:32:29. > :32:33.a disparity of the application of the law. -- through your
:32:33. > :32:39.introduction. What we are seeing is a greater number of incidents
:32:39. > :32:44.relating to Muslims and yet we do not have the enforcement of the law.
:32:44. > :32:53.The actual published figures are something like 639, not 400 as he
:32:53. > :32:57.said. If you look at them as a -- at the Muslim number, it is over
:32:57. > :33:03.1,000. We are seeing a growing trend and the protection of the
:33:03. > :33:08.Muslim community does not seem to be there. What you are getting out
:33:08. > :33:14.there is a sense of, why even bother reporting it? Nobody is
:33:14. > :33:23.doing anything about it. So the media needs to pay attention but to
:33:23. > :33:29.all communities, not just anti- Semitism. It happened that some
:33:29. > :33:33.years ago, I interposed myself between some thugs and some people
:33:33. > :33:43.they were abusing on racial grounds. Because it was obviously a
:33:43. > :33:47.
:33:47. > :33:53.frightening situation. It was menacing. But an off his face a
:33:53. > :33:59.fashion designer in a bar... He was exploring his indecency as the way
:33:59. > :34:04.people do. In a public space! the response to that is to get up
:34:04. > :34:11.and leave him to it. Nick, you have been quiet on this particular
:34:11. > :34:17.debate. If people face court for what they say, does it not make
:34:17. > :34:22.people like you tiptoe around what you can say? No, absolutely not.
:34:22. > :34:26.What I do on the radio station is I know how far I can go and I know
:34:26. > :34:33.the legalities you have to quite rightly observed. There is a
:34:33. > :34:40.committee that sits over me and I am aware of that. We need to decide
:34:40. > :34:44.on what harm is felt by the victim, but how do we work that out? The
:34:44. > :34:48.people who hold banners saying that the British butchers of Basra
:34:48. > :34:55.should go to hell, they should be done, people who do the Muslims
:34:55. > :35:03.should be done and those who do the Jews should be done. I had John
:35:03. > :35:07.Galliano never works again. We have had another email. While we IRA
:35:07. > :35:13.tolerant society, we must not take away people's right to freedom of
:35:13. > :35:19.speech. And you can complete it that discussion -- continue that
:35:19. > :35:24.discussion online. On the streets, some are defending
:35:24. > :35:30.the right of women to wear skimpy clothing. Others are dressing up to
:35:30. > :35:37.a more Islamic style. You can join the debate with these details.
:35:37. > :35:47.Remember, keep voting, too, on our text vote of. Do immigrant
:35:47. > :35:55.
:35:55. > :35:58.criminals deserve human rights? Use You have five minutes to vote
:35:58. > :36:05.before the opinion poll closes and we will net -- let you know the
:36:05. > :36:12.result at the end of the programme. Time now for our three guests to
:36:12. > :36:22.tell us what their moral moment was of the week. Nick, this court your
:36:22. > :36:22.
:36:23. > :36:27.eye? Yes. To commemorate a group of young sea cadets, which aims to get
:36:27. > :36:33.young people into professional careers, they asked young people,
:36:33. > :36:40.what do you think his success? And they asked, do you earn �50,000 a
:36:40. > :36:46.year? Is your flat or house worth �250,000 a year? Are you married?
:36:46. > :36:50.Have you paid off the bulk of your mortgage? And do you have foreign
:36:50. > :37:00.holidays? If you take off all of those, you were deemed to be a
:37:00. > :37:06.
:37:06. > :37:10.success. In the media, the McCann family ticked all of these boxes.
:37:10. > :37:16.They have paid off their mortgage and they have foreign holidays, and
:37:16. > :37:24.we all know what happened on one of those. Sometimes, the vacuousness
:37:24. > :37:28.of these surveys staggers me to. And all other things being equal,
:37:28. > :37:32.and not accounting for traumatic events, and the purpose of the
:37:32. > :37:37.survey was to try and address this issue of, does money make you
:37:37. > :37:45.happy? And it seems the more you earn did not necessarily make you
:37:45. > :37:51.happier? But hold on. This is a good serve. I read a book about it.
:37:51. > :37:58.Is said �50,000 was a pretty good number to equate with happiness.
:37:58. > :38:04.The number usually debated his �20,000, so we have doubled, which
:38:04. > :38:10.is good! The data I have looked at says that roughly speaking, it is
:38:10. > :38:15.amazing how well happiness correlates with income. Rishi, you
:38:15. > :38:24.found a surprising story about sailors being rescued from pirates?
:38:24. > :38:27.Yes. What I found fascinating about the story is that it is a counter
:38:27. > :38:35.intuitive regarding what we think of the relations between India and
:38:35. > :38:40.Pakistan. What happened was, this was a bunch of sailors and they
:38:40. > :38:46.were captured by its Somali pirates. It was horrendous because they were
:38:46. > :38:49.Indian sailors, Pakistani sailors and Egyptian. And from other
:38:49. > :38:52.countries as well. The amazing thing was that the Indian
:38:52. > :39:00.government did nothing. They said they were but they were doing
:39:00. > :39:08.nothing. And there was a because there -- there was a Pakistani
:39:08. > :39:13.philanthropist. Just a citizen of Pakistan. And he had this wonderful
:39:13. > :39:17.idea and negotiated with papyrus on his own. He paid a ransom and the
:39:17. > :39:22.Indian sailors were also rescued, and this has been a huge moment of
:39:22. > :39:26.people in India waking up and saying, you know, the Pakistanis
:39:26. > :39:31.did this for us. And it was beautiful because if you think
:39:31. > :39:39.beyond, we get carried away by what governments say, but people power
:39:39. > :39:44.is just so important and it came home to us. Richard, meanwhile,
:39:44. > :39:49.people to animal relationships? You were worried about the ban on wild
:39:49. > :39:54.animals in circuses? Well, there was the moment when the House of
:39:54. > :39:57.Commons got itself into an uproar, saying we should ban circus animals.
:39:57. > :40:03.It was another example of people not really thinking about the
:40:03. > :40:10.animals. They were just sounding off. There were three good bits of
:40:10. > :40:17.research on this, and interestingly, they say, performing animals rather
:40:17. > :40:23.enjoy themselves. I don't care that... If how do you know that the
:40:23. > :40:33.tiger enjoys himself? Does he come off stage and say to the elephants,
:40:33. > :40:35.
:40:35. > :40:40.I killed tonight! But we know that dogs enjoy being trained... They do.
:40:40. > :40:48.But they are not wild. An elephant should be in the wild.
:40:48. > :40:54.difference between wild and tame is a very difficult one. A cat...
:40:54. > :40:58.Domestic cats. You leave a cat outside the back door for a few
:40:58. > :41:03.minutes and it becomes a wild animal. You cannot speak for more
:41:03. > :41:07.than a few minutes, Richard, without provoking a wild response!
:41:07. > :41:13.You have been voting in our text opinion poll this morning about
:41:13. > :41:18.whether foreign criminals deserve human rights. That is now closing
:41:18. > :41:25.so please don't vote because your vote will not count but you might
:41:25. > :41:30.be charged. We will bring you the results later.
:41:30. > :41:36.Thousands of women across the globe have taken part in these so-called
:41:36. > :41:39.SlutWalks to flaunt their right to wear skimpy clothing in safety. But
:41:39. > :41:45.there's a growing backlash from women who say they are empowered by
:41:45. > :41:51.covering up, not stripping off. It is not only Muslims, as you might
:41:51. > :41:55.expect. Jewish and secular or min, too. Are they taking women back to
:41:55. > :42:05.the Dark Ages or is is a subtle solution to our over-centralised
:42:05. > :42:05.
:42:05. > :42:10.society. -- over secularised society? Should women cover up? Any
:42:10. > :42:16.weekend in any town, and you don't have to look far to find the
:42:16. > :42:20.philosophy, if you have got it, flaunt it. But new research
:42:20. > :42:23.suggests a small outburst of modesty might be underway. And the
:42:23. > :42:28.fashion business is keen to capitalise, with an explosion of
:42:28. > :42:33.designers helping women cover up in style. Many of the women choosing
:42:33. > :42:37.to avoid skimpy outfits are religious, but it is not just
:42:37. > :42:42.Muslims. Jewish, Christian and secular women are put in on the
:42:42. > :42:51.extra style. TV chef Nigella Lawson caused panic in the tabloids when
:42:51. > :42:56.she rejected a bikini on the beach. Some women say been covered up
:42:56. > :43:03.liberates them. Does this signal a return to the Press Standards of
:43:03. > :43:07.earlier eras? Not everybody wants to dress like Victoria Beckham but
:43:07. > :43:12.dressing like Queen Victoria is hardly the alternative. The mini-
:43:12. > :43:19.skirt now has a long history, close on half a century, of meaning women
:43:19. > :43:26.are judged on how they dress. And then, the SlutWalk, marching for
:43:26. > :43:33.the right to wear sexy clothes without being attacked. Some say
:43:33. > :43:38.the trend is going too far. Women are turning into sex objects and
:43:38. > :43:43.embracing sexism, not fighting it. So what do women want? Liberation
:43:44. > :43:53.in a mini-skirt or freedom in a headscarf? Should beware less or
:43:54. > :43:57.
:43:57. > :44:02.cover up more? -- should state wear Les? What do you think? You have
:44:02. > :44:10.threatened to wear something more revealing this morning. A backless
:44:10. > :44:16.shirt. Did you lose heart? thought I would be far too covered
:44:17. > :44:22.if it was backless, so I decided to wear a dress! What I wanted to say
:44:22. > :44:28.is that this is more about choice. It is not about whether we want to
:44:28. > :44:33.be fully dressed or wearing a skirt or bikini. I want to have my choice
:44:33. > :44:38.and I think that is what women want. It is time that men, and also
:44:38. > :44:44.fashion designers, realised that is what we really like. We like to
:44:44. > :44:51.wear clothes that we enjoy wearing and we do not think... When I say
:44:51. > :44:56.we, I mean, most women I know would not think that sex and clothes,
:44:56. > :44:59.sexuality and clothes, are necessarily related. Richard, women
:45:00. > :45:09.should be able to wear whatever they want, however little that
:45:10. > :45:10.
:45:10. > :45:17.It is a pity that some of BP people who ought to do the most covering
:45:17. > :45:23.up to the least! Exposing acres of blubber is not usually attractive.
:45:23. > :45:31.Excuse me, lot of men do it. You're not objecting to that. I would
:45:31. > :45:38.object to that is well. How on, you're saying that women should
:45:38. > :45:43.cover up because it offends your aesthetic sense. If you come to
:45:43. > :45:49.morals, obviously people have a perfect right to go around semi-
:45:50. > :45:55.naked and not to be raped, but on the other hand, their right to go
:45:55. > :46:01.about semi-naked, does come, and we should always ask this question,
:46:01. > :46:11.what obligations are attached to that? I think there is some
:46:11. > :46:11.
:46:11. > :46:15.obligation. Nonsense mac -- THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE Excuse me, tribal
:46:15. > :46:24.women live happily with quite a few clothes on.
:46:25. > :46:29.That is their lifestyle. I hate the name SlutWalk. They cheapens and
:46:29. > :46:36.coarsens women. If you want to walk down your street like that, do not
:46:36. > :46:40.be surprised that many of us find it vulgar. But I celebrate the fact
:46:40. > :46:50.that we live in a country where women can wear the Barker and
:46:50. > :46:51.
:46:51. > :46:56.across the Channel they cannot. This is not about the men. What has
:46:56. > :47:03.been achieved by the SlutWalk? at last what has been achieved
:47:03. > :47:12.because this woman is from slut walker and she joins us now. How is
:47:12. > :47:17.it going? What have you achieved? It is an anti- rape war. If women
:47:17. > :47:22.want to avoid being rate, they should avoid dressing like sluts. A
:47:22. > :47:29.policeman said that. What you wear does not influence what happens to
:47:29. > :47:33.you. We're saying that whatever way women dress, that is not going to
:47:33. > :47:42.victimise us. We have got that message out there so we have
:47:42. > :47:45.achieved a lot. Other anti- rape walks which have happened over the
:47:45. > :47:51.last 40 years have not received this media attention so we're
:47:51. > :47:55.getting our message out. I know this is not a purpose if you
:47:55. > :47:59.walk, but do you not feel that if you are seen to encourage this
:47:59. > :48:04.allowed that allows young women to roll around in city centres from
:48:04. > :48:09.Belfast to Brighton, rolling around in a book tube with a skimpy skirt
:48:09. > :48:14.and high seals, there is a danger they will fall victim to a sex
:48:14. > :48:19.attack? That is a misconception. Most rapes
:48:19. > :48:25.happen between people who already know each other. Children and old
:48:25. > :48:29.ladies or raped, men are rate as well. What you are dressed in does
:48:29. > :48:37.not cause the problem. We have a terrible misconception that a woman
:48:37. > :48:41.will victimise yourself by wearing a boob tube. That is wrong.
:48:41. > :48:47.father are policemen would be well within his rights to say to young
:48:47. > :48:51.people whose advice has been sought, and it is rather incorrect, he knew
:48:51. > :48:56.he was transgressing, and I do not think it was a transgression to say
:48:56. > :49:02.that, perhaps there is a moment when you want to wear a coat as you
:49:02. > :49:07.go home. It will not save you from fishes rate, I grant you that, but
:49:07. > :49:12.it is precautionary, mildly sensible, and it is the kind of
:49:12. > :49:16.thing a father is likely to say to a daughter. I see lots of very
:49:16. > :49:26.young girls walking around with clothes which are wildly
:49:26. > :49:31.inappropriate to them. But her point is that you are transferring
:49:31. > :49:37.the responsibility from men to women? Absolutely not. I am saying
:49:37. > :49:46.that we have a huge amount of right to do exactly what you like, but
:49:46. > :49:56.have us... To being sensible. right, we sexualise young girls.
:49:56. > :49:57.
:49:57. > :50:03.THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE My guest is trying to come back.
:50:03. > :50:07.Start your point again. Children are sexualised in this society and
:50:07. > :50:14.that must be addressed, but we are speaking about women and women have
:50:14. > :50:18.full control over what they want to wear. Children are sexualised and
:50:18. > :50:25.that is something that we must address, but it is not the same as
:50:25. > :50:32.women. We need to stop policing what women wear. For Kishwar, when
:50:32. > :50:39.the sun Nigella list -- Kishwar, when the San Nigella Lawson, you
:50:39. > :50:44.were a shock? No, that was her choice. What I am saying is that
:50:44. > :50:49.women should be empowered to make their own choices. We should not be
:50:49. > :50:54.saying they should wear this or wear that, whatever they want to
:50:54. > :51:04.wear, it is entirely up to them. If Nigella wants to wear that, that is
:51:04. > :51:09.up to her. This woman makes what is called modest fashion. Is it women
:51:09. > :51:17.from all religion and none who want these sorts of clothes and why?
:51:17. > :51:22.There is definitely a trend. Jewish women, Christian women, and
:51:22. > :51:29.especially Muslim women, there is a trend to dress more modestly. To
:51:29. > :51:32.answer your question why, I think from personal experience, I think
:51:32. > :51:37.by dressing modestly it empowers you to the way that other people
:51:37. > :51:44.treat you, because when you are dressed modestly, people treat you
:51:44. > :51:54.more respectfully. They take you more seriously. People, who do you
:51:54. > :51:57.
:51:58. > :52:05.mean? Do you mean men? Yes, but also with women, you do not get as
:52:05. > :52:15.much catty behaviour, and women are not intimidated by other women
:52:15. > :52:22.based on their looks. It eliminate social hierarchy among women as
:52:22. > :52:29.well. I have been working women my entire life, and I have never
:52:29. > :52:35.experienced any kind of bad sexual behaviour. -- working woman. I
:52:35. > :52:40.think it is your attitude. If you accept this as what you are, you
:52:40. > :52:48.are empowered by your identity. you do not wear a boob tube to
:52:48. > :52:54.work? No, but it is a question of what I feel comfortable in. It is
:52:54. > :52:59.about choices. You could have come in your underwear, but you did not
:52:59. > :53:03.think it was appropriate. I do not think the Sunday Morning Live
:53:03. > :53:12.audience is ready for that. I find the fashion now among young Muslim
:53:12. > :53:17.women, for extremely modest dress, to be rather odd. For many of them,
:53:17. > :53:23.it is not in their faith tradition particularly. It is not in their
:53:23. > :53:29.parents' tradition. It is of course up to them, it is their perfect
:53:29. > :53:33.right. The great comfort out if it is that it is a compliment to being
:53:33. > :53:39.thorough Westerners, because like we all are, they are being picky
:53:39. > :53:44.about what they want to do. Caroline, you have teenage
:53:44. > :53:49.daughters. How do you prefer that they dress? I really try to
:53:49. > :53:55.encourage them to understand and I asked my has been to speak to my
:53:55. > :54:01.children as to how they come across in the way that they're wearing
:54:01. > :54:05.clothes. We try to impart values of self-respect and valuing themselves,
:54:05. > :54:09.but also to respect the values of the people they will be meeting
:54:09. > :54:13.that day. I encourage them to wear clothing that will not distract
:54:13. > :54:19.people from their faces because this is where we do are
:54:19. > :54:24.communicating best. I feel that it robs men of their peace and natural
:54:24. > :54:28.communication when they are dressed in a way that is not modest.
:54:28. > :54:37.theme that has emerged in this debate is whether that takes the
:54:37. > :54:41.responsibility away from men and places it on the girls? I certainly
:54:41. > :54:45.think girls have a great responsibility. We need to guard
:54:45. > :54:50.people who are weak in this area, we need to care for people and we
:54:50. > :54:59.need to care for men, to be aware of it and act accordingly.
:54:59. > :55:02.May I ask how am I robbed of my piece if I see a girl walking in a
:55:03. > :55:08.revealing about fit? I think you will have fought
:55:08. > :55:18.running through your mind which that Gail will not want you to have.
:55:18. > :55:19.
:55:19. > :55:25.How do you know that? I am told by men. Let me assure you
:55:25. > :55:30.that most men are unable to control those thoughts. You might be able
:55:30. > :55:33.to control those thoughts... THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE I am not going to
:55:33. > :55:39.leap on her like a tiger from a circus.
:55:39. > :55:44.I am not saying that, but I am saying that erotics pots are not,
:55:44. > :55:54.do not a rise according to the clothes the women are wearing. It
:55:54. > :55:54.
:55:54. > :55:58.is in your mind. You can be aroused by anything? Especially libraries!
:55:58. > :56:04.One viewer says that if some women are not comfortable wearing skimpy
:56:04. > :56:08.clothing, that is their choice, but people have a right to
:56:08. > :56:13.individuality. It is treating grown women like children and expresses a
:56:13. > :56:18.deep-seated fear of women's sexuality. You can continue that
:56:18. > :56:25.debate on our website. I need to bring you the results of our text
:56:25. > :56:30.poll. Do immigrant criminals deserve human rights? 8% of those
:56:30. > :56:36.who texted in said that they do deserve human rights and 92 % said
:56:37. > :56:43.no. Kishwar, that is an overwhelming results. Nick said
:56:43. > :56:47.that if there was a referendum...? That is much greater than I thought.
:56:47. > :56:56.Let's have the referendum because clearly there is an appetite to
:56:56. > :57:01.discuss this. Quiche work, does that shocked you? It is shocking in
:57:01. > :57:08.a way, because I would imagine that if people actually knew the entire
:57:08. > :57:15.reason behind the judgments, they would take another view on it. --
:57:15. > :57:20.Kishwar. If they thought about it, they would realise they were human
:57:20. > :57:26.beings who deserve human rights. Richard? I think it is rather akin
:57:26. > :57:32.to the way that the public say they want hanging as well. It is a
:57:32. > :57:36.motive, people do not think about it deeply. It is very important to
:57:36. > :57:42.be on the wrong side of this argument and I always am. In this
:57:42. > :57:47.case, Nick, you are in tune with the audience? Yes, and it is a
:57:47. > :57:52.typical response to say that is the same as hanging, but it is a
:57:52. > :57:55.genuine issue, and there is a genuine need. David Cameron said
:57:55. > :58:01.that we needed a British Bill of human rights before the election
:58:01. > :58:08.and he has suddenly gone quiet. He knows how unpopular it is. Thank