Episode 1 Sunday Morning Live

MPs say the Human Rights Act is stopping us deporting foreign

criminals. Is that a mark of a civilised society or is it the nine

victims justice? Do immigrant criminals deserve human rights? --

Good morning. Welcome to a new series of Sunday Morning Live,

where you debate the big issues of the day. MPs say foreign criminals

here get more protection than innocent Britons. After 60 years of

the refugee Convention, one man has had enough. Immigrant criminals

should not have human rights. Galliano is on trial for insulting

a woman who was Jewish. Should he face their law for saying it? And

more Muslim and Christian women are rejecting skimpy dressing. Are they

on to something? Nick Ferrari is a radio tabloid editor and a shock

jock. Kishwar Desai won the novel Booker Prize. Was she incensed by

one of today's debates? And Richard D North, long a thorn in the side

of opinion. He has talked about getting rid of the BBC. Not before

the end of this programme! You can join in it using all of these

This week's big issue is the Human Rights Act. It is meant to shield

the vulnerable, but some MPs say it is protecting foreign criminals. It

also happens to be refugee Week, celebrating those fleeing

oppression and the laws which help protect them. But Nick Ferrari says

we have got the balance wrong. Here's his Sunday stand from a

rainy London. Immigrants who commit crimes do not deserve human rights.

We should be able to deport them. At the moment, if an illegal

immigrant killed or daughter, they would go to jail, but when we tried

to deport them, we would not be able to it because they would argue

they have a right to a family life here, had a right they denied their

victim. I am not against immigration, as my last name

suggests. My grandfather came to this country, from the Italian part

of Switzerland. But why can't we send a torture were back to his

country in case he gets tortured himself? -- a torturer. We cannot

be held responsible for the actions of others. The flotsam and jetsam

would soon stop trying to get in if we were tougher. I think the law

that protects these criminals is an affront to ordinary people and to

law-abiding, genuine immigrants and refugees. If we were to have a

referendum today, every sane person, every political party, from

Conservative to Labour, from Lib Dem to UKIP, should bring this down.

It is a moral duty to get rid of it. Richard D North, do immigrants part

their rights at the border? No, of course not. The European Convention

on Human Rights is an attempt to be civilised across Europe, even the

old USSR and so on, and indeed, the grandfathers of our Supreme Court

now make these balances for us. They wrote it. It is hugely in the

spirit of what we are about. In the cases I think Nick is referring to,

we cannot send a torturer back to be tortured because we simply have

the view that due process is what happens to torturers. Let's hope

that happens in Zimbabwe, and soon. I know Nick monster comes straight

back on that, but that is a question to you today. Do it

foreign criminals deserve human Stay tuned until the end of the

programme, because that is when we will show you how you voted. Nick,

the point about the Zimbabwe torture were not being sent back in

case he is tortured. You see it being ironic but Richard sees it as

a fair application of human rights to all. And that is a mark of our

civilised society? And that is wrong. This bill came round after

World War II, when the world and Europe was a very different place.

And she will refer to that in the conversation about John Galliano.

The fact is, we have laws to protect these people. Even David

Cameron says it needs to be replaced by a British Bill of Human

Rights. The man to which Richard refers, and I will not go into

graphic detail, but he took a jury in killing and raping his victims.

He told a pensioner that he would rape but their daughter. People

doubt the teeth of one victim with pliers. We don't send him back

because he might be tortured there. I don't care. Shall I give you two

more? Well, before you do, Rishi, this is a case that will stick in a

lot of people's throats. Why are we not sending back a torturer to face

whatever justice he may face? Why protect him and his human rights

when he did not seem to take much notice of those of others? I feel

very strongly on this because I think one of the best things about

this country that makes me so proud is the fact that this is a

compassionate country and a very, very civilised country which obeys

the law, unlike many others, like we might mention, Zimbabwe, where

horrid things are done to people all the time. Just because this

Human Rights Act was passed after the Second World War does not in

any way naked irrelevant to the things happening today. -- in any

way make it irrelevant. Many things are happening today. They follow a

different kind of law in other countries. To the UK stands out

because it is different... No. It is a dumping ground. No, you are

taking... This is typical tabloid sensationalism. What is tabloid

about that? The drug dealer from Trinidad? But you have people

behaving like that, so you cannot just say, take them and throw them

out of the country! We do not apply a different standard of justice to

criminals because they are immigrants. Is this not anti-

immigration? I would love to get rid of all the murderers and

rapists. But if you cannot treat British people like that, why treat

foreign people like that? It is like if you join a golf club or a

hockey club. You don't get drunk and run around topless! You have

earned the right to come and live in a great country. You which is

the make-up here. It is fantastic. But we owe it to the people here

already, to the people who have come here from Asia and Africa. We

cannot just allow everybody to come here. But hang on... Justice is

being done. It is not! This guy has been identified as a criminal and

been put in jail. He is going to receive a punishment... But it is

more expensive than an education at Eton! You have to send out the

right message, which is that there has been a court case and the

police has done its investigation. But why keeps him? Because he is in

this country. But now you switch to the case of somebody who comes here

and seeks asylum, even illegally, and commits a crime and is in jail

here. And once he comes out, you cannot deport him. The problem

there is that we have a principle that you don't punish somebody

twice. He has done his time. He then becomes an ordinary human

being. You say it would be nice to get rid of him, but there we have

the difficulty that we simply are bound up in a system which is

trying to get through to the idea that you do not send people back to

summary justice. You don't believe in reform or that people do feel

guilty, bad, that they deserve a second chance. No! Why?! I am

loathe to to interrupt the liveliness of the discussion, but

we do have guests who want to get in on this debate. Let's go to Mark

Sutton, who is part of the charity fighting for justice. The Human

Rights Act applies to all. Is that not justice? Yeah, it should apply

to everybody, but if your neighbour knocked on your door and said they

had been abused, you would look after them. But if he started

pinching your staff comedy would throw them out, and that is that. -

- pinching your stuff, you would throw them out. If you go in and

abuse somebody, people give you that right to come into that

country and you don't go into somebody else's country, abuse them

and then expect to be looked after at the same time. Can I just say

something? We are now living in a globalised world. We are no longer

living in countries hung up on their nationalisms. You have

different countries living in different places. -- you have

people from different countries. You forgot to eight word -

criminals. You can say that if there is a person coming in...

you commit a crime, that is it. I'm sorry. Let's put that to an

immigration and human rights lawyer. We have heard this morning,

particularly from Mark Sutton, families for justice, that if you

abuse the right of perhaps being in this country, then you should not

then have the right to stay. Is that a good use of the Human Rights

Act or and abuse? Of course they should be able to defend themselves

in a quarter of law against the potential break-up of their

families and even the likelihood of persecution. -- in a court of law.

In reality, very few deportation appeals succeed but we should trust

our judges to make the right decision, and by and large, I think

they get it right. By the way, you cannot blame the law and the courts

if the Home Office does not end forced removal. And that is what

happened in the Iraqi Kurd hit and run case. I say to the Prime

Minister that scrapping the Human Rights Act will not mitigate

against government incompetence and failure to enforce the law.

mentioned the Iraqi Kurd case. I knew able to briefly outline that

as a principal example? -- are you able? He came here over a decade

ago and should have been removed, in my view, back in 2002. The Home

Office sat on this case and did not do anything for eight years.

Because it was blocked? It is not the case at all. Get the facts

straight. There is a lot of misinformation here. I say, don't

blame the courts and the law for the Government's failure to remove

these people when they should be removed. And just one more point,

this is somebody whose application to stay was initially refused and

they were then involved in a car accident in which a young girl was

killed, but they now, years later, do have the right to stay under the

article which allows the right to family life. And again, many people

might say... Are he has lost that right. But he has children.

Exactly! What about the family of the victim of the girl he left to

die? Are their views worthless? we get rid of you back to

Switzerland if you commit a crime? No, because I was British born.

This man came here. I believe it is people in his profession and that

is why the Home Office cannot act. He should have gone but he did not

go and now perversely, somebody who killed a 12-year-old is allowed to

stay. It is not that perverse because he now has a British family.

He has children. He now has a family, right or role. What a

fantastic role model! It is a difficult balance of rights, isn't

The home of his position was this person should be removed, not

deported, so he could easily go back to Iraq, or Jordan, and making

application for entry clearance. The Home Office were not trying to

get rid of him permanently, he could come back in three months.

Let's go to the chair of the refugee Action Group. He is a

refugee himself. The EU understand people's concern here? Yes, I do

understand perfectly. But I believe there are two separate things. If

someone has committed a crime, they should be punished for the crime

they have committed. Their legal status should be decided when the

person has been charged. It is two separate things. They should be

regarded as such. Nick, under your suggestion you would be punishing

people twice, which is something we do not do? No, you would not,

because they would leave the country. Once they are convicted...

For many of them, that would be an extra punishment? They would not

serve their time here, once convicted they would go back to

Zimbabwe, to Iraq. Can I taught about the Trinidad father? He is a

convicted drug dealer who was allowed to stay in the country

because he has a four year-old docker who he neither sees nor

offers any financial maintenance. - - a four year-old daughter. I have

not mentioned the Bolivian who stayed here because he has a pet

cat. THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE The problem here is that we have Nick's

reading of these cases against... Paul Bonner second. We have his

reading of the case against let's say, the reading of the Supreme

Court. The Supreme Court is riddled with liberals, way too liberal for

my taste, but when you read their judgments, the day seems sound. I

think we would have a huge muddle between the Home Office and the

court, absurdities, but we're groping towards much better

principles and Nick's is enshrining. -- are than Nick is enshrining.

Joining me now is the mother of Gary making in who is fighting

extradition to the United States for computer hacking. Is your son

having his human rights represented? Absolutely not. For

example, someone from a poll, they had thrown a man into the River

Thames, murdered him, the son of figure could, and he was allowed

not to be deported because his right to family life, as he was

single, 22 years old, and had no children. My son was refused a

trial in his own country, and denied his human rights even though

he has Asperger's syndrome and was suicidal. He has a terror of travel

and never leaves the UK. There is no equalities year. As far as

extradition is concerned, there were two extradition people -- two

American people. They refused extradition because of mental

fragility. A husband and a wife in 2006. There was someone accused of

IRA terrorism, accused of blowing up barracks in Germany and she was

refused to be extradited in 2007. There was a man from Latvia, and

under his human rights he was refused to be extradited to Latvia.

And you feel that right has not applied to your son? These are

entirely different things. You. Was about immigrants coming into this

country. -- a year point was about immigrants. He should get a pet

cat! Hang on a minute... Gary McKinnon has less rights than his

Zimbabwean torturer. We are speaking about little bits of

different cases. The courts go through this with a fine-tooth comb

and I would respect their judgment much more than I would respect the

judgment of the tabloids. I want to let the viewers have their views

represented so let's go through a couple of females. One man says

that many foreign criminals have claimed the right to family life as

a method of living in the UK. We cannot hold their human rights by

allowing them to take their family with them. It is their choice.

Martin says we gave so much liberty in England it has become a joke. A

man from Gloucester says that surely the point of human rights is

that they extended to all humans, whether they have committed crimes

are not. To the best of my knowledge immigrant criminals are

human. Nick, you mentioned in your report that you would like a

referendum on this. Yes. In it is not the same thing, but we do have

a text vote on that. It is a start. The immigrant criminals deserve

human rights? If you think they do, text the word DS. Our text number

is on the screen. You have around 20 minutes before the opinion poll

Stay tuned until the end of the programme because we will bring you

the result. John Galliano is the man in the dock. He blames drink,

drugs and stress for his anti- Semitic outburst. The outrageous

fashion designer is not the first celebrity accused of anti-Jewish

ranting, but he is the only one to be prosecuted. The offensive words

cause real damage our however appalling the insult, is free

speech at state? Are warning, as you might expect, this video

contains offensive comments and flash photography.

Renowned British fashion designer John Galliano was hauled before a

French court this week. His crime, an alleged drunken, anti-Semitic

and racist rant in his local bar. He is not the only celebrity to

assault the Jewish community. Film- maker Lars Von Trier, actor Mel

Gibson and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have all been accused of

anti-Semitism. But Galliano is the only one to be prosecuted. He faces

a possible jail sentence or a hefty fine. As in France, anti-Semitic

and racist insults can lead to prosecution in Britain. Galliano

says he could not remember what he said and blames drink and drugs. He

has already apologised to the victims and he was sacked from his

glamorous fashion job, but should his words have put him in court?

The Law argues that Hague speech must be illegal because words can

lead to deeds, rants can provoke violence. Even the words anti-

Semitism conjure up the Nazis and images of the Holocaust. Anti-

Semitic crimes are still shockingly frequent. Some argue that

accusations of racism can also be used to stifle genuine political

debate. Critics of Israel say they are too quickly labelled as anti-

Semitic if they criticise the Israeli state. The right wing Dutch

politician in these pictures was prosecuted for our hate speech

against the Muslim community. But it was ruled that what he said was

within the boundaries of reasonable criticism. Some people are forced

to endure bigotry at football grounds around the country. His

public disapproval now enough to punish hate speech are should rants

against religions and races put you in jail. What do you think? If you

have a webcam, you can make your point on the programme this morning.

You can join us on Twitter or Skype. All the details are on the screen.

Richard, people who have not been to football matches might be

particularly shot, perhaps those people who go to football matches

may be shocked by the words used in that report. But should the land

those people in court? I think there is a difference. I did not

know about the idea of a train full of yobs shouting like that. I would

make a huge difference between that and a fashion designer late at

night in a bar being goaded by people, laughingly, and then making

these absurd remarks. He seems to me at completely harmless man, not

a stunt. Harmless to tell someone that their grandparents should have

been gassed? Define harmless? idea that these idiot remarks by

him are somehow connected to unpleasantness and worse at

synagogues seems ridiculous. Harmless to suggest to someone

their grandparents should have been gassed? Late at night, in a bar...

I agree with Nick. The EU have come to the dark side. I think it is

absolutely unforgivable. No matter how much of an radiate he is, we

can call him all kinds of things, and try and forgive him for

everything he has done, but what he said was unforgivable. To make you

defence out if the fact that you are drunk, it is not the first time

he has done it. He has been encouraged by others but that does

not mean he has licence to say what he did. My next guest is from a

trust which defends the Jewish community from anti-Semitic attacks.

Are misguided comments by a drunk celebrity in a bar on the same

continuum as those who chant about Auschwitz at a football match?

There is obviously a difference between an individual in a bar

making comments to people and a whole bunch of drunken thugs on a

train who could very easily turn to violence. But I think we are

missing the point somewhat. Both acts are illegal and if you're a

victim, if you happen to be in the bar experiencing this, especially

if no one comes to you or aid, it is a serious matter. We should care

more about the victim. The response to a drunk in a bar mousing office

to get up and leave. Can I say one thing? I have been the victim of

racist abuse in London, and this was many years ago, 10 years ago,

and I know how exactly how you feel. You feel totally defenceless and it

makes you feel like you want to go home, you do not want to stay there,

and you feel you are being made to feel negligible, inferior. As a

result it does have a huge effect on your mind. Did you bring

charges? No, I did not, because it was a bunch of children in a tube

station. I did not live here, I was a tourist at that time. I am just

trying to say that it was very harmful and I did not want to come

back to the UK for many years because I was too scared. If it

could happen to year on the street, it could happen to anyone else.

free-speech campaigner joins us. The effect of these words is very

damaging on the individual, so should we prosecute them in court

to make sure they stop? I think there is a vital distinction to be

made which has not been made yet given that you mentioned Boat race

and religion in your introduction. The difference between attacking in

a religion and being insulting to people on the basis of their

religion, especially when you intend to cost them distress and

alarm. It is vital in a free society that we have a full

exchange of ideas about religious or non-religious matters. Race is

somewhat different because it is your innate characteristics, and

there are different rules, but I think that criminalising people for

racist outbursts when no harm is done, except to themselves and

their reputation, that is fond. It creates martyrs and it is not a

very effective way and it will not deter people when they are in Mr

Galliano's position from doing it again.

I completely disagree! I think taking him to court was the right

decision because it puts the entire debate at a different level. It

goes out of the spaces being abusive insults being hurled at

each other, you are getting into court and examining the

circumstances. It also puts the onus on the person who was the

abuser to take stock of what he did. He has lost his job, for million-

pound job. That has given him a sense of what could have been the

I'm sorry, Evan was trying to come back on that point. Mark, does it

not actually give these remarks greater publicity? I agree, but it

is the media that have made it such a big deal. What happened in that

bar is very typical. We are a charity that cares for the victims

of racist attacks. Last year we had over 400 reports from people

subjected to anti-Semitic abuse. We do hear this horrible language and

on average, it happens more than once a day. It is far too often.

Let's bring Bevan back in. I have no doubt that these things happen

but I do not think we should be filling out chords with that these

cases, especially when the language is not threatening and it is not

intentional. And John Galliano lost his job irrespective of the outcome

of the court case. I don't agree with that Dutch politician at all.

But to make him a martyr, and the same with Nick Griffin and his

anti-Islamic comments, it actually helps those people and you see the

haranguing of shock-jocks, like Nick Ferrari. Let's not make this

personal. We now have a Muslim campaigner. Do you think that anti-

Islamic comments should see people in court? Are think they should, in

the sense of sending a very strong message that this is not acceptable,

and what we are actually seeing, and three or introduction there was

a disparity of the application of the law. -- through your

introduction. What we are seeing is a greater number of incidents

relating to Muslims and yet we do not have the enforcement of the law.

The actual published figures are something like 639, not 400 as he

said. If you look at them as a -- at the Muslim number, it is over

1,000. We are seeing a growing trend and the protection of the

Muslim community does not seem to be there. What you are getting out

there is a sense of, why even bother reporting it? Nobody is

doing anything about it. So the media needs to pay attention but to

all communities, not just anti- Semitism. It happened that some

years ago, I interposed myself between some thugs and some people

they were abusing on racial grounds. Because it was obviously a

frightening situation. It was menacing. But an off his face a

fashion designer in a bar... He was exploring his indecency as the way

people do. In a public space! the response to that is to get up

and leave him to it. Nick, you have been quiet on this particular

debate. If people face court for what they say, does it not make

people like you tiptoe around what you can say? No, absolutely not.

What I do on the radio station is I know how far I can go and I know

the legalities you have to quite rightly observed. There is a

committee that sits over me and I am aware of that. We need to decide

on what harm is felt by the victim, but how do we work that out? The

people who hold banners saying that the British butchers of Basra

should go to hell, they should be done, people who do the Muslims

should be done and those who do the Jews should be done. I had John

Galliano never works again. We have had another email. While we IRA

tolerant society, we must not take away people's right to freedom of

speech. And you can complete it that discussion -- continue that

discussion online. On the streets, some are defending

the right of women to wear skimpy clothing. Others are dressing up to

a more Islamic style. You can join the debate with these details.

Remember, keep voting, too, on our text vote of. Do immigrant

criminals deserve human rights? Use You have five minutes to vote

before the opinion poll closes and we will net -- let you know the

result at the end of the programme. Time now for our three guests to

tell us what their moral moment was of the week. Nick, this court your

eye? Yes. To commemorate a group of young sea cadets, which aims to get

young people into professional careers, they asked young people,

what do you think his success? And they asked, do you earn �50,000 a

year? Is your flat or house worth �250,000 a year? Are you married?

Have you paid off the bulk of your mortgage? And do you have foreign

holidays? If you take off all of those, you were deemed to be a

success. In the media, the McCann family ticked all of these boxes.

They have paid off their mortgage and they have foreign holidays, and

we all know what happened on one of those. Sometimes, the vacuousness

of these surveys staggers me to. And all other things being equal,

and not accounting for traumatic events, and the purpose of the

survey was to try and address this issue of, does money make you

happy? And it seems the more you earn did not necessarily make you

happier? But hold on. This is a good serve. I read a book about it.

Is said �50,000 was a pretty good number to equate with happiness.

The number usually debated his �20,000, so we have doubled, which

is good! The data I have looked at says that roughly speaking, it is

amazing how well happiness correlates with income. Rishi, you

found a surprising story about sailors being rescued from pirates?

Yes. What I found fascinating about the story is that it is a counter

intuitive regarding what we think of the relations between India and

Pakistan. What happened was, this was a bunch of sailors and they

were captured by its Somali pirates. It was horrendous because they were

Indian sailors, Pakistani sailors and Egyptian. And from other

countries as well. The amazing thing was that the Indian

government did nothing. They said they were but they were doing

nothing. And there was a because there -- there was a Pakistani

philanthropist. Just a citizen of Pakistan. And he had this wonderful

idea and negotiated with papyrus on his own. He paid a ransom and the

Indian sailors were also rescued, and this has been a huge moment of

people in India waking up and saying, you know, the Pakistanis

did this for us. And it was beautiful because if you think

beyond, we get carried away by what governments say, but people power

is just so important and it came home to us. Richard, meanwhile,

people to animal relationships? You were worried about the ban on wild

animals in circuses? Well, there was the moment when the House of

Commons got itself into an uproar, saying we should ban circus animals.

It was another example of people not really thinking about the

animals. They were just sounding off. There were three good bits of

research on this, and interestingly, they say, performing animals rather

enjoy themselves. I don't care that... If how do you know that the

tiger enjoys himself? Does he come off stage and say to the elephants,

I killed tonight! But we know that dogs enjoy being trained... They do.

But they are not wild. An elephant should be in the wild.

difference between wild and tame is a very difficult one. A cat...

Domestic cats. You leave a cat outside the back door for a few

minutes and it becomes a wild animal. You cannot speak for more

than a few minutes, Richard, without provoking a wild response!

You have been voting in our text opinion poll this morning about

whether foreign criminals deserve human rights. That is now closing

so please don't vote because your vote will not count but you might

be charged. We will bring you the results later.

Thousands of women across the globe have taken part in these so-called

SlutWalks to flaunt their right to wear skimpy clothing in safety. But

there's a growing backlash from women who say they are empowered by

covering up, not stripping off. It is not only Muslims, as you might

expect. Jewish and secular or min, too. Are they taking women back to

the Dark Ages or is is a subtle solution to our over-centralised

society. -- over secularised society? Should women cover up? Any

weekend in any town, and you don't have to look far to find the

philosophy, if you have got it, flaunt it. But new research

suggests a small outburst of modesty might be underway. And the

fashion business is keen to capitalise, with an explosion of

designers helping women cover up in style. Many of the women choosing

to avoid skimpy outfits are religious, but it is not just

Muslims. Jewish, Christian and secular women are put in on the

extra style. TV chef Nigella Lawson caused panic in the tabloids when

she rejected a bikini on the beach. Some women say been covered up

liberates them. Does this signal a return to the Press Standards of

earlier eras? Not everybody wants to dress like Victoria Beckham but

dressing like Queen Victoria is hardly the alternative. The mini-

skirt now has a long history, close on half a century, of meaning women

are judged on how they dress. And then, the SlutWalk, marching for

the right to wear sexy clothes without being attacked. Some say

the trend is going too far. Women are turning into sex objects and

embracing sexism, not fighting it. So what do women want? Liberation

in a mini-skirt or freedom in a headscarf? Should beware less or

cover up more? -- should state wear Les? What do you think? You have

threatened to wear something more revealing this morning. A backless

shirt. Did you lose heart? thought I would be far too covered

if it was backless, so I decided to wear a dress! What I wanted to say

is that this is more about choice. It is not about whether we want to

be fully dressed or wearing a skirt or bikini. I want to have my choice

and I think that is what women want. It is time that men, and also

fashion designers, realised that is what we really like. We like to

wear clothes that we enjoy wearing and we do not think... When I say

we, I mean, most women I know would not think that sex and clothes,

sexuality and clothes, are necessarily related. Richard, women

should be able to wear whatever they want, however little that

It is a pity that some of BP people who ought to do the most covering

up to the least! Exposing acres of blubber is not usually attractive.

Excuse me, lot of men do it. You're not objecting to that. I would

object to that is well. How on, you're saying that women should

cover up because it offends your aesthetic sense. If you come to

morals, obviously people have a perfect right to go around semi-

naked and not to be raped, but on the other hand, their right to go

about semi-naked, does come, and we should always ask this question,

what obligations are attached to that? I think there is some

obligation. Nonsense mac -- THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE Excuse me, tribal

women live happily with quite a few clothes on.

That is their lifestyle. I hate the name SlutWalk. They cheapens and

coarsens women. If you want to walk down your street like that, do not

be surprised that many of us find it vulgar. But I celebrate the fact

that we live in a country where women can wear the Barker and

across the Channel they cannot. This is not about the men. What has

been achieved by the SlutWalk? at last what has been achieved

because this woman is from slut walker and she joins us now. How is

it going? What have you achieved? It is an anti- rape war. If women

want to avoid being rate, they should avoid dressing like sluts. A

policeman said that. What you wear does not influence what happens to

you. We're saying that whatever way women dress, that is not going to

victimise us. We have got that message out there so we have

achieved a lot. Other anti- rape walks which have happened over the

last 40 years have not received this media attention so we're

getting our message out. I know this is not a purpose if you

walk, but do you not feel that if you are seen to encourage this

allowed that allows young women to roll around in city centres from

Belfast to Brighton, rolling around in a book tube with a skimpy skirt

and high seals, there is a danger they will fall victim to a sex

attack? That is a misconception. Most rapes

happen between people who already know each other. Children and old

ladies or raped, men are rate as well. What you are dressed in does

not cause the problem. We have a terrible misconception that a woman

will victimise yourself by wearing a boob tube. That is wrong.

father are policemen would be well within his rights to say to young

people whose advice has been sought, and it is rather incorrect, he knew

he was transgressing, and I do not think it was a transgression to say

that, perhaps there is a moment when you want to wear a coat as you

go home. It will not save you from fishes rate, I grant you that, but

it is precautionary, mildly sensible, and it is the kind of

thing a father is likely to say to a daughter. I see lots of very

young girls walking around with clothes which are wildly

inappropriate to them. But her point is that you are transferring

the responsibility from men to women? Absolutely not. I am saying

that we have a huge amount of right to do exactly what you like, but

have us... To being sensible. right, we sexualise young girls.

THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE My guest is trying to come back.

Start your point again. Children are sexualised in this society and

that must be addressed, but we are speaking about women and women have

full control over what they want to wear. Children are sexualised and

that is something that we must address, but it is not the same as

women. We need to stop policing what women wear. For Kishwar, when

the sun Nigella list -- Kishwar, when the San Nigella Lawson, you

were a shock? No, that was her choice. What I am saying is that

women should be empowered to make their own choices. We should not be

saying they should wear this or wear that, whatever they want to

wear, it is entirely up to them. If Nigella wants to wear that, that is

up to her. This woman makes what is called modest fashion. Is it women

from all religion and none who want these sorts of clothes and why?

There is definitely a trend. Jewish women, Christian women, and

especially Muslim women, there is a trend to dress more modestly. To

answer your question why, I think from personal experience, I think

by dressing modestly it empowers you to the way that other people

treat you, because when you are dressed modestly, people treat you

more respectfully. They take you more seriously. People, who do you

mean? Do you mean men? Yes, but also with women, you do not get as

much catty behaviour, and women are not intimidated by other women

based on their looks. It eliminate social hierarchy among women as

well. I have been working women my entire life, and I have never

experienced any kind of bad sexual behaviour. -- working woman. I

think it is your attitude. If you accept this as what you are, you

are empowered by your identity. you do not wear a boob tube to

work? No, but it is a question of what I feel comfortable in. It is

about choices. You could have come in your underwear, but you did not

think it was appropriate. I do not think the Sunday Morning Live

audience is ready for that. I find the fashion now among young Muslim

women, for extremely modest dress, to be rather odd. For many of them,

it is not in their faith tradition particularly. It is not in their

parents' tradition. It is of course up to them, it is their perfect

right. The great comfort out if it is that it is a compliment to being

thorough Westerners, because like we all are, they are being picky

about what they want to do. Caroline, you have teenage

daughters. How do you prefer that they dress? I really try to

encourage them to understand and I asked my has been to speak to my

children as to how they come across in the way that they're wearing

clothes. We try to impart values of self-respect and valuing themselves,

but also to respect the values of the people they will be meeting

that day. I encourage them to wear clothing that will not distract

people from their faces because this is where we do are

communicating best. I feel that it robs men of their peace and natural

communication when they are dressed in a way that is not modest.

theme that has emerged in this debate is whether that takes the

responsibility away from men and places it on the girls? I certainly

think girls have a great responsibility. We need to guard

people who are weak in this area, we need to care for people and we

need to care for men, to be aware of it and act accordingly.

May I ask how am I robbed of my piece if I see a girl walking in a

revealing about fit? I think you will have fought

running through your mind which that Gail will not want you to have.

How do you know that? I am told by men. Let me assure you

that most men are unable to control those thoughts. You might be able

to control those thoughts... THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE I am not going to

leap on her like a tiger from a circus.

I am not saying that, but I am saying that erotics pots are not,

do not a rise according to the clothes the women are wearing. It

is in your mind. You can be aroused by anything? Especially libraries!

One viewer says that if some women are not comfortable wearing skimpy

clothing, that is their choice, but people have a right to

individuality. It is treating grown women like children and expresses a

deep-seated fear of women's sexuality. You can continue that

debate on our website. I need to bring you the results of our text

poll. Do immigrant criminals deserve human rights? 8% of those

who texted in said that they do deserve human rights and 92 % said

no. Kishwar, that is an overwhelming results. Nick said

that if there was a referendum...? That is much greater than I thought.

Let's have the referendum because clearly there is an appetite to

discuss this. Quiche work, does that shocked you? It is shocking in

a way, because I would imagine that if people actually knew the entire

reason behind the judgments, they would take another view on it. --

Kishwar. If they thought about it, they would realise they were human

beings who deserve human rights. Richard? I think it is rather akin

to the way that the public say they want hanging as well. It is a

motive, people do not think about it deeply. It is very important to

be on the wrong side of this argument and I always am. In this

case, Nick, you are in tune with the audience? Yes, and it is a

typical response to say that is the same as hanging, but it is a

genuine issue, and there is a genuine need. David Cameron said

that we needed a British Bill of human rights before the election

and he has suddenly gone quiet. He knows how unpopular it is. Thank