Episode 18 Sunday Morning Live

Episode 18

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Episode 18. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Politicians and campaigners say that Britain is full up. We've got


no room for any more immigrants. Thought-provoking or just


Good morning, welcome to Sunday Morning Live. The world's


population has just tipped the 7 billion mark. And under 20 years,


70 million could be living in the UK. Most of that rise would come


from immigrants and their children. A happy prospect? Kiran Bali, a


magistrate and daughter are all immigrants herself, isn't so sure.


I believe this country is fast filling up and the rate of


emigration is simply unsustainable. The Church of England has been


accused of being the Apostle of Dithering over its handling of the


St Paul's protesters. Backing them, wanting them off the premises and


then backing them once again. But can a church with billions in


assets ever really be a champion of the poor? Islamic extremists


planned to disrupt Armistice Day services. Is it a Mark or failure


of a civilised society to let them? My guests this week are more used


to exchanging strong views than changing their own. On telly, Nina


Myskow was on New Faces before becoming a Grumpy Old Woman. His


surname tells you that her father was a Polish immigrant who came to


fight for Britain in the Second World War. Jonathan Bartley has


been making the news all week for putting the boot into the Church of


England. His other side reveals that his campaign and a drummer in


a blues band. And Kiran Bali is one of Britain's youngest magistrate


and a Hindu community leader. She has campaigned for peace, but also


holds a black belt in karate. Call 1000 people a day are signing a new


E petition telling the Government that Britain is foal and should


stop letting in so many immigrants. But businesses say that they need


more immigrants to help Hall was out of recession. That is an


argument that Kiran Bali doesn't bite. -- bite.


I believe this country is fast filling up. The rate of emigration


is simply unsustainable. If immigration was to continue at its


current level, around 200 homes would need to be built every day


for the next 23 years to howlers just those coming into the country.


-- house. When I recently went through my pregnancy, I experienced


first hand the strain that this level of immigration places on our


maternity services. Like so many others, I have paid my taxes. So


why should some of those who have not contributed to affect the level


of service I receive? Many immigrants came here for the jobs


that we often wouldn't do. Some English firms are partly to blame.


They have not invested in local people and they have imported


foreign labour. Suggesting tighter controls is not racists. It is


about highlighting the limited resources and constraints that we


have. So, Jonathan, is Britain foal?


It is the argument that the Daily Mail used in the 30s to keep German


Jews out of the country. It is not that we are full, it is the


relationship between people. We have enough money to go round, the


rich have most of it and the poor people don't get it will stop that


We will show you how you voted at the end of the programme. Kiran,


you made that film. People might be surprised that this view comes from


someone like yourself, the daughter of immigrants? I don't know why.


Just because I am the daughter of an immigrant it doesn't mean that


we should have no control on immigration. Statistics prove that


England is the most Test -- densely-populated nation in Europe.


Next year, we will have more per square mile than the densely


populated areas of the Netherlands and Luxembourg. We have to look


forward. We can't keep looking backwards and say that all of these


immigrants came in the 1960s when conditions were different, it is


unrealistic to try to adopt a similar approach now, when we have


alarming numbers of people coming in. 570,000 people came into the


country last year. Two-thirds of the UK is farming land. We would


have to increase our population by 50%, up to 90 million, to come


close to the density of the Netherlands. We've got lots of


space and resources. What we do have is a problem with second homes.


There are 500.002nd homes in the UK. There are 250,000 homes that are


empty. The problem is not that we haven't got enough resources.


Immigrants are also funding doctors and nurses, as well as being


doctors and nurses. We don't have the money to keep building houses.


The ageing population, we are living longer and we have to have a


bigger working population to support it. If you're happy to have


students coming out of a university paying �50,000 in debts, if you are


happy for an NHS that isn't funded properly, then batten down the


hatches. Nina, you have been quite so far. You have an interesting


experience. Your father fought... He came with the Polish forces five


days after Dunkirk, he settled in this country until the end of the


war and then emigrated to South Africa. That was when I was 18


months old. When he died, when I was 12, my mother brought me back


to Britain. Although I am British, because I was born here, I was, in


effect, an immigrant at the age of 15. I have experience of being an


outsider. I have always felt that Britain is the home of democracy.


We should keep our doors open. We are a refuge for anybody that needs


help. I will defend that, utterly. But I live in London and I love the


ethnic mix. I love the fact that you can walk down the street and


yet 20 different languages. That is why I live in London. I couldn't


live anywhere else in this country. But we are getting really crowded


and resources are getting strained. I know what Jonathan says, but


there isn't the money to go around. there isn't the money to go around.


For instance, I don't think that the Government realise that, when


we opened our borders to the EU, how many Eastern Europeans would


come. I thought, fantastic. More Polish people, fabulous. But that


caused a huge strain. Many of them are Catholic countries and they are


going to have more babies. The thing is, we are restrained in this


country in terms of resources and benefits. I don't understand how we


are going to pay for it all. If but who we is paying for it is the


migrants. It is the tax revenues, the new businesses they are


starting. In London, Kensington & Chelsea, that is the one that is


most sensible placated. -- densely populated. And it's doing really


well. It's not population density, is that the money is in the wrong


places. We are joined by a novelist and journalist. We hear this a lot,


that there is a strain on resources, that the country cannot afford to


pay for more people. Therefore, focus is put on two immigrants. Are


their factual reasons, do you think, that people should worry about


immigration? Or is there something else going on? No, I think there


are no factual reasons whatsoever. I'm amused by the range of racial


paranoia I have heard. Look at what migrants do. We come over and work.


I am the daughter of a migrant, my mother is an academic and a role


model for any one of any race that lives in England right now. We work,


we know multiple languages, we have seen some of the world. We are not


coming over, as the stereotype has always been, to have lots of babies,


to take the resources of the NHS. Has anyone used the NHS risen to?


It is not nice enough for anyone to desire to come and use up its


resources. The houses being built, the new-build houses, they are not


at nights. We don't want to come over just to get some free housing.


-- they are not that nice. Major cities are crowded, that is the


fault of town planners. That is the fault of the system we have,


whereby people working very hard cannot afford housing. These are


problems for everyone. But you must look at what migrants do. We work,


we learn, we study. Not only that, our children go to university. They


are part of something which is what makes Britain great. Diversity and


tolerance. It's something which is very interesting, every so often


this kind of tremendous hysteria and paranoia, which is really quite


racist, some leak bubbles up when people are anxious about the


economy. We do celebrate the diversity created by migrants. This


is now about numbers. It is about quality, not quantity. We have gone


through this, unlimited immigration, tighter controls. How will tighter


controls affect people coming over, apart from bringing out the best?


Those that are going to come up are going to contribute positively.


Immigration controls are already really quite tight. It is not about


the numbers. As Jonathan quite rightly says, I am so grateful to


you for saying that Britain is not fall. I liked the idea that Britain


is a Tupperware container, somehow spilling over. Take the train out


of London, it is remarkably empty. We are joined by a spokesman from


Migration Watch. Back in the 60s, we were warned by the year 2000 our


population could be as much as 75 million. Now we are being warned


that it is going to be less than that in 20 or 30 years' time. Isn't


this scaremongering? These are not predictions. These are projections.


The ONS figures say that we are going to reach 70 million within 16


years. Two-thirds of the added population, additional numbers, are


going to be as the result of immigration. That is going to


happen. It is a fact. This is not something like looking into a


crystal ball and guessing. People are concerned about it. That is why


they are rushing to sign up to our petition, 90,000 already this week.


But you have just said that it is a fact. But it is also based on


trends. So this isn't... Presumably it is guesswork to a certain


extent? I mean, anything could happen. There are 240,000 net


immigrants into this country. That is what happened last year. The ONS


is allowing for 200,000 net. That being the case, we are going to


have an additional 5 million immigrants and their families over


the next 16 years. That is unless we suddenly stop and say, no, no


more immigrants. That is just not true. There are things that could


change that, government policy, changing birthrate, changes in the


ageing population. The statistics themselves make it clear this is


not the case. We have got to prepare for the housing. We need


200 houses a week being dealt, just to accommodate... If we built a 3


million more houses, it would be 0.3% of the land mass of the UK.


That is if we don't build on brownfield sites. 3 million houses?


That is a ridiculous... You are saying that my Brits would pay for


them? That is an assumption. -- migrants would not pay for them?


There is the environmental impact of this stop back up let's not all


This business of immigrants coming here, I think that in itself is


slightly racist, that immigrants should come to sustain the rest of


us and pay for our old age. Migrants grow old. They don't live


in tents. They need houses. It is no answer to simply say that


emigrants can come here simply because our population will not


grow otherwise. With regards to the figures, the Office of National


Statistics has been quite accurate, within plus or minus 2.5%. That is


for short-term protections -- projections over 20 years.


assumption behind a lot of this is that migrants are going to cost us


money. This is frankly wrong. When you are talking about 3 million


more houses being built, who it will buy them? It will be the


migrants. They will create the businesses and the wealth. Nobody


Our emigrants not an easy target? The government building that the


bankers and spending so much on propping up the IMF, they can


support Europe, or going to war, you could put the focus on spending


money on other things? Off-course. But in pragmatic terms, we cannot


stop the Government from spending money on a war we did not want to


go into. He cannot stop the Government bailing out the Euro.


They are going to do that anyway. What is left has to be divided up


and used in a pragmatic and practical way and I almost feel


guilty thinking that we should have some kind of points system like in


Australia for people coming in. Refugees are in danger of their own


lives in their own countries, of course we should help feed and


clothe them. That will always be a British thing. But we have to see


that in practical terms, we need to look carefully and without any


emotive thing or any racist attitude as to how we deal with


this. We are on the brink of financial meltdown in this country.


Immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses. The banks will


not give them money. You talk about business as if this will happen. It


isn't happening. There are businesses starting up. Who is


going to provide that private sector creativity? We already have


a waiting list of 1.7 million people... Social housing? Listen to


Patrick from Skype. Good morning. As you listen to this debate, and


whether we can limit immigration and that might be some solution to


the financial problems, what strikes you? I think that emigrants


are being scapegoats. Most immigrants who make the journey to


Britain wants to work, they tend to be young, fit and ambitious and why


else would they travel to this strange land? They are often very


creative people. I say to this person on the left, when you hear


about the arguments of the growth of the welfare state and they are a


burden on the welfare state, it is true that only 7% of landed Britain


is settled with houses, but I think the problem is the growth of the


welfare state, it reaches into every part of their lives.


Individuals who need constant monetary assistance, and the real


problem isn't immigrants, but the welfare state training the working


class by constantly patronising them. It is the nanny state that is


draining us. Kieran, he mentioned here experience when you're


pregnant, and that was something that had influence in the way you


think about that. Services are deteriorating three health and


welfare. I received a service which was not up to the right standards.


It was overworked with the baby boom, one and four babies are born


to immigrants. You're looking for a service that you need when you have


problems. When you are told that the body can see you, it isn't


always the way forward. Why make the connection between the service


that you think you received, which was not as you would have liked,


and immigrants having children? are having more immigrants coming


in, more of a strain on resources. Recently, the Royal College of


midwives has spoken about this and says that it rejects the assertion


that emigration is a problem, and a great many midwives were born


outside the UK and without them, NHS maternity care would generally


be on its knees. We're not stopping people from coming into the country


with those skills. It is about the end users. How can we provide that


quality of service? How do you stop people, restrict emigration and not


affect the people who provide the care? We want the quality people,


people with skills to reinforce what we do not have and we have to


look at the British people are relying on benefits, not working,


and get them into low-skill jobs so we do not rely on immigration.


we would be poorer without migrants in the health care system. But we


occupy an incredibly wealthy system in the world with access to


resources that the majority of the world does not. It is easier for us


to go to a vending machine and pull-out a coma and it is for


begins to get any clean water. What moral right to we have to exclude


people when it is a matter of life and death? Is Britain for up?


Please text the word vote followed by yes. Texts will be charged at


your standard message right. Over the last week, Church of England


leaders have gone from trying to evict protesters to backing their


cost. What does it say? That the Church of England could not see the


size of the problem on its doorstep? It has been too hard or


soft with protesters? Orders money still matter more than Christian


values? What do you think? The Church Feely admits it got this one


wrong. First to try to evict the protesters, then, after a cup of


resignations, it allowed them to stay. But Christianity is supposed


to be about helping the poor and oppressed, so should the Church of


England beating the protesters, not trying to get rid of them? Some of


those have accused the Church of not being radical enough. They


argue that Jesus was a direct action campaigner, challenging the


authority. But the established Church of England is part of the


system of government. Does that make it harder for it to fight for


the poor? Or does it very power and influence mean that when it picks


up, even if late, politicians to listen? The Church has assets worth


more than �5 billion, including shares in many big banks. Some have


accused it of being too slow to criticise the City because of this


financial interests. But the Church says its investments fund


charitable work and it has been campaigning for social justice long


before these current protests started. Did the Church hold back


because it is too close to power or too concerned about its own


financial interests? Or are they simply a venerable institution


caught on the hop by direct action protests and 24 hour news? If you


have a webcam, you can join the conversation. War on Twitter or by


text or phone. And the Bishop Stephen Lowe, the former Bishop of


Manchester, joins us. His money to important? It is important because


it enables us to continue to have 10,000 clergy on the ground in some


of the poorest communities in the country. One of the exciting things


is the Church of England is still there in inner cities, there is a


church on every street corner. There is a priest for everybody in


the country and without that inherited wealth, that would be


impossible because that is the sort of funding which is necessary to


sustain that. Are you distracted by the financial interests it has in


the big banks? I hope not. I sat as a Church Commissioner for 20 years,


trying to represent the interests of the Church in those in a state,


in her estate. To ensure that money was going to sustain that. And it


does. The money provides the pensions for the clergy who have


retired, which enables them to have some sort of ministry after


retirement but also, 20% of their salaries, as from the Church


Commissioners well. It is important to have a balance between getting


the money in in order to do the job that it needs to do? Given the


investment in oil, mining companies and banks as well as selling social


housing, and buying out-of-town shopping centres, it might have


been better to have stuck its money and a bank at 5% interest 10 years


ago. But it does see this investment function as something


which raises money for its important work. What better


approach would be to see the investments as part of the mission,


so it's not only trying to raise money but using money to do its


work, by investing in green technology. Local housing...


does do that to some extent. Less and less. In relation to social


housing, we did not manage a particularly well. That isn't the


primary task of the Church of England. It sold housing to better


social landlords that we were. We had to try to move that investment


to enable us to do what we are good at. And maximising the funding to


produce that money to sustain the Ministry of the Church is what the


Church Commission is about. Ethically, we are guided by ethical


investment decisions which make sure the Church invests ethically


as far as the money is concerned. When this row broke out about St


Gall's and protesters, what surprised you? The fact that it


costs so much to run, that they charge for people to go in? Several


things. I would have thought the Church would have been the first to


support the protesters. I am a lapsed Catholic. I learned various


biblical things, what about Jesus and the money lenders? I will not


be sino week -- so naive to suggest the Church should invest money, but


the image people have of the Anglican Church, the Catholic


Church is different, people know that it has vast amounts of wealth.


But the Anglican Church, it gives off this image of the Becker on a


paltry stipend and the church roof needed mending. Pensioners putting


money on a plate to save water coming through the church roof.


Fundraising, baking cakes. So, for me to hear about investments and


billions of pounds, that seems to me extraordinary. You're not being


fair because you're talking about the church. The Church has made


above millions of individuals and Giles Fraser was the first


sacrificial lamb on the altar of trying to do something on behalf of


the protesters. He was signed... The Church is supposed to be...


What is the church for? It is supposed to be the guardian of


morals, it should be Pontificate in about social injustice. Be dollars!


It does not. Yesterday, John spoke about the fat cats and Industry.


This should have been done years ago. The situation that changed...


25 years ago, it changed the character of the way in which the


Church worked. It was accused of being a communist report. 20 years


later, it was called fearful cities, looking at the issue of the


Church's involvement in social and economic justice and it has been


crying from the rooftops around these issues for a very long time.


Including the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has maintained a


strong line on all these issues. Where was the church during the


Iraq war? With the Church come out in favour of the Tobin tax? What


about the Iraq war? I was walking up front, like many other bishops.


As was the Archbishop of Canterbury. I can hear someone else, Christina


or, part of the General Synod and has an advisory role on the Central


Board of Finance. I know you want to comment. How does the Church


justified having more than �5 billion worth of assets? We pay for


most of the expenses of the clergy and also for the 16,000 churches


and the great cathedrals of which St Paul's is one of them and unlike


France, we pay for this and not the state. Those investments make


possible the ministry that we do in every community and as Bishop


Stephen said, the reach of the Church of England is there, day-in


and day-out, in many invisible ways and that has made possible largely


by a good investment. I do not have any problem at all. And they are


being continually reviewed in terms of the assets and we simply do not


invest in the obvious things that we consider unethical, like tobacco,


pornography, arms dealing. Anything to do with that. So people might


feel during the banking crisis that it is unethical to invest in some


Not at all. That is giving a moral... You know, money is what we


used to exchange services. Yes, we do need better regulation of


financial institutions, but what we need is a change of heart of the


people that work in them. Having said that, most of the people at


work in them are people that are either trying to simply do a job


well, but there are a lot of ethical people. What we are seeing


in the protesters is that basically there is this deep distaste for


greed, for using money in a bad way. But Christina... The unjust


distribution of wealth. Would you accept that the Church is seeking


to profit from activities which are causing the problems? On one hand,


it is making money from the people causing the problems and then it is


saying, well, we used that money to mitigate the worst effects. It is a


contradiction. Why not invest, if they do need to make money, in some


good schemes that do not try to minimise harm but actually do good?


Excuse me, just because that question was addressed to Christina,


could you just answer that question and then I will ask the bishop to


respond? Yes, we are trying to do good and we are continually


reflecting on our involvement. The Church has to be involved if it is


to generate wealth. How is selling housing and investing in out-of-


town shopping centres helping? of the things we are doing is using


our investments to attend many of the annual shareholder meetings and


say, for example, bankers pay is excessive. This is ridiculous to


made. We are involved in trying to change the culture within many of


the large corporations. As an example, we attended the meeting of


the News Corporation and tried, again, to be involved in


shareholders' activities. amazed we are sitting here


discussing finance, stocks... wouldn't be the -- here without


finance! We wouldn't actually be here, doing our work. We wouldn't


be the largest voluntary organisation in the country. Can I


also ask you one question, why do you charge, if there is all this


money, why do you charge �14.50 for somebody to enter St Paul's?


Because the running of St Paul's costs are lot more than the amount


of money even it gets through visitor income. It is a massive


organisation. If I want to go and pray, if I was of that nature, it


would cost me �14.50 pence? Not at all, they let you in free if you


want to... But you say I want to pre... But my parish doesn't charge,


I was at Notre Dame Cathedral. Government is not paid a penny, the


French government pays for that! just wanted to say that the issue


of charging people to go into churches is a live issue. Some of


the great cathedrals do not charge entrance fees. I'm afraid that I


side with Nina on that. I don't think we should be charging. But


that doesn't make the issue of how we keep our great cathedrals in


good maintenance go away. But we cannot divorce ourselves from how


we generate money and keep going as a national church. We need to bring


in one of the protesters. Tanya is from octopi London. -- Occupy


London. Wasn't your focus meant to be in the banks, due have focused


it on the church? Which says it is doing good things with the money?


It's not so much what the Church of England is investing in. It is


about its associations with the City. If you look at Goldman Sachs,


some of these major corporations in the city, they are funding St


Paul's to a large extent. The question is, who are they sitting


around the table with? If you look up the narrative of Christ, you


will be tarnished with the brush of who you are sharing your space with.


Are you Christian? Yes, very much so. I think she has a point. If I


am critical of the Bishop of London, St Paul's and the previous team, I


would say that they spent too much time at dinners with City magnates


and not enough time listening to the stories of the homeless, the


poor and the disadvantaged. They need to be listening much more to


Stepney, Hackney, than they do to the people, frankly, of the City of


London. They should be challenging them more and they should be far


more vigorous in that challenge. I'm going to go back to Christie


now on that point. Do you think more challenge needs to be made?


Absolutely. That is where we need to focus our attention. How to move


forward. Thank you very much indeed. Later, Islamic extremists want to


break the minutes' silence on Armistice Day. They say it is in


protest at the Muslims killed by our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.


It is clearly deeply insulting to soldiers and their families, and


indeed to most of the country. But aren't our soldiers are supposed to


be fighting against attacks on our way of life, including the right to


The question in our text poll is if You have around five minutes before


It is time to look at the issues that had our guests' moral


compasses spending. You were worried, Nina, about reports that


fathers would not be given equal rights in terms of access to


children during and after divorce? I'm staggered that this report has


come out and said that it doesn't give fathers the access they need.


This has been a long awaited issue. It is a really tragic issue. When


couples split up, a vast percentage of fathers have no access to their


children. For society as a whole, it is the most tragic thing.


Children that grow up without two parents, who do not know where they


have come from, they don't have that steadying influence, it has


been proven time and time again, in all sorts of reports, that


statistically they do not do well at school. They are more likely to


going to drink and drugs, to criminal activities. There are vast


social issues. It is almost a Victorian approach, saying that, in


fact, if children do have access to their fathers, sometimes it is too


confusing. It seems completely morally wrong. It is interesting,


very often a report comes out and you get a balance of views in


response. The was in response to this report seemed to all expressed


some shock at the results of it? There are many policies that we are


pursuing as a society, for example prisons, which have a huge


detrimental effect on families. Do we need to stick so many people in


prison and take away the access of children to fathers and mothers?


There are those issues I wish we had in this debate. We need a


broader debate than fighting between fathers and mothers. One of


the most disturbing moral issues for me is the removal of legal aid


from many of those seeking contact with their children. That seems to


be almost a disgraceful moral lapse by the Government, depriving people


of the right to proper legal access to make sure they can see their


children if they need to. ashamed to say this, women in the


situation, many women in this situation, they are entirely wicket.


-- wicked. They use the system to deny the children their fathers and


to my father's access to the children. I have had personal


experience over many, many years. It is absolutely evil. Women just


use the system. Social workers conspire, because it is a myth that


the child should stay with the mother and the mother knows best.


The mother does not know best. It is utterly detrimental to the child.


You may have a view on that, it is a strong opinion. You can discuss


that on the website. Jonathan has been putting up solar panels on his


roof. He is rather dismayed by how much you might get from them?


how much I might earn personally. The Government is slashing it, I am


a Green candidate and I have had a lot of people get in touch with me.


I'm involved in two not-for-profit energy companies. They are all


relying on this money. There was supposed to be a huge boost to


green jobs in the UK. This was supposed to be the greenest


government ever. There was a poster be a massive impetus towards


renewable energy. We desperately need it to fulfil targets over


carbon emissions. This is going to devastate the industry. It will hit


a not-for-profit companies. It pulls the idea of the Big Society


into complete disrepute, when the Government will not help out those


that want to do something positive in local communities. Personal


impact, I've got scars on my knuckles! You put all of that


effort in. Meanwhile, you are concerned about John Lennon's


teeth? It this strange story. A dentist has bid �30,000 for a


rotten tooth from John Lennon on the belief that somehow or other


that DNA of John Lennon might, at some stage, be extracted from this


and therefore we could clone another John Lennon. It's very


Jurassic Park! It really is weird. The notion that one would want to


create another lawn -- John Lennon. He is unique, why do we need this


notion of cloning people earth so they can be repeated? I rejoice in


the uniqueness of every human individual. It is fun that people


are different. Do we really need to try to clone people? I liked the


comment by the dentist, who spent $30,000, apparently John Lennon had


a stomach problem that caused the cavity. He says, it just shows that


didn't -- dental care is important for everybody. Perhaps he could use


it as an advertising symbol? Don't let your teeth get like this?


must be distressing for Yoko Ono to read that story. It would be awful


if you were widowed and bits of your husband... A relic? It's


rather gruesome. The notion that you can start cloning the relics of


saints and creating new saints again. It opens up all sorts of


unimaginable ethical... Made you could do that with the Turin


shroud? You have been voting in your text poll this morning. They


are now closing, so please don't On the day that Britain falls


silent to honour our war dead, a small group of Islamic extremists


will be making themselves heard as they prick the science -- break the


silence. It is seen as an insult to our soldiers and it will be deeply


upsetting to their families. It would planning a protest be an even


greater insult to the memory of those that died so that we should


be free? Next Sunday is Remembrance Day. It


commemorates the end of the First World War. For many, this is a


chance to honour those that died for our country and the sacrifice


is that they need to preserve our freedom, as well as raising money


for our soldiers and their families. For others, Remembrance is a


political event and a time for protest. Islam is coming back!


Muslims Against Crusades outraged many by burning a poppy last year.


They are planning to chant through the two minutes' silence held on


Armistice Day outside the Royal Albert Hall. They want to use the


event to protest against the British Army killing Muslims in


Iraq and Afghanistan. Many people, including Muslims, find these


protests offensive and inflammatory. So, should they be banned? Or, when


our fault fault -- forefathers fought for freedom, should that


include the freedom to protest, even in ways that many find


offensive? There are others that question whether Remembrance Day


will revise war and the killing of civilians. -- glorify his war and


the killing of civilians. It is this an appropriate time to


question the soldiers that fighter now a name? What is it the duty to


honour the dead and their families? You can make your point by phone,


text, you no or online. We are joined by Angela Epstein from the


Jewish Chronicle. Should the protest be banned? Absolutely. I


can't believe it is even a matter for debate. It is a grotesque


affront to the memory of British servicemen that gave their lives


for this country. To defile the poppy, which is a symbol of the


remembrance of the people that died, to dishonour our war dead in this


way, it is utterly contemptible. It is beneath contempt. Nina?


point being, we all honour and respect those that fought and died,


and are fighting, been maimed and killed in wars that we don't


support. That doesn't change at all. I wear a poppy, and I will wear the


white poppy very happily. My father came to this country during the war.


He fought and he fought for freedom. Freedom means freedom of thought,


freedom of expression. This is an incredibly emotive thing, the poppy,


the flag. But really, a flag is a piece of cloth. A poppy is a piece


of paper and plastic. I know it is what it represents, but when you


start to control what people think, attempt to control what people


think or say, then we move towards a totalitarian state. You cannot


possibly... I am amazed that Angela, who is Jewish, how you can not be


for freedom when the Nazis tried to control things that... They burned


books, to try to... They didn't want anybody different from the way


This isn't controlling thought. This isn't free speech, this is a


deliberately grotesque and inflammatory action that is bound


to incite racial tension, this isn't about protest. This befuddled


the definition. Protest is about having a meaningful opportunity to


raise opinion about something you can strongly about. I do not agree


with burning the flag. That is inflammatory. But I will defend to


the death the right of people to think and say things differently.


It is more dangerous to say that people... That is how the Burmese


and the Chinese government operates, communist China. Do we not need


some consider debate because it is inflammatory. There are values that


go unchallenged. We only remember the troops, not civilians. And not


people killed on the other side. When Robert Runcie's suggested we


remember the Argentinian dead... This is what I have a great deal of


issues with. This day was designated to remember those who


died. If you have an issue with becoming a peace activist and


remembering those civilians who died, or some issue about having an


informed debate about the right to protest, that is another issue. But


why hijack Armistice Day and the fact that we have identified one


day... Remembrance belongs to us... We have identified one day will we


can remember the war dead and if people want the legitimate right to


protest, which had absolutely endorse, and it is a low blow to


bring in if the Nazis, that is a different conversation. In it is


the same conversation. Let's talk to Anjem Choudary, the spokesperson


for Muslims Against Crusades. It is a protest which is offensive to


many people. How do you justify that? Good morning. The protest is


going to be very provocative and I'm sure people will disagree but


what I put to your guests and listeners is that the past dead are


being used to justified the war which is taking place and his


engaging far more Muslims than Afghanistan and Iraq? The reality


is that the poppy is being used to hide those crimes, behind flag-


waving and ceremony. There are dead that it to be remembered but


they're mostly on the side of the Muslims and because of the


occupation of Muslim land, they are not remembered. Can I ask, for


those hundreds and thousands of people who want to spend one minute


or two minutes in silence, remembering the dead, members of


their family, perhaps fathers and grandfathers and grandmothers,


perhaps children, why take that We apologise for this interruption.


We hope to have you back very If we can force a withdrawal, it is


worth it. I do not think that that publication of hundreds or


thousands of people slaughtered and even tortured in Afghanistan and


Iraq can outweigh any kind of discomfort that people will feel if


their flag is burnt. I want to ask, because the question is, this is a


protest that is so offensive to those people who are trying to


remember the war dead that it should be banned. And I should


apologise, we did go off air for a moment. If the protest was banned,


what would you do? We would continue to raise our voices about


what is taking place in terms of foreign policy. It will not be the


last demonstration. But I think the general public needs to be aware of


what is taking place in their name. Why is it that politicians are the


first ones to wear poppies? They have a foreign policy to occupy


these places. I grandfather came from Russia to escape persecution


as a Jewish boy and one of the things he did when he became


naturalised is he fought in the First World War and he volunteered


in the Second World War but was too old. He was a huge patriarch and he


accepted that and he became part of this country, he would join the


team spirit but that did not deny him the right to criticise things


when he did not accept government policy but he did this and the way


that would not be offensive. That is the duty of freedom. This


country bends over backwards to endorse multiculturalism and the


fact that we can accommodate different ethnic views, so why is


that paid back by choosing a very special day in our British calendar,


and I say this as a Jewish girl who was proud of my own traditions, why


choose something that is so important as an opportunity to


raise protest? The red poppy, the genesis wasn't the blood-soaked


trenches of the First World War. It isn't about the war against Iraq.


There are Muslim voices calling for these protests to be banned. Saira


Khan is from the Muslim Women's Organisation, inspire. Why should


this be banned? Good morning. Before I answer this, I want to say


that as a British Muslim woman, I find the views of this man to be


vile and disgusting. This man repeatedly states that our British


soldiers should burn in hell. He has clarified the actions of the


9/11 and 7/7 terrorists. He is a fascist and his record is far


removed from the principles of the Islamic faith. I find it deeply


offensive and disappointing that this man receives so much exposure,


disproportionate air time, to preach this message at a time close


to Remembrance Sunday. In answering the question, well, that is a


decision for the Home Secretary and the police to make in deciding


whether a public disorder would be a direct consequence of this


individual's right to his freedom of expression. I find it highly


insensitive and deeply provocative that he is burning copies and he


shows such disrespect to our great servicemen and women, including my


grandfather, who served in the Second World War and fought against


the oppression of the fascist radiology, which is what this man


stands for. My father was in Normandy as well. To ensure that


family feeling. The point is that over remembrance, the way that you


remember affects not just what you think of the past but how we act in


the future and how we engage in wars. Is there no merit in the


point That the way we remember needs to be looked a very hard? It


can reinforce wars and glorified them if it isn't handled correctly


and it can lead us into interventions that we later regret?


Definitely, but my issue is the actions of people like Anjem


Choudary, who give a very skewed perception of Muslims in this


country and I am tired of the braying of this donkey, because the


reality is that British Muslims are serving in the armed forces. There


are 600 British Muslims who have vowed to serve in the armed forces


today and we need to acknowledge that. And there will be hundreds of


thousands of Muslims who have died for Britain. I do want to introduce


Stephen Brown, whose son, James, died fighting in Afghanistan. We do


appreciate you taking part. What is the prospect of this protest making


you feel? Listen to every point, there are valid points, but


personally, James was my own son and he showed so much bravery in


his life before he went into the army, and to hear people condemning


Remembrance Day is terrible. I am so sorry that obviously, it is


having that effect, but I want to ask you about this argument that


you must struggle with... One of the things that soldiers fight for


is the freedom to say some very difficult and offensive things.


When you hear that argument, what does that make you think? Soldiers


saying offence of things? The fact that soldiers fight for the freedom


that allows people to say offensive things because in a repressive


regime, that free speech is censored? I agree with people


having the right to protest but this protest is more than we can


handle, we should not allow that to happen. Thank you. Freedom of


expression is about freedom of expression and the problem is


people think that means you can manifest your opinions any way you


like. I could have set fire to the Koran on the programme, would that


be a meaningful way of protesting against radicalised Muslims? I


don't think so. Well, we have to end it. The vote is in. At the


beginning, we asked if Britain is full up. 94% said yes, it is. 6%


said know. Jonathan? 94%? When you ask questions like that, you tend


to get opinion polls reflecting those kinds of people are when you


ask, who would you like to exclude, people do not want to exclude


people and when you press further and say, what about your own


community? Everybody thinks their own community is all right and as


the other communities that they don't know about. You have to treat


these opinion polls very carefully and with great sensitivity and when


you look beneath the figures, what you find is that the rhetoric about


Britain being full up just falls apart, it really does. Thank you


very much to all of my guests. A a and to my guests and the studio, in


image cough, Jonathan and Angela Epstein. And all the guests who


joined me on the webcam. Andrew Bishop Stephen Lowe, he joined us


earlier. And apologies for the fact that we fell off the air very


briefly. At I'm sure that you did stick with us. Finishing this


thought, 94%? Just final thoughts? There are a lot of Jon Leyne


warriors who are very harsh when they do this but people are kind of


Download Subtitles