:00:14. > :00:21.If the you stab a burglar in your home that might be tough on the
:00:21. > :00:31.insurer but should it be legal? De Justice Secretary himself says so.
:00:31. > :00:41.
:00:41. > :00:46.But is he correct? Good morning and welcome to Sunday Morning Live
:00:46. > :00:52.where you debate the big issues of the day. This week Ken Clarke said
:00:52. > :00:57.that we have the right to take a poker to a burglar. A blow for
:00:57. > :01:05.justice for a charter for a vigilantes? And a bit to stop
:01:05. > :01:10.Sharia courts discriminating against women. Sharia law chords
:01:10. > :01:15.are unacceptable in this country and should be banned. And as a
:01:15. > :01:21.church is napped for healing that God can cure cancer, is faith-
:01:21. > :01:27.healing an almighty cropper? Broadcaster Terry Christian is
:01:27. > :01:34.against today. He spent some of his career dishing out abuse. Can he
:01:34. > :01:41.take it? And our columnist has seen a burglar off in his own home. And
:01:41. > :01:47.Bob Turney himself used to be a butler but is now a crime fighter.
:01:47. > :01:57.You can join our guests this morning by a web can on spiked or
:01:57. > :02:04.on Twitter. Calls from mobiles made cost considerably more at than
:02:04. > :02:08.network calls. We all know that we have the right
:02:08. > :02:17.to self-defence but how far should you be able to go to protect your
:02:17. > :02:22.property from a burglar? A punch, a poker, or even a fatal attack with
:02:22. > :02:28.a knife? This week the justice secretary said that he wants to
:02:28. > :02:32.clarify the law. Just last week a man was arrested on suspicion of
:02:33. > :02:39.murder after allegedly stabbing to death a masked intruder. Is it
:02:39. > :02:48.right to use violence to protect your property? It is late at night.
:02:48. > :02:54.You are asleep in your home. But you're not alone. Anne Owens wakes
:02:54. > :03:01.you. You realise there is an intruder in your house. What would
:03:01. > :03:08.you do? What should you do? If an old lady finds she has an 18 year-
:03:08. > :03:12.old burglar in her house and picks up a knife, she has not committed a
:03:12. > :03:16.criminal offence. The Home Secretary said the new Justice Bill
:03:16. > :03:21.would clarify the position of home owners could defend themselves and
:03:21. > :03:25.their property. Last week the householder was arrested after a
:03:25. > :03:30.masked intruder to his home suffered a stab wound and later
:03:30. > :03:35.died. But just because the justice secretary says that stabbing a
:03:35. > :03:39.burglar will not be considered criminal, does it make it right to?
:03:39. > :03:44.Is it a proportionate response? Is it right to kill someone if they
:03:44. > :03:53.are just a threat to your property and not your life? In the heat of
:03:53. > :04:01.the moment it can be hard to judge if an intruder is violent. There is
:04:01. > :04:07.a sense of violation. I asked him why he could do that to us as
:04:07. > :04:11.victims. So are the words of Ken Clarke a welcome clarification of
:04:12. > :04:16.our rights to protect our homes or will be just encourage homeowners
:04:16. > :04:21.to keep weapons by their bedsides, and perhaps burglars to come armed
:04:21. > :04:26.to protect themselves? It is the job of police to protect us and our
:04:26. > :04:32.property but once a burglar enters our home, should the law allow us
:04:32. > :04:37.to be armed and dangerous? Bob Turney, 30 volt years since your
:04:37. > :04:45.last prayer golds someone's house. Does this send a shiver down your
:04:45. > :04:53.spine? Well Ken Clarke was talking about a grand mother who could stab
:04:53. > :04:59.a burglar. What people do not understand, people take an life off
:04:59. > :05:09.people and could use that to stab them. Now we're asking this morning
:05:09. > :05:09.
:05:09. > :05:19.if there ought should allow West to stab burglars. Text us with your
:05:19. > :05:24.opinion. We will bring you the result at the end the programme.
:05:24. > :05:28.Then you consent is that his people feel that they should be arming
:05:28. > :05:35.themselves if a burglar should come in, then that weapon could be used
:05:35. > :05:40.against them? It could. The loo is perfectly clear as it stands. If it
:05:40. > :05:45.is clear that the intruder is not going to exit, I can do anything I
:05:45. > :05:55.like to get them out. But if they leave and I chase them and then
:05:55. > :05:56.
:05:56. > :06:01.endure them, that is wrong. Juries are reluctant to convict people. We
:06:01. > :06:06.had the Hussein brothers from a High Wycombe recently. Apparently
:06:06. > :06:12.the family were tied up and the burglars left. What I would have
:06:12. > :06:17.done, I would not have been bothered running down the road, I
:06:17. > :06:23.would have looked after my wife and children. Mehmet, you have been
:06:23. > :06:29.burgled four times. Yes, four times in the same house and twice with
:06:29. > :06:35.young children there. Furious though I was, furious enough to
:06:35. > :06:40.confront one of the burglars, and shout at him, I do not think that
:06:40. > :06:44.the law was clear at the time. I had no idea that I up was entitled
:06:44. > :06:49.to hit him round the head with a cricket bat. I don't think I would
:06:49. > :06:56.ever has been stupid enough to use a knife. But I did not know that
:06:56. > :07:01.the law was clear on it. Is it because you did not know that the
:07:01. > :07:05.law was Clear, or what we do not have been able to have done that?
:07:05. > :07:10.peak I was so wide up with adrenalin that I might have been
:07:10. > :07:15.able to do that. Adrenalin will make you do things you never knew
:07:15. > :07:21.that you could do. I do think that people will have a go at a burglar,
:07:21. > :07:25.and why not? Is there a danger that the message that could be sent is
:07:25. > :07:33.that this is not self-defence committees meeting not punishment
:07:33. > :07:37.on the spot? The big question is, Ken Clarke completely irresponsible
:07:37. > :07:43.to say what he said. He is representing the government first
:07:43. > :07:50.of all, they say they're going to get tough on law and order. But he
:07:50. > :07:56.has just cut back police numbers by around 10%. Now he is saying that
:07:56. > :08:02.you can stab a burglar. Then they will not have to put them in prison,
:08:02. > :08:10.it gives him more prison places! I have been burgled as well. If a
:08:10. > :08:16.burglar came into my house while I was there then I may well bring the
:08:17. > :08:22.darkness to him. Let us say no more. What do you mean by that? Would you
:08:22. > :08:28.stab a burglar? Depending on my mood and how I felt. I do not know.
:08:28. > :08:36.But the idea that somebody is in your house. But if I stabbed a
:08:36. > :08:43.burglar, I would feel terrible. I do not have that much that is worth
:08:43. > :08:49.stealing anyway and most people are insured. But does this take that
:08:49. > :08:53.into account? That you can talk about if you should be able to stab
:08:53. > :08:57.someone, but actually the consequences of that for the
:08:57. > :09:01.individual responsible would be devastating. I think in the cold
:09:01. > :09:07.light of day you would feel terrible about having killed
:09:07. > :09:12.somebody. And you should be wary of guns and knives. What I do think is
:09:13. > :09:17.that most people in my street who have been burgled many times are
:09:17. > :09:22.well aware that the police do not stand a chance of finding the
:09:22. > :09:27.criminal. And knowing that and being burgled more than it once, it
:09:27. > :09:33.has developed ahead of steam. You know that there is no other redress.
:09:33. > :09:39.And you would have a go at them. I cannot see what is wrong with that.
:09:39. > :09:44.But I know that if a burglar was in my house, he would not be coming
:09:44. > :09:49.for my children. How do you know that? You could be unlucky enough
:09:49. > :09:54.to have a dangerous psychopath. When you have a teenage daughter,
:09:54. > :10:00.do you want to wait and see? Help when you live with the fact that
:10:00. > :10:05.you have killed somebody? In 1961 armed robbers used to run about
:10:05. > :10:10.with pick axe handles. There was a significant robbery in east London
:10:10. > :10:16.when the bank clerks opened fire on the robbers and from then on they
:10:16. > :10:21.started to carry weapons. So the burglars themselves if they know
:10:21. > :10:26.that people can come at them, we will have this massive walk on our
:10:26. > :10:32.hands which is not necessary. put some of those questions to some
:10:33. > :10:37.of the guests we have this morning. Jay Patel, you're beaten up as part
:10:37. > :10:43.of an armed robbery at a post office. You fought back and chased
:10:43. > :10:50.them off. You felt under attack, but if they had simply entered the
:10:50. > :10:58.Post Office, would you have used violence against them? Good morning.
:10:58. > :11:05.It is a difficult question to answer. The adrenalin does kick in
:11:05. > :11:10.as you mentioned. And in love asked how you could live with having
:11:10. > :11:16.killed someone. But we are not there to kill or attacks someone,
:11:16. > :11:23.we are trying to protect our own property and family. If someone
:11:23. > :11:29.enters your property, it is your personal space. They are not
:11:29. > :11:35.required to be there so you're going to attacked to protect your
:11:35. > :11:40.selves and he will use any means available and you will attack.
:11:41. > :11:47.You're not going to ask if they want a cup of tea. But you will get
:11:47. > :11:55.more and more examples of Tony Martin who shot a burglar. He had
:11:55. > :11:59.an illegal Far arm with him, he shot a 16 year-old. The 16 year-old
:11:59. > :12:05.late in his driveway calling for his mother. He went round with a
:12:05. > :12:10.loaded gun looking for the other broker. I defend anyone's right to
:12:10. > :12:16.defend their property but it is about going over the top.
:12:16. > :12:22.understand what you're saying. You're talking about individual
:12:22. > :12:29.cases with Tony Martin. We do not know how many times he was attacked.
:12:29. > :12:35.I will tell you, he had an out house broken into three times. He
:12:35. > :12:43.actually fired upon people who were stealing apples from his orchard.
:12:43. > :12:48.So Lee Wilkie that element, and then it will be carnage. Just tell
:12:48. > :12:54.us, what did you feel in that moment when those brokers came into
:12:54. > :12:58.the Post Office? Went the robbers came in originally it was a shock
:12:58. > :13:05.to my system. You do not know what is happening. What the effects
:13:05. > :13:14.would be. It is just when they started pushing people around, they
:13:14. > :13:21.had guns and pointed it at you. It is a life and death situation. They
:13:21. > :13:25.have the fear that their as well and the adrenalin. I want to go to
:13:25. > :13:32.Sarah Newton who was a police officer but works now with young
:13:32. > :13:37.people to prevent crime. Can't you talk to us about this concern that
:13:37. > :13:44.if people feel that they can't use whatever force is necessary, not
:13:44. > :13:50.just to defend themselves but their property, what effect could that
:13:50. > :13:55.have on the burglar? Whether it that would create an escalating
:13:55. > :14:01.sense of violence? I think it absolutely wood. The system is
:14:01. > :14:07.clear at the moment. It says we can do whatever is reasonable. It is
:14:07. > :14:13.for a jury to decide. I think Ken Clarke should focus on a system
:14:13. > :14:17.that delivers proper justice, not revenge or vengeance. Nick Freeman
:14:17. > :14:25.is a criminal defence lawyer. You must have defended burglars in your
:14:25. > :14:31.time. What do you think about that, that we blur the line between self-
:14:31. > :14:38.defence, defence of property, and vengeance and punishment, meting
:14:38. > :14:43.out the punishment on the site? do not think we should ever have a
:14:43. > :14:47.licence for lynch-mob justice. The law is not in a state of confusion.
:14:47. > :14:53.And I think what Ken Clarke said will give the wrong message to
:14:53. > :14:59.people. People think that they can stab a burglar but you cannot. At
:14:59. > :15:03.the moment you can use reasonable force, as long as you have an
:15:03. > :15:07.honest and genuine belief that the force that she knows is
:15:07. > :15:13.proportionate, you can do what you want. So the example that Ken
:15:13. > :15:17.Clarke has given about the old lady stabbing an 18 year-old. If she
:15:17. > :15:21.believes that that amount of force is necessary to protect our
:15:21. > :15:26.property then she's entitled to use it under the current laws. Other
:15:26. > :15:36.problem is most burglaries are committed by repeat offenders. And
:15:36. > :15:38.
:15:38. > :15:43.they are being put back on the Barbara from the West Midlands says
:15:43. > :15:48.if someone comes into your home you have a very right to attack. Steve
:15:49. > :15:53.says there is no right or wrong answer. To protect his wife and
:15:53. > :15:56.children, and man would be prepared to give his life. But he might
:15:56. > :16:03.think differently confronted with an unarmed child committing the
:16:03. > :16:09.same crime. That is right. I think you taking instinctive view based
:16:09. > :16:13.on who is on your house. The guy who brought into my house, he was
:16:13. > :16:19.clearly drugged up and he had both hands in his pockets. He could have
:16:20. > :16:25.had something in his pockets. He was well over 20 but I would have
:16:25. > :16:31.taken a very different view with a guy who looked to be about 15.
:16:31. > :16:36.if there was a situation, you could get it wrong? That is the risk of
:16:36. > :16:42.the burglar. If he is going to break into your house and I make a
:16:42. > :16:48.genuine mistake about the violence level, that is his problem. I think
:16:48. > :16:52.what Ken Clarke said was borderline stupidity. The example he gave of
:16:52. > :16:56.the granny and the 18-year-old, I tell you what, if this Government
:16:56. > :17:01.keeps attacking pensions the way they are, the grannies will be
:17:01. > :17:07.doing the burglaries. At Government does not tell me what to do if
:17:07. > :17:15.someone comes into my house. language was like Cluedo. Pick up a
:17:15. > :17:21.poker. The candlestick in the drawing room. What hes Ken Clarke
:17:21. > :17:26.doing, he made a complete hash of the rape issue? Then he was
:17:26. > :17:30.defeated on his have time for sentences. They have got to get the
:17:30. > :17:39.old chestnut about. We can kill a few burglars, that will bring us
:17:39. > :17:44.back. Let's try and keep this away from the politics because for
:17:44. > :17:53.people... THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE It may not be about politics.
:17:53. > :17:59.You say that it is. Completely. the law is to be changed, that is a
:17:59. > :18:03.political matter. This woman works with young offenders. The argument
:18:03. > :18:07.is that it is all about politics but to take it back to those young
:18:07. > :18:12.people who might be at risk of offending, what do you think of the
:18:12. > :18:19.idea that they leave their rides at the door, once you have committed a
:18:19. > :18:24.crime and broken into someone's house, anything goes? I just cannot
:18:24. > :18:28.believe that we want to live in a society where that is OK. Each
:18:28. > :18:33.young person has their own story and their own reasons, and I am not
:18:33. > :18:39.saying that burglary is not a crime that effects are victims, but every
:18:39. > :18:43.young person is a victim of their circumstances. If I drive my car at
:18:43. > :18:50.100 mph and I am involved in an incident, I do not know what is
:18:50. > :18:55.going to happen at 100 miles an hour, so why do not know what will
:18:55. > :18:59.happen if I going to someone's house. I was one of the young
:18:59. > :19:04.people you used to work with. But they need to understand when the
:19:04. > :19:08.going there. But the household also needs to understand there is a
:19:08. > :19:15.degree of where you draw the line. But the Government is now promoting
:19:15. > :19:20.violence. Young people, very often, especially those from chaotic
:19:21. > :19:25.backgrounds, they do not have lines drawn. This will make it much
:19:25. > :19:30.clearer although Ken Clarke put did very badly. This makes it clear
:19:30. > :19:34.that the line is trying on the doorstep. There is one more guest...
:19:34. > :19:39.THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE David Cameron said we have to send a clear
:19:39. > :19:45.message to those that carry knives, it is completely unacceptable in a
:19:45. > :19:52.civilised society. He said that two weeks ago and you
:19:52. > :19:56.have Ken Clarke's standing up and saying... That is inside the house.
:19:56. > :20:01.The reality is that before Thatcher came men hardly anyone had any
:20:01. > :20:07.burglar alarms. There was a massive crime wave that coincided with the
:20:07. > :20:13.high levels of unemployment in the 1980s. By 1985, nearly everyone had
:20:13. > :20:18.a burglar alarm. It's this man is also reformed burglar who works
:20:18. > :20:23.with young offenders. We have had this issue about how political this
:20:23. > :20:27.is. I wonder what do you think about the idea that there is a
:20:27. > :20:31.sense that burglars do not get dealt with by the police,
:20:31. > :20:38.householders feel they do not get dealt with by the prison system,
:20:38. > :20:42.that people want more power to deal with it? This is the problem, the
:20:42. > :20:46.law as it stands says you can use reasonable force to protect your
:20:47. > :20:52.home and your family. There are two issues, if you are protecting your
:20:52. > :20:57.family, you should protect whatever force is necessary to protect human
:20:57. > :21:01.life which is far more valuable than your goods. Thought I would
:21:01. > :21:06.say to Ken Clarke to has come out with this statement about taking
:21:06. > :21:12.the law into your own hands, in the mind of the burglar he does not
:21:12. > :21:18.want to attack the family. 90 % of burglars want cash, jewellery,
:21:18. > :21:23.credit cards, most of them are on some kind of substances...
:21:23. > :21:28.I live next door to a man who -- I live next door to a girl who was
:21:28. > :21:34.raped by the Notting Hill rapist. How could I possibly tell that the
:21:34. > :21:40.person who had broken into my house was not the Notting Hill rapist?
:21:40. > :21:45.That might have been in the 80s... Just let him speak. You should
:21:45. > :21:50.never ever corner a burglar. You're asking for trouble. I am speaking
:21:51. > :21:56.from experience, from being a burglar, and from my experience,
:21:56. > :22:02.they carry screwdrivers, hammers, all kinds of weapons, not to attack,
:22:02. > :22:08.but to get into the property. My advice would be never ever confront
:22:08. > :22:14.a burglar, but let him get out if your property because goods can be
:22:14. > :22:20.replaced. If I was taught, I would be making my way out of the door
:22:20. > :22:25.because I am a coward. We must leave the discussion there. You can
:22:25. > :22:35.vote in our text opinion poll. Should the law let us attack
:22:35. > :22:41.
:22:41. > :22:46.burglars to defend our property. You have around 20 minutes before
:22:46. > :22:49.the opinion poll closes this morning. It is time for our Sunday
:22:49. > :22:56.Stand where we hear from someone who thinks that they are right
:22:56. > :23:01.about something the rest of us have not woken up to yet. Sharia lot to
:23:01. > :23:07.many conjures up images of barbaric justice, Estonians, beheadings, but
:23:07. > :23:10.happily Sharia courts in our country do not going to that thing
:23:10. > :23:15.but are commonly used for property disputes are disputes about
:23:15. > :23:25.marriage. But a bill before the House of Lords says that we still
:23:25. > :23:26.
:23:26. > :23:31.need to protect women from the effect of Sharia.
:23:31. > :23:35.Sharia chords are unacceptable in this country and should be banned.
:23:35. > :23:41.In Sharia courts women's evidence is less valuable than men's, they
:23:41. > :23:46.cannot be judges, and they have fewer rights over divorce, property,
:23:46. > :23:53.inheritance and even over the custody of their own children. In
:23:53. > :23:59.some countries, Sharia Law Handy's -- hands about cruel and unusual
:23:59. > :24:05.punishments. We do not have legalise stoning Sir amputations in
:24:05. > :24:10.this country but we do have Sharia courts trying to impose a system of
:24:10. > :24:15.lot that is institutionally sexist and unequal. This is unacceptable,
:24:15. > :24:19.or it should be. Our law is the expression of all that is best
:24:19. > :24:24.about our country and it is what makes this country are tolerant and
:24:24. > :24:29.civilised place to live. That is why there is no other place for any
:24:29. > :24:36.kind of other lie in this country, whether it is Islamic, Jewish or
:24:36. > :24:38.any other law. That is why it is important to make a stand against
:24:38. > :24:44.people who are trying to make Sharia courts more and more
:24:44. > :24:51.acceptable here. If you have a webcam, you can make your point on
:24:51. > :24:57.Skype, or you can use Twitter or e- mail us. We have said goodbye to
:24:57. > :25:03.Bob for just a moment. Aina Khan joins me now, a family lawyer who
:25:03. > :25:08.specialises in Sharia lot. Welcome to Sunday Morning Live. -- Sharia
:25:08. > :25:14.law. You heard the arguments of Minette Marrin, do you support what
:25:14. > :25:20.she says? I am a solicitor specialising in English family law.
:25:20. > :25:27.It is only by women clients asking me for an alternative solution to
:25:27. > :25:30.the huge expense of English justice, which is very delayed in the family
:25:30. > :25:37.courts, very expensive and acrimonious. They want an
:25:37. > :25:43.alternative. Do you charge less money for Sharia? Lawyers charge
:25:43. > :25:48.money for everything I am afraid. It is the same hourly rate. But I
:25:48. > :25:54.can help those people who really need me. You're suggesting that it
:25:54. > :25:57.is a more co-operative, consensual form of justice? That is the aim of
:25:57. > :26:03.it, but when emotions are height and nothing ever works out like
:26:03. > :26:08.that, it can be highly acrimonious. The Government is pushing mediation
:26:08. > :26:13.because we have a family system which is at breaking point. We
:26:13. > :26:18.cannot deal with any more cases the way they are just now. Minette
:26:18. > :26:24.Marrin, the justice system is clogged up, this is an alternative
:26:24. > :26:28.form of the Big Society, it is a more consensual form of justice?
:26:28. > :26:34.The courts are indeed club up and very expensive but we already have
:26:34. > :26:39.mediation under English and Scottish law. You can go to that.
:26:39. > :26:45.You do not need specialist Islamic, or a Jewish, or other arbitration
:26:45. > :26:54.bodies. Insofar as they are caught with British, English law, they are
:26:54. > :27:00.redundant. I think this is the thin end of the wedge. What is the point
:27:00. > :27:06.of a Sharia court. People living this country. There is nothing to
:27:06. > :27:13.stop Muslims advising Muslims, but I am tired of hearing about it.
:27:13. > :27:18.I explain...? Can I tell you first. I think Sharia law is being brought
:27:18. > :27:23.to certain communities to stop the spot light being shone on those
:27:23. > :27:30.communities on the fact they oppress their women. I will explain
:27:30. > :27:36.the reality. The media loves black and white headlines. The reality is
:27:36. > :27:42.that the majority of my clients are women. 90 % of them asking for
:27:42. > :27:47.these solutions. Men are often against Sharia solutions. It is not
:27:47. > :27:51.in their interest. Minette Marrin is right, there is mediation. And
:27:51. > :27:58.the Muslim community does have trained mediators, but it is not
:27:58. > :28:05.for that. Primarily it is for women seeking divorces. Muslim women go
:28:05. > :28:11.to the Sharia council. They are self-appointed, they are not courts.
:28:11. > :28:17.Their marriages are not recognised under Sharia law, so why would you
:28:17. > :28:21.go and get divorced under Sharia? I grew up in any area with children
:28:21. > :28:26.who were Pakistani, and I can tell you about this, none of them wanted
:28:26. > :28:32.arranged marriages, they did not want have thought the stuff that
:28:32. > :28:38.was forced on them. Shari Allah is great, if you are that religious,
:28:38. > :28:44.you want to do that. -- Sharia law is great. If you want to do that,
:28:44. > :28:50.you can abide by it. But I do not want any of mac tax money going to
:28:51. > :28:57.a law which is outdated. How is tax money paying for it? It is our
:28:57. > :29:00.alternative system. Who's going to be paying for the masks? Leaving
:29:00. > :29:06.aside the question of taxpayers' money which I think is a red
:29:06. > :29:12.herring, we should resist at every level, and parallel system of law
:29:12. > :29:17.which is not equivalent to English law, creeping in by the backdoor.
:29:17. > :29:27.In a recent opinion poll, something like 65 % of British Muslims would
:29:27. > :29:32.
:29:32. > :29:38.like to see Sharia last year for We need to resist the introduction
:29:38. > :29:44.of any other system of law all into this country. I think the majority
:29:44. > :29:51.of Muslims want English law but we want absolution which work for us
:29:51. > :29:58.under both. It is the pin end of the wedge. Not true at all.
:29:58. > :30:03.Sensationalist. That is how a lot of people feel. According to one
:30:03. > :30:13.opinion poll 40% of Muslims want Sharia law all in this country.
:30:13. > :30:18.
:30:18. > :30:26.Cappagh and Heseltine joins us. You got a divorce in this country. What
:30:26. > :30:32.was the benefit of getting a divorce in this country in that
:30:32. > :30:37.Sharia law council? It was actually a lot more straight forward, less
:30:37. > :30:42.stressful, less expensive, and process of getting a divorce
:30:42. > :30:48.through British law, at which I also did. The important thing is
:30:48. > :30:53.that it is about choice. As a Muslim woman, I appreciate people's
:30:53. > :31:00.concerns but I do not need anyone else to decide what is best for me.
:31:00. > :31:04.If it is my choice to go to a council, which is simply a way of
:31:04. > :31:12.being able to go through that process of getting the divorce that
:31:12. > :31:20.I wanted... Can I just interrupt to ask you a question. In the divorce
:31:20. > :31:25.that you had, where both parties agree a port at the time? It was
:31:25. > :31:34.myself who wanted it but my husband did agree to it and then it was a
:31:34. > :31:38.straightforward process. Most Muslims in this country would
:31:38. > :31:45.married a cousin. So it is a different thing, there is a lot of
:31:45. > :31:47.emotional blackmail. Let's keep this within the family group and
:31:47. > :31:55.use a Sharia law player ought to stop it getting out. So that case
:31:55. > :32:05.is not really typical. I would say that just because I'm quite does
:32:05. > :32:07.
:32:07. > :32:11.not mean... Those women are also capable of making their own choices.
:32:11. > :32:20.But they would be forced to go to Sharia law le all instead of
:32:20. > :32:27.English law. The principle of Islamic law is that you have to
:32:27. > :32:33.consent. There cannot be forced. is the same with our law, anyone
:32:33. > :32:37.can arbitrate. The reason that the Bill has been brought to the House
:32:37. > :32:42.of Lords is that they have been many cases, a significant number of
:32:42. > :32:47.women who have been adduced in one way or another at have not
:32:48. > :32:52.consented. And worse still, they are not well informed about their
:32:52. > :33:02.rights and are quite often bamboozled. Claims are made by
:33:02. > :33:02.
:33:02. > :33:06.those around them that the Sheniah court has more powers than it does.
:33:06. > :33:12.I totally agree with that and as a lowlier I do not pull them to court.
:33:12. > :33:18.They have no power of enforcement. There councils set up because of
:33:18. > :33:23.public demand by women who wanted at divorce. It is as simple as that.
:33:23. > :33:29.What about those women who have changed in marriages? Do you not
:33:29. > :33:39.feel sorry for them? I just think that what has been happening, keep
:33:39. > :33:41.
:33:41. > :33:46.Sharia law took yourself. But there is British low wall. It does not
:33:46. > :33:52.deserve a Muslim marriage. You can get divorced in Islam, legally. So
:33:52. > :33:57.you can get divorced in Britain, legally. If you have an Islamic
:33:57. > :34:07.marriage, you may never be validly recognised under English law, so
:34:07. > :34:10.
:34:10. > :34:15.you have to have an Islamic divorce in order to marry again. I want to
:34:15. > :34:21.bring in a judge in in the Sharia courts. One criticism is that women
:34:21. > :34:28.are discriminated against under this system of law. Is the evidence
:34:28. > :34:32.from women in a Sharia court equal to that of a man? In family matters
:34:32. > :34:42.that is a misunderstanding, in family and pastoral matters their
:34:42. > :34:43.
:34:43. > :34:49.evidence is equal. And 90% of the users are women. It is not forced
:34:49. > :34:52.on anyone. What is Europe response to the claim by some that Cherie at
:34:53. > :35:01.low walk is in some ways discriminatory? For instance what
:35:01. > :35:11.does it say about homosexuality? This type of case is beyond the
:35:11. > :35:12.
:35:12. > :35:17.jurisdiction. So to bring criminality into it it is confusing
:35:17. > :35:26.the argument. Where does appear that simple comic interpersonal
:35:26. > :35:34.relationships. But what about cases of domestic violence? Is it not
:35:34. > :35:44.also about custody of children? Most of the Sharia councils do not
:35:44. > :35:49.decide about children and property. We do not hear any case unless they
:35:49. > :35:54.have also applied to a civic court. And what about cases of domestic
:35:55. > :36:04.violence? Women are not encouraged to go to the police in the Islamic
:36:04. > :36:10.community. What is happening, if there is any domestic violence,
:36:10. > :36:18.their case in the Sharia Council becomes very easy. If there is
:36:18. > :36:25.evidence we take it seriously into account. That is my experience,
:36:25. > :36:29.that going to the police actually helps your case. And why not use
:36:29. > :36:33.every year all that can protect you as a woman? You have to make sure
:36:33. > :36:38.it is stand up for a new it rights and I'm saying use whatever
:36:38. > :36:45.jurisdiction you can. The problem is that the councils as you call
:36:45. > :36:50.them, are up over riding their proper limits. And secondly there
:36:50. > :36:56.are a great deal of women who are at risk and who are not well
:36:56. > :37:02.informed. There easily misled. They may not speak much English. You can
:37:02. > :37:08.carry on with that debate online. Still to come this morning, at some
:37:08. > :37:13.faith healers claim that they can cure cancer and HIV. Are they just
:37:13. > :37:21.exploiting the sick and the desperate? Contact us with your
:37:21. > :37:31.opinion so. And keep voting in our text poll this morning. Should
:37:31. > :37:32.
:37:32. > :37:40.there will allow us to defend our property from burglars? You have
:37:40. > :37:45.around five minutes before that closes.
:37:46. > :37:51.Now it is time for what our guests but whether Big Mole moments of
:37:51. > :37:58.that week. And the sexual assault case against the former chief of
:37:58. > :38:03.the IMF? You wonder about the reasons why a, the timing is very
:38:03. > :38:07.convenient and won the IMF chief is not helpful to the American No
:38:07. > :38:12.authorities because of his stance on the economy. The district
:38:12. > :38:18.attorney who brings the case against him manages to get in the
:38:18. > :38:23.media and the anonymity of the alleged perpetrator is completely
:38:23. > :38:27.gone for ever. It does not matter whether he is charged, whether it
:38:27. > :38:35.turns up that the victim has no credibility, he is destroyed for
:38:35. > :38:43.ever. Do think that should happen in oral cases of alleged assault,
:38:43. > :38:48.but there should be anonymity for all of used? Absolutely. In this
:38:48. > :38:58.case the press is the judge. That is wrong. The reaction of the
:38:58. > :39:02.Labour leader to the strikes which took place? There was a photograph
:39:02. > :39:11.of David Cameron and Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg altogether on the
:39:11. > :39:16.day of the strikes. They were all the same. Like George Orwell book,
:39:16. > :39:21.the animals looked to the humans, they could not tell which was which.
:39:21. > :39:30.What would you have liked to see? would like to have heard Ed
:39:30. > :39:35.Miliband standing up to support the strikes. And asking the question of
:39:35. > :39:41.if there is this massive deficit, then you get rid of public sector
:39:41. > :39:50.workers, they are not paying wages, then private sector workers lose
:39:50. > :39:58.their jobs in turn, is this ideological or is it really helping
:39:58. > :40:07.Britain's budget deficit? Meanwhile, Mehmet, an e-mail from a mother-in-
:40:07. > :40:12.law quote you are. Yes, the mother- in-law all from hell. She is
:40:12. > :40:17.Caroline borne who wrote this extraordinary e-mail to her future
:40:17. > :40:22.daughter-in-law, Heidi Withers, and said that she was bolder and common,
:40:22. > :40:30.she needed to go to finishing school if she wanted to giant the
:40:30. > :40:35.family. This was following an overnight trip to their house.
:40:36. > :40:41.Completely delicious. Clearly a very stupid to slag off your
:40:41. > :40:46.daughter-in-law to her face and on e-mail. And I began to think,
:40:46. > :40:50.because I had a mother-in-law from hell, she was famously a holy
:40:50. > :40:55.terror and there was nothing much that you could do. But in this case
:40:55. > :40:59.these women has been named and shamed across the internet. Was her
:40:59. > :41:04.mistake to criticise the future daughter in law or to do it by e-
:41:04. > :41:09.mail? E-mail is very dangerous because you're accountable for
:41:10. > :41:16.everything you say. And it is not exactly going to get your message
:41:16. > :41:19.across very constructively. The doctor in the war goes on the
:41:19. > :41:25.defensive, everyone takes an entrenched position and nobody wins.
:41:25. > :41:33.It is a notoriously tricky relationship. If it all goes pear-
:41:33. > :41:37.shaped, the step mother could say, I told you so. Some people are so
:41:37. > :41:43.determined to do what they want that only extreme measures like
:41:43. > :41:48.public exposure could stop them. I wish we had this route open to us
:41:48. > :41:58.when I was first accepted reluctantly into my mother-in-law's
:41:58. > :41:59.
:41:59. > :42:05.family. It on had a son in law or daughter in law and think my family
:42:05. > :42:15.are so used to mother in-laws from hell that they would hardly notice.
:42:15. > :42:20.She is a witch. It is true. I think with three sons I am sensitive
:42:20. > :42:26.about that, I am aware that I could be a mother-in-law in the future to
:42:26. > :42:35.possibly three different women. daughter has actually written in a
:42:35. > :42:40.play about her mother-in-law flowers so comically ghastly. --
:42:40. > :42:44.who was so comically ghastly. we asked you at the beginning of
:42:44. > :42:51.the programme if there ought should allow us to defend our property
:42:51. > :42:57.against a burglar. We will bring you the results at the end of the
:42:57. > :43:02.programme. That has now closed. Faith-healing has never been short
:43:02. > :43:12.of believers and detractors who think it is best unprovable and at
:43:12. > :43:17.worst Pebsham. So the advertising standards authority has warned
:43:17. > :43:23.about a leaflet claiming that guard can heal everything from back pain
:43:23. > :43:26.to cancer. Religions across the world have faith in its faith
:43:26. > :43:36.healing. Is there any truth to their claims or do they just pray
:43:36. > :43:40.on our week Ms? -- our week Ms? They are an estimated 20,000 faith
:43:40. > :43:46.healers in the UK. To believers there are just more than an
:43:46. > :43:50.alternative to their local doctor. He is an amazing guy. You just look
:43:50. > :43:54.into his eyes and you see the universe was a up for Sam Thaiday
:43:54. > :43:58.killing is a last resort when Western medicine has run out of
:43:58. > :44:03.answers. But to many in the modern world a few years are the
:44:03. > :44:09.unacceptable face of religion. And there is concern that believers may
:44:09. > :44:12.actively avoid seeking proper medical care. Last week a couple in
:44:13. > :44:18.America were sentenced to jail for failing to seek medical care for
:44:18. > :44:23.the infant daughter who needed an operation on her eye. There's no
:44:23. > :44:28.clear scientific evidence for faith actually healing disease. Even so,
:44:28. > :44:34.the belief that faith can bring miracle cures motivates many to
:44:34. > :44:39.make the pilgrimage to places like Lloyds. Since records began over
:44:39. > :44:49.7000 people have claimed to be Curate there. But even the Catholic
:44:49. > :44:57.
:44:57. > :45:01.Church believes the real number is Should we leave it to those of
:45:01. > :45:07.faith to decide if it makes them feel better? It may be arrogant to
:45:07. > :45:11.think that only western medicine has all the answers, but without
:45:11. > :45:15.evidence our faith healing claims of curing cancer a dangerous? Our
:45:15. > :45:20.faith healers exploiting the vulnerable, and for the dying are
:45:20. > :45:25.told that they only need faith and continue to worsen, does this add
:45:25. > :45:33.to their misery? Our faith healer charlatans, you can join in by a
:45:33. > :45:38.webcam? We welcome to the studio Pastor Brian Madden. How many
:45:38. > :45:43.people do you think your prayers have helped? A significant number
:45:43. > :45:47.of people, according to reports received back. I would like to say
:45:48. > :45:54.that I am not a faith healer, I am a born-again Christian who believes
:45:54. > :45:59.in Jesus Christ. We pray for the sake. I do not get any gain out of
:45:59. > :46:04.it other than the satisfaction of seeing people's lives transformed.
:46:04. > :46:11.I have seen people healed of cancer, deafness, blindness, this is
:46:11. > :46:16.something that is normal or to any evangelical pastor. With regards to
:46:16. > :46:20.the leaflet, I think it is just another attack on evangelical
:46:20. > :46:25.Christians. You mentioned at the start of the programme that we had
:46:25. > :46:29.a young man a few years ago that was badly injured in a car crash.
:46:29. > :46:33.His father came to our church and at that time we were having a
:46:33. > :46:39.series of healing meetings were we were seeing tremendous medicals
:46:39. > :46:44.which was in a lot of the newspapers. He phoned us to pray
:46:44. > :46:49.for him because he had heard that he had died on the operating table.
:46:49. > :46:54.We had thousands of people praying, and we prayed, and a few months
:46:54. > :46:59.later we got a phone call back to tell us that he had been dead for
:46:59. > :47:03.13 minutes but that he came back to life and made a full recovery.
:47:03. > :47:07.Minette Marrin, Heidi you explain to a family who believe that the
:47:07. > :47:15.prayers of thousands have brought back their son from the dead, how
:47:15. > :47:19.do you explain that? I would never try personally to offend people by
:47:19. > :47:24.saying that I did not believe in their claims are personally
:47:24. > :47:29.disrespect in their religious views. I would not say to them what they
:47:29. > :47:33.actually believe, that prey is completely useless. But I have did
:47:33. > :47:39.a lot of research and thus, when I used to work for BBC religious
:47:39. > :47:43.television programmes, I did research for several years and I do
:47:43. > :47:49.believe that things changing people, the relationship between mind and
:47:49. > :47:54.body which is one, in fact. It is a mysterious thing, and I was dying
:47:54. > :47:58.to put some really good cases on the screen, but I had to drop the
:47:58. > :48:03.programme because I could not find a single one that was well
:48:03. > :48:09.documented. Do you mean you could not find the case that was clearly
:48:09. > :48:13.explained through prayer as opposed to medical science? They did not
:48:14. > :48:17.have an equally good if not better medical explanation, but leaving
:48:17. > :48:23.aside prayer and hands-on healing, and the different ways that people
:48:23. > :48:28.try to heal other people, what struck me including going to lot of
:48:28. > :48:31.Christian meetings, is that you have a tremendous UPS well of
:48:31. > :48:37.religious enthusiasm and excitement and there are various rituals in
:48:37. > :48:41.which people get themselves into an altered religious state. We did
:48:41. > :48:47.some experiments with people interested in shamanism, and you
:48:47. > :48:53.get a release of endorphins, the body's natural opiates. At these
:48:53. > :48:56.meetings, people say, stand up if you have cancer, and they come
:48:56. > :49:04.forward and they feel blast. They may feel better there and then but
:49:04. > :49:09.it is an endorphin rush. Terry, they feeling better? Every kind of
:49:09. > :49:19.psychological survey says that the more faith you have, the better it
:49:19. > :49:22.is for you. It is a great thing, faith in anything. I grew up
:49:22. > :49:27.Catholic and my only question is, because I can remember people are
:49:27. > :49:33.going on pilgrimages to be healed, I can remember coming in after a
:49:33. > :49:39.night out, and there was a bottled holy water in a lemonade bottle. I
:49:39. > :49:43.felt really thirsty, I thought that we had lemonade in the house. I
:49:43. > :49:49.took a big swig a fake, and I spend a lot of time on the tile at the
:49:49. > :49:55.next day so it had the opposite effect on me. My big question about
:49:55. > :50:01.miracle cures, why can it not cure an amputee? Let's say you had an
:50:01. > :50:10.arm missing, is that not going to be easier to cure than a cancer?
:50:10. > :50:16.Could you? It is an old chestnut, it has been asked on many occasions,
:50:16. > :50:22.and if I were God, I could answer that. My wife is an amputee so I
:50:22. > :50:27.know exactly what Teddy is speaking about. I did not mean to offend you.
:50:27. > :50:33.I also have a severely handicapped daughter. Why does God kill some
:50:33. > :50:39.and not others, I do not know. One woman sick could not be here had
:50:39. > :50:45.the most aggressive cancer that anyone could have. Stomach cancer.
:50:45. > :50:55.No one has revived it, but she went to pray and she was sealed. There
:50:55. > :50:55.
:50:55. > :50:59.is no explanation. -- no one has survived it. The problem with
:50:59. > :51:05.hospitals is that because of the medical profession they will never
:51:05. > :51:11.say that God has done the ceiling. The doctors will say that we have
:51:11. > :51:16.no explanation. They say, maybe someone -- maybe some day science
:51:16. > :51:21.will give us an explanation. have an enormous amount of guests
:51:21. > :51:28.but not an enormous amount of time. 50 clinical trials into faith-
:51:28. > :51:33.healing do not prove that it works, does it? I was speaking to a doctor
:51:33. > :51:41.who has just published a book about it, I GP in Sheffield, and he has a
:51:41. > :51:50.wealth of evidence from all over the world that belief in Jesus
:51:50. > :51:57.Christ as benefit your health. it cure your cancer? There are well
:51:57. > :52:02.documented cases of cures for cancer. Medics are understandably
:52:02. > :52:09.sceptical because we want the truth, we want to be able to say, was it
:52:09. > :52:13.the prayer, or was it a spontaneous cure? But particularly in other
:52:13. > :52:18.parts of the world when the look at the documenting of these things,
:52:18. > :52:23.such as in Africa, and I was speaking to another GP who has been
:52:23. > :52:33.out to Nigeria, and there they demand that HIV/AIDS patients
:52:33. > :52:35.
:52:35. > :52:40.always have documents from the laboratory that they have HIV. They
:52:40. > :52:45.have to show documented laboratory evidence that they have been cured.
:52:45. > :52:52.Doctor, HIV can only be treated with anti-retroviral drugs, that is
:52:52. > :52:57.the medical fact of the matter? fact is that they can be well
:52:57. > :53:01.treated with anti-retroviral drugs, but the fact days that prayer in
:53:01. > :53:09.the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will, on occasions, at his
:53:09. > :53:12.discretion, it will seal HIV/AIDS. For Professor, you're a
:53:12. > :53:18.psychologist at Goldsmiths University of London. What do you
:53:18. > :53:22.make of claims like that? I think that is absolutely outrageous, the
:53:22. > :53:27.claim we have heard. Are we meant to believe that those people who
:53:27. > :53:32.were being treated for HIV were not receiving conventional treatment at
:53:32. > :53:36.the same time. If that is what is being said, that is outrageous. If
:53:36. > :53:43.they were receiving conventional treatment, that was probably what
:53:43. > :53:49.cured them and not the prayer. I think it is dangerous. Can I just
:53:49. > :53:57.say, when I was 17, I was a crazy young man, my mother sent me to a
:53:57. > :54:02.psychiatrist. I am not a psychiatrist... At 19 years of age
:54:02. > :54:08.I find Jesus Christ and he transformed my life. He transformed
:54:08. > :54:14.my crazy mental state. Professor, is there a benefit when it comes to
:54:14. > :54:18.mental states, not physical ones? The important things here is that
:54:18. > :54:24.we're dealing with psychological problems which can be cured by
:54:24. > :54:30.psychological means and belief is a hugely important factor. We have
:54:30. > :54:35.heard that when people try to track down these claims, we have an
:54:35. > :54:41.absence of evidence. Yes, psychologically you might be helped
:54:41. > :54:46.by the power if you believe, no one could deny that, the placebo effect,
:54:46. > :54:49.but to actually imply that you can be cured of a serious disorder like
:54:49. > :54:54.cancer through the power of prayer is dangerous, immoral and
:54:54. > :55:02.outrageous. You're a former sergeant in the army, medically
:55:02. > :55:07.discharged, what happened to you? was in the Army for 15 years and I
:55:07. > :55:14.was meant to be discharged in 2003. I was discharged with chronic back
:55:14. > :55:18.pain. Do you feel that faith- healing help? I did not know much
:55:18. > :55:25.about healing but a friend of mine in the Church asked me if anyone
:55:25. > :55:31.had prayed for my injuries, and I said, no. He laid hands on me with
:55:31. > :55:38.a number of fathers, and I watched my right leg growth. From then on,
:55:38. > :55:43.I have been physically Flett. -- physically fit. They are great
:55:43. > :55:48.stories, and maybe something did happen, but to me they are a
:55:48. > :55:52.collection of chip shop anecdotes. I cannot understand if Darren is
:55:52. > :55:59.saying that his leg grew, how much did it go?
:55:59. > :56:05.It was a number of inches. Because my pelvis was so badly twisted, I
:56:05. > :56:10.walked like someone who was 6 ft 5, I walked leaning over to one side.
:56:10. > :56:15.When they laid hands on me, I was sitting on the seat with my feet
:56:16. > :56:19.straight out, and you could see the difference in the length of my legs.
:56:19. > :56:25.If you have good documentation of this, it would be extremely
:56:25. > :56:30.interesting. But I question whether the facts are never there. We must
:56:30. > :56:36.bring that discussion to an end. The result of our text opinion poll
:56:36. > :56:46.is in. We asked if the law should letters attack burglars to defend
:56:46. > :56:51.
:56:51. > :56:56.our property, and this is what you Pastor Brian Madden, the audience
:56:56. > :57:00.may be surprised to learn that you used to be a burglar? What do you
:57:01. > :57:06.make of that overwhelming public vote? I have to say that I never
:57:07. > :57:14.burgled homes, it was mostly wine stores, but I am surprised at that.
:57:14. > :57:24.To protect oneself is Blakeley, you can defend yourself. -- to protect
:57:24. > :57:25.
:57:25. > :57:32.yourself, you can defend yourself. Batam surprised about that. In
:57:32. > :57:36.Romans 13, Paul the apostle, it is very clear at that if the sort of
:57:36. > :57:42.justice falls on you for evil doing, it is on your own head. -- the sort
:57:42. > :57:48.of justice. Do you think that would make you more in securing your home,
:57:48. > :57:57.Minette Marrin? I might in a rational discussion like this, but
:57:57. > :58:06.on the day, fired-up and frightened, know. -- no. You can continue the
:58:06. > :58:11.debate some line. Thank you to all our guests. Please do not taxed or