:00:07. > :00:13.It has caused controversy in our courts, classrooms and streets.
:00:13. > :00:19.On Sunday Morning Live, we ask you to decide, doom was limbed face
:00:19. > :00:35.veils deepen divisions? -- do Muslim face veils deepen divisions?
:00:35. > :00:43.Good morning. I'm Samira Ahmed. Also on today's programme: Tottenham
:00:43. > :00:47.Hotspur fans are continuing with chants deemed offensive by the
:00:47. > :00:52.Football Association. Should they be prosecuted? If you think you might
:00:52. > :00:55.be causing offence, stop and watch the football.
:00:55. > :01:04.And as artificial intelligence improves, we ask, can we trust our
:01:04. > :01:11.future to robots? Robots are not for killing people.
:01:11. > :01:14.Joining me this week are Andrew Copson from the British Humanist
:01:14. > :01:18.Association, Ajmal Masroor, a broadcaster and an imam who leads
:01:18. > :01:22.prayers in four mosques in London, and Shalina Litt, a community
:01:22. > :01:27.activist, blogger and regional radio presenter. We want to know what you
:01:27. > :01:30.think. If you have a web, you can join us via Skype, or you can give
:01:30. > :01:47.your views via Twitter or call us. The Muslim face veil, designed to be
:01:47. > :01:50.a symbol of modesty, has been thrust into the spotlight in the past week.
:01:50. > :01:54.A judge ruled that a woman would into the spotlight in the past week.
:01:54. > :02:00.have to remove her veil, or niqab, as it is known, to give evidence at
:02:00. > :02:03.a trial. Birmingham Metropolitan University reversed a decision to
:02:03. > :02:08.ban face veils after a protest petition. And 17 NHS hospitals have
:02:08. > :02:13.reportedly banned the wearing of veils by staff in direct contact
:02:13. > :02:20.with patients. Shalina Litt is proud to wear a face veil and explains
:02:20. > :02:25.why. I have on the niqab for the last
:02:25. > :02:29.four years after leaving a career in the music industry. It was all my
:02:29. > :02:34.own decision, and it came after a long spiritual journey. It is not
:02:34. > :02:39.something I decided on lightly, so why should I have to keep justifying
:02:39. > :02:48.why I wear it to everyone? Why do I have to explain a religious belief?
:02:48. > :02:51.For me, it is an act of devoted worship, and obedience to God. Some
:02:52. > :02:57.people pray more, some people fast more. I choose to be more modest as
:02:57. > :03:04.a way of showing my faith. I take this opportunity to be more modest
:03:04. > :03:08.when it is presented to me. I like the fact that the niqab faces the
:03:08. > :03:14.focus on what I say and not how I look. People cannot box me into
:03:14. > :03:18.their ideas of age, race or origin. It might seem strange to hear this,
:03:18. > :03:26.but the niqab is an empowering experience. It is a liberating one.
:03:26. > :03:31.What harm is therefore women wearing the niqab really doing? How can
:03:31. > :03:35.religious freedom be forgotten so quickly?
:03:36. > :03:40.Home Office Minister Jeremy Browne has also called for a national
:03:40. > :03:45.debate on whether face veils should be imposed, he thinks, on the young
:03:45. > :03:50.Muslim girls. We can start a debate on the issue now. Andrew, do face
:03:50. > :03:55.veils deepen divisions? I would be the last person to say what women
:03:55. > :04:00.can and can't wear or to say that the state should say what women can
:04:00. > :04:04.and can't wear. I would be against a ban in public places of face veils.
:04:04. > :04:08.But that is not the question. If the question is, does it deepen
:04:08. > :04:12.divisions, the answer is yes. So much of our communication with each
:04:12. > :04:15.other as members of a shared society and citizens of the same nation,
:04:15. > :04:19.whether at the bus stop or the school gate on all those public
:04:19. > :04:24.settings, depends on face-to-face communication. I don't feel that I
:04:24. > :04:26.am able to build the same quick relationship and automatic trust
:04:26. > :04:35.with someone if their face is covered. It is divisive. This is the
:04:35. > :04:43.question for our text vote. Do Muslim veils deepen divisions? You
:04:43. > :04:54.can only vote once. Results will be announced at the end of the show.
:04:54. > :04:59.Shalina, thank you so much for coming on. We heard in the film why
:04:59. > :05:05.you were the niqab, and it is your choice. Has it ever caused you
:05:05. > :05:11.trouble and personal abuse? Yes, in the past. Comments in the street?
:05:11. > :05:16.Yes. Somebody was work -- walking past, and they kicked glass at me
:05:16. > :05:20.once. You have seen the news coverage in the past week. Can you
:05:20. > :05:24.understand why people feel uncomfortable about the idea of
:05:24. > :05:29.women wearing the niqab? I can understand. And I think I
:05:29. > :05:35.demonstrate that understanding by choosing to remove my niqab in a
:05:35. > :05:39.professional workplace, where the niqab loses its function and becomes
:05:39. > :05:43.a hindrance. So for me to get on with teaching and not have people be
:05:43. > :05:51.like, why are you covering your face and are not comfortable with it, I
:05:51. > :05:56.remove it. But when... As a personal lifestyle choice, I exercise it when
:05:56. > :06:02.I can. So it is about you being comfortable? Yes, it is my choice.
:06:02. > :06:10.That is what is important. There are people who may disagree about me
:06:10. > :06:14.where it part-time. But it is my personal choice about my
:06:14. > :06:19.relationship with God. It is to please God, not people. Ajmal
:06:19. > :06:23.Masroor, although no one has real figures on how many women were the
:06:23. > :06:27.niqab, there is more of a sense of it being around. Why are more women
:06:27. > :06:33.choosing to wear it, and what do you say to them as an imam? That is the
:06:33. > :06:38.wrong way to look at it, primarily because less women are wearing the
:06:38. > :06:42.niqab than in the 80s and 90s. Because people are now becoming more
:06:42. > :06:44.empowered and more knowledgeable, they are studying and they
:06:44. > :06:47.understand the context in which they live in Britain, and the niqab is
:06:47. > :06:51.not something that should be wearing. But I would support the
:06:51. > :06:57.right of a woman to want to wear it as her choice. It has become
:06:57. > :07:00.fashionable to vilify Muslims these days, at the dinner table, in pubs.
:07:01. > :07:05.It is OK to attack them and mock them, because it is the boogie man
:07:05. > :07:09.of our time. That is not acceptable. We need to move away from that
:07:09. > :07:14.debate. If the debate is, should a woman have the right to wear a
:07:14. > :07:19.niqab, yes she should. You have the right to wear whatever you want. But
:07:19. > :07:24.if you are asking about Islam, does Islam promote the niqab? No. Islam
:07:24. > :07:29.does not promote it as an obligation. If a person wants to
:07:29. > :07:38.express that as their own choice, they can. In Islam, there was
:07:38. > :07:46.already a precedent in the books of jurisprudence. You will find that in
:07:46. > :07:50.works -- professional areas, you can take it if that is what you have
:07:50. > :07:55.chosen. But you can't take it when you are on a pilgrimage. As a
:07:55. > :07:59.father, I would say to Muslim women living in the West, even if it is a
:08:00. > :08:03.personal choice you are making, you are making a choice that is
:08:03. > :08:06.completely alien to the people, especially on a matter that is not
:08:06. > :08:10.an obligation. If somebody was asking you to give up your prayer,
:08:10. > :08:17.that is wrong. But you are making a choice, and you are choosing to not
:08:17. > :08:21.integrate by wearing a face veils. So I would say, don't wear it in
:08:21. > :08:28.Britain, but if you want to wear it in a Muslim country, go ahead. What
:08:28. > :08:32.do you think of that? I agree. I will probably get slated for this,
:08:32. > :08:41.but we need to know how to behave as British people and as Muslims. For
:08:41. > :08:47.me, the niqab has a function, and that is my interpretation. If I am
:08:48. > :08:49.doing it because I have a true understanding of why I wear it, then
:08:49. > :08:57.great. If I am going into a shop to understanding of why I wear it, then
:08:57. > :09:03.buy something, I understand that the buyer has the right for me to list
:09:03. > :09:07.my niqab. But some people don't have that understanding. Why are we
:09:07. > :09:12.focusing on why a Muslim woman is wearing the niqab 's we should be
:09:12. > :09:16.focusing on issues that are really affecting Britain. This week in the
:09:16. > :09:22.UK alone, we have had nearly six lives of young children who have
:09:22. > :09:31.been stabbed. This is what we should be focusing on. That is an important
:09:31. > :09:35.point. This is a bigger issue in other countries. In Britain, this is
:09:35. > :09:41.a small issue. There was a very small number of women who wear a
:09:41. > :09:45.face veil. So why has this come to public awareness? But since we have
:09:45. > :09:46.not discussed this so far, it is worth saying that not every woman is
:09:46. > :09:52.exercising her free choice when she worth saying that not every woman is
:09:52. > :09:56.wears a veil. And I think that those women, we all need be in solidarity
:09:56. > :10:03.with as well. It is just finding a way of doing that is difficult. When
:10:03. > :10:06.Birmingham College band the wearing of the niqab, I called up the
:10:06. > :10:12.college myself and said, I as a man where it in protest at the right of
:10:12. > :10:15.a woman to wear it. And secondly, in terms of asking the general public,
:10:15. > :10:20.are they aware of their religious rights within the Islamic community?
:10:20. > :10:24.Are the women wearing it making a choice? Those are the right
:10:24. > :10:28.questions to ask. But that is about education, not political point
:10:28. > :10:30.scoring. It is not about witch hunting the Muslims. And for the
:10:30. > :10:35.scoring. It is not about witch media to dominate a whole week on
:10:35. > :10:42.this frivolous un-issue, it is a race. May I add to that? It takes a
:10:42. > :10:47.lot of courage for me. My family don't agree with it. I am the only
:10:47. > :10:53.one wearing it. In addition to that, when Islam is in the media, I know
:10:53. > :10:59.about it, because if someone has an issue with it, I have to deal with
:10:59. > :11:06.their response. Is that fair on me? That is why I am speaking about it.
:11:06. > :11:10.The Jewish community were vilified in Europe. Names were called and
:11:10. > :11:12.they were marginalised and their every practice was scrutinised.
:11:12. > :11:16.Guess what happened in Europe with every practice was scrutinised.
:11:16. > :11:17.the Jewish community? Holocaust and all the other discrimination
:11:18. > :11:20.the Jewish community? Holocaust and happened. I don't want to see
:11:20. > :11:25.something like that happen in Britain. I am calling for more
:11:25. > :11:29.tolerance, understanding and respect from the wider community, but also
:11:30. > :11:33.for the Muslim community is to integrate more. In areas where more
:11:33. > :11:38.women choose to wear the veil, people wonder if there can be more
:11:38. > :11:42.integration. It is true that media coverage in the last week has been
:11:42. > :11:45.disproportionate, but it has not been totally unintelligent. Reading
:11:45. > :11:51.articles in almost all the newspapers, from left to right and
:11:51. > :11:56.broadsheet to tabloid, it has been an intelligent debate. We should be
:11:56. > :12:02.careful before we cry about persecution or vilification. I don't
:12:02. > :12:06.think that has happened. That is not true. Do you know about the number
:12:06. > :12:13.of people who have been attacked as a result of this debate? Look at how
:12:13. > :12:17.many mosques have been attacked. Ladies are attacked. Muslims are
:12:17. > :12:22.being called names. These things are being exacerbated by this frivolous
:12:22. > :12:29.debate that the media has driven. Let me bring in a contribute on the
:12:29. > :12:34.phone -- a contributor. You were the niqab and you work as a molecular
:12:34. > :12:37.geneticist. We want to look at how far you can separate your personal
:12:37. > :12:39.choice as an educated woman in the West from the fact that many Muslim
:12:39. > :12:44.choice as an educated woman in the women in Muslim countries and in
:12:44. > :12:48.Britain are forced to dress in a certain way and are often treated as
:12:48. > :12:51.second-class citizens in countries like Saudi Arabia, where Muslims'
:12:51. > :12:59.face veiling goes with not being able to vote. I believe the question
:12:59. > :13:05.is put in a wrong way. Yes, I can separate my choice from these
:13:05. > :13:12.countries. I am in Britain. I made my decision based on research. These
:13:12. > :13:19.countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran are dictated by an oppressive regime
:13:19. > :13:24.which treats everyone, not only women, as a second-class citizen.
:13:24. > :13:29.But I am here in Britain. Let's not forget the irony that these regimes
:13:29. > :13:36.are supported by these liberal, Western countries like the UK and
:13:36. > :13:41.the US in the case of Saudi Arabia. That is why it is important to make
:13:41. > :13:47.two distinctions. These countries are not Islamic or democratic. We
:13:47. > :13:53.should not compare Britain to these countries. Secondly, there was a big
:13:53. > :13:57.difference between the Islamic teachings and their essence and
:13:57. > :14:05.certain practices that are done in the name of Islam. I want to
:14:05. > :14:13.summarise that the niqab is a liberation process. I disagree with
:14:13. > :14:18.Ajmal Masroor when he said that we have do consider that we are in
:14:18. > :14:26.Britain and Muslim women shouldn't wear it. I agree that the niqab is
:14:26. > :14:31.not compulsory, but I recommend it. Even in Britain, we should have the
:14:31. > :14:38.right to wear it. I don't want to have pressure on me to not wear it,
:14:38. > :14:43.because it is my choice. We have to leave it there. Let me put your
:14:43. > :14:47.points to the panel. It is a personal choice and a liberation. I
:14:47. > :14:52.respect her choice, but I stand by what I said, which is that, in the
:14:52. > :14:58.context in which we live, which is Britain, the safety of people is
:14:58. > :15:06.very important. What did the prophet do? What does the Koran say? The
:15:06. > :15:09.prophet did not say a Muslim woman should wear a face covering. The
:15:09. > :15:21.Koran does not say that. If they didn't say that... Why is it that
:15:21. > :15:24.they think it is such a religious choice? It is a choice they want to
:15:24. > :15:30.make as a person, but it is not to be imposed as a religious choice.
:15:30. > :15:36.Religious communities have two manage these cultural practices.
:15:36. > :15:39.Forced marriages - not in the name of Islam. Honour killings - not in
:15:39. > :15:51.the name of Islam. Terra killings - not in the name of Islam. People
:15:51. > :15:54.feel there are parts of cities were Muslim women all wear veils. People
:15:54. > :15:59.can feel intimidated by that. You Muslim women all wear veils. People
:15:59. > :16:09.mean that they have their face covered, rather than veils. Yes. The
:16:09. > :16:15.debate has moved on. My attitudes and beliefs still remain. In
:16:16. > :16:18.reference to my religious freedom of choice, from a human rights
:16:18. > :16:24.perspective, that should not be interfered with. Just like you have
:16:24. > :16:29.men that choose to go to lap dancing clubs. They have a place to go and
:16:29. > :16:39.see that. I know where to go and where my niqab. I am comfortably. I
:16:39. > :16:49.think that women and men should have the right to wear whatever they
:16:49. > :16:53.want. I do not think that many people have called for a ban
:16:53. > :16:57.entirely. It is wrong to portray it as if that is the overwhelming
:16:57. > :17:04.public opinion against what we are -- against which we are fighting.
:17:04. > :17:09.There are small minority of people who think that people should not
:17:09. > :17:19.wear the veil. Apart from in hospitals and courts and other
:17:19. > :17:21.similar settings. This issue is not for entirely one community to
:17:21. > :17:26.discuss. We cannot parcel communities that way. This is an
:17:26. > :17:36.issue from everyone that interacts with their fellow citizens. I want
:17:36. > :17:44.to bring in the director of women's rights organisation. Is this not
:17:44. > :17:52.something that feminists should support? Women choose to dress how
:17:52. > :17:57.they wish? I will start answering the question from the last part of
:17:57. > :18:12.that. If then a minister should support that? -- if feminists should
:18:12. > :18:16.support that. We are not just talking about women, we are talking
:18:16. > :18:22.about women and children, all female Muslims. Is the niqab empowering? I
:18:22. > :18:33.believe this is a contradictory issue. Look at your guest in the
:18:33. > :18:38.studio. Now one can see her. It is not about her age, her face or her
:18:38. > :18:53.colour, it is about human beings being visible. Taking yourself out
:18:53. > :19:00.of society, this is not empowering women. It is denying their rights as
:19:00. > :19:07.a human being. It is very wrong. Thank you. I will let you respond. I
:19:07. > :19:13.would also like to hear from a lady who is from the Muslim women's
:19:13. > :19:18.network. No one in the studio wants a ban, but people worry about
:19:18. > :19:26.solutions. There has been a teacher who refused to take off her veil.
:19:26. > :19:29.People feel that some Muslims are looking for special treatment and
:19:29. > :19:37.this causes divisions. What is the answer? I do not think that Muslims
:19:37. > :19:42.are looking for special treatment. We as a society have to look at
:19:42. > :19:47.making it equal. We have to make it right for people. Having the debate
:19:47. > :19:51.and the discussion in a responsible manner and then arriving at a
:19:51. > :19:55.solution and a compromise that is good for all. What is that solution
:19:55. > :20:03.when we know that many people feel unhappy about seeing women in veils.
:20:03. > :20:08.More people who were the niqab need to come forward and take part in
:20:08. > :20:14.that debate. There is a lack of understanding and knowledge. That
:20:14. > :20:18.breeds fear. It is not for politicians to decide. It is for
:20:18. > :20:22.society to decide what is right for them. I am a British Muslim. I want
:20:22. > :20:28.society to decide what is right for to feel comfortably and secure. I
:20:28. > :20:31.want my family to be secure. Part of that is seeing people with the
:20:31. > :20:36.niqab, but I want to know that they are the right people, and not
:20:36. > :20:40.someone who is purporting to be Muslim and carrying out criminal
:20:40. > :20:46.activities. A man came up to me is dirty and said, I feel like it is an
:20:46. > :20:52.insult as a British man that I would not be able to control myself. I
:20:52. > :21:01.think the media and politicians have a great responsibility for what they
:21:01. > :21:07.say. My experiences alone, coming to Belfast, a lovely place, by the way,
:21:07. > :21:12.people came up to me. They said, you are Muslim! I would love to speak to
:21:12. > :21:17.you about this and that. That highlights the fact that people just
:21:17. > :21:23.want to know more. We should get more Muslims on a platform. Trust
:21:23. > :21:26.me, even I am looking for them. If you want to make it an open
:21:26. > :21:33.discussion, then let's make it a fair one. But this is a religious
:21:33. > :21:38.debate, it is not a national debate. We have binge drinking and sexual
:21:38. > :21:43.exploitation, domestic violence. These are issues that are affecting
:21:44. > :21:49.Britain. We have to leave it there but we will revisit this at the end
:21:49. > :21:53.of the programme. Thank you. This is the topic for our vote. The question
:21:53. > :22:07.is, do Muslim veils deepened divisions? -- deepen. The
:22:07. > :22:13.information is on the screen. You have around 20 minutes before the
:22:13. > :22:14.vote closes. Tottenham Hotspur football club has
:22:14. > :22:17.been in the news this week and it Tottenham Hotspur football club has
:22:17. > :22:22.has nothing to do with the performance on the pitch. The North
:22:22. > :22:26.London team has been regarded as having a strong Jewish following
:22:26. > :22:32.which has led to anti-Semitic abuse from the supporters of rival clubs
:22:32. > :22:36.at times. Spurs fans have responded by using chants which include the
:22:36. > :22:41.word Yid, normally regarded as a highly offensive term of abuse. The
:22:41. > :22:47.Football Association has warned that using such chance in the future
:22:47. > :22:51.could result in banning orders. Spurs supporters appeared to have
:22:51. > :23:01.largely ignored calls for them to change their chance. -- to change
:23:01. > :23:05.their songs. Many believe that there are more disturbing examples of
:23:05. > :23:09.abuse that are not being tackled. For years around Chelsea and West
:23:09. > :23:14.Ham, and also other clubs, we have heard songs about Auschwitz and gas
:23:14. > :23:19.chambers. Inside the ground we have heard hissing. And yet here we are
:23:19. > :23:24.talking about whether Spurs fans are the problem. The fans defiance by
:23:24. > :23:30.continuing their chance was even defended by the Prime Minister, who
:23:30. > :23:33.said they should not be prosecuted. Others have said the supporters need
:23:33. > :23:41.to face the consequences of their actions. Hate speeches never have to
:23:41. > :23:52.be motivated by hate. You can have the Aigner and drunk comes out the
:23:53. > :23:56.Y-word on a Saturday night. -- the ignorant drunk who comes out. That
:23:56. > :24:01.is no defence. It is the impact on ignorant drunk who comes out. That
:24:01. > :24:05.the victim that counts. As supporters made their way to match
:24:05. > :24:11.on Thursday night, all those that we spoke to seemed to be in favour of
:24:11. > :24:16.retaining songs. But the Iraqi knows the sensitivity of the issue. If it
:24:16. > :24:21.is meant in a malicious way, fed enough, but why spoil something that
:24:21. > :24:28.has been going on for however long. I can understand that some people
:24:28. > :24:33.are sensitive and not others. You cannot Rossi put everyone who uses
:24:33. > :24:40.it. The Spurs fans use it, but other teams use it, they do not use it in
:24:40. > :24:48.a good way. Other people use to have a go. It is 50-50. Our Tottenham
:24:48. > :24:53.fans entitled to reclaim a word that has been directed as abuse against
:24:53. > :25:10.them, or is heat speech always hate speech, no matter where and how it
:25:10. > :25:16.is used? -- hate speech. Joining us for this discussion is Rabbi David.
:25:16. > :25:21.The word is originally Yiddish and origin, but it has been used as a
:25:21. > :25:28.racist term in Britain since the 1930s. How should we regard the term
:25:28. > :25:37.now? It is not just in the United Kingdom. It was used in Europe as
:25:37. > :25:46.well. In Polish and several other languages. It is shouted and people
:25:46. > :25:52.are called by that name. It is normally as an insult. Do you feel
:25:52. > :25:56.that each be banned by Spurs fans themselves? I think they should
:25:56. > :26:04.concentrate on foot all rather than insulting people. It is interesting
:26:04. > :26:11.that this is like the way that gay people have reclaim the word queer.
:26:11. > :26:13.Is that a fair comparison? Words have the -- words have their own
:26:13. > :26:21.Is that a fair comparison? Words power and their own history. Lots of
:26:21. > :26:27.gay people needed to decide that they were going to reclaim the word
:26:27. > :26:32.queer. With a word like Yid, it has a long, painful and bloody history
:26:32. > :26:38.as a term of abuse. I think the weight that it carries with it would
:26:38. > :26:41.make it difficult to reclaim. It is important to realise that although
:26:41. > :26:47.words have power, they are also used in different contexts. There is a
:26:47. > :26:50.difference between shouting a word in a vicious way, as Aprilia to
:26:50. > :26:53.slaughter, and using it in a way where everyone who is hurt is
:26:53. > :27:04.abating understands that it is banter. -- as a prelude to
:27:04. > :27:18.slaughter. But rival fans are not using it in that way. Exactly. Some
:27:18. > :27:22.are making hissing noises. One TV presenter has made a film about how
:27:22. > :27:27.he feels about this. He is in favour of a ban. Does this make a
:27:27. > :27:33.difference if it is used as a chant by a group of fans about themselves,
:27:33. > :27:34.rather than dogged as an insult on a wall. I should understand, coming
:27:34. > :27:38.rather than dogged as an insult on a from an Asian background, being
:27:38. > :27:54.called the keyword throughout my younger days, they are very
:27:54. > :27:58.insulting words. -- the P-word. We should be responsible with our
:27:58. > :28:06.language. You can use it positively or destructively. This is
:28:06. > :28:10.destructive. Secondly, obscenities that are constantly chanted on the
:28:10. > :28:15.football field, I would not take my child there because it is so vulgar
:28:15. > :28:20.and disgusting. We as a community need to think. We need to ask the
:28:20. > :28:25.belief they need to be so obscene and vulgar? Do you need to be racist
:28:25. > :28:34.to show that you are excited? That is wrong. I want to bring in a Spurs
:28:34. > :28:38.fan. He is a fan of Tottenham Hotspur. You know there are people
:28:38. > :28:43.who say these chants are very offensive. That includes Jewish
:28:44. > :28:51.football fans prematurely. On that basis alone, why not say it is time
:28:51. > :28:58.to stop? I believe the whole argument is pretty spurious. I have
:28:58. > :29:03.to refute the suggestion that the problem exists in the way it is
:29:03. > :29:10.being excerpt -- it is being asserted. Even the Prime Minister
:29:10. > :29:17.managed to point out that this is about context and content. You
:29:17. > :29:26.cannot ignore that. You cannot have context by being racist and abusive.
:29:26. > :29:31.Language evolves. That is one thing. But it is the manner in which people
:29:31. > :29:37.say things. I am not going to try and kid you about other offensive
:29:37. > :29:45.words. I struggle to see any conceivable manner in which they can
:29:45. > :29:49.be passed off as being correct. But Tottenham have been using this word
:29:49. > :29:55.in a fraternal and very much inclusive manner, in a friendly and
:29:55. > :29:59.up between. It has not been used in a provocative or attacking way. But
:29:59. > :30:04.in this debate, what is being glossed over, brushed under the
:30:04. > :30:19.carpet, is that there is a real problem, and it is not the Y-word.
:30:19. > :30:23.It is the C-word. Chelsea. These people have been making references
:30:23. > :30:29.to Auschwitz and making hissing noises to represent gas chambers for
:30:29. > :30:34.many years. I want to speak to another Spurs fan. He is also master
:30:34. > :30:37.of St Peter's College. You have heard the claim that it is part of a
:30:37. > :30:50.group identity and it is nothing wrong with that. I do not go with
:30:50. > :30:54.the notion that because 25,000 supporters are using the word, that
:30:54. > :31:02.I find offensive, that they should not be arrested. I do not think it
:31:02. > :31:07.is a convincing argument. There are surely better ways of combating
:31:08. > :31:32.anti-Ted -- combating anti-Semitism. INAUDIBLE
:31:32. > :31:37.. To use that word is not acceptable. Just to be clear, would
:31:37. > :31:42.you want the chance stopped by Spurs fans? I would like the chants to be
:31:42. > :31:49.stopped and I would like the football authorities to get to the
:31:49. > :31:59.issue. I would like both Tottenham on the football authorities and the
:31:59. > :32:02.police to take a more serious approach to those who are using
:32:02. > :32:08.anti-Semitic words in a context which is clearly aggressive. And
:32:08. > :32:14.that, I hope, will persuade Tottenham fans that they do need to
:32:14. > :32:19.do this. Mark, we will leave it there because the line is breaking
:32:19. > :32:24.up, but thank you. Harry, you don't need to do this. It really does
:32:24. > :32:32.cause offence, it is time to accept it and move on? I understand the
:32:32. > :32:35.line these people are taking, but I think the construction of the
:32:35. > :32:40.argument is poor. There was a reference there to calling the
:32:40. > :32:46.police and all this sort of business. Has anybody asked any
:32:46. > :32:56.Yiddish etymologists about this, for example? Perhaps we should start in
:32:57. > :33:01.the United States of America. There was a publication with a monthly
:33:02. > :33:05.circulation of a third of a million copies, the Yiddish news. That we
:33:05. > :33:08.circulation of a third of a million are discussing about how the word is
:33:08. > :33:12.perceived here? Well, I would suggest that the word is not felt to
:33:12. > :33:19.be abusive by the bulk of people. This week, a respected football
:33:19. > :33:21.website had a survey. 4% of those who polled said they wanted it
:33:21. > :33:27.banned. But I wonder how many are who polled said they wanted it
:33:27. > :33:35.Jewish 's can I ask the rabbi to respond? Frankly, with all due
:33:35. > :33:43.respect, the point you are trying to make with regards to sensitivity, I
:33:43. > :33:47.as a sensitive to being called Yid in the street. Yes, it is a matter
:33:47. > :33:52.of intent, at frankly, there are other things you could say. And
:33:52. > :33:59.seeing as the word has been used in an anti-Semitic way over many
:34:00. > :34:05.years, that is the sensitivity I am feeling. I am feeling insulted. And
:34:05. > :34:09.therefore, one of the things I am asking Tottenham Hotspur fans and
:34:09. > :34:17.anybody else is to refrain from being abusive, offensive and causing
:34:17. > :34:26.humiliation. I am on the receiving end of that, and I feel. What I am
:34:26. > :34:34.asking you, not personally, but Tottenham Hotspur, what are you
:34:34. > :34:37.going to do about the way I feel? Certainly in the street, I would be
:34:37. > :34:41.appalled if somebody referenced you using the word Yid or knitting of
:34:41. > :34:48.that nature. It is totally unacceptable. We are specifically
:34:48. > :34:55.talking about the inextricable link between Jewish fans and Tottenham
:34:55. > :35:05.Hotspur. I don't understand the connection. If you are upset about
:35:05. > :35:09.it, you are one of the 4%. But I don't think the construction of this
:35:09. > :35:13.argument is sound. I think the actual racism, which is appalling,
:35:13. > :35:18.this business of referencing the Holocaust, this is not being
:35:18. > :35:23.discussed here. But one is a natural progression from the other. It
:35:23. > :35:31.starts with one thing, and it just snowballs. Let me get the panel to
:35:31. > :35:38.respond. Harry, if you say you love the Jewish people, say that. Make
:35:38. > :35:41.that a chant. We would not have a problem with that. Islamophobia and
:35:41. > :35:53.xenophobia and racism should be stamped out. I agree with the point
:35:53. > :35:58.Harry makes that the stuff in relation to Chelsea is much worse.
:35:58. > :36:02.But the problem about this side on that side is that they ask LA
:36:02. > :36:07.together. And you can't stop on activity without stopping the other
:36:07. > :36:12.-- they escalate together. If people were to stop chanting Yid, even in a
:36:12. > :36:14.supportive way, that would take the steam out of the whole thing and
:36:14. > :36:19.leave it in a bet position to deal steam out of the whole thing and
:36:19. > :36:24.with what is really offensive. Harry, thank you for taking part. We
:36:24. > :36:27.have got Paul Mortimer, a professional footballer who now
:36:27. > :36:29.works for Charette is a red card, the well-known campaign. Is there a
:36:29. > :36:40.way to tackle the situation without the well-known campaign. Is there a
:36:40. > :36:46.prosecuting Spurs fans? From an educational point of view, what does
:36:46. > :36:50.the word actually means? That is where we come from. As far as I am
:36:50. > :36:56.concerned, I am surprised people are using the word in the studio. It is
:36:56. > :37:00.up there with the N word on the P word, and it should not be used.
:37:00. > :37:06.They are racist terms that are used to describe certain people based on
:37:06. > :37:09.their characteristics, and it is unacceptable that the words are
:37:09. > :37:17.being allowed to be used. What can we do? I think all the
:37:17. > :37:25.stakeholders, the FA, the Premier League, the fans' associations, the
:37:25. > :37:32.clubs, have to get together and agree that this word is unacceptable
:37:32. > :37:36.and needs stamping out. We have a comment from one of our viewers.
:37:37. > :37:42.Dave says we should not ban this. It is banter, it is what footy fans do,
:37:42. > :37:46.it is working class. It may not be PC, but it is what it is. A fair
:37:46. > :37:50.number of viewers might be thinking that. Well, I have been on the
:37:50. > :37:54.receiving end of rant when the N word has been used towards me, and I
:37:54. > :38:00.have been told to accept that because it is just a joke, just
:38:00. > :38:05.banter. Ask people on the receiving end of that word whether it is
:38:05. > :38:09.banter or not. They will tell you. It is awful to hear that people
:38:09. > :38:13.think it is banter. I remember bricks being thrown in my face when
:38:13. > :38:18.I was young and being called a P word. Bloody, terrified, screaming,
:38:18. > :38:22.wanting to hide because of my colour. It is a horrible feeling,
:38:22. > :38:26.and no one should have to experience that. Anyone who suggests that it is
:38:26. > :38:32.an innocent joke needs their head checked. We need to create a society
:38:32. > :38:40.where we are together and equal. I would agree. To be on the receiving
:38:40. > :38:44.end of people who want to call it banter, it is just an excuse. In
:38:44. > :38:48.America, there are teams like the Washington Redskins, who used Native
:38:48. > :38:51.American names. Some are still Washington Redskins, who used Native
:38:51. > :38:55.resisting the changing of the name, saying it is our tradition, our
:38:55. > :39:07.history. That is the Spurs argument, isn't it? No. Sorry to butt in. But
:39:07. > :39:15.the words are being used in a negative context. I am an American
:39:15. > :39:22.football follower, and I have read about the Washington Redskins
:39:22. > :39:25.situation. And as banned -- I understand people's feelings, but
:39:25. > :39:30.the word is not being used as a negative, it is being used to
:39:30. > :39:35.promote a football club. So you are pay with that? But this word in this
:39:35. > :39:40.country is being used as a negative. There is a lot of history behind the
:39:40. > :39:46.word, and people who use it are ignorant. I am not changing my mind,
:39:46. > :39:50.but I want to point out that in view of the strength of feeling that has
:39:50. > :39:55.come out, there are contexts in which the word is used as an between
:39:55. > :39:58.people who know what they are doing and there are positive contexts for
:39:58. > :40:04.the word, so context is important. We don't want to tar everyone who is
:40:04. > :40:09.using it with the same brush if they are using it in an internal,
:40:09. > :40:13.knowing, fraternal way. Thank you all very much. Let me read a few
:40:13. > :40:18.more comments from viewers. Kay from Glasgow says these people should be
:40:18. > :40:22.prosecuted. It is anti-Semitic. An anonymous person says Spurs fans may
:40:22. > :40:26.understand their use of the, but others don't. Zero tolerance is the
:40:26. > :40:29.only option. Mark says is surely increased use, associated with a
:40:29. > :40:34.positive connotation, will remove any racist connection. All says, I
:40:34. > :40:41.feel ashamed as a Spurs fan that people continue to defend the chant
:40:41. > :40:46.with weak arguments. Now, you have been voting on our
:40:46. > :40:50.poll this morning. Do Muslim veils deepen divisions? The vote on that
:40:50. > :40:59.is closing now, so please don't text.
:40:59. > :41:05.Now, let's move on to a vision of the future. We are used to using
:41:05. > :41:10.robots and seeing them spraying cars are fitting nuts and bolts, but what
:41:10. > :41:13.about robots which carry out hospital operations, including
:41:13. > :41:17.stitching? Or act as cuddly companions for children? None of
:41:17. > :41:19.stitching? Or act as cuddly that is science fiction, it is
:41:19. > :41:23.technology which is currently being explored. But as well as practical
:41:23. > :41:28.issues, these developments in artificial intelligence race
:41:28. > :41:34.potential ethical ones, too, as metal and silicon replaced flesh and
:41:34. > :41:38.blood. Professor Noel Sharkey has worked in
:41:38. > :41:43.artificial intelligence and robotics for 30 years. As machines play an
:41:43. > :41:47.ever-increasing role in our daily lives, he believes we are not
:41:47. > :41:52.discussing the ethical issues at the same rate we are advancing the
:41:52. > :41:56.technology. When I look at how the world is changing and the way robots
:41:56. > :41:58.are going to come into the world, I think that if we don't get it
:41:58. > :42:05.right, robotics will get nowhere. If we get it right, robots could be
:42:05. > :42:14.very useful to humankind. Robotics are being used in everything, from
:42:14. > :42:17.manufacturing to health care. But will the robots be given ethical
:42:17. > :42:22.responsibilities? The problem with robots being given morals is that
:42:22. > :42:24.our ethical world is open to interpretation. A robot can only
:42:24. > :42:28.our ethical world is open to apply a set of rules. To talk about
:42:28. > :42:33.a robot feeling emotion is a whole other step, and you can't be partly
:42:33. > :42:38.feeling, you are either feeling or you are not. As a Sharkey is a
:42:38. > :42:44.member of a campaign to stop killer robots, a group calling for an
:42:44. > :42:51.international treaty to ban the use of autonomous weapons. Whereas
:42:51. > :42:57.drones are much controlled by humans, these robots could identify
:42:57. > :43:01.and attack their own targets. This really worries me as a robotics
:43:02. > :43:05.professional, because those robots have no way of discriminating
:43:05. > :43:10.between combatants and civilians, or could not tell the difference
:43:10. > :43:16.between a child with a toy gun and a soldier with a gun. So for me, this
:43:16. > :43:18.is morally wrong. Haitians in this hospital in Northern Ireland can
:43:18. > :43:24.talk to a doctor via video link from a robot that visits their bedside --
:43:24. > :43:28.patients. It is possible that in the future, robots will be able to
:43:28. > :43:32.perform surgery autonomously without the need for human intervention. But
:43:32. > :43:37.will this improve our experience of health care? We don't want a kind of
:43:37. > :43:41.conveyor belt surgery, where you show up, have your scan and get
:43:41. > :43:47.operated on without seeing a human. That would not be nice. We all need
:43:47. > :43:51.love at those times when we are most vulnerable. Robots are here to
:43:51. > :43:56.stay, but can we trust them in the long-term? If we get it right, we
:43:56. > :44:00.could really assist humankind. If we get it wrong, it will be a
:44:00. > :44:03.nightmare. So how do you feel about emotionless
:44:03. > :44:07.machines taking over from humans, with the ability to way up moral
:44:08. > :44:16.dilemmas? And we trust robots with our future? Join in by phone, e-mail
:44:16. > :44:27.or online. We are joined by Doctor Berry Billingsley from LASCAR,
:44:27. > :44:32.Learning About Science And Religion. Before I bring you in, I am
:44:32. > :44:37.interested in whether you have concerns about a point where
:44:37. > :44:40.machines are making decisions, for example, medical surgery? Is that
:44:40. > :44:45.different to the idea of automated robots making decisions about
:44:45. > :44:49.missile strikes? I love robots and I love the possibilities that science
:44:49. > :44:53.opens up for us. I am a science fiction fan, but this does raise
:44:53. > :44:56.ethical questions. My favourite Star Trek episode is when they are trying
:44:56. > :44:59.to decide whether an android should have human rights, because he is a
:44:59. > :45:07.morally reasoning creation. I am have human rights, because he is a
:45:07. > :45:10.interested in who is responsible once we have created these robots
:45:10. > :45:16.and set the parameters for them to conduct asked. Is it possible for
:45:16. > :45:21.them to be moral agents, or is the agency always with us, who have
:45:21. > :45:24.originally done it? Could we create robots like as, or would we consign
:45:24. > :45:27.them to creating robots for specific robots like as, or would we consign
:45:27. > :45:31.tasks, to avoid the nightmare scenarios where they become better
:45:31. > :45:34.tasks, to avoid the nightmare than us? Is their first duty to
:45:34. > :45:45.protect us? Or could they decide they would be better off if we were
:45:45. > :45:49.all dead? That is a great question. I will pick up on something that
:45:49. > :45:55.Andrew said. The wonderful thing about that Star Trek episode is that
:45:55. > :46:00.he never answered the question. They said, can the robot be seen as
:46:00. > :46:04.having human rights? But they never answered the question. That is the
:46:04. > :46:09.fantastic thing about science fiction. You can go off on all sorts
:46:09. > :46:14.of directions and not necessarily answer the question. There are
:46:14. > :46:19.several things that we find interesting and worrying about these
:46:19. > :46:23.robots. Should we trust them? That is a concern that we rightly should
:46:23. > :46:29.have. What you raise is really important. These robots are made by
:46:29. > :46:33.people. They are endowed with whatever the people have given them.
:46:33. > :46:37.And the other point you were going to make? These bigger,
:46:37. > :46:43.philosophical, theological questions. If we could see further
:46:43. > :46:50.into the future, even if we see that questions. If we could see further
:46:51. > :46:58.robots now are not like us, perhaps in the future that will change.
:46:58. > :47:04.Stephen Hawking has said that there could have spear time predicted and
:47:04. > :47:10.planned brain patterns into a robot. The thing that we saw in the video,
:47:10. > :47:15.the pet, the cuddly companion, is that any difference -- is that any
:47:15. > :47:20.different to turning on a television and leaving your child in front of
:47:20. > :47:25.it? I have several problems with this. If the robot is going to be a
:47:25. > :47:31.running my clothes and tidying my house, that is fine, but when it
:47:31. > :47:36.comes to morality and ethics, we have to consider our spirit,
:47:36. > :47:41.intellect, the spark of life that keeps us alive and the thought
:47:41. > :47:48.patterns that constantly change. These elements cannot be
:47:48. > :47:54.incorporated in a machine. Also, will I trust a robot to stop action
:47:54. > :47:58.when a critical decision is to be made. What about the drone attacks
:47:58. > :47:59.when a critical decision is to be that have killed thousands of
:47:59. > :48:06.people. Imagine a robot has gone that have killed thousands of
:48:06. > :48:12.inside my body and it wants to operate. A doctor has noticed that
:48:12. > :48:18.it is not the liver, it is the long that needs to be operated on. But
:48:18. > :48:23.the robot may not have that. Right, this is about responsibility. The
:48:23. > :48:30.points you're raising a really important. It is about how we
:48:30. > :48:35.perceive the robot. It is about what we think the robot can do because it
:48:35. > :48:41.appears to be human. Robots are being used for surgery. In the
:48:41. > :48:45.Northern Ireland hospital, they are used as an interface to speak to
:48:45. > :48:52.your doctor without him having to go around the wards. But he takes
:48:52. > :49:01.responsibility? That is the question that are students need to be asking.
:49:01. > :49:10.What is the answer? The answer is, no, it is the person who made the
:49:10. > :49:13.robot who is responsible. You mentioned earlier that you have a
:49:13. > :49:20.pet robot. Before we deal with that... It is on that very point.
:49:20. > :49:25.When we see something behaving in a very human way, or like a cat, we
:49:25. > :49:29.give it much more than it is giving us. Our engineers are fantastic at
:49:29. > :49:34.reducing robots that can do something. If we ask for a
:49:34. > :49:39.companion, they will give us a fantastic robot companion. I would
:49:39. > :49:45.like to bring in a Professor of artificial intelligence. Thank you
:49:45. > :49:48.for joining us. People fear that we could get to a point with medical
:49:48. > :49:52.treatment where we could have hospitals full of robots programmed
:49:52. > :49:58.to carry out medical work, but with no human interaction. How do you see
:49:58. > :50:04.robots working in a specifically medical environment? Certainly there
:50:04. > :50:12.is a fear that robots will replace humans by many people. You will be
:50:12. > :50:19.in a completely isolated situation. But ultimately it will be up to the
:50:19. > :50:23.care providers. They will decide. Perhaps we need to go away from this
:50:23. > :50:28.idea of having fully autonomous machines and look at robots as part
:50:28. > :50:35.of the team. Robots and people could collaborate with each other, each of
:50:35. > :50:39.them focusing on their strengths. Robots could be time consuming or
:50:39. > :50:45.demanding task, like helping someone stand up get out of bed. Humans,
:50:45. > :50:49.professional caterers, family members, they could focus on what
:50:49. > :50:55.humans are very good at, providing emotional and social support. That
:50:55. > :51:01.is a crucial point. The decisions of hours to make. We are not talking
:51:01. > :51:07.about making replica human beings. We are talking about making robots
:51:07. > :51:11.for individual purposes. We are all parts of systems. No surgeon is
:51:11. > :51:16.acting on their own when they are performing an operation. They are
:51:16. > :51:19.part of the system. And they are good when we keep them to within the
:51:19. > :51:28.limits to what they have been designed. The problems come when
:51:28. > :51:34.robots are given trust for something beyond what the robot is meant for,
:51:34. > :51:39.in science-fiction films. If I pay utility after my child and you are
:51:39. > :51:46.completely unfit to do so, it is the same question. It is my
:51:46. > :51:49.responsibility. We are seeing robots being developed to look after
:51:49. > :51:55.elderly patients. That potentially leaves a gap where you used to have
:51:55. > :52:01.humans doing it. Does it matter? I have a father who is 90 and he
:52:01. > :52:07.suffers from dementia. His kid is done by human beings. I would not
:52:07. > :52:10.trust a robot to look after him. Dementia sufferers, their patterns
:52:10. > :52:19.and behaviour are so unpredictable robot would be incapable of doing
:52:19. > :52:25.that. If I am with Andrew, and he is in pain, and I am reading his mind,
:52:26. > :52:31.I'm reading his body language, his communication, all those signals, I
:52:31. > :52:37.is a human being will empathise with him. I will have an emotional
:52:37. > :52:42.response to him. That is a good point. You're suggesting, would you
:52:42. > :52:48.trust the robots? I would turn that question around. Would you trust the
:52:48. > :52:51.person who made the robot? I want to bring in one other contributor. This
:52:51. > :52:58.person who made the robot? I want to man made the film that we were
:52:58. > :53:01.watching at the beginning. A lot of companies are developing robots
:53:01. > :53:06.which they claim will be able to make sophisticated decisions. What
:53:06. > :53:10.is your view, especially your concern about the automation of
:53:10. > :53:21.warfare? I agree with a lot of what the panellists are saying. But there
:53:21. > :53:29.are dangers. We must let the robots be supervised. That is a vital
:53:29. > :53:33.issue. Do you feel there is a real danger, that people are looking to
:53:33. > :53:40.take humans out of the decisions on things like drones? Very much so. It
:53:40. > :53:44.is not just drones. It is also submarines, surface vessels,
:53:44. > :53:51.tank-like vehicles. The aims of submarines, surface vessels,
:53:51. > :53:57.several countries, particularly the United States, is to make fully
:53:57. > :54:01.economist weapons. That is a weapon that once activated, it was like its
:54:01. > :54:08.own target and kill them without further human supervision. That is
:54:08. > :54:12.what we are trying to stop. I have been working all my life on
:54:12. > :54:16.economist robots. But this particular function needs to be
:54:16. > :54:21.stopped. This comes down to who do we trust
:54:21. > :54:23.to make a good decision. The sort of person we trust is someone who knows
:54:23. > :54:28.to make a good decision. The sort of a lot about the area, someone that
:54:28. > :54:33.knows how we think within society. Perhaps someone who has even studied
:54:33. > :54:38.history and knows how we got here. In other words, that sense to me
:54:38. > :54:45.like a person. I think there is very little that we could not reproduce
:54:45. > :54:51.in a robot that we have in a person. All the patterns of recognition of
:54:51. > :54:55.another person, their physiological characteristics, the things that she
:54:55. > :54:58.us they are in pain, they could be replicated. But I would miss the
:54:58. > :55:05.us they are in pain, they could be human contact that the other side of
:55:05. > :55:10.that. I disagree with your last point. We cannot replicate all of
:55:10. > :55:15.those. You cannot take away the human touch. That is the essence of
:55:15. > :55:21.us. We cannot survive in isolation with robots. We cannot get warmth
:55:21. > :55:27.and love from a robot. All we get is functionality. That is fantastic.
:55:27. > :55:34.Enhancing our lives with robots, getting them to do some work, that
:55:34. > :55:38.is fantastic. Those very questions and those two arguments, we need to
:55:38. > :55:47.explore them in classrooms. We will be doing that with 800 teenagers.
:55:47. > :55:51.Thank you. We have to end it there. Your votes are in. We have a
:55:51. > :55:59.dramatic response to our opinion poll. 95% of those who voted said
:55:59. > :56:04.that Muslim veils deepen divisions. I want to read some of the comments.
:56:04. > :56:08.Terry says that niqabs are controlling measure designed to
:56:09. > :56:16.subjugate women. Mohammed says that Muslim women who wear the full veil
:56:16. > :56:20.do so by choice. David says that this is a sick stench of the
:56:20. > :56:36.tradition. It is the 21st century and we need to move on. -- that
:56:36. > :56:38.veils are a sixth century decision. Do you have any thoughts on this as
:56:38. > :56:45.a scientist? And you have colleagues Do you have any thoughts on this as
:56:45. > :56:48.that were one? I think these divisions are to do with not
:56:48. > :56:52.understanding. We should speak about this. I come back to what I said at
:56:52. > :56:57.the beginning. Anyone covering their this. I come back to what I said at
:56:57. > :57:07.face in this way cannot help that be creating visions and society. In the
:57:07. > :57:14.Green room, your guest was not using her veil. I was able to connect with
:57:14. > :57:22.her. I felt a connection with in a way that I could not feel when she
:57:22. > :57:25.was using the veil. Those little interactions, that is what makes
:57:26. > :57:35.society what it is. It rings us together. -- it brings us. On a
:57:35. > :57:41.personal level, I sympathise with the outcome of the opinion poll. But
:57:42. > :57:47.I still want to say that women have the right to wear what they want to.
:57:47. > :57:55.We should not and it. I would call for the bigger debate. Muslim women
:57:55. > :58:01.should be educated, wider society should have a better understanding
:58:01. > :58:07.of Islam. Creating a British Muslim identity, in my union, -- in my
:58:07. > :58:16.opinion, requires forgoing some of identity, in my union, -- in my
:58:16. > :58:30.those beliefs. Thank you very much for all my guests. We hope to see
:58:30. > :58:44.you again next week. -- to all my guests.