Episode 12 Sunday Morning Live

It has caused controversy in our courts, classrooms and streets.

On Sunday Morning Live, we ask you to decide, doom was limbed face

veils deepen divisions? -- do Muslim face veils deepen divisions?

Good morning. I'm Samira Ahmed. Also on today's programme: Tottenham

Hotspur fans are continuing with chants deemed offensive by the

Football Association. Should they be prosecuted? If you think you might

be causing offence, stop and watch the football.

And as artificial intelligence improves, we ask, can we trust our

future to robots? Robots are not for killing people.

Joining me this week are Andrew Copson from the British Humanist

Association, Ajmal Masroor, a broadcaster and an imam who leads

prayers in four mosques in London, and Shalina Litt, a community

activist, blogger and regional radio presenter. We want to know what you

think. If you have a web, you can join us via Skype, or you can give

your views via Twitter or call us. The Muslim face veil, designed to be

a symbol of modesty, has been thrust into the spotlight in the past week.

A judge ruled that a woman would into the spotlight in the past week.

have to remove her veil, or niqab, as it is known, to give evidence at

a trial. Birmingham Metropolitan University reversed a decision to

ban face veils after a protest petition. And 17 NHS hospitals have

reportedly banned the wearing of veils by staff in direct contact

with patients. Shalina Litt is proud to wear a face veil and explains

why. I have on the niqab for the last

four years after leaving a career in the music industry. It was all my

own decision, and it came after a long spiritual journey. It is not

something I decided on lightly, so why should I have to keep justifying

why I wear it to everyone? Why do I have to explain a religious belief?

For me, it is an act of devoted worship, and obedience to God. Some

people pray more, some people fast more. I choose to be more modest as

a way of showing my faith. I take this opportunity to be more modest

when it is presented to me. I like the fact that the niqab faces the

focus on what I say and not how I look. People cannot box me into

their ideas of age, race or origin. It might seem strange to hear this,

but the niqab is an empowering experience. It is a liberating one.

What harm is therefore women wearing the niqab really doing? How can

religious freedom be forgotten so quickly?

Home Office Minister Jeremy Browne has also called for a national

debate on whether face veils should be imposed, he thinks, on the young

Muslim girls. We can start a debate on the issue now. Andrew, do face

veils deepen divisions? I would be the last person to say what women

can and can't wear or to say that the state should say what women can

and can't wear. I would be against a ban in public places of face veils.

But that is not the question. If the question is, does it deepen

divisions, the answer is yes. So much of our communication with each

other as members of a shared society and citizens of the same nation,

whether at the bus stop or the school gate on all those public

settings, depends on face-to-face communication. I don't feel that I

am able to build the same quick relationship and automatic trust

with someone if their face is covered. It is divisive. This is the

question for our text vote. Do Muslim veils deepen divisions? You

can only vote once. Results will be announced at the end of the show.

Shalina, thank you so much for coming on. We heard in the film why

you were the niqab, and it is your choice. Has it ever caused you

trouble and personal abuse? Yes, in the past. Comments in the street?

Yes. Somebody was work -- walking past, and they kicked glass at me

once. You have seen the news coverage in the past week. Can you

understand why people feel uncomfortable about the idea of

women wearing the niqab? I can understand. And I think I

demonstrate that understanding by choosing to remove my niqab in a

professional workplace, where the niqab loses its function and becomes

a hindrance. So for me to get on with teaching and not have people be

like, why are you covering your face and are not comfortable with it, I

remove it. But when... As a personal lifestyle choice, I exercise it when

I can. So it is about you being comfortable? Yes, it is my choice.

That is what is important. There are people who may disagree about me

where it part-time. But it is my personal choice about my

relationship with God. It is to please God, not people. Ajmal

Masroor, although no one has real figures on how many women were the

niqab, there is more of a sense of it being around. Why are more women

choosing to wear it, and what do you say to them as an imam? That is the

wrong way to look at it, primarily because less women are wearing the

niqab than in the 80s and 90s. Because people are now becoming more

empowered and more knowledgeable, they are studying and they

understand the context in which they live in Britain, and the niqab is

not something that should be wearing. But I would support the

right of a woman to want to wear it as her choice. It has become

fashionable to vilify Muslims these days, at the dinner table, in pubs.

It is OK to attack them and mock them, because it is the boogie man

of our time. That is not acceptable. We need to move away from that

debate. If the debate is, should a woman have the right to wear a

niqab, yes she should. You have the right to wear whatever you want. But

if you are asking about Islam, does Islam promote the niqab? No. Islam

does not promote it as an obligation. If a person wants to

express that as their own choice, they can. In Islam, there was

already a precedent in the books of jurisprudence. You will find that in

works -- professional areas, you can take it if that is what you have

chosen. But you can't take it when you are on a pilgrimage. As a

father, I would say to Muslim women living in the West, even if it is a

personal choice you are making, you are making a choice that is

completely alien to the people, especially on a matter that is not

an obligation. If somebody was asking you to give up your prayer,

that is wrong. But you are making a choice, and you are choosing to not

integrate by wearing a face veils. So I would say, don't wear it in

Britain, but if you want to wear it in a Muslim country, go ahead. What

do you think of that? I agree. I will probably get slated for this,

but we need to know how to behave as British people and as Muslims. For

me, the niqab has a function, and that is my interpretation. If I am

doing it because I have a true understanding of why I wear it, then

great. If I am going into a shop to understanding of why I wear it, then

buy something, I understand that the buyer has the right for me to list

my niqab. But some people don't have that understanding. Why are we

focusing on why a Muslim woman is wearing the niqab 's we should be

focusing on issues that are really affecting Britain. This week in the

UK alone, we have had nearly six lives of young children who have

been stabbed. This is what we should be focusing on. That is an important

point. This is a bigger issue in other countries. In Britain, this is

a small issue. There was a very small number of women who wear a

face veil. So why has this come to public awareness? But since we have

not discussed this so far, it is worth saying that not every woman is

exercising her free choice when she worth saying that not every woman is

wears a veil. And I think that those women, we all need be in solidarity

with as well. It is just finding a way of doing that is difficult. When

Birmingham College band the wearing of the niqab, I called up the

college myself and said, I as a man where it in protest at the right of

a woman to wear it. And secondly, in terms of asking the general public,

are they aware of their religious rights within the Islamic community?

Are the women wearing it making a choice? Those are the right

questions to ask. But that is about education, not political point

scoring. It is not about witch hunting the Muslims. And for the

scoring. It is not about witch media to dominate a whole week on

this frivolous un-issue, it is a race. May I add to that? It takes a

lot of courage for me. My family don't agree with it. I am the only

one wearing it. In addition to that, when Islam is in the media, I know

about it, because if someone has an issue with it, I have to deal with

their response. Is that fair on me? That is why I am speaking about it.

The Jewish community were vilified in Europe. Names were called and

they were marginalised and their every practice was scrutinised.

Guess what happened in Europe with every practice was scrutinised.

the Jewish community? Holocaust and all the other discrimination

the Jewish community? Holocaust and happened. I don't want to see

something like that happen in Britain. I am calling for more

tolerance, understanding and respect from the wider community, but also

for the Muslim community is to integrate more. In areas where more

women choose to wear the veil, people wonder if there can be more

integration. It is true that media coverage in the last week has been

disproportionate, but it has not been totally unintelligent. Reading

articles in almost all the newspapers, from left to right and

broadsheet to tabloid, it has been an intelligent debate. We should be

careful before we cry about persecution or vilification. I don't

think that has happened. That is not true. Do you know about the number

of people who have been attacked as a result of this debate? Look at how

many mosques have been attacked. Ladies are attacked. Muslims are

being called names. These things are being exacerbated by this frivolous

debate that the media has driven. Let me bring in a contribute on the

phone -- a contributor. You were the niqab and you work as a molecular

geneticist. We want to look at how far you can separate your personal

choice as an educated woman in the West from the fact that many Muslim

choice as an educated woman in the women in Muslim countries and in

Britain are forced to dress in a certain way and are often treated as

second-class citizens in countries like Saudi Arabia, where Muslims'

face veiling goes with not being able to vote. I believe the question

is put in a wrong way. Yes, I can separate my choice from these

countries. I am in Britain. I made my decision based on research. These

countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran are dictated by an oppressive regime

which treats everyone, not only women, as a second-class citizen.

But I am here in Britain. Let's not forget the irony that these regimes

are supported by these liberal, Western countries like the UK and

the US in the case of Saudi Arabia. That is why it is important to make

two distinctions. These countries are not Islamic or democratic. We

should not compare Britain to these countries. Secondly, there was a big

difference between the Islamic teachings and their essence and

certain practices that are done in the name of Islam. I want to

summarise that the niqab is a liberation process. I disagree with

Ajmal Masroor when he said that we have do consider that we are in

Britain and Muslim women shouldn't wear it. I agree that the niqab is

not compulsory, but I recommend it. Even in Britain, we should have the

right to wear it. I don't want to have pressure on me to not wear it,

because it is my choice. We have to leave it there. Let me put your

points to the panel. It is a personal choice and a liberation. I

respect her choice, but I stand by what I said, which is that, in the

context in which we live, which is Britain, the safety of people is

very important. What did the prophet do? What does the Koran say? The

prophet did not say a Muslim woman should wear a face covering. The

Koran does not say that. If they didn't say that... Why is it that

they think it is such a religious choice? It is a choice they want to

make as a person, but it is not to be imposed as a religious choice.

Religious communities have two manage these cultural practices.

Forced marriages - not in the name of Islam. Honour killings - not in

the name of Islam. Terra killings - not in the name of Islam. People

feel there are parts of cities were Muslim women all wear veils. People

can feel intimidated by that. You Muslim women all wear veils. People

mean that they have their face covered, rather than veils. Yes. The

debate has moved on. My attitudes and beliefs still remain. In

reference to my religious freedom of choice, from a human rights

perspective, that should not be interfered with. Just like you have

men that choose to go to lap dancing clubs. They have a place to go and

see that. I know where to go and where my niqab. I am comfortably. I

think that women and men should have the right to wear whatever they

want. I do not think that many people have called for a ban

entirely. It is wrong to portray it as if that is the overwhelming

public opinion against what we are -- against which we are fighting.

There are small minority of people who think that people should not

wear the veil. Apart from in hospitals and courts and other

similar settings. This issue is not for entirely one community to

discuss. We cannot parcel communities that way. This is an

issue from everyone that interacts with their fellow citizens. I want

to bring in the director of women's rights organisation. Is this not

something that feminists should support? Women choose to dress how

they wish? I will start answering the question from the last part of

that. If then a minister should support that? -- if feminists should

support that. We are not just talking about women, we are talking

about women and children, all female Muslims. Is the niqab empowering? I

believe this is a contradictory issue. Look at your guest in the

studio. Now one can see her. It is not about her age, her face or her

colour, it is about human beings being visible. Taking yourself out

of society, this is not empowering women. It is denying their rights as

a human being. It is very wrong. Thank you. I will let you respond. I

would also like to hear from a lady who is from the Muslim women's

network. No one in the studio wants a ban, but people worry about

solutions. There has been a teacher who refused to take off her veil.

People feel that some Muslims are looking for special treatment and

this causes divisions. What is the answer? I do not think that Muslims

are looking for special treatment. We as a society have to look at

making it equal. We have to make it right for people. Having the debate

and the discussion in a responsible manner and then arriving at a

solution and a compromise that is good for all. What is that solution

when we know that many people feel unhappy about seeing women in veils.

More people who were the niqab need to come forward and take part in

that debate. There is a lack of understanding and knowledge. That

breeds fear. It is not for politicians to decide. It is for

society to decide what is right for them. I am a British Muslim. I want

society to decide what is right for to feel comfortably and secure. I

want my family to be secure. Part of that is seeing people with the

niqab, but I want to know that they are the right people, and not

someone who is purporting to be Muslim and carrying out criminal

activities. A man came up to me is dirty and said, I feel like it is an

insult as a British man that I would not be able to control myself. I

think the media and politicians have a great responsibility for what they

say. My experiences alone, coming to Belfast, a lovely place, by the way,

people came up to me. They said, you are Muslim! I would love to speak to

you about this and that. That highlights the fact that people just

want to know more. We should get more Muslims on a platform. Trust

me, even I am looking for them. If you want to make it an open

discussion, then let's make it a fair one. But this is a religious

debate, it is not a national debate. We have binge drinking and sexual

exploitation, domestic violence. These are issues that are affecting

Britain. We have to leave it there but we will revisit this at the end

of the programme. Thank you. This is the topic for our vote. The question

is, do Muslim veils deepened divisions? -- deepen. The

information is on the screen. You have around 20 minutes before the

vote closes. Tottenham Hotspur football club has

been in the news this week and it Tottenham Hotspur football club has

has nothing to do with the performance on the pitch. The North

London team has been regarded as having a strong Jewish following

which has led to anti-Semitic abuse from the supporters of rival clubs

at times. Spurs fans have responded by using chants which include the

word Yid, normally regarded as a highly offensive term of abuse. The

Football Association has warned that using such chance in the future

could result in banning orders. Spurs supporters appeared to have

largely ignored calls for them to change their chance. -- to change

their songs. Many believe that there are more disturbing examples of

abuse that are not being tackled. For years around Chelsea and West

Ham, and also other clubs, we have heard songs about Auschwitz and gas

chambers. Inside the ground we have heard hissing. And yet here we are

talking about whether Spurs fans are the problem. The fans defiance by

continuing their chance was even defended by the Prime Minister, who

said they should not be prosecuted. Others have said the supporters need

to face the consequences of their actions. Hate speeches never have to

be motivated by hate. You can have the Aigner and drunk comes out the

Y-word on a Saturday night. -- the ignorant drunk who comes out. That

is no defence. It is the impact on ignorant drunk who comes out. That

the victim that counts. As supporters made their way to match

on Thursday night, all those that we spoke to seemed to be in favour of

retaining songs. But the Iraqi knows the sensitivity of the issue. If it

is meant in a malicious way, fed enough, but why spoil something that

has been going on for however long. I can understand that some people

are sensitive and not others. You cannot Rossi put everyone who uses

it. The Spurs fans use it, but other teams use it, they do not use it in

a good way. Other people use to have a go. It is 50-50. Our Tottenham

fans entitled to reclaim a word that has been directed as abuse against

them, or is heat speech always hate speech, no matter where and how it

is used? -- hate speech. Joining us for this discussion is Rabbi David.

The word is originally Yiddish and origin, but it has been used as a

racist term in Britain since the 1930s. How should we regard the term

now? It is not just in the United Kingdom. It was used in Europe as

well. In Polish and several other languages. It is shouted and people

are called by that name. It is normally as an insult. Do you feel

that each be banned by Spurs fans themselves? I think they should

concentrate on foot all rather than insulting people. It is interesting

that this is like the way that gay people have reclaim the word queer.

Is that a fair comparison? Words have the -- words have their own

Is that a fair comparison? Words power and their own history. Lots of

gay people needed to decide that they were going to reclaim the word

queer. With a word like Yid, it has a long, painful and bloody history

as a term of abuse. I think the weight that it carries with it would

make it difficult to reclaim. It is important to realise that although

words have power, they are also used in different contexts. There is a

difference between shouting a word in a vicious way, as Aprilia to

slaughter, and using it in a way where everyone who is hurt is

abating understands that it is banter. -- as a prelude to

slaughter. But rival fans are not using it in that way. Exactly. Some

are making hissing noises. One TV presenter has made a film about how

he feels about this. He is in favour of a ban. Does this make a

difference if it is used as a chant by a group of fans about themselves,

rather than dogged as an insult on a wall. I should understand, coming

rather than dogged as an insult on a from an Asian background, being

called the keyword throughout my younger days, they are very

insulting words. -- the P-word. We should be responsible with our

language. You can use it positively or destructively. This is

destructive. Secondly, obscenities that are constantly chanted on the

football field, I would not take my child there because it is so vulgar

and disgusting. We as a community need to think. We need to ask the

belief they need to be so obscene and vulgar? Do you need to be racist

to show that you are excited? That is wrong. I want to bring in a Spurs

fan. He is a fan of Tottenham Hotspur. You know there are people

who say these chants are very offensive. That includes Jewish

football fans prematurely. On that basis alone, why not say it is time

to stop? I believe the whole argument is pretty spurious. I have

to refute the suggestion that the problem exists in the way it is

being excerpt -- it is being asserted. Even the Prime Minister

managed to point out that this is about context and content. You

cannot ignore that. You cannot have context by being racist and abusive.

Language evolves. That is one thing. But it is the manner in which people

say things. I am not going to try and kid you about other offensive

words. I struggle to see any conceivable manner in which they can

be passed off as being correct. But Tottenham have been using this word

in a fraternal and very much inclusive manner, in a friendly and

up between. It has not been used in a provocative or attacking way. But

in this debate, what is being glossed over, brushed under the

carpet, is that there is a real problem, and it is not the Y-word.

It is the C-word. Chelsea. These people have been making references

to Auschwitz and making hissing noises to represent gas chambers for

many years. I want to speak to another Spurs fan. He is also master

of St Peter's College. You have heard the claim that it is part of a

group identity and it is nothing wrong with that. I do not go with

the notion that because 25,000 supporters are using the word, that

I find offensive, that they should not be arrested. I do not think it

is a convincing argument. There are surely better ways of combating

anti-Ted -- combating anti-Semitism. INAUDIBLE

. To use that word is not acceptable. Just to be clear, would

you want the chance stopped by Spurs fans? I would like the chants to be

stopped and I would like the football authorities to get to the

issue. I would like both Tottenham on the football authorities and the

police to take a more serious approach to those who are using

anti-Semitic words in a context which is clearly aggressive. And

that, I hope, will persuade Tottenham fans that they do need to

do this. Mark, we will leave it there because the line is breaking

up, but thank you. Harry, you don't need to do this. It really does

cause offence, it is time to accept it and move on? I understand the

line these people are taking, but I think the construction of the

argument is poor. There was a reference there to calling the

police and all this sort of business. Has anybody asked any

Yiddish etymologists about this, for example? Perhaps we should start in

the United States of America. There was a publication with a monthly

circulation of a third of a million copies, the Yiddish news. That we

circulation of a third of a million are discussing about how the word is

perceived here? Well, I would suggest that the word is not felt to

be abusive by the bulk of people. This week, a respected football

website had a survey. 4% of those who polled said they wanted it

banned. But I wonder how many are who polled said they wanted it

Jewish 's can I ask the rabbi to respond? Frankly, with all due

respect, the point you are trying to make with regards to sensitivity, I

as a sensitive to being called Yid in the street. Yes, it is a matter

of intent, at frankly, there are other things you could say. And

seeing as the word has been used in an anti-Semitic way over many

years, that is the sensitivity I am feeling. I am feeling insulted. And

therefore, one of the things I am asking Tottenham Hotspur fans and

anybody else is to refrain from being abusive, offensive and causing

humiliation. I am on the receiving end of that, and I feel. What I am

asking you, not personally, but Tottenham Hotspur, what are you

going to do about the way I feel? Certainly in the street, I would be

appalled if somebody referenced you using the word Yid or knitting of

that nature. It is totally unacceptable. We are specifically

talking about the inextricable link between Jewish fans and Tottenham

Hotspur. I don't understand the connection. If you are upset about

it, you are one of the 4%. But I don't think the construction of this

argument is sound. I think the actual racism, which is appalling,

this business of referencing the Holocaust, this is not being

discussed here. But one is a natural progression from the other. It

starts with one thing, and it just snowballs. Let me get the panel to

respond. Harry, if you say you love the Jewish people, say that. Make

that a chant. We would not have a problem with that. Islamophobia and

xenophobia and racism should be stamped out. I agree with the point

Harry makes that the stuff in relation to Chelsea is much worse.

But the problem about this side on that side is that they ask LA

together. And you can't stop on activity without stopping the other

-- they escalate together. If people were to stop chanting Yid, even in a

supportive way, that would take the steam out of the whole thing and

leave it in a bet position to deal steam out of the whole thing and

with what is really offensive. Harry, thank you for taking part. We

have got Paul Mortimer, a professional footballer who now

works for Charette is a red card, the well-known campaign. Is there a

way to tackle the situation without the well-known campaign. Is there a

prosecuting Spurs fans? From an educational point of view, what does

the word actually means? That is where we come from. As far as I am

concerned, I am surprised people are using the word in the studio. It is

up there with the N word on the P word, and it should not be used.

They are racist terms that are used to describe certain people based on

their characteristics, and it is unacceptable that the words are

being allowed to be used. What can we do? I think all the

stakeholders, the FA, the Premier League, the fans' associations, the

clubs, have to get together and agree that this word is unacceptable

and needs stamping out. We have a comment from one of our viewers.

Dave says we should not ban this. It is banter, it is what footy fans do,

it is working class. It may not be PC, but it is what it is. A fair

number of viewers might be thinking that. Well, I have been on the

receiving end of rant when the N word has been used towards me, and I

have been told to accept that because it is just a joke, just

banter. Ask people on the receiving end of that word whether it is

banter or not. They will tell you. It is awful to hear that people

think it is banter. I remember bricks being thrown in my face when

I was young and being called a P word. Bloody, terrified, screaming,

wanting to hide because of my colour. It is a horrible feeling,

and no one should have to experience that. Anyone who suggests that it is

an innocent joke needs their head checked. We need to create a society

where we are together and equal. I would agree. To be on the receiving

end of people who want to call it banter, it is just an excuse. In

America, there are teams like the Washington Redskins, who used Native

American names. Some are still Washington Redskins, who used Native

resisting the changing of the name, saying it is our tradition, our

history. That is the Spurs argument, isn't it? No. Sorry to butt in. But

the words are being used in a negative context. I am an American

football follower, and I have read about the Washington Redskins

situation. And as banned -- I understand people's feelings, but

the word is not being used as a negative, it is being used to

promote a football club. So you are pay with that? But this word in this

country is being used as a negative. There is a lot of history behind the

word, and people who use it are ignorant. I am not changing my mind,

but I want to point out that in view of the strength of feeling that has

come out, there are contexts in which the word is used as an between

people who know what they are doing and there are positive contexts for

the word, so context is important. We don't want to tar everyone who is

using it with the same brush if they are using it in an internal,

knowing, fraternal way. Thank you all very much. Let me read a few

more comments from viewers. Kay from Glasgow says these people should be

prosecuted. It is anti-Semitic. An anonymous person says Spurs fans may

understand their use of the, but others don't. Zero tolerance is the

only option. Mark says is surely increased use, associated with a

positive connotation, will remove any racist connection. All says, I

feel ashamed as a Spurs fan that people continue to defend the chant

with weak arguments. Now, you have been voting on our

poll this morning. Do Muslim veils deepen divisions? The vote on that

is closing now, so please don't text.

Now, let's move on to a vision of the future. We are used to using

robots and seeing them spraying cars are fitting nuts and bolts, but what

about robots which carry out hospital operations, including

stitching? Or act as cuddly companions for children? None of

stitching? Or act as cuddly that is science fiction, it is

technology which is currently being explored. But as well as practical

issues, these developments in artificial intelligence race

potential ethical ones, too, as metal and silicon replaced flesh and

blood. Professor Noel Sharkey has worked in

artificial intelligence and robotics for 30 years. As machines play an

ever-increasing role in our daily lives, he believes we are not

discussing the ethical issues at the same rate we are advancing the

technology. When I look at how the world is changing and the way robots

are going to come into the world, I think that if we don't get it

right, robotics will get nowhere. If we get it right, robots could be

very useful to humankind. Robotics are being used in everything, from

manufacturing to health care. But will the robots be given ethical

responsibilities? The problem with robots being given morals is that

our ethical world is open to interpretation. A robot can only

our ethical world is open to apply a set of rules. To talk about

a robot feeling emotion is a whole other step, and you can't be partly

feeling, you are either feeling or you are not. As a Sharkey is a

member of a campaign to stop killer robots, a group calling for an

international treaty to ban the use of autonomous weapons. Whereas

drones are much controlled by humans, these robots could identify

and attack their own targets. This really worries me as a robotics

professional, because those robots have no way of discriminating

between combatants and civilians, or could not tell the difference

between a child with a toy gun and a soldier with a gun. So for me, this

is morally wrong. Haitians in this hospital in Northern Ireland can

talk to a doctor via video link from a robot that visits their bedside --

patients. It is possible that in the future, robots will be able to

perform surgery autonomously without the need for human intervention. But

will this improve our experience of health care? We don't want a kind of

conveyor belt surgery, where you show up, have your scan and get

operated on without seeing a human. That would not be nice. We all need

love at those times when we are most vulnerable. Robots are here to

stay, but can we trust them in the long-term? If we get it right, we

could really assist humankind. If we get it wrong, it will be a

nightmare. So how do you feel about emotionless

machines taking over from humans, with the ability to way up moral

dilemmas? And we trust robots with our future? Join in by phone, e-mail

or online. We are joined by Doctor Berry Billingsley from LASCAR,

Learning About Science And Religion. Before I bring you in, I am

interested in whether you have concerns about a point where

machines are making decisions, for example, medical surgery? Is that

different to the idea of automated robots making decisions about

missile strikes? I love robots and I love the possibilities that science

opens up for us. I am a science fiction fan, but this does raise

ethical questions. My favourite Star Trek episode is when they are trying

to decide whether an android should have human rights, because he is a

morally reasoning creation. I am have human rights, because he is a

interested in who is responsible once we have created these robots

and set the parameters for them to conduct asked. Is it possible for

them to be moral agents, or is the agency always with us, who have

originally done it? Could we create robots like as, or would we consign

them to creating robots for specific robots like as, or would we consign

tasks, to avoid the nightmare scenarios where they become better

tasks, to avoid the nightmare than us? Is their first duty to

protect us? Or could they decide they would be better off if we were

all dead? That is a great question. I will pick up on something that

Andrew said. The wonderful thing about that Star Trek episode is that

he never answered the question. They said, can the robot be seen as

having human rights? But they never answered the question. That is the

fantastic thing about science fiction. You can go off on all sorts

of directions and not necessarily answer the question. There are

several things that we find interesting and worrying about these

robots. Should we trust them? That is a concern that we rightly should

have. What you raise is really important. These robots are made by

people. They are endowed with whatever the people have given them.

And the other point you were going to make? These bigger,

philosophical, theological questions. If we could see further

into the future, even if we see that questions. If we could see further

robots now are not like us, perhaps in the future that will change.

Stephen Hawking has said that there could have spear time predicted and

planned brain patterns into a robot. The thing that we saw in the video,

the pet, the cuddly companion, is that any difference -- is that any

different to turning on a television and leaving your child in front of

it? I have several problems with this. If the robot is going to be a

running my clothes and tidying my house, that is fine, but when it

comes to morality and ethics, we have to consider our spirit,

intellect, the spark of life that keeps us alive and the thought

patterns that constantly change. These elements cannot be

incorporated in a machine. Also, will I trust a robot to stop action

when a critical decision is to be made. What about the drone attacks

when a critical decision is to be that have killed thousands of

people. Imagine a robot has gone that have killed thousands of

inside my body and it wants to operate. A doctor has noticed that

it is not the liver, it is the long that needs to be operated on. But

the robot may not have that. Right, this is about responsibility. The

points you're raising a really important. It is about how we

perceive the robot. It is about what we think the robot can do because it

appears to be human. Robots are being used for surgery. In the

Northern Ireland hospital, they are used as an interface to speak to

your doctor without him having to go around the wards. But he takes

responsibility? That is the question that are students need to be asking.

What is the answer? The answer is, no, it is the person who made the

robot who is responsible. You mentioned earlier that you have a

pet robot. Before we deal with that... It is on that very point.

When we see something behaving in a very human way, or like a cat, we

give it much more than it is giving us. Our engineers are fantastic at

reducing robots that can do something. If we ask for a

companion, they will give us a fantastic robot companion. I would

like to bring in a Professor of artificial intelligence. Thank you

for joining us. People fear that we could get to a point with medical

treatment where we could have hospitals full of robots programmed

to carry out medical work, but with no human interaction. How do you see

robots working in a specifically medical environment? Certainly there

is a fear that robots will replace humans by many people. You will be

in a completely isolated situation. But ultimately it will be up to the

care providers. They will decide. Perhaps we need to go away from this

idea of having fully autonomous machines and look at robots as part

of the team. Robots and people could collaborate with each other, each of

them focusing on their strengths. Robots could be time consuming or

demanding task, like helping someone stand up get out of bed. Humans,

professional caterers, family members, they could focus on what

humans are very good at, providing emotional and social support. That

is a crucial point. The decisions of hours to make. We are not talking

about making replica human beings. We are talking about making robots

for individual purposes. We are all parts of systems. No surgeon is

acting on their own when they are performing an operation. They are

part of the system. And they are good when we keep them to within the

limits to what they have been designed. The problems come when

robots are given trust for something beyond what the robot is meant for,

in science-fiction films. If I pay utility after my child and you are

completely unfit to do so, it is the same question. It is my

responsibility. We are seeing robots being developed to look after

elderly patients. That potentially leaves a gap where you used to have

humans doing it. Does it matter? I have a father who is 90 and he

suffers from dementia. His kid is done by human beings. I would not

trust a robot to look after him. Dementia sufferers, their patterns

and behaviour are so unpredictable robot would be incapable of doing

that. If I am with Andrew, and he is in pain, and I am reading his mind,

I'm reading his body language, his communication, all those signals, I

is a human being will empathise with him. I will have an emotional

response to him. That is a good point. You're suggesting, would you

trust the robots? I would turn that question around. Would you trust the

person who made the robot? I want to bring in one other contributor. This

person who made the robot? I want to man made the film that we were

watching at the beginning. A lot of companies are developing robots

which they claim will be able to make sophisticated decisions. What

is your view, especially your concern about the automation of

warfare? I agree with a lot of what the panellists are saying. But there

are dangers. We must let the robots be supervised. That is a vital

issue. Do you feel there is a real danger, that people are looking to

take humans out of the decisions on things like drones? Very much so. It

is not just drones. It is also submarines, surface vessels,

tank-like vehicles. The aims of submarines, surface vessels,

several countries, particularly the United States, is to make fully

economist weapons. That is a weapon that once activated, it was like its

own target and kill them without further human supervision. That is

what we are trying to stop. I have been working all my life on

economist robots. But this particular function needs to be

stopped. This comes down to who do we trust

to make a good decision. The sort of person we trust is someone who knows

to make a good decision. The sort of a lot about the area, someone that

knows how we think within society. Perhaps someone who has even studied

history and knows how we got here. In other words, that sense to me

like a person. I think there is very little that we could not reproduce

in a robot that we have in a person. All the patterns of recognition of

another person, their physiological characteristics, the things that she

us they are in pain, they could be replicated. But I would miss the

us they are in pain, they could be human contact that the other side of

that. I disagree with your last point. We cannot replicate all of

those. You cannot take away the human touch. That is the essence of

us. We cannot survive in isolation with robots. We cannot get warmth

and love from a robot. All we get is functionality. That is fantastic.

Enhancing our lives with robots, getting them to do some work, that

is fantastic. Those very questions and those two arguments, we need to

explore them in classrooms. We will be doing that with 800 teenagers.

Thank you. We have to end it there. Your votes are in. We have a

dramatic response to our opinion poll. 95% of those who voted said

that Muslim veils deepen divisions. I want to read some of the comments.

Terry says that niqabs are controlling measure designed to

subjugate women. Mohammed says that Muslim women who wear the full veil

do so by choice. David says that this is a sick stench of the

tradition. It is the 21st century and we need to move on. -- that

veils are a sixth century decision. Do you have any thoughts on this as

a scientist? And you have colleagues Do you have any thoughts on this as

that were one? I think these divisions are to do with not

understanding. We should speak about this. I come back to what I said at

the beginning. Anyone covering their this. I come back to what I said at

face in this way cannot help that be creating visions and society. In the

Green room, your guest was not using her veil. I was able to connect with

her. I felt a connection with in a way that I could not feel when she

was using the veil. Those little interactions, that is what makes

society what it is. It rings us together. -- it brings us. On a

personal level, I sympathise with the outcome of the opinion poll. But

I still want to say that women have the right to wear what they want to.

We should not and it. I would call for the bigger debate. Muslim women

should be educated, wider society should have a better understanding

of Islam. Creating a British Muslim identity, in my union, -- in my

opinion, requires forgoing some of identity, in my union, -- in my

those beliefs. Thank you very much for all my guests. We hope to see

you again next week. -- to all my guests.