Episode 12 Sunday Morning Live

Good morning, I'm Sian Williams with the show that gets to the heart and

As Britain begins air raids against Islamic extremists,

church leaders warn that bombs can't destroy beliefs.

As protests cause a controversial exhibition to close,

And from the super-cool Fonz to the champion of children and dyslexia

campaigner - Henry Winkler tells me about being offered an OBE.

If the Queen would like to give you this, would you accept it? We will

think about that... OK, fine! And we're in Cornwall, where we'll

be joining Rebecca Wills, who's The back Peshmerga a very warm

welcome from a very warm Falmouth. Where street dance, street art and

theatre have been providing a riot of sound and colour on the streets

of the Tyne as part of the Splash arts Festival celebrating its rich

creative spirit. Today is a final day some of the people here up for

that, here at the beach, we will reflect the topics you are

discussing back in the studio. We'd like to know what you think,

too. You can comment by phone, text,

email or through Twitter, Phone calls cost up to 5p per

minute from most landlines. Calls from mobiles may

cost considerably more. Texts will be charged

at your standard message rate. After all the consideration

and hesitation, Britain is joining David Cameron says there's

a moral case for it because Islamic State extremists are psychopathic

terrorists trying to kill us. But some religious leaders

are counselling caution. The Archbishop of Canterbury,

Justin Welby, is calling for an ideological and religious solution

rather than just a military one. And the Baptist and Methodist

Churches in Britain say you can't Yesterday, MPs voted overwhelmingly

to support air strikes and on the Andrew Marr Show a short time ago

the Prime Minister made it clear the When you face a situation with

psychopathic terrorist killers in Syria and Iraq who have already

brutally beheaded one of our own citizens, who have launched and

tried to execute plots in our country to kill innocent people, you

have a choice dashed either stand back from this and say this is too

difficult and complicated, let someone else keep the country safe,

we take the correct decision to have a full, comprehensive strategy but

let us be prepared to play a role in making sure these people cannot do

us harm. On Sunday Morning Live

we'll be asking: Do we have a moral duty to

bomb Islamic State extremists? Text the word vote followed

by yes or no to 81771. Texts will be charged

at your standard message rate. Go online to vote for free

at bbc.co.uk/sundaymorninglive. Terms and conditions can

also be found online. Results will be announced

at the end of the show. But first, let's get some opinions

from our guests this morning. Joining us to discuss this issue are

journalist and documentary maker, His latest documentary explores

the question of who won the war Julie Bindel is a freelance

journalist and political activist. Sami Ramadani from the Stop the War

coalition, who's an Iraqi-born And scientist and member

of the House of Lords, Professor Susan Greenfield, whose

latest book explores how modern Susan, is there a moral

justification for a war which will inevitably result in the deaths of

people? As everyone says, for every situation there is a simple answer

and it is always wrong. This decision should be put in the wider

context and I would like to have seen along with this military

decision, further understanding or exploration not just into the

humanitarian issues but from my point of view, what makes someone so

cruel? What makes people do this? It is all very well to say they are

psychopaths but why? How can we reduce the possibility of people

becoming so extreme in behaviour. While you psychoanalyse them, they

conduct the most extraordinary utility? It is actually having a

multipronged approach to the situation and I am not a military

expert but whether that is little or more, it should be put in the

context of a coordinated approach and that approach should include

issues of education and looking within the UK at why people are

becoming jihadist. I do not know if you heard the Prime Minister this

morning and he said it was the correct decision for military

action. It is surely a moral to sit by and watch this level of barbarity

and brutality? We cannot just say, somebody else do this? Maze right to

say they are psychopathic terrorists and the question to ask is, is

warming the solution? We are looking for a solution and there is

unanimity that these terrorists are very savage and they threaten people

and they come Peshmerga they commit these of all crimes is bombing the

solution? Is this morally right? Especially, morally, I do not think

it is. Especially that Britain and the US, who are leading this, and

they are one of the main reasons for the rise of these organisations

because they bombed Iraq and have been since 1991. And the occupied

Iraq in 2003 and terrorism was not known in this region until these

wars were launched and more awards will create more terrorists. Peter

Taylor, you are an expert in Terrorism Act, did the war in Iraq

effectively create Islamic State? Indirectly because the origins of

Islamic State and its leader, from Iraq, they are an offshoot from

Al-Qaeda in Iraq. And I think that the invasion of Iraq was the trigger

for the chaos we are seeing throughout the Middle East. My

concern about the bombing campaign is the objective is specific that

the effect will be limited because if you want to destroy and degrade

ISIS, you can from the air about to destroy this, that will entail boots

on the ground and I cannot see the Iraqi army or the Syrian army or the

Peshmerga actually defeating ISIS on the ground. He said there would be

no UK troops, he would be relying on the Peshmerga, the Kurdish fighters

and the Iraqi fighters. If there are no UK boots, then he means that

although the situation might change traumatically. I think it will

almost certainly entail American boots on the ground because you

cannot destroy an organisation, and it is an oversupply location to say

ISIS is a terrorist organisation, it is also a conventional army with the

command structure run by the commanders of the old Iraqi army who

have gone to bring their expertise to ISIS. You are dealing with what

is much more than just a terrorist organisation because they do

horrendous acts, it is almost a conventional army and my fear is we

are going in and committing ourselves to stepping into a very

long, dark tunnel and nobody knows when there will be any light at the

end of it. Is the answer to do nothing? Of course not. What was

interesting about the House of Commons was how measured and

corporative it was compared to 2003 and we can see that ISIS is the

biggest and best resource and the most powerful threat to the West but

this is not about whether you can defeat the ology with bombing, all

war is a case of a geology of some type and this is a threat to Western

civilisation. It is not a war between one country and another, and

what concerns me is that the American strategy so far as pulled

in more supporters of ISIS but having said that, the argument

against is that civilians will be killed but they are being killed

right by. Should we sit back and do nothing? No, we should intervene,

whether or not that teens we should be training and resource in those

within the region to defeat ISIS is another matter. I would agree with

Peter, it will be a very long, dark tunnel but civilians are being

killed now. We need to realise that Western civilisation created

Al-Qaeda and in Afghanistan, it trained and armed them. Similarly,

the whole region... OK, thank you for that point but I want to go to

the newsroom studio. We are talking about the moral

duty. Do we have one? Peter Taylor says they are not like any other

terrorist organisation, with a very different infrastructure. Is this

morally acceptable to target them? I think we the Peter described them is

very accurate. ISIS is the shell and inside that Shell there are lots of

other forces, like the X Bathursts and they are hiding underneath that.

It is totally immoral to stand by and do nothing, as many have said.

But we also have done nothing in the past three years in Syria. We have

been watching a brutal regime massacre its people and destroying

cities and we have been saying that Syria is too complicated and we

should not intervene. I think that the decision here was probably as

complicated or even more compensated than Syria. What is happening in

Syria and Iraq is probably simpler. There is the moral consideration and

the legal consideration and one must consider the consequences and the

background. But the results so internal politics involved and the

Alliance with the United States, the transatlantic relationship and a

special relationship. The US was involved when the vote happened so

not voting for intervention would have been a vote against special

relationship so it is a much larger relationship that is involved. And

the complexities of these decisions sometimes overshadow the morality.

Do you agree, they overshadow the morality? It is one of the most

complex problems that I can remember in my 40 years as a journalist. But

we're about to enter the new phase and it is interesting that another

jihadi organisation, allied to Al-Qaeda, not ISIS, says two Muslims

throughout the world, in countries are part of the coalition, to attack

the UK and European countries. And it is being resented as it is the

war against Islam, which isn't -- which it is not, it is against

ISIS, but I can see the repercussions of this, such as the

invasion of Iraq. It was warned that if we were to invade Iraq, we would

radicalise tense, dozens, hundreds of young people. I can see this

happening. That is happening, you are acting as a recruiting sergeant?

And that is why in tandem with the military solution, we should be

thinking about what we can do here in the local communities to ensure

that people perhaps have alternatives because is a certain

glamour possibly of going on some mission. There seems to be agreement

that there needs to be a lot more done than just military action?

Education on the ground, etc. But you do disagree on whether at first

you need to strike hard? Susan says yes, going, but with other force?

I would like to see more co-ordination. What's the long-term

goal, they'll all be dead? What exactly are we aiming for? We need a

solution. Bombing isn't the solution. One of the solutions, 't

the solution. One of the solutions, look at our allies - Saudi beheads

people every Friday in public. This is our ally supposedly going to end

ISIS. They've been funding it. Qatar similarly. We have our allies, the

bedrock idealogical cover for knees operations ostensibly joining us to

bomb them. There is no more case that Cameron can make. He talks

about freedom, democracy and justice. Show us the freedom,

justice and democracy in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan. This

is a policy for war, for maybe dominating the region. The oil

question. There are so many issues. It is very complex in the region.

Cameron being moral I think is the wrong question. A quick one from

Lizzie, who texts saying last week answer my is this week's ally. Let's

get some views from Falmouth Rebecca. Good morning. I'm joined by

a doctor from Exeter University who lectures in Islamic politics. Is

bombing ISIS enough? Into, I don't think it is. Bombing in Iraq

presents itself as a simple solution to a complex problem. We can't

combat ISIS and protect Iraqi civilians and domestic civilians

from domestic terrorism and protect Muslims with action. It is too much

to ask. If bombing ISIS isn't enough, what is? We need to get our

foreign policy right and realise we are in this situation because of

moving into Iraq years ago. This has caused the problem. We need a strong

alliance with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Iraqi Government and possibly

even the Syrian Government. Then we can work out a strategy. If bombing

is part of that strategy, perhaps we can think about it. Do you think

there can be a political solution? Certainly it is tempting to move to

bombing because it's a very material, it gives you material

results and there are other material things we can do like an arms

embargo, and trying to stem funds and supplies to the organisation. In

combination with political strategies, it could work. Thank you

both. Those are the views here in Falmouth this morning. Thank you

Rebecca. I want to put this to you, Julie. One of the guests said

bombing is not the answer but it is part of the strategy. I would agree

with that, but I think that blaming western foreign policy on this

atrocity is overly simplistic and is missing the point. The rise in

religious fundamentalism around the world needs to be looked at root and

branch. Thank you to all of you. If you're in Northern Ireland, you can

see Peter Taylor's documentary called Who Won The War tomorrow

night on BBC One at 9 o'clock. The rest of the UK can see it on BBC Two

sometime in October. Date to be announced. Our vote is still open.

Do we have a moral duty to bomb Islamic State extremists? Remember,

you can only vote once. You've got 20 minutes before the

vote closes. You You've got 20 minutes before the

vote closes. You can vote online - bbc.co.uk/sundaymorninglive. We'll

announce the results before the end of the programme. Still to come on

Sunday Morning Live: Why marriage is better than living together. That's

according to Britain's most senior Roman Catholic. It is surprising to

me how at a certain point people who may have lived together suddenly

come to the point of saying, we really ought to be married.

A controversial art exhibition had to be closed

on its opening night this week after protesters deemed it racist.

The show, called Exhibit B, was being staged by London's Barbican

Arts Centre and included some black performers, who were depicted as

The Barbican says people are being denied an important work of art.

The protesters maintain it's "an outrageous act of complicit racism".

These were the scenes in London earlier this week as protesters

disrupted the opening night of a new exhibition by South African artist

Brett Bailey. This is exhibit exhibit, uth African artist Brett

Bailey. This is exhibit exhibit, when it was -- Exhibit B when it was

sheen in Edinburgh earlier this year. In the 19th century slaves

were displayed as curiousities. The artist says it forces us to confront

racism then and now. What was behind this was to dehumanise and objectify

them. I take colonial history, the atrocities committed under

colonialism, from the beginning of the 19th century all the way up

until the liberation in the 1950s and '60s. I look at the residues of

the racism we are still living with today. But those opposed to the work

say it is complicit in the racism it is meant to be challenging. It is

quite rude in 2014 that an institute like the Barbican thinks that

putting black people in cages is challenging art and it is an

important work for London. I keep saying to them, who is it important

for? This is the art of offence. The exhibition was cancelled after

safety concerns. The Barbican says the piece should still be shown and

it is disturbed at the potential implications for freedom of

expression. So should this show be banned, or is

it anti-racism being taken too far? We're joined now by Stella Odunlami,

who was part of the exhibition. By director and founder of the

Institute For Ideas think-tank and And Lee Jasper, who was part

of the protest outside the theatre. Welcome to you all. Lee, why censor

art? We didn't censor it. We have not called for a change in the law

so it is banned. We exercised our democratic right... And stopped it

being shown. To oppose what we thought was an offensive arts work

that would reinforce racism rather than undermine it. Why do you think

that? We think that this show is no Anne Frank exhibition. It is not

supported by an extensive learning programme in schools. It is not part

of an on-going dialogue between the Barbican and London's plaque

communities, who have been here for nearly 2,000 years. We've got

institutions and organisations with whom they could have had a dialogue,

as was the case around the Anne Frank exhibition. We feel there was

a lack of responsibility on behalf of the Barbican in its failure to

consult with communities with whom it was intending to put on an

artwork for whom we were supposed to be the beneficiaries. We think the

artist was misconceived in his responsibility in failing to ensure

he had that dialogue. So it was about dialogue. Protesters said they

found the work degrading. Stella, as part of the work, what are your

thoughts on that? The piece was not made just for the black community

but London's community at large, people who want to engage in art.

The Anne Frank museum is a permanent exhibition. This was a show that was

touring the world for five days. So does Anne Frank. The show was Super

conceived with the idea I guess of shining a light on the history of

colonialism, how damaging the atrocities that Europe has been

built on. And even more importantly demonstrating how the legacy of that

still haunts us today. Me and my fellow performers are all rather

educated black artists who made ormers are all rather educated black

artists who made the part to -- made the choice to take part in the

piece, a powerful piece and needed to be seen. What part did you play?

I played the part of a modern-day asylum seeker from Nigeria. Did you

think that was offensive. Some of your performers were wearing masks,

which look quite shocking, but the images... The images were accurate.

I was dressed in modern-day clothing with a number pinned to my dress.

What's offensive about that, Lee? You see the artwork in its whole

context. It starts, it shows a series of taboos with black people

in various degrees of restraint or objectification or oppression. We

say that our story is much more than that. Part of the narrative that's

being displayed here,s which about revisiting these ideas in

colonialism and historical oppression miss the we could agency

of that oppression, the white people, who had they been included

in this tableau would have made more sense. If it had been a black

director rather than a white director, would that have been more

acceptable? I would close down a black show. You make a habit of

closing down shows. It was called Slave Babies. You didn't see the

show though did you? Did you see the show? Can I finish? Of course, and

then we'll ask you if you saw the show. We closed down a Jamaican

theatre company production around Slave Baby, supposed to be a comedy.

We mobilised the black community in the late 1990s and said this isn't a

subject... So you had seen the show? Yes. So you had? Slave Babies. The

thing about exhibit B is it is the most written about artistic

exhibition, so I didn't feel I needed to. Claire? It is a

reasonable point that Stella makes, the boast about the ability to close

down art shows as a banal of honour is the scary bit of this discussion.

The argument or even the question, is thattee offensive? If we are

going to close down art shows on the basis that they are offensive, we

are going to censor anything that's offensive, we are inviting in a kind

of authoritarian illiberal society that we live in. One of the things

that is most distasteful and awful about this discussion is that it has

done antiracism a huge disservice. It associates antiracism with not

being able to Col rate or cope with even arguments it doesn't like. It

actually, the idea that... I would like to be able to see this artwork.

I've read a number of ruse, I might not enjoy as an artwork. I might

want to critique it as an artwork. Of course there are pieces of

theatre I think are not good theatre, pieces of art I don't like,

but that's the basis on which es of art I don't like, but that's the

basis on which they should be judged - art, not politics. If you say

there is a group of people, you said democratic right to protest. That's

a white privilege. Lee! I would suggest that you are insulting many

black people who are for free speech and artistic freedom. I'm not

entirely sure who elected you to represent the views of All Black

people. Before you do... I don't think that gives you the right to

close down and censor. Before this gets too personal and too narrowed

down to issues of racism there's a broader issue and we can bandy words

like freedom, but freedom from is always constrained by freedom to.

Just because you have a right to say, and I'm of Jewish abtraction,

say any wanted to glory the swastika... That might offend

people. If you are an artist, rather than having to have recoursed to

being policed by an external force, I remember the days of Lady

Chatterley's Lover, you have the responsibility to see that actions

have consequences, to think through. You can't just assert your freedoms

without considering the freedoms of others that might be offended. A

work of art does not affect freedom. Showing a work of art provokes, it

can make you think. It can actually be boring or trite. The

responsibility of an artist is to create a great artwork. The

responsibility of audiences to go to that, if they want to see it, and to

then decide whether they think it is any good. Would you go to something,

say a similar human storks and I hate that phrase so much, and that's

part of the issue, the human zoo, of people in striped clothes queuing up

outside gas chambers. I do not think that the Holocaust or the treatment

of Jews in the Holocaust shouldn't be the subject of works of art. I do

not think there is any topic that is so taboo. I've seen some great works

of art that have dealt with the Holocaust. The idea that I'm not

allowed to talk about it because I'm not Jewish or see it or discuss

it... Nobody said that. It is the idea that whether taboos can be seen

as works of art. Racism and the issues that are raised by Exhibit B

are not some dim and distant relic of our past. They are part of our

present. Our ancestors are represented metaphorically in this

exhibition. The other point is black people, we don't live in this

society where all these freedoms apply to us and other people

equally. Don't you? Stella? We face discrimination in the arts world,

that is clear with the Barbican, and the city of London Corporation, 99%

white board. These are the living everyday realities. And to say that

somehow white artists and black artists are equal, that is where we

should be but in Britain, and in London, but is not where BR. And

that is what makes it racist? I would disagree. This is exposing

racism and the construct is and the systems put in place and Europe has

been built on this, that is what is exposed and he clearly draws a

been built on this, that is what is between that and what is happening

today. Essentially saying the same thing and by trying to censor his

voice, you have censored 14 black artists who chose to be part of

this. The player has been shown around the country, it has not been

censored. -- the play. Let's head to Falmouth and find out

what people in Cornwall have to say. Art has taken centre stage in

Falmouth this week and some of the artists have joined us on the

beach, as has Doctor Larry Lynch from University College Falmouth,

should art be censored? I think not. I think overall, art prevents

society and individuals the principal means through which they

can reflect upon and discuss that which feels important and that which

is difficult and that which challenges and confuses. Can't you

do that without being offensive? Offence is an entirely subjective

matter and if we silence any art that any individual finds offensive,

the spectrum of the arts would be a very different matter and one only

must visit a country where that happens to cause us to think deeply

about the country we would like to live in. Let me bring in Emilia

Wolf, one of the artists who has been taking part. Should work be

censored? No, it should challenge audiences and working within

children's literature, I believe that there are different ways about

talking about such subjects, using metaphorical language and you must

look at old nursery rhymes to see that you can talk about things in

society and at the same time create something enjoyable and have

multiple meanings. The element is that the artist a sedate

responsibility for self-censorship? Yes, to some extent. Lovely, thank

you for joining us. This is the view from the arts festival in Falmouth.

Back to the studio. Lots of nodding. Some messages coming in, art like

this does what history books cannot, being in a room with a man shackled

forces empathy rather than sympathy. I have listened to the artists and

models speaking about this, elegant people with an interest in respect.

And most of the Black Londoners protesting are themselves

descendants of slaves and don't need lessons in empathy, they're forced

to confront the horrors of slavery on a personal level. Which is

something that I know that you wouldn't horse, leave. Leggy for

joining us. -- you would endorse. And you can see more

about that Exhibit B exhibition You've been voting on

our question this morning: Do we have a moral duty to

bomb Islamic State extremists? The vote is closing now, so please

do not text as your vote will not We'll bring you the result

at the end of the show. He was The Fonz in the show,

Happy Days. Now, Henry Winkler is better known

to a new generation as Mr Rock, the music teacher in the CBBC

series Hank Zipzer. The show follows the life

of a schoolboy with dyslexia and is based on his own experiences

growing up with it. I went to meet Henry Winkler to talk

about his acting career, his Jewish faith, being awarded an honorary OBE

and just how to be cool. Lovely to see you. Happy to be here.

We will talk about acting career and your work with dyslexia but I would

like to start at the beginning by talking about your parents, who came

from Germany? And the escaped to America? They did, I am appreciative

of their integral courage. You leave a country and start brand-new in

another place with another language. They were pillars of the community?

My parents were one of the founding couples of our selling gold and I

had my bar mitzvah there. What sort of childhood did you have? There was

frustration of not understanding that there was not a great student.

People did not learn about learning challenges when I was a kid but

there was no compromise in figuring, maybe something -- something is

going on and I had a view of myself and my children could say what was

on their minds as long as it did not make me weep. Did you weep a lot? I

wept as a child because he frustration of not being able to

express myself... It seems like you have this admiration on the one

hand, for escaping from Nazi brutality, for setting up this

separate life in America and becoming these bastions of their

community and following their faith but on the other hand, making you

cry, making you wish you would be a different person and promising

yourself you would be a different parent? It was a struggle. I used to

have a fantasy when I was in high school that they had moved and left

no forwarding address! I would go home and I would figure out how to

live on my own. Your thoughts growing up where I don't want to be

this time of parent? Right. What was it like as a child? Did you believe

you were stupid? Yes, here it is - the child hears every word you say

to them. You think that you are joking, don't be silly! Don't be a

moron! They think, they keep saying this! Maybe I am lazy and stupid? I

cannot get geometry, I am stupid. I am not graduating with my class. I

am not getting my diploma, I will get it if I pass summer school

again. I finally got a diploma! That was 1963. Until this moment, from

that time, not one person has mentioned the word hypotenuse to me!

What were they thinking? When you do know you had dyslexia? And what you

had was a condition? Where my stepson, who is now 42, was in year

three, we had him tested and everything they said about him, I

went, that is me! Oh my goodness! I have something with the name. I am

not stupid. I am not lazy. My brain is wired differently. How did you

learn the lines when you are having to learn scripts? I would read

slowly, over and over again. God takes away, I can agree, but he

gives, I am great at memorising and what I did not remember, I would

become great at improvising. Which is where those characteristics of

The Fonz came? Was that influenced by that? A lot of The Fonz came...

Right, one of the first things I was asked to do was to go to the mirror

and comb my hair. As Henry Winkler, I made a deal with myself, I would

never comb my hair. Because every actor who has played anybody like

The Fonz has combed their hair, they have always had that. It was cool.

It is in the script, I went, I am so sorry... I cannot do that! I made a

deal with myself. And the director said, I am so sorry, the producer

wrote that, you have to! So I went, OK, and I went over to the mirror

and I took out my comb, but I don't have to, it is perfect. And that is

how that moment that defined the character for the next ten years

came alive. And out of that, came the next moment. Which was, a! I

added the whoa from horseback riding. He had great girls, he was a

great triumph, was he like this boy with that difficult childhood

struggling with reading and feeling like a failure? I have the most

wonderful time. Playing that character. He was everybody I wished

I was. But was not. Do you know? I think you are cool! Thank you. I

have finally defined that. Being authentic. Which is what I'd tell

every child I meet. You have greatness inside you. And your job

is to figure out what that is. And give it to the world. Henry is

currently touring the UK with a campaign is sizing that every child

learns differently and all can succeed. You got an honorary OBE for

your services. I take that with me, the beautiful medal. And I say to

the children, I don't mean to brag, well, I am, but I was told that I

would never amount to anything. Fellow! -- fellow! Somebody

thought... Not just somebody, Her Majesty, the Queen! A friend of hers

called up and said, if the Queen would like to give you an award,

would you accept that? We will think about that, OK, fine! I mean...

Today, Henry has a new generation of fans thinks to the Syriza Hank

Zipzer books which detailed the adventures of a ten-year-old boy

with dyslexia. Peshmerga series of. It is the story of my life with

learning challenges, he is a very positive guy, is glass is half-full,

he just spills that everywhere. The books have been adapted for CBBC.

And he plays a version of his teacher, Mr Rock. Listen to me. You

are the lucky charm. All about luck, that is inside you. Are you ready to

hit that ball? Yes! He was my real teacher, he was called Mr Rock. He

said one sentence to me, Henry Winkler, if you get out of high

school, you will be OK! I kept that sentence in my heart. And you have

been OK? Everything has worked out. LOL! It seems like The Fonz is a

very long way away from where you are now? I know, but he was the man

who started all of this, he opened the world to me so I am very

grateful. This is how loyal he is to me. He reads Hank Zipzer. Could you

ask for more? Could you ask for more? He leaves a lot of grease

stains on the pages that, hey, he is reading them. It has been such a

pleasure talking to you. Thank you very, very much.

Today, if you're Catholic, you should be praying about the family.

That's what the Pope would like, anyway.

A synod is being held in Rome in a week considering aspects

of family life, including marriage and divorce and the prayers are part

At the moment, divorcees who marry again are not allowed to take

communion or have their weddings in church unless their previous

Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the leader of Catholics in England and Wales,

talked to the BBC religious affairs correspondent Caroline Wyatt,

who asked him first whether the synod would discuss couples not

Oh, I think so. It is surprising to me how at a certain point people who

may have lived together suddenly come to the point where they say,

you know, we really ought to be married. I've had some fascinating

experiences as a priest. I remember standing on the doorstep in a street

in Liverpool and talking to a couple who were in the house. They had a

couple of children. They weren't married. I said, you know, you

really ought to think about getting married some time. And literally at

that moment, a chair came crashing out of the next door house and the

ashing out of the next door house and the chap said to me, "Well, I'm

not sure, they are married." . So there are people come to a

realisation that the enriching of their relationship in marriage is

something that would bring them so much. The Pope witnessed the

marriage of 20 couples, some of whom had been living together and had

children. It is an unusual thing for a Pope to do. It is not an unusual

thing for a Catholic priest to do. I doubt there's a priest in this

country that hasn't helped people to marriage at some stage in their

lives. Do you think the Catholic view of ple to marriage at some

stage in their lives. Do you think the Catholic view of relationships

thinks in -- fits in with the modern world? I'm not quite sure what the

modern view with relationships really is. If you listen to

youngsters today, and there was quite an interesting survey not long

ago of teenagers today don't take the same free and easy attitude that

some of their parents might have taken at that age. And that's with

regard to alcohol. It was with regard to drug abuse. And it was

certainly with regard to intimate relationships. So I don't think in

some of these regards our society is not open to the invitation to some

higher standards, to some standards that more deliberately respect the

innate dignity of each person. I think it is true to say that casual

relationships, casual sexual relationships, are actually sexual

relationships with somebody's future husband or wife. I think if we had

that more in mind and expressed a bit more self discipline, self

regard for the goodness and the bute of each, self regard for the

goodness and the bute of each other rather than -- beauty of other

rather than a headlong rush on a Friday night to drink and all that

follows, I think we would be a happier society.

So, Cardinal Nichols is clear about where the Catholic Church

stands on relationships. But the number of couples living

together without getting married in the UK has doubled to nearly 6

million in the past 20 years. How much then do vows matter?

Is a marriage certificate still important?

We're joined now by the feminist writer Julie Bindel,

who was with us earlier, Catholic journalist Melanie McDonagh, and

Vincent McGovern from the campaign group, Families Need Fathers.

Melanie, you heard Cardinal Nicholls saying he tells cohabiting couples,

you really ought to think about being married. Why? Because it gives

that element of psychic security I think that people need in a

relationship. There is the solidity that comes from the social

recognition of the whole thing. There's been the public ceremony.

You've gone to the of getting people to witness it, your relations have

bought you a canteen of cutlery, you've gone to a colossal expense to

get people together to witness it, so it binds you and the other

partner into it. That gives you that element of security I think which is

psychologically important. Do you think the Catholic Church is a

little too rigid perhaps on second marriages, that it is not enough to

have a divorce. You have to have an annulment too, so you are declaring

that your previous marriage had no validity whatsoever? There has to be

an impediment at the time you were married, there has to have been a

problem at the outset. The Catholic Church is more rigorous than the

Orthodox Church, but if you make a commitment for better or worse, to

death do us part, the Church is taking you at your word. The

contract is between the couple. It is an important contract that's

rised by the church and should be held as something we should protect

at all costs, do you agree? I agree in the past that marriage was a

wonderful institution which brought much good for children and social

stability. But in modern Metropolitan society, we deal with

the break-ups of marriages and divorce. With the high percentage of

marriages and divorce, marriages is quite often a handicap particularly

to fathers in the divorce courts, because they are perceived as being

to have benefitted from the marriage excessively, that they are

controlling, patriarchal and they are a weapon against the father. Are

you against marriage per se or at least the Catholics' view of a

marriage? It is the equivalent of putting a broken bonnet on a car. It

is cosmetic. So don't keep people together if the relationship is

failing. Allow them to have a good relationship with their children

post worse or separation is more important to me. So it is harder to

(Inaudible) The Catholic Church are entitled to have strict rules. If

they start saying we are in the modern world, so it doesn't matter,

they are having a discussion, but all I'm saying is that's an entirely

appropriate thing for the Catholic Church to say internally. They see

it as a sacrament and I have admiration for that. I get nervous

when as a society and particularly when the state tells Churches how to

behave, why can't you be like us? Leave them alone. On marriage

generally, I'm quite interested in the fact that I've maybe changed my

mind on this over the years, I like the idealism of saying I will stick

with you forever. I hate things like prenuptial agreements. It seems so

sort of kind of like dispiriting. Everybody is nodding at that one.

Even though I know marriages don't break up and don't work and you

can't force people to stay together, I don't think you can go into a

marriage and say I'm now planning for getting out of it. This

premarriage counselling that goes on. They are doing it in schools,

the problems of marriage. Let people have a dream for a while. Having

said that, I do not think people need to get married to be happy in

relationships. Julie? Absolutely. In fact Britain has the highest divorce

rate of anywhere in Europe. Marriage is a failing institution, which is

probably why David Cameron invited lesbians and gaze to join it.

Because it really needs to swell its numbers. And it has. There were more

marriages in 2012 than the year before. And no doubt sales of bridal

magazines and the like. It is bad for women. Why? Because it relies on

the old kind of myth and idea that women go from belonging to the

father to belonging to the husband. Do you think it is still

patriarchal? Absolutely it is. I don't think you can ever reform it

to the degree that women are equal within it. If you look at who is

actually going to the divorce court and asking for separations, it is

mainly women. A big reason is domestic violence. This nirvana that

the Catholic Church is proposing in terms of relationships, it is really

quite ridiculous when you look at levels of domestic violence and

child sexual abuse within marriage. Medicalny? The reality is that

marriage is good for the people who take part in it. It is a protective

factor against suicide and self harm. That's the case. Where are

those statistics from, Melanie? There've been psychological studies

about the benefits of marriage by Brenda Almond in the UK and in the

US which suggest that marriage is overwhelmingly better for children

and good for the participants. What I wanted to pick you up on was the

element of abuse in relationships, which is more prevalent in

cohabiting than maritalries. You have no evidence for that at all.

There is no suggestion. You can both use evidence to back each other's

position. I'm not citing statistics that don't really exist or exist

within the Catholic Church. If you look at forced or early marriage or

on the Catholic Church's insistence, j Unless we have the evidence in

front of us, it is probably Beth to get the view from Falmouth. We have

a real life love story on the beach in Falmouth. Jack Hayes and when his

marriage ended, swore off marriage for good. There's been a suggestion

that marriage is bad for women but you are about to enter into marriage

for a second time. It is empowering, it is your choice to make. We want

marriage to mark the start of our relationship together. It was very

important to us rather than be some inevitable conclusion or because of

any social pressure. It is just because we love each other. And

living together you felt wasn't enough of a commitment? We didn't.

We wanted to make that commitment to each other and together as a family

as well with our children. And for everybody around us to know that. If

I can bring in Father John, is their story unusual or is this something

you are hearing a lot of now? In terms of couples wanting to make a

real commitment and while some couples come to me and they want to

make that lifelong decisive commitment. That's the heart of

marriage. It is good for women, for men, for society and for children.

It provides the most stable environment for children when

they've got a loving parents held together in love in marriage. And

living together doesn't achieve that? No, it doesn't. Most people

come to realise that. They want that decisive step of committing

themselves in marriage. Father John, thank you. That's it from Falmouth

this morning but very much in favour of love and marriage. Just the one

piece of empublic inquiry A-levelled I managed to get yesterday from the

the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Couples who choose to marry are

different from those who cohabit in ethnicity, occupation, income, age

and relationship dooration. When you take all those out there is no

statistical significance in child outcome. Make of that what you will.

The thing about that is that it doesn't, it does indeed show that

marriage is in a difficult situation, because it has become a

class issue and it has become a middle class preoccupation. It is

the death of working class marriage that really does concern me, because

it is increasingly the case that people who take the trouble to make

a commitment and do articulate that commitment in a formal ceremony are

more likely to be middle class. Has it become a class issue? It is

definitely a class issue, because the system is rigged against

marriage of working class. A major part of the industry and the family

courts and breakdown is the permanent depiction of women as

being victims. Victims. It is saying that women aren't capable of making

their own decisions and depicting men as brutal. A it is skewed.

I think it indicates that people understand that ISIS is a terrifying

force and they are being told that they are a threat to western

civilisation. If that's the case, one ought to do something. Is I

don't necessarily think that it means that everyone is gung-ho

pro-war and the high opposition is an indication that it is not the

same as previous Gulf Wars. I liked your discussion that indicated that

this is a complicated, challenging issue and not a straightforward one.

It is not about invading Iraq, which I would have opposed or Syria, which

I would have opposed. But if they are taking on and wanting to destroy

western civilisation, even I who is an ante militarist, I am saying no

you are not, and that might require violence. If you ask people if we

That's it for this morning. Thanks moral duty to intervene.

That's it for this morning. Thanks to all my guests here in the studio

and those who joined us from Falmouth with Rebecca Wills. We'll

be back next Sunday morning at 10 o'clock. I hope you can join us.

Goodbye. Goodbye.

The stage is set for the Party Conference Season 2014.

Stay with BBC News for the key moments,