Episode 3 Sunday Morning Live

between America's police and the black community?

Some of whom say the grief is now being felt by both sides. You feel

loss, you feel pain! But I'm going to tell you something, and don't

think this is insensitive. Welcome to the club!

We ask what lessons we can learn from Dallas here in the UK.

Tony Blair says the world is 'better and safer' after

So, is it religion rather than politics which led to the rise

Lord Grade tells us why he's launching a new watchdog to crack

down on high pressure techniques by charities.

There have been some bad cases that have had huge publicity, and that

has got the public to ask themselves questions before they give, and

that's a bad thing. And two British transgender athletes

born as men could be competing Why do people think that trans women

competing in women's sports will somehow break the universe?

Our guests are here ready to discuss those issues and Tommy Sandhu

will be sharing all your thoughts with us.

It is so important that you do get in touch, and you can get in touch

in many different ways. You can contact us by

Facebook and Twitter - don't forget to use

the hashtag #bbcsml. Standard geographic

charges from landlines Texts will be charged

at your standard message rate. Email us at

[email protected]. Charlie Wolf is an American talk

show host and political Professor Ben Carrington works

in the sociology department Lola Adesioye is a writer and social

commentator now based in New York. And Douglas Murray is an author

and Associate Director You are based in Texas, and many

people are asking, how did we get to a point where police officers have

been targeted? How surprised are you that we are at this point now? The

sad truth is that I'm not surprised. These are the sad events we saw,

they were in many ways predictable. We could almost describe it as a

low-grade civil war. We have such a militarisation of the police force.

Partly because of changes that have taken place since 1997, especially

since 2011, where local police authorities have been allowed to

have weapons grade material in terms of vehicles and armaments normally

reserved for the battlefield. We have had the militarisation of the

police in the US, and on top of that the deep-seated issues of racial

injustice and discrimination, which are bubbling to the surface. I think

it is ironic in many ways that this is happening under Barack Obama's

administration. I think what happened last week, and also the

events before it, the deaths of two black men that led to the protests

of Black Lives Matter and led to the shooting was entirely predictable.

Charlie, a low-grade civil war, do you agree? I think there is major

civil unrest and definitely agitators and activists trying to

create this and they are doing a very good job of it through Black

Lives Matter. There are good people who are concerned about the police,

they have a right to march, but don't forget those police were there

protecting the people that were marching to give them their right of

free speech. And of course when they were getting shot at, they were

protecting other police officers and the crowd. There have been a lot of

comments about the Black Lives Matter campaign. President Obama on

Friday said that when people say black lives matter, it doesn't mean

blue limestone plateau, blue lights being police officers, it means all

lives matter. The data shows black people are more vulnerable to these

incidents, but this isn't a matter of comparing the value of lives.

Now, and you have to be careful not to link the shooter with the Black

Lives Matter movement. I don't think there is any correlation or link

between the two. Black Lives Matter came about because black lives are

seeming not to matter. It doesn't mean nobody else's lives matter, it

means the lives of black people matter, it is really that simple. It

is a shame if people take that and see it as some kind of agitating

force. These are people responding to events that are happening in

their time which they are not happy about and that nobody else seems to

be doing anything about. Douglas, the Black Lives Matter campaign, is

this a reaction because some people think black lives don't matter? And

is that the case, black lives don't matter? No, obviously there have

been set of incidents in recent years that have been high profile,

partly because incidents can be caught on camera now, and there is a

huge public and social media campaign that begins almost after

every incident. Since the Black Lives Matter campaign started,

obviously it stars as President Obama said, of course all lives

matter but this is an equality issue. There have been people on the

fringes of the Black Lives Matter groups who have gone further than

that. There was a protest I think December 2014 in New York City,

where some people were saying, what do we want, dead cops, when do we

want it, now. The one thing I think is really important in this is there

are now, on every imaginable side and issue, in America in particular,

groups and spokespeople who come straight out after any incidents and

politicise it and use it immediately, and say, this means

that or this backs up my story. I think particularly at the moment in

the US, people have to be careful about doing that, and basically

similar things down. After any incidents, whether it is waiting to

find out what the circumstances of somebody's arrest are, and making

sure after the shooting of a policeman you don't use that,

everybody has to stop politicising everything to my mind and wait for

the facts. If you look at what happened with the Ferguson fact,

they had made up the narrative of the Huns in the air, it turned out

it was nothing like that, it was a justified shoot. There were 100 FBI

agents investigating. There were days of rioting, and who suffered,

the black people and businesses burned out. These were people

relying on the police because the police were protecting their

children from gangs, now the police were saying, I don't want to go into

these neighbourhoods, I may get shot. It is ultimately hurting the

black population. The thing is that it is political and its political

because we are not talking about events that happened in the last two

or three years. They are thinking about the entire life span of being

black in America. Their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and

ancestors. This isn't a few black men killed by police, they are

talking about historical racial discrimination and prejudice and

structural inequality, of which the killings are the epitome of that.

What we are seeing, the reaction people have, is not just, OK, some

black people have been killed, which is in itself traumatising and

upsetting, but it is what does this represent about our country and

their relationship to us? Let me bring in Leroy Logan, the chair of

the Black police association charitable trust, and talk about the

implications this has. You were in the police force for 40 years. We

are talking about how American policing is being perceived. British

policing, how does that compare with regards to working with ethnic

communities? I think the basis of the Metropolitan Police was a clear

understanding that you have got a working partnership with the

community very closely. We are met Police service, we use a lot of

departments -- whereas a lot of departments in the US are police

force. We have the accountability, transparency and the external

oversight, including the IPCC and various other organisations to make

sure we are fit for purpose. When you see what has happened in Dallas

and you see how police are being targeted, and seeing in some ways as

a source of vitriol, how does it make you feel? I feel really sad,

having been a police officer, and I've no officers were protecting

those people. And the real irony is Dallas is one of the most

progressive police departments in the US. They are working closely

with the community. They are actually bringing in external

oversight, they have the performance data to show their conduct and how

they are improving, so they are a lot more transparent. I suppose

there are other departments where this could have happened where you

would think, actually I'm not surprised, but Dallas is one of the

most progressive ones. It saddens me, the slaying and the ones that

were injured. I think anyone would sympathise with that and they are in

our hearts and minds for their loss and their injured. Ben, you are in

Austin and Texas but does Dallas feel progressive from what you are

hearing? These things are relative. I'm sure, as your guest pointed out,

many of these police forces often have black officers leading them,

but I want to go back to the question as to whether or not Black

Lives Matter are fairly politicised. I think race is a political matter,

racism is a political issue and they are trying to highlight the systemic

ways in which black people continue to be disadvantaged in the US

because of their skin colour. That is a political issue. The Washington

post did a recent study and showed that over 500 people have been

killed by police officers up to this point alone. Last year it was 990

people killed. A disproportionate number of those will be

African-Americans, so you have a convergence of the militarisation of

the police force, the widespread use of guns and rifles, assault weapons,

and on top of that the political context in which people like Donald

Trump have invoked this sense of white fear and anxiety about losing

our country. In this context that's why I would say we have an almost

undeclared low-grade civil war in the US right now because both sides

are armoured up as if they are military forces. 1152 people killed

in the USA by police in 2015, 30% of those victims were black, 13% of the

US population is black, so this is disproportionate and there is no

argument about that. Charlie, Ben was bringing up the politicisation,

but Barack Obama has come under a lot of pressure, and I'm quoting

from various articles, for not being black enough, not addressing the

racial tensions and perhaps even worsening under his presidency. It

has worsened and in some respects he hasn't been the leader to the black

community he could have been. There was a golden opportunity. It should

have been a major moment of pride, but it goes further than that.

Unfortunately instead of uniting the country, a lot have been disunited,

taking potshots at police, making political statements that weren't

necessarily true. Putting statements in over gun control. In Dallas it

wasn't a gun control issue. We had police officers that... It is

important these institutions are respected and they need to earn that

respect. If they go wrong they need to be held to account but I think

the majority of the police force is really do care about their

populations. I go down to the fact that I think there are people... It

is politics and politics is about power, trying to tear down these

institutions which again hurts the black population in particular. Can

I pick up on the politicisation thing. I don't argue that police

injustice should not be politicised, of course it should, my problem is

when it comes to a specific incident, an encounter between

police and a member of the public that ends in a gunfight, people have

to be exceptionally careful about how fast and what they draw from it.

I think it is worth everybody simmering it down a bit. Not

immediately assuming that, for instance, and claiming the police

shot this person only because they were black or indeed the gunman from

Thursday night shot the policeman only because he is white until we

know why they might have done it, wait for the investigation and so

on. That seems to be one of the key problems, the tinderbox feeling. I

am in America quite a lot, I don't live there but it is the tinderbox

feeling that you are only ever one incident away from people picking up

an incident for their own purposes, running with it.

Just to see briefly, on the general issue, should you find the details?

I agree. But there is a pattern, it is interesting, the extent to which

for many white Americans, they cannot see the patterns. Even when

you show them the patterns, when you look at the incarceration rate, the

majority of people incarcerated are people of colour. When you have

these patterns it is not surprising people come to these issues and try

to make sense of it. It is actually white society failing to see racism

when it's in their face. I want to get a taste of how our viewers are

seeing this. Some people are highlighting the fact that racism

within the police is an ongoing issue and other people think the use

of guns is a serious problem which needs to be addressed. Others are

questioning the tone of the media coverage. Rose says she thinks the

American plays can be overly aggressive and too quick to draw on

a gun. Warren says... Thanks very much. To bring the

discussion back, think about how we're different to the United

States, many people bringing up the fact that guns are an issue, freely

available there. How do you think we can peer? The guns issue is a big

one, I quite like that you need to be highly skilled to carry a gun

here. With America, unless police officers are highly skilled, they

should be able to. I think the UK has its own problems in terms of

race and criminal just this and the relationship between black

communities and law enforcement. As we heard there are a very public

efforts to tackle that. Definitely. There is stuff happening, is it

enough? I don't know. I don't think the UK should be complacent at all.

We do you draw the line? We're talking about the use of guns

enforcing the law or stepping over it. That is what the assumption is

on these cases. We need to recognise that as a police service we don't

control side arms, the ones that are brought into the situation, as a

result of that, the default position is not to reach for a gun, we are

not willing to detain or defuse the situation and some people will lose

their lives. We are far from perfect, we've got a lot to do,

certain officers have teasers, I'm concerned that if we are our

officers we will change the look and feel of the police service which is

the envy of the world because a lot of people cannot understand that we

don't carry firearms. I would like to address the disproportionality we

have here in terms of the DNA database, the teasers, people are on

the receiving end. People will make sure we are on -- make sure we are

accountable and work closely with police and address the issues and

don't get into the situation where it is them and us. Thank you very

much for your comments. We need to move on. Stay tuned and get involved

with the conversation. Michael Grade - Lord Grade -

has had an illustrious career in entertainment,

television and business. Now, he's taken on a fresh challenge

to launch a new watchdog, the Independent Fundraising

Regulator - to crack down on high pressure techniques

used by some charities. Concern was highlighted by the case

of 92-year-old poppy seller Olive Cooke who was bombarded

with appeals from charities. Hardeep Singh Kohli now talks

to Lord Grade about his new role You've been a top theatrical agent,

TV mogul and business executive. You're no peer of the realm. Where

did it all go wrong? I've been very lucky, I've never worried about the

next job and the next opportunity, if you do it well enough the next

opportunity will come along. What I always admired as I got the

impression you did not really care what anybody else thought and you

did what your gut told you. Instinct can be dangerous if it is not

informed. You expect your leader to lead from the front. You don't

expect them to be hiding in an office, never hear from them. I've

always believed that and I think that stood me well. People always

bring up the tough decisions you make, for example, the cancelling of

Doctor Who. You'd never apologised for that, rightly so, because people

forget what it was like when you cancelled it. It was a simple

judgment, the show was rubbish. I said to the producer who came in

saying, how many do you want next year, I said, I don't want any. This

does not cut it. The audience had seen Star Wars and it was never the

same again. The fact it has come back, it has proper budgets, special

effects, if you came to me with that proposition I would never have

cancelled. One might argue if you had never cancelled that it would

never have come back. Maybe. What did you think was your best

decision? Looking back, taking a call from Bob Geldof. My secretary

said there was someone from a band on the line. He was trying to get me

to put the video on top of the Pops. There was something about his

approach, something about the intelligence with which he

approached the conversation. He said, we've got David Bowie to

introduce it. Let me have a look at the video. I looked at it and said,

I will tell you what I will do, top of the Pops starts at 7pm, I will

delay the start until 7:05pm and we will put the video in as a programme

of its own. He was very grateful and I'm very grateful that I made that

decision. At the time we were doing these

things, there was a huge movement led by Mary Whitehouse, clean-up

television, television is a corrupting influence and so on. I

think we showed at the BBC that TV can be a real force for good.

Charities have been very much present in your professional career

and I just wonder whether there was a notion of it growing up in a

secular Jewish family. I think most people do. I think the Jewish

community expects to be asked for money and to give. That goes with

the culture of it. It is incredibly generous and giving. The public

wants to give and help and make a difference. You don't need to be and

you should not be putting the public goodwill at risk towards charities

with aggressive and unethical fundraising. There have been bad

cases that have had huge publicity and that has got the public to ask

themselves questions before they give. That is a bad thing. Do you

think the olive Cooke case, the 92-year-old who received 270 charity

letters, is an exceptional case, August that the worst? We need to

find out how the exceptional that was. But the fact is it only needs a

few bad cases to give the sector a bad name and that cannot be allowed

to happen. That is why I set up the fundraising regulator, I felt it was

an important job and it is very important that from time to time

organisations or sectors, they all go wrong at some point and you need

to correct it. Is the independent fundraising regulator just another

talking shop, effectively, with no and bite? We will have liked. We

will do our own investigations. We don't need a complaint to

investigate. We can do it off our own back and we will be resourced in

order to do that. Your appointment will give people some comfort and

hope but also alert people to the fact that there was a problem. What

would you say to the British public in terms of giving to good causes.

Keep giving. So many people depend on the generosity of the British

public. So many people, so many lives. You have to keep giving.

Don't let some rotten apples spoil the whole lot. Thank you very much,

Lord grade. Keep giving. Michael grade on why it

is important to Remain generous. Coming up, should somebody born as a

man be able to compete as a woman at the Olympics?

Seven years after it was launched Sir John Chilcot released

all 2.6 million words and 6,000 pages of his

report on the Iraq war and occupation on Wednesday.

It was a damning verdict on Tony Blair's decision

to join the US invasion, and the lack of planning

Mr Blair apologised for any mistakes made, but said "I believe we made

the right decision and the world is better and safer".

Some commentators have slammed this claim, and say the invasion of Iraq

helped lead to the rise of so called Islamic State.

Others, that religious factionalism in the area was a breeding ground

So, is Islamic extremism caused by religion or politics?

Joining our panel now is Christina Odone, Director

of the Centre for Character and Values at the Legatum Institute,

and Remona Aly a journalist with a particular interest

Tony Blair says the invasion of Iraq has made the world better and safer.

Very much so. People made the mistake of judging now versus then.

It should be no versus how it would have been if Saddam Hussein was

still in power. If he did not have stocks of weapons of mass

destruction, he would have reconstituted his programme. Three

things made it a better place than it was. It was the right decision to

do it. Many people seeing the religious tension we've seen and the

resurgence of Islamic State would have happened anyway, without

political intervention. I think extremism and radicalisation is a

complicated process, there is no one factor of causality, what really

hurts and sickens me the most is religion and the abuse and the

sickening abuse of religion is being used to promote a very frightening

agenda. Nobody is safe. The extremists don't even stop attacking

the second most holy sites for Muslims and that is the mosque in

Saudi Arabia. They won't stop at anything and that is such a huge

threat for all of us. How much of Daesh is to blame for

the invasion of Iraq? Islamist extremism has existed since the

beginning of Islam in some form and it certainly doesn't start in 2003.

Just take one year, 1979, the overthrow of the Shah in Iran, the

overtaking of a fundamentalist, that same year somewhat battling inside

the mosque in Mecca with Saudi forces. That's just one year, 1979,

so it is important not to pretend history started in the region in

2003. However, as we know from the Chilcot report, there are very

serious things that went wrong. Even if you agreed with the toppling of

Saddam Hussein, obviously the planning post operations was

atrocious if not nonexistent. There was some but it was atrocious. That

has given rise to an opportunity of effectively stateless actors being

able to move in. It is never an either/or an Islamic extremism

predated this by a long way, but there are things you can do to make

it worse. Let's make it clear Muslims are being attacked here, it

is not just Muslims attacking, Muslims are being attacked as well

in the region. Everyone knows that, yes. It is all unacceptable, there

is no justification for violence. Lola, how much do you think Iraq is

being used, taking advantage of, as a recruitment tool since the

invasion? Yes, most certainly, I'm sure because I have seen things

online, especially with western born people basically saying, look at

what happened with Iraq. Tony Blair went in, invaded Iraq, created

instability, so why should I care for the west and subscribe to

Western ideologies of democracy and freedom when people are going in to

kill my people without a basis? That was before the Chilcot report came

out. Douglas, there has been a very strong anger about the way the UK

has acted in the Middle East. Has that been justified? There are times

when it is justified but the flip side is also important to bear in

mind. Take one example, 1998 when the Blair government intervened in

Kosovo to save thousands and thousands of Muslim lives from the

Serb aggression there. It would do a great deal of good I think in this

country and elsewhere if people acknowledged from all communities

there are times when a government can get something wrong but there

are times when a government can get something right, and that should be

remembered and celebrated. Has that been the focus on the negative or

when the Government has got things wrong, is that part of the reason

why so many people or we are recognising that more people are

being attracted to extremism from the west? Again, it is very

complicated. We cannot just point to one thing, in politics or religion.

It is a multifaceted problem we need to address, and we should be

celebrating the fact that written intervened in genocide in Bosnia and

that is something we should be proud of as British people. Another thing

about the Chilcot report is I personally felt that it shows the

strength of our democracy, that there is an independent inquiry into

a former Prime Minister on his actions, on the Iraq war. But

something should be celebrated. And I make one point as well that it is

important not to cover over, as it were, I think some commentators have

in recent years, the absolute barbarism of the Saddam Hussein

regime. He killed more Muslims than anyone else in the late 20th

century. If you have been to the prisons in Iraq who was holding

people in, people pretend barbarism in Iraq only started in 2003, they

should really do the victims of Saddam Hussein the decency of

remembering what he did. He didn't just keep the lid on things, he was

the most appalling butcher of modern times. One of the problems we also

have when we get these controversial issues is the consolation of

different things. I was in favour of the war, I am still in favour of the

war, but afterwards major mistakes were made. This goes back to the

last discussion we had about Dallas, these discussions where it goes on

to Twitter, that Tony Blair I believe, one of the sisters of the

soldiers said, the biggest terrorist in the world. This is the level of

discussion and it doesn't help. You have to look at the context of how

the decision was made. I think the problem is that if Tony Blair and

George Bush had said we are going in to depose Saddam Hussein because he

is a butcher, that is one thing, but they basically made up a false

argument and that is not ethical for heads of state to do. When it comes

to extremism, I see where people are attracted to extremism, if they

believe in authority figures, and when they feel let down I authority

figures they will look for other authority figures to show them the

way. If they are let down by the Prime Minister, and other people

say, I can show you the way, they are likely to go down that path.

Douglas, on extremism? I think the Chilcot report on the way

intelligence was used is damning, but I think as a society we should

reflect on something as follows... And fluid campaigned for years

throughout the 1980s and 1990s to get Saddam Hussein held to account

for his butchery of the Kurds, the shears, and there was no public

desire for that. I think when we reflect on what happened in 2003, we

should remember people who campaigned and what public feeling

is. This is about extremism and whether it is down to religion and

politics, and just reflecting on Lola's point, when you talked about

the disappointment people can have and how it is reflected on people in

authority. There is a difference between extremism and terrorism.

Extremism is someone who hates something and is not doing it for

political means. He thinks abortion is evil, he will take out abortion

providers or clinics. It is nothing political, and I think in this you

have a mixture of both. Politics is power but it is backed up with

extremism. This is why it is important again, we need to call it,

without being offensive to Muslims, extremist jihad terror because these

are people who are doing an act, I can't see any other way they would

do it, to blow themselves up... And of course you would say these acts

are not reflective of the whole Muslim community, a tiny part have

been effective, but how responsible are our politicians for firing that

up? We all have a responsibility. Violent extremism is a threat to

everybody and we have seen violence in America, in Brussels, Syria and

Iraq, and also here in the UK with our MP Jo Cox, who was tragically

killed. It is a threat to all of us, a threat on stability and to our

freedom. Religion for me personally is about placing humanity above all

else. Religion is about ethics and it is about placing humanity above

all else. I think this is a timely point to go to Tommy. You have been

sending your texts and tweet, lots of reaction I imagine. Yes, you said

it was a complex mixture of religion and politics. Let's look at this

meant from Mark. I think we can all agree on that.

Tommy, thank you. Douglas, should politicians take responsibility or

be more mindful about the impact of these decisions? Not just tackling a

leader and a country but what it leads to later on. Yes, terrorism

can come from pretty much any ideological source. There are people

who commit acts of violence in the name of anti-globalisation, in the

name of environmentalism, all sorts of things. The moment they become

violent is the moment they step outside the normal bounds of

political discourse. I think one thing that has to be said, most of

the time when there is a form of extremism and it is traceable to a

particular ideology, whether it is religious or political, others who

follow that ideology don't take responsibility for the actions but

try to work as hard as possible to make sure that anybody who does that

in the name of their faith or belief is effectively pushed out. For many

non-Muslims there has been a great concern in recent years not that

Muslims as a whole should be held responsible, far from it, but that

there has been denial from elements of the Muslim community saying it

has nothing to do with our religion. I think we keep falling into a trap

where we are letting these murderous criminals speak for us and define

us. If they say we are doing this in the name of religion, why on earth

are we taking their word for it? The vast majority of us are against

violence, hold to the sanctity of life, these are the ones that I

want... Religion to define not trust as a society as well. I remember the

one armed shake outside the mosque, I remember Fiona Phillips saying MI5

were watching this and thought this guy was a clown, but they didn't

realise to the guy sitting outside the mosque watching him, they took

him very seriously. These people don't represent Islam, but at the

same time in their mind they do. It is very warped, distorted view of

it. The extremist thing with politics and religion, I think we

also underestimate how resourceful and how resourced so-called Islamic

State is, and I think they do have political ambition. By leaving Iraq

and other places open, what you have done is created a vacuum for them to

come in as political leaders, not just religious leaders. I have read

a lot about how well organised they are in terms of their movement of

weapons and money... And trade. I am so sorry. I say this every week.

This is all we have time for in this discussion. Thank you, and thank you

for your comments, keep them coming in.

It's just over a month until the biggest sporting

event on the planet, The Olympics, gets under way in Rio.

This week it was revealed that the British team could make

history at the games by fielding two competitors who were born as men,

Is this a vital victory for transgender equality?

Or will it lead to an unlevel playing field?

We went to Sparkle in Manchester, one of Europe's largest

transgender events, where most people were, not surprisingly,

I don't think that trans-females have any specific advantage over

genetic females because it is the cream rises to the top anyway. If

there is somebody who has a kind of genetic advantage, muscular

advantage, training advantage, that person will win, whether they are

genetically male or trans-female. I do think men are stronger than

women, I don't mean mentally, but physically, it is just in our

biological make-up. Trans women don't tend to have an advantage over

natural females. I find myself with the hormones I have lost so much

muscle tone. It is a hard slog to keep as active as I used to be so I

don't think there is only advantage. I think if a trans person won in

event it would be fantastic, but I think there would be a massive

backlash because that is people for you, they have got to hate

something. Why do people think a living trans woman participating in

female sports will somehow break the universe? When you are talking about

male competition, female competition, you are talking about

dividing people already. People should be together doing stuff,

sport should be enjoyable for everybody.

So when it comes to sports, are transgender athletes playing fair?

We are joined now by someone who has first hand experience of both

the competitive world of sport, as well as transitioning

in the public eye - Kellie Maloney, formerly

Also joining us down the line from our London

One of the arguments here is that trans women remain as strong

disagree with that. I cannot do boxing in the gym anymore, my muscle

mass has deteriorated. You would say women would not have a competitive

advantage? I don't think they'd have any advantage over women. They've

got to have a certain level, certain hormonal level, the testosterone

needs to be a certain level so they are competing on a level playing

field. What has happened to you in terms of your transition? You say

you have much less muscle mass and are not as strong. I have shrunk a

little bit. My training programme has changed, myself, personally, I'm

not as competitive as I was. That does not mean women are not

competitive, that is just something I went through personally. They have

a right to compete in sport if they are illegally in the boundaries set

by committee. Douglas, there is an issue of equality. Yes, there is.

There is also an element of manners which is important. Jermaine Greer,

who has been very outspoken in criticising transgender, said,

nobody wants to be rude, however, people need to be careful not to

believe other people's versions of itself being true. If somebody is

born a man, and feels female, it does not mean everybody else needs

to agree that that person is now a woman. There are tensions. Would

people regard somebody or as a man as a woman? They may be born as a

man but it is their brain, throughout their lives, they've

struggled with this, struggled to come to terms with this, because

they know they were born in the wrong body. The argument of that is

you are in the wrong body, so you are born with a man's body, and

whether that, when you've transitioned, fairly represents a

female body in terms of competing. One of the notions is a leading play

all fields -- level playing field. That is a myth, depending on where

you are born you have different access to equipment, technology, the

altitude you're raised in gives you an advantage, so we start from this

false notion that there is a leading play all -- level playing field and

transition is cheating in some way. The other part is we become hyper

focused on men that transition into women but we do not discuss the

other way round. I suppose physically, the assumption is men

are stronger than women. The transition appears to be unfair. If

you go back to tennis, a famous male tennis player transitioned and was

only moderately successful as a female. It does not give them any

extra strength or power. There is also this notion that women are

fragile who need to be protected. Part of this notion, the assumption

that women cannot compete against men, maybe some of the concerns

expressed by men is the feeling that some of the women athletes could be

better than men. If you look at the distinction is made, it is

completely arbitrary. The testosterone levels are completely

arbitrary. If a woman has more than ten per litre they are seen to be

not a woman anymore. So there is a maximum level of testosterone that

female athletes can have but there is not one for men. They are

artificially recreating these distinctions. That underlines that

sport is gender segregated. This is thrown into the public domain. This

notion that we have a binary six. Does sport need to be a special

case? There's an issue of identity which I get, that people who feel

like they are born in the wrong body, then there is an issue of

biology. I'm not a doctor or a medical scientist. As a woman, I

know that a lot of men, even men my height, are probably stronger than

me. I'm wondering if what you're saying is correct, these notions of

gender being artificial, should we not just have men and women

competing across sport anyway? Let's bring in Delia Johnston in our

newsroom. I suppose we're talking about whether there is a level

playing field. What are your thoughts on transgender women, if

they start winning, is that when the discussion is going to move, when

the comments become more negative? There is a potential. The media will

react the way they always react. If you look at the cold hard science of

this, it is based on testosterone levels, hormone levels. Sport is

always delete at that level and you look for physical advantages. Sport

always selects the best. Obviously somebody who has a gender history

wins at an Olympics there will be checks. That is not the case. The

IOC have realised that chromosomes are not the definitive measure, a

number of people out there have variations of that. We remember

certain athletes which were queried about their gender in media, that

was proven categorically that they were female but the chromosome count

was projecting them as male. A quick word. You know the two athletes

being considered. Either concerns about how much scrutiny they could

come under? One has already pulled out. The other one is watching the

media activity, and realises they do not want to be under scrutiny. If

you look at it from say, football or rugby, other many gay players

participating at peak level? Those who do come out get victimised or

pressurised by the press. An athlete needs to be at 100% peak physical

and mental fitness to compete. If there is fear of being ridiculed

then that athlete is not going to be at their best. Kelly. Obviously,

sexuality and gender are different things so you cannot compare them.

If there is an athlete taking part, she knows the risks she is taking. I

tried to remove myself from public life but the press hounded me and

phoned me. I believe this athlete needs to come forward and compete.

You've been gauging reaction. A lot of people coming out... Just to you

played golf against Colin Montgomerie and you were better at

the putting. Questioning the fairness of it. One

can have respect for people and their life choices without having to

pretend, for instance, that chromosomes don't matter. For

specific sports, you're putting contest may not matter, but how

would people feel about the person born a man boxing against a woman as

a woman? That would not happen because of regulations. There are

rules. You don't choose your agenda. -- your gender. This is a condition

you are born with and suffer with and come to terms with. The sooner

society except that and start to understand more about it the better

it will be for everybody. I just think this is a non-issue. We should

stop referring to is transgender women as transgender woman if they

stop referring to themselves as that, the idea that there will be an

avalanche of male athletes going over is simply not true, for four

years you need to go through this, you need to go through hormone

treatment or castration. I don't think anybody is saying it is a fast

route to a gold medal. I'm seeing this has been a great discussion,

thank you for joining us. That is about all from us this time.

Thank you to our guests and also to you for your comments

In the week that Muslims around the world have been marking Eid,

the end of Ramadan, we end with Muslim singer Saif Adam.

He's been enjoying Eid but also been reflecting on extremists who use

Here he is now, accompanied by guitarist Suroj Sureshbanu,

with his own composition "Not in My Name".

I see people but I hear no sound. I feel I'm chasing something that

cannot be found. It's a battle with our hearts, senseless people using

our name. I was taught to pray and love, no anger in my heart. Not in

my name, not in my name, not in my name. Not in my name. I am a teacher

in the arts, I am a doctor saving lives, I am your neighbour next to

your house, I am your friend. We pray for everyone around the world

to listen to the call of our thoughts, and they don't represent

our false representation. Let's play for everyone around the world to

listen to the call of our thoughts. They don't represent our angel

close, false representation. Not in my name, not in my name, not in my

name, no, not in my name. Not in my name. Not in my name. Not in my

name. We pray for everyone around the world to listen to the call of

our thoughts. They don't