Episode 13 The Big Questions

and the ageless wisdom of ancient beliefs.

Good morning, I'm Nicky Campbell, welcome to The Big Questions.

Today we're live from Patcham High School in Brighton.

Welcome, everybody, to The Big Questions.

This Wednesday Mrs May pulled the trigger on Article 50,

the UK's formal application to leave the European Union.

Now the wrangling starts to decide the precise terms of Britain's

divorce from the EU and of any future relationship between us

The UK will no longer be a member of the European single market,

that's a direct consequence of the Leave side

But Mrs May has also ruled out a so-called "soft" Brexit,

where the UK would have access to the European Economic Area,

just as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein do in return

for accepting freedom of movement, agreeing to play by the EU's rules

Mrs May is opting for a "hard" Brexit, a "clean" one,

a "real" one some would say, arguing this fits with Vote Leave's

mantra of "take back control" and is the only way to halt freedom

of movement from EU countries into the UK.

But the Referendum did not ask the British people if they wanted

The options posed were just leave or remain in the European Union.

And the Conservative Party's manifesto, on which it was elected

in 2015, as well as promising the right to vote on EU membership,

also made much of the advantages of the Single Market to the UK:

"Our commitment to you", it said, is to "reclaim power from Brussels"

and "safeguard British interests in the Single Market".

"We are clear about what we want from Europe," it went on,

Yes to working together when we are stronger

Does Mrs May have a mandate for a hard Brexit?

Lucy? You worked with the stronger in Europe campaign. There you are.

People voted to leave. For Brexit. Deal with it. As you say, they did

vote to leave but the question on the ballot paper was do you want to

remain or leave, not where do you want to go after so I think there is

not a mandate for any kind of Brexit because the terms were not part of

the referendum campaign. If you asked a lot of different Leave

campaigners they set out a lot of different visions, some said let's

stay in the single market and others said let's leave, if you asked a lot

of people who voted to leave, if they were clear it meant leaving the

single market and the customs unit, the potential issues which would

come with that, would people be clear that is what they voted for? I

don't think so. Matt, do you want another referendum? I think that is

immaterial, I think it would be wise if we decided that Britain was

hurtling off a cliff edge it would be nice to have the idea that we

could apply the brakes. I do not understand the argument which is

currently going about messages about enemies with them, the front page of

the Daily Mail, the hard right of the Tory party is debate is over,

democracy is a point of singularity never to be revisited after the 23rd

of June. We know that democratic vote, I except many good reasons

people voted why the dead... A lot of people voted on the basis of lies

and misinformation and duplicity. I think once we know what the reality

is and the consequences it would be entirely sensible and democratic for

people to have an option to have a say again, either by referendum or

general election. APPLAUSE What about this business of people

voting on the basis of lies, do you think that is patronising? I think

incredibly so, when people talk about people lying, what they talk

about is the perceived gullibility of the public, thinking the public

were duped into doing this. I think that is the underlying message, the

idea that the belief in the Roxy is so strong they want to ask us again

to get the right answer next time is completely undemocratic. Is there a

mandate for hard Brexit, it's the biggest democratic mandate in

British political history, people voted with their eyes wide open...

52-48. That is how democracy works. If the question was about leaving

the single market what do you think the answer would have been? It was

clear, both sides told us it would mean leaving the single market. The

principle that laws that govern this country should be made in this

country, self-determination, you cannot have that within the single

market. I will tell you where the condescension and patronising

element of this is coming is from the people who are telling British

people to shut up and put up, we have voted, move on. You did not

shut up and put up after 1975 when he lost the first referendum. This

is not the first one, it is the second. People have a right to

debate and dissent and it's so condescending of three is made to

pretend there is such a thing of the will of the British people. How long

until we get the right answer? I think we are, I am against

referendums, but generally speaking these are hugely complex issues and

I don't feel qualified to have a say and I do not feel the confidence the

British public knew what they were getting into. We are going to hear

about the economy, nobody knows, that is the truth, nobody knows how

this will play out so I argue when we do now let's have the chance to

say again. Tom we might not know how this plays out for an awfully long

time, that is the thing. Young people voted overwhelmingly to stay,

73% of 18-24 -year-olds, this is about our children and grandchildren

as well. Is there a mandate for Theresa May for those who will be

alive when the true effects of this hit them? In terms of Brexit, it is

a gift to young people whether they realise it or not. You have the

chance to take part in a real democracy where you can determine

the future of society. They should be dancing in the street. I think

when it comes down, the point I want to make, is people talk about young

people and Scotland and effectively it's an attempt to break up the vote

and the electorate which is not how majoritarian democracy works. You

see it when people talk about 40% voting remain, it's the equivalent

of having a general election next week, the Conservatives win 70% and

Theresa May says we will run the country five days a week, Jeremy

Corbyn can have it on the weekend. I can see from your body language you

do not like what you are hearing. No, I think the point about the

Leave campaign was they had so many different positions, it was not at

all clear we would definitely leave the single market. Does Theresa May

have a mandate for the Brexit she is pushing through? No, there was no

mandate because of that lack of clarity. It was not fought on

specific terms, this is what it will look like. If you ask the leader of

the Leave campaign, they had to get people over the line, they had to

get people to vote to Leave. The rest of it is up to the politicians.

That is what is disappointing for people like me who were on the

Remain campaign and I cleared about what happens to the future of this

country, what does the deal look like, how do we make sure trade is

as free and frictionless as it was and nobody had a clear answer during

the campaign and nobody does now either. There is no mandate because

there was not that clarity. We are going to go to the audience, so many

hands, that is what we like to see, those people who allegedly did not

know what they were voting for. People who did not understand it.

Let's investigate some of that. There is a moral and ethical debate

about having a mandate and a lot of people Mark Littlewood, Ipsos Mori

polling says 33% voted to leave because of immigration. David Davis

said this week immigration may go up. You have a certain criteria as

to who you would allow into the country without questions, who would

that be? I would change the system so if you had a job offer of say

?50,000 it's a decent paying job and we would be confident you will be a

net contributor to the tax system. You are definitely in. 50,000?

50,000. If it is a lower level, an average wage, you can come in but

you might not qualify for the benefits the indigenous population

qualify for. No housing benefit until you have contributed such and

such in income tax, you might only be able to access the NHS and tell

you contribute... What about all these different industries,

agriculture, hotels, catering, about them? They would fit in the second

category, as long as these people are coming in without being a net

drain, I am liberal on immigration. In an ideal world I would have

audits but we do not live in an ideal world. To get the debate back

on track we have to address peoples concerns and concerns are whether

there is a drain on public services. There is an easy way to solve that,

if you are coming in with loads of money and paying huge of tax you can

have services, but if you're coming in with less your qualifications for

benefits will not start immediately. That's not an immigration policy you

can have as a member of the EU but you can outside. Yeah. You looked

exasperated. I am exasperated by the ideology which is playing out. What

sort of ideology is it? Is it hard right? It feels hard right to me. I

think it's a message the right-wing press has been pushing for ten

years, the Daily Mail has been this Pavlovian experiment about

migration, it is a net benefit to this country. When I hear things

about the categorisation, ?50,000 you are in, ?25,000 you are in but

you cannot see a GP, that does not seem very British to me, it is not

the values I signed up to as a British person. I think we live in

an open society and this is the split, we have seen a move away from

the traditional spectrum to different attitudes of open to

Europe, open to globalisation is. Cultural attitudes and sentimental

attitudes. The communities who voted to leave in the greatest numbers are

the most fragile in our nation. In the north-east were they voted to

leave in great numbers their economy is most fragile. In the South East

in London it will be fine. So the people who voted for at most will

the most? They will suffer the most. Does Theresa May have a mandate for

a hard Brexit, a real Brexit, whatever you want to call it? I

think it boils down to two Basic questions, first of all is the vote

of the majority, if it is a simple majority, enough to enforce such a

thing as Brexit and put it on a whole country even though 45% of the

voters did not go for it. 40% did not go for it, what Tom was saying,

and majority system. My question would be if democracy should work

that way, then it is a tyranny of the majority. The other thing is

when it comes to if there is a mandate, if there is enough

information and we have to deal with the post-truth error and

misinformation which has been spread all over the country regarding the

question. All that money for the health service we always hear about.

Anyone else? Quick point. The gentleman talks about the points

system which already exists for International so there is tier one,

tear two, that can be adjusted and modified to the European system as

well. For investors, workers, law skills, medium skills, higher

skills. Does Theresa May have a mandate? I think so. Anyone else? I

believe Theresa May does have a mandate for it because the majority

of us who were voting for Leave voted on the basis of two things,

one that would be controlled migration, the second was that we

would trade with the whole world and trading with the whole world means

just that, it does not mean trading with European Union exclusively. We

can make a deal with the European Union, they need us as much as we

need them. Why can't we have a deal with Australia, Canada, other

countries we used to have a deal with? If I can add one thing, as you

can hear from my accent I am European, I was born in the Czech

Republic and I believe that the idea of great Europe is wonderful but

it's not enforceable because people are doing things for their own

benefit, for their own mandate and I feel a lot of people here who are

saying we should have left European Union, those people don't have

enough faith in their own British culture.

Do we have faith in... Let me put this to you, do we have faith in the

people who are leading the negotiations? We saw the Article 50,

some people are saying they forgot to mention Gibraltar, they forgot to

mention the other land border. Oh, dear! Oops! Some people are saying,

well, we need the very best calibre of negotiating. How much faith do

you have in David Davies and Liam Fox and Boris Johnson? This

Government had to change its Budget after three days. Do you think we

have the best people? I think we should remain sceptical, shall we

say? The most important period country has faced the decades. We

should hope that politicians make sure they have the right people in

the room to be able to do this. What is really striking about the Brexit

vote is you have this huge radical progressive blow for democracy,

which is completely against what the leaders of the political class

wanted. The two most powerful politicians in this country

campaigned for Remain and are probably shocked they had to deal

with this. We have duties this out in the long-term. We voted against

technocracy and it is left for technocrats to deal with this.

Article 50 was passing through both the House of Commons and the

unelected House of Lords, and despite the fact that the vast

majority of the people backed Remain, they rolled over in the face

of the democratic mandate, the weight of that was really bearing on

their backs, that is positive, we need to make sure the negotiations

are completed properly and that they uphold what the 17.4 million people

voted for. There is a very interesting

development, this mantra, that is almost hypnotic mantra of take back

control. We have never had less controlled. We saw all the party

poppers going from the Leave campaign, Independence Day at all of

that and then Donald Tusk said, sorry, it will not work like that

and you are one against 27. When we were arguing with Spain about

Gibraltar it was as versus Spain, in the future it will be us versus 27

EU member states. Much, much weaker. Margaret Thatcher knew it was to be

-- was better to be arguing take -- case at the table than outside the

table. You can't waive your handbag at an empty chair. There is not even

an empty chair, there is nothing. Double the distance, half the trade,

that is the basic rule. We're talking about possibly WTO tariffs

with our neighbours 20 miles across the Channel in return for which we

have a spurious idea free trade... You want to see what is on the table

and want another referendum? If I put an offer in on a house and it

turns out to be sitting on a sinkhole, I want the opportunity to

tear up the contract. The whole nation needs a psychotherapist.

Never mind a group hug. We have got one! We have a psychotherapist. Do

you think people were stupid? Were they bamboozled and misled? It is

not what I think, the evidence is very clear they were misled. Mob

rule is a well-known phenomenon, people follow the mob. When the

Liverpool eight was destroyed, uprising, it does not that was

right. It is hardly a mob uprising. This is not the equivalent of a mob,

it was a ballot. This is what democracy is. They were asked in the

ballot whether we should leave or remain in the European Union. The

people who campaigned to leave were not the people who would deliver

Brexit. They were completely independent group. I am interested

in the idea that some people may be eligible to come to Britain earning

less than ?50,000 on certain conditions. They won't have access

to A, for instance. I tell you what, they can work in A, they can

nurse Bacon Doctor... APPLAUSE

-- they can nurse, and they can doctor. Tom, you are in your 20s,

the disproportionate amount of people over the age of 65 who voted

for Brexit are not the people who will be around, with every respect,

to see the long-term consequences for the country. I dare say it is a

very convenient argument to try to undermine the vote. It involves us

all and everyone should vote on an equal basis, that is the great thing

about democracy, take it or leave it. Over the last couple of months

you have seen the anti-democratic comment, which I always believed was

there but never really saw up close, you hear phrases like mob rule, the

tyranny of the majority. It is incredible. Look at the derision

poured upon anybody who questions it in some of the papers. They are

called enemies of the people and all sorts. I want to talk about the

Leave boaters in relation to this. Since the Brexit vote we have been

caught racist, stupid, xenophobic, we did not know what we were voting

for, various schemes were cooked up to try to stop this from happening

and we got angry and were referred to as the mob. If anyone has been

derided, and mind, told they are reckless or stupid, it is the people

who voted Brexit in the first place. APPLAUSE

Thank you very much. If you have something to say

about that debate, log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions,

and follow the link to where you can We're also debating live this

morning in Brighton: Has the time come to

decriminalise sex work? And, do we underestimate

the wisdom of the ancients? Get tweeting or emailing on those

topics now or send us any other ideas or thoughts you may have

about the programme. There has been much discussion

in recent years, including on The Big Questions,

of the so-called Nordic model of dealing with the sex industry,

where the clients may be charged with an offence but the sellers of

sex are not acting against the law. Indeed, the SNP has adopted this

system as one of its policies. But the Greens and the Lib-Dems have

long argued for a different way. They want to decriminalise

sex work altogether. And the Lib Dems want to quash any

historical convictions for prostitution or kerb-crawling,

for instance, and to categorise any future crimes against sex

workers as hate crimes. This would mean it would no longer

be an offence for a man or woman But it would be an offence

to treat someone differently Has the time come to

decriminalise sex work? Clear multidimensional is to this,

let's start with the moral one, the premise that it is wrong to sell

sex. We will come to Tanya is well -- as well, first, and Nikki Adams

from The English Collective Of Prostitutes. Where are you? I have

got you. What about this notion that the morale of the of the law in

forms what happens, or the law makes a judgment about plurality? Is it

wrong to sell sex? First ball, I absolutely do not think it is

immoral to sell sex, but in terms of that role of the law, the law

clearly has an influence on morale tea, on social attitudes, but that

should not be the primary function of the criminal law. Those of us

that advocate decriminalisation are interested in

safety, people selling sex? How do we reduce the harm associated with

that practice. Which we will come to, and I want to talk about the

premise of whether it is immoral to do it? What would you like on it

too? We should not single it out as more immoral than any other form of

labour. Such as? Whatever job you do, nursing, which might involve

quite intimate physical contact, lots of physical labour. All of the

jobs we do involve using our bodies and minds. I don't think sexual

labour is somehow more immoral than any other thing. I think there are

lots of things that are immoral but are not criminal. Cheating on your

spouse, for example, most of us would probably agree it is immoral

but that does not mean criminal law is a way to address that. Nikki? The

moral framework of it, first all? Some people would say government

sell horrendous arms which kill thousands of people to awful

regimes, that is legal. That is a good point in terms of comparing it

to other activities, but it also depends on your value system and

some of us would definitely say that the poverty that means that sex work

is one of the best options compared to other forms of employment is the

real in morale Oti, that should be urgently addressed.

APPLAUSE We are living in a time when many of

the Government policies are increasing the levels of sex work.

Levels of prostitution, particularly for women, particularly for mothers.

There is a lot of evidence from the North of England that benefits

anxious, for example, have led to a 166% increase in prostitution in

Sheffield. If people want to get hot under the collar about injustice and

in morale Oti, let's tackle that. If you are serious about trying to

reduce prostitution, that would be a good way to start. Dr Heather

Brunskell-Evans, just on this point that we sell arms to dangerous

regimes, the government prop bets from the sale of dangerous drugs

like alcohol and tobacco, what is it about the morale at its sex being

transactional that you believe is wrong? Is it inevitably

exploitative? I think it is inevitably exploitative but I do not

think it is a moral of people to sell sex. I think the morality is in

stigmatising people who sell sex, largely it is not an equal

opportunity, it is who sell sex and men who buy. Since the

industrialisation of prostitution from the Victorian period, women

have been really stigmatised, it is women who are largely in the lower

socioeconomic category who do sell sex, and they should not be

stigmatised. I think it is a slur on our society that we still sick --

stigmatise people. Decriminalising the act of selling sex, would that

lessen the stigma or do you believe the way ahead is to criminalise

those who buy sex? Which is the best system which would make people

safer? This is a programme about morality, and I think the way in

order to address the immorality of the exploitation of women through

prostitution and the violence and the murder which is inevitably

attached to it is to criminalise the buyers. The problem with this

discussion is we tend to focus on the women, it is important now we

are in the 21st-century, we should start placing the ways in which we

stigmatise women into the context that it is men who are buying it. If

men did not make the demand there would be no market for the selling.

APPLAUSE This is a very progressive point of

view that my position holds, because it is not about bringing more laws,

we have enough laws. But the law has a normative function, it has a

punitive function but it also has a normative function. The law to

criminalise the buyers means that eventually we would change our value

system around and make its problematic for men to buy sex from

women who they don't know, they don't know whether they have been

trafficked... That is a really interesting point, to criminalise

the buyers, Niki, is there a danger that thereby you are making it

disproportionately people who do not care about the risks of being

criminalised? Maybe more violent people? It is a massively dangerous

thing to do. At the moment the law forces sex workers to work in very

risky situations, you are working on the street, running from the police,

you can't work together with others from premises, which is at least ten

times safer than on the street. If you criminalise clients, clients

insist on being anonymous, you cannot screen them in the same way.

In Sweden, where they brought in the Nordic model, sex workers complained

that first of all it has not meant they are to criminalised, they still

suffer under the law and are prosecuted if they set up working

with another woman from premises. Also the stigma and two crewmen --

and criminal eyes Asian has got much worse. Laura Lee is doing a legal

case and has made that point, since the law has changed in Northern

Ireland, clients will not call you from their mobile phone any more.

They will call you from a hotel phone because they are determined to

be anonymous. Watch it be the priority is to listen to what sex

workers are saying, that improves their own safety. We work very hard

to keep ourselves safe. We try to work with other people and often

risk being prosecuted for working together and any of the criminal law

is sabotaging those impacts. Do you want to stop the injury? --

industry? I do. Can we explore that a bit

more, you have enormously important experience in Ipswich where five

prostitutes were killed, you have help women get out of prostitution

and have done amazing things. Is this an industry which can ever be

stopped? Is it not down to the basic sexual desires, there will always be

a demand? That's quite a complex question isn't it. That's fine! In

Ipswich we followed more or less the Nordic model. Criminalising the

buyer. Yes, I agree that as it stands the law is not perfect and

could be improved in terms of the safety of women. Who are operating

at the moment. But in Ipswich we chose not to criminalise the women

and we did not prosecute any women during the whole of the five years I

was involved and the men were identified. We are talking about

street work to start with. The men were identified and letters were

sent to them. Shamed effectively? Privately shamed or maybe if the

letter landed on the kitchen table where somebody, a wife someone did

not know this was happening, maybe there were shamed. But not publicly.

And, but at the same time of course, it was absolutely essential to have

the services in place for women so we were not abandoning the women, we

were there to help them out of prostitution. And when we worked

with them we had police officers who knew them very well and who

contacted them. When we worked with them they were very keen, most of

them, the majority of them, I would say 98%, wanted exit from

prostitution. I agree that poverty drives women into prostitution and

the state has a responsibility to make sure women are not forced

through poverty to act in that way. But we help these women off the

streets. Fantastic work... I will come to you in a minute... What

Helen said about out of prostitution, why wouldn't you, that

focuses us on the question of is it inevitably exploitative? Some people

are nodding, can I ask you what you would like to say? OK, so, I would

like to use an exercise that a survivor took me through and this is

for people in the audience to look around and look at the men around

you, she said look at the men around you. Imagine yourself having to be

always, half of the men, imagine women and men here in the audience,

you need to be with half of the men here in the audience regardless of

what you feel about them one day and the second half the next day and

these men can do to you whatever they want, call whatever may may

want... That is not true... Whatever they want because they paid money

and that is what prostitution is. Is it always exploitative? Is it very

often? Of course it is. The big percentage of women that came to

prostitution after being sexually abused in childhood, the entrance to

prostitution from age 14... No... This is not a student graduating,

having a Ph.D. And thinking shall I go into my career or? These are

women that have no other choice... Anyone else? Arguably you get two

ends of the scale with sex work, you get the ones who are very pure and

then you get the ones which can pay millions, like sports stars... Be

careful of naming names! Football stars and things that have been

accused of using prostitutes. Arguably those six workers are in

the industry to make money and it is their choice. Do you believe it is a

choice Mark Littlewood? That has to be how you start, it is a choice but

we should not say it is always exploitative. We trust adults to

engage in consensual activities of all sorts and we should assume this

is consensual unless there is a specific evidence. Even if you find

sex work or prostitution this tasteful, there is a clear rule, if

you force things underground they get worse. I think you have to look

at it in the context of other jobs, you have this range of experience,

some people like their jobs, most people hate them, 60% of British

workers dislike their jobs and would prefer to be doing something else

and it is probably the same sex workers. It's not true, the figures

about the high levels of abuse, the only way people are able to put that

forward is they do not compare, they do not ask other people, they do not

ask the nurses or factory workers how many were abused as children, it

is only sex workers who are asked that question. The determining thing

has to be safety. At the moment women in our group are being

prosecuted when they come forward to report violence and that has to

stop. Decriminalising has been shown to work where you can transform the

relationship with the police so you can demand protection. Quick

question from the audience. I trained as a nurse and I have

experience working as a nurse, I have been shouted at and spat at and

I have had various forms of excrement thrown at me, nobody tried

to penetrate me because I was at work and certainly not five, six,

seven different people I did not know. Who are you to say that one is

better than the other? I would prefer to be doing sex work than

other forms of work, I do not want to be an Arms trade and I would not

want my daughter to be. We have a strange relationship with sex in the

UK and the Western world and that is part of the root of this. A number

of points have come up today one I want to make which has not been made

is that over 10% of prostitutes in the UK are not women, 10% are men

and transsexuals, this is not purely a women's issue although I accept

the argument about poverty and infrastructure. I looked at American

research asking prostitutes why they were doing it and the most common

answer was they liked it. There is an assumption... That was a

particular piece of research but we make an assumption, those of us who

choose not to be prostitutes make value judgments about prostitutes

which I do not think are merited. One other point, I work in mental

health... Mental health we look at stigma and marginalisation, the

answer we have come out with is talk about it, the answer to get away

from stigma is to talk to others. If we stigmatise and marginalise sex

work people will not talk about it and cannot get the help and support

they need. The lady at the back, when he said the main reason is

because I like it your hand shot up, is that why? Any woman, man or

anything else who wants to sell their body and enjoys it should be

allowed to, first of all. The question I have is why do we breed a

culture, why do we have a society which breeds the need and

desperation to turn to sex work, not just prostitution. Every society in

the history of humanity. You would not believe the number of students

who consider stripping, sugaring, prostitution, various forms of sex

work. It is not just prostitution. The question I have is why do we

breed a culture where people feel they are so desperate that they need

to and have no other options. Do you want to come back on that Helen? I

would like to come back on many of these points. Sadly they do not have

time but that was a powerful point from the lady. The lady was saying

that people should be allowed to sell their bodies in whichever

format that is, pole dancing, prostitution, whatever. The Nordic

model argues people should be allowed to sell their bodies in

whichever form they want to. But not allowed to buy sex? Absolutely. I

think, of course when men are involved in prostitution, as

prostituted people, the majority of the people who buy sex are men.

There are men who sell sex as well. The person at the back indicated

that students are selling sex in one form or another. It is largely

female students, not male students so we had to come back to this as a

gender issue. A structural issue of gender relations. In the time

available, do forgive me, but you mentioned the Nordic model, and we

have the model of New Zealand some people have called it,

decriminalising it, the legalisation, people talk about

parts of Germany and the Netherlands, forgive me for coming

for Tanya as we close because you mentioned the Nordic model and she

was from her body language and face saying this is never going to work

and it is wrong, what is wrong with it? Criminalising people who buy

sex? For many of the reasons Nikki already mentioned, it's the risk of

safety to sex workers, if clients are commoner lysed have fewer

clients. The once you have other one is not worried about breaking the

law, you will have a lower income, you might have to have to agree to

services you might otherwise not agree to. The Swedish model is

extremely successful. No, their own research does not bear that out.

Talking about how successful the Swedish model is, it has major --

made it safer. It's extremely dangerous... THEY TALK OVER EACH

OTHER Often have PTSD... We are going to have have to bring it to a

close. Apologies, I wanted to pick up on the notion of the Swedish

system, thank you all very much indeed. We are going to discuss

wisdom. High time I think. You can join in all this

morning's debates by logging on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions

and following the link Or you can tweet using

the hashtag #bbctbq. about our last Big Question,

too ? do we underestimate And if you'd like to apply to be

in the audience at a future show you We're in Cambridge next week,

then after a two week break for Easter and the London Marathon

we're back from York on April 30th for two shows,

the usual live edition in the morning and a pre-recorded

special in the afternoon Then we're in Salford on May 14th

also for two programmes. Spring is a very crowded season

on the world's religious calendars. The Christian Easter was long

preceded by the Pagan Ostara, when the Green Man god awakens

from his winter sleep. Zoroastrians celebrate

Jamsheedi Noruz, which dates back to the prophet Zarathushtra himself,

3500 years ago in Ancient Persia. The Hindus fling paint

at each other on Holi, to welcome the spring and celebrate

Krishna, who was born Where mankind has lived,

since ancient times there have also been complex,

mystical and powerful And today their very longevity

grants them additional power. Do we underestimate

the wisdom of the ancients? Dr Chenta Kang, consultant

psychiatrist, a Hindu priest, good morning. Let's knock something out

of the park here, with ancient Scriptures, when people start

arguing they prove science, it kind of discredits the religion because

there are often some howlers as well, we should concentrate on the

wisdom, human nature, how we live and think and behave towards each

other and those little epithets. Tell us about the Bhagavad-Gita?

Its message is simple and similar to message of others, the message of

the agents is connect with that part of yourself that is separate from

what society imposes on that. Then we can connect with each other.

Inequality on that level is not about financial differences,

position, power, name and fame, we connect more deeply because we find

stillness. In a being, away from the madness and the mania of the world?

Some of our biggest obstacles are our own mind. It gets in the way of

proper behaviour and proper thinking. We don't take time and

space to filter and sift to that. It does not matter if we are a

politician or taking care of our family, we will be tripped up. All

this was written by men for men? It was not. Chapter one, verse 40 of

Bhagavad-Gita, oh, Krishna, descendant of racially, when

unrighteousness prevails then the women of the family become degraded.

When they become degraded then undesirable offspring is a result.

That is quite simple... It is not wisdom, it is misogyny. It is saying

that if you do not look after women... Women have a lot of power

in society, they are the first teacher of the child, if you do not

take care of them they become than rubble, than rubble women are taken

advantage of, -- there becomes a Nowell, vulnerable women are taken

advantage of. Some were men are -- women are manipulated. Undesirable

offspring? If you get pregnant if you do not want to. Don't people

have abortions because of undesirable offspring? That is not

the wisdom the ancients are trying to give us, but they say that if you

find the quiet and the stillness with a new, separate from the

busyness around you, connect with each other, all the polls of

society, the need to connect, we do not depend on the external to do

that. With many texts it is a case that there is a certain cherry

picking going on, I like that, I don't like that, I'll interpret that

one in a certain way. Emma, were these texts written by men for men,

should we be wary of that? I am not a historical expert but I believe

they were primarily written by the Brahmin class, which was educated

and had some respect given to them for their religious understanding,

and I think usually the women at that time would not have been

educated so lots of the texts probably would not have been

available for them to study to the same degree? What about the wisdom

of the ancients? There is certainly wisdom that that wisdom can arise in

many places and any circumstances. Yes, ancient texts might inspire

some people, but not others. Others might be inspired by seeing human

suffering or connecting with nature or seeing a painting, spending time

in meditation or reflection. I think wisdom can come in many different

forms. I think the important thing is that somebody decides to seek

wisdom with a human life and ask these important questions which

define our capability as humans. That is the most important thing.

And then there are many ways to find the wisdom. Professor of ancient

history at the University Manchester, isn't it the case that

if you had, I don't know, Bob Dylan lyric and you said you found it in

an ancient book, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way

the wind blows, you saw it in an ancient book and you would go, oh,

that is brilliant, that is the wisdom of the ancients! Ayew as King

whether... We imbue it with too much significance it comes from hundreds

of thousands of years ago, but you could see it on a Hallmark greetings

cards. You had to give the ancients respect. People who lived and

conditions far more brutal than those we live under, who did that in

a surge -- in a surge that the other speakers are talking about, finding

ideas that are worth living for and then managed to express them in a

way... Maybe 2000 years from now we will still be singing Bob Dylan. I

am not saying we won't. But in a sense it is like creating a time

capsule, the message in a bottle... Message In A Bottle, that is another

one! You send your ideas into the world. If people are still

protecting and cherry chewing it and playing with it and arguing with it

2000 years later... It means something. It is not so much that

other people could not have had a similar idea, but we have to have a

little bit of respect for the people... That is the interesting

thing, to see humanity thousands of years ago trying to make sense of it

all. Emma, isn't that the inspiring thing? Absolutely, but I think we

need to bear in mind that when these texts were written, most of the

population was involved in subsistence agriculture, they did

not have the time, opportunity or Google to study, to reflect, to

meditate. Despite the busyness of our lives now, many people now have

far more choice over how they spend their day. I appreciate not

everybody does, but I spend a lot of time in the Himalayas, in developing

countries, in rural, agricultural villages where nobody has any time

to reflect on meditate because they are planting potatoes and hoping it

will rain or not rain. I think that now, particularly in our culture,

many people have the opportunity to gather this past wisdom and look at

their current lives and become extraordinary spiritual

practitioners for the benefit of all.

APPLAUSE The time comes when we have to stop

planting the potatoes is what you are saying?

We have that chance. I would disagree... We are having no

disagreement on this programme, I am not having it! At the idea that

modern people are somehow more able... I did not say that. In the

ancient world, women and children in ancient should editions often lived

in cultures that were, in a sense, very dominating of women and

children. -- women and children in ancient cultures and traditions.

Don't we have a glass ceiling now?! Women and children have always made

their contribution and there have always been women's traditions

handed down through the generations that have incredible value. When

Emma made the point about she is not a historian but you agree that the

books were written by men, for men, women were not educated, at the time

the Bhagavad-Gita was spoken and written down, the other person that

Christian was speaking to, that wife, she was a treasure at the King

Dylan very educated. -- the other person that Krishna was speaking to.

She was, but would her hundred thousand staff have been educated?

That Downton Abbey! The point I am trying to make is that I do not

think we over credit ancient wisdom, I think we go the opposite way and

throw out the baby with the bath water. What happens is that religion

and ancient wisdom get separated, spirituality is separated from

religion. Religion is a vehicle to because jewel, to connect with the

inner comedy part of ourselves. Because we always shining a

spotlight on the negativity and the human mistakes with wisdom, people

through the wisdom out and we need to stop living in such a polarised

society where there is a factual, scientific way and then the

wishy-washy faith and religious way. They go hand in hand. In 5000, 6000,

7000 years' time, they will look back at things, what will they say,

Article 50, perhaps, they will look at that. What is the wisest thing

you have ever come across? Just an example from the marvellous books

and the inspiring books from your faith? Point are listeners... I am

on the rage again, our listeners... Viewers to something? Never was

there a time that I never existed, never will there be a time that I

ceased to exist. If I have any fears about loss and gain, I should feel

should. My loss and gain might be external, but my inner experience

does not have too loose and gain. It is interesting... Never has there

been a time that I did not exist, never will there be a time that I

ceased to exist. I disagree, there was a time when I did not exist and

I will cease to exist in a couple of decades. I was at a place in

Hampshire just over 1000 years old, I reflected on the millennium of

people who had crossed that threshold, their wishes and dreams,

what their lives were like, it was a really interesting meditation but

there was nothing that they had to tell me about living today, there

was no particular wisdom that they offered me. The thing that worries

me about the wisdom of the ancients, because I think we have to learn

from history and the ancients, but there was an awful lot of stupid

ancient people as well. LAUGHTER

We tend to pick the bits that we like and discard the others, we

don't hear about Socrates' next-door neighbour, we hear about Socrates.

Mozart and Salieri. In the debate today we have heard many things that

sound like papering over the cracks to me. That was a phrase introduced

to us because landlords rented out apartments, they literally papered

over the cracks. It is about the human condition. I think one of the

things about wisdom that is underrated as collective wisdom.

Often how it is viewed, whether ancient or present day, it is viewed

in a very individualistic way. I am based at a women's centre, it is

very collective, our organisation, and I am struck every day of my life

how much more valuable and clarifying it is to be in that kind

of collective environment, and I think the hierarchy has been

throughout society really undermines us getting clarity on our lives and

any kind of wisdom. There is an awful lot of ancient

wisdom but an awful lot of ancient golf. We want today to be extremely

sceptical and nervous about fake news -- there is also a lot of

ancient guff. It is not just fake news, we had to be nervous about

fake wisdom, there is an awful lot of it about. That is why it is up to

you to find out. Fake wisdom? If you change the word religion for

philosophy then I think a lot more of this becomes philosophy. People

get uptight about religion. Ira member George Bush being asked to

was his favourite philosopher, he was ridiculed for saying Jesus

Christ. But take Christianity out of what Jesus Christ is said to have

said and there is brilliant stuff the social order, being nice to each

other, living as you would hope to. Call it philosophy and not religion,

everybody is cool. Ehmer? If you put any of these books on the shelf

under does not range you, it means nothing. And on that bombshell... It

is about your heart and mind changing. Like a bird on a wire,

like a drunken midnight choir, is good, Leonard Cohen.

As always, the debates will continue online and on Twitter.

Next week we're in Cambridge, so do join us then.

Thank you for your contributions, I direct you to the hashtag #bbctbq,

it is always good reading. But for now, it's goodbye from

Brighton and have a great Sunday.