Episode 14 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions: Trade v human rights,

gender-neutral language, and what's Easter really about?

Today we're live from Netherhall School in Cambridge.

Welcome, everybody, to The Big Questions.

This week, Mrs May and her ministers have fanned out across globe

in search of new business for post-Brexit Britain

from customers outside the European Community.

The Prime Minister has been in Saudi Arabia,

her Chancellor has been in India, and Liam Fox has been telling

the president of the Philippines that we enjoy shared values.

Saudi Arabia treats women as second class citizens

and executes people for being gay or for not believing in God.

They've also been accused of war crimes for bombing

Yet Saudi Arabia is Britain's largest trading partner

And just the day before meeting the International Trade Secretary,

Liam Fox, Philippine President Duterte told an audience of young

school children he was angry and would kill people

Thousands have died since his election last year

And Duterte has said he doesn't give a BLEEP about human rights.

Should we trade with countries that abuse human rights?

Jordan, it is perfectly straightforward from a moral

perspective. We are doing business with a country killing thousands in

Yemen. Barbaric human rights records of torture, execution of games,

women cannot marry, they cannot travel, they cannot access higher

education without the permission of a man. Two women were detained and

72 days without charge in Saudi Arabia for driving. Why are we

dealing with these people? When you put it in those terms, it is not a

place I would want my daughter to spend time but it is also a

complicated set of relationships between governments. Trade is just

one of those levers. We have a defence and security arrangement

with Saudi Arabia and others, we share intelligence. The judgment

made by the authorities is that keeps us safer. If we look at the

economic arguments as well, in the UK, 140,000 jobs in the defence

industries exist in part because of our ability to trade overseas.

Directly, 14,004 Saudi Arabia. For some people, that is not important,

it is about the moral imperative, but in the complicated world we live

in, broader, systemic issues about relationships need to be taken

account of. Has a Ronan human rights -- has the human rights values we

hold made a difference in Saudi Arabia? It is very difficult to

tell. In the Middle East you tend to see a very conservative... This

change is clay seal. Yes, and it is very narrow, leadership. Just two

layers below you see young folk with Western values, we see more people

educated than we have seen in the West, just here in Cambridge there

are a number of Saudi graduates who are women. Andrew Smith, 140,000

jobs. It is one of the most brutal, repressive regimes in the world,

utterly complicit in the destruction of Yemen. In the two years since

that began, the UK has sold ?3 billion of weapons. I have no doubt

that is what the Prime Minister was doing there. In terms of jobs, jobs

involving arms exports account for 0.2% of jobs in the economy. We do

not want to see mass unemployment, we want to see these skills put to

good use in good, productive, sustainable industries, not those

that depend on war and conflict to turn a profit. It is not just those

jobs, there are outer rings and outer rings beyond that of related

industries. The arms industry is a keystone industry, not just

components but technology and engineering beyond that. We've got

to use the right figures. According to the area of space -- Aerospace

groups it is 55,000 jobs. We need to use the right figure. That is only

one third of the figures used regularly by government which

includes procurement as well. In terms of the cost, we've got to

think about what message it sent out. The message it sends to the

Saudi regime was total support for its brutal rule. The message it sent

out to those in Saudi prisons, those being tortured for their beliefs,

was that their human rights do not matter. Isn't that the moral

message? You just carry on, we want your money. My understanding was she

was very robust, polite but robust in terms of her expectations in

relation to the broader relationship between the two governments. It is

important to remember that quite often this subject is projected as

dodgy salesmen selling arms. That is not true. This is a significant

government to government relationship, heavily controlled,

companies sell weapons to the British government and the British

government trade with countries. Financial services. Indeed. These

are very fine judgments, nuanced judgments. It is not nuanced when

you're thrown off a roof for being gay. Correct. I would not want my

daughter to spend significant time in Saudi Arabia and I have a lot of

respect for Andrew's position but this is a real world, complicated

set of problems. Can we get away from it being complicated? I've got

a degree, explain it to me. It is not complicated. We are selling

weapons to people who are using it to abuse human rights. It does not

matter how much money we make, I could make a lot of money as a hired

assassin, it does not make it all right. It is not complicated, it is

incredibly simple. Why are we letting have access to weapons when

they are going to kill innocent people with them? We need to stop. I

will be with you in a second. I want to bring Davies in. You are sitting

beside Kate, who has entered the fray. You can turn to your left. I'm

always on the left. Let me make a bold prediction and save the that a

majority of the people watching this programme get it, on the one hand,

these things are true, it is a very problematic country, but they

understand that on the other hand Britain has needs in the world, they

are very reality -based things around conflict, with the

intelligence sharing with the Saudis has saved lives, Saudi stability is

a factor in the Middle East at the same time as these grievous things

go on... Is that the same as saying, you used the phrase, Britain has her

needs. We were discussing prostitution on this programme a

couple of weeks ago. You may laugh but isn't there an analogy, you're

going to a brothel where women are being abused because you have your

needs. There is not an analogy at all because the country cannot deal

on the basis of the personal in the same way as you deal in

international affairs. The British government has shown a fantastic

example of this in action. Michael Gove cancelled a contract with the

Saudi prison system because it is a part of Saudi Arabia that is deeply

problematic and we should not engage in. The government still sells

weapons because Saudi Arabia does have an important need to fulfil in

the region. Therefore, we are in a relationship that is conducive. The

Saudi regime is committing war crimes and we know that for a fact.

The bombing in Yemen has resulted in thousands of deaths. It is actually

against the policy. The truth is, the UK has been providing military

support to the Saudi regime for years. It is not a phenomenon on

that is new. It has allowed these human rights abuses to continue. The

UK is just as complicit and that is why we need to totally reformulate

the way that the trade regime is imagining. If we don't sell it,

China would sell them. They care nothing of human rights. Do we not

have some kind of impact? The UK Government is showing that it cares

nothing about human rights by exporting these weapons to Saudi

Arabia and Israel. Like Israel? Indeed. Would you like -- would you

compare them? War crimes are war crimes and it should be prohibiting

the export of these weapons to countries committing war crimes.

That would lead us on to a massive debate and I want to acknowledge

that with our viewers at home. Last time we were on, we had that. But I

mark what you said with interest. A number of politicians who come to

hold the position of Secretary of State for Defence have said, I will

profoundly review the relationship we have with Saudi Arabia and we

will probably withdraw some of our licences. As soon as those

politicians from both sides of the debate have arrived in office

they've reviewed the relationships and kept it. That is a matter of

record. It is disingenuous. Part of the problem with arms trade is there

is so little transparency so that one of the things we've seen, there

is evidence of governments ministers knowing of war crimes being

committed and approving those exports anyway. We need

transparency. Who would you deal with? You mentioned Israel. Many

will argue it is a democracy. Other people have mentioned China. Maybe

we cannot trade with China. Beyond that, in terms of human rights

abuses, who else, who would you trade with? It is a question of how

we approach our trade relations with any country. Protection for workers,

human rights, instead of corporations, it is something we

have as a policy where we approach all of these things at the centre.

Did you have your hand up? Is there any evidence that trade sanctions

improve human rights in these countries? Not so much a question

but I am utterly shocked by the fact that we're still talking about

funding either regimes or trading with countries who have a really

horrible record of human rights, the key question is, a lot of countries,

we should move away from that discourse which is about needing

business, when we see how many people are displaced and the refugee

crisis we deal with nowadays, people lending at the bottom of the

Mediterranean Sea. Surely we've got to think carefully as to what sort

of world we want to live in. We should still export arms to

countries... We would be crying outrage but we are not crying out

rage long enough in my opinion. Anyone else?

Good morning. Quick point? We keep hearing about human rights

violations, but human rights according to which organisation?

Different countries have different understandings of what human rights

means. So you are saying there should be relativism and other

countries should have different human rights values? According to

what frameworks are we talking about human rights? International

humanitarian frameworks. Let's hear from that lady. We condemn children

who witness bullying and don't speak out. Providing weapons to bully

people and cause mass wars, we are just as bad as the children who

don't speak out. What is the strategic thinking behind having

this relationship? The one with Saudi Arabia. What some of the

people have been saying about war crimes is not correct. Look at it

like this. You want to stop some of the terrible things you see on your

television screens, about the Syrian civil war, whatever else. You don't

want to send your own troops to die to do it and you need allies. Allies

are not perfect. United Kingdom has had to fight against radical Islam

across the world with allies that are not perfect. Saudi Arabia is a

source of radical Islam. Absolutely. And there is the problem of duality

with one of the things they do in spreading ideology and the things

they do in providing a modicum of stability in the Middle East

fighting against the spread of the Iranian revolution in that way. But

at the end of the day unless you are willing to send your own troops to

go into all these different theatres, you are going to have to

work with allies that are not perfect. I am convinced that your

viewers understand that the morality that this country has and the west

as God, which is better, unquestionably better, the quest for

democracy and justice, has got to live in accordance with the

realities of a very imperfect world. -- the west has got. Saudi Arabia

does provide a modicum of stability in the Middle East. Do you provide

that -- do you buy that? It doesn't provide stability for journalists

who are tortured and it doesn't provide stability for women. Saudi

Arabia is one of the most oppressive regimes in the world. I want to come

back to the point about intelligence Schering. We are UN bound to share

intelligence with Saudi Arabia. If there was any suggestion from a

panel that Saudi Arabia would not share intelligence on the grounds

that they could not buy billions of pounds of weapons every year, and

they would knowingly allow terrorism to happen on the streets of London

because we were not selling them weapons, anyone who thinks anything

like that has a low opinion of the regime than I do. I just want to

move on to the Philippines. Roderigo du tout, Liam Fox said he shares our

values. -- President to Duterte. He has killed millions of

people. How does a mass murderer share our values? I don't think he

does but I do think that Liam Fox had a job to do in terms of forging

relationships and there is a very complicated reality in forging those

relationships. I personally don't think that Duterte shares our values

and that cannot be said to be the case. Why do we condemn people like

Robert Mugabe who are of no use to us but just as Venus? These are the

double standards that ruin our reputation across the world. That is

the problem. It is not double standards. It is strategic decisions

about the needs of this country and plurality. The audience might not

like it but the people in the country understand that we have

strategic needs and we want to bring them in unison with our values. One

man's double standard is another's strategic decision. Is this

complicated? Should we trade with countries? The answer it is a

separate discussion and we have got to be very careful as we enter the

post-Brexit world and we earn our place in the world that we don't

engage in a race to the bottom in the name of trade. But the broader

question is should we trade with countries that abuse human rights? I

used to be the correspondent in China, the four years, for the Daily

Telegraph. I covered lots of human rights abuses. The Nobel Peace Prize

laureate is still in jail in China. But when China opened up we made a

Faustian bargain. We agreed to trade with China and it has not delivered

the reforms that we hoped. But it has transformed lives in China,

trade. It is not that long ago. 1959 to 1961, 40 million Chinese died in

a famine. So if you look at it that way, trade has brought incredible

things. Environmental degradation but incredible benefits. Should we

trade with the United States? That country had a state sanctioned

torture programme in Guantanamo Bay. This is very complicated stuff. I

firmly believe that trade is not a panacea but it does bring real

benefits to people around the world and it brings us closer together

because it makes our interests much more deeply entwined and it actually

makes it harder for countries to fall apart. We are seeing that now

with the United States. The positive aspect of globalisation. I think

that trade can be and should be a positive thing and the way we make

sure it is... It is true that trade impacts on all of us, in other

countries and here. We need all the friends we can get? We can make sure

that we keep high standards, environmental standards, health and

safety standards, protection for workers and human rights at the core

of our trade and that is how we can ensure that trade has a positive

effect on all of us in this country and abroad. If we start saying that

those things need to be add-ons if we can cram it into the trade

agreement, that is how you ensure there will be a race to the bottom.

We need to re-vision how we approach trade. Thank you all very much

indeed. If you have something to say

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

where you'll find links to join We're also debating live this

morning from Cambridge would gender-neutral language

be better for mankind? And have we lost the real

meaning of Easter? So get tweeting or emailing on those

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

have about the show. This week, columnists

in tabloids and broadsheets alike were fulminating

against the University of Hull. Students on a religious activism

course had supposedly been told they would lose marks if they didn't

write in gender-neutral language. For example, they shouldn't write

about what he or she might do but rather what they would do,

even if there's only one So I am not a he but

a they or an it. So no firemen, chairmen,

policewomen or stunt women. Would gender-neutral language

be better for mankind? A stimulating, provocative question.

Emma, you are neither male nor female, right? I identify as

non-binary sty and neither male nor female and in correspondents I use

that day or them pronoun. So you think that gender roles damage

society and we need to think about language carefully. Yes. Things are

codified in the language we use that we use language to construct society

and what is true is a huge variance of gender presentation and gender

identity in humankind. Not simply men and women. Yes, humankind, not

mankind. I wouldn't say mankind because humankind is more accurate.

In the same way as me using they and them is more accurate descriptor as

my identity. What about Homo sapiens? I very rarely used

scientific language in my life. It means wise man. We need to look at

the abolition of language to support gender neutrality and that is for a

number of reasons. Firstly it stops the assumption that the most

important people in the room are men or that the only people in the room

are men. And it does include that wider spectrum of gender. There is a

wonderful quote where gender and language should be comfortable and

fair. She is referring to German which is one of the most strictly

gender codified languages in Europe. What happens in German? German has a

grammatical gender and agenda pronominal system. They have

gendered pronouns and nouns, supported by the wider grammar of

the language. But actually the German date is encouraging

lecturers, professionals and industry to use gender neutral

language. -- the German state. Like the university of Hull, universities

in Germany are using gender neutral language because it includes

everyone and gives that space for trans people that are neither male

nor female. This is a question of sensitivity. Courtesy is all very

well but you are encouraging people to use certain words. My problem is

when language is policed. If we think about the first series of Star

Trek, it opened with to boldly go where no man had gone before, and

then it was to bother go where no one has gone before. Nobody cared. I

am bothered by the split infinitive! But nobody cares about gender

neutralisation. Nobody cares about that sort of stuff. They don't. What

they really care about... Put your hand up if you care. They are mad!

Let me make my point. Those things, it humankind, mankind, they are

interchangeable, synonymous. We are talking about people, a minority of

activists, who seek to have people disciplined or sacked because they

are imposing certain language. That is the imposition of light which are

not the revolution. It depends on the context. You might want to use

gender neutral language to self-described as you might then

tell your employer and friends that and if they continue to use the

wrong lag which, that is a mark of disrespect towards the person and a

lack of willingness to engage. -- the wrong language. They should be

disciplined in a can professional context. You hear what they said,

would that be the correct use of language? Yes, the singular they has

existed for a very long time. But it would be rude? Yes, I think that is

dehumanising but some people might self select to use it but in general

that is dehumanising. The suffragettes would be appalled about

this, wouldn't they? They want women to be noticed and out there. They

want women to achieve and for other women to know that they have

achieved. It is really about self-determination, isn't it? People

should decide how they are going to identify. But I don't know how you

are going to identify. Then I will tell you. I tell you my name and you

call me by the name that I give you and I could give you my gender

pronoun. It is pretty simple and it doesn't need to be such a

complicated thing. I think it is very important to respect the way

people identify. But it isn't simple. The gender neutral pronouns

that are being invented, they are being imposed on people. But

language is evolving and is not static. Sure, but the distinction I

am trying to make is between language evolving and pushing

something onto people. But there is no distinction. Over time language

changes and there were terms used a couple of years ago that were used

to refer to people of mixed race such as mulato are nowadays people

don't understand the term and quite rightly because it was obnoxious

that we have got rid of it. As time goes on, we have the freedom to

choose. People argue about political correctness but this is grammatical

incorrectness. But there are places where it is very important. You

mentioned the term chairman. Companies still refer to as chairman

and that is not necessary. It sends a message out to young women that

they are not qualified to apply for the job. It may be a very subtle

message and it might not be what the person intends but can we do better?

Yes. Should we? Yes. Brilliant. What about people who are non-binary,

gender fluid? We are all male and female. Yes, of course. We are all

male and female. Transgender people? There is a tiny minority of people

with intersex conditions. Add a tiny minority of people who have some

condition with a female brain and the male body. Apart from this, we

are all male and female. The attempt to suggest that there is a third

gender is, as far as I am concerned, and ideological and political

project. It doesn't exist. The words male and female have existed

throughout history. Throughout the world. Men are people with he needs

his, women are people with joining us. It is as simple as that. I

refuse to refer to this woman, who is clearly a woman as they, because

that would be an ideological, political system. How can you say

that? Because she is! Everybody watching this programme can see that

she is a woman. That is definitely your problem. No! You are asking me

to engage in an ideological, political system which I disagree

with. I think we are male or female. But choosing what somebody is called

is not imposing an ideological system. I am off for a cup of tea!

It is just not true to say that on a biological level we are only male or

female. Being intersex, which is a combination of 32 different ways of

chromosomes being defined is as common as being red haired but that

is physiological. Gender is socially created and it is separate to your

body. You may have a female perceived body and be female and you

may not. I do not present in masculine or androgynous way because

I question the idea that to be non-binary I have got to masculine

eyes my appearance. To say that you refuse to use my pronouns or refer

to me as a gender that I am as one of the greatest acts of disrespect

that I am forced to ensure on a daily basis. You have no empathy and

respect for people like me and the wider trans community and that

diminishes my respect for you as an individual.

Occasionally there are those who are more difficult to identify but it

refers to another situation. Someone must agree with Michael Grubb who

wants to say something? You're in the grey jumper? Do they want to say

something? I am a female. It is my belief system and that is fine. The

idea that you're seeing if this person chooses to say that they are

they that you cannot engage with that because of your belief system,

we live in a culture where lots of people have lots of different

beliefs, as is very clear on today's show. We cannot say I have this

belief system and therefore I am going to impose it on everyone. You

cannot do that. They have a particular... There you go! They

have a belief system. You cannot impose yours on them. In a minute. I

am not sure what to say. I don't mind. Call me anything you want. We

are complicating things too much. Somebody once said politicians treat

symptoms and leaders treat disease. If the problem we are concerned with

is gender inequality, let's fix equal rights for women in the

workplace, not stigmatise people who are transgender. We are placing too

much weight on something that is petty in my opinion. We need to

focus on more important things. Is this worth personning the barricades

for? You've had marriage proposals from it, you've had a lot of respect

when you ridiculed religion. I did not ridicule it I made a point about

the fallacy. You are sensitive about gender but not about religion. You

don't want to offend anyone about gender. I completely disagree with

you. I am firm about gender and I am a massive campaign against gender

discrimination, all of this stuff. One of the powerful things about it

is I can send in my CV and put my initial at the top and I have not

got to write Mr or Mrs. Their are-2-mac things. There is what

should be very small, do we address people in the way that they want to

be addressed? You have said I am disrespectful to religion. It is

suggested. If somebody says to me, I am Reverend Jones, I call them

reverence. That is what they want to be called. So I call them that. If

somebody says they want to be called they are Ms or Mickey, I call them

what they want to be called. Oh well put. It is a matter of courtesy.

Courtesy is extremely important and if people are in a dialogue with

gender constructs we need to respect really come from. But we need to be

allowed to ask questions, is there a relevance between personhood and

biology? Am I going to start feeling that womanhood is being abolished in

the way that I understand it if I cannot refer to myself as she? Who

is talking about you not being able to refer to yourself? The whole

point is it should be fluid and fear, this is not about everyone

being gender neutral. It does not take anything away from you and if

it does that poses meaningful questions. It is not like the French

Revolution. This is actually a matter of choice. There is something

further behind. We all know if you want to abuse people you must first

abuse the language. Is it an abuse of language or a revelation of the

human person. If there an importance to male and female or not and if we

cannot have that conversation in a respectful way we might be including

the abolition of male and female as we understand it. Is the project to

create neutrality dangerous in some way? If we cannot ask that question

without being shouted down that is alarming. Are we dealing with the

abolition of man and women in a profound way? I think we are. There

are lots of useful things about not presenting as male or female in a

job application. But... This idea that there is an imposition. Some

people might say councils are universities are doing it. Some

people might be afraid to embark on a sentence and walk-through

eggshells in case they say the wrong thing. It is not liberating, it is

constricting, isn't it? It is liberating for people who are

vulnerable. People who are afraid of saying the wrong thing and using the

wrong terminology, that is OK. This is not asking people to be well

versed, it is asking you to embrace a piece of learning and knowledge,

accept that communities have existed forever and have been propped up by

language constructed in other parts of the world. Ask questions. Do your

own research. It is OK to make mistakes. The bad thing is to make a

mistake, refuse to accept that you've made it and refuse to learn.

You work for the Daily Telegraph. Next week you should convince your

editor to use gender neutral language. It generally does use

gender neutral language. Language is organic. It reflects the society

that it comes out of. Ultimately, is they going to stick? I doubt it.

That is not how most people see the world. We are kind of right on the

margin. I'm the father of two daughters. I think firefighter is

better than fireman. If my girls want to work in the Fire Service

that is terrific. I don't think we should get hung up. If you want to

tie yourself in knots, the arbiter of that will be, people will accept

it on the basis of common sense. Are quite happy, singular of they and

them has been in the English language for quite some time. It

takes more time to say and is a Frankenstein sentence. I love that

phrase. We must not lose sight of the fact that language refers to a

reality. As a writer I feel that is very important. I think there is

something very serious at stake, if we start eroding concept of male and

female, which is happening. Is it happening? If we get to a point

where the women's rights movement cannot talk about the experience of

women that is a problem but I don't see that being under threat. There

is much more of an issue out there right now with expectations about

men and women and I think it is better for men and women and

everyone who does not feel like they fit into those categories if we say,

let's not have a way that men and women behave, let's talk about how

people are, and wherever you are comfortable in that, great. Great

news for people who have been excluded from jobs. We've got to

leave it there. We are going to talk about Easter next. You can join in

the debates online. Tell us what you think about our last question. Have

we lost the meaning of Easter. You can e-mail us. It is Easter next

Sunday and the London Marathon takes place the following Sunday but we

are back on the 30th of April and you can apply to be in the audience

for the live edition of our pre-recorded special on

humanitarianism. Then we will be in Salford for a programme on

globalisation. And London on May the 28th. That is for a special on

genetic engineering. Who would have thought an Easter egg

hunt could become so controversial? The Prime Minister even

interrupted her sales mission to Saudi Arabia to chastise Cadbury

and the National Trust for downplaying the significance

of Easter in promotions for egg hunts on Trust

properties next weekend. The Archbishop of York said

it was like spitting on the grave of the firm's Christian

founder, John Cadbury. But Cadbury was a Quaker,

who do not celebrate either And the name Easter derives

from the Germanic Pagan goddess Eostre, whose lights at dawn may

or may not have been carried by hares but who certainly

represented spring fecundity. Yet to many Christians,

Easter, which commemorates the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

is the most important Have we lost the real

meaning of Easter? I will start with you, Sarah. I saw

you trying to come in and I did not have a chance to come to you. It is

about fecundity, basically. Your -- it is a lovely manifestation of

fertility and fecundity. Our question is writing off the back of

it? In Easter there has always been a celebration of spring and renewal.

Many scholarly debates and for hundreds of years it has been used

at the resurrection day. But what it brings in the Christian sense is the

renewal of humankind. Nature is a renewed in springtime. But Easter is

the biggest invitation that has been issued to humankind which is to be

called into the life of God. So the resurrection when Jesus comes back

from the dead, he does not just come back as a human person who is divine

comedy comes back as what we will be. It is a sign of who we will

become. So it is either of no significance or it is the most

significant of all. The rising of the pagan god is the original so you

can see how this tags onto it. There is a prefiguring in pagan tradition

of Christian celebration but there is also Passover. The most important

thing about it, obviously if you're French or Spanish you would be

calling it something else, which refers to that. The important thing

about it is Christ is sacrificed so that we can enter into the life of

God. The dues were taken into freedom. You know the four cups that

are drunk at the Passover feast... Can we come back to that? If we do,

I will hold you to that thought. Let's not go into the origins. I

know that you disagree with these. Should it be about Jesus dying on

the cross? The point is as human beings we look at our natural world

around us and we see the natural cycles of birth, death and rebirth.

All the fates have a concept of that and a celebration of that. Easter

happens to be the Christian version of that. There are other pagan

faiths that celebrate this renewal of life. It seems that we should

celebrate that we have these same concepts.

Rather than involving ourselves in squabbling over who is festival

proceeded who's and which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is

fecundity and fertility imported? At this time of year, the earth is

growing and you can see the plants growing with renewed vigour, and

what we are doing as human beings is looking at the natural world and

seeing ourselves reflected in that. We want a new projects, to spring

clean, to celebrate life. You could have been John four cups, you see, I

did it, and you can bent on creme eggs. Will you be having an Easter

egg? Not sure. If you look at the southern hemisphere, Easter does not

begin spring. The idea of the spring equinox, the full moon, it happens

to work with European countries where Christianity evolved. And the

Middle East. In South Africa they are going into winter in April. What

I do want to say about Easter is that for Christians there is a

belief that new beginnings are possible in life after periods of

hardship and struggle and the dark Knight of the soul. There is a new

beginning in your life and used it symbolises the possibility that new

beginnings can happen and I think that is what Christians want people

to know and that is an important value to keep hold of in our

society. It is interesting to have a theological debate about where it

all comes from. I think most of your viewers at home are wondering when

they get their Easter egg. The fact is that Jesus did not emerge from an

egg and neither did any of the pagan deities. At a fundamental

evolutionary level! As long as these things are optional, fine. If people

want to celebrate by going to church, the synagogue, the mask,

pagan events, whatever they want to go to, fine. But the problem always

comes in when it becomes compulsory. You should do this or that. Like in

Saudi Arabia? Exactly. And like a lot of the places we have talked

about where religion is not optional and religion has always got to be

optional. If you want to spend the long weekend with your family eating

chocolate and hopping around the garden like a rabbit, I don't know

what it means but have a great time. And if you want to spend it doing

something else, it should be your choice. I find the pagan origins of

the word Easter very interesting because when you study anthropology

you notice how Christianity comes in to different cultures and they do

adopt the different culture, and translated Christianity into the

symbols of that culture. That has perhaps slightly happened in this

country. The fact is that we have had a Christian Easter for hundreds

of years. I also feel that Christianity is a fundamental part

of western civilisation. A lot of the things that we take for granted,

like Easter, but a lot of the things to do with human rights, they are

rooted in Christianity. And I do think that we should acknowledge our

Christian roots. Many of us don't have Christian roots. I think

western civilisation does have very Christian roots. Sexism is rooted in

Christianity. Christianity is... Wait a minute! We have been around

as a species for hundreds of thousands of years. What would you

like to say? Are you a quicker? -- Quaker. The reason that John Cadbury

would not have rolled in his grave is because Quakers believe that

every day is holy and Christmas and Easter are no more holy than the day

that we are on today. So chocolate everyday! The reason that the church

opens up the season of Lent... I don't think that lady has finished.

Sorry about that. The idea that every day is God's day means that we

should be living that way and respecting God in everyone every

day. What a better world that would make it. I wish we could leave it

there but we have got another nine minutes! I might have to talk about

the four cups! Peter? This is a really important point. What you are

hearing here is essentially a lament for the decline of the church. Less

than 5% of people in this country go to church. We are nominally

Christian country but actually we are not really. What you are hearing

here is a lament for the fact that not enough people go to church and

subscribe to belief in the resurrection and a narrow Christian

version of Easter. But to take the Lady's point here, if I bring my

family together and we enjoy the daffodils and the roast lamb and

hunting the odd Easter egg, does that bring more like or darkness to

the world? It brings more like that we should ultimately embrace that.

Which is not to say that the Christian side shouldn't celebrate

solemnly. The lady there with the brown top. Hello? I think we missed

the fundamental point. It is about putting your disco pants on and

sharing and celebrating commonality is because in society today it seems

to me that we concentrate more on what divides us than what brings us

together and that is what we need to be looking at. That is definitely a

theme that we have picked up on in the other debates as well. We are

imposing linguistics and let's just dispense with that. What is

important is what we are describing and talking about. What we have got

here amongst many of the faiths is a concept that we all share, the idea

of renewal of life and growth. Who doesn't want to celebrate that?

Whether you are atheist or of faith or otherwise. It relates back to

what you were saying about language. It is the language that we choose

for people as a matter of courtesy. Do you see the connection? There is

some connection in allowing space for everyone and however they wish

to practice their particular faith. There is often contention at the

heart of religious debate about to has the most right and who will

ultimately succeed in whatever cosmic battle there is about life,

death and rebirth. Ultimately it is giving people the linguistic

flexibility to enjoy whatever practices they have, because it is

counter-productive to have a continuing fight than to celebrate.

My particular faith is Buddhism, as we celebrate the birth of blood at

this time again, so religions around the world are tied to this part of

the season. -- the birth of Buddha. To me it is much simpler than all of

this. Experts are becoming less important in this country. They are

saying that Christians between 2010 and 2050 will decrease to 45%. If

the true meaning of Easter is really the Christian meaning and companies

will target the 100%, then surely the meaning of Christianity will

also decline and that will happen across other Christian countries,

like the Netherlands and France. We will go over there. Hello. I do

believe that each holiday that comes from a religious holiday comes to

remind us about the spirituality that we have lost at which brings us

together. I think dividing us by Christians and Buddhism and

everything else is just culture. At the end of the day we are all

spiritual beings. When a holy day comes called Easter, it reminds you

to be kind, and... To look out for your fellow human beings? Why not do

what the Americans do with Christmas and have happy holidays? Instead of

happy Easter. Would you go with that. I don't think you would. I

wouldn't. This expression of looking out for your fellow human beings and

being kind to each other. This is rooted in Christianity, love your

neighbour as yourself. It is! It predates religion. No, it doesn't.

There are different parts of the world which don't have a Christian

basis and they don't have it actually the same moral structure --

exactly the same moral structure. Even if it were the case that

Christian somehow behaved better because of this, the idea are

behaving better because you are terrified of an all-powerful deity,

that is not morality, that is fear. That is no way to behave. The Quaker

lady. Sorry to call you that! I don't know your name. My name is

Trish. Yes, I am getting that voice in my head telling me that. The

golden rule is found in almost every religion that predates Christianity

and is subsequently Christianity. Treating one another with respect as

if there is that of God in each person is the way we should be

living and respect for everyone is necessary. I am really surprised

that of the three debates this has been the most heated! Does anybody

really care? I am interested to know. Any Christian here, does

anybody care about chocolate eggs and a giant rabbit promoting

childhood obesity? Really, why does that matter? Because it might mask

the importance of that great invitation that we have received to

be brought out of the slavery of sin and into the light of Christ where

he gives us the power to enter into a divine life. I want to spread the

love. When consumerism becomes our God, that is a problem, and we just

want the story to be heard and the news to be known. I think if people

knew it, they would be at peace. Quiet, everyone. Andrew? I just want

to comment briefly on the irony of the fact that Theresa May was

defending the integrity of Easter eggs while she was trying to sell

weapons to a country that abuses human rights. Slam dunk! The fact of

the matter is that Jesus was crucified by an empire that cared

more about trade than human rights. So all things are interrelated, is

that what we are saying? Easter is not about bunnies and eggs and I

worked on a farm and there is nothing glamorous about them.

Cadbury is a great company but what I care about is an Easter Christian,

if I can call myself that, Cadbury is paying corporate tax and not

using child labour in the production of cocoa and that is what I care

about, not the bunnies. Even though I like bunnies. We are interweaving

all the debates and I am liking this. We will bring it all together

at the end. Can I quickly argue a point about what the lady at the

front was saying about moral behaviour and Christianity being

interlinked? Two points. Surely that is just human nature anyway? Also I

have known a lot of religious people use it as an excuse to justify

themselves, whether or not it is gossiping about their neighbours, or

if you go to a more extreme version where they just use religion as an

excuse. Religion and morality, we have been there before and we will

go there again and we have done a little bit today. John? 54 million

people die every year. About 3 million of those is through obesity

and type 2 diabetes. 650,000 people died violently every year. Only

130,000 of those through what we would conceive as warfare. That is

too many, agreed. But it seems to me that sugar may be more lethal for us

than gunpowder. Interesting point. How long have we got? Ten seconds on

the four cups. The fourth cup was brought into the land that is

promised. Jesus didn't drink it. He went out and he drank it and he was

crucified. That was the drinking of the fourth cup, he was crucified.

The good news is that in spite of sugar we all die and the news is

that we can live forever with God and that is the meaning of

Christianity. I am a man of my word! Thank you for watching.

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

We're not on next week because it's Easter but we'll be back from York

Have a great Sunday and enjoy your Easter.

PHONE RINGS 'Police emergency.'

Every two minutes, someone in Britain is reported missing.