Episode 3 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions: sexism, prisons and religion in politics.

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

Today we're live from Appleton Academy in Bradford.

Welcome, everybody, to The Big Questions.

On Friday Donald Trump became president of the United States

of America, having beaten Hillary Clinton in the electoral

college, although not in the popular vote.

Yesterday millions of women across the world took

to the streets in protest, calling for women to have parity

and equity at all levels of leadership in society.

And this week, in the Swiss Alps, at Davos,

the World Economic Forum brought together the most powerful movers

and shakers in business, finance, and governance to discuss the state

Prime Minister Theresa May was there, but she was part

of a minority group - only a fifth of the

Is the system still stacked against women?

Well, Aisha Ali-Khan from Shipley, feminist zealot, so-called because I

think the MP Philip Davies referred to you as zealots, so you took it

and ran with it? We owned it, basically, we thought, this is what

we will be branded as, we might as well only at. It's great to have a

zealot on the programme, it's not the first time! Listen, what does

victory by a man whose apparent views about women, what is it with

these apparent views about women, what does it tell you about where we

are in the struggle for equality? I think with Trump's election, I think

we've gone backwards massively. I think if we can have somebody in the

White House with views that are so degrading to women, and the comments

that he's made over the years, not just obviously during the election

campaign, but previously as well which then came to light during the

election campaign. If somebody like that, with his views, is in the

White House today, I don't know what hope we have for women across the

world. Belinda is gearing up here. This is just one dinosaur, isn't it?

Hang on the second, I will be going around the audience shortly. This is

just one dinosaur. The universities are full of young women. The march

of progress goes on and the promised land will be reached, surely? The

sad thing is that it's not just one politician or one person or one

reader. We have so many similar minded people over the world. Look

at Philip Davies, his comments around equality, women and so on, he

has an issue with women who want equality,... Do you think those

views are prevalent, widespread, common amongst men, still? I think

the danger is that these men have platforms with which they can

disseminate these views to a much wider audience. Last night we had

Piers Morgan who took to his Twitter account and he branded feminists

rabid feminists, women at work protesting. Protests are really

inconsistent because I've not seen any protests against the Saudi

government even though people know for years women have not been

allowed to drive or do anything. We have so many amazing feminists, so

many amazing women who are protesting. And these are obviously,

I recognise the fact that women in Saudi Arabia, and not just in

Islamic countries, who are being discriminated against, who do not

have the same access to education, health care. That's part of the

struggle, obviously. Belinda. I think the important thing is that

we're talking about feminism in this country, we are talking about women

in this country, we should not be using the terrible situations of

women and men in developing countries to boost the feminist

campaign. Speaking personally as a woman, I don't feel I have ever

experienced disadvantage. Ayew a feminist? Absolutely not, no.

Strongly opposed to feminism. And this idea, are things stacked

against women? When I look around me, the evidence is pointing to

actually things stacked against men. If you look at the education system,

all the way through, boys are disadvantaged in relation to girls,

resulting in 33% more women ending up at university resulting in the

fact that up to the age of 35 women are actually earning slightly more

than men. There are all kinds of ways. But women have to do so much

better and achieve so much more to get to the same level. That is a

complete myth, that is a complete myth. The reason why women are not

at the same level in politics is because of choices we make. We

prioritise our families and our private lives more than men do. We

are not talking about inequality. Do you want to come in, Jackie? I was

rather taken aback by the passion. I feel a lot of passion about the lack

of parity, the lack of equality. But it's a myth? I think the myth is

that we have equality, parity. I think we still have a long way to

go. I think there's been great strides in terms of women in

society, women in organisations, there's been focused on developing

women in more senior roles at leadership levels, but we still have

a long way to go. Belinda says it's because of the choices that women

make. I think we do have choices and I think feminism isn't against

choice. The idea of feminism is that we have the opportunity to choose to

eat what we want to do, whether we want to work, whether we don't want

to work, whether we have careers, whether we don't. It's all about

choice. There are a couple of things there. I don't think feminism is

about choice, it's actually put women in a situation where now we

are much more compelled to work than ever we were before. We are forced

to go out and leave our children in child care and much earlier ages.

And let's look at the facts, who lives five years longer? Women do.

Who constitute the majority of homeless, about 95%, men do. In all

these different areas. Who constitutes 79% of the suicide rate?

Who gets sentenced for longer times? Men do. Who gets less funding on

health care? Men do. It's hard to find one area where women are

disadvantaged in relation to men. I think it's really unfortunate to

conflict things like homelessness statistics and the length of prison

sentences solely on the grounds of gender. The things we talked about

so far around women and men are all happening in a context that is all

happening in a context. And directly strongly disagree with a lot of the

points that you have made around education. The idea is when I buy my

niece and nephew clothes, I can buy a superman outfit or a Little

Princess outfit, and it begins even before the womb. We are so

conditioned. And in our parliament we have 29% of the MPs are female.

20% of the Conservative MPs, chosen by committee is full of women. At

every level across our society, statistically and anecdotally we

still do not have equality, and to suggest that as a feminist I should

only care about women in this country is deeply offensive. Allow

me, if I may, to go to the audience. After your opening salvo which was

absolutely fascinating, lots of hands went up. Good morning. My

point is, there is a quality to certain levels up to middle

management level, I think we are talking about, employment or even if

we are talking about political roles. The gap really widens when it

gets to leadership level. And what I've observed, and I've talked to

hundreds of women on this subject is, often it's because other women

are judgment or about other women. There is discrimination. But when we

get to a certain level we pull up the ladder is behind us and that's

really unhelpful and that is why changes and happening as quickly in

my opinion. Good morning, are you a feminist? Yeah, I am a strong

feminist and I'm actually quite shocked, it is quite worrying to

hear people still today misinterpreting feminism. For me

feminism is literally just all about equality. It really annoys me when

you have misogynists such as Philip Davies saying that, yeah, but men

have higher suicide rates. We completely agree, that's feminism.

Ironically the fact that men have high suicide rate is because of the

fact they don't feel comfortable expressing themselves. The whole

point of feminism, the whole point behind feminism is to deconstruct

this kind of gender expectations so many feel comfortable to express

their emotions so men, if it's their choice, and let's say for example

you have a couple and a man has a lower paying job than the female,

that they feel comfortable being a househusband. That is actively

supporting feminism. And these statistics you are coming out with,

I completely agree with the lady with the purple hair, it should not

be seen in a vacuum. You have intersections with race, class, and

to say that there are white working class men out there, I completely

agree, but it's not just based on gender. Why are you rolling your

eyes at what she is saying? There are some basic points which

undermine this whole argument. As women and men, biology doesn't make

as equal, it makes us different. And because of that, if I may, I did

listen to you, it means that women biologically may have to make

different choices. Even if they have childcare from the day after they

deliver a baby, they might be in a hormonal cauldron that makes them

make different choices to the ones they perceive they might make. The

other thing about living in a meritocracy is that it should be the

best man or women for the job. So female quotas or short lists, I

don't want to be chosen for a job because of that, I want to be the

best person for that job. It may be because of lifestyle choices, or

because they are not good enough, that women are not getting the

positions of. But how do you address the inequality? Aisha? The numbers

do not lie. Fortune 500 companies, only 4.4 have female CEOs. Maybe

they're not good enough! Internationally, across the world,

and what she said is spot on, yesterday the female zealots raised

over ?100,000 on the day in donations, half of which are going

to Women's Aid, and half are going to a charity that helps prevent male

suicide. So we are not against men, we support men, we support everybody

who is disadvantaged, discriminated against. One of the big issues is

there is a problem of raising awareness for the issues men and

boys have an feminist organisations have systematically been undermining

this process. For example, York University, 2005, men stay was

marked as an important point in time -- men's day. But a group of 200

almost only female feminists took it off the agenda, they protested

against it. This is a good example of it and that is the problem. Women

have bigger issues but we need to have a balanced view. In response to

you, the problem is that when we raise these issues like male

suicide, rough sleepers, 95% of people who die at work are all men

and do the nasty work that feminists don't talk about, but when we raise

those issues you say, we need to see it in a different context, but why?

Why do we need to put it in a different context and when we talk

about female issues? I work in the prison system so to tell me I don't

know about male suicide and homelessness is very unfortunate.

Professor Jackie Ford, I do want to hear from the men in the audience in

just a second, don't worry, David, I will be with you, I'm doing my very

best here. What about the point from Angela that in a true meritocracy it

is absolutely just on your merits, your talents, your abilities, and

the fact that there aren't more women at the top as CEOs of the top

companies, she said it might just be because they are not good enough?

Well they are not good enough if you only class the norms of behaviour as

masculine norms. Privilege and in a hidden way what we value here are

masculine characteristics and behaviour is. What are they?

Rationality, aggressiveness, ruthlessness, these are what are

going to be rewarded in our leadership roles. We talk about this

great heroic charismatic leaders. Ruthlessness and aggression? Rather

than a more collective approach to leadership which gets a lot of

mileage, of entertaining issues. Are those feminine characteristics? They

might be. I'm suggesting that both men and women can have masculine and

feminine characteristics. What are the strengths? We draw also on

communal behaviours, draw on emotion, recognise passion, and

views about other issues, allow people to speak, and not get talked

over. Some of those are the issues. I do my best! It wasn't personal!

Bishop Toby? I came in as a bishop before there were women bishops and

now, thank God, there are women bishops. It took much too long but

it has made such a difference to the way we work together so it is in all

of our interests. Women bishops, a triumph, Belinda? I'm not supportive

of women bishops. I think it... I'm not in favour of women bishops. Why

not? I feel it is important, we need to get more men, actually, into the

church, and there is a reason that we have male leadership... It is

full of men! What about the traditional roles, as you would

perhaps have it, have men been emasculated? Have women become

de-feminised? I think what feminism has done has made women appear to be

more feminine and more victim like than they ever were before. When I

see, recently I heard this thing about, if you have got problems with

your day, you -- with your date, you go to the bar and ask for a

particular drink and they understand the problem. When I was young, we

could deal with these problems and I feel feminism has made women feel

much weaker and more helpless than they were before. This is dangerous,

because... I agree. Your attitude is dangerous because what you are

talking about is something we should have stamped out years ago. You are

saying that women, because we want to keep ourselves safe, have no

right to expect a safety from society around us. I don't

understand why that is relevant. I think what feminism is doing is

creating hostilities between men and women... Mary! Wait a minute, Mary?

I class myself as a feminist, and I've seen, during my life, how

feminism has actually enabled women to progress and get to where they

want to. What I think feminism is about is actually about choice. It

is about women being able to go out to work, have careers, and also the

other side of it, I think, is also about men having choice. In my

capacity as a member of the European Parliament, we have done a lot of

work on worklife balance and there is more and more of the need for

that, and there are more men who actually would prefer all wish to

spend more time at home with their families. And, for me, that is what

it is about. I must come back to this question about quotas for

women. Women are just as good as men and we have to get that in our

heads. APPLAUSE.

I would like to say I am a declared non-feminist because I think a lot

of the current feminist arguments are spoiling for an argument. That

campaign about getting Jane Austen on a bank note, I want the same

number of banknotes as my male colleague, I don't care whose basic

is, it could be Mickey Mouse as far as I'm concerned. I went to school

amongst the alumna of my old school, they were suffragettes. We were

encouraged to aim high, powered through any ceiling, the first

female bishop in the country went to my old school, Lee B Lane, I went to

school with her. There was no suggestion even back then, several

years ago, that she was in anyway held back. I can't speak on her

behalf. So this notion that somehow we are being arm locked because

society is clipping our wings, I think it is nonsense. If there are

concerns such as sexual objectification of women, heinous

conduct towards women, it is a concern for all society, and as far

as Donald Trump is concerned, he was elected by a majority. Peter,

quickly, then we will have some hands up in the audience. I think

feminism is a beautiful thing, one of the most profound and insightful

things understandable inhumanity. The ethics of care that feminism

brings us, I think it is a way of understanding both men and women,

the lady who spoke behind as putted beautifully, absolutely fantastic,

and as an man I would say I think feminism is fantastic and I think we

should have more feminism, it is very important. And to go back to

one point, the feminisation of poverty, since the 70s there have

been more and more women impoverished, going without food to

feed their children, you are missing the point. Think about what the

world was like before feminism... Feminism in principle sounds really

good. I think all of us, all humanity, men and women, we all have

sons and daughters, we care about both genders. The problem I think is

with the sort of extreme feminist activist who undermine initiatives

to raise awareness, and I have just given and it -- given a good example

of it, and there are many. You have only seen from the sideline the

positive news stories but people who look into these issues, called

anti-feminist, they can show you exactly what sort of things are

going on. We have to leave it there, thank you all very much indeed for

that, thank you. APPLAUSE.

It was considered and consensual and it was just... If you have got

something to say about the debate, log onto bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions

and follow the link, where you can join in the discussion online or

contribute on Twitter. We're also debating

live this morning at Bradford's Appleton Academy -

does prison work? And, should religion have

any role in politics? So get tweeting or emailing on those

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

have about the show. Last November, the Justice

Secretary, Liz Truss, promised prisons were going to get

their biggest overhaul A couple of days later

there was a riot at Bedford Prison involving 200 inmates,

followed a month later by another riot of 240

prisoners at HMP Birmingham. Reductions in prison staffing,

gang violence, and psychoactive This week the House

of Commons Select Committee on Justice began examining

the Government's plans. Many critics say the biggest

question they need to address Let's address that one. Sara, as you

mentioned earlier on, working in prisons in the field of criminal

Justice, men touring women in custody as well. We have got more

prisoners in this country than any other in Western Europe, and, as a

whole, only Russia and Turkey have more. Some of these statistics are

stark and astonishing. Why is this happening? Well, we have got double

the number of people in prison now than we had 20 years ago. Crime

rates are going down? So much of this is directly the result of

policy. As Bob Neill, chair of the Justice select committee, said at

the start of the fetching on Wednesday, the wide consensus now is

the prison system we have is in crisis and that is significant, the

Conservative chair of the Justice select committee saying that. We

know it doesn't work, by any measure, not for victims of crime,

not for society, certainly not for the people in it when you have the

scale of rioting and frequency of rioting, which is unprecedented

since Strangeways 25 years ago. Peter, it is a while since you were

in but it was pretty bad then, and you were just failing beforehand

that it is even worse now? Yes, my first sentence was at 14 years old,

I was a regular attendant. Not at any point was prison a deterrent or

an event -- and intervention. Since getting released and working in the

community with people that are getting out of prison, the stories

I'm hearing now, it is getting scarier and scarier. The challenges

people are facing about settling into the community after release

from prison, showing the work that is taking place in the custody

setting is not supporting them to get to a point to manage themselves

in the community, which then encourages the cycle of offending

again and back into prison. Is it just too brutal, do we need to

change our society? I'm not sure it is brutal, there are examples around

the world, good practice in custody settings, initiatives I'm aware of

where people studying in universities and the community go

into prison to study alongside prisoners, breaking down barriers

and stigma that people carry. There are intervention is going on but I

think, on the whole, there is not enough and it is not consistent

enough, those community support networks are not consistent enough.

I provide a mentoring service to address how people identify

themselves, if we can get people to see themselves as somebody who can

fit in with society, that is not just an offender or substance

misuse, then we can raise their aspirations. And today, you will be

interested in this, in Norway prisoners are allowed all manner of

comforts, much more lenient, in a way that would send some of our

popular press apoplectic. But the reoffending rate here is 60%, the

reoffending rate in Norway is 20%. Well, you can do anything you want

with statistics. If that is what they say, that is what they say.

More lenient regime 's? As far as I am concerned, prison has four

functions. Yes, there is rehabilitation, we want to feel

people have learned something from the sobering experience prison and

come out as a better person who hopefully won't reoffend. We hope it

will be a deterrent. But we also hope it will keep members of the

public safe. The fourth thing is anybody who has committed certainly

a violent crime should have their liberty taken away from them in a

way that makes them the punishment. A very simple comparison, if you

jump a red light you have to do a speeding course, get points on your

license, you feel it, and afterwards, if you have been done

for speeding, you tend to watch the plot a bit more. It has to be made

to feel that, thankfully I have not been inside... The loss of liberty

in a much more lenient regime in Norway has a 20% reoffending rates.

What is your conclusion other than saying, oh, statistics can say

anything? My conclusion is still the fact is that prison, first of all

people who commit violent crime need to be taken off the streets will

stop how do you stop them committing violent crime when they come out?

Some people you can hopefully rehabilitate but some people will be

sobered up by the experience of prison. I would have thought

somebody locked up would not want to go through it again, but if they are

given an iPad, Amazon orders, a la carte food, whatever, it will not

encourage them to not reoffend. I'm sorry, but prisons are exceptionally

painful irrespective of the conditions that a person lives in.

Prisons are about the waste of life and the consciousness of time, the

sense of loss, the estrangement from family members. These are all

absolutely fundamental and essential to how a prison works. You may well

have other aspects, for example around austere regimes, punitive

regimes, you may have restrictions in terms of access to all sorts of

things like educational resources, but prisons are profoundly painful.

That is why we have such a high rate of death in prison. We have,

apparently, one of the highest rates ever in prison deaths. Last year,

113 prisoners in England and Wales killed themselves. There are still

57 awaiting classification so that number will go up. Since 1990, more

than 1900 self-inflicted deaths. To top regimes work as a deterrent?

There is no evidence a tougher regime will lead to the slightest

decrease. In fact, what works is when we try to help people. Belinda?

The evidence suggests that the longer people are in prison, the

less likely they are to reoffend, and the number of deaths going up I

think has coincided with slightly greater liberalisation. What you

have happening is the prisoners themselves have more freedom but the

really hard and ones I think our ruling get over the perhaps slightly

more... There is a lot more bullying because there could be a slight, I

don't know if a vacuum of authority is the right word, but a stronger

regime would prevent the bullying that happens inside prisons which

probably contributes towards the rates of suicide.

If you want to look at what works you don't even have to go abroad.

There is an intensive therapeutic community here. The highest rates of

prison deaths including self-inflicted deaths directly

correlates in a benchmarking exercise, you can see it drop off,

presents become more overcrowded, they are understaffed, the rates of

violence, assaults on staff and suicide go a long, it is that

simple, the equation. As for a la carte food? ?1.81 is what prisoners

spend on a whole day's food. The idea there is plenty to do, many

people are currently in cells for 23 hours a day. That is why there are

riots. The huge increase in violence and self-inflicted deaths. The

chairman of the prison officers Association, good morning. I've

listened to some of that debate and I've got to say that presents an

oppressive any more, people have this view that prisons have prison

officers going round giving someone a clunk when they step out of line,

it does not work like that any more. You have wings in closed

establishment of 200 prisoners where they've got three members of staff

try to control that, there's no way three members of staff can be

oppressive and maintain the levels of discipline that people are trying

to allude to. What you have got is prisons run on prison officers that

have away and ability of controlling and managing people without having

to show force unless someone steps out of line. If there were fewer

prisoners the whole thing would be easier to manage? Overcrowding is a

problem, and we put people who should be in mental hospitals in

prisons nowadays because we cut the funding to the NHS. So there is a

concern around the population we are housing within prisons, and there

are interventions for those people. They are not sufficient, I agree

that to -- too time is spent behind doors. Because you do not have the

numbers, you have prisoners maintaining order and they are not

the people you want controlling orders, and that causes the drugs

and violence and all the problems in prisons. In the long-term if we

control it it will benefit society and prisons. Hello. In my view a

punitive prison system does not work. Therefore we need to take a

much more liberal approach. And believe it or not, there are

countries in the world that servers perfectly good examples. I would

also like to advocate for the Norwegian prison system as a model.

Their prisons are not overcrowded, their main objective is to

reintegrate those who have been excluded from society back into

society. And they have one of the lowest recidivism rates in Europe

and indeed around the world at 20%. Compare that to hear at 55%. Over

there? I have been to prison, I served a nine-year prison sentence.

I have been into category B, category a and two categories C and

D. I was told different things in category a presence, you are going

to come through the same door again, there's nothing out there for you.

Different prison officers have different approaches. There were

mechanisms and things for me to get involved and do rather than sitting

in a room watching a wall and wondering when my food will be

happening. The only way it's going to work is if there are more

category D prisons where people can act surely go whilst they are in

their knowing, if I get there, I can do something that will give me a

chance to do something and get on with my life. Having a support

mental, like the Prince's Trust who supported me from day one, they gave

me the help and support even to this day, to say, we are there for you,

we are not letting you go. Probation service can help but there are too

many people to look out for. How do you feel when people say it is cushy

being inside prison? I'd say come inside and have a look. You've got

inmates who are getting food and what they are doing straightaway is

physically throwing it at officers and saying, what is this? Give us

food that is proper. That's the only thing they can afford. Do deterrents

work? There's no doubt it would be beneficial to all of society if

people could leave prison and unable themselves to make a useful

contribution to society again. And education in prison shouldn't be

seen as some kind of reward. You said earlier on when you were hoping

that people would not want to go back there. So presumably I can

infer from that, you think deterrence works? I think deterrents

do work. If you are made to feel you are in a situation where you don't

want to repeat against a .31 US states, can I just say, with the

death penalty, have . The kind of people who commit that

level of crime that necessitates the death crime are the kind of people

that are programmed to keep reoffending anyway. OK, you can all

touch and shake your head is. We are not all tutting. There is an

absolute tsunami of statistics and surveys being thrown across the room

here, we don't know what the criminal mentality is. Is this not

dispassionate logic? We can all think about vengeance and righteous

indignation. These are actually facts and statistics. Do we know how

many prison officers are on duty? How many prison officers per capita

are there in Norway? We don't know the broader picture. This is just an

attempt to make it objectively, to you, it really does seem that you

are quite unpleasant, your unpleasant desire to punish people

is making you ignore the statistics that you have heard. More liberal

prison regimes that give people opportunities make society safer by

reducing the crime when those people come out of prison, you've just

heard that, it seems really strange that you can't process it. I do

think it is very risky comparing two different countries. I mean, Norway

is an incredibly wealthy country. And it is a very different society.

So is America. I think Norway has got a stronger economy because of

its links with oil, it's got very strong welfare. I just think, I

would be cautious. I'm sure there is a lot to be learned from the

Norwegian system. I'm not coming down too much on one side or the

other but I think we have to be very cautious comparing two countries.

Bishop Toby. Some people are just irredeemable, are they not? I wonder

if they are? I mean, who are we to say that somebody is or somebody

isn't? The point is most of the people in prison are going to come

out and the question is, are we going to enable them to live as our

brother here has said in a way that is going to be positive for us all,

or are we going to put them in a place where they will have to go

straight back again. We haven't really talked about the economy in

this. How much does it cost to repair, say, Birmingham, after that

riot? If the money spent in repairing that prison could have

been put in a few more prison officers to be working with you to

enable that not to happen, isn't that better use of the money? To

come in there, I think the debate has been reduced to staffing.

Prisons have always been places of violence, suffering and death, since

their inception in the 1770s. Prisons have always failed in terms

of rehabilitation. Dozens are failed institutions. We cannot teach people

how to be free in captivity. Two wrongs do not make a right. Our

first debate was, is the system stacked against women? It is said as

well that the prison system, the criminal justice system is stacked

against women, is that right? Well, absolutely. Belinda is making a face

beside you. I enjoy being sat here. We have a system built by men,

designed by men, for men. There are just many, many things, for example

when the system was rearranged, nobody thought what happens when

women have babies in prison, if you look statistically of women in

primary care before entering, the impact on family, and you get people

in prisons that do not think about employment, that a woman would need

a job and you get out. The whole journeyed there are different

points. She's champing at the bit. I don't know where to begin. One point

is that there is a lot more spent per woman in prison than per man in

prison, women are much better funded in prison. For the same crime, men

get much longer prison sentences. If you look closely at the data, for

the same crime, men are likely to get longer prison sentences, they

are also more likely to get sent to prison and more likely to have to

sit through their prison sentences. There are also issues a family.

People talk about 17,000 children without their mothers, this

statistic is likely to be grossly exaggerated because it would suggest

that each woman has got ten children. There are 150,000 children

whose fathers are in prison. One thing they do with men, they will

use as a punishment, they will say, you can't see your children because

you've been bad. They would never do that with women. They absolutely do

that with women. The reason why we are seeing an increasing number of

people in prison, there is a constant thrust from society to

punish more and more people but at the same time there's a constant to

protect women. Our prison system heaves with injustice, and women

from BME backgrounds, LGBT backgrounds, are disconnected

against the board, it is set up, there is often a massive income

inequality. Many people in our prisons are victims and my opening

gambit was about, if prisons are going to work, they've got to work

for victims which include some of the people. Thank you all very much

indeed. You can join in all this

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

and following the link Or you can tweet using

the hashtag #bbctbq. Tell us what you think

about our last Big Question too - should religion have

any role in politics? And if you'd like to apply

to be in the audience at a future show, you

can email [email protected]. We're in Glasgow next week,

Southampton on February 5th This week, Christian churches around

the world begin marking the 500th anniversary of the Protestant

reformation in Europe. Martin Luther pinned his 95

Articles to the church doors The two most senior bishops

in the Church of England, the Archbishops of Canterbury

and York, have called on the Church to repent its part

in the Reformation, and to remember the many who died or were

persecuted, both Roman Catholics and Anglicans, all in the name

of the same Lord, Jesus Christ. In those times, Cardinals

of the Catholic church or the archbishops of the Church

of England were at the very heart of power in each

Tudor monarch's court. And even now, 26 Church of England

bishops still have seats Yet all the world's great

faiths now have followers in today's United Kingdom,

and only 49% of Britons say they are Christians,

while 42% claim they have no religion at all, according

to a 2015 YouGov poll. Should religion have

any role in politics? There we are. Why did I know you

were coming to me? The new White House is full of fundamentalist

evangelical Christians, young earth creationists who believe that Jesus

is coming soon, and they want it to happen soon, people who don't

believe in climate change or don't care because it is a case of the end

times, the rapture. They should not be allowed anywhere near power,

these people. Are you asking? I'm not making a speech. Religious

people in politics, that's an example, Bishop Toby, they shouldn't

be allowed anywhere near it. One of the really terrible things about

Donald Trump speech at his inauguration was when he asked God

to bless that. But I do think that if religion is a part of some of,

the source of our deepest motivations, our hopes, then it's

got to be able to have a place in politics. Are you worried about some

of those people at the centre of power? Of course I'm worried. They

are religious people. Do you say we will keep religion out of question

mark who else are you going to keep out question much everybody who has

a view about something because you don't like it? The point is we bring

into politics everybody we are, and if we are religious we have to be

able to bring that into politics, to. I'm so sorry, I wanted to come

to you in the last debate because I know you had something to say.

Politics and religion are two massively different ideas, one is a

leap of faith and of love and passion while the other is logic

with passion removed. These are two massively different ideologies. Also

when we look at religion in politics you can only look at the recent 70

years, George Bush being fuelled by God in the invasion of Iraq, and the

Holocaust, Hitler being motivated by his hatred of the dues. They are so

separate. When you try to put politics and religion, what

interpretation of that religion do you look at and who interprets it?

Let's throw that Mary. People are passionate, without religion we

would not, in this country, have had some of the great social movements,

caring for the sick, in the past, lots of great social movements were

driven by people's faith. I couldn't agree more. Right, next question!

That is all very good, and I also agree with the idea that you can't

keep people out of politics. We live in a democracy and in a democracy

everybody over the age of 18 in this country should be able to enter

politics if they wish to, that is a fundamental thing about democracy.

The prison reform movement, abolition of the Atlantic slave

trade... Exactly, we will have people in legislatures and

governments who have political views, and that is absolutely fine,

but it is what you do with them, and a lot of good has come from people

who have done that, absolutely right. But it is when these things

come together and there are difficulties that you have to do

then look at what your Government, for instance, is about, and the

difficulty comes when people try to oppose and do things against the

Government which has been elected by a democratic election. On

conscientious objection, that is a good thing? Not necessarily, some of

the things where the wisdom is that conscientious objection is right,

such as reductive -- reproductive rights and abortion, abortion is

accepted in this country and if you have a move to change that

legislation I don't think there should be conscientious objection.

If you are religious and don't agree with it and you are in Government,

you have to think yourself about how you deal with that. I think that is

the right point that Mary and the Bishop have made, we live in a

liberal democracy, individuals will always have their religious or

humanist beliefs, or nonreligious beliefs, which will compound them to

do certain things one way or another, that is good, you listed

social reform that religious people were involved in, you could do the

same with people with no religious belief as well. People do things

because of their beliefs, that is fine. Groups lobby as well, churches

lobby, that is fine as well. The problem comes when people take

religion into Government and start legislating on the basis of it and

bring religion together with power. You mentioned some of the people now

in donald-macro's White House, it is implementing those things will all,

you see that all over the world. We have such religious diversity in

this country, do we not have to do something to reflect that in the

House of Lords, not just having 26 Church of England... It is all about

representation. If there needs to be 26 people in the House of Lords

representing fatal and nonfatal, there must be a better way to do it.

Having non-quez-macro Or saying, we have got 25% of the senses Kristian,

25% non-believers, we could quote that if we wanted to. There is no

clear distinction between religion and politics, religion is an

improvement of the South, politics is an improvement Society, and the

improvement of the Selt should help you improve society which helps you

prove yourself, so one improves the other, there no clear definition.

Very difficult to know... One of the issues here, the faith leaders that

politicians listen to have not been democratically elected, and I agree,

we don't have a problem that people have religious opinions and bring

that into politics, the problem is these faith leaders, for example the

Pope, does not represent the opinion of most Catholics who use

contraception, so the problem is when established religion comes in

and get privileges. It is also a consequence of the change of

religious authority where in previous generations they were

looked up to buy a lot of adherents of tradition whereas now, given the

Internet and the way society has changed, religious authority itself

is very different. Let's go to the audience. My Judaism drives forward

my beliefs and the way I work in this world. You will not find any

key piece of legislation in any country that isn't based on some

religious principle. I am not allowed to murder somebody, it is

against the law. Where does that come from? The ten Commandments. It

predated the ten Commandments! Fine, but it is certainly codified in

those instructions given to us as human beings as how to act with each

other. Religion drives these things forward, it is what makes people go

into politics and not just do things because they want the power, they do

it because they believe that they want to change the world. Human

beings' behaviour read the Bible, not the other way round. We could

get into a long discussion about who wrote the Bible! I'm happy to accept

it could be that the Bible was written by human beings, but who

inspired that? Who was the thinking behind it, where did it come from?

Read the Bible, re-creation is close to Darwin's theory of evolution,

there is no separation between scientific laws and religious laws.

You can bring them together and so long as you don't act in the

extreme... It makes evolutionary sense not to kill somebody in your

own tribe. I don't this is ready disagree but it is worth pointing

out that politics today and the world we are living in today and the

political questions we face are more complicated than those faced by the

writers of the Bible, you did not have to deal with the potential

destruction of the planet by climate change or the need for complicated

states to deal with hyper diversity in religious and other terms or

reconcile questions on a much larger global scale that we have to

reconcile today like justice, equality and fairness and so on,

Andy Powell as human beings hold over our destiny which is greater

than in the past. -- and the power human beings hold. So one of the

problems that I mentioned earlier is when you start ignoring these and

giving inappropriate answers, so those states in the world that are

completely religious like Saudi Arabia or Iran, or those states

where religion is very much a part of the state but the state is not

completely religious, like Pakistan, I think tends to rank low on scales

of justice of equality and social fairness in the world and that is

partly because they are using religious ways of dealing with big

questions which are old-fashioned. If we want to talk about the

Commandments, thou shalt not kill, bear full swing this, steel, those

are three basic that predate religion, they essentially you don't

need to be religious to take those things into your morality, so what

is special about people who might have a belief in a supernatural

divine being that qualifies them in anyway to be part of a political

process? They are talking about eternity, not the political cycle.

The question is, is it based in the way our society is and our world is?

As a Christian, I would say that is the case because God made it that

way, so if we are living according to those, we are living according to

the grain of the way God made it, so that is the point. I'm a person of

faith, it is all about the next thing, I live in this world, I can

see the problems Andrew is talking about about global injustice, if the

journey of faith was you find faith and then you die, basically, because

it is about rapture and the next world, that is not what it is, it is

working out those values, all kinds of different fates uphold justice

and equality and so much is about interpretation because I would

absolutely not align myself with many of the things that happened at

the inauguration so much is about interpretation but at its best...

You are just criticising someone else's religion now! This is how

divisive religion can be! This is true! Religion and politics are

about serving communities, about others and getting rid of your own

power to empower other people's power. Melinda, we have not heard

from you for a while, your eyes sparkling with a need to come in on

this. Should religion have a role in politics? I think religion does have

a role in politics because we are motivated, if you do have a faith,

often it is that which drives you forward, and whatever you might

believe, you were saying about thou shalt not kill, and maybe this is

what God has said, it perhaps gives an extra authority to it, I'm not

sure about that, but I think our religion plays an important role in

the individual conscience which then influences how we act in politics.

I'm also a person of faith, and we can have maybe the same religious

belief but we might have very different ways of putting that into

practice. So I think that religion does influence individuals and

individuals influence politics. Theresa May is the daughter of a

vicar, maybe she will bring some of that... She gave a good answer to

this question Roger was asked, even though I don't agree with a lot of

her policies like the expansion of state schools, -- of faith schools,

when she was asked, she said, I do have religious beliefs but in that

country we tend to keep these things to ourselves, and that was a good

answer! Merhi, I would as do the question but it is all stacked

against women here! What I would like to say, we have talked about

people with faith and bringing fates to politics, and of course as you

said in your introduction, 42% of people in this country don't have a

religious faith and I think it is important to get through this idea

that you have morality dependent on religion. It isn't. Most people,

apart from maybe some of the people we are talking about in prison in

the earlier debate, the vast majority of people across the world

have morals, morality, have a basis for their lives and how they live

them which is what we all agree as a moral basis and there is a consensus

about what that is. It doesn't actually depend on a religious

faith. Look at somewhere like Pakistan with the blasphemy law and

the religious laws there. Massively, massively anti-human rights law and

it needs to be repealed, absolutely. Going back to the marches yesterday,

a lot of the concerns that a lot of women had, especially in America, is

this idea that Trump is surrounded by these men who basically don't

believe in abortion, don't believe in the right to the woman to have

control over her body and her reproductive choices... A lot of

Catholics watching would take the same stance, driven by their stance,

and they have every right to believe it. Everybody has a right to

practice their religion as they see fit, I have no concerns about that.

Many people I speak to have no concerns about that either, but what

is concerning is when you have people in power dictating policy

which will then impact not just men but women in America, this is one of

the reasons why so many of us wanted to stand in solidarity with women

who are now seeing all the choices and changes made under Obama, all

the improvements, now being taken back brick by brick. Obama had a

very interesting quote... I don't think we have got time for an

interesting quote! We are at the end! But thank you all very much

indeed for your participation, thank you!

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

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

But for now, it's goodbye from Bradford and have a great Sunday.

We will see you very soon. Thanks once again to our excellent audience

here. APPLAUSE.

To break someone physically... Agh! ..is not a problem.