0:00:08 > 0:00:11Today on The Big Questions: Freedom of speech, taxing the Sunday roast
0:00:11 > 0:00:15and belligerent Buddhism.
0:00:27 > 0:00:29APPLAUSE
0:00:29 > 0:00:32Good morning.
0:00:32 > 0:00:34Good to see you.
0:00:34 > 0:00:35I'm Nicky Campbell.
0:00:35 > 0:00:37Welcome to the eleventh series of The Big Questions.
0:00:37 > 0:00:39Today, we're live from the University of East London.
0:00:39 > 0:00:42Welcome, everyone, to The Big Questions.
0:00:42 > 0:00:46CHEERING Lovely.
0:00:46 > 0:00:49On Monday, the new Office For Students opened for business
0:00:49 > 0:00:51as the new regulator for higher education.
0:00:51 > 0:00:55One of its duties will be to ensure that universities enable
0:00:55 > 0:00:59free speech on campus, even for highly controversial
0:00:59 > 0:01:01speakers, provided they stay within the law and do not incite
0:01:01 > 0:01:05hatred or violence.
0:01:05 > 0:01:08On Boxing Day, Jo Johnson, the Minister for Universities
0:01:08 > 0:01:11and Science, set out plans to fine or suspend institutions that fail
0:01:11 > 0:01:17to protect free speech.
0:01:17 > 0:01:19"Young people," he said, "should have the resilience
0:01:19 > 0:01:23and confidence to challenge controversial opinions
0:01:23 > 0:01:25and take part in open, frank and rigorous discussions."
0:01:25 > 0:01:26But many universities and student unions, including
0:01:26 > 0:01:30the one we are in today, have not only banned
0:01:30 > 0:01:33speakers with racist, fascist or anti-LGBT views but have
0:01:33 > 0:01:35declared themselves to be safe spaces, where students must feel
0:01:35 > 0:01:37confident they will never feel demeaned or intimidated
0:01:37 > 0:01:38by what someone else says.
0:01:38 > 0:01:46Is free speech under threat in universities?
0:01:46 > 0:01:53Claire Fox, is it, seriously? Sadly, I think it seriously is. There is an
0:01:53 > 0:01:58increasing trend for people to save the equivalent of, I find that
0:01:58 > 0:02:02offensive, and that basically means shot up. There is an
0:02:02 > 0:02:05institutionalised atmosphere of walking on eggshells, frightened you
0:02:05 > 0:02:09will offend this person, the emergence of identity politics means
0:02:09 > 0:02:15that you have almost the competitive set of groups saying, as this, I
0:02:15 > 0:02:30find that offensive.It is a kind of competition in being offended?
0:02:34 > 0:02:37It comes together with the toxic sense of victimhood which has become
0:02:37 > 0:02:40quite a big thing. I am a victim and I find what you say something that
0:02:40 > 0:02:43makes me feel worse so I wanted to keep quiet. One of the most worrying
0:02:43 > 0:02:46beds for me is the idea that the aspiration for you at 17, 18, 19,
0:02:46 > 0:02:5020, is to want to feel safe. Generally, being young and going to
0:02:50 > 0:02:53university or college I'm growing up, it is a time when you threw off
0:02:53 > 0:02:58all the shackles, you want to take risks, you want to be exposed to new
0:02:58 > 0:03:04ideas. You're not frightened of the outside world, and it seems to me,
0:03:04 > 0:03:10sadly, many young people are being encouraged to be carried by ideas,
0:03:10 > 0:03:14to be scared, to be fearful, and if they hear something they do not
0:03:14 > 0:03:20like, it will damage them forever. I do not think that the authors of
0:03:20 > 0:03:24students will help because the last thing we need is a regulation is
0:03:24 > 0:03:29free speech.It is counter-productive. You think it is
0:03:29 > 0:03:35dangerous. Let's leave it there. Dawn, this is not a safe place here,
0:03:35 > 0:03:40over the years. Sometimes I have wanted it to be. We have had all
0:03:40 > 0:03:44sorts of ghastly people on, present company expected -- present company
0:03:44 > 0:03:51excepted. We have had flashes, is a must. But the great thing is they
0:03:51 > 0:03:55have been challenged, they have been debated with, and more often than
0:03:55 > 0:03:59not their views have been undermined and they have been exposed. Is that
0:03:59 > 0:04:04still happening in universities? Yes, when I was at university we had
0:04:04 > 0:04:09no platform policy. It was stringent and applied to a very small number
0:04:09 > 0:04:13of people. We had that to make sure that other people felt they were
0:04:13 > 0:04:18able to come to campus and express their own free speech. We banned
0:04:18 > 0:04:24fascists and certain extreme Islamist groups. Very few people
0:04:24 > 0:04:30have been no platform. Lots of people have very big platforms in
0:04:30 > 0:04:34the media. They complain that they have not been invited somewhere,
0:04:34 > 0:04:37which is different. Safe spaces are not about people not being offended
0:04:37 > 0:04:41or ever having their views challenge, it is about people being
0:04:41 > 0:04:46able to express their views in an environment. If I have friends
0:04:46 > 0:04:50around the dinner, those people know they should not put a chair through
0:04:50 > 0:04:55my window, or tell me that my food is terrible and never come again.
0:04:55 > 0:05:01There are certain rules and society. This codifies them within a kind of
0:05:01 > 0:05:06private in -- a private institution, membership club. Students should
0:05:06 > 0:05:12have a right through to invite. I agree that the Office For Students
0:05:12 > 0:05:16is not going to help that at all.I would not want to go to your dinner
0:05:16 > 0:05:20party if you presented me with a set of rules before I walked in the
0:05:20 > 0:05:25door. I know you would not invite me anyway, and that is thin enough. Do
0:05:25 > 0:05:29not see this, do not say that, make sure you say that the food is nice,
0:05:29 > 0:05:33and if you see anything I do not like, you're out the door. That is
0:05:33 > 0:05:39what the atmosphere is late in the student union. There is a code for
0:05:39 > 0:05:47what you can say, thing can do. There are not lots of people who
0:05:47 > 0:05:51have not been given a platform. There's all sorts of hysteria about
0:05:51 > 0:05:56free speech on campus. One of the Oxford colleges tried to ban the
0:05:56 > 0:06:00Christian union and the bases that would offend and upset certain
0:06:00 > 0:06:03people because Christianity is offensive. On the other hand you
0:06:03 > 0:06:06will have secular societies that are banned on the basis that religious
0:06:06 > 0:06:11people will say, that is offensive towards us. By the time you have
0:06:11 > 0:06:25finished with that you do not need formal no platform policies. You
0:06:29 > 0:06:31create an atmosphere of, I am frightened to say that.If you spent
0:06:31 > 0:06:35lots of time in universities, as I do, there is a kind of nervousness
0:06:35 > 0:06:37of seeing that unless you have the right opinion, you are not going
0:06:37 > 0:06:40to... What is right opinion? Your welfare officer.What is a safe
0:06:40 > 0:06:47space? It is not a one size fits all what is safe spaces. There is a
0:06:47 > 0:06:50different perception for everyone. It is a place you can come to and
0:06:50 > 0:06:53leave your grievances at the door and say what you want to see and how
0:06:53 > 0:06:59you want to say it with like-minded people. You should be able to have
0:06:59 > 0:07:05that in every institution.What is a like-minded person?There is no such
0:07:05 > 0:07:08thing as like-minded people, it is just the idea of having an area that
0:07:08 > 0:07:13you can go to and be OK with your surroundings without having rules
0:07:13 > 0:07:18and regulations. Without being covered in terms of what they say.
0:07:18 > 0:07:24Would you give save space to LGBT people who are worried about people
0:07:24 > 0:07:30of faith who have views that are the opposite to theirs, because of the
0:07:30 > 0:07:36holy books?Everyone deserves a safe space, from every community, in
0:07:36 > 0:07:41terms of...Do people who do not approve of homosexuality deserve a
0:07:41 > 0:07:48safe space from LGBT people?If that is what it takes for them to feel
0:07:48 > 0:07:54available to express their views. This is the problem. That is the
0:07:54 > 0:07:56sort of rabbit hole that such a fundamental attitude to this
0:07:56 > 0:08:02produces. When I was an undergraduate, we did have safe
0:08:02 > 0:08:05spaces, but they were particular rooms on particular days when
0:08:05 > 0:08:08particular groups were having particular meetings. The LGBT group
0:08:08 > 0:08:14might have it, or the women rights campaign, or black and minority
0:08:14 > 0:08:18students might have a room where they could control the balance of
0:08:18 > 0:08:24the debate. The problem now is that some student unions have sought to
0:08:24 > 0:08:30make the whole universities save space. That is not sustainable.
0:08:30 > 0:08:36Eventually you end up with lots of little boxes where no one wants to
0:08:36 > 0:08:39be encountered by anyone else risk feeling unsafe. These incidents do
0:08:39 > 0:08:47happen. It is untrue what was said, that these things do not happen. Our
0:08:47 > 0:08:51affiliated societies and campuses, in the last five years, we have had
0:08:51 > 0:08:55a dozen situations where meetings have been disrupted and unable to
0:08:55 > 0:09:01proceed, or they have been banned for -- from freshers' fears, or
0:09:01 > 0:09:07threatened with deregistration from student unions, mostly from
0:09:07 > 0:09:11criticism of religion, or some satire or mockery of religious
0:09:11 > 0:09:15beliefs, sometimes just from questioning religious beliefs. That
0:09:15 > 0:09:20is happening all over England. The consequence of that is not just
0:09:20 > 0:09:26individual meetings been disrupted, but free speech suffering, because
0:09:26 > 0:09:30people feel intimidated.Three years since Charlie Hebdo. People are also
0:09:30 > 0:09:38worried about the expense of the security. You want to come in. Carry
0:09:38 > 0:09:46on. What is your point?I think we need to look at what free speech
0:09:46 > 0:09:51actually means. Free speech or something, essentially, will it
0:09:51 > 0:09:55should not be the case for one particular set of people get to
0:09:55 > 0:09:59define what it means. Everyone here will agree that debate and
0:09:59 > 0:10:02discussion and free speech at a fundamental part of the democracy we
0:10:02 > 0:10:06live in but what I see is a double standard associated with free speech
0:10:06 > 0:10:11as we know it today, and I think it is riddled with hypocrisy, we are
0:10:11 > 0:10:17seeing Jo Johnson, for example, saying that people should not be
0:10:17 > 0:10:20banned, but at the same time, we have a government pursuing a toxic
0:10:20 > 0:10:23prevent agenda which makes Muslim students feel they cannot speak
0:10:23 > 0:10:31freely.We have debated Prevent.It is not about debating or discussing
0:10:31 > 0:10:36Prevent, it is about students in classrooms who have views that are
0:10:36 > 0:10:41not palatable, and they can be recommended by their academic sign
0:10:41 > 0:10:45teachers to the Prevent channel stream. They would be considered as
0:10:45 > 0:10:50extremist.You used to be a Muslim? Yes, we work with people on the left
0:10:50 > 0:10:54religion. We find that I'd universities it is all about power
0:10:54 > 0:11:01structure. We deal with safe spaces because people get punished in
0:11:01 > 0:11:03different countries are leaving religion. If you have no power on
0:11:03 > 0:11:10campus, if you used to be an extra was witness, a Christian, I save
0:11:10 > 0:11:14space needs are not heard. We do not need that. We need a place we can
0:11:14 > 0:11:19talk and express their views because we do not get to do that in other
0:11:19 > 0:11:24countries. I find a lot of things that religious groups in university
0:11:24 > 0:11:27campuses say offensive. They are offensive to me and the fact that
0:11:27 > 0:11:32exist but I do not try and shut them down. I want to have a debate. This
0:11:32 > 0:11:37question for me is all about having a conversation. The fact we have Tom
0:11:37 > 0:11:41supporters in this audience is a good thing because I can talk to
0:11:41 > 0:11:45them. You can only move forward if you can do that, otherwise you get
0:11:45 > 0:11:49the kind of fascism we are seeing today.Just in relation to the point
0:11:49 > 0:11:56about Prevent, an important point, the who defines free speech point,
0:11:56 > 0:12:01free speech is something that has emerged out of hundreds of years of
0:12:01 > 0:12:06fights by people who fought to speak freely. Every single one of us has
0:12:06 > 0:12:10gained from freedom fighters over the years, whether they're fighting
0:12:10 > 0:12:15oppression of women, slavery, race, all of that has been gained by
0:12:15 > 0:12:19fighting intellectually, using words and ideas, and every single one of
0:12:19 > 0:12:24those ideas has offended someone at some point. My concern is that I
0:12:24 > 0:12:28constantly hear the argument that you go on as a free-speech
0:12:28 > 0:12:32absolutist, but that is at -- and that is an expression of white
0:12:32 > 0:12:36privilege of an elite group, or because the Tories said I do not
0:12:36 > 0:12:40agree. Every single one of us should fight for free speech. I am
0:12:40 > 0:12:44constantly offended by some of the nonsense I hear all the time, but I
0:12:44 > 0:12:49think I can cope. We should not patronise young people but sit -- by
0:12:49 > 0:12:53suggesting they hear something obnoxious or offensive and that is
0:12:53 > 0:12:53it. APPLAUSE
0:12:53 > 0:13:00. Do you have safe spaces for ex-Muslims?We have safe spaces for
0:13:00 > 0:13:05everyone from every community. It is quite patronising to say that
0:13:05 > 0:13:09students cannot have open debates. They do have open debates on a
0:13:09 > 0:13:20regular basis.Work with me to get it into your campus and then we can
0:13:20 > 0:13:24do that.Students have debates all the time. It is patronising to say
0:13:24 > 0:13:29that they do not. Speech is not speech any more.That is the
0:13:29 > 0:13:34problem. We have had student unions tell us that we are offensive. They
0:13:34 > 0:13:39have cancelled us because they say we are offensive. Every institution
0:13:39 > 0:13:43is different. All because we talk about abuse. We have young people
0:13:43 > 0:13:48who made Thomas, who tried to kill themselves. We are told we are
0:13:48 > 0:13:54abusing religious institutions, just Muslims. We have had feminist and
0:13:54 > 0:13:57LGBT societies say, we are worried about offending Muslims. I spent 25
0:13:57 > 0:14:02years of my life as a Muslim. When people tell me I am offending my own
0:14:02 > 0:14:07people, so I am not allowed to speak, I find that extremely unsafe
0:14:07 > 0:14:11for myself but I do not try to shut other people down.Let's get more
0:14:11 > 0:14:17audience reaction on this. Good morning, how are you doing?Say
0:14:17 > 0:14:21whatever you want. The real issue should be about this body that has
0:14:21 > 0:14:26been set up.I do not want to discuss the body. I want to discuss
0:14:26 > 0:14:31the substantive issues so I want to censor you on that one. I want to
0:14:31 > 0:14:38talk about Toby Young. He has been spoken about a lot this week. Do you
0:14:38 > 0:14:42think there is a prescription on free speech in universities at the
0:14:42 > 0:14:47moment, are we heading in that direction?I think that is a bad
0:14:47 > 0:14:53thing. Student unions are their own organisation. It should be bent to
0:14:53 > 0:14:57them to make a call and he speaks. It is a student led body.You voted
0:14:57 > 0:15:03for it, here.
0:15:03 > 0:15:07The gentleman who just mentioned Toby Young, that is the substantive
0:15:07 > 0:15:10issue. There was legislation in place that we are protected by
0:15:10 > 0:15:15European law in terms of freedom of speech, there is legislation from
0:15:15 > 0:15:201986 which protects freedom of speech on campus. I genuinely think
0:15:20 > 0:15:25that Jo Johnson is trying to reset the agenda to sidestep and try to
0:15:25 > 0:15:31cover up. It is an act of political mendacity to try to cover up the
0:15:31 > 0:15:35substantive issues in education. The privatisation of universities,
0:15:35 > 0:15:41the...You think it is a smoke screen?The appointment of Toby
0:15:41 > 0:15:46Young, 200,000 academics, students and other stakeholders have signed a
0:15:46 > 0:15:52petition to say this guy is toxic. Is freedom of speech being curtailed
0:15:52 > 0:15:55in universities? I think this points to a wider
0:15:55 > 0:15:58problem in society. Views have always been polarised, but
0:15:58 > 0:16:03particularly with social media we have the ability to edit out people,
0:16:03 > 0:16:07views we do not like organisations. In a way that is healthy for us, in
0:16:07 > 0:16:13many ways it is not. All we are doing is giving ourselves quite a
0:16:13 > 0:16:16cosy, single-minded, narrow-minded view of the world. I think part of
0:16:16 > 0:16:23the problem is, with present company excepted, there is such a lack of
0:16:23 > 0:16:28grey area and debate. Any contrary views are classed as a threat or
0:16:28 > 0:16:32people get defensive. Before you know it's a debate turns into
0:16:32 > 0:16:38somebody being a Ramona or a racist or a lefty or a Nazi, and to throw
0:16:38 > 0:16:44these things out there without thought -- turns into somebody being
0:16:44 > 0:16:50a Remoaner.Dawn, what is your understanding... I'm sure Claire has
0:16:50 > 0:16:53something to say on this, but what about trigger warnings, are they a
0:16:53 > 0:16:56good thing? When something is coming up which might be offensive or
0:16:56 > 0:17:00upsetting and it is highlighted? Lots of my friends are academics and
0:17:00 > 0:17:05lots of them use trigger warnings in their courses. I don't think there
0:17:05 > 0:17:07anything different to watching television, yesterday I watched
0:17:07 > 0:17:18something on the BBC added said contains strong language. It is
0:17:18 > 0:17:20warning people what you expect to see so people are not surprised.
0:17:20 > 0:17:22Shakespeare plays are included sometimes?Exactly. Some people have
0:17:22 > 0:17:25to steel themselves a little bit. If you watch a film and it includes a
0:17:25 > 0:17:29really graphic rape scene and it takes you by surprise, it can be
0:17:29 > 0:17:33shocking. Some people can find it quite hard. I think one of the main
0:17:33 > 0:17:37things we have not talked about is that free speech, brilliant, but one
0:17:37 > 0:17:42of the issues is one of the reasons why some campuses are concerned
0:17:42 > 0:17:48about this is speech is not without consequence. For instance, lots of
0:17:48 > 0:17:52my friends after Brexit have experience lots of racist abuse as a
0:17:52 > 0:17:56result of the political climate. Many of my gay friends regularly
0:17:56 > 0:18:01beaten up. I think when people incite...Are regularly beaten up?I
0:18:01 > 0:18:08regularly have gay and...There are laws against inciting violence?
0:18:08 > 0:18:12Police had been cut, it is very difficult to find these people. I
0:18:12 > 0:18:15have been sexually assaulted twice in public and nobody has been
0:18:15 > 0:18:19caught. There are laws but we have to think about the consequences
0:18:19 > 0:18:25beach, the consequence of it -- of inciting racial, LGBT and sexual
0:18:25 > 0:18:31hatred.A little bit on trigger warnings, relating to the very good
0:18:31 > 0:18:35points you made, I think there is a real danger that we are stuck in
0:18:35 > 0:18:40echo chambers and never get exposed to new ideas. One thing that happens
0:18:40 > 0:18:44when you go to university, the very nature are bit is that you will be
0:18:44 > 0:18:48exposed to new ideas, new literature and readings. If you do literature
0:18:48 > 0:18:52and you do Shakespeare, the idea that you think you might need a
0:18:52 > 0:18:55trigger warning on a Shakespeare play, why are you studying
0:18:55 > 0:18:59literature if you do not know it has a bit of violence? But trigger
0:18:59 > 0:19:04warnings are not just used in just a token warning, the inferences that
0:19:04 > 0:19:08you will not cope with it and the arguments by academics is that they
0:19:08 > 0:19:11have to put trigger warnings on because they are frightened that
0:19:11 > 0:19:16students might complain if they don't. Dawn, it is your very point
0:19:16 > 0:19:21about the consumerisation of higher education, academics feel under
0:19:21 > 0:19:25pressure to play to what they consider the student body demands.
0:19:25 > 0:19:30That is a very dangerous game. When you are a student, an academic
0:19:30 > 0:19:34should never give you what you want, keep you satisfied.I do not think
0:19:34 > 0:19:40that is true at all.That is why we call it a debate.If I went to
0:19:40 > 0:19:44university and they refuse to teach me, I would be furious.If you go at
0:19:44 > 0:19:4818 and you say give me what I want, you will never learn anything. The
0:19:48 > 0:19:52point is you do not know what you want, the point about academic life
0:19:52 > 0:20:00is it opens your minds up to things you need to know.I am sorry but
0:20:00 > 0:20:05that is patronising for the student body. If you're going to university
0:20:05 > 0:20:09to study, you have to have access to education and ask whatever you need
0:20:09 > 0:20:14to ask and receiver. Moving forward, in terms of trigger warning, it is
0:20:14 > 0:20:17very essential. You do not know what that didn't might have experienced
0:20:17 > 0:20:21that day or what they have been through or how they even got to
0:20:21 > 0:20:28class that day. -- do not know what that students might have experience.
0:20:28 > 0:20:35Of Nigel Farage came here to give a talk, what would you think?He would
0:20:35 > 0:20:41be no platforms, the student body with no platform him. That is what
0:20:41 > 0:20:48the majority of the student body wants.Debate with him...? No
0:20:48 > 0:20:51platforming Nigel Farage?I am relatively sympathetic to the
0:20:51 > 0:20:56liberal case are making safe spaces, but epic that is going too file. If
0:20:56 > 0:21:01the leader of a political party that won the European elections in this
0:21:01 > 0:21:05country is shut out of institutions because the majority of students do
0:21:05 > 0:21:09not want him, that is a problem. Minorities have a right to hear
0:21:09 > 0:21:13views that other people might find offensive. The whole idea of no
0:21:13 > 0:21:16platform seems to have eaten itself it will justify shutting people out
0:21:16 > 0:21:21because of majority rule on campus. Thank you all very much, thank you
0:21:21 > 0:21:25for your contributions. We have two motivates and I want you to really
0:21:25 > 0:21:29push the envelope, all right, and say whatever you want. Thank you for
0:21:29 > 0:21:30your contributions.
0:21:30 > 0:21:33If you have something to say about that debate,
0:21:33 > 0:21:36log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions, and follow the link to where you can
0:21:36 > 0:21:37join in the discussion online.
0:21:37 > 0:21:38Or contribute on Twitter.
0:21:38 > 0:21:40We're also debating live this morning at the University
0:21:40 > 0:21:43of East London, "Should meat be taxed to save the planet?"
0:21:43 > 0:21:45And "Has the West misunderstood Buddhism?"
0:21:45 > 0:21:47So, get tweeting or emailing on those topics now,
0:21:47 > 0:21:49or send us any other ideas or thoughts you may
0:21:49 > 0:21:51have about the show.
0:21:54 > 0:21:57January, and the new year brings new diets promising ways of losing
0:21:57 > 0:22:01the extra pounds piled on over Christmas.
0:22:01 > 0:22:05This year there's Veganuary, with 150,000 people signing up
0:22:05 > 0:22:11to renounce all animal products for at least the first
0:22:11 > 0:22:12month of the year.
0:22:12 > 0:22:14No meat, no fish, no milk, no cheese, no eggs.
0:22:14 > 0:22:16Just vegetables, fruit, cereals, nuts and pulses -
0:22:16 > 0:22:18every day for a month.
0:22:18 > 0:22:23It's claimed veganism is not only healthier for us but also better
0:22:23 > 0:22:25for the planet because farming livestock is one of the biggest
0:22:25 > 0:22:28causes of global warming.
0:22:28 > 0:22:30Some experts say livestock and its by-products account for 51%
0:22:30 > 0:22:33of greenhouse gas emissions.
0:22:33 > 0:22:35But if the smell of your Sunday roast is just
0:22:35 > 0:22:38too tempting to resist, what about eating less meat?
0:22:38 > 0:22:41And what if meat - like alcohol, sugar and cigarettes -
0:22:41 > 0:22:43was taxed to deter us from eating so much?
0:22:43 > 0:22:46And what if the taxes raised could be used to offset any damage
0:22:46 > 0:22:49farming livestock may cause?
0:22:49 > 0:22:58Should meat be taxed to save the planet?
0:22:58 > 0:23:07Mark O'Connor why should it be taxed, and how much? -- Marco, why
0:23:07 > 0:23:11should it be taxed?There are reasons about why you might want to
0:23:11 > 0:23:15regulate meat. You might not be happy about how meat is produced,
0:23:15 > 0:23:18some people have brought to pay tax because of antibiotic use, or you
0:23:18 > 0:23:24might not be happy with mass production. That could be easily
0:23:24 > 0:23:28done...Animal welfare?Then there are health and environmental
0:23:28 > 0:23:31motivations for why you would want to introduce regulation. From a
0:23:31 > 0:23:37health perspective, red meat and processed meats have been declared
0:23:37 > 0:23:40carcinogens by the cancer agency of the World Health Organisation, there
0:23:40 > 0:23:45is a clear case of why you would want to regulate meat in some form
0:23:45 > 0:23:48or other. If you think about other carcinogens like tobacco and is best
0:23:48 > 0:23:52us, they are heavily regulated. Finally there is an environmental
0:23:52 > 0:24:00dimensional. -- like tobacco and asbestos. The food we eat creates
0:24:00 > 0:24:04around a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions and it is expected to
0:24:04 > 0:24:12go up. In one form or another we have to basically tackle what we
0:24:12 > 0:24:17eat.Can I stop you there, it has just occurred to me, less meat means
0:24:17 > 0:24:25more people... They would want more soya and rely on palm oil, which is
0:24:25 > 0:24:28destroying ecosystems, destroying beautiful creatures and
0:24:28 > 0:24:35environments. That is the trade-off, isn't it?Not really. The amount of
0:24:35 > 0:24:39soy beans produced, most of it is fed to animals, right? If we didn't
0:24:39 > 0:24:45have that amount of meat production we would be able to free some land
0:24:45 > 0:24:50up that is now used for producing soya. If you shift diets, you need
0:24:50 > 0:24:53to produce May be more lagoons, but not necessarily more palm oil, for
0:24:53 > 0:25:02example. -- you need to produce may be more legumes. Palm oil has
0:25:02 > 0:25:05environment or consequences that one does not follow from the other. If
0:25:05 > 0:25:11you compare how intensive meat is on the environment, says greenhouse
0:25:11 > 0:25:17gases meat is many times more than legumes.Richard is an organic
0:25:17 > 0:25:24farmer. So you pay £15 for your joint of beef, how much should it
0:25:24 > 0:25:28be?That depends where you come from, from a health perspective run
0:25:28 > 0:25:35by mental perspective?Straight answer.About 20 or 30% more.What
0:25:35 > 0:25:41do you make about taxing meat? Climate change is a huge problem,
0:25:41 > 0:25:45and we need to reshape our diets to make the balance between what is a
0:25:45 > 0:25:50healthy diet and a sustainable way of farming. My major concern about a
0:25:50 > 0:25:55meat tax, I think would make things worse -- my major concern. Both in
0:25:55 > 0:26:01terms of greenhouse gases and in other aspects. I challenge the fact
0:26:01 > 0:26:072727% of greenhouse gases are coming from agriculture, -- I challenge the
0:26:07 > 0:26:11fact that when you say 27% of greenhouse gases are coming from
0:26:11 > 0:26:15agriculture, those are coming from statistics which looked a rainforest
0:26:15 > 0:26:19destruction and South America. At that time, we were planting forests
0:26:19 > 0:26:24in the UK. UK Government figures show 10% of UK emissions come from
0:26:24 > 0:26:29agriculture and about 5% of that from cattle. 5% is a more accurate
0:26:29 > 0:26:36figure for what is happening with cattle. If we tax red meat, which is
0:26:36 > 0:26:43higher than chicken, we will see the complete loss of all traditional
0:26:43 > 0:26:46livestock for farmers in this country. They are struggling to make
0:26:46 > 0:26:50a living as it is and we would see increased production of intensive
0:26:50 > 0:26:54meets because that is the only way that farmers can survive.
0:26:54 > 0:26:57Interesting point, people looking for cheap meat so it will be even
0:26:57 > 0:27:03worse for the animals? One thing that is important,
0:27:03 > 0:27:06tackling it from a client perspective, it does not make so
0:27:06 > 0:27:11much sense to only argue for a meat tax. What our studies suggest is
0:27:11 > 0:27:15that some form or another, you have to bring agriculture into the
0:27:15 > 0:27:23picture. At the moment it is only energy production.In the time we
0:27:23 > 0:27:28have, if it is going to tax meat, people will be looking to get meat
0:27:28 > 0:27:33as cheap as possible, and so the production will be as cheap as
0:27:33 > 0:27:37possible and animals will be in terrible conditions, more so than
0:27:37 > 0:27:46now.We must not mix issues. Intensive farming is what you want
0:27:46 > 0:27:49to get away from, presumably, but you will need more of it to get
0:27:49 > 0:27:53cheaper meat?If you want to get away from intensive farming, you
0:27:53 > 0:27:57must regulated. Easy, right? Talking about climate change, we must
0:27:57 > 0:28:02regulate anything that causes emissions. If you tax anything you
0:28:02 > 0:28:07get tax revenues, you can use them for something. If that would be
0:28:07 > 0:28:11something that would be negative for farmers, of course there are
0:28:11 > 0:28:15revenues that could be used to support farmers to switch to more
0:28:15 > 0:28:19environmentally benign production techniques.
0:28:19 > 0:28:25A massive issue, massive challenge and a mass of cultural change.
0:28:25 > 0:28:29Marianne Landzettel, a journalist and Soil Association blogger, is
0:28:29 > 0:28:36this a go?To me, and meat tax would be detrimental. Not all meat is
0:28:36 > 0:28:39created equal, especially in the UK we have a lot of marginal land which
0:28:39 > 0:28:45can only be used as grazing land. We are talking about land in the
0:28:45 > 0:28:49uplands, we are also talking about a lot of marshlands in coastal areas.
0:28:49 > 0:28:54Animals are actually doing a lot of good there, helping to protect the
0:28:54 > 0:29:00environment. They are doing that because Grassland only really
0:29:00 > 0:29:03flourishes if you have animals grazing them, otherwise it reverts
0:29:03 > 0:29:08back to shrub land.Churning up the land and providing a place for
0:29:08 > 0:29:18seeding?For seeding, soil building going on... Wild flowers... All of
0:29:18 > 0:29:22that. It is beneficial for migratory birds, they would not have anywhere
0:29:22 > 0:29:29to go. In the uplands if you do the agriculture right, and I know there
0:29:29 > 0:29:32is overgrazing, that of the grazing is done sustainable eat you are
0:29:32 > 0:29:37building soil. We probably all remember the terrible flooding we
0:29:37 > 0:29:42have seen in some January Yes and February Yes. If there was good land
0:29:42 > 0:29:48management with animals, we could reduce flooding downstream because
0:29:48 > 0:29:55the soil would have the ability to hold more water. You cannot do that
0:29:55 > 0:29:59without animals, which is why to me animals are really an integral part
0:29:59 > 0:30:05of a sustainable, climate resilient and in food terms healthy
0:30:05 > 0:30:13agricultural.Lisa from Peta, this could be worse for animals to tax
0:30:13 > 0:30:18meat?I am happy we brought animals into the conversation, we can't have
0:30:18 > 0:30:25an honest debate about the coldest... Cost of animal
0:30:25 > 0:30:29agriculture without considering what animals pay the highest price for I
0:30:29 > 0:30:33wish your addiction to meat. The vast majority of animals in this
0:30:33 > 0:30:38country are factory farmed. They are kept in windowless, filthy sheds.
0:30:38 > 0:30:42They are denied everything that gives their life meaning, everything
0:30:42 > 0:30:48that would have made their life natural.And many people feel
0:30:48 > 0:30:51strongly about this. But the danger is you would have more factory
0:30:51 > 0:30:53farming because people would be looking for cheaper meat if meat
0:30:53 > 0:30:59were taxed.
0:30:59 > 0:31:04I do not think so. I think a tax on meat would send an important message
0:31:04 > 0:31:09to consumers that eating meat is not a necessity. It would decrease the
0:31:09 > 0:31:15amount of demand for animals. Currently in the UK alone, we are
0:31:15 > 0:31:18eating 1 billion animals a year. What about the future of the farming
0:31:18 > 0:31:23industry?At the moment, we are breeding animals by the billions so
0:31:23 > 0:31:29we can lock them up in factory farms, so we can harvest them, for
0:31:29 > 0:31:33Flash, to turn them into burgers and sausages. The first thing that would
0:31:33 > 0:31:40happen if we had a tax on meat, we would simply breed less animals.
0:31:40 > 0:31:45Less animals would suffer on farms and in slaughterhouses. That is a
0:31:45 > 0:31:48good thing. The second point I will make is that the days of small
0:31:48 > 0:31:54family farms are gone, they have been replaced by a large-scale,
0:31:54 > 0:31:59industrial factory farms. Farmers have been replaced by machines.
0:31:59 > 0:32:04Also, industries evolve. People can retrain. Those who are forming
0:32:04 > 0:32:08animals can farm plant -based agriculture. Industries evolve. That
0:32:08 > 0:32:12is the way of social and moral progress.Things change, things move
0:32:12 > 0:32:18on. Points from the audience. Let's go to the gentleman in the orange
0:32:18 > 0:32:29top. Good morning.I find that a tax on meat, or food in general, I am
0:32:29 > 0:32:33opposed to it. It will affect the poorest people first. I am opposed
0:32:33 > 0:32:39to that. But I do feel that factory farming is terrible, particularly
0:32:39 > 0:32:46the way that animals are treated. Perhaps we could sort of separate
0:32:46 > 0:32:54this towards taxing factory meat, and organic and free range remain
0:32:54 > 0:32:58untaxed, to incentivise farmers to move towards that production.This
0:32:58 > 0:33:07is music to Richard's years.There are several groups in this country
0:33:07 > 0:33:10who are trying hard to produce animals with wealthy and mine, which
0:33:10 > 0:33:16is less harmful to the environment. One group of organic farmers, and
0:33:16 > 0:33:20another group who are trying to rear animals just on pasture. There is a
0:33:20 > 0:33:24massive difference between red meat produced in the UK and red meat
0:33:24 > 0:33:29produced in America. The UK is one of the best countries in the world
0:33:29 > 0:33:34for producing grass. 70% of our farmland is in grass for assigned
0:33:34 > 0:33:38environmental reasons. It would do terrible harm to plough that up and
0:33:38 > 0:33:45grow crops. People do not realise that sustainable, continue its crop
0:33:45 > 0:33:50production is not sustainable. We are degrading the soil. The only way
0:33:50 > 0:33:53to restore the health and fertility of those soils is to put it back to
0:33:53 > 0:33:58grass. Grass is an amazing crop. It has three times as much material
0:33:58 > 0:34:02underground in the rates than above ground. It will restore Corbyn into
0:34:02 > 0:34:07the ground and make the sole resilient against climate change. If
0:34:07 > 0:34:12we plough that up, we put massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the
0:34:12 > 0:34:16atmosphere. That is why what Marco is suggesting will make things worse
0:34:16 > 0:34:20rather than better.I want to go around the audience.Come back
0:34:20 > 0:34:28quickly on that. Very quickly, it is a very passionate debate, but I
0:34:28 > 0:34:33think it would make sense to view it more dispassionately. We do not want
0:34:33 > 0:34:38that. I know. We are on television after all. We are not arguing that
0:34:38 > 0:34:45people should go vegan, or that all animals will disappear. Of course
0:34:45 > 0:34:52not. We estimate that if you put a tax of 20%, 30%, consumption would
0:34:52 > 0:34:58go down by 10%, that would be half a portion of meat each week. Not much.
0:34:58 > 0:35:04That revenue you can use to support lower income households, if you
0:35:04 > 0:35:08basically refund the revenues are you put them in health promotion
0:35:08 > 0:35:12programmes.You have thought it through. More points, please. At the
0:35:12 > 0:35:18Bachini mustard top.I think the thing that needs to happen is people
0:35:18 > 0:35:25need to be sure on that eating less meat is a realistic option. At the
0:35:25 > 0:35:28moment, people underestimate their ability to do that, they think it is
0:35:28 > 0:35:36impossible. If people in advertising and food chains, if they showed that
0:35:36 > 0:35:40eating less meat is possible, then people would ultimately buy less
0:35:40 > 0:35:44meat, and it would not be the default thing to buy meat for every
0:35:44 > 0:35:50day of the week.Thank you, moving along.Good morning. I think people
0:35:50 > 0:35:54are forgetting how vegetables and agriculture are produced. Recently
0:35:54 > 0:35:59people have been using fertiliser containing ammonia, so when there is
0:35:59 > 0:36:05massive rainfall, bodies of water, that ammonia is toxic to animals,
0:36:05 > 0:36:08marine life, it gets destroyed. What is to be said about the marine life
0:36:08 > 0:36:14that gets destroyed if people opt for going vegan.More vegetables
0:36:14 > 0:36:19will be needed. Do you want to come in, Claire? Most people think, do
0:36:19 > 0:36:24they not, that we should be eating less meat?I do not see why.
0:36:24 > 0:36:31Genuinely. My priorities are world hunger, people being pure, not being
0:36:31 > 0:36:37able to afford good cuts of meat, I worry about those kind of things. I
0:36:37 > 0:36:42think that as a humanist, with a small age, rather than adopting your
0:36:42 > 0:36:46organisation, what I am interested in is how we can improve humankind's
0:36:46 > 0:36:55functioning. -- with a small H. I think animals are things that humans
0:36:55 > 0:37:02use. It does not mean we should abuse them. I think that it taxes
0:37:02 > 0:37:06even more political.It moralise is the question.We do it with
0:37:06 > 0:37:10cigarettes. I do not necessarily approve of it in that relationship
0:37:10 > 0:37:14but earlier it was said that there are arguments, they might be
0:37:14 > 0:37:19dangerous for you. In relation to meat, I think we want people to be
0:37:19 > 0:37:26afford to be able to buy meat regularly, and not be forced out of
0:37:26 > 0:37:29buying it, and ultimately, some of the arguments, the popularity of
0:37:29 > 0:37:34being vegan, it is almost a new religion, in the way that people are
0:37:34 > 0:37:39trying to find a purpose in life and have not quite got one and this has
0:37:39 > 0:37:49become the latest fad.Who wants to respond to that? We like debate. Go
0:37:49 > 0:37:56on.Veganism is a kind of religion. I 100% agree it is a religion.I
0:37:56 > 0:38:03wanted somebody to be against it. Carry on. We have a perception that
0:38:03 > 0:38:07veganism is extremely beneficial for our health, and it is, but most
0:38:07 > 0:38:12people who are vegan or mineral deficient. They are. Vitamins such
0:38:12 > 0:38:17as B12, there are no plans on earth that has a sustainable amount of
0:38:17 > 0:38:21that vitamin that is needed for human function. We should eat less
0:38:21 > 0:38:25meat because it is tragic how animals are abused and how they are
0:38:25 > 0:38:30giving to me on my plate. If I see a video of a chicken and how it is far
0:38:30 > 0:38:35and I will not want to eat meat again.I agree with that.
0:38:35 > 0:38:40Interesting messages on that. I am glad I stayed with you.Over there.
0:38:40 > 0:38:47I do not think that is true. I think vegan bag, and the NHS supports this
0:38:47 > 0:38:52and the United Nations, AE vegan and vegetarian diet is healthy and
0:38:52 > 0:38:57better for the planet. We need to it and think it it as a positive
0:38:57 > 0:39:03change, moving to a plant -based diet. Climate change will have a
0:39:03 > 0:39:06massive impact on humans. Over the next 30 years we will see hundreds
0:39:06 > 0:39:10of millions of people migrating away from parts of the earth that have
0:39:10 > 0:39:13been burnt by climate change. We will have massive challenges in our
0:39:13 > 0:39:24hands. Andrew. I agree with that point. I want to contradict what
0:39:24 > 0:39:28Claire said, were moral obligations in this question said. I am not on
0:39:28 > 0:39:31either side of this debate in particular but I do not think that
0:39:31 > 0:39:34human beings are simply to be concerned with the welfare of other
0:39:34 > 0:39:39human beings. There should also be a concern for nonhuman animals,
0:39:39 > 0:39:44because they can suffer. We have an obligation to treat them not as
0:39:44 > 0:39:49reasoning beings like herself, but to treat them as other beings
0:39:49 > 0:39:58capable of suffering. -- beings like ours.There is empathy with the
0:39:58 > 0:40:02great apes, and self-awareness.It is a spectrum. That is a really
0:40:02 > 0:40:09important part of the moral context. Cancer is important, climate change
0:40:09 > 0:40:13is important, but so are obligations to other animals on this planet.I
0:40:13 > 0:40:17think that should be taken seriously. Thank you all very much
0:40:17 > 0:40:20indeed. Thank you for your thoughts.
0:40:20 > 0:40:22You can join in all this morning's debates by logging
0:40:22 > 0:40:24on to bbc.co.uk/the big questions and following the link
0:40:24 > 0:40:25to the online discussion.
0:40:25 > 0:40:27Or you can tweet using the hashtag bbctbq.
0:40:27 > 0:40:30Tell us what you think about our last big question, too.
0:40:30 > 0:40:33Has the West misunderstood Buddhism?
0:40:33 > 0:40:36And if you'd like to apply to be in the audience
0:40:36 > 0:40:37at a future show, you can email audiencetbq@mentorn.tv.
0:40:37 > 0:40:40We're in Bradford next Sunday, Cambridge on January 21st
0:40:40 > 0:40:46and Newcastle upon Tyne the week after that.
0:40:46 > 0:40:50We are on the road.
0:40:50 > 0:40:54This Thursday marked the 70th anniversary
0:40:54 > 0:40:58of independence from Britain for Myanmar, formerly Burma.
0:40:58 > 0:41:02And it was in colonial times that the British brought
0:41:02 > 0:41:06the Rohingya people, Muslims from former Bengal,
0:41:06 > 0:41:09to Rakhine province in Burma to develop the land for farming.
0:41:09 > 0:41:12During the war with Japan, the Rohingya people were promised
0:41:12 > 0:41:14independence by the British, but this promise was revoked
0:41:14 > 0:41:19when the Second World War ended.
0:41:19 > 0:41:24So, Britain has had a hand in the fate of the Rohingya people,
0:41:24 > 0:41:25now being forcibly evicted from Rakhine province
0:41:25 > 0:41:27by Buddhist soldiers, in what the UN Commissioner
0:41:27 > 0:41:31for Human Rights has said may be declared a genocide.
0:41:31 > 0:41:36No country is coming to intervene, no-one is suggesting
0:41:36 > 0:41:42direct military action, nothing will be done.
0:41:42 > 0:41:45Yet Myanmar is predominantly a Buddhist country, a philosophy
0:41:45 > 0:41:47whose five moral precepts include not harming any living
0:41:47 > 0:41:49things and not taking something which is not yours.
0:41:49 > 0:41:51How can a Buddhist country treat people who have lived
0:41:51 > 0:41:53there for generations so cruelly?
0:41:53 > 0:42:01Has the West misunderstood Buddhism?
0:42:01 > 0:42:08Livestock about that now. Dr Zarni, an activist and scholar. There is a
0:42:08 > 0:42:14Western cliche, the Richard gear thing, about Buddhism, in sense and
0:42:14 > 0:42:20inner peace and all that.Is that misplaced? Yes, absolutely. The fact
0:42:20 > 0:42:25we're having this debate is as affirmative to your question. Has
0:42:25 > 0:42:33the West misunderstood Buddhism? Also, Islamabad religions. There are
0:42:33 > 0:42:40two points I want to make. One is, when a terrorist bomb blows up in
0:42:40 > 0:42:46Barcelona or wherever, Muslims are made to feel that they need to
0:42:46 > 0:42:49apologise, but when Buddhist countries such as Burma Cambodia
0:42:49 > 0:42:58under the Khmer Rouge, when they commit war crimes or crimes against
0:42:58 > 0:43:00humanity, no western Buddhist community, including Richard Gere
0:43:00 > 0:43:04and the followers of the Dalai llama, are made to feel that they
0:43:04 > 0:43:16need to apologise. It indicates this positive western Orientalism, which
0:43:16 > 0:43:21romanticises the Buddhist people and Buddhism. That is one problem.We
0:43:21 > 0:43:26put them on a pedestal, in a way? Exactly. The other one is the
0:43:26 > 0:43:32religion. These social and political misuses of religion. That is
0:43:32 > 0:43:38universal. All religious systems have been abuse throughout history
0:43:38 > 0:43:42over thousands of years by political and military classes for their
0:43:42 > 0:43:48strategic interests. Buddhism is no exception. I am from a devout
0:43:48 > 0:43:54Buddhist family. I consider myself a fairly spiritual person but I do not
0:43:54 > 0:44:01go to the monastery or pray every day. But the point is, Buddhists are
0:44:01 > 0:44:07no special people, we are just like anyone, every advises capable of
0:44:07 > 0:44:10doing heinous things to other human beings when the situation is
0:44:10 > 0:44:15mobilised.Some people will find it surprising, given the ethos and the
0:44:15 > 0:44:20ethics of the religion, they will find that surprising. I will talk
0:44:20 > 0:44:25about adding sand Su Chi who is a fascinating figure. Great to have
0:44:25 > 0:44:33you back on the programme. A professor of religion and ethics at
0:44:33 > 0:44:37Bath spa University. Without making any judgment on this, take it into
0:44:37 > 0:44:45the mindset of the Buddhist soldier who has been involved in what is a
0:44:45 > 0:44:50genocide, the politician who may see themselves as a devout Buddhist. How
0:44:50 > 0:44:58are they driving this -- how are they justifying this for themselves?
0:44:58 > 0:45:03I think the driving forces politics and nationalism. Closely associated
0:45:03 > 0:45:09with Buddhism. The West, since Victorian times, has appreciated
0:45:09 > 0:45:13Buddhism.The person who was part of the ethnic cleansing, one of those
0:45:13 > 0:45:18people carrying it out, and the genocide, who would also see
0:45:18 > 0:45:25themselves as a devout Buddhist, how are they reconciling bad?It is not
0:45:25 > 0:45:28possible to reconcile, because as a soldier, when you are in arms, you
0:45:28 > 0:45:35are bound by rules. There is no place for your religious conviction.
0:45:35 > 0:45:39But you find justifications?I don't think the soldiers have a choice
0:45:39 > 0:45:44that they cannot kill. I think by definition, when you become a
0:45:44 > 0:45:49soldier, you have to kill. I think here in Myanmar the case is very
0:45:49 > 0:45:56complex. We have to think about Myanmar has eight ethnic groups, you
0:45:56 > 0:46:00know, and the Rohingya are supposed to be the ninth one, which is not
0:46:00 > 0:46:10recognised. There are 8 million Muslims in Myanmar, that is 10% of
0:46:10 > 0:46:15the population. Rohingya is about 800,000.Do they feel under cultural
0:46:15 > 0:46:20threat?I think so. When you think about it generally, frankly
0:46:20 > 0:46:25speaking, if you talk to average people in Sri Lanka or Myanmar,
0:46:25 > 0:46:32there is a growing resentment, I do not know on which basis it comes
0:46:32 > 0:46:37from, but partly because of the growth of the population and
0:46:37 > 0:46:45expansion of businesses, and particularly the introduction of
0:46:45 > 0:46:50unusual dresses which are new to those cultures.How interesting.And
0:46:50 > 0:46:55food habits. So I think prejudices are based on that.So those factors
0:46:55 > 0:47:00are coming into play, consciously and, indeed, perhaps subconsciously.
0:47:00 > 0:47:07Back with you, Aung San Suu Kyi, she won a Nobel Peace Prize and is
0:47:07 > 0:47:14presiding over or endorsing or acquiescing in this genocide. As one
0:47:14 > 0:47:21of my teenage daughters would say, what the hell?Your question was how
0:47:21 > 0:47:24we misunderstood Buddhism. Aung San Suu Kyi lived in England for about
0:47:24 > 0:47:2824 years before returning to Burma in 1988. There is a good argument
0:47:28 > 0:47:33that she misunderstood Buddhism herself. She arrived in Burma with a
0:47:33 > 0:47:37rather sappy and simple-minded version of Buddhism that we have
0:47:37 > 0:47:44accepted here, that it is to do with calm, peacefulness, basically you
0:47:44 > 0:47:49sit cross-legged and all is beautiful. For many others it is the
0:47:49 > 0:47:55ideal religion which has no sin, it is not coercive, it is to do with
0:47:55 > 0:47:59complicated that beautiful concepts like karma, nothing to do with state
0:47:59 > 0:48:05power. In Burma where she arrived in 88, where she is now in power,
0:48:05 > 0:48:09Buddhism was powerfully conditioned by the reaction against colonialism.
0:48:09 > 0:48:14All of the leaders of the fight against British colonialism in Burma
0:48:14 > 0:48:18in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were Buddhist. Usually
0:48:18 > 0:48:24Buddhist monks. They saw that what the British had done in Burma was
0:48:24 > 0:48:31basically remove the keystone of their society and shatter it. As has
0:48:31 > 0:48:35happened in Sri Lanka in slightly different circumstances, the
0:48:35 > 0:48:41religion of 95% of the people and the sense of national identity and
0:48:41 > 0:48:48of patriotically preservation became fatally fused. I think that is the
0:48:48 > 0:48:53core of the problem. As to Aung San Suu Kyi herself, who I have written
0:48:53 > 0:48:56about in two books, I think she has been trapped in a position where she
0:48:56 > 0:49:01has basically become the scapegoat for the actions of a military
0:49:01 > 0:49:06outside of her control because of the Constitution.Is she a prisoner
0:49:06 > 0:49:12of the generals?Yes.I disagree. I shared a panel with Aung San Suu Kyi
0:49:12 > 0:49:16in June 2012 when she returned to England to the London School of
0:49:16 > 0:49:23Economics. She had already declared her presidential ambition, and there
0:49:23 > 0:49:26I was, I also very academic, and I was preassigned to handle this
0:49:26 > 0:49:35question that was emerging as there was organised violence against the
0:49:35 > 0:49:39Rohingya Muslim people, why did she dodge a moral responsibility to
0:49:39 > 0:49:42confront this? The obvious thing people do not want to believe,
0:49:42 > 0:49:46because we have put on the pedestal with Mandela and Gandhi and Martin
0:49:46 > 0:49:50Luther King Junior, she is an anti-Muslim racist. She spoke to
0:49:50 > 0:49:56Mishal Husain on Radio 4, you yourself wrote it, she rest out of
0:49:56 > 0:50:02the studio and said nobody told me a Muslim would be interviewing me --
0:50:02 > 0:50:06she rushed out of the studio. What is Mishal Husain dart background how
0:50:06 > 0:50:13to do with it? -- what does Mishal Husain's background have to do with
0:50:13 > 0:50:21it? She is a racist.Good morning. Aung San Suu Kyi?The Buddha taught
0:50:21 > 0:50:25that the Buddhists destroy Buddhism, it is not Islam which destroys
0:50:25 > 0:50:28Buddhism, it is the Buddhists, by not considering it carefully enough.
0:50:28 > 0:50:37What is happening in Myanmar is that country is destroying Buddhism
0:50:37 > 0:50:42itself. You cannot call yourself a Buddhist country with that going on,
0:50:42 > 0:50:46it is nonsense.What about Aung San Suu Kyi, should she have this Nobel
0:50:46 > 0:50:56Peace Prize rescinded? I see you going, yet, blinking right!
0:50:56 > 0:51:03Yeah, I think it should certainly be revoked. I totally agree with that
0:51:03 > 0:51:06gentleman over there with his statement, there was a lot to be
0:51:06 > 0:51:11looked into in terms of the country itself and it is about time that the
0:51:11 > 0:51:16right people sat around and address the issue full front rather than
0:51:16 > 0:51:19playing around.Would you know platform her or would you want to
0:51:19 > 0:51:23hear for people to question her, bring her to account, make the
0:51:23 > 0:51:28points they want to make and say to her face, you are a disgrace and an
0:51:28 > 0:51:32anti-Muslim racist, and hear her response?It is something that we
0:51:32 > 0:51:36would like to put to membership in terms of a student vote.
0:51:36 > 0:51:45That is the first issue. Hello, sir? What about this? Mabrur Ahmed,
0:51:45 > 0:51:54director of Restless Beings. This militant monk went after you, he is
0:51:54 > 0:51:58leading this, he is a great ideological wellspring of what is
0:51:58 > 0:52:02happening, he would call himself the Buddhists?He would. To go back to
0:52:02 > 0:52:06your question at the beginning, which is has the West misunderstood
0:52:06 > 0:52:12Buddhism? I think we have a problem with an orientalist view of... It is
0:52:12 > 0:52:17a very selective orientalist view. To be honest, I don't think there is
0:52:17 > 0:52:20any world religion which is not peace-loving, but we select Buddhism
0:52:20 > 0:52:26as this idealistic, non-Sin religion, a religion which we want
0:52:26 > 0:52:33to put up on a pedestal. That is a problem, from our perspective. There
0:52:33 > 0:52:38is also an issue of mixing together xenophobia and nationalism to a
0:52:38 > 0:52:46religion. Just as was mentioned before, whenever there is any
0:52:46 > 0:52:49Islamist terrorist attack, the Muslim world has too come out and
0:52:49 > 0:52:53publicly denounce these kind of actions and almost apologise, it
0:52:53 > 0:53:00forces the sculpture of becoming apologist. We had to be careful not
0:53:00 > 0:53:04to vindicate Buddhism to do the same sort of thing. Perhaps that is not
0:53:04 > 0:53:12the way we should be dealing with Islamist terrorism as well. So far
0:53:12 > 0:53:15as this monk is concerned, he is no different bin Laden, he called
0:53:15 > 0:53:19himself the Buddhist bin Laden. He believes that. But bin Laden
0:53:19 > 0:53:23believed he was a Muslim, that does not mean that the vast majority of
0:53:23 > 0:53:27Muslims would subscribe to his ideology of Islam, I do think that
0:53:27 > 0:53:33the majority of Buddhists subscribe to the ideology that this monk
0:53:33 > 0:53:38propagates. We are talking about an ethnic and religious attack on a
0:53:38 > 0:53:42community, the ripping your community. It is not based on
0:53:42 > 0:53:50principles of religion that the Rakhine community and the Burmese
0:53:50 > 0:53:55authorities are attacking these people on, it is on the very premise
0:53:55 > 0:53:59of the Rohingyas religion, because they are Muslim, that is why they
0:53:59 > 0:54:02are being attacked and ostracised and marginalised, not necessarily
0:54:02 > 0:54:14because Buddhism is problematic. Buddhism and this man are basically
0:54:14 > 0:54:17sideshows, the real deal as the military, which patronises him and
0:54:17 > 0:54:27another monk. Aung San Suu Kyi just awarded this person the highest
0:54:27 > 0:54:31Buddhist award, to the man who said that non-believers, non-Buddhists
0:54:31 > 0:54:36are only one half human beings and therefore killing them by the
0:54:36 > 0:54:41millions is not bad karma.We have heard this to history since time
0:54:41 > 0:54:45immemorial, and my humanist friend is going, there we go again.
0:54:45 > 0:54:49Religion. Allow me to take over, if I may, you mentioned a very
0:54:49 > 0:54:53important point about the military. Peter, let's follow the money, which
0:54:53 > 0:55:01is always a useful road. China's role, what is going on economically,
0:55:01 > 0:55:05which forces are driving this?One of the reasons the military can get
0:55:05 > 0:55:12away with this appalling, rapid, biggest refugee exodus in history is
0:55:12 > 0:55:16that they have the two biggest countries in the world, which border
0:55:16 > 0:55:20Burma, they are both looking on approvingly. China is perfectly
0:55:20 > 0:55:24happy to see them acting in this way because it helps to secure Rakhine
0:55:24 > 0:55:28states the Chinese investment. Meanwhile, the Hindu nationalists in
0:55:28 > 0:55:35India who have been in power for the past years are perfectly at home
0:55:35 > 0:55:40with an Islamophobia policy, they are equally Islamophobia themselves.
0:55:40 > 0:55:45That part of the world, the birthplace of the great religions,
0:55:45 > 0:55:49the great home of spiritual values, has turned extremely toxic in the
0:55:49 > 0:55:54past five or ten years.I said I would come back to you, Dr Mahinda
0:55:54 > 0:56:00Deegalle.Still I think the colonial past is very important. I think
0:56:00 > 0:56:07these groups came, starting from 1826, the citizenship law of 1982
0:56:07 > 0:56:11prohibited giving citizenship to these people. One of the solutions
0:56:11 > 0:56:15that not the Buddhists but the state has to do is offer citizenship to
0:56:15 > 0:56:19these people, if that is offered to these people then I think the
0:56:19 > 0:56:23problem will go. I think denying them citizenship is an issue and I
0:56:23 > 0:56:26think the colonial masters have to be responsible.
0:56:26 > 0:56:36With all due respect to the reverend, I disagree. I think the
0:56:36 > 0:56:38historical presence of Rohingyas predated the British colonisation
0:56:38 > 0:56:46which began in 1824. Baby Michael can chime in. We have a top
0:56:46 > 0:56:52historian who can speak on the Rohingyas.Go for it, Michael.The
0:56:52 > 0:56:55Rohingyas have been at the hundreds of years, and lots of the Buddhists
0:56:55 > 0:56:58and Rakhine are immigrants themselves. The problem is the
0:56:58 > 0:57:03Burmese military is trying to put its imprint of what it sees of
0:57:03 > 0:57:07Democrats Burma and all of the areas. They will turn everything to
0:57:07 > 0:57:13what Burma looks like in one particular area. All the world wants
0:57:13 > 0:57:19Burma, it is a strategic position of natural gas. China once closest to
0:57:19 > 0:57:25the Indian Ocean, the US wanted to be close to China. Even in the 1990s
0:57:25 > 0:57:30they had to be pushed into sanctions.But this is a genocide.
0:57:30 > 0:57:34When it happened in Rwanda, we looked back in shame.If these were
0:57:34 > 0:57:39white Europeans then we would already have been involved.The
0:57:39 > 0:57:45author of Bed For The Night said never again has it been turned into
0:57:45 > 0:57:55the poor taste Joe, he said never again was meant to mean never in
0:57:55 > 0:58:03Europe Germany will kill the Jewish community. Since 1948...It happens
0:58:03 > 0:58:07again and again. 20 seconds and we are out of time.You had to be
0:58:07 > 0:58:10couple not to call for interventionism, that has been
0:58:10 > 0:58:14problematic everywhere in the world -- do have to be careful not to call
0:58:14 > 0:58:19for interventionism. But we cannot see genocide before our eyes and not
0:58:19 > 0:58:23do anything. The real question is not has the West misunderstood
0:58:23 > 0:58:26Buddhism, but has the West misunderstood the roller can play in
0:58:26 > 0:58:31places like. APPLAUSE
0:58:31 > 0:58:36.-- but has the West misunderstood the role it can play in places like
0:58:36 > 0:58:37Burma?
0:58:37 > 0:58:39As always, the debates will continue online and on Twitter.
0:58:39 > 0:58:42Next week we're in Bradford, so do join us then.
0:58:42 > 0:58:44But for now, it's goodbye and have a great Sunday.
0:58:44 > 0:58:49Thank you for watching.