Episode 1 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions: Freedom

of speech, taxing the Sunday roast

and belligerent Buddhism.

APPLAUSE

Good morning.

Good to see you.

I'm Nicky Campbell.

Welcome to the eleventh series

of The Big Questions.

Today, we're live from

the University of East London.

Welcome, everyone,

to The Big Questions.

CHEERING

Lovely.

On Monday, the new Office

For Students opened for business

as the new regulator

for higher education.

One of its duties will be to ensure

that universities enable

free speech on campus,

even for highly controversial

speakers, provided they stay

within the law and do not incite

hatred or violence.

On Boxing Day, Jo Johnson,

the Minister for Universities

and Science, set out plans to fine

or suspend institutions that fail

to protect free speech.

"Young people," he said,

"should have the resilience

and confidence to challenge

controversial opinions

and take part in open,

frank and rigorous discussions."

But many universities

and student unions, including

the one we are in today,

have not only banned

speakers with racist,

fascist or anti-LGBT views but have

declared themselves to be safe

spaces, where students must feel

confident they will never feel

demeaned or intimidated

by what someone else says.

Is free speech under

threat in universities?

Claire Fox, is it, seriously? Sadly,

I think it seriously is. There is an

increasing trend for people to save

the equivalent of, I find that

offensive, and that basically means

shot up. There is an

institutionalised atmosphere of

walking on eggshells, frightened you

will offend this person, the

emergence of identity politics means

that you have almost the competitive

set of groups saying, as this, I

find that offensive.

It is a kind of

competition in being offended?

It comes together with the toxic

sense of victimhood which has become

quite a big thing. I am a victim and

I find what you say something that

makes me feel worse so I wanted to

keep quiet. One of the most worrying

beds for me is the idea that the

aspiration for you at 17, 18, 19,

20, is to want to feel safe.

Generally, being young and going to

university or college I'm growing

up, it is a time when you threw off

all the shackles, you want to take

risks, you want to be exposed to new

ideas. You're not frightened of the

outside world, and it seems to me,

sadly, many young people are being

encouraged to be carried by ideas,

to be scared, to be fearful, and if

they hear something they do not

like, it will damage them forever. I

do not think that the authors of

students will help because the last

thing we need is a regulation is

free speech.

It is

counter-productive. You think it is

dangerous. Let's leave it there.

Dawn, this is not a safe place here,

over the years. Sometimes I have

wanted it to be. We have had all

sorts of ghastly people on, present

company expected -- present company

excepted. We have had flashes, is a

must. But the great thing is they

have been challenged, they have been

debated with, and more often than

not their views have been undermined

and they have been exposed. Is that

still happening in universities?

Yes, when I was at university we had

no platform policy. It was stringent

and applied to a very small number

of people. We had that to make sure

that other people felt they were

able to come to campus and express

their own free speech. We banned

fascists and certain extreme

Islamist groups. Very few people

have been no platform. Lots of

people have very big platforms in

the media. They complain that they

have not been invited somewhere,

which is different. Safe spaces are

not about people not being offended

or ever having their views

challenge, it is about people being

able to express their views in an

environment. If I have friends

around the dinner, those people know

they should not put a chair through

my window, or tell me that my food

is terrible and never come again.

There are certain rules and society.

This codifies them within a kind of

private in -- a private institution,

membership club. Students should

have a right through to invite. I

agree that the Office For Students

is not going to help that at all.

I

would not want to go to your dinner

party if you presented me with a set

of rules before I walked in the

door. I know you would not invite me

anyway, and that is thin enough. Do

not see this, do not say that, make

sure you say that the food is nice,

and if you see anything I do not

like, you're out the door. That is

what the atmosphere is late in the

student union. There is a code for

what you can say, thing can do.

There are not lots of people who

have not been given a platform.

There's all sorts of hysteria about

free speech on campus. One of the

Oxford colleges tried to ban the

Christian union and the bases that

would offend and upset certain

people because Christianity is

offensive. On the other hand you

will have secular societies that are

banned on the basis that religious

people will say, that is offensive

towards us. By the time you have

finished with that you do not need

formal no platform policies. You

create an atmosphere of, I am

frightened to say that.

If you spent

lots of time in universities, as I

do, there is a kind of nervousness

of seeing that unless you have the

right opinion, you are not going

to... What is right opinion? Your

welfare officer.

What is a safe

space? It is not a one size fits all

what is safe spaces. There is a

different perception for everyone.

It is a place you can come to and

leave your grievances at the door

and say what you want to see and how

you want to say it with like-minded

people. You should be able to have

that in every institution.

What is a

like-minded person?

There is no such

thing as like-minded people, it is

just the idea of having an area that

you can go to and be OK with your

surroundings without having rules

and regulations. Without being

covered in terms of what they say.

Would you give save space to LGBT

people who are worried about people

of faith who have views that are the

opposite to theirs, because of the

holy books?

Everyone deserves a safe

space, from every community, in

terms of...

Do people who do not

approve of homosexuality deserve a

safe space from LGBT people?

If that

is what it takes for them to feel

available to express their views.

This is the problem. That is the

sort of rabbit hole that such a

fundamental attitude to this

produces. When I was an

undergraduate, we did have safe

spaces, but they were particular

rooms on particular days when

particular groups were having

particular meetings. The LGBT group

might have it, or the women rights

campaign, or black and minority

students might have a room where

they could control the balance of

the debate. The problem now is that

some student unions have sought to

make the whole universities save

space. That is not sustainable.

Eventually you end up with lots of

little boxes where no one wants to

be encountered by anyone else risk

feeling unsafe. These incidents do

happen. It is untrue what was said,

that these things do not happen. Our

affiliated societies and campuses,

in the last five years, we have had

a dozen situations where meetings

have been disrupted and unable to

proceed, or they have been banned

for -- from freshers' fears, or

threatened with deregistration from

student unions, mostly from

criticism of religion, or some

satire or mockery of religious

beliefs, sometimes just from

questioning religious beliefs. That

is happening all over England. The

consequence of that is not just

individual meetings been disrupted,

but free speech suffering, because

people feel intimidated.

Three years

since Charlie Hebdo. People are also

worried about the expense of the

security. You want to come in. Carry

on. What is your point?

I think we

need to look at what free speech

actually means. Free speech or

something, essentially, will it

should not be the case for one

particular set of people get to

define what it means. Everyone here

will agree that debate and

discussion and free speech at a

fundamental part of the democracy we

live in but what I see is a double

standard associated with free speech

as we know it today, and I think it

is riddled with hypocrisy, we are

seeing Jo Johnson, for example,

saying that people should not be

banned, but at the same time, we

have a government pursuing a toxic

prevent agenda which makes Muslim

students feel they cannot speak

freely.

We have debated Prevent.

It

is not about debating or discussing

Prevent, it is about students in

classrooms who have views that are

not palatable, and they can be

recommended by their academic sign

teachers to the Prevent channel

stream. They would be considered as

extremist.

You used to be a Muslim?

Yes, we work with people on the left

religion. We find that I'd

universities it is all about power

structure. We deal with safe spaces

because people get punished in

different countries are leaving

religion. If you have no power on

campus, if you used to be an extra

was witness, a Christian, I save

space needs are not heard. We do not

need that. We need a place we can

talk and express their views because

we do not get to do that in other

countries. I find a lot of things

that religious groups in university

campuses say offensive. They are

offensive to me and the fact that

exist but I do not try and shut them

down. I want to have a debate. This

question for me is all about having

a conversation. The fact we have Tom

supporters in this audience is a

good thing because I can talk to

them. You can only move forward if

you can do that, otherwise you get

the kind of fascism we are seeing

today.

Just in relation to the point

about Prevent, an important point,

the who defines free speech point,

free speech is something that has

emerged out of hundreds of years of

fights by people who fought to speak

freely. Every single one of us has

gained from freedom fighters over

the years, whether they're fighting

oppression of women, slavery, race,

all of that has been gained by

fighting intellectually, using words

and ideas, and every single one of

those ideas has offended someone at

some point. My concern is that I

constantly hear the argument that

you go on as a free-speech

absolutist, but that is at -- and

that is an expression of white

privilege of an elite group, or

because the Tories said I do not

agree. Every single one of us should

fight for free speech. I am

constantly offended by some of the

nonsense I hear all the time, but I

think I can cope. We should not

patronise young people but sit -- by

suggesting they hear something

obnoxious or offensive and that is

it.

APPLAUSE

. Do you have safe spaces for

ex-Muslims?

We have safe spaces for

everyone from every community. It is

quite patronising to say that

students cannot have open debates.

They do have open debates on a

regular basis.

Work with me to get

it into your campus and then we can

do that.

Students have debates all

the time. It is patronising to say

that they do not. Speech is not

speech any more.

That is the

problem. We have had student unions

tell us that we are offensive. They

have cancelled us because they say

we are offensive. Every institution

is different. All because we talk

about abuse. We have young people

who made Thomas, who tried to kill

themselves. We are told we are

abusing religious institutions, just

Muslims. We have had feminist and

LGBT societies say, we are worried

about offending Muslims. I spent 25

years of my life as a Muslim. When

people tell me I am offending my own

people, so I am not allowed to

speak, I find that extremely unsafe

for myself but I do not try to shut

other people down.

Let's get more

audience reaction on this. Good

morning, how are you doing?

Say

whatever you want. The real issue

should be about this body that has

been set up.

I do not want to

discuss the body. I want to discuss

the substantive issues so I want to

censor you on that one. I want to

talk about Toby Young. He has been

spoken about a lot this week. Do you

think there is a prescription on

free speech in universities at the

moment, are we heading in that

direction?

I think that is a bad

thing. Student unions are their own

organisation. It should be bent to

them to make a call and he speaks.

It is a student led body.

You voted

for it, here.

The gentleman who just mentioned

Toby Young, that is the substantive

issue. There was legislation in

place that we are protected by

European law in terms of freedom of

speech, there is legislation from

1986 which protects freedom of

speech on campus. I genuinely think

that Jo Johnson is trying to reset

the agenda to sidestep and try to

cover up. It is an act of political

mendacity to try to cover up the

substantive issues in education. The

privatisation of universities,

the...

You think it is a smoke

screen?

The appointment of Toby

Young, 200,000 academics, students

and other stakeholders have signed a

petition to say this guy is toxic.

Is freedom of speech being curtailed

in universities?

I think this points to a wider

problem in society. Views have

always been polarised, but

particularly with social media we

have the ability to edit out people,

views we do not like organisations.

In a way that is healthy for us, in

many ways it is not. All we are

doing is giving ourselves quite a

cosy, single-minded, narrow-minded

view of the world. I think part of

the problem is, with present company

excepted, there is such a lack of

grey area and debate. Any contrary

views are classed as a threat or

people get defensive. Before you

know it's a debate turns into

somebody being a Ramona or a racist

or a lefty or a Nazi, and to throw

these things out there without

thought -- turns into somebody being

a Remoaner.

Dawn, what is your

understanding... I'm sure Claire has

something to say on this, but what

about trigger warnings, are they a

good thing? When something is coming

up which might be offensive or

upsetting and it is highlighted?

Lots of my friends are academics and

lots of them use trigger warnings in

their courses. I don't think there

anything different to watching

television, yesterday I watched

something on the BBC added said

contains strong language. It is

warning people what you expect to

see so people are not surprised.

Shakespeare plays are included

sometimes?

Exactly. Some people have

to steel themselves a little bit. If

you watch a film and it includes a

really graphic rape scene and it

takes you by surprise, it can be

shocking. Some people can find it

quite hard. I think one of the main

things we have not talked about is

that free speech, brilliant, but one

of the issues is one of the reasons

why some campuses are concerned

about this is speech is not without

consequence. For instance, lots of

my friends after Brexit have

experience lots of racist abuse as a

result of the political climate.

Many of my gay friends regularly

beaten up. I think when people

incite...

Are regularly beaten up?

I

regularly have gay and...

There are

laws against inciting violence?

Police had been cut, it is very

difficult to find these people. I

have been sexually assaulted twice

in public and nobody has been

caught. There are laws but we have

to think about the consequences

beach, the consequence of it -- of

inciting racial, LGBT and sexual

hatred.

A little bit on trigger

warnings, relating to the very good

points you made, I think there is a

real danger that we are stuck in

echo chambers and never get exposed

to new ideas. One thing that happens

when you go to university, the very

nature are bit is that you will be

exposed to new ideas, new literature

and readings. If you do literature

and you do Shakespeare, the idea

that you think you might need a

trigger warning on a Shakespeare

play, why are you studying

literature if you do not know it has

a bit of violence? But trigger

warnings are not just used in just a

token warning, the inferences that

you will not cope with it and the

arguments by academics is that they

have to put trigger warnings on

because they are frightened that

students might complain if they

don't. Dawn, it is your very point

about the consumerisation of higher

education, academics feel under

pressure to play to what they

consider the student body demands.

That is a very dangerous game. When

you are a student, an academic

should never give you what you want,

keep you satisfied.

I do not think

that is true at all.

That is why we

call it a debate.

If I went to

university and they refuse to teach

me, I would be furious.

If you go at

18 and you say give me what I want,

you will never learn anything. The

point is you do not know what you

want, the point about academic life

is it opens your minds up to things

you need to know.

I am sorry but

that is patronising for the student

body. If you're going to university

to study, you have to have access to

education and ask whatever you need

to ask and receiver. Moving forward,

in terms of trigger warning, it is

very essential. You do not know what

that didn't might have experienced

that day or what they have been

through or how they even got to

class that day. -- do not know what

that students might have experience.

Of Nigel Farage came here to give a

talk, what would you think?

He would

be no platforms, the student body

with no platform him. That is what

the majority of the student body

wants.

Debate with him...? No

platforming Nigel Farage?

I am

relatively sympathetic to the

liberal case are making safe spaces,

but epic that is going too file. If

the leader of a political party that

won the European elections in this

country is shut out of institutions

because the majority of students do

not want him, that is a problem.

Minorities have a right to hear

views that other people might find

offensive. The whole idea of no

platform seems to have eaten itself

it will justify shutting people out

because of majority rule on campus.

Thank you all very much, thank you

for your contributions. We have two

motivates and I want you to really

push the envelope, all right, and

say whatever you want. Thank you for

your contributions.

If you have something

to say about that debate,

log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions,

and follow the link to where you can

join in the discussion online.

Or contribute on Twitter.

We're also debating live this

morning at the University

of East London, "Should meat be

taxed to save the planet?"

And "Has the West

misunderstood Buddhism?"

So, get tweeting or emailing

on those topics now,

or send us any other ideas

or thoughts you may

have about the show.

January, and the new year brings

new diets promising ways of losing

the extra pounds piled on over

Christmas.

This year there's Veganuary,

with 150,000 people signing up

to renounce all animal products

for at least the first

month of the year.

No meat, no fish, no milk,

no cheese, no eggs.

Just vegetables, fruit,

cereals, nuts and pulses -

every day for a month.

It's claimed veganism is not only

healthier for us but also better

for the planet because farming

livestock is one of the biggest

causes of global warming.

Some experts say livestock

and its by-products account for 51%

of greenhouse gas emissions.

But if the smell of your

Sunday roast is just

too tempting to resist,

what about eating less meat?

And what if meat - like alcohol,

sugar and cigarettes -

was taxed to deter us

from eating so much?

And what if the taxes raised

could be used to offset any damage

farming livestock may cause?

Should meat be taxed

to save the planet?

Mark O'Connor why should it be

taxed, and how much? -- Marco, why

should it be taxed?

There are

reasons about why you might want to

regulate meat. You might not be

happy about how meat is produced,

some people have brought to pay tax

because of antibiotic use, or you

might not be happy with mass

production. That could be easily

done...

Animal welfare?

Then there

are health and environmental

motivations for why you would want

to introduce regulation. From a

health perspective, red meat and

processed meats have been declared

carcinogens by the cancer agency of

the World Health Organisation, there

is a clear case of why you would

want to regulate meat in some form

or other. If you think about other

carcinogens like tobacco and is best

us, they are heavily regulated.

Finally there is an environmental

dimensional. -- like tobacco and

asbestos. The food we eat creates

around a quarter of all greenhouse

gas emissions and it is expected to

go up. In one form or another we

have to basically tackle what we

eat.

Can I stop you there, it has

just occurred to me, less meat means

more people... They would want more

soya and rely on palm oil, which is

destroying ecosystems, destroying

beautiful creatures and

environments. That is the trade-off,

isn't it?

Not really. The amount of

soy beans produced, most of it is

fed to animals, right? If we didn't

have that amount of meat production

we would be able to free some land

up that is now used for producing

soya. If you shift diets, you need

to produce May be more lagoons, but

not necessarily more palm oil, for

example. -- you need to produce may

be more legumes. Palm oil has

environment or consequences that one

does not follow from the other. If

you compare how intensive meat is on

the environment, says greenhouse

gases meat is many times more than

legumes.

Richard is an organic

farmer. So you pay £15 for your

joint of beef, how much should it

be?

That depends where you come

from, from a health perspective run

by mental perspective?

Straight

answer.

About 20 or 30% more.

What

do you make about taxing meat?

Climate change is a huge problem,

and we need to reshape our diets to

make the balance between what is a

healthy diet and a sustainable way

of farming. My major concern about a

meat tax, I think would make things

worse -- my major concern. Both in

terms of greenhouse gases and in

other aspects. I challenge the fact

2727% of greenhouse gases are coming

from agriculture, -- I challenge the

fact that when you say 27% of

greenhouse gases are coming from

agriculture, those are coming from

statistics which looked a rainforest

destruction and South America. At

that time, we were planting forests

in the UK. UK Government figures

show 10% of UK emissions come from

agriculture and about 5% of that

from cattle. 5% is a more accurate

figure for what is happening with

cattle. If we tax red meat, which is

higher than chicken, we will see the

complete loss of all traditional

livestock for farmers in this

country. They are struggling to make

a living as it is and we would see

increased production of intensive

meets because that is the only way

that farmers can survive.

Interesting point, people looking

for cheap meat so it will be even

worse for the animals?

One thing that is important,

tackling it from a client

perspective, it does not make so

much sense to only argue for a meat

tax. What our studies suggest is

that some form or another, you have

to bring agriculture into the

picture. At the moment it is only

energy production.

In the time we

have, if it is going to tax meat,

people will be looking to get meat

as cheap as possible, and so the

production will be as cheap as

possible and animals will be in

terrible conditions, more so than

now.

We must not mix issues.

Intensive farming is what you want

to get away from, presumably, but

you will need more of it to get

cheaper meat?

If you want to get

away from intensive farming, you

must regulated. Easy, right? Talking

about climate change, we must

regulate anything that causes

emissions. If you tax anything you

get tax revenues, you can use them

for something. If that would be

something that would be negative for

farmers, of course there are

revenues that could be used to

support farmers to switch to more

environmentally benign production

techniques.

A massive issue, massive challenge

and a mass of cultural change.

Marianne Landzettel, a journalist

and Soil Association blogger, is

this a go?

To me, and meat tax would

be detrimental. Not all meat is

created equal, especially in the UK

we have a lot of marginal land which

can only be used as grazing land. We

are talking about land in the

uplands, we are also talking about a

lot of marshlands in coastal areas.

Animals are actually doing a lot of

good there, helping to protect the

environment. They are doing that

because Grassland only really

flourishes if you have animals

grazing them, otherwise it reverts

back to shrub land.

Churning up the

land and providing a place for

seeding?

For seeding, soil building

going on... Wild flowers... All of

that. It is beneficial for migratory

birds, they would not have anywhere

to go. In the uplands if you do the

agriculture right, and I know there

is overgrazing, that of the grazing

is done sustainable eat you are

building soil. We probably all

remember the terrible flooding we

have seen in some January Yes and

February Yes. If there was good land

management with animals, we could

reduce flooding downstream because

the soil would have the ability to

hold more water. You cannot do that

without animals, which is why to me

animals are really an integral part

of a sustainable, climate resilient

and in food terms healthy

agricultural.

Lisa from Peta, this

could be worse for animals to tax

meat?

I am happy we brought animals

into the conversation, we can't have

an honest debate about the

coldest... Cost of animal

agriculture without considering what

animals pay the highest price for I

wish your addiction to meat. The

vast majority of animals in this

country are factory farmed. They are

kept in windowless, filthy sheds.

They are denied everything that

gives their life meaning, everything

that would have made their life

natural.

And many people feel

strongly about this. But the danger

is you would have more factory

farming because people would be

looking for cheaper meat if meat

were taxed.

I do not think so. I think a tax on

meat would send an important message

to consumers that eating meat is not

a necessity. It would decrease the

amount of demand for animals.

Currently in the UK alone, we are

eating 1 billion animals a year.

What about the future of the farming

industry?

At the moment, we are

breeding animals by the billions so

we can lock them up in factory

farms, so we can harvest them, for

Flash, to turn them into burgers and

sausages. The first thing that would

happen if we had a tax on meat, we

would simply breed less animals.

Less animals would suffer on farms

and in slaughterhouses. That is a

good thing. The second point I will

make is that the days of small

family farms are gone, they have

been replaced by a large-scale,

industrial factory farms. Farmers

have been replaced by machines.

Also, industries evolve. People can

retrain. Those who are forming

animals can farm plant -based

agriculture. Industries evolve. That

is the way of social and moral

progress.

Things change, things move

on. Points from the audience. Let's

go to the gentleman in the orange

top. Good morning.

I find that a tax

on meat, or food in general, I am

opposed to it. It will affect the

poorest people first. I am opposed

to that. But I do feel that factory

farming is terrible, particularly

the way that animals are treated.

Perhaps we could sort of separate

this towards taxing factory meat,

and organic and free range remain

untaxed, to incentivise farmers to

move towards that production.

This

is music to Richard's years.

There

are several groups in this country

who are trying hard to produce

animals with wealthy and mine, which

is less harmful to the environment.

One group of organic farmers, and

another group who are trying to rear

animals just on pasture. There is a

massive difference between red meat

produced in the UK and red meat

produced in America. The UK is one

of the best countries in the world

for producing grass. 70% of our

farmland is in grass for assigned

environmental reasons. It would do

terrible harm to plough that up and

grow crops. People do not realise

that sustainable, continue its crop

production is not sustainable. We

are degrading the soil. The only way

to restore the health and fertility

of those soils is to put it back to

grass. Grass is an amazing crop. It

has three times as much material

underground in the rates than above

ground. It will restore Corbyn into

the ground and make the sole

resilient against climate change. If

we plough that up, we put massive

amounts of greenhouse gases into the

atmosphere. That is why what Marco

is suggesting will make things worse

rather than better.

I want to go

around the audience.

Come back

quickly on that. Very quickly, it is

a very passionate debate, but I

think it would make sense to view it

more dispassionately. We do not want

that. I know. We are on television

after all. We are not arguing that

people should go vegan, or that all

animals will disappear. Of course

not. We estimate that if you put a

tax of 20%, 30%, consumption would

go down by 10%, that would be half a

portion of meat each week. Not much.

That revenue you can use to support

lower income households, if you

basically refund the revenues are

you put them in health promotion

programmes.

You have thought it

through. More points, please. At the

Bachini mustard top.

I think the

thing that needs to happen is people

need to be sure on that eating less

meat is a realistic option. At the

moment, people underestimate their

ability to do that, they think it is

impossible. If people in advertising

and food chains, if they showed that

eating less meat is possible, then

people would ultimately buy less

meat, and it would not be the

default thing to buy meat for every

day of the week.

Thank you, moving

along.

Good morning. I think people

are forgetting how vegetables and

agriculture are produced. Recently

people have been using fertiliser

containing ammonia, so when there is

massive rainfall, bodies of water,

that ammonia is toxic to animals,

marine life, it gets destroyed. What

is to be said about the marine life

that gets destroyed if people opt

for going vegan.

More vegetables

will be needed. Do you want to come

in, Claire? Most people think, do

they not, that we should be eating

less meat?

I do not see why.

Genuinely. My priorities are world

hunger, people being pure, not being

able to afford good cuts of meat, I

worry about those kind of things. I

think that as a humanist, with a

small age, rather than adopting your

organisation, what I am interested

in is how we can improve humankind's

functioning. -- with a small H. I

think animals are things that humans

use. It does not mean we should

abuse them. I think that it taxes

even more political.

It moralise is

the question.

We do it with

cigarettes. I do not necessarily

approve of it in that relationship

but earlier it was said that there

are arguments, they might be

dangerous for you. In relation to

meat, I think we want people to be

afford to be able to buy meat

regularly, and not be forced out of

buying it, and ultimately, some of

the arguments, the popularity of

being vegan, it is almost a new

religion, in the way that people are

trying to find a purpose in life and

have not quite got one and this has

become the latest fad.

Who wants to

respond to that? We like debate. Go

on.

Veganism is a kind of religion.

I 100% agree it is a religion.

I

wanted somebody to be against it.

Carry on. We have a perception that

veganism is extremely beneficial for

our health, and it is, but most

people who are vegan or mineral

deficient. They are. Vitamins such

as B12, there are no plans on earth

that has a sustainable amount of

that vitamin that is needed for

human function. We should eat less

meat because it is tragic how

animals are abused and how they are

giving to me on my plate. If I see a

video of a chicken and how it is far

and I will not want to eat meat

again.

I agree with that.

Interesting messages on that. I am

glad I stayed with you.

Over there.

I do not think that is true. I think

vegan bag, and the NHS supports this

and the United Nations, AE vegan and

vegetarian diet is healthy and

better for the planet. We need to it

and think it it as a positive

change, moving to a plant -based

diet. Climate change will have a

massive impact on humans. Over the

next 30 years we will see hundreds

of millions of people migrating away

from parts of the earth that have

been burnt by climate change. We

will have massive challenges in our

hands. Andrew. I agree with that

point. I want to contradict what

Claire said, were moral obligations

in this question said. I am not on

either side of this debate in

particular but I do not think that

human beings are simply to be

concerned with the welfare of other

human beings. There should also be a

concern for nonhuman animals,

because they can suffer. We have an

obligation to treat them not as

reasoning beings like herself, but

to treat them as other beings

capable of suffering. -- beings like

ours.

There is empathy with the

great apes, and self-awareness.

It

is a spectrum. That is a really

important part of the moral context.

Cancer is important, climate change

is important, but so are obligations

to other animals on this planet.

I

think that should be taken

seriously. Thank you all very much

indeed. Thank you for your thoughts.

You can join in all this

morning's debates by logging

on to bbc.co.uk/the big questions

and following the link

to the online discussion.

Or you can tweet using

the hashtag bbctbq.

Tell us what you think

about our last big question, too.

Has the West misunderstood Buddhism?

And if you'd like to apply

to be in the audience

at a future show, you can email

[email protected].

We're in Bradford next Sunday,

Cambridge on January 21st

and Newcastle upon Tyne

the week after that.

We are on the road.

This Thursday marked

the 70th anniversary

of independence from Britain

for Myanmar, formerly Burma.

And it was in colonial times

that the British brought

the Rohingya people,

Muslims from former Bengal,

to Rakhine province in Burma

to develop the land for farming.

During the war with Japan,

the Rohingya people were promised

independence by the British,

but this promise was revoked

when the Second World War ended.

So, Britain has had a hand

in the fate of the Rohingya people,

now being forcibly evicted

from Rakhine province

by Buddhist soldiers,

in what the UN Commissioner

for Human Rights has said may be

declared a genocide.

No country is coming to intervene,

no-one is suggesting

direct military action,

nothing will be done.

Yet Myanmar is predominantly

a Buddhist country, a philosophy

whose five moral precepts include

not harming any living

things and not taking

something which is not yours.

How can a Buddhist country treat

people who have lived

there for generations so cruelly?

Has the West misunderstood Buddhism?

Livestock about that now. Dr Zarni,

an activist and scholar. There is a

Western cliche, the Richard gear

thing, about Buddhism, in sense and

inner peace and all that.

Is that

misplaced? Yes, absolutely. The fact

we're having this debate is as

affirmative to your question. Has

the West misunderstood Buddhism?

Also, Islamabad religions. There are

two points I want to make. One is,

when a terrorist bomb blows up in

Barcelona or wherever, Muslims are

made to feel that they need to

apologise, but when Buddhist

countries such as Burma Cambodia

under the Khmer Rouge, when they

commit war crimes or crimes against

humanity, no western Buddhist

community, including Richard Gere

and the followers of the Dalai

llama, are made to feel that they

need to apologise. It indicates this

positive western Orientalism, which

romanticises the Buddhist people and

Buddhism. That is one problem.

We

put them on a pedestal, in a way?

Exactly. The other one is the

religion. These social and political

misuses of religion. That is

universal. All religious systems

have been abuse throughout history

over thousands of years by political

and military classes for their

strategic interests. Buddhism is no

exception. I am from a devout

Buddhist family. I consider myself a

fairly spiritual person but I do not

go to the monastery or pray every

day. But the point is, Buddhists are

no special people, we are just like

anyone, every advises capable of

doing heinous things to other human

beings when the situation is

mobilised.

Some people will find it

surprising, given the ethos and the

ethics of the religion, they will

find that surprising. I will talk

about adding sand Su Chi who is a

fascinating figure. Great to have

you back on the programme. A

professor of religion and ethics at

Bath spa University. Without making

any judgment on this, take it into

the mindset of the Buddhist soldier

who has been involved in what is a

genocide, the politician who may see

themselves as a devout Buddhist. How

are they driving this -- how are

they justifying this for themselves?

I think the driving forces politics

and nationalism. Closely associated

with Buddhism. The West, since

Victorian times, has appreciated

Buddhism.

The person who was part of

the ethnic cleansing, one of those

people carrying it out, and the

genocide, who would also see

themselves as a devout Buddhist, how

are they reconciling bad?

It is not

possible to reconcile, because as a

soldier, when you are in arms, you

are bound by rules. There is no

place for your religious conviction.

But you find justifications?

I don't

think the soldiers have a choice

that they cannot kill. I think by

definition, when you become a

soldier, you have to kill. I think

here in Myanmar the case is very

complex. We have to think about

Myanmar has eight ethnic groups, you

know, and the Rohingya are supposed

to be the ninth one, which is not

recognised. There are 8 million

Muslims in Myanmar, that is 10% of

the population. Rohingya is about

800,000.

Do they feel under cultural

threat?

I think so. When you think

about it generally, frankly

speaking, if you talk to average

people in Sri Lanka or Myanmar,

there is a growing resentment, I do

not know on which basis it comes

from, but partly because of the

growth of the population and

expansion of businesses, and

particularly the introduction of

unusual dresses which are new to

those cultures.

How interesting.

And

food habits. So I think prejudices

are based on that.

So those factors

are coming into play, consciously

and, indeed, perhaps subconsciously.

Back with you, Aung San Suu Kyi, she

won a Nobel Peace Prize and is

presiding over or endorsing or

acquiescing in this genocide. As one

of my teenage daughters would say,

what the hell?

Your question was how

we misunderstood Buddhism. Aung San

Suu Kyi lived in England for about

24 years before returning to Burma

in 1988. There is a good argument

that she misunderstood Buddhism

herself. She arrived in Burma with a

rather sappy and simple-minded

version of Buddhism that we have

accepted here, that it is to do with

calm, peacefulness, basically you

sit cross-legged and all is

beautiful. For many others it is the

ideal religion which has no sin, it

is not coercive, it is to do with

complicated that beautiful concepts

like karma, nothing to do with state

power. In Burma where she arrived in

88, where she is now in power,

Buddhism was powerfully conditioned

by the reaction against colonialism.

All of the leaders of the fight

against British colonialism in Burma

in the late 19th and early 20th

centuries were Buddhist. Usually

Buddhist monks. They saw that what

the British had done in Burma was

basically remove the keystone of

their society and shatter it. As has

happened in Sri Lanka in slightly

different circumstances, the

religion of 95% of the people and

the sense of national identity and

of patriotically preservation became

fatally fused. I think that is the

core of the problem. As to Aung San

Suu Kyi herself, who I have written

about in two books, I think she has

been trapped in a position where she

has basically become the scapegoat

for the actions of a military

outside of her control because of

the Constitution.

Is she a prisoner

of the generals?

Yes.

I disagree. I

shared a panel with Aung San Suu Kyi

in June 2012 when she returned to

England to the London School of

Economics. She had already declared

her presidential ambition, and there

I was, I also very academic, and I

was preassigned to handle this

question that was emerging as there

was organised violence against the

Rohingya Muslim people, why did she

dodge a moral responsibility to

confront this? The obvious thing

people do not want to believe,

because we have put on the pedestal

with Mandela and Gandhi and Martin

Luther King Junior, she is an

anti-Muslim racist. She spoke to

Mishal Husain on Radio 4, you

yourself wrote it, she rest out of

the studio and said nobody told me a

Muslim would be interviewing me --

she rushed out of the studio. What

is Mishal Husain dart background how

to do with it? -- what does Mishal

Husain's background have to do with

it? She is a racist.

Good morning.

Aung San Suu Kyi?

The Buddha taught

that the Buddhists destroy Buddhism,

it is not Islam which destroys

Buddhism, it is the Buddhists, by

not considering it carefully enough.

What is happening in Myanmar is that

country is destroying Buddhism

itself. You cannot call yourself a

Buddhist country with that going on,

it is nonsense.

What about Aung San

Suu Kyi, should she have this Nobel

Peace Prize rescinded? I see you

going, yet, blinking right!

Yeah, I think it should certainly be

revoked. I totally agree with that

gentleman over there with his

statement, there was a lot to be

looked into in terms of the country

itself and it is about time that the

right people sat around and address

the issue full front rather than

playing around.

Would you know

platform her or would you want to

hear for people to question her,

bring her to account, make the

points they want to make and say to

her face, you are a disgrace and an

anti-Muslim racist, and hear her

response?

It is something that we

would like to put to membership in

terms of a student vote.

That is the first issue. Hello, sir?

What about this? Mabrur Ahmed,

director of Restless Beings. This

militant monk went after you, he is

leading this, he is a great

ideological wellspring of what is

happening, he would call himself the

Buddhists?

He would. To go back to

your question at the beginning,

which is has the West misunderstood

Buddhism? I think we have a problem

with an orientalist view of... It is

a very selective orientalist view.

To be honest, I don't think there is

any world religion which is not

peace-loving, but we select Buddhism

as this idealistic, non-Sin

religion, a religion which we want

to put up on a pedestal. That is a

problem, from our perspective. There

is also an issue of mixing together

xenophobia and nationalism to a

religion. Just as was mentioned

before, whenever there is any

Islamist terrorist attack, the

Muslim world has too come out and

publicly denounce these kind of

actions and almost apologise, it

forces the sculpture of becoming

apologist. We had to be careful not

to vindicate Buddhism to do the same

sort of thing. Perhaps that is not

the way we should be dealing with

Islamist terrorism as well. So far

as this monk is concerned, he is no

different bin Laden, he called

himself the Buddhist bin Laden. He

believes that. But bin Laden

believed he was a Muslim, that does

not mean that the vast majority of

Muslims would subscribe to his

ideology of Islam, I do think that

the majority of Buddhists subscribe

to the ideology that this monk

propagates. We are talking about an

ethnic and religious attack on a

community, the ripping your

community. It is not based on

principles of religion that the

Rakhine community and the Burmese

authorities are attacking these

people on, it is on the very premise

of the Rohingyas religion, because

they are Muslim, that is why they

are being attacked and ostracised

and marginalised, not necessarily

because Buddhism is problematic.

Buddhism and this man are basically

sideshows, the real deal as the

military, which patronises him and

another monk. Aung San Suu Kyi just

awarded this person the highest

Buddhist award, to the man who said

that non-believers, non-Buddhists

are only one half human beings and

therefore killing them by the

millions is not bad karma.

We have

heard this to history since time

immemorial, and my humanist friend

is going, there we go again.

Religion. Allow me to take over, if

I may, you mentioned a very

important point about the military.

Peter, let's follow the money, which

is always a useful road. China's

role, what is going on economically,

which forces are driving this?

One

of the reasons the military can get

away with this appalling, rapid,

biggest refugee exodus in history is

that they have the two biggest

countries in the world, which border

Burma, they are both looking on

approvingly. China is perfectly

happy to see them acting in this way

because it helps to secure Rakhine

states the Chinese investment.

Meanwhile, the Hindu nationalists in

India who have been in power for the

past years are perfectly at home

with an Islamophobia policy, they

are equally Islamophobia themselves.

That part of the world, the

birthplace of the great religions,

the great home of spiritual values,

has turned extremely toxic in the

past five or ten years.

I said I

would come back to you, Dr Mahinda

Deegalle.

Still I think the colonial

past is very important. I think

these groups came, starting from

1826, the citizenship law of 1982

prohibited giving citizenship to

these people. One of the solutions

that not the Buddhists but the state

has to do is offer citizenship to

these people, if that is offered to

these people then I think the

problem will go. I think denying

them citizenship is an issue and I

think the colonial masters have to

be responsible.

With all due respect to the

reverend, I disagree. I think the

historical presence of Rohingyas

predated the British colonisation

which began in 1824. Baby Michael

can chime in. We have a top

historian who can speak on the

Rohingyas.

Go for it, Michael.

The

Rohingyas have been at the hundreds

of years, and lots of the Buddhists

and Rakhine are immigrants

themselves. The problem is the

Burmese military is trying to put

its imprint of what it sees of

Democrats Burma and all of the

areas. They will turn everything to

what Burma looks like in one

particular area. All the world wants

Burma, it is a strategic position of

natural gas. China once closest to

the Indian Ocean, the US wanted to

be close to China. Even in the 1990s

they had to be pushed into

sanctions.

But this is a genocide.

When it happened in Rwanda, we

looked back in shame.

If these were

white Europeans then we would

already have been involved.

The

author of Bed For The Night said

never again has it been turned into

the poor taste Joe, he said never

again was meant to mean never in

Europe Germany will kill the Jewish

community. Since 1948...

It happens

again and again. 20 seconds and we

are out of time.

You had to be

couple not to call for

interventionism, that has been

problematic everywhere in the world

-- do have to be careful not to call

for interventionism. But we cannot

see genocide before our eyes and not

do anything. The real question is

not has the West misunderstood

Buddhism, but has the West

misunderstood the roller can play in

places like.

APPLAUSE

.

-- but has the West misunderstood

the role it can play in places like

Burma?

As always, the debates will continue

online and on Twitter.

Next week we're in Bradford,

so do join us then.

But for now, it's goodbye

and have a great Sunday.

Thank you for watching.