Episode 2 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions...

The perils of flirting at work,

the right to asylum

for persecuted Christians,

and raising property taxes.

APPLAUSE

Good to see you.

Good morning, I'm Nicky Campbell.

Today, we're live from

Appleton Academy in Bradford.

Welcome, everybody,

to The Big Questions.

APPLAUSE

Last Sunday night,

the Golden Globes Award ceremony

was a sea of black as the nominees

and star-studded audience

displayed their support

of the Time's Up campaign

against sexual harassment.

But in France, they see

things rather differently.

100 French women, led by the actress

Catherine Deneuve, dubbed the MeToo

campaign puritanism fuelled

by hatred of men.

All they did was touch a knee,

try to steal a kiss or talk

about intimate matters.

We defend a right to pester,

which is vital to sexual freedom.

Most of us know there

is a line between flirting

and sexual harassment,

but not everyone draws

it in the same place.

And new guidelines for employers

issued by the Equality

and Human Rights Commission make

clear unwanted conduct does not need

to be directed at the person

offended but can just be

witnessed or overheard.

Jokes, looks, gestures,

discussing your sex life

with someone else, intrusive

questions or direct propositions

are all potentially

unlawful sexual harassment.

Is time up for flirting at work?

Solicitor, Nick Freeman, puritanism,

are you worried we are entering very

difficult terrain here?

Yes, I think

we are about to embark upon

immediate reaction to what is

happening in Hollywood. Flirting is

very healthy, part of our natural

dynamic and to take that away from

us destroys part of who we are.

Flirting has a very specific

definition and it is something that

is playful, not serious. I accept we

need to be sympathetic on the effect

it has on the person directed to the

people around us but it stimulates,

energises and more people meet and

marry in the workplace as a

consequence of flirting than

anywhere else. For example, it is

much safer than meeting somebody

online. That is a very healthy way

of establishing a relationship. You

see their true self, someone under

pressure, you have time with them

and you can then assess underside,

do I want to have a relationship

with that person? -- and decide. The

statistics, 14% of people get

married from meeting at the

workplace. And those marriages are

much happier.

It is a very

important... It is important,

playful, innocent, that is what

you're saying.

Harassment is

something is sinister, it is a

criminal offence.

Who disagrees with

that? There is a clear line?

I

actually agree with some of what

Nick has said. Harassment and

flirting or two separate matters

completely. The MeToo campaign was

born out of the Harvey Weinstein

scandal, unwanted sexual harassment

and advances within the workplace

and out as well, why are we

conflating the issues? We know what

flirting is and it is innocent and

banter, Nick said, it makes but they

go quicker, but we are talking about

harassment, the fact women have not

been able to come forward in the

years, decades, whatever, and now

there is a real movement, an

opportunity for women and men as

well who have been victims of

harassment to come forward and tell

the world what has happened. The

fact we have only been able to

scratch the surface with people

using the #MeToo, there will be

millions more across the world who

will now be able to come forward and

tell the world what has happened to

them.

Many people have had concerns

that the line between sexual

harassment and flirting is rather

ambiguous and can be subjective.

But

we test this. Angela is here to talk

specifically about this. Working in

an office, if I said you had a nice

bum.

I would wonder when your next

optician appointment was! I would

say, you are looking particularly

gorgeous this morning. I would

preface my comments by saying, the

goalposts are very movable. There

was a fizzy drinks campaign

predicated on the notion a bunch of

women stood at the window and

watched the window cleaner get his

kit off and have his fizzy drink. I

get offended if I walk past a

building site and they do not wolf

whistle. I say, shall we do that

again? In all seriousness, there is

a big difference with women. I

agree, we should not conflate the

two. There is a difference between

sexual objectification and

persistent unwanted attention. Some

of the offences people have been

accused of have been so lightweight,

the grazing of a hand on the knee,

calling somebody gorgeous, it

energises the workplace, like Nick

says. I do not want to live in a

dull world where men and women

cannot talk to each other. Women are

quite canny as well. If a really

attractive man flirts with her in

the office and says nice things,

that is flirtation. If it is a fat

old buffer...

It is someone touching

your knee flirting?

It depends who

it is. If you have a really nice

looking man who grazes his hand on

your knee and maintains eye contact,

that is flirting. If you are

16-year-old girl and a man in his

50s does that, far more powerful, it

is inappropriate. We cannot be

prospective.

Abdullah. A number of

studies have shown that for 30 years

the perception of sexual harassment,

defined as unwanted romantic or

sexual advances, it varies depending

on the attractiveness of the person

instigating it. The problem is, when

you define it as unwanted romantic

or sexual advances, you are

expecting people to be psychic, to

know whether there advances are

wanted before they make it which is

a problem. It stems from, my

personal critique, of sexual

personal critique, of sexual --

secular liberal societies, you do

not have defined... Since Victorian

times, you had a bit more

conservative values in the UK, for

example, in the middle and upper

classes.

Better morals?

Not

necessarily, but in terms of social

decorum in the UK among middle and

upper classes, it was different.

Women knew their place. In Victorian

times.

We are talking about social

etiquette and decorum. Why do you

always have to turn it, whenever the

religious person is speaking?

Women's place was different in

Victorian times.

What is going on,

what with things like, not in

Victorian times, back in maybe the

60s?

The 60s, the days of

miniskirts.

miniskirts. You you just stirred and

admired and days of typing pools as

well and loads of girls and I worked

in the West End for a while, it was

a wonderful time. But the difference

between flirtation of course and

sexual harassment is the difference

between ping-pong and Rugby Football

League not the same thing at all.

Going back to Victorian times, the

lady would have a fan, flirtation

with the fan. A wonderful way of

getting together.

They code.

A

wonderful code. We all agreed

flirting is a good thing otherwise

no woman would ever get asked out to

dinner, you have to get through the

flirting, cannot suddenly say, would

you like to come out to dinner

tonight, I promise not to touch your

knee? One very quick thing, I would

be interested to have the view of

the panel, I was attached to the

Royal Navy at sea on HMS Illustrious

and when women went to see, the

Royal Navy came in with the no

touching rule which is quite

definitive and you can work that

out, it is not airy-fairy like the

Equality Commission nonsense. I have

never heard so much nonsense.

You

are so politically correct, Godfrey.

No touching rule. That is the rule.

It works for the Royal Navy. I think

it would work in the office.

If the

definition of sexual harassment is

unwanted sexual advances, not

touching necessarily. We all agree

it is wrong and criminal.

Some women

like it.

It is the unwanted advances

which causes the ambiguity.

If it is

unwanted, it is a criminal act. You

cannot have the wishy-washy nonsense

from the commission. Totally

subjective. That will cause trouble.

Angela. I will be with you in a

second, Susie. Some women like it?

There is a whole culture of

predatory... We are generalising, a

lot of broad terms. Nobody deserves

to be sexually objectified or

harassed. Accept that as given, the

law is clear. But there are women

whose stay is enlightened,

invigorated, by the attention of

other men -- day. There is a whole

cohort of predatory women who enjoy

exerting their chemical, hormonal,

sexual, call it what you will,

influence. I was in an office that

other week, young chap, late 20s, I

had not been in for few weeks, I

said, hello, you are looking

gorgeous, did you have a lovely

Christmas? I like your jacket. I am

not so much more powerful than him,

I am older, just, but the fact is,

women seem to have... There is

latitude where women are concerned.

We have to have a more level playing

field.

You say some women like it

and OK, some women do. But not

everyone does. The bottom line is

that if you are making a comment at

someone, there is a potential chance

it might make them feel

uncomfortable, just do not do it. In

the workplace, we are all adults, we

are not teenagers. If you are going

to say something that might

potentially... You do not know what

previous experiences that person may

have had that may warrant them to

become uncomfortable, and if you are

going to say something...

If they

had just lost their dog the week

before, you say, I'm having a dog's

life at the moment, it be upsetting.

We have to be empathetic. We have to

be aware of the effect of what we

say and do has on the other person.

If someone suggest something

slightly inappropriate to you and

you show it is inappropriate, they

should immediately picked up on it

and say, sorry, move on.

Not every

person feels in a place to do that.

Sometimes someone might make a

comment, it might make them feel

uncomfortable, not every person at

the receiving end may feel in a

position to say, hang on, that does

not make me feel comfortable, can

you not do that?

Through the day, we

will be uncomfortable sometimes. We

will not die, fall over backwards.

Sometimes we will be made to feel a

little bit uncomfortable, we roll up

our sleeves, get on with it.

I saw

some people wanting to talk.

I

cannot accept what you have just

said. Nobody has a right to make

another person feel uncomfortable

and nobody has a right to say to

another person, get over it, it is

OK, take it like a man, completely

unacceptable. If it is a genuine

innocent mistake...

Otherwise it

would be harassment.

I completely

agree with you, Nick. The

recommendation is, you could see it

happening to somebody else and you

could then reported, would you

report it if you saw it happening?

For me, sexual harassment is very

subjective. What is sexual

harassment for one person is not for

another person and what outrages me

might not upgrade somebody else. We

have to keep that in mind. Going

back to what Angela says, not every

single woman wants to be sexually

harassed and not every person enjoys

the sexual attention. It is wrong to

say things like this because you are

giving the message, you are

confusing...

Listen, everybody.

Angela, no.

You are harassing me!

I

want to go to the audience. I am the

sensitive flower here. Some ladies

wanted to talk in the audience.

Something Angela said, I saw you

shifting in your seat, shaking your

head.

It was about the workplace and

we are not teenagers. Well, my

workplace has a lot of teenagers it

is a college, and therefore, this is

a difficult area for us because part

of our job is helping those young

people learn some of these

boundaries before they get into the

workplace. This is a more complex

area for us. It is one we have to do

a lot of observation, give a lot of

feedback to students and deal with

potentially very difficult issues. I

feel that this debate needs to take

into account that not everybody is

good at picking up social cues. Not

everybody understands where the

boundaries are. We need to teach

people how to say no in a nice way,

in a way that respects the other

person, but it is a very clear no.

It is very difficult territory.

It

is.

Good morning. As an employer, the

last thing I want is a reduction in

productivity because some of my

employees don't want to come to

washing because they're afraid of

being harassed. My own personal

moral values come into that. I

wouldn't want to go around harassing

people. I certainly don't want any

of my employees to be harassed. But

it is a minefield when it comes to

this new equality legislation.

What

is acceptable flirting and

compliments we're hearing about in

the office which edge towards, to

use an old fashioned word from the

sixties, saucy. Is that all right in

the office? Let this gentleman

answer and isle' be with you.

I

think flirtation can be healthy. A

flick of the hey a whiff of perfume

as somebody's passing by or a brush

of the shoulder is OK.

I smelt your

scent earlier on! LAUGHTER SKAPTS IT

WAS VERY DELICIOUS.

WAS VERY DELICIOUS.

Harassment is

not enjoyable.

Isn't it allowing

political cricketness to get out of

hand? I've worked in offices all my

life. I've seen people come in,

ladies come in with a new hairstyle.

I've said, you look nice today.

Might have a new outfit. You look

great. I've worked with young people

and occasionally when they've come

up with a really good way of dealing

with a problem, I've said well done

and touched them on the shoulder.

What's wrong with that?

There is

nothing politically correct or

incorrect about this. It is about

humans treating each other with

respect.

Empathy, sensitivity.

Was

it lacking in respect to say they've

a nice hair do?

It's not

disrespectful.

It's get to that that

stage.

There should be different

standards if you're significantly

senior to other people in the work

department. If you have the ability

to influence that person's career,

by definition, that person's

potentially vulnerable or feel they

could need to pretend things are OK

when they don't.

I've raised the

morality issue. Mark, there are many

things you are not on the same page

as Abdullah on. Maybe there's some

condition ex-here. You think one of

the problems here is that men don't

accept Christian teaching, no sex

before Marge?

That's right. You

mentioned a caricature of life in a

Victorian era which was by no means

perfect and there was a hip ok Si.

Sex was given its proper value in

marriage. Today, we don't say sex it

just for a man and a woman. It would

mean our whole approach to flirting

was much more nuanced. We need to

get back to the bible's teaching. We

can't do that. In Victorian era, the

only way to live a truly Christian,

God-pleasing life as Jesus Christ

said, you have to be born again.

With a new nature. The old nature,

we see in people like Harvey

Weinstein. The bible says we're all

corrupt in our hearts. The way to

avoid office flirtation is to go

back to our Christian roots.

No sex

before marriage?

No.

You can't put

handcuffs on natural communication

and natural action. We're humans.

And we're sensual animals?

Exactly.

It stimulates who we are. Once it

crosses the line, it's not flirting.

No sex after marriage is the

problem!

Speak for yourself.

Did you

say there's no sex after marriage,

Godfrey?

Too much information. Thank

you.

I'm trying to run the

discussion here and concentrate.

Susie, did introduce Susie.

No-one

is saying in this campaign no-one

can flirt with each other in the

office. I do agree with you on a

level that there is nothing wrong

with flirting. It's harmless. It

doesn't even necessarily mean two

people are necessarily wanting to

take their relationship to another

level. It is harmless interaction.

But, there is a line between

flirting and harassment. That line

is, you know, subjective to every

person. What makes one person feel

uncomfortable may not for the next

person. In that case, then, just

don't do it. In termsp

If in doubt?

Yeah. If you're going to make a

comment to someone think, oh, well,

is that person giving me some sort

of signal that might make me or

means that comment is warranted?

If

I establish, how do you establish

there is a mutual sexual interest?

How do you establish that?

Well, I

think everyone's been in a position

where you've had that mutual

connection with someone or chemistry

with someone and flirt something a

natural bi-product?

People

misunderstand and misinterpret each

other's cues all the time. It is be

consistent. Either we ban all

flirting in the public arena, remove

sex from the public arena full stop

or have a dedicated system of

courtship. Or you allow flirting up

to the point of criminality. Yeah?

At least be consistent if you have

this halfway position, you subject

everyone to the unnoble

interpretation of every other person

based purely on how that other

person interprets an initial advance

not a repeat advance.

That is

exactly right.

Listen, we're,

there's two more debates. Plenty

more time to express your opinion.

You've had your hand up. One

sentence from you on what you think

about this. You will have the last

word.

There's the taboo of sexuality

and a natural humanistic nature to

be attracted to the opposite sex. We

haven't discussed same sex

flirtation. The campaign about

speaking out is the parallel between

speaking about flirting and then to

the extreme about being abused and

disclosure and that whole subject

matter around disclosure and

speaking out whether it be a male or

female and the concept of culture,

tradition and religion. There are

traditional methods of flirting when

you're wearing the hijab or burqa.

There's a whole dynamic.

We've about

five debates worth in that. Thank

you very much indeed. Thank you.

APPLAUSE

If you have something

to say about that debate,

logon to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions

and follow the link to where you can

join in the discussion online.

Or contribute on Twitter - #bbctbq.

We're also debating

live this morning at

Bradford's Appleton Academy,

should persecuted Christians

jump the asylum queue?

And would higher council taxes

on empty and second homes be fair?

So, get tweeting or emailing

on those topics now,

or send us any other ideas

or thoughts you may

have about the show.

This week, the annual

World Watch List of countries

where Christians face religious

persecution was published.

It reports how over 200 million

Christians worldwide

are currently being beaten,

killed, forcibly detained, denied

education or job opportunities,

having their children abducted,

their churches and homes

bombed and burned.

North Korea, Afghanistan,

Somalia, Sudan and Pakistan

are the five worst offenders,

but India is not far behind

and Egypt has risen fast

through the ranks this past year.

Many of the countries listed have

strong links to Britain

through the Commonwealth

or through our shared history.

There have been calls to give

priority to Christian refugees

in America, by President Trump,

and in Australia too.

Should persecuted Christians

jump the asylum queue?

Mark Mullins, why should they?

Everybody who has a risk to their

life should be, as a result of their

religious views, should be welcomed

to this country. There is a problem

though. If they support the very

violence they're fleeing from they

will bring trouble to our country.

That's the problem we face. The

way...

What or who are you talking

about?

I'm talking about those,

well, those who flee persecution by

a religious group, it may be their

own religious group. They may

support violence to other religious

groups. I don't really think I need

to name them. We all know who they

are because the debate's not about

that. But it is about our own

heritage. The reason we have such an

open policy, and rightly have an

open policy of tolerance to people

of other faiths is because we go

back to the middle ages where a man

called William Tindell translated

the bible because we...

Are we still

a Christian country?

Can I quickly

finish this point. As a result of

his translation of the bible he was

hunted down and killed in 1536. They

couldn't keep the bible out of this

country. As a result, over the next

couple of centuries, the religious

wars that ensued led to in 1689 The

Glorious Revolution and a freedom of

religion, the tolerance act in 1689.

That was the beginning of freedom of

religion for non-confirmist, dues,

eventually for Roman Catholics and

where we are today, that's based on

our biblical heritage.

That freedom

should make us a special haven for

all the God's children. Sorry

pointing at you.

I'll point back.

Please do! Should we not prioritise

atheists in Pakistan who are subject

to the most disgusting blasphemy

laws and are suffering so much?

Do

you mind if it...

APPLAUSE

Why not prioritise those people?

Can

I be political. Pakistan is where

Christians, I know this first-hand,

Christians are facing persecution.

They are being shot for

exercising...

So are atheists.

What's the difference?

The door is

shutting to Christians around the

nation. That's because we know that

from the Open Doors report. The

reason you had this debate today. We

need to make sure we keep an open

door to Christians. As I said to

you, anyone with religious views,

including atheists who are genuinely

facing a fear to their lives.

But

Christians first and foremost?

We

must not forget our duty.

Our duty

is to Christians.

I'm a Pakistani.

I'm Pauled at the record Pakistan

holds being on that list in general.

It is not just the Christian groups

persecuted. Pakistan has a long

history of persecuting anybody who

doesn't fall into the main category.

Even now, sitting here and

criticising blasphemy laws, I could

have a massive target on my head

when I go to Pakistan next. It is

very difficult to talk about. But we

should be cheap as a place where

people can come as a safe haven.

We've a long history of persecuted

minority groups coming here for safe

haven. Some were turned away. The

Jewish during the Holocaust. We have

to actually look at the pigger

picture here. We're living in a

world where there's wars going on,

persecution going on. There's a lot

of sectarianism going on as well.

It

is about human beings not their

particular...

It is about human

beings.

Lisa, welcome to the big

questions. Prince Charles spoke

eloquently about this. The

persecution suffered by Christians

across the world is absolutely

horrific. When it says, when any

western minority says we are

persecuted we hear it from

Christians, Muslims, it gives light

to the very word persecution. This

is persecution. Shouldn't we

prioritise these people?

I think

first of all, persecution of

Christians is growing rapidly. The

scale and severity is growing. We're

having to monitor more countries in

order to find the 50 where it is

hardest which forms our World Watch

List. That's across Asia, the Middle

East and sub-Saharan Africa. We're

there at village level withp

communities and underground networks

where to be a Christian. In North

Korea they have a saying, to choose

Jesus ask to die. Should we

prioritise Christians. We need to

prioritise people on need. However,

you're quite right, awful things

happening with that atheist blogger

in Saudi sentenced to 1,000 lashes.

Christians are not the only ones

suffering. There is a scale of

persecution happening to Christians

around the world that's enormous at

the moment. One of the things, I've

been in Iraq and Beirut where people

have fled Syria. What we often find

ask the Christians don't have the

mobility or confidence to register

with the UN to apply to get out of

the country. Where the UK's

providing aid in places like

niningeer ya and again into Syria --

Nigeria. Where that's distributed by

Islamic local governments, the

Christians are not accessing the

aid. If we want to be fair, ensure

Christians are equally heard when

considering who should be given

asylum, the UK needs to become much

more religiously literate and make

sure they are hearing from everybody

and then choosing on that basis.

Radical Islam increasingly gets a

stranglehold in places like Sudan,

Tunisia, this is more dangerous for

Christians. North Korea, top of the

list,

list, to be able to choose Christ,

is to choose death.

Afghanistan,

Iraq, Yemen, a bit of a pattern,

some would say. Countries the West

has

been last month, 10,000 people were

massacred in Burma. In Central

African Republic, the militia have

told Muslims they should convert to

Christianity uber-die, they are

massacred 13 Muslims in the mosque

-- or die.

-- or die. Christians... They even

eat Muslims as well. In no

circumstances... Who eats Muslims?

Lisa has done the research. In the

Central African Republic, those

people, although they are classed as

Christians, they are much more

animist in their practice. It is

said by these reports, while

Christians the most persecuted group

in the world? Many groups... People

from all different groups are

persecuted in very large numbers. We

have to tally it up as to which

particular denomination or

religionist. It is pretty bad for

Christians. And it is based on

village level detailed research.

What I would say is...

In India,

Muslims are not persecuted by... No

one is saying they are not

persecuted. Lisa. Why are we playing

this game as to which?

It is not a

game.

In India and Nepal, Muslims

are absolutely persecuted,

are absolutely persecuted, in

Vietnam, but across the world, for

Christians, the scale of persecution

is incredible. Working with partners

in North Korea, Afghanistan, Syria,

Iraq, we provide trauma counselling,

not just for Christians, but

equipping the church to serve the

whole community. Of course, if you

are a Shia in Saudi, a Sunni in

Iran, that is certainly true. The

bigger issue is, between us, it is

not about people competing with each

other, we need to be really serious

about establishing an environment

where people can have any faith or

no faith and be treated with

dignity.

Absolutely.

We are talking about this because of

the report, something we have not

addressed before, the scale of the

persecution of Christians. Godfrey

Bloom, you said Muslim countries

should look after Muslims. What do

you mean?

We have to be pragmatic.

We have to bear in mind that England

is one of the most crowded pieces of

real estate on the planet, it is a

welfare state, the state is

responsible for education, welfare,

pensions, so consequently, there is

only a limited amount of people you

can give sanctuary to. We need to

understand that. We need to be

pragmatic. We cannot be apple pie

all the time. That is something we

have to bear in mind. We also have

to bear in mind we give vast

quantities of aid to places like

Pakistan and Nigeria.

Or Bongo Bongo

Land, as previously mentioned.

Some

of these places are pretty dodgy.

You must've forgotten. You used the

term Bongo Bongo Land. It was

offensive then, it is offensive now.

I forgot you had used that term.

Let

us all go and shoot ourselves.

An

apology would be fine.

You will not

get an apology from me, dear lady.

We are spending £1 billion a month

in foreign aid, we are scattering it

all over the globe, but it comes

without caveats. We have to tell

Pakistan, there will be no more

persecution of Christians, atheists,

otherwise... Nigeria has to do

something about it. We cannot go

giving these people money, wringing

our hands and bursting into tears.

Some of these places are evil and

need sorting out and they must not

have tax payer's money anymore.

What

you are saying is completely wrong.

What you are saying is, withdraw

cash, hold back help, get these

people to sort out themselves. What

we need to look at is what is

happening on the ground, the lady

said, people being persecuted. It is

not about separating different

groups into Christianity, Muslim

groups. We should look at how we can

end persecution.

Is it the rise of

fundamentalism across the world,

religious fundamentalism, in all its

guises? And the parallel growth of

sheer hatred and intolerance?

It is

us against them type of politics. We

need to tackle these politics and

the messages the leaders are putting

out and I include Donald Trump in

that.

I thought you might. Let me go

to the audience. I will be back with

you. We have had some hands up.

Gentleman with the headphones.

I

wanted to address the person that

mentioned that the West is

responsible for essentially the

persecution.

Abdullah.

How would

that make sense, they are killing

people in their own country? People

in the country who have a different

religion, how are they responsible

for what the West are doing?

Can I

provide a response? At the very

least?

You will, but I will go to

the audience and come back to you.

Going back to the question, should

Christians be able to jump the

asylum due? In the universal

declaration of human rights, one of

the key articles is everyone is born

free and equal -- the asylum Q. You

have people fleeing countries for

months and years and if you were to

push them back to make way for

Christians who had been persecuted,

any persecution is wrong, that

cannot be denied, but if we were to

push them back in the queue, we

would not be treating them as if

they were equal. We need to sort out

the problems collectively.

Christians being on Christian... The

chaos that has been caused?

It said

Iraq was quite high up in the

persecution of Christians in the

report. However, under Saddam

Hussein, that was not the case. If

you go back even further, we see

that the oldest Christian

communities were in the Middle East,

the most famous Catholic saint,

Saint John of Damascus, wrote the

first invectives against Islam in

medieval Islamic Syria and nothing

happened to him. Radical Islam is

not the issue here, it is the

post-colonial countries where you

have nationalist or ethnic violence

created in the modern era by the...

One other point, in Pakistan, the

blasphemy law is not derived from

Sharia law, the rough formulation

was borrowed from the English penal

system, from the British colonial

era.

Time to move on. Gentleman

there. Respond to that.

I will do.

Clearly, it should be based on need.

From a legal perspective, moral,

British values. Christian

perspective, it should be based on

need. There is large consensus here

for that. It is very important to

note in terms of things like

blasphemy that we have 13 countries

in the world where blasphemy and

apostasy, where you can be murdered

by the state for leaving your

religion or being nonreligious. The

UN special rapporteur on religion

said that atheists suffer some of

the most intense persecution. We

should not be getting into this

competition of who is the most

persecuted, we need to have

compassion and humanity, but we need

to understand there are different

things around the world and we need

to be challenging these structures.

Thank you very much. You are doing a

little bit of eye rolling when

Abdullah was talking.

You have

mentioned the fact blasphemy laws in

Pakistan were a by-product of

something carried into when the new

state was formed...

Borrowed.

Should

we be moving on now? Why do we need

to feel so insecure about our

religion that somebody makes a

comment, we have to be outraged and

Lynch that person?

Can she just

finished?

Take the term imperialism

out of the conversation, let us talk

about what is actually wrong,

morally wrong or whatever.

That is

what we are talking about. I am

saying what is wrong is that in many

of these secular nation states, we

are seeing sectarianism.

Blasphemy

is essentially the fault of the

West? For transplanting these

attitudes? Charlie Hebdo is the

West's fault?

There is a very clear

pattern...

Charlie Hebdo is the

fault of the West, people

interpreting blasphemy laws, laws?

It is not the result... We are

talking about the Middle East. You

mentioning blasphemy laws, we're not

talking about what happened in

France and the internal dynamic.

It

was seen as blasphemous. It was seen

as contravening...

I do not think

you would take a blasphemy law...

The reason that motivated them...

It

is against Islam. I do not agree

with Jeffrey in his approach to what

he said but I think one thing we

have missed out on in this

discussion is that what happens when

people arrive here, as the

granddaughter of an immigrant who

came at the turn of the century,

persecution from the Ukraine and

Russia, my late grandfather was so

grateful for what this country

gifted to him, he insisted on

becoming naturalised immediately, he

wanted to sign up to fight at the

outbreak of the First World War, he

was a stretcher bearer. To the end

of his days, he was grateful. There

is no such thing as competitive

suffering, no drop of more blood is

more painful, we have agreed on

that. Once you come to this country,

we have so many difficulties with

racial tensions, ghettos, all

different ethnicities, people have

to come here and respect British

values. When someone comes here

because of the level of suffering

and persecution, now you are here,

respect the way British people live.

Thank you. We will get on to what

the heck British values are at some

stage. We have done that before.

You can join in all this

morning's debates by logging

on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions

and following the link to the online

discussion.

Or you can tweet using

the hashtag #bbctbq

and tell us what you think

about our last Big Question too.

Would higher council taxes on empty

and second homes be fair?

And if you'd like to apply

to be in the audience

at a future show, you

can email [email protected].

We're in Cambridge next Sunday,

Newcastle upon Tyne on January 28th,

and Southampton the week after that.

Just north of Bradford, where we are

this morning, the magnificent

Yorkshire Dales national park.

With its splendid limestone crags

and caves, heather moors,

and characterful stone villages.

12,000 years ago, people came

here from Europe to settle

after the last Ice Age.

Now, the incomers come from cities

like Manchester, Bradford,

Leeds and further afield.

But many of these newer

arrivals aren't settlers.

These are their second homes.

So, they're not using the local

schools, shops and buses as much

as the full-time residents.

And they're pushing up

the price of property

beyond the reach of the locals.

Now the local councils

within the National Park

would like to charge second home

owners up to five times

more council tax for

the privilege of living there.

So, £8,500 council tax

on a second home in Band D,

instead of the £1,640 it would cost

a local full-time resident.

And the same idea could be extended

by local authorities to people

with empty properties elsewhere.

Here in Bradford, there are more

long-term empty houses than anywhere

else in West Yorkshire,

around 4,000 in all.

Would higher council taxes on empty

and second homes be fair?

David, how much higher should they

go, perhaps?

Well, I think you're

slightly wrong there. It was a

minimum of five times. Not up to

five times. Let me paint awe picture

of the Rohrichier shales.

Population, 24,000. We've got an --

the Yorkshire Dales.

the Yorkshire Dales. An area huge

area. People 65 plus, twice the

national average. 15 years and

younger are a protected species in

the Dales. But critically, working

people, 18-44 way below the national

average. That's the demographic. In

terms of impact on services, all

kinds of difficulties. Problems in

schools. The butcher, baker,

candlestick maker. Banks, Post

Offices.

What about restaurants and

trades men? Don't they bring

business into the area? These second

homes?

They do but they're a

particular problem with services. On

the housing side, we've 13,500

properties for a population of

24,000. No shortage of housing. A

shortage of affordable and local

needs housing. Of that 13,500, we've

about one in four, it's increasing,

that are semi occupied. One in four.

75% permanently occupied. The

national average is 96%. That's

causing immense problems within the

area. So, in terms of a proposal,

what we're suggesting is that we

approach Government as an area and

say, I'm tell you what, we've had

all these local national policy

initiatives. In terms of the

long-term decline of an area like

this, squat. They're just not

hitting the mark. So, what about

just for a five-year pilot, giving

us the powers to charged aingsal

council tax on second home ownsers.

Do you want to make money or keep

these people out of area?

Three

objectives. One, two bring more

homes which are currently semi-yes

occupied back into permanent

residency. Two, dedirt second

homeowners from buying a second home

in the Dales. If a second homeowners

wants to have a home in the Dales,

they pay-for-that to make up for the

lack of economic spending that

they've got in the area.

What's the

problem with that, John?

First of

all, I want to say, I have a 20-year

track record of supporting young

families, bringing them into the

Dales, retaining those that are

there. I'm particularly proud of

that as a local councillor. But, to

suggest we charge at least five

times council tax to second

homeowners smacks all over of the

law of unintended consequences. And,

most importantly, in my view, it

will harm the very cause it sets

stout to deliver, to retain and

attract young families.

Unfortunately, there's other ways

that can be delivered.

What are the

unintended consequences?

They will

be, it will be damage the local

economy. Second homeowners spend

very freely in the local economy.

They probably spend more sometimes

than local families. They keep our

army of small firms, builders,

joiners, electricians, very often

run by local families, going. We're

making pariahs of people who support

our economy and I think it's hugely

unfair. It won't help the actual

young families themselves. The idea

that suddenly, a glut of houses on

the market at the lower price will

see young families take them on, I

think, is a fallacy. I think,

actually, it will harm everybody who

owns property in the Dales and

particularly those young families

who've elected to buy a property

there.

OK. James, you're from Your

Space, you do a lot about empty

properties and the homeless. The

number of empty properties in this

part of the world is astonishing.

Liking at alternative models for

delivering housing.

Which will

ultimately help homeless people?

Ultimately, yes. The tax is the

point of question. If you look at

the policy behind it, it is to try

to help local communities. There is

a strong correlation between second

home ownership and rising local

house price the. That does affect

communities, especially young

families and people who have grown

up in an area in a can't afford a

house there. If we're talking five

times the council tax, I am

interested to know is that money

going to be in vested into the local

community? Or communities groups

like mining in York that helps

deliver local housing, if the

council can work with local people

to help find, allocate sites,

identify them.

The politicians who

propose this policy are conspicuous

by their absence here today. They

sent along a Chief Executive but

where are they to defend the corner?

Where are they to answer the

questions?

We've only a finite

number of chairs on the front row.

This is the problem. We already have

Nick, John, Asia.

You should have

invited the people putting it

forward, Nicky, if you don't mind me

saying.

I understand people will be

affected by this. But the housing

crisis is affecting lots of people,

it is not fair on lots of people.

This is a new group of people being

affected by the housing crisis. This

is dealing with the existing stock.

We are just not building enough

affordable homes. That is why second

home ownership is challenged. It is

a bold stick to bash people with.

Angela, bashing people with second

homes?

As the mother of students,

I'm concerned when they graduate for

ruin versity can they get on to the

property ladder. We are not building

enough social housing. An architect

friend of mine said the other night

only 4% of this country is built on.

There's an argument about green

belt. You take the train from

Manchester to London, you travel

through vast areas of open space. I

object...

It's called agriculture.

There are farmers who own fields for

the sake of owning fields so they

can get their kit back from the

European Union.

Subsidies!

OK.

Did

you hear that?

What I object to

about this disparity about council

tax, we have in this country of peep

liesing success. We don't like it

when people have money and they

spend it. What about people that

have... Hang on a second, with

respect, so what about people who

have second homes somewhere in a

lovely part of Wales or the

Yorkshire Dales? Because they go

there they don't take their money

abroad and spend it abroad on

holiday. They bring that money every

weekend they come. How do you

calibrate how much time somebody

spends in their home? If you have

money and the banks are rubbish and

it is not going to do anything if

you put it in a bank so you might as

well spend it on something that may

appreciate. You may be able to gift

it to your children and enjoy it.

Why are you being penalised for that

success?

In the audience. You had

your hand up. Good morning to you.

Thank you. This policy about

fundamentally looking after the

needs of local people. As a concept,

we can all be generally sympathetic

with that. With regards the

implementation, I can seaside effect

the that may be unintended. But it

brings into focus two other

fundamental issues. The first is

about intra immigration within the

UK. You could widen that to

immigration into the UK. The second

is trying to make our cities more

attractive to people, improving

standard, quality of living and

enhancing existing environments,

existing communities. I think this

is a bigger debate. At the moment

we're talking about the Yorkshire

Dales. I believe over the next ten

years or so, this will be a debate

that is extended into other aspects

of population control, population

management within the UK. We have

not addressed this.

Thank you very

much indeed. The lady with your hand

up, stripy top and glasses.

My

personal opinion is you only need

one home. If you want a second home,

you should pay more council tax.

Also, the situation in the Yorkshire

Dales, children and young people

that have grown up in that village

can't get on the property ladder or

properties available for them to buy

to stay where they are because

they've been taken up by second

home-buyers.

Some are leaving, you

see.

Susie wants to say something.

Angela raising a point penalising.

We are not penalising.

We are.

We're

not.

But you are.

We're saying we

need to spread that wealth. A lot of

these areas are underfunded anyway.

If you you've earned it.

This is a

really bad idea. It is a complete

distraction in the amount of houses

being built in this country. The

Government should let more houses be

built in their areas. Lots of times

the builders want to build more and

the council says no, they want to

protect the green belt or the

environment. What they mean is

they'll oppose any development in

their local communities. I

understand people have carnets about

infrastructure. A lot of developers

come in saying they want to build

houses...

You can't build over a

National Park?

We're talking about

building over a per cent amming of

the land not being built upon.

It is

green and pleasant lad?

A lot is

not. It is just sitting there.

Nothing being done with it.

Developers are ready to build more

homes for younger people and the

bureaucrats and council get in the

way. The process is very complex.

Better to use empty houses than tear

up agent woodland? What about this

specific prop bowsal whacking up

council tax like this?

It is

impossible to enforce. Unless you

get a detective to see how many days

of the year you're in that second

home.

We're missing the point here.

It is about the future viability and

sustainability of local communities.

What we're putting forward here is a

proposal for one part of the

country. I rec these problems exist

in the Lake District and many other

places.

All over.

That's where why

we're talking about a pilot. For

every house built in the Yorkshire

Dales per year two are disappearing

into the part-time occupied market.

You can't build your way out of this

particular problem.

Of course you

can.

You can't.

If all the second

homeowners move out because the

extra tax duty is so penal, won't

that suppress the value of 75% of

the remaining property so the people

living there will have houses that

will be worth vastly less than they

were because they're inflated by the

second homeowner? Surely, the answer

is a balance. And a balance isn't at

least five times. Maybe it's twice

or two-and-a-half times and

encouraging some sort of cohesion

between second homeowners so they

will accept they're rich enough to

afford a second home they will

accept to a certain level they need

to contribute to the community? But

you're going to kill it.

Let me

answer that. You can't determine

what the result of a five-year pilot

is before you actually start the

pilot.

At that price, you can.

John

talked about unintended

consequences. There will be a whole

range of consequences. That point

might have more validity if the

ignore the fact within the

constituent local authorities around

the National Park there will be

5,000 houses built over the next

five years. We're talking about 1400

second homes within the National

Park. This is not about second

homeowners. You can't get a debate

which differentiates between good

second homeowners and bad ones. Have

you to look at the consequence.

The

consequence of 5.2 million people

owning two, three, four or five

homes in this country when others

can't get on to the housing ladder.

#4r5iedy here.

I absolutely agree

with the basic principle that we

need to be itting something about

second homes. As the gentleman says,

it's having a disproportionate

affect on communities. We really

need to think about how are we going

to make the rural England

sustainable, viable and how it will

produce communities that are worth

living in and having. Because, one

of the things that has been, if you

like, one the disdisadvantages of

having a beautiful county, we've

tourism, people think, it is fan

fastic, I'd love to buy a house here

and come more often the that's one

of the down side. People can't use

village halls, nobody needs the bus

service, the local school closes.

But in rural businesses, they are

far more entrepreneurial than urban

ones. We need to move on to make

sheer we can put families in those

villages.

We haven't a lot of time.

Is there is a danger then that it

will only be the mega rich who can

have those second homes?

I would say

five times is far too many. If you

bought a Ferrari, you have to pay

more road tax and be able to service

it. If you you have a second home

you need to pay a premium.

Thank

you, thank you. See you next week.

We're in Cambridge. Thank you very

much for watching. Have a great

Sunday.