Episode 7 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions...

What to do with returnees

from Islamic State?

And schools - should

they be able to pick

their pupils from one religion?

Good morning, I'm Nicky Campbell,

welcome to The Big Questions.

Today we're live from Leicester

Grammar School in Leicester.

Welcome, everybody,

to The Big Questions.

Yesterday was the third anniversary

of the three Bethnal Green

schoolgirls - Amira,

Shamima and Kadiza - running away

to join Isis in Syria.

Two were just 15 and one was 16.

Kadiza is thought to have

died in an air strike

while trying to escape in 2016.

The whereabouts of the

other two is unknown.

And earlier this week,

the capture of two surviving

so-called "Beatles" -

Londoners who carried

out many executions

for so-called Islamic State,

led to a diplomatic row

between the UK and

the United States.

The American Defence Secretary ruled

out sending them to Guantanamo Bay,

saying they should be tried

in their country of origin.

But Britain's Defence Secretary,

Gavin Williamson, said they should

not be allowed to return to Britain

to face trial.

They should pay the price

for their crimes in Syria.

Yet the number of foreign fighters

returning home poses a real threat

to the safety of the UK and Europe,

according to Jane's Terrorism

and Insurgency Centre,

because they'll be returning skilled

in the use of weapons like armed

drones, IEDs and the industrialised

manufacture of car bombs.

So, what should be done about them?

Should all IS returnees

to Britain be punished?

Henna Rai, good morning. So the

girls from Bethnal Green, what

happened to the other two? We know

that Kadiza is dead.

We have no

idea, winner of the Intel is limited

but we know their fate will not have

been dissimilar to what Kadiza ended

up going through, how she was killed

trying to escape.

It was a teenage

fantasy.

It was, it is a difficult

one because I don't look at these

girls different to any victims of

child exploitation. One of them, to

correct you, was 14 going on 15 out

of the three, I cannot remember

exactly which one, but one was 14.

At that age, when they should have

been fantasising about I don't know,

Zayn Malik...

That's what it was, a

teenage adolescent fantasy, an

Islamic warrior with a six-pack.

I

don't think it was even the notion

of the guy being an Islamic warrior,

this was a man, a boy, a 20

something -year-old with a six pack,

with biceps, extremely attractive,

talking to these young girls and

telling them what they wanted to

hear. These girls were going through

hormonal changes, there's a lot of

issues, internal issues going on,

GCSEs, family rebellion, whatever.

They must have known what was going

on.

I think the naivete would have

stepped in because when you are

young and impressionable teenager

and someone is telling you how

beautiful you are, you are

beautiful, I'm going to make you my

queen, you will have servants at

your beck and call, you will be my

princess, giving them in effect an

Islamic Disneyland or notion of

living in the kingdom where they

would be the ruler and they would be

given exactly what they wanted, and

being coerced into making that

choice.

Having personal autonomy

perhaps for the first time.

Absolutely because Kadiza's sister,

after the news came that she was

killed, said Kadiza never made any

choices in her life, all of the

choices were made for her, whether

it was her clothes, what she ate,

what schooling she received,

watching watched on television, this

was the only choice is she ever made

and it was the wrong choice. That is

what we have seen happening here.

It's no different to the girls in

Rochdale who ended up falling for

the charms of these people, whether

it was online or in person.

Does

this apply to the young boys who go

as well?

To some extent because the

same manner of grooming takes place.

Do you have any sympathy at all,

Macer Gifford?

No because Islamic

State from the very beginning has

been decapitating people, it has

been butchering the people of Syria,

it's made its views on everything

from Jews... Everything.

They don't

talk about decapitating. You cannot

say a 14-year-old can groom

themselves. Girls are

impressionable.

Do not compare these

young ladies who sought out

extremist material, watched online

people having their heads cut off

and agreed with that, they allowed

themselves.

Did they see that

material?

They all did.

No, it is

disingenuous for you to make this

accusation because these girls were

groomed on the basis of love and

affection.

Did they watch the

mainstream media?

We don't know

that. I feel they may have seen some

aliments of what was happening but a

lot of Muslim girls we have spoken

to, people like Mike colleagues have

spoken to, have likened this to an

Islamic Disneyland where they will

be afforded rights. The manner in

which these girls are groomed is we

are giving you rights to do what you

want, you will be in charge here,

you will be playing the role and you

have an important is for us. Giving

those girls a sense of importance

and belonging is how...

And being

wanted. Nicola, your son was killed

in a drone strike, which was awful

for your family. Was he given a

sense of importance and belonging?

Absolutely, he was sold a lie. What

he was sold was the fact that if you

are good Muslim, not just a Muslim

but a good Muslim, this is the

journey you have to make and that's

why he gave up all of his family,

who he loved very dearly, and

decided to be a really good Muslim

because that's ultimately as a faith

tells us that I should do this and

this is what will take me to

paradise. It was also the lifestyle

that they sold to him, this utopian

lifestyle. Even when he was in

contact in Syria, she was in regular

contact with me once he went out

there after a couple of months and I

would call it even a honeymoon

period. He was very much sold in the

part where he felt these were his

brothers, that they were looking

after him well. Until the reality

set in.

Who became a fighter, didn't

he?

Yes, but he was very ill

equipped.

What was he doing

initially?

He was put in the camp

for about 64 days, initially they

put him in for 30 days but this I

understand he was kept in their

longer because what I've heard is

they couldn't break him. But we have

kind of almost brought him up too

well and they were finding it

difficult to get him to buy into

what they wanted him to carry out.

When they finally released him, then

he was just in civilian life but

then after several weeks...

Working

in the bureaucracy there?

Just

generally helping out day to day. It

was after some weeks, then they just

wanted, again it was about numbers

and they just sent him out to fight.

He was sent out fighting for several

weeks and when he came back, I was

preparing myself psychologically and

emotionally for a desensitisation,

for him to be detached. What I found

was when he came back he was in fact

very clingy to me. In fact when he

called me come he never wanted my

voice to go off the call, he wanted

my voice to be the last one he

heard.

Why didn't he know about the

true nature of this organisation,

the rape and torture, the genocide?

Did he not believe that stuff?

There

was so much media out there, the

coverage and images we saw, but you

have to understand, this ideology,

the way they recruit them, they

teach them, what you are hearing in

the media is fake news, it is a

conspiracy, the Government is making

this up against you.

They must have

seen the beheading videos on

television.

That is much later on.

Was he an enemy incompetent?

Was he an enemy incompetent? --

incombatant.

I didn't understand

what he had been sold, he had gone

in this dream.

An innocent abroad,

you reckon? Just tell everyone, you

were a British volunteer who fought

ISIS.

I find it so frustrating they

were joining Islamic State as

victims.

victims. Their work Yazidi girls

being sold into slavery, journalists

having their heads cut off. Your son

and the others we were talking

about, they watched this on the

news. We all did and I was moved to

fight against them, your son was

moved to fight for them. You cannot

compare poor young girls who come

from disadvantaged backgrounds and

who are abused by abusers to those

young girls that sort out extremist

material, they watched the news as

we all did, and agreed with what

they were watching and allowed

themselves to be groomed. I agree in

some respects, the young girls did

get groomed, they were seeking

something, but at the end of the day

it was them

it was them that sought it out.

When

you are told a lie you tend to

believe it, especially at an age

when you are impressionable and

being able to make a choice, what we

need to understand here, these girls

were not allowed to make choices in

their home lives.

Do you think once

they saw the material...

This is

what their families have said.

You

have picked up mobile phones and

seen the footage and it is

unspeakable, isn't it?

I was talking

to a friend of mine recently, in the

past we have always tried to

dehumanise the enemy, but ISIS have

dehumanised themselves. They want us

to know they are a death cult.

I

don't disagree with that at all.

With your son of seeing that,

Nicola?

Absolutely, when he came

back from fighting he was very

clingy towards me and it was in that

week, we had contact for about a

week, and in that period he was on

the phone every single day. There

was something softer... He was

beginning to see grey again. Very

much the mentality is they see this

black and white, yes and no, right

and wrong.

So critical thinking was

creeping back in. What should happen

to these people?

My concern is

relieve them to the authorities in

Syria, it is so fractured and out

there, I wouldn't trust the Syrian

people to bring them to justice.

Nobody in this room once these ISIS

fighters to be brought to justice

more than I. I lost my only son so

nobody in this room can declare they

want them to be brought as much as I

do.

APPLAUSE

do.

APPLAUSE.

Tom, what should happen to them?

These are people who have betrayed

their country...

Are they traitors?

Absolutely, they have gone to join

the force that has committed

unspeakable atrocities and many when

they arrive burn their passport and

denounce this country. They are not

British any more in any meaningful

sense and have no right to come back

to this country. You cannot denounce

this country then claimed the right

and the privilege to come back and

live here. So often this

conversation ends up being about the

right of the returnees, the right of

terrorists essentially, and we are

at the risk of having our commitment

to rights being used against us, by

people who believe in an ideology

that doesn't believe in human rights

at all, that would like to kill as

many people in this country as they

can. I think this conversation has

to begin as a starting point by

thinking about the rights of the

vast majority of people in this

country, the rights of people not to

be blown up at a music concert.

Those situations take place by

people who have been groomed within

the country and remain within our

borders...

So we don't need any more

of them?

Doesn't it show the

difficulty the Government has, we

need to distinguish between those

who were naive, those who...

That is

one of the things you try to do?

Sorry, Jonathan, I will come back to

you, but when you say Sifton

distinguished, that is right on what

Lynn does, if you will forgive me.

How do you stop people from coming

back who have a supremacist,

Islamist ideology that we are

inferior human beings? And also they

believe that we should be killed.

How do you change that? Adult people

do change, but before that I would

like to go back to the idea of

making distinctions within the

people who come back.

Our values are

the search for evidence about what

has happened. By law in this country

there is no offence by law as being

a terrorist, we do not convict on

thought crime. About these people

have made their choice. We do not

convict on what people believe or

ideology in this country. For things

to happen to people there has to be

evidence and a whole raft of

measures which will be put in place.

They may go to court or there might

be other measures. We had to look at

people differently and look at the

possibilities of reintegration, that

will be the best thing to do.

And it

is possible.

We have had a research

programme in ConnectFutures looking

at interviewing former extremists

and their families about why they

went out, why they came back. We

have made a series of films which we

use with young people, training in

schools. We also have some former

extremists talking live to young

people. Young people are engaged

with this and it is the most

powerful messages to young people

about understanding the grey areas.

But it takes ten years...

What

happens when people start to change,

when they realise...

This is a cult,

it takes ten years to deprogrammed

somebody from a cold.

Oh, no.

We had

an example of somebody from

Birmingham who fought in

Afghanistan...

To be completely

clear, it takes ten years?

It can be

less. It can happen during the

actual time. Looking at examples

like someone who fought in Bosnia

and Afghanistan in the 90s, during

the time he was there he began the

critical thinking process, seeing

areas of grave. Now he has come

back. When he came back he began the

actual de-radicalisation process.

Became normal again. It is my

understanding with some of these

interviews that have taken place

that some of these people express

great sadness at unnecessary death,

but it was sadness at the

unnecessary death, as they saw it,

of fellow Sidnei Muslims, not at

Yazidis, not Coptic Christians, not

Western aid workers. -- of fellow

Sunni Muslims. They were

disillusioned with not the ideology

but the way the state was being run.

On another level you see

Scientologists leaving Scientology

but still believing in it. That is

the problem you have?

I don't deny

that and I am not saying but former

extremists will have renounced the

ideology, necessarily. With the man

that you mentioned, you might still

believe in the caliphate that you

renounce violence as a means to get

their ads you are using the

experience...

Some people have gone

through the de-radicalisation

process and have still committed

terror attacks. People lost their

lives in Australia because of

somebody who went through a

de-radicalisation process and kills

people. You have no right to play

Russian roulette with public safety.

We will put them on trial, after

there is not the evidence to get the

proper conviction. You have seen the

idea that you can put them under

surveillance, security services are

not infallible and in 2017 we had

Manchester, London Bridge and

Westminster Bridge carried out by

individuals known to the

authorities, under surveillance.

People have lost their lives. You

have to but the British public

first.

The London Bridge was not

committed by somebody who had been

out.

Neither was Manchester.

They

were people known to the

authorities. In the case of London

Bridge he was a live investigated

case. What about the 7/7 bombings

carried out by people trained in

Pakistan? What about the Bataclan

bombings?

But clearly they would be

a useful resource when it comes to

intelligence?

How do you know who is

really a useful resource and he was

not?

By talking to them, and you can

only do that if they are here.

If

you shut down the opportunity

immediately you will never get them.

What would you like to happen to

them?

Of course they ought to be

brought to justice and put on trial,

but they should not come back here,

that should be the prerequisite. If

you trade your country you should

never come back. That must be sent

to people in the country, that

message, when the next Islamic State

whatever comes along. If you go out

there, we will not welcome you back.

Bring them to justice in another

country. One of the Beatles was

convicted in Turkey and is currently

serving a prison sentence that.

Other European fighters have been

put on trial in Iraq. We can debate

that and what should happen, but the

starting point is the British public

is put first and we do not need to

live among them.

Can we not call

them the Beatles?! The Beatles were

four Greg Clark from Liverpool. Call

them the four halfwits or the four

delusional Axel -- delusionals.

I am

with you, it is like that ghastly

phrase Jihadi John. Let's ask the

audience. You mention is on trial in

Syria, that will not take a long

time. Is it the Hague, which will

take a long time? Isn't this

country, which will be very

different, the bar of evidence, you

cannot be convicted for ideology. Or

should we just give them a ticket to

Guantanamo Bay? Quick thoughts.

As

an LGBT rights activist I am

sickened by people trying to

defence, however young or naively,

people who go to be part of an

organisation that checks gay men off

the top of buildings.

APPLAUSE

Having said that I think we should

live up to a British liberal values,

they should be brought here,

sentenced and sent to prison.

APPLAUSE

We should withhold the very thing we

are fighting for, our liberal

values? Over there, good morning.

I

agree with that gentleman over

there.

What should happen to them?

Going through my head is the fact

that this country some years ago

took a decision to abolish capital

punishment. One of the things that

worries about me -- worries me about

the debate going on here is that we

could be condemning British citizens

to capital punishment where they are

held. It is a sign of our liberal

values that we should insist they

come back here and face trial.

We

should not condemn them in the way

they condemn their victims?

Precisely so. We have gone to a good

deal of trouble to avoid British

citizens being subject to capital

punishment in countries they are

written. There was a young man, they

try to extradite him to the States,

he could have faced the death

penalty. We have set our face

against capital punishment. I do not

think we should engage in a

situation where we condemn our

citizens and what we think of them

to death in another country. I agree

that they should be brought back

here and subject to our values and

standards and our trials, that is

what makes as the country we are.

APPLAUSE

We have not had you, Rabia Bhatti.

When you hear about a drone strike

and one of these people getting

killed, how do you feel?

I feel

upset. Loss of life, anywhere,

anyhow, is deeply upsetting. But

these people made a choice to lead

this country, to denounce Britain,

to go and fight with Islamic State

and kill other people. If we allow

them back into this country, I don't

want to wake up on a Sunday morning,

go shopping with my family

go shopping with my family and be

the victim of a terror attack which

would devastate hundreds of

thousands of civilians for no fault

of their own other than the fact

that we allowed people we knew were

a threat to our society back in to

integrate and learn from them.

Nicola?

To be honest, I think the UK

has the best legal system, the best

knowledge and understanding of

radicalisation and rehabilitation

compared to a lot of countries. I do

a lot of work in Europe and America

and I can pride myself on the UK.

Why are we not bringing them back to

monitor them?

We do not have the

resources.

But neither do these

countries. My concern is if you

leave them there, eventually they

will come out. You will not be able

to monitor them then. Eventually...

They have families here, they will

want to come back.

Nicola, I completely understand what

you are saying, but allowing people

to come back into this country that

we know has been exposed to terrible

ideology over there, have committed

crimes that you can't even speak of,

to come back and try to rehabilitate

these people into society where they

could be a threat to millions of

others is really unfair and very

selfish of us.

People can easily be

exposed to that very same ideology

on the dark web here as well. It

makes no difference whatsoever.

Why

should we bring them back?

400 are

already back, we need to start

working and understand what made

them... We need that understanding,

as counter extremism experts, as the

security agencies, as a government

we need to be able...

we need to be able...

Are they

subject to these Investigatory

Powers Bill? Are they monitored

every art of the day?

We do not know

where they are, we know they are

back.

We do not know where they are?

The security services are working

very hard to ensure they are found

and we are able to monitor them and

work with them.

What I would like to say is the

de-radicalisation process can be

effective...

How do you know they

are not lying to you?

It is all

relative.

They had deleted the

Internet history, they might be

pulling the wool over your eyes.

We

have great security systems in

place, great officers working who

are trained to extract the truth and

hundreds of civilians. You keep

going back...

ALL TALK AT ONCE We do not have the

level of evidence required from our

courts in this country.

We need to take it on a case-by-case

basis. No one individual will have

the same level of radicalisation,

the same level of engagement with

Isis as others. These young girls,

they have mostly been kept in large

houses, have been restricted with

their movements. Not all the women

have been trained.

The women are as

bad as the men. There is a police

force run by women which beats

women...

Let him explain, he has

been out there and force them, he

has fought IS. I want to hear from

Macer.

They have gone out there,

been trained, been exposed even more

ideology. Why risk inviting hundreds

of these people back to the UK when

they potentially could be so much

worse than the people already here?

There are many things we need to do.

We need to keep the ones that other

out and come after the people who

are back already.

Some of them have

been extremely vulnerable.

In what

way?

We look at the young girls...

Why do you keep mentioning the young

girls, what about the boys?

Because

we started this debate talking about

those young girls. There are many

more like them.

I will be with you

in a minute. Macer Gifford, is it a

principle of yours that you share

the crimes of the group you join?

Yes.

You fought with the white Fiji,

you could well be a criminal because

amnesty International has accused

the

the YPG of war crimes. Daesh you

fought with the YPG.

I encourage

Amnesty International to take that

back, which they did not. A year

later the UN did their own reporting

clear the YPG for the accusations.

The report was written on oral

evidence from people who had left

the war zone, it was politically

driven, basically. It was the fog of

war.

That is why it is so difficult

to get a conviction in these places

in a standard courtroom, isn't it?

Rabbi?

There are two principles, the

principle of law. We may have dodgy

evidence but we have the law. These

people, sadly, are British citizens

and therefore they have a right to

citizenship and we cannot take it

away. We can take it away if they

are dual nationals, but not British

citizens. We had to take them back

because we abide by the rule of law.

Then there is the question of what

we do with them, we have to sift

between those who were naive and

need to be educated, those who are

brainwashed and need to be

deprogrammed and those who are dill

-- guilty and need to be imprisoned

or whatever. Justice is the only

thing we can on. That is why we have

to apply the same standards to

people fighting on the other side.

Aren't they all, in a sense, guilty?

Everyone in that war zone is under

suspicion. Just because you were

involved in a just cause does not

mean to say that some of your people

may not have also been involved in

murders. It is the only backbone we

have, if we do not adhere then we

collapse completely.

My group is the one that captured

the so-called Beatles. They have

banned the death penalty just to

appease the concerns of the

gentleman at the back. They work

closely with the Americans and the

Brits.

There are so many groups

there.

There really are, that is why

we are trying to simplify it. ISIS

are out of the equation now and

trying to come up with a peaceful

solution -- we are trying to come up

with a peaceful solution. Keeping

prisons would keep jihadis in the UN

funded prison, there's many options

we have got in that regard.

Here is

an ideology. If some of these people

have rightly or wrongly felt so

passionate and so strongly about

going abroad and fighting for a

cause, whether it is anti-Isis or

against ISIS particularly as Macer

did, keep them abroad because that

energy could be better used abroad,

not here. I think it's about time

somebody here spoke up for our

security services and particularly

our police force which is depleted

and we are struggling as it is, so

keep them abroad and let them do

some service there. They can

continue the work they wanted to do

either for that country or those

people and help them to survive now.

Hopefully the war will be over and

then they can build the country up

again. Don't bring them back,

please, we don't want any more.

Thank you all very much indeed.

We are going to talk about education

now.

If you have something

to say about that debate,

log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions,

then follow the link

to where you can join

in the discussion online.

Or contribute on Twitter.

Next, here at Leicester Grammar

School, we'll be debating

whether schools should select

exclusively by faith.

But before that, make a note

of this email address -

[email protected] -

if you'd like to apply

to be in the audience

at a future programme.

We're in Bath next Sunday,

Edinburgh on March 4th and Newport,

South Wales the week after that.

Leicester, famous for being the most

multicultural and multi-faith city

in the United Kingdom.

But soon Leicester, and 11

other local authorities,

will face a shortfall

of secondary school places.

Schools here are already

operating at 104% capacity,

and that's forecast to rise

to 135% by 2022.

So the rules for selecting pupils

by each school are coming

under increased scrutiny.

Many faith schools say they'll have

to turn down children

from their own religion

unless the rules are changed.

Currently only 50% of pupils can be

selected according to their faith

in newer schools opened since 2010.

Should schools select

exclusively by faith?

This is something you have been

campaigning on for as long as I can

remember and probably as long as you

can remember as

can remember as well, Rabbi.

Yes and

this is something I have been

campaigning on. For two reasons,

first principle because it is

discrimination. We wouldn't dream of

having swimming pools only for

Hindus. Secondly, practical level,

faith schools divide children. It

may not be the intention but that is

the effect. It is Jews over there,

Catholics and Sikh, whatever. You

are segregating the children which

means the next generation have the,

suspicion and prejudice. Precisely

because we are multi-faith society,

we want to work hard to make it not

the multi-fractious society. It is a

disservice not only to the children,

because we are talking about

education, and here is another

irony, education is where we want

children to broaden their horizons

and yet by putting them into

individual schools we are denuding

them of wider society. What lesson

are we giving them if we divide them

at the gate? By the way this is also

a religious argument because those

of faith and no faith at all which

share the added love thy neighbour

as you know yourself but you cannot

love thy neighbour if you don't know

your neighbour. It is very

important. Just to give you a

practical example, this isn't just

theory, I deliberately didn't send

my children to the local Jewish Day

school, I sent them to a community

school because I wanted my Jewish

children to sit next to a Christian

and walk home with a Muslim, do brag

with a catholic because that way

they get to know my children, my

children get to know them and we end

up with a better rounded society. By

all means let faith flourish at

home, church, the

mosque, after-school, weekends,

summer camps, but not let faith

divide the children Monday to

Friday, 9-3.

I think you have said

everything! I honestly don't think

you have got anything else to say,

it was all in there! I don't

understand that because I right in

saying you don't want children in

backgrounds of other faiths at your

school, Sujata?

That is not the

totality of what I am saying. I

would want the model we have in the

Hindu faith because per se I do

agree with the Rabbi, in an ideal

world we shouldn't have faith

schools. If state funded schools

provided rounded quality of

religious education, we would have

no need for faith schools at all.

So

you want a 100% Hindu school?

A lot

of the religious education

information is not correct, the

books need to be amended and

corrected, therefore we do need some

schools to provide the correct

religious education.

So you don't

want children from other faiths at

your school?

No no no, we have to

have... We must reflect what's

happening in real life in our

schools. However, there are some

schools, particularly in Leicester,

majority on faith only.

So do you

want a 100% Hindu faith school?

No,

we don't have that, we do have a

model...

Do you want to break the

50% barrier?

We want children of all

faiths to go to school together. It

works very well. There is no need to

have a quota. If it is based on the

catchment area, meritocracy, then

there is no need for a catchment

area. Why throw the baby out with

the bath water? If you are going to

have a school built on the ethos of

my faith which is Hinduism, a

pluralistic religion for want of a

better word, it is not quite a

religion but it is a religion in the

English educational system. We don't

want to go down the other route

where there is too much orthodoxy,

too much regimental air Station, and

children who are not mixing

children who are not mixing with

other faiths. -- regimentalisation.

Lynne, you were shifting in your

seat.

I worry about the hip --

hypocrisy of this because you are

saying we would prefer to have

children of this faith because they

are better than other children. As

soon as you select by faith, you are

saying to others in the community

that our faith is better than yours.

Let me come back in second because

you had quite a lot at the

beginning. Jonathan, you can come

back and correct that in a few

moments, I want to spread the love

in this multi-faith exercise in

which we are partaking. David,

respond to that point.

respond to that point.

About faith?

I think selecting of the school

begins with the family, selecting to

send their children to a school so

it is a two way process. I would

acknowledge and agree with a lot of

the points that have been made. We

don't want to have schools that are

exclusive on views and on formation

of children, but those are the kind

of views, the kind of values that

for instance in my community a

catholic school would have. We have

about 2500 schools across England

and Wales, 22 Catholic schools in

Leicestershire. Nationally 68% of

the students who come to our schools

are catholic.

So you want to get rid

of the 50% barrier? What do you want

to take it too?

I wanted to be open

that you can select those schools.

You would be happy with 100%?

Absolutely. So that families can

educate their children according to

the faith community and the ethos of

that community, and they have the

right to do that.

Are they catholic

children?

Yes, the children who come

to my school are catholic.

How can

you be catholic if you are not old

enough to make a choice. It's like

saying a Scientologist child, a

creationist child.

They are formed

as part of the community, then they

make their decisions and is formed

by that to grow and be enriched by

the society.

Or impoverished as the

case may be.

Our schools are

supervised by Ofsted, supervised in

education systems which look at

them.

them.

Jonathan.

That is disgraceful,

you are saying you want 100%

Catholic schools. Too many people

just heard you. In other words you

want an educational ghetto.

want an educational ghetto. Jesus

said, suffer the little children. He

didn't say segregate the little

children.

I grew up in Northern

Ireland, where there was great

segregation. I went to a catholic

grammar school in Northern Ireland

and ironically what you might think,

the school was the absolute

antithesis to what was happening

outside. It was the place where we

were given a broader spectrum of

views, where people of different

views to us were brought in in the

1990s when the troubles were coming

to an end. The non-Catholic schools

in Northern Ireland were bastions of

diversity.

Would you have a debating

society? We seek to have balanced

views on this programme, more often

than not I hope we succeed but...

Quiet at the back! If you are having

a debate for example on abortion,

would you be able to have a properly

balanced debate in the school with

100% Catholic children?

Absolutely.

Not everyone who professes

themselves to be catholic would

beyond a particular line on an issue

like abortion.

So you would be able

to say it is a woman's right to

choose?

In order to open the minds

of our children, we would want to

give them access to all areas of any

particular debate so they can form

their opinions on so the views they

hold are part of their conscience.

And sexual education, information

about homosexuality?

Yes, we teach

that already through our sex

education programme.

If the child

came to you...

Of course we have

children in our schools who say they

are gay and they are supported on

cherished and enriched.

In that

case, how do you explain what's

happening in Northern Ireland today,

the school population is going down

and yet there is a vast increase in

children going to integrated

schools, because the parents realise

that they help perpetuate the

prejudice and now the parents are

realising the only way forward is to

go to integrated schools.

What is

the evidence...

Statistics.

What is

the evidence faith schools in

Northern Ireland problem to

conflict? In my experience they help

to end the conflict. It's true, I

have that experience, being part of

our community.

Integrated schools,

they know...

It is an unorthodox

view.

It might be but it happens to

be the view I hold. It was the

community standing up together and

saying we no longer want to have

this conflict.

Good morning, Malcolm Trobe! How are

you doing? This is giving parents a

choice to instil moral values and

their children, is it not?

I think what we are saying is what

we want from our education service?

The key thing we want is for every

child to go to a good local schools.

That local school is representative

of the community in which they live.

We live in a multicultural world. We

want young people to be able to

experience that. The schools should

be representative of that. We want

all children to have a good school,

we want that school to represent the

local community. We do not want

youngsters travelling miles. We do

not want a youngster living

literally 100 yards away from a

school but cannot go to their local

school, they are having to travel.

We want all schools to be a good

local school. That is what we are

really after.

Malcolm is quite

right, you have to differentiate

between an independent faith school

and a state faith school.

Of course.

Lots of our faith schools, because

they are predominantly in that

majority face area, that location,

if 99% of those children in that

school are of one faith, what

happens to the parents unbend the

children don't want to go to that

school, because the culture will be

one culture.

What happens, Henna

I went from being in a very diverse,

mixed school which was secular, it

did not have any religious

affiliations here in Leicester, for

my primary education, although there

was a short period when I had a

Catholic Junior school education,

into an all girls Muslim school in

Leicester. Suddenly from having a

very broad reach of friends, I went

to only seeing Muslim girls in this

school. Who were living in the same

streets, attending the same address

as me in the evenings -- attending

the same madrasah as me.

Were there

different attitudes about society?

All of a sudden from having this

rich culture of celebrating

nativities, celebrating Hanika,

celebrating Diwali, it all became

about Islam.

What about the boys and

girls?

We don't talk to boys because

we are in a girls school, if we took

two boys we will be expelled and

taken to task. This is the 80s.

I

think it still goes on.

From being a

tomboy and the majority of my

friends were male and I only had a

couple of female friends, I now had

to tolerate being in an all-female

environment.

Audience, I will be

with you in a second.

I am all for...

Was that your

experience?

I do not think there has

to be 100% faith schools.

Was that

your experience?

I have been a

school governor and mixed in with a

lot of governors who are governors

for faith schools and I see the

difference. Our culture, our

religion is better, the way they try

to instil their Muslim girls all

Muslim boys, don't talk to each

other. You are not allowed. It is

not our religion. That cannot be

healthy.

That would be exactly the

view we would want to teach our

children against. As I say, 68%...

Allow me to go to the audience.

That's you. How are you?

Very well,

thank you. How are you?

Fire away.

The debate so far as one of the most

eloquent testimonies for the reason

we ought to abolish faith in

schools. We need a completely

secular education system. I separate

the idea of education from

schooling. The problem with faith

schools is they school people in

their particular brand of faith

throughout an entire process,

leading to many of the problems we

discussed at the beginning of the

programme. I think the

multicultural, anti-racist,

democratic, just way of organising

education is to ban all face from

schools. It is not out of this world

to do so, it is against the law in

France, in the United States...

You

want to learn about faith in

schools?

schools?

Appreciate its history from

an academic and social

anthropological perspective.

Don't

make me say that word! Can I move it

along?

I think they'd schools,

personally as a parent I made a

parental choice, I wanted my

children to go to what was described

as a fake school, a Church of

England school, about 20, 25, 30%

from different communities. -- I

wanted my children to good was

described as a faith school. We need

our children to go to schools of

tolerance which might encourage

students to consider other faiths or

no faith at all.

There is a phrase

in England for Church of England

schools, prey on your knees... On

your knees to avoid the fees! That

is what people say in London. All of

a sudden, people have rapid

convergence.

We talked about mileage

and people sending their kids to

great distance, some sent their kids

to great distance to private

independent schools.

Madrasah.

In

terms of faith schools, I think the

problem is I have plenty of friends

who goes of my best friends are

Muslim, Hindu or whatever, but

sometimes I think they can promote a

lack of understanding in community.

I studied REI GCSE and there was a

very, very big balance across the

subjects. -- studied RE at GCSE. It

has been important for people of

faith is to mix, for me some of my

friends can't do certain things and

for me I would not have understood

that if I just went to a school

based on Christianity. I think it is

really important to mix kids from an

early age.

Blue shirt?

Quite frankly the world

that we live in is not one religion,

it is not Islam, not Christianity,

not Judaism. If you speak to people

along those lines, whatever you want

to say about percentages and trying

to teach acceptance of other

religions etc, when people get into

the real world, the real world is

not like the school you will have

been in -- if you split people along

those lines. And school has to teach

you about the real world.

An

audience consistency, apart from

your good self.

I think education is so much more

than just learning academic

principles. You forget about

lunchtimes, break times when friends

are mixing and people are mixing.

Diversity is one of the most

important

important things in today's society

to avoid the issues we spoke about

earlier. How on earth can being

taught one principle prepare you for

society and life outside of school?

Lynn, we have Ofsted to take care of

business and make sure things are on

the straight and narrow and nobody

is teaching creationism or

pseudoscience and they are doing six

and relationship education properly,

aunt Ofsted the big safeguarding all

of this?

One of the safeguard, but

the better safeguard is not to go

there in the first place, I think.

Most of the audience will agree that

as soon as you segregate kids in

different ghettos, going back to the

earlier discussion about security

and extremism, you are more likely

not to be able to build resilience

to extremist views if you have only

had the view that your religion is

better than others. I am sorry, you

may have this open idea that we talk

about homosexuality and abortion and

are fine with all of its, but if

you're fine with all of it you do

not need separate schools for

different religions. You are not

fine with it because you want to

have kids and you want to teach

children the values that you

espouse, which are different from

the values elsewhere. It is only

when you get over that by having a

secular system, I am not talking

about atheism, that is different, a

secular system where you genuinely

value...

The word secular is so

misused. It means not facing any

particular religion or creed over

another.

Not privileging one

religion.

It is not a religious.

What a secular school looks like is

favouring secularism is a particular

viewpoint over others.

Run this by

me again?

Secularism is a position

on faith.

It is not.

It is not

privileging any faith over another.

I went to what you might describe as

a secular school but we had a good

understanding of Christianity,

Hinduism, Islam. You don't need to

be...

ALL TALK AT ONCE Are you a teacher?

I am a governor.

So he will know

secularism is not privileging any

faith over another faith, it is not

anti-faith.

It is a position on

faith.

You will completely devastate

my daughter who is in the Green room

and goes to a Catholic school.

Secularism is the separation of

church and state, you do not

privilege religion in the law,

decision-making, the process of the

police...

Does that allow for

religions to be exercised freely?

Absolutely. In a liberal, secular

society.

ALL TALK AT ONCE

...

We want to educate our children in

the traditions of our community...

This is the most unruly class I have

ever taught! David.

The things that

you are describing, the values you

are describing, like the British

values agenda in school, all of

those things are things that we

value in our Catholic schools.

Having children from other faiths?

We have lots of them. Lots of

children from other faiths. You can

shout me down as much as you want

but we have lots of children from

other faiths. We treasure those

children and educate them.

Treasure?! How patronising!

Wires

that patronising?

He said these

children as if they are over.

APPLAUSE

We treasure all of our children.

Equally. And give them an

opportunity to engage with the

traditions of our community. That is

what we do.

It is a good idea to

keep 50%, arguably. Nicola, do you

have a view?

have a view?

There is nothing wrong

with parents... Parents want the

best for their children, they want

to protect them. It is very rare you

do not have that. Sometimes that may

be choosing a faith school. What

let's is down is sometimes not the

faith itself, because what we are

signing ourselves up for is the

morals and teachings, but what

letters down as the leadership in

those schools. They are not skilled

enough. I get what you are saying

that actually be straight schools

want to open up and have this

debate, but unfortunately what my

experience says is the people in

these positions have not got the

skill set and letting our children

down.

Many of our schools are led by

leadership teams, governors and

senior leaders graded good or

outstanding. There are policies are

bringing that require improvement or

unsatisfactory to that system. I am

happy to accept that standards in

schools need to be driven up, but

those standards are there. It is

simply not right to say the

leadership is defective.

What is

your experience of good leadership,

Nicola?

Unfortunately sometimes when

you have poor leadership it is very

much driven by the academic. It is

very much about results and those

margins. What does not happen is

quite often it is pushed aside, it

is the whole child, the whole

well-being. Everything about that

person. It is more about the

academic, whether they are achieving

and whether their school will be

outstanding.

A vision

-- a vision of

Catholic education would be

educating the whole person. The

person is formed in Christ and to

educate the whole person, which is

why we constantly drive our schools

to be good and outstanding. We have

lots of wonderful children from a

lot of different backgrounds. Our

schools are the most diverse

schools.

15 second answer?

If we

want a tolerant, inclusive society

then we had to have a tolerant,

inclusive education system...

Which

allows people to be educated in

their faith.

Thank you. Thank you

very much.

As always, the debates will continue

online and on Twitter.

Next week we're in Bath,

so do join us then.

But for now, it's goodbye

and have a great Sunday.

Thank you for watching.