:00:25. > :00:31.Questions live from King Edward VI Handsworth School. Irish Republic'
:00:31. > :00:36.Nicky Campbell. In the last week, tweets falsely accused an innocent
:00:36. > :00:41.man of being the Boston bomber. With a familiars report of two explosions
:00:41. > :00:47.in the White House said to have injured Barack Obama. On Friday, a
:00:47. > :00:54.South Shields man admitted to posting his intention to kill 200
:00:54. > :01:00.students in an US school. Is social media out of control? Ewe #bbctbq if
:01:00. > :01:05.you want to tweet about that one. This Tuesday, Queen Beatrix of the
:01:05. > :01:11.Netherlands will abdicate in favour of Crown Prince WillemAlexander.
:01:11. > :01:16.Should monarchs retire? And with the wedding season upon us, spare a
:01:16. > :01:22.thought for those couples who don't want to get married but to want more
:01:22. > :01:28.than just living together. Should civil partnerships be available to
:01:28. > :01:35.heterosexuals? Welcome everyone to The Big Questions.
:01:35. > :01:41.On Friday, Dean Liddle and Neil Harkins were sentence sentenced to
:01:41. > :01:47.nine months for releasing the identities of Thompson and Venables,
:01:47. > :01:53.the killers of James Bulger. They posted photographs on Facebook
:01:53. > :02:00.purporting to have been on Venables and Thompson. Is social media out of
:02:00. > :02:05.control? Vicky Beeching, you study this. You are a research fellow on
:02:05. > :02:10.internet ethics. It is wonderful as an exchange of ideas, making
:02:10. > :02:15.contacts. Getting news? You have experienced the down side, haven't
:02:15. > :02:22.you? I have. I've been subject to a lot of trolling and stalking. When I
:02:22. > :02:25.lived in America, I had to take it to the authorities. I had threats
:02:25. > :02:29.threatening my personal safety. My answer to the question is firstly,
:02:29. > :02:37.we need to remember that social media is in its inNancy. It is so
:02:37. > :02:42.young. Twitter's turned seven, YouTube's turned eight. We have to
:02:42. > :02:47.take baby steps. When we look at the neck nothingy, we need to remember
:02:47. > :02:50.all technology, whether it is the invention of the wheel, they are
:02:50. > :02:54.neutral toolings, they are in our hands. If they are out of control,
:02:54. > :03:00.it is a sign we are out of control. And most people are decent a fair,
:03:00. > :03:04.have a sense of fair play? Tech knolly brings out our tru colours.
:03:04. > :03:10.Kate, is there something about social media which allows people to
:03:11. > :03:16.be particularly vile sn I think so, Germaine Greer said women have
:03:16. > :03:20.little idea how much men hate them. Thank you, inter knelt -- internet,
:03:20. > :03:30.we know. I am less than a week from my most recent death threat. That's
:03:30. > :03:38.
:03:39. > :03:39.my life. That is normal for me. The first time it happened knife or six
:03:39. > :03:39.years ago it was terrifying. Now it is standard. I don't think the
:03:39. > :03:42.solution is to have a massive crackdown. It is illegal to make
:03:42. > :03:47.death threats, malicious communications. It is but we need
:03:47. > :03:50.for the police to get up to speed on these issues and to have a really
:03:50. > :03:54.nice efficient system where you copy the message, send it to them and the
:03:54. > :03:59.police can investigate it. The truth is, I don't send these messages to
:03:59. > :04:04.the police. I kont tact a 19-year-old I know who will know
:04:04. > :04:11.more how to research it, find out who it is and establish if it is a
:04:11. > :04:16.real threat. Can I agree with what Vicky and Kate have said. We all get
:04:16. > :04:22.obsessives. We all get trolls. That is the nature of it. Most of the
:04:22. > :04:26.time you get people who whant to engage in conversation. We ignore
:04:26. > :04:31.the trolls. Social media reflects society. I was really impressed with
:04:31. > :04:35.what Vicky say about it being in a very early stage. Can I stop you
:04:35. > :04:40.there. I know you're going to make a very important point but you say it
:04:40. > :04:46.reflects society. In society, getting, what some people have to
:04:46. > :04:50.put up with, women have to put up with wanting to rape them? Is that a
:04:50. > :04:55.reflection of society? No. But we don't need to regulate the social
:04:56. > :05:02.media. We have to knee-jerk response to regulate. There's overregulation.
:05:03. > :05:11.A lot of laws, we've had six acts of Parliament, harassment acts,
:05:11. > :05:15.malicious communications act. Twitter joke trial. Public order
:05:15. > :05:19.legislation. These acts are there and can be powerfully used. One
:05:19. > :05:26.point about the police. Let's be care of about reporting things to
:05:26. > :05:32.the police. Serious examples you both gave, serious examples, There
:05:32. > :05:36.was a Tom daily example. Something tweeted something really awful.
:05:36. > :05:41.is about commonsense and balance. Commonsense is the word about social
:05:41. > :05:44.media. Let as not knee-jerk and always inform the police. If it is
:05:44. > :05:52.bad the police have to be involved but the police are being
:05:52. > :05:56.overstretched. The plea from police is report it but don't knee-jerk
:05:56. > :06:01.report everything. If everyone's crying wolf we fill up the airways.
:06:01. > :06:05.My problem is to do with jurisdiction. The police said they
:06:05. > :06:12.can't deal with it because it is not in their city. It was in a different
:06:12. > :06:16.state. That was in America. That's unacceptable. We is have to make a
:06:16. > :06:21.distinction between social media comments which are offensive, which
:06:21. > :06:29.are not nice. I wouldn't answer encourage them. And those that are
:06:29. > :06:35.violenceant death. I was on the other end when I challenged Nick
:06:35. > :06:42.Griffin over his views of gay people, Muslims, black and ethnic
:06:42. > :06:47.minority people. Some people spread word that I was a paedophile. They
:06:47. > :06:51.photo shopped pictures to show me carrying is a placard. That's fake
:06:51. > :06:55.but lots of people believe it. I have been deluged with death
:06:55. > :07:00.threats. It is scary. If you don't know. Most of these people are
:07:00. > :07:06.having it on, being nasty. Sometimes you wonder maybe one of these
:07:06. > :07:13.nutters will try it. Was is the anonymity? Is anonymity the problem
:07:13. > :07:19.here? Part Partly. It gives them the carte blanch that they can say
:07:19. > :07:26.things... If you're a China, anonymity is a blessing? They think
:07:26. > :07:32.they have but there's the Norwich farmer order which can contact third
:07:32. > :07:37.parties and compel them to reveal who these patroles, obsessives are
:07:37. > :07:42.and if they are doing these, these criminals are. Let us be very clear,
:07:42. > :07:47.those people tweeting anonymously will be found out. One other thing
:07:47. > :07:52.linking on to what Peter said, it is important the law enforcement
:07:52. > :07:59.agencies get a grip. The Twitter joke trial is a seminal case that I
:07:59. > :08:03.did along with David Allen Green. And that was a man who simply
:08:03. > :08:08.tweeted to his girlfriend if this airport closes down, I'm going to
:08:08. > :08:12.blow the place up. The police didn't take it seriously, security didn't
:08:12. > :08:17.take it seriously at the airport but the Crown Prosecution Service for
:08:17. > :08:24.some reason best known to themselves prosecuted this through seven
:08:24. > :08:28.different court hearings. A lot of Kate's colleagues from the
:08:28. > :08:33.performing arts got involved as well. It linked into freedom of
:08:33. > :08:38.speech as well. Gentleman up there. It worries me we're expecting the
:08:38. > :08:43.police to take a big role in this. Companies like Twitter and YouTube
:08:43. > :08:49.are doing this on the cheap. In the nineties was a moderator on AOL.
:08:49. > :08:54.This had a good system of throwing people off forums who were abusing
:08:54. > :08:59.people. These new media companies are not taking responsibility.
:08:59. > :09:05.seems to be sometimes people perceive an inconsistency. There was
:09:05. > :09:10.a good report on Channel 4 News the other nice about this video of a
:09:10. > :09:13.baby being beaten. Horrific footage. The person has been arraigned who
:09:13. > :09:18.was responsible for it but it was taken down temporarily. It is back
:09:18. > :09:24.up there. It's had lots of likes. People approve of the fact this
:09:24. > :09:33.footage is there. Yet there have been cases of people breastfeeding
:09:33. > :09:37.taken down from Facebook. So, there seems to be an inconsistency?
:09:37. > :09:41.media and content that's uploaded can be done by publishers and
:09:41. > :09:47.individuals. But we are all publishers? We are now. We are
:09:47. > :09:52.indeed. It is a place where discussion can occur. When content's
:09:52. > :09:56.uploaded, it can be sensered, taken down by different platforms. It is
:09:56. > :10:03.really up to us to decide as individuals what we want to watch.
:10:03. > :10:08.What we want to engage with and what we don't. Facebook decided it wasn't
:10:08. > :10:13.grat ewe to us violence. You wouldn't see that on BBC News unless
:10:13. > :10:23.it was in a very specific context. There is a different standard
:10:23. > :10:23.
:10:23. > :10:32.applies here? Chris? I'm interested in the anonymity question. It can be
:10:32. > :10:36.used to and abuse people. It was used by a Baghdad blogger. It would
:10:36. > :10:40.have had him killed. How do we get this balance right between
:10:40. > :10:44.protecting people in states where oppression is taking place or
:10:44. > :10:50.whistleblowers. As a Christian, you believe Christians in places where
:10:50. > :10:57.they are under the cosh, you think they should be able to get their
:10:57. > :11:02.points heard. There is a against freedom of speech. It is not always
:11:02. > :11:07.saying things nice. They can be objectionable. Shouldn't we give
:11:07. > :11:12.leeway to people on social networking sites. It is
:11:12. > :11:17.instantaneous? You're having a conversation, debating srn areas.
:11:17. > :11:22.Common scenes is the key. We need for there to be much more training
:11:22. > :11:27.for people in the police to say what does malicious communications look
:11:27. > :11:31.like? How can we investigate it. The average teenager knows loads more
:11:31. > :11:36.about what's going on on the internet than the police. If we had
:11:36. > :11:43.our police forces given the resources and training to do this,
:11:43. > :11:50.the internet is full of information. It would be so much better...
:11:50. > :11:55.you report people? Inishlingy.It must have been awful? The first few
:11:55. > :11:59.times it was. But these days I'm so used to it. People get worried when
:11:59. > :12:04.I discuss it and am so casual about it. Unless they know Where I Live I
:12:04. > :12:09.file it under abuse and leave it to one side on the basis of nothing's
:12:09. > :12:15.going to happen. The Boston bombings. That's a great example of
:12:15. > :12:19.how the police force to begin with engaged with the community. They
:12:19. > :12:25.asked for marathon runners to participate. Content to be uploaded
:12:25. > :12:29.to them. The individuals really felt engaged. They felt as if they were
:12:30. > :12:36.doing something positive. Which they were. Lots of people were also
:12:36. > :12:42.wrongly named? Yes.It is quite... That was really an example of social
:12:42. > :12:48.media at its worst. We all learnt a lot. We are in the infancy of these
:12:48. > :12:55.technologyies. We are learning how to take things seriously, how not
:12:55. > :13:02.to. Lots of us tweeted things which are not correct. It is the
:13:02. > :13:07.self-policing. I want to speak to Leon. Self-regulation, didn't work
:13:07. > :13:13.with the prys but will it work here? You work with kids, Che eninged
:13:13. > :13:19.kids. Kids with problems. How have you found as the use of Serb
:13:19. > :13:22.networking been good or bad? A bit of both. Some people use it for
:13:23. > :13:27.violence, meeting up and saying, let's make music about other people.
:13:27. > :13:30.That's where it is a problem. If people had to identify themselves
:13:30. > :13:36.properly you wouldn't have half of the problems. The problem is people
:13:36. > :13:43.know they can make music or make videos and they will be anonymous.
:13:43. > :13:50.That's the problem. The police can police it themselves if they wanted
:13:50. > :13:54.to. One aspect of this we haven't touched on is the global aspect.
:13:54. > :13:58.Kate can get messages from somebody anywhere in the world. As I've
:13:58. > :14:03.written stuff that's appeared online I've had responses from all over the
:14:03. > :14:10.word. Lord Leveson, looking at press regulation scratched his head when
:14:10. > :14:16.it came to social media, "it's a terrible thing, don't really know
:14:16. > :14:20.what to do about it" John talks about publishing, we must be aware
:14:20. > :14:27.we are publishing every time we tweet. We are thinking as if we are
:14:27. > :14:31.acting within a British media context. We're operating in a great
:14:31. > :14:35.human suit. The whole Lord McAlpine business, there's a comedian
:14:36. > :14:41.mentioned on one of the front pages today who way well or not
:14:41. > :14:48.interviewed by police in connection to the Jimmy Savile business. You
:14:48. > :14:52.can find his name easily on Twitter. Twitter and Facebook were at the
:14:52. > :15:01.forefront of getting regulation of the press but the standards adhered
:15:01. > :15:04.to on those are way below the press. What happens is we need to educate
:15:04. > :15:12.people using Facebook and Twitter to understand if you slag somebody off
:15:12. > :15:18.you are making a published comment which is published around the world.
:15:18. > :15:23.Go on. Gll In relation to the Boston bombings people need to be
:15:23. > :15:27.responsible for what they say even though they may have free speech.
:15:28. > :15:32.They identified the wrong person and that person is no longer with us.
:15:32. > :15:39.Free speech is incredibly important but it does not include the right to
:15:39. > :15:43.libel people. Make false allegations that someone's a child sex abuser or
:15:43. > :15:48.the right to incite violence against other people, to menace and threaten
:15:48. > :15:52.them. That is an abuse of free speech and closes down debate
:15:52. > :16:02.because the consequence is if you're under threat to be killed, you're
:16:02. > :16:07.
:16:07. > :16:10.under threat to be killed, you're All that has happened here is the
:16:10. > :16:14.amplifyication of what was already happening.
:16:15. > :16:18.What about the racism aspect? Sneeze people would have been
:16:18. > :16:23.racist anyway without this new tool of communication? They would have,
:16:24. > :16:28.but it just makes it easier for people to be racist. There are
:16:28. > :16:32.millions of videos on YouTube that should be taken down, but they are
:16:32. > :16:36.not. So people are going to keep putting them up and watching them.
:16:37. > :16:41.What sort of content? There is a lot in South Africa where the
:16:41. > :16:44.police were attacking black people with AK-47s and making them stand
:16:44. > :16:46.there and that was up there for months and it is still up there.
:16:46. > :16:50.That should be taken down, but it is not.
:16:50. > :16:56.I would argue the other way. When such content is published online,
:16:56. > :17:01.it evokes conversation. If people create content... We should leave
:17:01. > :17:05.it there? Well, it shouldn't be sensored, there should be a
:17:05. > :17:11.conversation around it such as today. If people have got racist
:17:11. > :17:18.thoughts and racist and publish publications and they are taken
:17:18. > :17:25.down and put into a corner and and it is forgotten about. The people
:17:25. > :17:29.who engaged... That's self- regulation. It is self-regulation.
:17:29. > :17:33.The self policing of the social media is important and let's get
:17:33. > :17:41.the positives here. This is a medium which he had kates and
:17:41. > :17:46.brings people -- he had educates and brings people together. What
:17:46. > :17:53.about pornography? Should that be taken down? Pornography, when it is
:17:53. > :17:57.legal, it should not be taken down. On like YouTube.? If the police
:17:57. > :18:02.were more educated, when pornography videos that were
:18:02. > :18:05.uploaded that appeared to show violence or under-age participants
:18:05. > :18:10.the police could jump in and go, there is video evidence and when
:18:10. > :18:14.stuff is taking place that's been, you know, consenting adults and it
:18:14. > :18:20.has been done above board that can be left and people can access that
:18:20. > :18:24.if they want to or not. With the Boston bombings as soon as
:18:24. > :18:29.there was somebody put into the public realm of being a possible
:18:29. > :18:33.bomber, the police should have reacted earlier. They should have
:18:33. > :18:38.noticed there was this discussion going on and taken a response and
:18:38. > :18:43.said, "This person isn't involved." In order to nip that in the bud at
:18:43. > :18:48.the beginning. Good morning. Hello. Certainly,
:18:48. > :18:54.individuals use social media for instant updates, however this trend
:18:54. > :18:58.needs to be understood by people and just to be like sort of, it
:18:58. > :19:03.should only be used to be a catalyst to find information and it
:19:03. > :19:11.should, people shouldn't be jumping to conclusions because like like
:19:11. > :19:16.for example with Sunil his name was on Twitter and it was sad.
:19:16. > :19:19.You? On the point of like social media websites regulating
:19:19. > :19:23.themselves, it is unrealistic to think there would be ever be able
:19:23. > :19:27.to do so. Well, most people are descent, most
:19:27. > :19:32.people are fair minded? It is like saying we should expect like the
:19:32. > :19:35.phone company to regulate our conversations or Royal Mail to
:19:35. > :19:40.regulate our post. It is up to the individual to know what to do in
:19:40. > :19:45.that situation and there needs to be proper procedures in place.
:19:45. > :19:53.You? At the beginning people were saying that the internet reflects
:19:53. > :19:57.our self and it acts as a Magna fine glass because there are things
:19:57. > :20:05.people say on the internet that they wouldn't dream of saying in
:20:05. > :20:09.real life. Lyon agreed with -- Leon agreed and
:20:09. > :20:13.said, "Exactly.". That's the problem.
:20:13. > :20:17.They can be identified. They can be identified and there is this myth
:20:17. > :20:18.going around. I understand what you are saying. There is this myth
:20:18. > :20:22.going around that they can't be identified.
:20:22. > :20:27.It is quite a process, isn't it? is a long process.
:20:27. > :20:30.It is important those people who do that thing know there is a process.
:20:30. > :20:34.Peter Tatchell, isn't there something wonderful about the way
:20:34. > :20:39.if somebody does post something outrageous or say something
:20:39. > :20:45.outrageous, the majority of people who are descent, will react to it
:20:45. > :20:50.in a proper way? Mostly, but sometimes surprising
:20:50. > :20:55.numbers... People defended you? Surprising a fair number of good,
:20:55. > :21:01.descent people sometimes believe the lies because some of them are
:21:01. > :21:08.sophisticated. Like when the BNP supporters photoshopped this image,
:21:08. > :21:10.it looks genuine. It looks like I am holding a placard. I never
:21:10. > :21:17.endorsed adults having sex with children.
:21:17. > :21:20.Did you attempt to find the source? I don't know how to do it. I will
:21:20. > :21:24.get your advice. We will talk after the show.
:21:24. > :21:28.The gentleman there. With the fact of people getting
:21:28. > :21:37.tracked, you would be surprised people who have not not hacking
:21:37. > :21:45.knowledge. I know normal people who can hack into big businesses.
:21:45. > :21:50.McDonald's Twitter got hacked by someone saying they were from
:21:50. > :21:53.Burger King. I can go to a public library and set-up my own e-mail
:21:53. > :21:57.and how are they going to know it is me?
:21:57. > :22:04.That's a good point. We under estimate the revolutionary
:22:04. > :22:07.effects of Twitter and Facebook. In the Arab Spring that would not have
:22:07. > :22:11.happened without the effects of Twitter and Facebook and the lib
:22:11. > :22:14.rty that can bring is -- the liberty that can bring and you
:22:14. > :22:19.should be careful when regulating that.
:22:19. > :22:23.It shows you James, how easier it is for -- easy it is for the big
:22:23. > :22:29.companies to cut their cloth. Google in China. China said, "Look,
:22:29. > :22:32.get out of here." Google said, "OK, we will compromise.". That's the
:22:32. > :22:36.problem with asking the internet companies to police themselves. If
:22:36. > :22:44.it is an internet company versus a Government.
:22:44. > :22:49.If it is profits versus freedom. Exactly. It is a tough balance.
:22:49. > :22:59.The mobile phone networks are at work and messaging through the
:22:59. > :23:01.
:23:01. > :23:07.mobile phone networks is less looked at. The police are the last
:23:07. > :23:11.last people who will want to police Twitter. During the Thatcher
:23:11. > :23:17.funeral they were watching social media and seeing what people were
:23:17. > :23:24.talking about, so for the police, it is a useful tool. And for future
:23:24. > :23:29.future plores -- employers and journalists, it is an easy Sunday
:23:29. > :23:33.afternoon? It opens up the issue do we have the right to a private
:23:33. > :23:37.world and a public world? I don't know how private the private
:23:37. > :23:40.settings are. I don't understand now it is. There have been cases
:23:41. > :23:43.where people got into trouble at work for things they said to their
:23:43. > :23:47.friends on Facebook where they weren't intending to have
:23:47. > :23:51.conversations that would impact their work, there were legal issues
:23:51. > :23:57.arising from that. Do people feel that you have a right to have a
:23:57. > :24:01.private world? Should your employer be looking at your private world?
:24:01. > :24:06.You may as well be putting it on the front page of the Sunday
:24:06. > :24:09.Telegraph! Thank you very much.
:24:09. > :24:17.If you have something to say about that debate logon to:
:24:17. > :24:19.bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions. Follow the link to where you can
:24:19. > :24:22.join in the discussion online or contribute on Twitter.
:24:22. > :24:25.We're also debating live this morning from Birmingham - should
:24:25. > :24:29.monarchs retire? And should civil partnerships be available to
:24:29. > :24:39.heterosexuals? Tell us what you think about those topics or send
:24:39. > :24:46.
:24:46. > :24:49.any general comments you would like Well, last Sunday Her Majesty the
:24:50. > :24:53.Queen celebrated her 87th birthday. Many happy returns, ma'am. Now in
:24:53. > :24:56.the 61st year of her reign she has amply fulfilled the hope expressed
:24:56. > :24:59.in the National Anthem, long to reign over us. But her cousin Queen
:24:59. > :25:02.Beatrix, a mere 75, retires on Tuesday after just 33 years on the
:25:02. > :25:07.Dutch throne following in the tradition of her mother, Queen
:25:07. > :25:13.Juliana, and her grandmother, Queen Wilhemina. Should monarchs retire?
:25:13. > :25:18.The Queen is is doing a wonderful job and she believes in the aspect
:25:18. > :25:24.of duty and you think it would be a good thing?
:25:24. > :25:29.Even the most ardent republican will admire the Queen for the duty
:25:29. > :25:32.and the perseverance and the way she has given her life to this
:25:32. > :25:37.country and carried on the values that were around when she was
:25:38. > :25:44.crowned in 1953. The next monarch can't take the same vow in the same
:25:44. > :25:50.way because those were Anglican vows and the nation has changed
:25:51. > :25:55.dramatically. And actually what we want is, well, a monarchy, needs to
:25:55. > :26:00.change to reflect the way that people are. Now, I don't think she
:26:00. > :26:05.is going to step down, but I think that it would be an opportunity for
:26:05. > :26:07.a younger person... How much younger?
:26:07. > :26:10.LAUGHTER Skip a generation.
:26:10. > :26:15.When William and Kate got married. There was a story that went around
:26:15. > :26:23.the world from the Jewish Chronicle that said that part of the ceremony
:26:23. > :26:27.would be multi-cultural. That story went around the world world and was
:26:27. > :26:31.reported as fact. It was an April Fool. The reason it was reported
:26:31. > :26:34.around the world as fact, it seems sensible. That's the sort of thing
:26:34. > :26:39.that should happen. It had a ring of truth! It couldn't
:26:40. > :26:43.happen. You want a defender of all the faiths, don't you?, what I want
:26:43. > :26:52.is an institutional acceptance of the way the country has changed.
:26:52. > :26:55.What we have got in that particular case was a Berkshire wedding with
:26:56. > :26:59.knobs on! That's no way to talk about the
:26:59. > :27:03.guests!? What are the problems? Next time, there will be a sea
:27:03. > :27:08.change. It will reflect the changes in British society. You can't just
:27:08. > :27:14.stand still. But what we're talking about is possible abdication which
:27:14. > :27:20.has a nasty touch within Britain because our precedent are
:27:20. > :27:25.unfortunate. So we could talk about renunsation and Prince Charles
:27:25. > :27:30.could say I renounce and they could skip a generation and it would
:27:30. > :27:34.rejuvenate the monarchy, but there are rules. The British monarchy is
:27:34. > :27:40.is different different. The head of State of 15 Commonwealth countries
:27:40. > :27:47.and we have seen when William and Kate, there will be a Royal baby to
:27:47. > :27:52.change the gender rules they have to go through the gender rules of
:27:52. > :27:57.15 countries. This is going through. It raised a lot of questions about
:27:57. > :27:59.do we really need a head of State, thousands of miles away, that we
:27:59. > :28:03.never see or we have no relationship to and they could get
:28:03. > :28:09.the idea, well, we don't want this monarch as our head of State. You
:28:09. > :28:12.open up the door to republicanism. Leave well alone. I am saying you
:28:12. > :28:19.have to think through what the consequences would be.
:28:19. > :28:22.Would there be consequences for the hereditary principle pal? This will
:28:22. > :28:30.be the question raised in Canada and Australia if they think they
:28:30. > :28:36.have to go through yet another amendment on the Royal Rules of
:28:36. > :28:39.session -- Succession. It is a two- way thing. You can say, "I don't
:28:39. > :28:43.want to do it anymore." They have a bad breakfast, they can't be
:28:43. > :28:47.bothered. It is a pain. And it also means from the bottom up. We are
:28:47. > :28:51.talking about social media and the influence of the media. We can
:28:51. > :28:57.imagine there would be more cries from the media to say, "Resign.
:28:57. > :29:06.Resign." Just like for politicians. You are making the monarchs into
:29:06. > :29:09.peer politicians? It is all fluned. It is a -- -- flew -- fluid. The
:29:09. > :29:13.Monarchy is changing in order to reflect the way the country is. We
:29:13. > :29:17.have just had a Pope resign and so, if the Pope can do it, the Queen
:29:17. > :29:21.can do it. I don't think she will, I don't think the people want her
:29:21. > :29:26.to, but it would make sense for the option to be there.
:29:26. > :29:32.The Pope doing it unleeshes forces that weren't there at the time and
:29:32. > :29:36.it drops the symbolic figures like Popes and monarchies into the role
:29:36. > :29:42.of politics. We need to be as careful as we can about what we do
:29:42. > :29:48.about letting everybody become another elected figure.
:29:48. > :29:51.I am all for the the de- mystifyication.
:29:51. > :29:59.The Queen was crowned on the basis she was appointed by God which is
:29:59. > :30:03.the basis for being Pope. Do we still believe that? It is a
:30:03. > :30:07.great value to having a head of State who is above politics. Look
:30:07. > :30:11.Look what happened in the US when there is rallying calls. We had to
:30:11. > :30:17.get behind the President. It becomes difficult to question the
:30:17. > :30:23.President. The advantage we have of a symbolic mystical med of State? -
:30:23. > :30:28.- head of State. Are you saying God is a myth?
:30:28. > :30:33.British believe that God is a myth. Institutionally, we are a Christian
:30:33. > :30:43.country, but in terms of the population, we believe a myth in
:30:43. > :30:56.
:30:56. > :31:00.the sense of a possible reality as will never end, there's no separate
:31:00. > :31:04.sense of work and self-. If you don't see any end to that, there
:31:04. > :31:09.becomes a strange magic that kicks in where you become in persona. You
:31:09. > :31:15.never get to switch that off. Everybody, whether a Pope, monarch
:31:15. > :31:22.or normal working person you go home, close to the -- the door and
:31:22. > :31:28.have a life. The Queen very much believes her duty a God given?
:31:28. > :31:34.does. She believes when she took her oath it inferred a sacramental duty
:31:34. > :31:40.to continue as monarch until her death. Exactly as her parents did
:31:40. > :31:46.before her. She was still working at 101 until she died. Do you think
:31:46. > :31:51.she's been scarred in some way by the experience of her uncle?
:31:51. > :31:57.abdication left a very nasty touch. The look at the Queen's life, she's
:31:57. > :32:03.having the best time of her reign. She's had a terrific Jubilee last
:32:03. > :32:08.year. Do you think she really is though? Behind closed doors. And had
:32:08. > :32:14.Daniel Craig to her home, what more could you want? Does Prince Charles
:32:14. > :32:20.want her to resign? What do your sources tell you? I think in his
:32:20. > :32:27.heart of hearts he would like it but I think he knows that she want. In
:32:27. > :32:34.one of her Christmas broadcasts she said she felt the same obligation
:32:34. > :32:40.then as she did in 19 52. This whole covering is hilarious. All these
:32:40. > :32:45.people's saying who should be monarch. The point is all of us are
:32:45. > :32:51.rif RAF, we've absolutely no say. If anybody in this room thinks they
:32:51. > :32:55.know who should the monarch be, we should switch to an elected head of
:32:55. > :33:00.state and you can vote for the Queen. Or you can vote for Trevor
:33:00. > :33:04.McDonald or Tani Grey-Thompson. Whoever you like. Good luck to you.
:33:04. > :33:13.Anyone who didn't want the job wouldn't stand. Anybody else who
:33:13. > :33:18.wanted to stand they could do so. This is... This is not a republican
:33:18. > :33:23.country. Actually, the cowering rent basis for the monarchy is
:33:23. > :33:26.appointment by God. Do we still leave that? You say the British
:33:26. > :33:32.people say this and that. You have a feeling of what British people say.
:33:32. > :33:39.You'd have to hold a referendum to find out democratically do you want
:33:39. > :33:45.the Queen or by God. She has over 80% of support in opinion polls.
:33:45. > :33:50.have to look at the oath they take. It is an Act of Parliament. You can
:33:50. > :33:57.change those oaths. Make them more modern. We know the British people
:33:57. > :34:03.don't want a republic. It doesn't work. This debate is around Queen
:34:03. > :34:07.Elizabeth the second. Let's take her out of the debate. She's in a jolly
:34:07. > :34:13.good job in the job description. Let's takes the emotion out of it.
:34:13. > :34:20.This is about whether her hereditary organisation should go on without
:34:20. > :34:26.any check or balance whatsoever. I'm of the view putting personalities to
:34:26. > :34:33.one side many people have admiration for her. There should be a facility
:34:33. > :34:41.for her retirement. For the rif RAF having a say. If we take the Queen
:34:41. > :34:49.out of it we can have the debate. Can you? I wonder if abdication can
:34:49. > :34:54.replace retirement. Abdication has such a negative connotation. Aren't
:34:54. > :35:00.Prime Ministers getting younger? Would we want our 80-year-old
:35:00. > :35:08.relatives doing the work the Pope and Queen have to do? You're being
:35:08. > :35:16.ageist. I thought it was fantastic Pope Benedict was able to say "I'm
:35:16. > :35:23.too old for this" It wasn't ageist. The Pope decided to step down. If
:35:23. > :35:28.our Queen decided a self-selecting thing... She might feel pressure.
:35:28. > :35:35.There should be an age. It takes the guilt away. The big problem we have
:35:35. > :35:41.is the monarch is our head of state. The fundmental democratic principle
:35:41. > :35:47.is publish officials should be collected. Ssh elected. I don't like
:35:47. > :35:52.the hereditary principle. We get a head of stage based on one family
:35:52. > :35:58.not based on merit. In this sense we're similar to Iran and North
:35:58. > :36:04.Korea. North Korea is run by the dynastic principle. The head of
:36:05. > :36:13.state is from father to son. In Iran, the head of state is
:36:13. > :36:17.religious. The Queen is the head of the Church of England. Having having
:36:17. > :36:22.a head of state and reliningious figure is not the right way to go
:36:22. > :36:26.for a democracy. We should be mature enough to have an elected head of
:36:26. > :36:32.state. I wouldn't want a president like George Bush or the French
:36:32. > :36:35.president. I would like a low-cost president like they had in Ireland.
:36:35. > :36:45.What kind of person would fit the role right now in public life for
:36:45. > :36:48.
:36:48. > :36:58.you? Maybe someone like Joan Bakewell. Joan Kennedy. You're going
:36:58. > :36:59.
:36:59. > :37:04.through the postcodes in Hampstead. A nice try but it's not going to
:37:04. > :37:08.work. We do value having a monarch who is beyond politics and is beyond
:37:08. > :37:13.the political sphere. We like that. What I'm suggesting is we need to
:37:13. > :37:18.have a way for that monarch to reflect... What message is this
:37:18. > :37:24.sending. The most important job on our country get your face on bank
:37:24. > :37:27.notes. It prioritises men over women. It is wrong. We should be
:37:27. > :37:32.saying whoever you are, wherever you're from you can aim for
:37:32. > :37:38.anything. When my grandfather went to fight at the age of 19, as a
:37:38. > :37:45.young person, he did that under a constitutional monarch. The message
:37:45. > :37:52.to young people is relevant. It is a message to all of us. Sarah? I was
:37:52. > :37:56.reflecting on the idea of con shones and democracy. When the king in
:37:56. > :38:03.Belgium step #ed down for a while there was an interesting Dallas to
:38:03. > :38:08.when you are a monarch where you have to sign legislation. I believe
:38:08. > :38:12.they were going to liberalise abores in Belgium. He said he couldn't sign
:38:12. > :38:17.it. He organise #ed for something to happen. But he stepped down for a
:38:17. > :38:20.while. He didn't sign that. But he sent out a really clear message he
:38:20. > :38:23.was also a person as well as a figurehead. That was a really
:38:23. > :38:29.interesting relationship with constitutional monarchy and
:38:29. > :38:33.democracy. Basically you can choose what you want. You have know it is
:38:33. > :38:38.the well of the people or what opinion polls say. They can change
:38:38. > :38:41.when a referendum comes. The monarch in the Netherlands, their
:38:41. > :38:46.constitution regulates on Dickation. If you go for that, you need to have
:38:46. > :38:51.a set of rules, a written constitution. Britain is the only
:38:51. > :38:56.country in the EU which doesn't have one. Has prince charms made a rod
:38:56. > :39:01.for his own back following his letters to politicians? I think he
:39:01. > :39:06.has. He has a lot more freedom and privilege than any other Crown
:39:06. > :39:11.Prince in Europe. He writes his own tax bill. It is a voluntary
:39:11. > :39:19.arrangement. Does he?Oh, yes. You're talking about the black
:39:19. > :39:25.spider memos he's PEs tered minute terse with and has done with
:39:25. > :39:32.decades. He's interfered with planning decisions. En you say write
:39:32. > :39:38.the tax bill, decides what tax he wants to pay? It is a voluntary
:39:38. > :39:45.arrangement. The example begin by MrThat much he will seems to be
:39:45. > :39:52.misplaced to compare royalty in this country, our Queen, to Iran for
:39:52. > :39:58.instance, or North Korea, is totally misplaced. These are new generation
:39:58. > :40:05.of people who have come about. Wrasse this country has had royals
:40:05. > :40:11.and royalty for hundreds of years. And without that, without the
:40:11. > :40:18.royalty being here in this country, it could lead to serious problems of
:40:18. > :40:28.one sort or the other. I'm not saying Britain's like North Korea or
:40:28. > :40:30.
:40:31. > :40:34.Iran. You're not comparing the Queen to Kim Jong Euan? No! The principle
:40:35. > :40:41.is in North Korea, the head of state, the President passes from
:40:41. > :40:46.father to son in the saichl way it does in our system. Also, of course,
:40:46. > :40:51.we have a big problem, under the current system the Windsor family is
:40:51. > :40:58.the repost itry of the head of state of monarch. For the foreseeable
:40:58. > :41:04.future no black or ethnic minority person can be our head of state
:41:04. > :41:12.despite many being worthwhile. democratic leader who gets the
:41:12. > :41:17.biggest vote is Putin in Russia. The bizarreness is the greatest
:41:17. > :41:23.strength. We don't want a head of state who's enmeshed in politics.
:41:23. > :41:31.The minute you have any election procedure, as has been reflected
:41:31. > :41:36.this morning... The minute you have to have an election is about the
:41:36. > :41:42.symbolic head of state. Thank you very much for that. You can join in
:41:42. > :41:49.our debates by following the link to our online discussions. Send us your
:41:49. > :41:54.views about the last big question? Should civil partnerships be
:41:54. > :42:00.available for heterosexuals. Next week, is religion fair to women? If
:42:00. > :42:06.you'd like to be in the audience in a future show e-mail us. We are in
:42:06. > :42:15.Edinburgh on May 12th after Pentecost, Bristol on May 26th and
:42:15. > :42:22.Warrington on June 9thth. Th. The Government's consultation over gay
:42:22. > :42:26.marriage threw up a surprising result. 61% were in favour of
:42:26. > :42:31.allowing hetrosexual couples to have the option of a civil partnership.
:42:31. > :42:34.The Government decided not to legislate for this option in the
:42:34. > :42:40.bill currently before Parliament. We asked this morning what do you
:42:40. > :42:45.think? Should civil part Sher inspection be available to
:42:45. > :42:51.heterosexuals? Peter, you're campaigning on this. It is getting
:42:51. > :42:57.quite complicated? We have gay marriage, civil partnerships, church
:42:57. > :43:03.Marges, civil marriages for all. Why do you want civil partnerships for
:43:03. > :43:10.whet row sect people, for straight people? When the Civil Partnership
:43:10. > :43:18.Act was introduced in 2003/04 I was shocked the Labour Government said
:43:18. > :43:22.it wasn't open to hetrosexual couples: I thought it violated the
:43:22. > :43:28.principles of equality. I campaigned for the right for straight couples
:43:28. > :43:35.to have a civil partnerships if they wish. David Cameron canal ask saying
:43:35. > :43:40.he won't support hetrosexual partnerships because it will under
:43:40. > :43:46.undermine marriage. When I met the Archbishop of Canterbury he said he
:43:46. > :43:54.supported the right for hetrosexual couples to have a civil partnership.
:43:54. > :44:02.I hope when this amendment is voted on if you are going to vote for gay
:44:02. > :44:07.wee quality you also vote for hetrosexual equality. What of the
:44:07. > :44:13.argument David Cameron makes? It was an argument where we discussed gay
:44:13. > :44:18.marriage. They said this will strengthen marriage, having gay
:44:18. > :44:22.marriage. The argument David Cameron's making is by having the
:44:22. > :44:28.civil partnership option for heterosexuals that will dilute
:44:28. > :44:33.marriage? It is not a view shared by the Archbishop of Canterbury, good
:44:33. > :44:38.on him. But people should have a choice. We should not compel people
:44:38. > :44:45.to get married if they don't want to. It is a fundamental principle we
:44:45. > :44:50.should all be equal before the law. If we have civil partnerships I
:44:50. > :44:55.think hetrosexual couples should be allowed to have them. One of the big
:44:55. > :45:01.problems is turning the argument into something too small. It is not
:45:01. > :45:05.about equality. It creates confusion about what mainch is. A civil
:45:05. > :45:10.partnership for hetrosexual people is useful if it was for maiden aunts
:45:10. > :45:14.who wanted to ensure some kind of hereditary passing down of
:45:14. > :45:19.inheritance rights or careers who look after elderly relatives. It has
:45:19. > :45:23.a meaning which doesn't confuse itself with marriage. Preserving the
:45:23. > :45:28.meaning of marriage is very important. The reason it is really
:45:28. > :45:35.dangerous to call it an argument about equality we close down freedom
:45:35. > :45:38.of speech about what marriage really is. Where you go to countries where
:45:38. > :45:44.same-sex marriage is legal, marriage contact' be talked about in the same
:45:44. > :45:54.way. Fewer people get married. Anybody who decents from the view is
:45:54. > :46:04.
:46:04. > :46:07.in big trouble. They are hounded. It is this hounding of people who
:46:07. > :46:11.have different views about the mystery of sexuality. It is a
:46:11. > :46:15.conversation, the whole of human nature is at stake and I find it
:46:15. > :46:20.deeply offensive and I find it a closing down of my free speech that
:46:20. > :46:25.in a few months time perhaps if gay marriage goes through... Are you
:46:25. > :46:29.talking about same-sex marriage here? We are talk being the right
:46:29. > :46:31.of heterosexual people. Why shouldn't they be able to have
:46:31. > :46:37.civil partnerships? It is part of the same argument in which we talk
:46:37. > :46:43.about equality at stake. Kate will explain to you because Kate, if you
:46:43. > :46:47.were to be partnered again, am I right in saying, as a heterosexual
:46:47. > :46:51.you would like to have a civil partnership rather than marriage.
:46:51. > :46:54.Tell me why? Even at the time I would rather have had a civil
:46:54. > :46:59.partnership. The reality is this and it drives me crazy. People
:46:59. > :47:02.start talking about and we have got to protect what marriage means and
:47:02. > :47:07.traditional marriage. Here is the history of marriage, paying a price
:47:07. > :47:10.for a bride. When a woman got married, she became her husband's
:47:10. > :47:15.property. She was a slave. The history of marriage is terrifying
:47:15. > :47:17.and awful and it is great that lots of people in the 21st century have
:47:18. > :47:23.redefined it so they can celebrate their relationships their way and
:47:23. > :47:25.if some of them want to do that by not using the word husband or wife,
:47:25. > :47:31.having a partnership, having a relationship which is cemented not
:47:31. > :47:35.as a part of a religon. You don't want to be somebody's
:47:35. > :47:40.wife. No, I would rather be somebody's
:47:40. > :47:43.partner. Nonsense. It would be great if it left everybody else the
:47:43. > :47:52.freedom to have that definition of marriage that is sacramental and
:47:52. > :47:57.that is profound and that is spiritual. You want to be your
:47:57. > :48:00.husband's property? I am not my husband's property.
:48:00. > :48:03.Hang on this debate is not about marriage, it is about civil
:48:03. > :48:07.partnerships. It is about giving people the right and freedom in a
:48:07. > :48:12.democratic society to make their free choice. In the Netherlands,
:48:12. > :48:17.where they have had both civil partnerships and civil marriages
:48:17. > :48:20.opened to ALL: all couples, today a majority
:48:20. > :48:24.of civil partnerships are between heterosexual men and women who
:48:24. > :48:28.choose that as their preferred option. You are entitled to your
:48:28. > :48:33.your beliefs, but they shouldn't be beliefs that deny people their
:48:33. > :48:36.right to their aption option ins a free society.
:48:36. > :48:41.What do you think will be the proportion of gay couples choosing
:48:41. > :48:46.to be married with the baggage that we hear about from Kate or choosing
:48:46. > :48:50.to be civilly partenered if that's the right expression?
:48:50. > :48:53.communities are divided. Some people want marriage, some people
:48:53. > :48:58.prefer civil partnerships. What I am saying in a free and democratic
:48:58. > :49:02.society, let everyone make that choice. Don't dictate.
:49:02. > :49:06.It is just dictateship that has has happened.
:49:06. > :49:09.We will be right back. There is a few things that need to
:49:09. > :49:14.be considered here. Firstly, that morage is not the issue that's on
:49:14. > :49:17.trial here and it needs to be respected for what it is. Secondly,
:49:17. > :49:21.we need to understand where this argument has come from. The whole
:49:21. > :49:24.issue about civil partnerships is actually about property and
:49:24. > :49:27.property rights and recognising there are different kinds of
:49:27. > :49:33.relationships out there and if we take into consideration and this is
:49:33. > :49:37.where the heterosexual argument comes in, the scenario of
:49:37. > :49:42.cohabiting for example and that is where, I think, this argument has
:49:42. > :49:46.built up from, recognising that folks have the circumstances and
:49:46. > :49:50.therefore, they need recognising and that's what the law is trying
:49:50. > :49:54.to do there. Recognise there are different types of relationships.
:49:54. > :49:58.That's a good point. A lot of people don't want to get married,
:49:58. > :50:01.but if they had the option of a civil partnership at least they
:50:01. > :50:06.would have some legal right for them and their children.
:50:06. > :50:10.Would you rather people had a civil partnership to a heterosexual
:50:10. > :50:14.couple or carried on living in as you might well call it, sin?
:50:14. > :50:17.I don't think it is an either or situation. Well, it is.I think
:50:17. > :50:21.what we need to do is really actually help... There are lots of
:50:21. > :50:24.people who are deliberately not getting married and if you said to
:50:24. > :50:28.them, "Well, you do have a civil partnership.". That might be better
:50:28. > :50:30.for children. The reason we want to have a voice is help people
:50:30. > :50:33.understand the depth of marriage. To help people understand that it
:50:33. > :50:38.is about children. It is about choice.
:50:38. > :50:43.What about people getting married for 48 hours? Because we are
:50:43. > :50:49.forcing people to get married, it doesn't mean that people understand
:50:49. > :50:52.the importance of marriage. Drive through marriages, you can
:50:52. > :50:55.get these days. Under the current arrangements, if
:50:55. > :50:58.I want to go into a church and make a public commitment to somebody
:50:58. > :51:01.before God, as a life long commitment, I will be able to do
:51:02. > :51:04.that. Well, I don't know if which church
:51:04. > :51:09.you you would be able to do that because marriage is more than just
:51:09. > :51:16.a commitment to another person. There is also that element of
:51:17. > :51:18.permanency and fi fidelity. I just want people to have a civil
:51:18. > :51:24.partnership. I am a Christian in a civil
:51:24. > :51:27.partnership and I would like civil partnerships to remain for a while,
:51:27. > :51:30.pragmatically where gay people can work out what it is like to have
:51:31. > :51:35.their relationships public. This is a very, very different idea. For
:51:35. > :51:41.many, many centuries, gay people had to put up with persecution and
:51:41. > :51:46.it is hard to respect the church's position. It has been very, you
:51:46. > :51:50.know, derogatory of gay relationships until recently, but I
:51:50. > :51:54.like civil partnerships to be a space where gay people can work out
:51:54. > :51:57.what it is to be public about their relationships and also, I think,
:51:57. > :52:01.there is... What about straight people? Just because someone
:52:01. > :52:05.doesn't get married, a straight couple doesn't get married doesn't
:52:06. > :52:09.mean they remove themselves from the problems of how men and women
:52:09. > :52:14.relate to each other. These are embedded in culture generally. I
:52:14. > :52:17.sometimes wonder if people think by by not getting married they can
:52:17. > :52:21.have a freer relationship. They might be deluding themselves there.
:52:21. > :52:28.The evidence shows that people who aren't married conform to the old
:52:28. > :52:32.stereotypes... Get away from the bridal magazines and the 20 grand
:52:32. > :52:36.marriage and the expense of it. Some people don't want the trapings
:52:36. > :52:40.that come with a wedding and I have got friends who are straight, but
:52:40. > :52:44.they don't feel like the terms husband and wife describe the
:52:44. > :52:52.relationship they want. They say say they are partners, they want to
:52:52. > :52:58.be equal and free from these overtones. Parties celebrated ten
:52:58. > :53:03.years of their relationship and say PS we are never going to get
:53:03. > :53:07.married. If you want to give us a present, do it now.
:53:07. > :53:11.We are arguing about choice, to give people the tune if they want a
:53:11. > :53:17.-- opportunity if they want a civil partnership or a marriage
:53:17. > :53:21.partnership. We have freedom of association. We have freedom of
:53:22. > :53:25.reljous -- religious beliefs. Why can't we have choice? You are
:53:25. > :53:29.asking society to sanction your relationship in some way and a
:53:29. > :53:34.space in which that relationship can grow.
:53:34. > :53:39.Why shouldn't the opportunity opportunity be provided? It needs
:53:39. > :53:42.to be debated. Gay people can have a civil
:53:43. > :53:48.partnership, why can't straight people have a civil partnership
:53:48. > :53:54.too? Should straight people be accorded this right?
:53:54. > :53:58.In my view, I think it should be what you are doing here. Between
:53:58. > :54:03.the heterosexual couple and straight couple and the homosexual
:54:03. > :54:11.couple is the individual rights, my rights are my choice who should I
:54:11. > :54:17.live with, who should I have sex with or whom should I love? Hello
:54:17. > :54:27.to you. Hello. I'm French living here in Birmingham this year. In
:54:27. > :54:34.France we have a different situation. We can get married, but
:54:34. > :54:39.not religiously, but civilly. So I think just like now this week, we
:54:39. > :54:44.have got gay marriage for gay people now like civil marriage and
:54:44. > :54:50.I think that the situation is actually, the question is - what if
:54:50. > :54:57.everyone had the right to do what they want? Like what is it is to be
:54:57. > :55:01.married. I want to be civilly married one day.
:55:01. > :55:06.Civilly partenered? Yes. Why we can't have a choice? OK. Just
:55:06. > :55:09.explain one more time. Why do you feel so so threatened by this?
:55:09. > :55:13.think partly because what you were explaining earlier. People don't
:55:13. > :55:22.understand what marriage really is and it is under threat. Civil
:55:22. > :55:27.partnerships, not marriage. This is a debate about civil partnerships.
:55:27. > :55:31.I am trying to get to the point the reason why the civil partnerships
:55:31. > :55:41.are introduced is part of a larger argument why equality. If you don't
:55:41. > :55:42.
:55:42. > :55:46.see everything as equal you are somehow a persona non Gratta. It is
:55:46. > :55:49.not about choice. Choice is not what happens.
:55:49. > :55:53.But if it comes down to, surely it is about choice in the sense that
:55:53. > :55:57.if you have a couple and they have a choice to carry on living
:55:57. > :55:59.together or to be civilly partenered, should they not have
:55:59. > :56:02.that right to have a civil partnership?
:56:02. > :56:07.Just as they have that right to have a civil marriage if they
:56:07. > :56:13.desire which keeps the church right out of it? Well, church even aside,
:56:14. > :56:18.why does the State support marriage? It supports it because it
:56:18. > :56:21.is oriented towards raising children in a safe environment.
:56:21. > :56:27.People are unclear about what they are for and they seem to be doing
:56:27. > :56:33.it as an almost statement against something rather than for something.
:56:33. > :56:38.My concern is, you know, if the Government's same-sex marriage
:56:38. > :56:45.marriage Bill goes through. Gay people will have two choices a
:56:45. > :56:48.civil marriage or a civil partnership. Heterosexual people
:56:48. > :56:51.will have one choice. Everyone gay and straight should have the the
:56:52. > :56:54.same rights and same responsibilities. I hope MPs and
:56:54. > :56:58.members of the House of Lords will vote to ensure that straight
:56:58. > :57:02.couples can have a civil partnership if they wish. It is not
:57:02. > :57:07.about what you or I believe, it is about the principle of equality.
:57:07. > :57:12.Vernon? Equality can't just steamroll through everything. There
:57:12. > :57:18.are different things that men bring to relationships and women bring to
:57:18. > :57:22.relationships. There would have been to make sure there is as many
:57:23. > :57:27.men on the panel as women on the panel. We have a sense that men and
:57:27. > :57:34.women bring different things to relationships. A Mixed sex
:57:34. > :57:39.relationship will be different from a same-sex relationship. It takes
:57:39. > :57:43.time. Do you want the last word? Not really!
:57:43. > :57:47.The way we are going is we are we are going to have a three tier
:57:47. > :57:53.system. You can get married bells and whistles in front of God if you
:57:53. > :57:59.want. You can get married in a civil wedding. A civil partnership
:57:59. > :58:03.is an extra dimension. It will be what you want to do, if you want to
:58:03. > :58:09.make a partnership not publicly, privately. For you it is just a
:58:09. > :58:15.matter of equality. Logic apart from everything else. Should we
:58:15. > :58:23.have, we mentioned the Netherlands, there are three within hay civil
:58:23. > :58:26.partnerships. -- there are already three-way civil partnerships.