Episode 15 The Big Questions

Questions live from King Edward VI Handsworth School. Irish Republic'

Nicky Campbell. In the last week, tweets falsely accused an innocent

man of being the Boston bomber. With a familiars report of two explosions

in the White House said to have injured Barack Obama. On Friday, a

South Shields man admitted to posting his intention to kill 200

students in an US school. Is social media out of control? Ewe #bbctbq if

you want to tweet about that one. This Tuesday, Queen Beatrix of the

Netherlands will abdicate in favour of Crown Prince WillemAlexander.

Should monarchs retire? And with the wedding season upon us, spare a

thought for those couples who don't want to get married but to want more

than just living together. Should civil partnerships be available to

heterosexuals? Welcome everyone to The Big Questions.

On Friday, Dean Liddle and Neil Harkins were sentence sentenced to

nine months for releasing the identities of Thompson and Venables,

the killers of James Bulger. They posted photographs on Facebook

purporting to have been on Venables and Thompson. Is social media out of

control? Vicky Beeching, you study this. You are a research fellow on

internet ethics. It is wonderful as an exchange of ideas, making

contacts. Getting news? You have experienced the down side, haven't

you? I have. I've been subject to a lot of trolling and stalking. When I

lived in America, I had to take it to the authorities. I had threats

threatening my personal safety. My answer to the question is firstly,

we need to remember that social media is in its inNancy. It is so

young. Twitter's turned seven, YouTube's turned eight. We have to

take baby steps. When we look at the neck nothingy, we need to remember

all technology, whether it is the invention of the wheel, they are

neutral toolings, they are in our hands. If they are out of control,

it is a sign we are out of control. And most people are decent a fair,

have a sense of fair play? Tech knolly brings out our tru colours.

Kate, is there something about social media which allows people to

be particularly vile sn I think so, Germaine Greer said women have

little idea how much men hate them. Thank you, inter knelt -- internet,

we know. I am less than a week from my most recent death threat. That's

my life. That is normal for me. The first time it happened knife or six

years ago it was terrifying. Now it is standard. I don't think the

solution is to have a massive crackdown. It is illegal to make

death threats, malicious communications. It is but we need

for the police to get up to speed on these issues and to have a really

nice efficient system where you copy the message, send it to them and the

police can investigate it. The truth is, I don't send these messages to

the police. I kont tact a 19-year-old I know who will know

more how to research it, find out who it is and establish if it is a

real threat. Can I agree with what Vicky and Kate have said. We all get

obsessives. We all get trolls. That is the nature of it. Most of the

time you get people who whant to engage in conversation. We ignore

the trolls. Social media reflects society. I was really impressed with

what Vicky say about it being in a very early stage. Can I stop you

there. I know you're going to make a very important point but you say it

reflects society. In society, getting, what some people have to

put up with, women have to put up with wanting to rape them? Is that a

reflection of society? No. But we don't need to regulate the social

media. We have to knee-jerk response to regulate. There's overregulation.

A lot of laws, we've had six acts of Parliament, harassment acts,

malicious communications act. Twitter joke trial. Public order

legislation. These acts are there and can be powerfully used. One

point about the police. Let's be care of about reporting things to

the police. Serious examples you both gave, serious examples, There

was a Tom daily example. Something tweeted something really awful.

is about commonsense and balance. Commonsense is the word about social

media. Let as not knee-jerk and always inform the police. If it is

bad the police have to be involved but the police are being

overstretched. The plea from police is report it but don't knee-jerk

report everything. If everyone's crying wolf we fill up the airways.

My problem is to do with jurisdiction. The police said they

can't deal with it because it is not in their city. It was in a different

state. That was in America. That's unacceptable. We is have to make a

distinction between social media comments which are offensive, which

are not nice. I wouldn't answer encourage them. And those that are

violenceant death. I was on the other end when I challenged Nick

Griffin over his views of gay people, Muslims, black and ethnic

minority people. Some people spread word that I was a paedophile. They

photo shopped pictures to show me carrying is a placard. That's fake

but lots of people believe it. I have been deluged with death

threats. It is scary. If you don't know. Most of these people are

having it on, being nasty. Sometimes you wonder maybe one of these

nutters will try it. Was is the anonymity? Is anonymity the problem

here? Part Partly. It gives them the carte blanch that they can say

things... If you're a China, anonymity is a blessing? They think

they have but there's the Norwich farmer order which can contact third

parties and compel them to reveal who these patroles, obsessives are

and if they are doing these, these criminals are. Let us be very clear,

those people tweeting anonymously will be found out. One other thing

linking on to what Peter said, it is important the law enforcement

agencies get a grip. The Twitter joke trial is a seminal case that I

did along with David Allen Green. And that was a man who simply

tweeted to his girlfriend if this airport closes down, I'm going to

blow the place up. The police didn't take it seriously, security didn't

take it seriously at the airport but the Crown Prosecution Service for

some reason best known to themselves prosecuted this through seven

different court hearings. A lot of Kate's colleagues from the

performing arts got involved as well. It linked into freedom of

speech as well. Gentleman up there. It worries me we're expecting the

police to take a big role in this. Companies like Twitter and YouTube

are doing this on the cheap. In the nineties was a moderator on AOL.

This had a good system of throwing people off forums who were abusing

people. These new media companies are not taking responsibility.

seems to be sometimes people perceive an inconsistency. There was

a good report on Channel 4 News the other nice about this video of a

baby being beaten. Horrific footage. The person has been arraigned who

was responsible for it but it was taken down temporarily. It is back

up there. It's had lots of likes. People approve of the fact this

footage is there. Yet there have been cases of people breastfeeding

taken down from Facebook. So, there seems to be an inconsistency?

media and content that's uploaded can be done by publishers and

individuals. But we are all publishers? We are now. We are

indeed. It is a place where discussion can occur. When content's

uploaded, it can be sensered, taken down by different platforms. It is

really up to us to decide as individuals what we want to watch.

What we want to engage with and what we don't. Facebook decided it wasn't

grat ewe to us violence. You wouldn't see that on BBC News unless

it was in a very specific context. There is a different standard

applies here? Chris? I'm interested in the anonymity question. It can be

used to and abuse people. It was used by a Baghdad blogger. It would

have had him killed. How do we get this balance right between

protecting people in states where oppression is taking place or

whistleblowers. As a Christian, you believe Christians in places where

they are under the cosh, you think they should be able to get their

points heard. There is a against freedom of speech. It is not always

saying things nice. They can be objectionable. Shouldn't we give

leeway to people on social networking sites. It is

instantaneous? You're having a conversation, debating srn areas.

Common scenes is the key. We need for there to be much more training

for people in the police to say what does malicious communications look

like? How can we investigate it. The average teenager knows loads more

about what's going on on the internet than the police. If we had

our police forces given the resources and training to do this,

the internet is full of information. It would be so much better...

you report people? Inishlingy.It must have been awful? The first few

times it was. But these days I'm so used to it. People get worried when

I discuss it and am so casual about it. Unless they know Where I Live I

file it under abuse and leave it to one side on the basis of nothing's

going to happen. The Boston bombings. That's a great example of

how the police force to begin with engaged with the community. They

asked for marathon runners to participate. Content to be uploaded

to them. The individuals really felt engaged. They felt as if they were

doing something positive. Which they were. Lots of people were also

wrongly named? Yes.It is quite... That was really an example of social

media at its worst. We all learnt a lot. We are in the infancy of these

technologyies. We are learning how to take things seriously, how not

to. Lots of us tweeted things which are not correct. It is the

self-policing. I want to speak to Leon. Self-regulation, didn't work

with the prys but will it work here? You work with kids, Che eninged

kids. Kids with problems. How have you found as the use of Serb

networking been good or bad? A bit of both. Some people use it for

violence, meeting up and saying, let's make music about other people.

That's where it is a problem. If people had to identify themselves

properly you wouldn't have half of the problems. The problem is people

know they can make music or make videos and they will be anonymous.

That's the problem. The police can police it themselves if they wanted

to. One aspect of this we haven't touched on is the global aspect.

Kate can get messages from somebody anywhere in the world. As I've

written stuff that's appeared online I've had responses from all over the

word. Lord Leveson, looking at press regulation scratched his head when

it came to social media, "it's a terrible thing, don't really know

what to do about it" John talks about publishing, we must be aware

we are publishing every time we tweet. We are thinking as if we are

acting within a British media context. We're operating in a great

human suit. The whole Lord McAlpine business, there's a comedian

mentioned on one of the front pages today who way well or not

interviewed by police in connection to the Jimmy Savile business. You

can find his name easily on Twitter. Twitter and Facebook were at the

forefront of getting regulation of the press but the standards adhered

to on those are way below the press. What happens is we need to educate

people using Facebook and Twitter to understand if you slag somebody off

you are making a published comment which is published around the world.

Go on. Gll In relation to the Boston bombings people need to be

responsible for what they say even though they may have free speech.

They identified the wrong person and that person is no longer with us.

Free speech is incredibly important but it does not include the right to

libel people. Make false allegations that someone's a child sex abuser or

the right to incite violence against other people, to menace and threaten

them. That is an abuse of free speech and closes down debate

because the consequence is if you're under threat to be killed, you're

under threat to be killed, you're All that has happened here is the

amplifyication of what was already happening.

What about the racism aspect? Sneeze people would have been

racist anyway without this new tool of communication? They would have,

but it just makes it easier for people to be racist. There are

millions of videos on YouTube that should be taken down, but they are

not. So people are going to keep putting them up and watching them.

What sort of content? There is a lot in South Africa where the

police were attacking black people with AK-47s and making them stand

there and that was up there for months and it is still up there.

That should be taken down, but it is not.

I would argue the other way. When such content is published online,

it evokes conversation. If people create content... We should leave

it there? Well, it shouldn't be sensored, there should be a

conversation around it such as today. If people have got racist

thoughts and racist and publish publications and they are taken

down and put into a corner and and it is forgotten about. The people

who engaged... That's self- regulation. It is self-regulation.

The self policing of the social media is important and let's get

the positives here. This is a medium which he had kates and

brings people -- he had educates and brings people together. What

about pornography? Should that be taken down? Pornography, when it is

legal, it should not be taken down. On like YouTube.? If the police

were more educated, when pornography videos that were

uploaded that appeared to show violence or under-age participants

the police could jump in and go, there is video evidence and when

stuff is taking place that's been, you know, consenting adults and it

has been done above board that can be left and people can access that

if they want to or not. With the Boston bombings as soon as

there was somebody put into the public realm of being a possible

bomber, the police should have reacted earlier. They should have

noticed there was this discussion going on and taken a response and

said, "This person isn't involved." In order to nip that in the bud at

the beginning. Good morning. Hello. Certainly,

individuals use social media for instant updates, however this trend

needs to be understood by people and just to be like sort of, it

should only be used to be a catalyst to find information and it

should, people shouldn't be jumping to conclusions because like like

for example with Sunil his name was on Twitter and it was sad.

You? On the point of like social media websites regulating

themselves, it is unrealistic to think there would be ever be able

to do so. Well, most people are descent, most

people are fair minded? It is like saying we should expect like the

phone company to regulate our conversations or Royal Mail to

regulate our post. It is up to the individual to know what to do in

that situation and there needs to be proper procedures in place.

You? At the beginning people were saying that the internet reflects

our self and it acts as a Magna fine glass because there are things

people say on the internet that they wouldn't dream of saying in

real life. Lyon agreed with -- Leon agreed and

said, "Exactly.". That's the problem.

They can be identified. They can be identified and there is this myth

going around. I understand what you are saying. There is this myth

going around that they can't be identified.

It is quite a process, isn't it? is a long process.

It is important those people who do that thing know there is a process.

Peter Tatchell, isn't there something wonderful about the way

if somebody does post something outrageous or say something

outrageous, the majority of people who are descent, will react to it

in a proper way? Mostly, but sometimes surprising

numbers... People defended you? Surprising a fair number of good,

descent people sometimes believe the lies because some of them are

sophisticated. Like when the BNP supporters photoshopped this image,

it looks genuine. It looks like I am holding a placard. I never

endorsed adults having sex with children.

Did you attempt to find the source? I don't know how to do it. I will

get your advice. We will talk after the show.

The gentleman there. With the fact of people getting

tracked, you would be surprised people who have not not hacking

knowledge. I know normal people who can hack into big businesses.

McDonald's Twitter got hacked by someone saying they were from

Burger King. I can go to a public library and set-up my own e-mail

and how are they going to know it is me?

That's a good point. We under estimate the revolutionary

effects of Twitter and Facebook. In the Arab Spring that would not have

happened without the effects of Twitter and Facebook and the lib

rty that can bring is -- the liberty that can bring and you

should be careful when regulating that.

It shows you James, how easier it is for -- easy it is for the big

companies to cut their cloth. Google in China. China said, "Look,

get out of here." Google said, "OK, we will compromise.". That's the

problem with asking the internet companies to police themselves. If

it is an internet company versus a Government.

If it is profits versus freedom. Exactly. It is a tough balance.

The mobile phone networks are at work and messaging through the

mobile phone networks is less looked at. The police are the last

last people who will want to police Twitter. During the Thatcher

funeral they were watching social media and seeing what people were

talking about, so for the police, it is a useful tool. And for future

future plores -- employers and journalists, it is an easy Sunday

afternoon? It opens up the issue do we have the right to a private

world and a public world? I don't know how private the private

settings are. I don't understand now it is. There have been cases

where people got into trouble at work for things they said to their

friends on Facebook where they weren't intending to have

conversations that would impact their work, there were legal issues

arising from that. Do people feel that you have a right to have a

private world? Should your employer be looking at your private world?

You may as well be putting it on the front page of the Sunday

Telegraph! Thank you very much.

If you have something to say about that debate logon to:

bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions. Follow the link to where you can

join in the discussion online or contribute on Twitter.

We're also debating live this morning from Birmingham - should

monarchs retire? And should civil partnerships be available to

heterosexuals? Tell us what you think about those topics or send

any general comments you would like Well, last Sunday Her Majesty the

Queen celebrated her 87th birthday. Many happy returns, ma'am. Now in

the 61st year of her reign she has amply fulfilled the hope expressed

in the National Anthem, long to reign over us. But her cousin Queen

Beatrix, a mere 75, retires on Tuesday after just 33 years on the

Dutch throne following in the tradition of her mother, Queen

Juliana, and her grandmother, Queen Wilhemina. Should monarchs retire?

The Queen is is doing a wonderful job and she believes in the aspect

of duty and you think it would be a good thing?

Even the most ardent republican will admire the Queen for the duty

and the perseverance and the way she has given her life to this

country and carried on the values that were around when she was

crowned in 1953. The next monarch can't take the same vow in the same

way because those were Anglican vows and the nation has changed

dramatically. And actually what we want is, well, a monarchy, needs to

change to reflect the way that people are. Now, I don't think she

is going to step down, but I think that it would be an opportunity for

a younger person... How much younger?

LAUGHTER Skip a generation.

When William and Kate got married. There was a story that went around

the world from the Jewish Chronicle that said that part of the ceremony

would be multi-cultural. That story went around the world world and was

reported as fact. It was an April Fool. The reason it was reported

around the world as fact, it seems sensible. That's the sort of thing

that should happen. It had a ring of truth! It couldn't

happen. You want a defender of all the faiths, don't you?, what I want

is an institutional acceptance of the way the country has changed.

What we have got in that particular case was a Berkshire wedding with

knobs on! That's no way to talk about the

guests!? What are the problems? Next time, there will be a sea

change. It will reflect the changes in British society. You can't just

stand still. But what we're talking about is possible abdication which

has a nasty touch within Britain because our precedent are

unfortunate. So we could talk about renunsation and Prince Charles

could say I renounce and they could skip a generation and it would

rejuvenate the monarchy, but there are rules. The British monarchy is

is different different. The head of State of 15 Commonwealth countries

and we have seen when William and Kate, there will be a Royal baby to

change the gender rules they have to go through the gender rules of

15 countries. This is going through. It raised a lot of questions about

do we really need a head of State, thousands of miles away, that we

never see or we have no relationship to and they could get

the idea, well, we don't want this monarch as our head of State. You

open up the door to republicanism. Leave well alone. I am saying you

have to think through what the consequences would be.

Would there be consequences for the hereditary principle pal? This will

be the question raised in Canada and Australia if they think they

have to go through yet another amendment on the Royal Rules of

session -- Succession. It is a two- way thing. You can say, "I don't

want to do it anymore." They have a bad breakfast, they can't be

bothered. It is a pain. And it also means from the bottom up. We are

talking about social media and the influence of the media. We can

imagine there would be more cries from the media to say, "Resign.

Resign." Just like for politicians. You are making the monarchs into

peer politicians? It is all fluned. It is a -- -- flew -- fluid. The

Monarchy is changing in order to reflect the way the country is. We

have just had a Pope resign and so, if the Pope can do it, the Queen

can do it. I don't think she will, I don't think the people want her

to, but it would make sense for the option to be there.

The Pope doing it unleeshes forces that weren't there at the time and

it drops the symbolic figures like Popes and monarchies into the role

of politics. We need to be as careful as we can about what we do

about letting everybody become another elected figure.

I am all for the the de- mystifyication.

The Queen was crowned on the basis she was appointed by God which is

the basis for being Pope. Do we still believe that? It is a

great value to having a head of State who is above politics. Look

Look what happened in the US when there is rallying calls. We had to

get behind the President. It becomes difficult to question the

President. The advantage we have of a symbolic mystical med of State? -

- head of State. Are you saying God is a myth?

British believe that God is a myth. Institutionally, we are a Christian

country, but in terms of the population, we believe a myth in

the sense of a possible reality as will never end, there's no separate

sense of work and self-. If you don't see any end to that, there

becomes a strange magic that kicks in where you become in persona. You

never get to switch that off. Everybody, whether a Pope, monarch

or normal working person you go home, close to the -- the door and

have a life. The Queen very much believes her duty a God given?

does. She believes when she took her oath it inferred a sacramental duty

to continue as monarch until her death. Exactly as her parents did

before her. She was still working at 101 until she died. Do you think

she's been scarred in some way by the experience of her uncle?

abdication left a very nasty touch. The look at the Queen's life, she's

having the best time of her reign. She's had a terrific Jubilee last

year. Do you think she really is though? Behind closed doors. And had

Daniel Craig to her home, what more could you want? Does Prince Charles

want her to resign? What do your sources tell you? I think in his

heart of hearts he would like it but I think he knows that she want. In

one of her Christmas broadcasts she said she felt the same obligation

then as she did in 19 52. This whole covering is hilarious. All these

people's saying who should be monarch. The point is all of us are

rif RAF, we've absolutely no say. If anybody in this room thinks they

know who should the monarch be, we should switch to an elected head of

state and you can vote for the Queen. Or you can vote for Trevor

McDonald or Tani Grey-Thompson. Whoever you like. Good luck to you.

Anyone who didn't want the job wouldn't stand. Anybody else who

wanted to stand they could do so. This is... This is not a republican

country. Actually, the cowering rent basis for the monarchy is

appointment by God. Do we still leave that? You say the British

people say this and that. You have a feeling of what British people say.

You'd have to hold a referendum to find out democratically do you want

the Queen or by God. She has over 80% of support in opinion polls.

have to look at the oath they take. It is an Act of Parliament. You can

change those oaths. Make them more modern. We know the British people

don't want a republic. It doesn't work. This debate is around Queen

Elizabeth the second. Let's take her out of the debate. She's in a jolly

good job in the job description. Let's takes the emotion out of it.

This is about whether her hereditary organisation should go on without

any check or balance whatsoever. I'm of the view putting personalities to

one side many people have admiration for her. There should be a facility

for her retirement. For the rif RAF having a say. If we take the Queen

out of it we can have the debate. Can you? I wonder if abdication can

replace retirement. Abdication has such a negative connotation. Aren't

Prime Ministers getting younger? Would we want our 80-year-old

relatives doing the work the Pope and Queen have to do? You're being

ageist. I thought it was fantastic Pope Benedict was able to say "I'm

too old for this" It wasn't ageist. The Pope decided to step down. If

our Queen decided a self-selecting thing... She might feel pressure.

There should be an age. It takes the guilt away. The big problem we have

is the monarch is our head of state. The fundmental democratic principle

is publish officials should be collected. Ssh elected. I don't like

the hereditary principle. We get a head of stage based on one family

not based on merit. In this sense we're similar to Iran and North

Korea. North Korea is run by the dynastic principle. The head of

state is from father to son. In Iran, the head of state is

religious. The Queen is the head of the Church of England. Having having

a head of state and reliningious figure is not the right way to go

for a democracy. We should be mature enough to have an elected head of

state. I wouldn't want a president like George Bush or the French

president. I would like a low-cost president like they had in Ireland.

What kind of person would fit the role right now in public life for

you? Maybe someone like Joan Bakewell. Joan Kennedy. You're going

through the postcodes in Hampstead. A nice try but it's not going to

work. We do value having a monarch who is beyond politics and is beyond

the political sphere. We like that. What I'm suggesting is we need to

have a way for that monarch to reflect... What message is this

sending. The most important job on our country get your face on bank

notes. It prioritises men over women. It is wrong. We should be

saying whoever you are, wherever you're from you can aim for

anything. When my grandfather went to fight at the age of 19, as a

young person, he did that under a constitutional monarch. The message

to young people is relevant. It is a message to all of us. Sarah? I was

reflecting on the idea of con shones and democracy. When the king in

Belgium step #ed down for a while there was an interesting Dallas to

when you are a monarch where you have to sign legislation. I believe

they were going to liberalise abores in Belgium. He said he couldn't sign

it. He organise #ed for something to happen. But he stepped down for a

while. He didn't sign that. But he sent out a really clear message he

was also a person as well as a figurehead. That was a really

interesting relationship with constitutional monarchy and

democracy. Basically you can choose what you want. You have know it is

the well of the people or what opinion polls say. They can change

when a referendum comes. The monarch in the Netherlands, their

constitution regulates on Dickation. If you go for that, you need to have

a set of rules, a written constitution. Britain is the only

country in the EU which doesn't have one. Has prince charms made a rod

for his own back following his letters to politicians? I think he

has. He has a lot more freedom and privilege than any other Crown

Prince in Europe. He writes his own tax bill. It is a voluntary

arrangement. Does he?Oh, yes. You're talking about the black

spider memos he's PEs tered minute terse with and has done with

decades. He's interfered with planning decisions. En you say write

the tax bill, decides what tax he wants to pay? It is a voluntary

arrangement. The example begin by MrThat much he will seems to be

misplaced to compare royalty in this country, our Queen, to Iran for

instance, or North Korea, is totally misplaced. These are new generation

of people who have come about. Wrasse this country has had royals

and royalty for hundreds of years. And without that, without the

royalty being here in this country, it could lead to serious problems of

one sort or the other. I'm not saying Britain's like North Korea or

Iran. You're not comparing the Queen to Kim Jong Euan? No! The principle

is in North Korea, the head of state, the President passes from

father to son in the saichl way it does in our system. Also, of course,

we have a big problem, under the current system the Windsor family is

the repost itry of the head of state of monarch. For the foreseeable

future no black or ethnic minority person can be our head of state

despite many being worthwhile. democratic leader who gets the

biggest vote is Putin in Russia. The bizarreness is the greatest

strength. We don't want a head of state who's enmeshed in politics.

The minute you have any election procedure, as has been reflected

this morning... The minute you have to have an election is about the

symbolic head of state. Thank you very much for that. You can join in

our debates by following the link to our online discussions. Send us your

views about the last big question? Should civil partnerships be

available for heterosexuals. Next week, is religion fair to women? If

you'd like to be in the audience in a future show e-mail us. We are in

Edinburgh on May 12th after Pentecost, Bristol on May 26th and

Warrington on June 9thth. Th. The Government's consultation over gay

marriage threw up a surprising result. 61% were in favour of

allowing hetrosexual couples to have the option of a civil partnership.

The Government decided not to legislate for this option in the

bill currently before Parliament. We asked this morning what do you

think? Should civil part Sher inspection be available to

heterosexuals? Peter, you're campaigning on this. It is getting

quite complicated? We have gay marriage, civil partnerships, church

Marges, civil marriages for all. Why do you want civil partnerships for

whet row sect people, for straight people? When the Civil Partnership

Act was introduced in 2003/04 I was shocked the Labour Government said

it wasn't open to hetrosexual couples: I thought it violated the

principles of equality. I campaigned for the right for straight couples

to have a civil partnerships if they wish. David Cameron canal ask saying

he won't support hetrosexual partnerships because it will under

undermine marriage. When I met the Archbishop of Canterbury he said he

supported the right for hetrosexual couples to have a civil partnership.

I hope when this amendment is voted on if you are going to vote for gay

wee quality you also vote for hetrosexual equality. What of the

argument David Cameron makes? It was an argument where we discussed gay

marriage. They said this will strengthen marriage, having gay

marriage. The argument David Cameron's making is by having the

civil partnership option for heterosexuals that will dilute

marriage? It is not a view shared by the Archbishop of Canterbury, good

on him. But people should have a choice. We should not compel people

to get married if they don't want to. It is a fundamental principle we

should all be equal before the law. If we have civil partnerships I

think hetrosexual couples should be allowed to have them. One of the big

problems is turning the argument into something too small. It is not

about equality. It creates confusion about what mainch is. A civil

partnership for hetrosexual people is useful if it was for maiden aunts

who wanted to ensure some kind of hereditary passing down of

inheritance rights or careers who look after elderly relatives. It has

a meaning which doesn't confuse itself with marriage. Preserving the

meaning of marriage is very important. The reason it is really

dangerous to call it an argument about equality we close down freedom

of speech about what marriage really is. Where you go to countries where

same-sex marriage is legal, marriage contact' be talked about in the same

way. Fewer people get married. Anybody who decents from the view is

in big trouble. They are hounded. It is this hounding of people who

have different views about the mystery of sexuality. It is a

conversation, the whole of human nature is at stake and I find it

deeply offensive and I find it a closing down of my free speech that

in a few months time perhaps if gay marriage goes through... Are you

talking about same-sex marriage here? We are talk being the right

of heterosexual people. Why shouldn't they be able to have

civil partnerships? It is part of the same argument in which we talk

about equality at stake. Kate will explain to you because Kate, if you

were to be partnered again, am I right in saying, as a heterosexual

you would like to have a civil partnership rather than marriage.

Tell me why? Even at the time I would rather have had a civil

partnership. The reality is this and it drives me crazy. People

start talking about and we have got to protect what marriage means and

traditional marriage. Here is the history of marriage, paying a price

for a bride. When a woman got married, she became her husband's

property. She was a slave. The history of marriage is terrifying

and awful and it is great that lots of people in the 21st century have

redefined it so they can celebrate their relationships their way and

if some of them want to do that by not using the word husband or wife,

having a partnership, having a relationship which is cemented not

as a part of a religon. You don't want to be somebody's

wife. No, I would rather be somebody's

partner. Nonsense. It would be great if it left everybody else the

freedom to have that definition of marriage that is sacramental and

that is profound and that is spiritual. You want to be your

husband's property? I am not my husband's property.

Hang on this debate is not about marriage, it is about civil

partnerships. It is about giving people the right and freedom in a

democratic society to make their free choice. In the Netherlands,

where they have had both civil partnerships and civil marriages

opened to ALL: all couples, today a majority

of civil partnerships are between heterosexual men and women who

choose that as their preferred option. You are entitled to your

your beliefs, but they shouldn't be beliefs that deny people their

right to their aption option ins a free society.

What do you think will be the proportion of gay couples choosing

to be married with the baggage that we hear about from Kate or choosing

to be civilly partenered if that's the right expression?

communities are divided. Some people want marriage, some people

prefer civil partnerships. What I am saying in a free and democratic

society, let everyone make that choice. Don't dictate.

It is just dictateship that has has happened.

We will be right back. There is a few things that need to

be considered here. Firstly, that morage is not the issue that's on

trial here and it needs to be respected for what it is. Secondly,

we need to understand where this argument has come from. The whole

issue about civil partnerships is actually about property and

property rights and recognising there are different kinds of

relationships out there and if we take into consideration and this is

where the heterosexual argument comes in, the scenario of

cohabiting for example and that is where, I think, this argument has

built up from, recognising that folks have the circumstances and

therefore, they need recognising and that's what the law is trying

to do there. Recognise there are different types of relationships.

That's a good point. A lot of people don't want to get married,

but if they had the option of a civil partnership at least they

would have some legal right for them and their children.

Would you rather people had a civil partnership to a heterosexual

couple or carried on living in as you might well call it, sin?

I don't think it is an either or situation. Well, it is.I think

what we need to do is really actually help... There are lots of

people who are deliberately not getting married and if you said to

them, "Well, you do have a civil partnership.". That might be better

for children. The reason we want to have a voice is help people

understand the depth of marriage. To help people understand that it

is about children. It is about choice.

What about people getting married for 48 hours? Because we are

forcing people to get married, it doesn't mean that people understand

the importance of marriage. Drive through marriages, you can

get these days. Under the current arrangements, if

I want to go into a church and make a public commitment to somebody

before God, as a life long commitment, I will be able to do

that. Well, I don't know if which church

you you would be able to do that because marriage is more than just

a commitment to another person. There is also that element of

permanency and fi fidelity. I just want people to have a civil

partnership. I am a Christian in a civil

partnership and I would like civil partnerships to remain for a while,

pragmatically where gay people can work out what it is like to have

their relationships public. This is a very, very different idea. For

many, many centuries, gay people had to put up with persecution and

it is hard to respect the church's position. It has been very, you

know, derogatory of gay relationships until recently, but I

like civil partnerships to be a space where gay people can work out

what it is to be public about their relationships and also, I think,

there is... What about straight people? Just because someone

doesn't get married, a straight couple doesn't get married doesn't

mean they remove themselves from the problems of how men and women

relate to each other. These are embedded in culture generally. I

sometimes wonder if people think by by not getting married they can

have a freer relationship. They might be deluding themselves there.

The evidence shows that people who aren't married conform to the old

stereotypes... Get away from the bridal magazines and the 20 grand

marriage and the expense of it. Some people don't want the trapings

that come with a wedding and I have got friends who are straight, but

they don't feel like the terms husband and wife describe the

relationship they want. They say say they are partners, they want to

be equal and free from these overtones. Parties celebrated ten

years of their relationship and say PS we are never going to get

married. If you want to give us a present, do it now.

We are arguing about choice, to give people the tune if they want a

-- opportunity if they want a civil partnership or a marriage

partnership. We have freedom of association. We have freedom of

reljous -- religious beliefs. Why can't we have choice? You are

asking society to sanction your relationship in some way and a

space in which that relationship can grow.

Why shouldn't the opportunity opportunity be provided? It needs

to be debated. Gay people can have a civil

partnership, why can't straight people have a civil partnership

too? Should straight people be accorded this right?

In my view, I think it should be what you are doing here. Between

the heterosexual couple and straight couple and the homosexual

couple is the individual rights, my rights are my choice who should I

live with, who should I have sex with or whom should I love? Hello

to you. Hello. I'm French living here in Birmingham this year. In

France we have a different situation. We can get married, but

not religiously, but civilly. So I think just like now this week, we

have got gay marriage for gay people now like civil marriage and

I think that the situation is actually, the question is - what if

everyone had the right to do what they want? Like what is it is to be

married. I want to be civilly married one day.

Civilly partenered? Yes. Why we can't have a choice? OK. Just

explain one more time. Why do you feel so so threatened by this?

think partly because what you were explaining earlier. People don't

understand what marriage really is and it is under threat. Civil

partnerships, not marriage. This is a debate about civil partnerships.

I am trying to get to the point the reason why the civil partnerships

are introduced is part of a larger argument why equality. If you don't

see everything as equal you are somehow a persona non Gratta. It is

not about choice. Choice is not what happens.

But if it comes down to, surely it is about choice in the sense that

if you have a couple and they have a choice to carry on living

together or to be civilly partenered, should they not have

that right to have a civil partnership?

Just as they have that right to have a civil marriage if they

desire which keeps the church right out of it? Well, church even aside,

why does the State support marriage? It supports it because it

is oriented towards raising children in a safe environment.

People are unclear about what they are for and they seem to be doing

it as an almost statement against something rather than for something.

My concern is, you know, if the Government's same-sex marriage

marriage Bill goes through. Gay people will have two choices a

civil marriage or a civil partnership. Heterosexual people

will have one choice. Everyone gay and straight should have the the

same rights and same responsibilities. I hope MPs and

members of the House of Lords will vote to ensure that straight

couples can have a civil partnership if they wish. It is not

about what you or I believe, it is about the principle of equality.

Vernon? Equality can't just steamroll through everything. There

are different things that men bring to relationships and women bring to

relationships. There would have been to make sure there is as many

men on the panel as women on the panel. We have a sense that men and

women bring different things to relationships. A Mixed sex

relationship will be different from a same-sex relationship. It takes

time. Do you want the last word? Not really!

The way we are going is we are we are going to have a three tier

system. You can get married bells and whistles in front of God if you

want. You can get married in a civil wedding. A civil partnership

is an extra dimension. It will be what you want to do, if you want to

make a partnership not publicly, privately. For you it is just a

matter of equality. Logic apart from everything else. Should we

have, we mentioned the Netherlands, there are three within hay civil

partnerships. -- there are already three-way civil partnerships.