Episode 5 The Big Questions

Good morning and welcome to The Big Questions. We are live from

Samworth Enterprise Academy in Leicester and I am Nicky Campbell.

This week, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, announced plans to

recruit senior police officers from outside the service and from abroad.

But Manchester's Chief Constable, Peter Fahey, says police forces are

ignoring the greater potential of home grown talent from the black

and Asian communities. He wants to be able to positively discriminate

in their favour. Our first Big Question: David McFarlane from the

Black Police Association says Britain needs to copy the Northern

Ireland Police Service, which had to appoint equal numbers of

officers from both the Protestant and Catholic communities.

Superintendent Logan says it would be bad for the officer and bad for

the service to promote people because of their colour rather than

on merit. Rupert Murdoch apologised to the Israeli Prime Minister

Binyamin Netanyahu for what he described as a grotesque and

offensive cartoon published in last week's Sunday Times. It showed the

election-winning Netanyahu wielding a long trowel as he cemented

agonised Palestinians into a wall with a mortar of blood. The caption

read, will cementing the peace continue? Our next Big Question:

This rabbi says to excuse the cartoon as an attack on Netanyahu

and not the Jewish people is like using the n word about Obama

without meaning to offend black people. The Jewish founder of the

Palestinian Solidarity Campaign says it was a legitimate criticism

of Netanyahu's policies, not an attack on Israel as a whole. This

Tuesday the House of Commons will debate the Gay Marriage Bill. It is

a brave stand by David Cameron, given predictions that up to 200 of

his backbenchers are planning to vote against it. Our last Big

Question: The leader of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement says if

you believe that God is love, then all love must come from God and

marriage expresses that. The Coalition for Marriage says gay

marriage will undermine traditional family values. One man and one

woman are together the best way to raise children. Welcome everybody

Sir Robert Peel founded the modern police force on the basis of

consent. The police are the public and the public are the police was

his key principle. So, it has always been important in Britain

for the police to be recruited from the local community. Here in

Leicester the 2011 census found that only 45% of its population is

White British. Today 49% come from the black and minority ethnic

communities. But only 6.7% of Leicestershire's police force came

from those communities and they're mostly at constable level. Is it

time for the police to favour black candidates? You are really

exercised about this. The think it has been far too long and it needs

to happen now. How do we get this change? By legislation. They did it

in Northern Ireland. One on one recruitment. The Labour Party

introduced the sex discrimination Act to bring more women to

Parliament. One writer says, we are the same ship but not the same deck.

What has happened is we have got an entrenched, historical, and

institutionalised racist government under the police force which

actually prevents the promotion of black people. Equal-opportunity

means... The Macpherson report, the Met recruited three times the

amount of black candidates until now. What do they do? They park

their NAV. Equal-opportunity should mean a system whereby they are

promoted. The difficulty for going through his horrendous. Therefore,

what the Government needs to do is to legislate so that they can

change the law. Not only that, the people at fault but the Home

Secretary's and also chief constables. They are responsible

for the lack of promotion. What is the argument - you are changing the

law so you can promote black people over white people? Had it not been

this endemic institutionalised racism, there would not be a need

for that. What other problems? have spent millions of pounds on

diversity training. It is not just the police service. It is in the

NHS, local authorities and the fire service. He is right. It is about

institutional racism. It is about retention. We need to keep people

by constant reducer. They are not enough barriers. We have not really

worked out what positive action is all about. We have not removed it.

We must really promote and look how we instep from start to finish. It

is about looking at under- represented groups and working with

people to encourage them to join, put themselves forward. Rather than

legislation? That is one part of it. We have had the legislation in

place. It is about an institutional discriminatory practice that goes

on. Do you want to come then? needs to change. In a place like

Leicester, the police needs to adequately represent the population

of Leicester, Bristol, Birmingham, London. We want to see the police

force and all public services as being representative. That must be

on merit. What I find concerning his there is a conversation that

says, one of the reasons we need black police officers in these

positions is to be able to speak to the black community. We might shift

into a mentality about ghettos where people can only be spoken to

by people of their own race. Based on merit, and my hearing right? It

is like running the 100 metres for the 200 metres with Usain Bolt and

expecting to win and ran a race. 47 years ago, the first police officer

was appointed. There is no merit. We will wait for ever. We need

legislation now. I think it is a multi- pronged attack. There are

issues around actions we can do now. We are talking about talent

spotting and talent management. They can compete with colleagues.

As a result, they can be judged on merits. In America, positive action

has been tried. We have seen people pushing back on that, saying, you

only got there because you were black. People think, I am only a

Superintendent because I am black. We need to judge on merit. Like

everything, even the direct entry scheme that has been consulted

about, we need to look at how we can get this action. We in the

Metropolitan Police Black Police Association say it is important to

do this. Also in the medium and long-term, we are bringing in

legislative changes. The answer to your question is, yes. The use of

the word favour it is unfortunate. It gives a bit of a slant. We are

talking about encouragement and enabling black people to become

senior police officers. positively discriminate means

favour? It is the practice that actually counts. In Northern

Ireland, it was favouring. It had to happen. They are talking about

dumbing down the police service. I think if we go back to what Sir

Robert Peel was saying, we have a police service that is policing by

consent and we are not the police state. The police service has to be

representative of the whole community. If we had a wholly male

police force, people would be jumping up and down and saying,

where are the women? We have heard about Northern Ireland. In Northern

Ireland, this is not about quotas and discriminations on the grand of

sex - it is about religion and religion alone. In this country,

the law is so specific about not discriminating on the grounds of

race, sex or gender. If we're going to change the law about the police,

I think we have to change the law for society as a whole. If we're

going to have positive discrimination - quotas - that has

to be there the whole of society. All professions broadcasting - the

Church, education. It has to be completely across the board. I do

not think this country is quite ready for that. In your time in the

police, you said you never saw any racism. No. You need to beat on the

receiving end! I am saying about my experience. Unfortunately, they

have an open-door policy but no one is going to come into your office

and say, by the way, chief, I am being attacked racially. You have

to be very proactive will start until the process is changed under

this government, you might recall that I started as a constable.

started as a constable in Bristol and I worked in The Saint Paul's

area. My experience is not just about my recent experience. Looking

at the career progression of these two gentlemen, is there a story to

be told? When the first black officer joined the Met but support

Condon became commissioner. So Paul Roberts became Detective Sergeant.

He is a few rungs higher but things are improving not as fast as they

should. He is white! Let me explain what is happening in the police

service and I expect it is happening elsewhere. Tim gets all

the training and support in order to make it up and Lee Roy does not

get the encouragement. When they go for an interview for promotion, Tim

will be better because he has had all the preparation for it. Could I

finish? That is a total and utter travesty of my life. I had 30 years

experience in the police service. Many colics right across the United

Kingdom... I am from a working- class background in Bristol. I was

the first member of my family to get to A-levels, University Guide

get a degree and go through the very intense selection system.

was not being personal. I was giving an example. It is not a very

good example! The police are kind of a special case because they have

to blend into the community and work with communities. How do we

get to that stage? We had the figures with Leicester early on.

Something like 95% in the police are white. There are other great

cities of ours in exactly the same situation where communities do not

feel properly served and properly represented. How do we get there

now? We have to acknowledge the police has made a great deal of

progress. How do we get there soon? It cannot be done soon. It is a

very practical reason. I am afraid to bring in spending cuts. At the

moment, we're talking about losing thousands of police posts across

the country. The ranks above getting things out most quickly up

the ranks that the right represents. It will be a very difficult job. --

Leroy. It will be very difficult to get any body through the ranks.

cannot be at the expense of police legitimacy. You need a diverse

workforce to reflect the diverse community. The better you treat a

diverse personnel, the more equipped to love to serve the needs

of a diverse community. -- equipped you are. It is important the

organisation needs to put that as a priority. How far does this go?

Should baby -- should they be predominantly Asian recruits in

Leicester? Should White People be going into white neighbourhoods?

The police force should represent the diverse community will --.

Black people, in order to get Equality, we will have to wait 100

years, 350 years. We want equality in our lifetimes and our children's

lifetimes. Too many speeches by chief constables constantly. The

Home Office - Home Secretary is come and a block. They put the

brakes on. They block the promotion of the Black Police Force. They

need to wake up and smell the I'm shocked Tim hasn't witnessed

racial abuse. I agree with officer Leroy. We don't need more black and

Asian officers. We need less racist officers. We had a house on a

consill estate and we witnessed, especially after 2001, a lot of

racial abuse, things throne at our house, abuse when we left our house.

We were hiding in our house for a good two years. When we asked the

police for help, we got nothing. A baby, I was a baby. That's a

terrible story, really, people will feel for you. The police gave you

nothing? What do your parents say about that? We asked for help and

they said, there's not much we could do. We had to get enough

money to move house. What if we couldn't afford it? Since I was

eight years old I was afraid of all white men.

That's a fascinating points. Because we have these statistics,

right now, there are seven times more black and Asians stopped and

searched per thousand of population. There are ten times greater chance

for a black and minority ethnic people to die in police custody. If

there were more, let me ask you, if there were more black and minority

ethnic police, would those statistics be the same? Would that

improve? Not necessarily. You also have to remember, it's not about

numbers. It's also around the organisation recognising the

importance of having diversity, supporting and nurturing all

personnel, police officers and police staff, so that if there is

inefficiency internally or in service delivery, it will be

addressed. Just like we see at the moment, certain racist cases are

increasing. The reason being, I think, it's around the Stephen

Lawrence group that used to hold chief scone stabls to account with

performance indicators about service delivery. The Home

Secretaries got rid of it and as a result, Chief Constables were not

held to account. If it's not measured it's not done. The other

argument is, the argument against it is if you got fired you don't --

if you have a fire, you don't care about the colour of the firefighter.

I want to make two points. First is the case of what does society want?

Me personally, it would be the case of I want to feel safer or be safer.

I'm not too bothered about who is doing. It second poipbtd is the

case of the officer needs to have the right skills. It will come

through diversity at the same time. I would question in terms of the

funnel effect, so how many people from the ethnic minority group are

coming forward to go into the police force? I would assume that

white people are coming forward more than the ethnic diversities.

There can be as well hostility from some black communities towards some

black police officers? They use abusive terms like black on the

outside white on the inside. When I joined in the early 80s I had

experience of that. It was understandable considering the

relationship between the police and people like myself and Leroy were

in the middle of it. We were working very hard. I want to make

one thing clear, nobody, I'm certainly not saying it, hopefully

Maxi is not saying it, that we want people who are unqualified being in

the Police Service. There's a different between affirmative

action and positive discrimination. The other point I would like to

make, it's not just about the business imperative about it, but

the operational needs too. Because nothing worse than you get an

officer goat a scene, meeting members of the -- get to a scene,

meeting the public and they can't speak the language. We need. That

How far do we go, Jewish police in North London, Muslim police in East

London mosque, how far do we go? think positive or negative

discrimination one way or the other is always wrong. Equal opportunity

is the cornerstone of society. What is critical to consider over here

is that there is a certain blatant distrust between authority in

various different ethnic minorities. In fact that was probably part of

the trigger of the London riots as they happened because there was a

black man who was shot by white police and that triggered

everything off. What has to happen is there needs to be more

recruitment drive in the black comuepbtd, within the Jewish

community and all those who are recruited should be given equal

opportunity to make their way through the ranks.

APPLAUSE As a British Indian, let's put this

in perspective, the British police do a fantastic job even compared to

the French and Germans, we have lower ratios of policemen to

population as well. That doesn't mean we rest on our laurels. I went

to Stratford-upon-Avon when I was a youngster and I was told to go back

to where I come from, by police officers. They didn't do a great

job there for that lady. If you are black, you're 27 times more likely

to be stopped by the police and arrest and humiliated. If you are

black, you're more likely not to receive a caution. If you are black,

you're more likely to be referred to the court. If you are black,

you're more likely to be given custodial sentence. Tell me, that

amount to systematic institutional racism. Is that what it amounts to?

I'm sure there are difficulties within the police force. A more

general picture, what is being said is that the police force are doing

a great job, though I accept there's some difficult

circumstances, difficult situations that have not been doplt with well.

We need to encourage more people to join the police force. That should

be done by giving them more money. We're not going to help people to

come forward to the police force by cutting salaries, regulation A19,

where we're throwing away experienced officers. Thank you all

very much for taking part. Thank you for your thoughts.

Now if you'd like to add to that debate log on to bbc.co.uk/

thebigquestions. Follow the link to where you can join in online.

Follow us on Twitter as well. We're debating live from Leicester this

morning, is criticism of Israel anti-Semitic and should gay

coupleser allowed to marry? Tell us what you think. Send us your ideas

for future debate ond general comments about the programme.

When Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister she was the butt of some

vicious political satire. Though she was donned in a man's suit on

Spitting Image people did not see those attacks on her as sexist.

They were anti-her Government and its policies. Is it the same with

Israel? Journalists, broadcasters and commentators all know they can

risk being labelled anti-Semitic if they criticise Israeli policies

towards Palestine as the cartoonist Gerald Scarfe found last Sunday and

David Ward a few days before that. No-one should forget the horror of

the Holocaust. The previous century has its share of persecution. But

is criticism of Israel anti-Semitic. You did a very strong tweet on this

after the event, which although it was in the heat of the Twitter

moment, no doubt, tells us how angry you are. Any Jew who

continues to buy the Sunday Times after today's blood libel cartoon

is a traiter to their people. Why was it so offensive? It has to be

said, it goes without saying, that criticism of Israel it's absurd to

suggest it's anti-Semitic. It would be absurd to suggest that anti-

semites don't use Israel as the whip to lash out against Israel. As

such the lines become very blurred. You end up with a situation where a

two-bit MP David Ward uses the Holocaust, which goes to the very

core sensitivity as a means of being able to attack Israel. Do you

mind if I read that quote out.? visited Auschwitz twice. I'm

saddened that the Jews who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution

during the Holocaust could within a few years of liberation from the

death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the

new state of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis. In your

mind pure anti-Semitism. Purely. The Holocaust goes to the core of

Jewish sensitivity. It was about annihilating all Jews to. Use that

as an example to attack a particular government policy is

anti-Semitism. APPLAUSE

I made it clear from the outset, it's absurd to suggest that

criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. When you start using the Holocaust

as one example, when the CNN veteran journalist Helen Thomas was

asked about Israel and said, let all Jews go back to Poland and

Germany, that's anti-Semitic. good thinking people would object

very strongly to that. I think there is a legitimate case for

criticising Israeli policy towards Palestinian people and what is

happening to them. Do you think that David Ward quote is anti-

Semitic? I think it's unfortunate that he made that link. It's not

something I would ever made. I just think it's a very unfortunate link.

Yes or no? It's a disrespectful link. It's a comment like yours

that is differentiating the comment to say it's unfortunate but not

anti-Semitic. It is precisely that which is blurring the liends.

don't think it is anti-Semitic. What about what the Chief Rabbi

said about the cartoon Tony Greenstein, founding of Palestine's

Solidarity Campaign. Jonathan sacks said that Jews, victims of the

holkausts are now perpetrators of Palestinians. This was a wholey

artificial controversy. There was nothing anti-Semitic in that

cartoon. It showed Netanyahu with a crown dripping with blood. Four

times in the last two weeks Palestinian civilians, who are

unarmed, have been fired on and killed. A young girl, 16 years of

age, a teenager, 19 years of age, shot outside their college. That,

to me, is legitimate criticism and for rabbi to say you can't use the

Holocaust, I'm sorry, Israeli politicians and Zionists have

continually used the Holocaust to continually support what they're

doing. You can't have your cake - no, I didn't interrupt you. You

can't have your cake and eat it. You're trading on the past

oppression of Jewish people in order to justify the present

oppression of Palestinians. Racism is wrong whether it's committed by

Jewish people or non-Jewish people. If You Can Get It were living in

Israel and you were a Palestinian - - if you were living in Israel and

you were a Palestinian you might understand racism. I challenge you

to give me any example - I thought you don't interrupt me. You're

inconsistency in interrupting me is no different to the lies you're

pedalling here. Give me one example of a politician that used the

Holocaust by which they're basing whatever it is that they're doing

there. I challenge you to demonstrate any example and cite

source of any politician who has used the Holocaust as that excuse.

For you to use the Holocaust by a means to attack Israeli policy is

for you to dance on the graves of the many who died in that atrosiate.

Netanyahu has skpaird -- compared Ahmidinejad... I think it's clear

that the European Union agency published a document stating when

criticism is based on legitimate criticism, rational anal siz of --

analysis of the government, and when it's rooted by deep anti-

Semitic beliefs, one must differentiate by the criticism at

the stable -- state of Israel, but is uncovered by the umbrella of the

state of Israel. The can -- cartoon not only publishing on the

Holocaust Memorial Day, this crosses a clear line between

criticism... Because Gerald Scarfe is an equal opportunities offender.

He's vicious about everybody across the board. You wanted to come?

think anti-Semitism in all its forms is wrong, as is all kinds of

President, fascism. It is important, this is a very sensitive point and

I hope you'll give me time to make it as clearly as I can, as a young

boy, I learned in history how the constant demonisation of Jews,

especially through depictions in cartoons and all that dehumanised

them. It made it possible for countless to be taken to the

concentration camps and lose their lives nay horrible way. But, at the

same time, we also learned how British colonisers utilised

cartoons against the colonised people. The liberators used

cartoons - these are powerful Toons in propaganda war. I had the

privilege of visiting Auschwitz with the chief raby Lord Sacks and

the archbishop Dr Rowan Williams. It was horrible to see what had

been done to these people. I pray that it never happened -- happens

to anyone on this planet, ever. After that, one of the members of

the organisers was interviewing people and I was asked this

question: How do you feel, having seen what you saw? It was heart

wrenching. It was beyond expression. You cannot express how you feel,

the horrible way in which people lost their lives. But, and I hope

you will allow me, I'm trying to use very careful language. I think

the use of language is important. Maybe our MP who tried to express

his feelings about it might not have been able to find the right

language. When I was asked this question, I felt, in my mind, that

the people living in Israel today, the Jewish people, are all carrying

the history of that. It must have been heart wrenching for the

parents to tell the children the stories of what they have survived

or what their ancestors had to go through. I felt that if that is the

history of suffering and pain that you have endured, you would be in a

position to be able to understand what it's like because your

ancestors have been there. It's not saying that anti-Semitism is

justified or I'm saying that I'm equating the Holocaust to any other

atrocity. You don't think they adequately understand the pain of

the Palestinians? The pain of every human being we have to try and

$:/STARTFEED. Is that legitimate? We are concerned with what is

happening with the Palestinians. David Ward said Jews have not

learned the lesson of the Holocaust. I would argue that people like

David Ward have not learned the lessons. We will not remain silent

when comments like this have been made. The problem is, this is a

visual image. Like all visual images, they can be misunderstood

and misinterpreted. We do not know if Gerald Scarfe - and he said he

did not - intended to make a connection. This happened 10 years

ago. A similar cartoon by Dave Brown with aerial sure aren't

eating a Palestinian baby. It appeared by a perverse coincidence

on Holocaust Memorial Day. Many Jews do not know about this. Far

more non-Jews who do not know about it. I do not think they brand new.

Unless we knew what was going on in the head of Gerald Scarfe, we

cannot say he meant a connection. The blood libel is? The idea years

ago of the suggestion that Jews were taking the blood of Christian

babies and what not and using it for all kind of religious ritual.

It was used as a means of being able to launch attacks against the

Jews. It won an award as cartoon of the year, didn't it? It did. It was

taken out of context. I would not suggest that was as anti-Semitic as

the blood libel depiction in the paper last week. It is a complete

lie. Rabbi Schochet is speaking and then I will come over to you. I

will come to you free of perspective in a minute. I would

suggest to you, the idea of using the blood libel depiction would

evoke the sensitivity. If he did it in all perfect innocence, so be it.

He apologised and the editor of the paper apologised. How often does

Rupert Murdoch do that? He apologised as well. At best, they

were grossly naive about the depiction. Coming back to the

general references of a Holocaust is to suggest that Jews are

committed to the Final Solution of Palestinians and a blatant

annihilation of all Palestinian people. There were sensitivities

and dynamics of everything going on in Israel. The language of

Holocaust strays into the area. does the Israeli government pursue

policies that have been declared illegal in international courts and

in contravention Nations revolution to United Nations resolutions? --

to United Nations resolutions? Settlements are being pursued and

they have been caught in the Gulf. When something is universal and a

particular group of people are singled out. The President of

Harvard University at the time said Jews were not allowed in here

because they cheat. When it was pointed out that non-Jews cheap as

well, he said, you are changing the subject. I do not need a lecture

about racism and xenophobia. Israeli policies stand to be

criticised in international courts. The going back to the cartoon, it

is not the stereotypical image of an anti-Semitic Jew. The typical

anti-Semitic image from the British, Australian press before the war,

were showing a fat and bloated Jewish banker with a massive hook

nose. This could not be further from the trees. It shows a Jewish

Guide doing manual labour. Can you get further away? -- guy. Most

people do not think this cartoon is anti-Semitic. The picture of blood

does not mean blood libel. When a former Chief Rabbi in Israel has

said, we have to annihilate all Arabs, that reminds me of the

Holocaust. If the only purpose of Holocaust Memorial Day is to

learned the lessons of the past to apply them to the present for

whoever commits it and he never ate is the victim. It depends on

sensibilities. If you are a survivor of the Holocaust or a

child of the Holocaust survivor, you are going to be incredibly thin

skinned and sensitive about such imagery. We should all be thin-

skinned and sensitive about such an atrocity. All of the human family

should feel about that. We would be talking about the cartoons of

Gerald Scarfe every Sunday! Is it possible to be anti- Zionism, anti-

settlement, and T Binyamin Netanyahu but in support of Israel

as well? Of course cities. Have a cartoon criticising Israeli policy.

-- course it is. Murdering Palestinian children is not a

policy. Anti-Semitism has always been the dehumanisation based on a

lie. I can totally relate to what Jews have gone through in the

Holocaust. It does not take away from the fact that what the Israeli

government is doing is wrong. It does not make it right or OK.

are not going to get bogged down in a debate about Israeli policy and

what have you. There are two points to consider. The first is the

deliberate depiction of the Holocaust to be used as a battering

ram against Israel. It is fundamentally wrong. Also, at the

singling out of Israel and the constant deal of utilisation by

Israel in anti- government buildings and so one. You do not

know if the cartoonist intended that? Thank you for your

contributions. If you have something to say, log on to the

website. Follow the link to beat online discussions. Send us your

views about our last big question. Should gay couples be allowed to

marry? It you would like to be in a future audience, you can e-mail in.

We are in Cardiff on 10th February, Northolt in west London on 17th and

a week after that we are in Southampton. God is love. Those who

live in love living God and God lives in them. Those words are also

used by lesbian and gay Christians. At the moment, this is against the

law. That could change on Tuesday if the House of Commons votes aye

to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. Should gay couples be allowed

to marry? You want to get married. This is the argument we hit against

it. Why isn't a civil partnership good enough with a blessing

afterwards? It is not about being good enough. It is a different sort

of institution. Any two people have the same gender, as long as they

are not related, can do this. It denies the fact it is a sexual

relationship. You do not have to make any fouls. It does not

necessarily mean it is for life. There is no need for Fidelity. You

cannot dissolve the civil partnership on grounds of adultery

because you do not have to be faithful to your civil Palmer. It

is not part of it. In marriage, all those things are there. It is about

making a commitment for life. It is a covenant and not a contract.

Especially a marriage in church. If you have your marriage solemnised,

you are saying that God is central to this relationship. You will love

it and emulate it with God. For me, as far as I'm concerned, God

brought my palm and myself together and has been part of our

relationship from the start. -- my partner. We want to make a

commitment for life and say that we will be faithful to one another.

Marriage is a sacrament. That is important. That is an outward sign

of an inward grace. Love is the grace. We have been graced with

love for one another and we wish to express that by going through the

sacrament of them carriage. -- marriage. We're making this

commitment and forsaking all others. That can only be done in marriage

and not in a civil partnership. Love came from God? I do not doubt

that. Marriage is not just about love and commitment. It is a

biological union with the capability of giving rise to

children who are raised by their birth parents. Is it not better

that children are raised within marriage? Many children are being

raised by foster parents, gay couples, single parents, divorced

parents. They are bringing them up magnificently. That does not make

it a marriage. The gold standard fault upbringing of children is to

be raised by birth parents. Because of the benefits of that and we are

talking about reform to civil marriage. It is a reform to civil

marriage. Does it serve society to redefine marriage in such a way

that same-sex couples can marry? If it means downgrading marriage to a

mere domestic partnership between two people. If you committee

downgrade the important -- the importance of marriage. Fewer

people will get married. Secretary of State for education is

a big supporter of theirs. 200 backbenchers do not. He says this

will reinforce marriage. I will come back to you. I was just going

to say, not often do I agree with Michael Gove, but on this he is

right. Marriage Equality will strengthen the institution of

marriage. I am not religious. I am not bothered about it from the

average -- ate religious the point. Those of us who are gay just happen

to want equality. I also believe that people who are heterosexual

should be able to have civil partnerships. I defy anyone to say

that we should not be allowed to be equal. Is this about equality?

Another dog collar. Just to answer the question. We have had three

questions today. The first, yes, the second, no, and this one is

know as well. You asked a question about the civil partnership and a

blessing. In the Western Church, this edition is the sacrament of

marriage is affected by the couple themselves. They marry each other

and the church is a blessing of that marriage. It is called the

solemnisation of matrimony. There is confusion as to what is going on.

The other point about children raises all sorts of interesting

issues. What about people in the 60s and 70s? We assume if they get

married and made cannot have children, is it not a marriage?

There is a whole range of different scenarios and we confuse them all

There is a series of prohibitions. The age of consent, pree Dom to

amarry. Marriage discriminates by the fact that - let me finish, in

the same wi that pensions discriminate against young people.

To uphold a certain good,... pensions discriminate against young

people, next week's big question. It doesn't discrimination, if you

have to redefine marriage to allow same-sex couples... Wait a minute.

Sharon's from the Coalition For Marriage, not to be confused with

other coalitions. Sharon, what is the detriment? Can I just say, it's

not actually discrimination to treat different things differently.

Men are different to women. A same- sex union, while you can respect it,

is not the same as a heterosexual union. That's prejudice. It is not

saying that two things are different are prejudice. When you

read all 55 pages, it treats same- sex unions different to

heterosexual unions. I won't bore you with the details. Marriage goes

back to the beginning of times. Lawyers didn't create it. The

church didn't create it. It goes back 4.5 billion years. A long time.

This Government has no right to tamper with something so

fundamental. Not marriage as we know it today. I respect their

views about religious freedom and tolerance, but what the Coalition

For Marriage is hearing from is we're hearing from people up and

down the country who say I'm in a senior position, I daren't say I

believe in man-woman marriage because I'm scared of loseing my

job. I believe in man-woman marriage. An old intolerance which

was wrong is being replaced by a new intolerance... Tim's back.

difference does it make to you or anyone else if two gay people want

to get married? I tell you exactly what difference. It makes a

difference to the civic liberties of those millions of people up and

down the country who believe in man-woman marriage. Not at all.

2011 a housing officer lost his job... We argued for that to be

given back because that was religious. He put on Facebook that

he believed in man-woman marriage. He has sever received compensation

or his job back and that's where the bill goes into law. What will

this mean for gay Muslims? If I was approached by two gay Muslim men

asking to be married, I would refuse to marry them because they

do not meet the terms and conditions of marriage. Marriage

within Muslim law is a contract between a male and a female. So

that's a non-starter to start with. If they wish to be recognised as

partners together in the eyes of the law, they have access to the

civil partnership if they wish to do so. They are free to do that.

Civil partnership should be enough? If that's what they're seeking. If

they're seeking legal recognition, that is fine. For Muslims, the

definition of marriage is one between a man and woman. I would

continue to teach that to my children, my pupils, my stuents. I

do not want to fall on the other side of the law where because I

believe that this is what marriage is all about that it becomes an

arrestable offence for example. It's absolutely right you should

continue... Do you respect that? absolutely do. Why? Because if this

Government was going to bring in a law that said everybody had to do

something that was against their conscience I would be absolutely

opposed to it. If anyone else expressed it who weren't religious

you would say they were homophobic. No, if they believe marriage is

between a man and woman and don't wish to conduct a same-sex marriage,

that's fine. That's their belief. I don't want them to. I want the

ability to enter into a marriage myself and as somebody who is

ordained to be able to perform and conduct those some emisations for

the people I know wish to be married as a same-sex couple.

That's what I like about the law proposed is it gives us all that

freedom. The Government has regularly changed the laws around

marriage over the years. This is nothing new. It's nothing different.

What we are doing is seeing a move towards greater equality. It is

taking nothing away from opposite- sex couples and their marriage. If

you're married today, you will be married in exactly the same way,

your relationship will be exactly the same the day after this comes

into legal being than you were the day before. That is simply not true.

It is true. As soon as one gay couple gets married, you are then,

by definition, saying gender is irrelevant to marriage law. You

change the law for everybody. irrelevant. It is not. Marriage is

a gendered institution. It is the only union... Only because we have

legislated that in the past. It's the building block of society that

is not just... But if it's about children, there are many children

who are many different types of relationships. Is it not better if

a gay couple have children, would you not prefer that couple had that

sign that they were married. That's a completely different question.

We're talking about redefining marriage. You brought in children.

I tell you a poll this weekend says that a quarter of the gay and

lesbian community say yeah, one redefinition, the next one's fine

as well. If you redefine... What will the next redefinition be?

say they would be happy with polyamorous unions being recognised.

Who said that? A quarter of the poll this weekend. You talked about

the process of children, 98.9% of children in the UK who are

physically, sexually and emotionally abused happens in

heterosexual set ups. Two women a week die at hands of their former

or current partner in heterosexual partners. Are you saying there's

some specificity about heterosexuals? Absolutely not. This

isn't about other than equality in the eyes of the law. We have to be

fit for the 21st century. You are in a partnership, do you want to

get married? Yes, we have been together 19 years. We have been in

a civil partnership for three. I would love to marry, when the time

is right for us. Why is marriage so important? It brings added value.

It doesn't detract from the sapbgtity of marriage. It adds to

it. -- sanctity. How does the term "marriage" add value. It gives me

full equality. You don't feel you're in a legitimate relationship

now? We tolerate the trains being late, do you not realise how

patronising being "tolerated" is. All my life I've had that. What is

patronising, I don't have a problem with civil partnerships and with

people choosing a particular life styles that they want, but...

don't choose. Living the way they are living, but my real points is

that as far as I'm concerned I think it is wrong when one group

type comes along and looks to undermine or redefine something

that's already been around for so long in order to build something

new. We don't want to go back to the Holocaust in the gay marriage

debate. Gay people were persecuted by the very people who suffered the

most horrendous thing in history. In those camps gay people were

punished in a way that we never described. You airbrush that out.

It's a superb play by Martin Cherman... Women and Ronany

travellers are the same thing. asking you not to redefine the

whole principle of marriage, as it always has been. Ladies and

gentleman, we're going to hear from this member of the audience. I say

good morning to you. Good morning. We've got a littlement will of --

little element of calm. If you allow gay marriage there's a danger

of that opening the flood gates for marriage to be redefined in

different ways. Instead of just being two people, then could it be

between a man and two women or women and three men. Nobody is

suggesting that. Last year in Brazil, a man got married to two

different women in the same ceremony. No-one's suggesting that

here. People say that all right if you can redefine marriage...

should I not be equal? If David Cameron thinks he's got a backbench

revolt now, think about that. should marriage be redefined...

your reason... Your reason for me not being able to marry is because

of what ifs? No. It's actually happened. People will say, why is

it that homosexuals are given special rights that we've got to

redefine. I look at it from a Christian point of view.

looking at it from a Christian point of view as well. It's not

about special rights. If she's Christian she would know that God

says that homosexuality... Jesus never mentioned homosexuality.

Jesus said... Not once. They say that the gos pels that came before

him are true. Where does their love come from? It's not from God. It

must be from satan. That's outrageous. God is love. Does your

not say the same? My Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. No it

doesn't. Wait a minute. Sharon, do you have a scriptural problem in

your arguments with the old testament where it's quite or is it

explicit? No, it isn't. This debate isn't actually, we're not here to

debate whether homosexuality is a sin. There's a lot of theological

debate in how we understand the text from a cultural perspective

and putting them back into their correct context. I don't want to

actually get into that. What I do want to say is that Jesus did say

that divorce was wrong. He says that explicitly. He never, ever

says anything against same-sex relationships. But he says that

divorce is wrong. Yet, we have managed to redefine all our

marriage laws to accommodate divorce. We have redefined marriage

laws many times over the centuries. Centuries. We have changed the age

of consent, we've changed the law to what women are entitled to and

stopping women being chattel. We have redefined marriage in many

ways. It is nothing new to redefine marriage. It is not undermining

marriage. It is actually saying marriage is so good that we all

want. It The lady back there. Good morning.

In society marriage between a man and woman and to compleetly

redefine that is, I agree with the man over there, it would open the

flood gates for different sorts of unions like polygamy and stuff like

that. In history the Christian church has reformed all the way

through. When Henry VIII got bored of his wife, he got divorced. Why

can't people like Sharon get married. Tony? I've been married

for over 20 years. I do not understand how my marriage to a

woman is undermined in any way by two people the same-sex marrying. I

do not understand. On Wednesday morning, when the legislation has

been passed, we will wake up and the world will still be there.

Heterosexuals who are married will continue to have a happy marriage.

Do you salute David Cameron, this is going to be hard for you? It is

very hard. I just think... Bite your lip, go on. I think the Steve