Episode 10 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions, standing up to Russia, the right to know

about a partner's violent past, and being the child of a fundamentalist.

Good morning. I'm Nicky Campbell. Welcome to The Big Questions. Today,

we are live from Michaelston Community College in Cardiff.

Welcome to our audience and welcome to everybody! Next Sunday, the

people of Crimea will vote on whether they want to remain part of

the Ukraine or to join Russia. In just two weeks, Ukraine has changed

from being a country about to sign and Association agreement with the

EU to one which may lose not only Crimea, but also its eastern

territories to its powerful neighbour. 20 years ago, the UK, the

USA and Russia are all signed an agreement which guaranteed

Ukraine's current borders, in return for them giving up nuclear weapons.

America has sent fighter jets Poland and is talking tough about economic

sanctions. But some commentators have said it is the worst crisis

since the end of the Cold War, or since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis,

or even since Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938. Our

government stopped Prince Edward from attending the Paralympics

opening ceremony in Sochi. They are thinking about placing visa

restrictions on some of the wealthy Russian oligarchs in large parts of

London and seizing some of their assets, unless it upsets the City.

We heard from William Hague on the Andrew Marr programme that

ultimately, energy may be one of the sanctions considered. Is it our

moral duty to stand up to Russia? Sir Graham Watson, MEP, you have

used those words, 1938, in this context. Explain that? I think it is

our moral duty to stand up to Russia. What is happening is

equivalent to Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938. Putin is

trying to exercise what he considers to be his right to intervene

militarily in what would once upon a time have been described as

Russia's sphere of influence. At the world has moved on. You can't do

that. In doing so, Putin is abrogating a number of agreements,

not only the Budapest agreement from 1994, but also his commitments to

the Council of Europe conventions and so on. We must defend the

Ukrainians. Ukraine is a unitary state, and must be defended. Go in?

What does that mean? Well, it starts with where we are, what the European

Union agreed on Thursday, which was that we have already stopped talks

with Russia towards a new EU- Russia agreement and the talks on visa

liberalisation. We have said but unless Putin withdraws his troops to

basis, we will take targeted sanctions against individual

Russians, which is difficult for Putin to bear, because they hold a

lot of assets in western Europe and other places. There are lots of very

wealthy Russians around. Moreover, the European Union has said that if

Russia destabilises Crimea even further, there will be far reaching

economic and political consequences. I think it is right not to define

that to precisely, but it may have to involve military action. Nobody

wants that. Military action? Nobody wants it. With Russia? What are you

talking about? This is precisely the question being asked. Can you

intervene militarily if you have to? If so, how do you do so? Nobody is

arguing that we are going to fight a ground war against Russia? I hope it

will not come to that, because I believe we have enough power to

bring the Russians to the negotiating table without military

action. Professor Geoffrey Pridham, should all cards be on the table?

Even military? I agree, that should be the ultimate option. But we

should try everything else. There are economic sanctions, and also

propaganda. But in's began the towards the West at the moment is

pretty hard, and we should respond equally. We need a combination of

firmness plus diplomacy. The military action is behind all that.

If all else fails, you can never say you will not use the military

action, because that gives Putin an extra card to play with. You have

some support. Jeremy Corbyn, MP, this is worrying. We have a man who

has basically breached international treaties and moved into another

country. What my colleague was saying seemed to be a recipe for war

and incredibly dangerous. I do not support that. You have more support

than they did. I do not support Russian military action, and that

does have to be a peace process and the process of demilitarisation of

Ukraine and sticking to the original non-nuclear agreement. But the

hypocrisy of the West is unbelievable on this. Where was the

legality on the war in Iraq? Where was the legality on so many of the

other interventions made elsewhere? If one reads carefully what all the

Ukrainian forces are saying, yes, there is a nasty far right force in

Ukraine at the present time which is part of the government. There is

also a more live oral grouping in the Ukraine. There is also a large

Russian grouping in the Ukraine who clearly have loyalties towards

Russia. Does Ukraine break-up? That is a matter for the Ukrainian

people. At the idea that we should move the whole thing in rhetoric

towards a military war against Russia seems to me a disaster. You

mentioned 1938, Sir Graham, and the Nazis. Jeremy Corbyn makes the point

that some in the government have been described as Nazis, the Deputy

Prime Minister included, in Ukraine. These are not nice people to deal

with, are they? There was a law two years ago to introduce Russian as

the second official language at a regional level. The new government

decided to reverse this. That is now regarded as a mistake in having

provoked Putin. I have a feeling that that was one influence behind

his action in the Crimea. There are concerns on the Russian side, but

Putin has nevertheless broken serious international agreements.

The referendum in Crimea is also illegal. The Ukrainian constitution

allows referendums across the whole country, not just one region. As to

the moral arguments here, I think we are in a potential prewar situation.

It is not just about Crimea, it is about European security in general.

I have been living in the Baltic states. There is concerned there

that there could be a threat exploiting the Russian minorities in

those states. You are just back from Latvia. Are they worried there? Very

worried. There has been an intense increase in worry over the last ten

days. The prime minister made a statement that there was no threat

to Latvian security for the moment, she said. That is unambiguous

statement. I think we have got ourselves into this problem. Our

foreign policy has been a mess since the end of the Cold War. Frank Lee,

the EU, pushing ever eastward since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, we

have been wooing the Ukrainians to join the EU. Russia thinks we have

been encouraging the uprising in Ukraine. When that uprising

happened, it made Russian intervention inevitable. There was

no way Putin or any Russian leader would allow a major naval base in a

potential EU member state. There is also no way he would allow a

successful revolution to happen in Ukraine, on Russia's doorstep, when

it sets a precedent at home. I take the point about the analogy with

Hitler, but he is aligning himself with the interests of the Russian

ethnic people. It puzzles me how the West has been blinded by the

inevitability of the action that has had. I worry about the potential for

military conflict, but we have got ourselves in a situation where we

are hooked on Russian gas and Russian cash. We have been cutting

our military forces and we are in open session to stand up literally

to Russia. -- we are in no position to stand up to them. Dealing with

the situation of the naval base, the Crimea was put into the Ukraine by

Russia back in 1954 by Khrushchev. The Russians have a lease on that

naval base until 2047. Ukrainians have said nothing about terminating

the lease. It is clear that they have the right to use that naval

base for another 30 years. An Ukraine, I am not sure the European

Union has been pushing east, but what we have seen in Ukraine,

Georgia, Armenia and a number of other countries, people have been

saying, we would like to come closer to the European Union. So is your

interpretation of pushing east expanding democracy and civic

society and the rule of law? I would say the Ukrainians have been

demonstrating in favour of those things, and wanting their own

government to sign this new partnership that the Georgians and

Moldovans have signed. It was when Viktor Yanukovych pulled out under

pressure from Russia last November that there were all the

demonstrations in Kiev which led to the overthrow of Yanukovych and a

new government. We have to insist to the Ukrainians that they have free

and fair elections and elect a new government. But Viktor Yanukovych

was democratically elected. There was an agreement to have elections

later this year anyway, and there was a strong argument that the

removal of Yanukovych was not within the Ukrainian custard you should. Do

you think it was legitimate? -- it was not within the Ukrainian

constitution. But the wider issue is that the EU has got very close to

NATO. NATO has been pushing hard to expand eastwards. Inevitably, Russia

will get nervous if NATO sets up places around it orders. That

encourages Russian military is. Can't we go back to the point where

Ukraine was a nuclear free country that was not going to be a member of

any alliance, either with Russia or with NATO, and start to demilitarise

the situation and allow a proper debate for people to decide their

own future in Ukraine? It seems to me that there is a terrible danger

of a rush to a combination of an economic and military war, and

goodness knows what the consequences will be. I welcome to the audience

in a minute to find out what they think. It is potentially an

apocalyptic scenario. Jeffrey, do you want to come back 's eye would

point out that the February 21 agreement that Yanukovych side fell

flat, because he fled the following day. So that escalated the

situation. This was a Ukrainian revolution. Putin does not like it,

but it was a revolution which reacted against Yanukovych. Not just

against him failing to sign the agreement, but also against his

corrupt regime. You could see this in the build-up to the crisis. Would

Baroness Ashton go to Greece and support the opponents of the

austerity measures there? No, she would not. She is happy to go to

Ukraine and join a demonstration where there are fascists present in

order to get rid of an elected government there. You can't have it

both ways on elected governments. Russia is effect of league -- has

effectively annexed Crimea. Putin knew that we would half and puff and

that our hands were empty. Are we weak? Yes, and we have got ourselves

into that position. We need to get our foreign policy sorted out and be

clear on our national interests. He has been able to do this because we

are weak. He has a clear view about where he wants to take Russia. I

agree, it is scary and nationalistic and expansionist, but we have

enabled him to do it because we have nothing in our hand except sanctions

and not inviting him to the G-7. Putin has done this because he is

weak. It is true that we are weak, and the biggest card Putin has is

Russian oil and gas and our dangerous dependence on it. I hope

that if one thing comes out of this, it is that we start to develop

alternatives. We do a lot of trade with them. We have a lot of energy,

we have all that Russian money in London and other places. So anything

we do will be cutting off our nose to spite our face. I would not say

anything we do, but certain things could of course be damaging to both

sides. But Putin is increasingly isolated in Russia, and he is

playing to the gallery back home. He is playing the populist card. I

would go back to Churchill. In some ways, that interdependency stops us

fighting. It ought to. It didn't in 1914, and I am surprised that

parallels are being drawn historically. But one of the

parallels is not being drawn, which is that with 1914. After 1945, there

was the creation of an effective international organisation to manage

crises. I am surprised that we have not heard to work this morning,

United Nations. -- two words. That is surely where any talk of

sanctions or international action should be taken place. I am

surprised that nobody seems to be engaging that organisation, when

that is what it is there to do. But of course, with Russia's permanent

place on the Security Council, it cancels itself out. Well, the UN, if

it takes a one-sided decision, will get vetoed by somebody, so it

can't. Therefore, it falls to the UN to try to bring the sides together

and pursue a process of demilitarisation. But I am alarmed

by the weather NATO general secretary seems to be ramping up the

anti-all the time . It is not his job to promote wars. He is meant to

be answerable to a number of governments. He appears to be

behaving as though he is a free agent who can say and do what he

likes and develop this dangerous scenario. Ukraine has been a war

ground in Europe for two centuries. Millions have died from famine, war,

occupation and disasters. Let's not visit that upon them again . Lest

try and deescalate and demilitarise and try and bring about some kind of

peace process which will guarantee a peaceful future for those people and

for Europe. I don't believe we have the moral legitimacy to intervene. I

believe throughout history Britain has contributed to terror through

propping up authoritarian regimes. An example was 1953 when we

overthrew the Iranian Government. MI6 with the help of the CIA did

that. Harold Wilson's Government in the '60s help helping General

Suharto come to power in Indonesia leading to many deaths. And then the

Iraq war, which even Kofi Annan said was illegal. Even Bam, if you look

at drone strikes and how that's caused the deaths of hundreds of

civilians, if you look at the two principles of the patterns of life

and secondary strikes. This has been documented by Stamford Law

University. So we have no moral plinth to stand on. Good morning. I

agree with you and the gentleman there, because I think, as the

Bishop said, we do have bullies in our world. There've been many

examples, Saddam Hussein among one of them. I think the trouble with

our reaction is that there is a knee-jerk reaction by our

Governments I think every time in these cases. Either they are quiet

and apathetic and then they do something crazy. I don't think we

are in a position to judge. Our position is very grave. We are not

at the front. We are not Latvia, we are not in that region. We intereven

if with far too many things. None of our business? To a certain degree.

Sir Graham, you think it is our business very much, but have we just

lost the moral authority here because of recent years and going

further back, as that gentleman says, we are in no position to

judge. I think it is absolutely in our country's interests to uphold

international law. I don't defend everything that's been done in other

armed conflicts that have happened recently. I think we have made

mistakes. We are not the only ones to have made mistakes, the Russians

have, and others. But here we have a real interest as the United Kingdom

in upholding international law. What Putin has done is clearly to ride

roughshod over international law. That's why we have to act. Nobody's

talking about military intervention. Military intervention would have to

be a last resort, but my question to Jeremy Corbyn would be this. What do

you do, try to negotiate by all means, that's what we are trying to

do, but what if Russia go ahead with this referendum on Sunday in the

Crimea, a referendum down the barrel of a gun. As Stalin said, power in

politics is not with those who cast the votes but those who count them.

The Ukrainians themselves have asked the West to come in and help. In my

view we should help. You have the last word on this, Jeremy Corbyn.

And MP is a Hoon -- and Mr Putin has expressed admiration with Josef

Stalin, one of the biggest mass murderers in history. What if he

does go through with this? He is a popular Russian leader. Public

support for Russia isn't easy great as they thinks or a lot of other

people think. I'm not sure that the Russian people, having lost so many

in Afghanistan, want to see Russian lives lost in Ukraine any more than

people in this country want to see us going into a ludicrous futile war

that has to end up with a political settlement. All wars end with a

political settlement. Let's not start with the building up of Armed

Forces, moving fighter pilots to Poland. Negotiate through. The West

has no moral authority to lecture on this after drone strikes, after

Iraq, after so many other internal coups and conflicts around the

world. Hand the thing back to the UN to try to bring about a peace

process and de-escalate the rhetoric, which has been in danger

of plunging us into a catastrophic war with nuclear implications.

APPLAUSE Thank you very much indeed. We are debating this morning does

Clare's law go far enough? And can children be damaged in

fundamentalist religions? Get tweeting or send us any other ideas

or thoughts you may have about the show.

This weekend with the launch of Clare's Law which have obtained the

right to check with the police if a new partner has previous convictions

for violence against women. It is named after Clare Wood, who was

strangled and set on fire by a man she had met true the internet.

Unbeknown to her he had spent three years in prison for harassing

another woman and had previously served six months for breaking a

restraining order. Now, any woman has the right to ask whether a man

who a violent past, but also the police have the right not to tell

her all that they know. Does Clare's law go far enough? Morgan, you've

worked with women who've had terrible experiences in their lives.

We've seen surveys which are breathtaking, the amount of women in

our country should have been subject to physical and sexual violence. I

saw one survey saying it was one in three. Do you believe it is that

widespread? Yes. I think we can see violence against women and girls,

and domestic violence is probably the most present component of that

violent expression within certainly in Wales. Are the police doing

enough? It used to be said, it is just a domestic. Those days are gone

aren't they? They are not entirely gone. We do have two different

approaches to the law. If a woman is violently attacked by somebody on

the street, then there are laws in place where that person would be

arrested if it was a stranger. However, because it happens in our

private space, if you like, there are different ways of applying that

law. I have to say though that police, particularly over the last

five years, have certainly picked up apace and there's strong leadership

from the top to actually kind of take more action and not see

domestic violence as a purely domestic issue. So we are making

some progress. Some progress. Michael, you've fought for this for

your daughter and it is a great achievement and it is a tribute to

your dedication and steadfastness that this has come about, but is

there still a problem with the police? Well, I would hate to

correct you. I didn't do this for my daughter. I couldn't do anything for

my daughter. I've done this for girls in the future and in the

present. What happened to my daughter was tragic. What happens to

girls in this country, anything between 100 and 150 every year -- 15

every year, men and women meet a violent death - 120. They meet a

violent death. For every one of those that died there was two people

like me, mothers, fathers, I didn't count, brothers, sisters, sons,

daughters, beganies, grandfather grandfathers. -- grannies,

grandfathers. The ripples fall out. My granddaughter is the biggest

loser in this. She is now 15. She's got to go through her life without

the arm of her mother round her, without the concern of her mother

round her. She's going to have to explain to her children why they

don't have a grandma. I didn't do what I have done, I want wanted to

trumpet what had happened to my daughter so that people woke up in

this country. I don't believe that half the population were getting the

support that they deserved. And had it not been for a young lady like

Michelle, without hazel Blears or the Bolton coroner, Mrs Leeming.

This would have never got off the ground. Does it go far enough

though? It is easy enough to get someone's driving licence details.

These convictions are a matter of record. These people have been in

court. Yes, my sentiments exactly. Where was the secrecy? If it had

already been in court and in the papers, why did the police not tell

my daughter, he's done this before, get your bum out of here?

APPLAUSE Why not? Why not? Why can't you just give

this information to people. It is up to Parliament to decide what the

rules are. They have had a look at this, they've listened carefully...

Well what do you think? Let me explain this first. They've listened

carefully to the arguments. Looked at the situation through three pilot

schemes and the changes in procedure have come about. There are tests

that have to be applied, whether we like it or not. These come from

reasonableness and proportion at. That's what the European Convention

on Human Rights says. The Government is moving in that field. They have

had to make that choice against that background. What they have done is

to decide on the basis of these three pilot schemes there can be

proportionate releases of information in extreme

circumstances. It's a big change in process and procedure. It can take

up to 35 days and those could be the most dangerous 35 days of a woman's

life. What the rules say clearly is a pressing need. There there is an

immediate case conference. One's got to say that on the basis of three

pilot schemes, the Home Secretary sanctioned it, if Parliament wants

to change the rules around criminal confidentiality, they have to make

that choice. Don't give me pressing need. 2006-2009, the head of ACPO

and a Chief Constable of Wiltshire did an indopeth survey into domestic

violence. I was handed it at my daughter's coroner's inquiry. He had

already come to that conclusion. So we are going back eight years to

2006 before he started picking up. I got to the Home Secretary, myself

and my son, on the Thursday. On the Tuesday, Clare's law was trialed. I

was a cherry on the cake. There was a lot of clever people long before I

had opened my cakehole to move this on. I was the one - I don't know if

it was the nature of my daughter's death, the timing of my daughter's

death, but it did something to decide who woke up to the fact that

there's domestic violence on a huge scale in this country and it is

being swept under the carpet. APPLAUSE Amanda, do you have

concerns about this law? How far it could go? I think, the main thing to

say is that it is great to have a law that raises the profile of

domestic violence, which is such a huge, huge problem. I don't have an

issue really with the police's ability the make a disclosure when

they deem that there is a significant risk of harm, which they

had the power to do before Clare... It is different difficult to

calibrate that. It is. They this the power to do that before Clare's law.

If we look at the 400 applications made under Clare's law so to date

there've been 100 disclosures. The police have determined those

individuals plenty a clear risks. There is not a problem with those

100 disclosures. It is what we can say about the 300 other cases where

the police felt there wasn't enough information to make a determination.

We know that domestic violence is hugely underreported. The majority

of victims will never tell the police about the violence that they

suffer. The cases that do come to police attention are extremely

unlikely to result in a conviction. We are asking the police to make a

determination on data that is largely absent. We are lulling

victims into a false sense of security for that reason. What about

those with no convictions? Clare's Law covers that, because it is about

instances that have been brought to police attention. A couple of

points. Firstly, it is not a change in the law. We call it Clare's Law

because it is an emotive term, which is helpful. It is not a change in

law, it is a change in procedure which has been given official

sanction. And it is not just the police, there is a multi-agency

panel that sits behind this. One could argue that they may get this

process wrong, but there is a clear process that people go through all

stop I just wanted to correct those impressions that might be given if

you don't know enough about it. They determined that there was enough

information in some cases that they could suggest that there was a risk

of harm. I know you mentioned that there were 400 applications and

maybe 100 of those were disclosed, but those 400 people who made those

applications, whether they were disclosed to or not, they are then

passed on information about where to go for support in the future. It is

a tool. That is information that those people may not have had if

they were not in that situation. What about those people who, in the

first flush of love, you have faith in love, isn't the last thing you

are going to do decide to run a few checks first? With Clare's Law, it

is not about checking up. If somebody starts to show some form of

controlling behaviour or violence. Oh, he will change! Or she will.

Yes, you can hope he or she will change. But as a campaigner, I do a

lot of research with domestic abuse charities. A lot of people signed my

petition to get this scheme past. One woman said to me that when she

first drug of a relationship with a man -- when she first struck up a

relationship with a man, his ex-wife said to her, he hit me, it will not

be long before he starts on you. She said, I just thought it was sour

grapes. Had this law been in place, she was adamant that at least that

would have been a gateway for her to just check. So you will get those

who are caught up in love and they do think he will change. But if the

police said, he does actually have a record, then you know it is not your

fault and this man is a serial perpetrator. But it is not the

woman's fault ever. Or the man's fault, it does happen the other day

way. Yes, but it is not the victim's four. We need to take a

stand against domestic violence . The only way to inoculate people

against that is by starting, at an early age in school, really

enlightening people about what a healthy relationship looks like,

giving them a different lens on the world. I appreciate that raising the

Clare's Law scheme is helpful, but once again, you are putting

responsibility on the victim to check out, when actually, a huge

proportion of the hymns don't even recognise that they are in an

abusive relationship. But the way Clare's Law works enables other

people to raise the issue with the police as well, so it is not all on

the victim. But that requires a public understanding of what

domestic is. And I think this change in procedure is a good thing, but it

must go wide in hand with other initiatives and support services. We

are implementing Clare's Law nationally at the same time that

services are being cut. 200 women a day are not being provided with a

refuge space when they ask for it. So how can we be implementing a law

that is aimed at increasing safety for victims at the same time that

services that are known to provide safety are not being given the

financial support they need? Some people have said this should be

extended beyond sexual and violent abuse to psychological abuse as

well. A lot of people say they live with that. So how far do we spread

the net? Yes. Well, when we started this off, we did not come across

what this young lady has just said, the closure of homes, no

after-care. The government seem to have wiped their hands one way or

another. And it is serial. It moves on. Everybody seems to think it is a

working class disease. It is everywhere. It is rife. For all the

people who put up objections, I wear slip on shoes, not because I can't

tie a knot. I want to pull them off and say, stand in my shoes for two

minutes, and you will know what pain is. You will know what it does to

people's lives. I don't sit here and pontificate. There are clever people

in this country, contrary to what a lot of us seem to think. There are

people in this country who can make this work. What do you think of the

psychological abuse angle? It is taken into account. You don't have

to wait for a man or woman to use physical violence. So it can just be

constant psychological abuse? Yes, if you are feeling intimidated or

controlled, that is how domestic abuse darts. But someone is unlikely

to have a criminal record for that. At at the same time, if there is

nothing to disclose, that person will be given ad vice and help and

is alerted to the fact of domestic abuse. One thing everyone has in

common here is the fact that we are talking about domestic. That is what

Clare's Law has one. It is not the solution, but it has raised the

issue of funding and it has got the government talking about it. If it

saves one life... If it saves one life, the four year campaign and the

team behind Clare's Law have achieved what has been worth all the

suffering, all the travelling and all the heartache we have had to go

through. The Bishop? In terms of talking about problems like this, it

is wonderful that it is out in the open. But you made the point earlier

about people wanting to be in a loving relationship. I recall,

before I was ordained, when I was in the law, in matrimonial dispute

situations, one would sometimes be faced with a battered spouse in the

office who would want some sort of immediate relief. And it was

possible to go Dwain Chambers and get an emergency injunction and then

a couple of days later, there would be a full hearing -- it was possible

to go to a chamber. And although this did not happen all the time, I

have seen cases several times where at the second hearing, it was

usually the wife who had sought the injunction in the first place, and

she would say, I have taken him back. He has promised he will not do

it again. And then of course, he often did do it again. We are

talking about complex human relationships. One of the huge

issues we have is that we don't have enough understanding about this

behaviour. Should people be given a chance to change? Yes, absolutely.

Women who have been affected by violence and abusive relationships

need change programmes to help them get back on track and deal with the

psychological and emotional damage. And perpetrators also need

programmes where they can change their behaviour. There are good ones

out there. Michael, I will come to you in the next debate. These social

predators slink through our society, spreading despair and despondency.

And as has been pointed out here, they are sometimes never picked up.

We have a cash cow in this country called the motorist. I can sit in a

car and tell you in a second that your car has been road taxed,

insured, has its MOT, who the driver and the owner is, and has it been

involved in a crime or drugs, in an instant. You want it to be that

easy? It should be made that easy. I believe the police have a national

computer at present which has 25,000 serial perpetrators on their books.

If that could be expanded, that would and so a lot of the questions

here. -- it would answer a lot of questions. It is not always to

remove the woman out of the violent situation, it is to take the man out

of the violent situation. Thank you all for your thoughts.

You can join in all this morning's debates by logging onto the

website. Or you can tweet. Tell us what you think about our last big

question. Can children be damaged in fundamentalist religions? If you you

would like to be in the audience at a future show, you can e-mail us. We

will be in Newcastle upon Tyne next week, Southampton on March the 23rd

and Glasgow the week after that. The mayor of London, Boris Johnson,

has called for Muslim children who are at risk of being radicalised

their parents to be taken into care. He says it is a form of child

abuse. Now a jihadist plot run by fundamentalist Muslims to take over

schools in Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester and run them according to

strict Islamic principles has been exposed. In the past, the courts

have barred a Christian couple from being foster parents cos of their

biblical views on homosexuality, and on this programme, we often have

under mentalist believers who reject scientifically accepted ideas and

think wives should always submit to their husbands full up religious

beliefs and modern liberal values are often in conflict. Can children

be damaged by fundamentalist religions? Jonny Scaramanga, you

were educated in a fundamentalist school. What were you taught? I was

taught that I should not be friends with non-Christians. The first week

I was there, the principal of the school taught us a sermon which

said, birds of a feather must flock together. She said I should not be

friends with non-Christians. And hell? Of course. We did not even

need to talk about how, because it did for granted that everyone who

did not believe what we believed was going to hell. But because those

people were going to hell and they were evil and that there was a risk

that they could corrupt as if we interacted with them, we were

advised not to have interaction with other people. We were also taught at

we ourselves were wicked because we were depraved because of sin, and it

was only because of Jesus in us that there was anything good enough at

all. It is a crushing thing to tell a child in terms of their

self-esteem. You are an evangelical Christian, Liz. You don't believe

that dinosaurs and people were on the earth at the same time, although

some people do. But that is bonkers, and it will limit their

career opportunities, clearly! But hell is important to your belief,

isn't it? What would you teach a child? That it exists. And who is

going there? Anybody who hasn't put their faith in Jesus and his death

on the cross to pay for their sins. It is important to understand the

difference between guidance and coercion. You have already said that

Mustafa is going to hell. And me. You can go the Heaven and it is your

choice if you decide to reject it. But you have to accept Jesus? I

have. That's fine. I I'll see you in hell then. It is an interesting

question, the fundamentalist regime. Isn't it tyrannical and bullying and

frightening to tell a little child they might go to hell? No, that's

twisting the story. My parents didn't tell me, you're going to go

to hell if you don't do this, that and the other. They explained Jesus'

and God's love by sending Jesus. This is a perverting idea of love if

you think God would send people to eternal damnation. It is not

possible. APPLAUSE Is it damaging for a child?

Why is that damaging for a child? If you believe thaw know that other

people are going to hell, it is impossible for you to treat them

with the value and respect that they deserve as human being. If you think

I'm depraved because of sin, you can't seriously say I'm worth as

much as you. We are all in the same boat. If you look at the way we

treat God, disrespect that we create the creator of the universe, one

that rightfully owns everything and the disrespect we have for him, it

is understandable. God gave us free will and choice. He did. And we to

pave our own way to whatever waits beyond. Some of us believe there is

something and others believe that it is a permanent cycle. And some of us

believe nothing, none of the above. I'm not really worried about hell.

This isn't a debate about hell - we've had that before. This is a

debate about what we teach our children and potentially how

damaging that might be. Bishop? What about those who take a literal view

of the Bible, and indeed the Koran, unmediated word of God, allegedly.

Could that be dangerous for children? It worries me immensely. I

believe that young people, older people, all need to be in a position

where they are properly educated to be able to make inform informed

choices about any belief structure that might be presented to them. You

only have to look at the history of the presents day to see where

fundamentalism can actually lead people.

APPLAUSE Before I come to you, what would you teach a child, since we

are here, about hell? I can speak of my own experience, not of hell but

my own education. I was taught just precomprehensive days in a state

grammar school. I was taught religious education but somebody who

I suppose nowadays would be described as a fairly fundamentalist

conservative evangelical Baptist Minister from the Welsh valleys.

Along with just about everybody else in my class I rejected what was

teaching, which was there's the Bible, you swallow it hook, line and

sinker. You take it as a literal word of God and if you don't

believe, that you know where you will finish up. Really? But look

what happened to me. I happened to believe that, I don't want to trade

verses of scripture with people, but one of the things that is most

important, Jesus said, if you have seen me, you've seen the Father. You

judge your understanding of God by what you see in the ministry and the

outreach and the welcome of Him. I don't see Him being as black and

white as some fundamentalists might put it. Scripture in parts might

have been written in that way because that was the cultural way it

was done then. But to force feed and indoctrinate young children with

some of the rubbish, quite frankly, that Christian education produces is

wicked. Mustafa, as we were breaking bread before the programme, having a

cuppa, you said that for example this phrase, homosexuality is

un-Islamic. Well, before coming... No, you come to it. How would you

teach, what would you teach a child, a young teenager who came to you and

said, I'm gay, what should I do, what would you say to that child? I

would talk to him about his feelings. Sometimes it is a normal

thing for teenage terse, especially when they go through the hormone

hormonal phases to feel a sense of, I'm homosexual. I could explain

psychological literature and it could be caused by different

hormones from their body. They are not understanding yet what they are

feeling, they are exploring their identity. I would talk to young boy

about his feelings. I wouldn't say OK, be homosexual. I wouldn't say,

you're banned. What I believe in terms of homosexuality and

heterosexuality is that heterosexuality is something that

God wants us to be heterosexuals. That's my belief. I would promote

that. To that child. But I would want to do that with the utmost

respect for his feelings and for what he feels and the stage he is

going through and for his identity and the difficult phases that he

might feel. Why did God create homosexuals? I believe God creates

human being. I don't believe God creates homosexuals or anybody else.

They are human being that have chosen a certain path. A certainly

sexual orientation. Just like me, I can choose to be a heterosexual.

That's my belief. And somebody can choose to go down another path. When

did you choose to be straight? When I was young. I believe that. You had

the choice to be a homosexual and straight? On that point, hands up

who wants to say something about this? I heard a Murray across the

audience -- murmur. It is patronising for Christians or anyone

of religious belief to say, we'll talk to people, we'll talk them out

of it. If you change your way maybe we'll accept you. If you speak to

some people, they will say the most difficult thing I've had to do is

admit that I'm gay. Why would I choose to do that?

APPLAUSE Anyone else? Anyone else wants to say something? I don't

think anybody chooses to be homosexual. It is something you are

or you are not. Exactly. Let's get back, how dangerous is it to teach a

child that? I think it is very dangerous to teach children that

you'll go to hell if you misbehave. The way a lot of religions seem to

try and teach morality is it doesn't matter what you do as long as you

accept Jesus you will go to heavy no-one the end. It is far more

important to teach children the difference between what's right and

what's wrong. I'm a humanist, so I believe that we should treat other

people with respect. But that morals of society, if you like, are things

which have evolved over time. They've not been thrust upon us by

some imaginary figure in the sky. I think teaching people how to behave

is far more important than saying, do what you but if you accept Jesus

you will go to heavy no-one the end. Mustafa? I think it is very

important to realise that parenting in itself is always about norms and

values, even if you don't have a religion or whatever you believe you

are teaching in a sense consciously or unconsciously that belief to your

child. If it is for example, the gentleman before said OK I don't

believe you should talk someone out of it, I believe he wants to talk me

out of talking someone else out of something, because he doesn't agree

with my view on things. So he is wanting to talk me out by having

this debate or presenting his argumentation, which is fine. With

all due respect it is fine, that's why we are here, why we are

discussing. I don't think it is in a sense important to understand the

perspective where someone comes from. You come from the perspective

that teaching hell or saying that if you misbehave you will go to hell,

which I don't agree with that way of teaching the by the way, but you

disagree with that so you want to talk me out of it. Or you want to

teach that view to your child. So you think he's an extremist. Mehdi,

you left Islam didn't you? I. About teaching our kids, it is very

selfish of us to think that our children are just our assets. I

personally think our kids belong to themselves and society.

APPLAUSE What land to you then? When did you have this reverse

revelation? I was born in Iran. My family had a liberal and moderate

background, I had to go tota... If you stood up and said, I'm an

atheist? I would be prosecuted and not be classed as a citizen in my

own country. I would get death threats. I'm taking a risk to talk

to you about my past. As I went to school, I was taught to be

religious. As a child I believed whatever they told me. I used to get

beaten in school for not practising Islam and dodging prayers. At some

point in my life I realised I was so fundamental I was telling my parents

and my family and my friends off about not practising the religion. I

was, I went so far that I was planning, I was just thinking that

dying and killing for my own religion is a good practice. I

should do anything necessarily to save my religion. There was points,

I can remember that me and my cousins were even planning to kill

someone after the fatwa -- killing Salman Rushdie after the fatwa. I

grew out of it and I became so sceptic. Are you scared to say this

now? You said at the beginning this is still quite a big thing for you

to say. It is a big deal but I'm not scared. I just believe what is

right. I need to say, I need to make people understand what's gone

through my life and what's happened to me and what is happening to other

kids in religious countries. It stays with people a long time

doesn't it? Absolutely. It can damage... Johnny? It took me about

ten years to find my way out of it and gradually realising that things

that I have been taught weren't true, and to get over the fact I

have been taught to accept what authority told me unquestioningly.

Your critical thinking skills get hammered because so many of the

teachings in fundamentalist Christianity, particularly those

that reject eve Luke, they are so illogical and you are taught this is

a good way to think, to disregard the evidence that disagrees with

your religion, and it encourages conspiracy theories and an

irrational too much to the evidence. I know Liz you would feel I'm

presenting a perverted version of Christianity, that what I think

about is not what you read, but what's fascinating about this is

what you believe is totally true biblical Christianity. We would both

have said we are taking the world of God and yet come to different

conclusions. It makes a mockery of it. It is all about context. The

question isn't so much that isn't it the beliefs that are the problem,

but good or bad parenting. You can have good or bad parents in whatever

background. They could be alcoholic, get divorced or take drugs. Larkin

said they mess you up, your mum and dad. I'm paraphrasing. If you coerce

your children it harms them. My parents taught me to use my powers

of critical thinking, to question everything. I have had a very good

education, I'm belowsed in that way. -- I'm blessed in that way. I've

decided that the evidence fits best with the account of the Bible. In

which case you will Joan me in condemning accelerated Christian

education. Definitely. Consensus. The debates will continue online and

on Twitter. Next week we are in Newcastle upon Tyne. For now it is

goodbye, enjoy your Sunday. Thank you for watching The Big Questions.