Episode 19 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions, wiping the slate clean - Christianity

versus UKIP. And, getting help to die.

We are live from Shelfield Community Academy in Walsall. Welcome

everybody to The Big Questions! Last week, the European Court of Justice

ruled that Google must remove search links to an old local newspaper

story about the bankruptcy of a certain Spanish gentleman. It is a

judgment with far-reaching implications for all internet search

engines, and for all of us. Everybody now has the right to apply

to a search engine requesting that should anybody search for your name,

no links will appear relating to anything which you have asked not to

be made public. It is all about the right to be forgotten. Lembit Opik,

nobody is ever going to forget you! What are you worried about, there is

a lot of stuff there were about you that the you would like to have

deleted, isn't there? Reality is that we do not really control our

identity in the public eye any more. If you Google something, you get not

what you want people to see about you, but what has been reported

about you, rightly or wrongly. For me, personally, there is tonnes of

libellous stuff which, if I had the money or time, I would have taken to

court to get rid of, but I have not been able to do that, because it

takes two or three years. So, most people form a judgment based on what

they read about me, and I do not think that is fair. People in here

are all subject to the same problem. I think this is a very good

judgment, not easy to enforce, but a very good judgment, because

ultimately, our identity is our property, and we must be able to

define who we are. The problem is that it is pretty nebulous stuff,

isn't it? Is their stuff about you which is true but which you would

like to have deleted? Varies. There is the libellous stuff which

obviously I would like not to be there. Then there is other stuff

which I am not comfortable about but which may be true. The problem is,

are we going to censor stuff according to what we judge about

it? This is probably going to have to be decided in court. But the

principle for me is simple, we have all got the right to privacy, and

the rights to be free from libellous stuff, and some sensitive

information which is not in the public interest. At the moment, it

is carte blanche, anything can be on the internet, however embarrassing,

however personal, and it is extremely hard to get rid of it.

That is why I believe this is a really good piece of legislation.

That is fair enough, isn't it, Mark Stephens? It is down to accuracy as

well, and stuff which was unfairly reported? I see a politician who

wants an image which is his own self-image, the way he would like to

project it to the public, not the way in which the public is entitled

to know about the politician, warts and all. I think that is part of the

problem. It is not that the information is going to disappear,

so, if you Google Lembit Opik on the BBC website, then, in those

circumstances... It is the conduit of Google in these search engines

this is a major problem, for example, it means that contemporary

social historians, students, academics, will not be able to find

out about the truthful information about individuals, if they are

perhaps writing a biography about somebody, those sort of pieces of

information will not be out there. It is not intended that it should be

there to try to redress libel. We have got libel laws. If you have

been libelled, go and sue somebody. This is about something completely

different. This is about allowing people to rewrite their own personal

history, and that is just an except double. That is completely a

misinterpretation of what is going on here. No it is not. Do you have

any much idea how much it costs to run a libel case in this country, it

can bankrupt someone! I know precisely how much, and it will cost

you nothing come Lembit Opik because lawyers will do it on a no-win, no

fee basis, if you have got a half decent case. I am not talking about

this as a politician, I am not an MP any more. The time and money and

paying it takes is enormous. This is not a debate about libel, this is a

debate about your right to be preened by yourself. That is not

acceptable. This is a continental law, the right to be forgotten. We

are not allowed to know about President Mitterrand's mistresses,

we are not allowed to know about all of those things... Some examples,

Max Mosley is very supportive of this judgment, and of course, he was

involved, it is Sunday morning, but he was involved in aid two do, a few

years back. But aspects of that were misreported, and inaccurately

reported, and he was not apparently talking German when that party took

place. And that was reported, and that is there for ever. Why

shouldn't he have the right to expunge that from the records? He

was vindicated, the public judgment of the court indicated Max Mosley,

both in privacy, and he was given the largest award of damages that

this country has ever given in a Prevacid case, and the German courts

have similarly given him an award in libel. -- in a river see case. -- in

a privacy case. This is something different. 50% of people, as of last

Friday, who worked asking for this to be taken down, where paedophiles,

politicians and people who did not like the information about them.

People like tax scammers, people who have been scamming the British

public. Those sorts of individuals have been abusing this new law.

Richard Beaumont, you are on the edge of your seat! What would you

like to say to the points that you have heard from Mark Stephens? I

would like to say that there is a fundamental right here to privacy,

and it has to be protected. The World Economic Forum published a

survey recently... Sorry, but if something is a matter of public

record, and also is a fact, do you want to erase that? I think it is

right that it should become obscure. It is not getting erased from the

record. Yes, it is. The signposts to enable us to obtain it are not

there. Mark, let him talk. The newspaper was told they did not have

to take the contents down. This is about the role of the search engine.

The search engine is not an index which is without value. It is an

economic reason, there are economic reasons why they promote certain

links and so forth. Therefore they have a slightly different interest.

This is a really important point - there is a technological solution

here, which will be fermented by all major search engines, Google, Bing,

Yahoo!, all of them, which is that, if you look up Nick Clegg, arson

conviction, on your computer dialled up from within the EU, you will not

find that search returned to you. If, however, that truthful

information... The follies of youth. Sure, but if you turn up that

information from South Africa, India, any of those countries,

Switzerland even, you will find that information. We are going for a

two-tier internet. The great thing about this is, at last we are

beginning to respect privacy. There is a Big Question which you have not

mentioned, public interest. Where is the public interest in knowing

everything about everybody? Answer that question, Padraig Reidy. We

have this focus on the details of a specific case, which is about a

bankruptcy which is a matter of public record. It is this banished

gentleman, who was bankrupt. I want to know, if I am going to go into

business with this person, if there is something dodgy in his financial

past. You might say it is not censorship, but essentially, you are

making this information impossible to find. There is a public interest

caveat, though. I would have thought bankruptcy was a pretty strong

public interest. It is 16 years ago! The other issue we have is that

there will be a flood of these request is coming in now. There has

already been a flood. These companies are very, very big, but to

cope with these impossible requests, and it will be impossible,

to comply with this. It will be really problematic. They have got a

few bob, Google. They have got a few bob. But Facebook, for example,

people complain people do not take things down fast enough. They get

about 100,000 complaints a month, at least. People are slightly scared of

how big search engines are, but eagerly Google. Somebody in the

Guardian newspaper wrote a piece saying this was great because it was

taking on the power of Google, but it has nothing to do with taking on

the power of Google. The fact is, people are scared of Google, but

this is not how you cope with the power of a very large company, by

essentially censoring the Web. It will affect anybody who tries to set

up a new search engine... Is this an infringement on free speech?

Essentially, I think it is an infringement on the right to

information. So, it is censorship? The access to information is being

severely damaged. Personally, I kind of agree with the right to have

privacy, but at the same time, it is a redundant argument, because there

is no way to completely get rid of any type of history about yourself.

You said, a certain Spanish gentleman, I could name another

story from a couple of years ago about a Welsh football, I will not

say his name... But at the same time, it has come out. Was there a

public interest? Because he is a public figure, it had to be out

there, but even if it has been blocked, people still know who it

is. Also there is the freedom of expression of the people who wanted

to talk about it. Anyone else? In a sense, is it not the same as a

criminal record? If somebody has done something incorrect and they

have that history about them, a criminal record does the same thing.

You cannot get rid of a criminal record. So why think of getting rid

of your internet history if you have done something wrong? Let's bring in

Milo Yiannopoulos, technology journalist. Now, here is a potential

problem - in the last couple of weeks, you did and effect give and

very, we hence if Expose of a self-styled so-called community

spokesman, who had spent a lot of time deleting, or attempting to

delete, his own internet history, covering his tracks. Will it not be

a charter for people like that? Yes. Mentioning no names a lot of the

objections boiled down to press reports from journalists. As one of

those journalists, you might expect me to say, I want my stuff online

for ever. But I also believe in redemption and compassion. I think

if this individual were to turn his life around, in ten years' time,

there is no reason why he should be prevented from getting jobs just

because he made a few mistakes. But I think it is different when you are

talking about politicians and properly public figures. To hear

Lembit Opik, I am sorry to say, sketch out this Orwellian vision of

an internet which is entirely created by politicians, to hear of a

by politicians to protect politicians, I am sorry, but it

makes my flesh crawl. Respond to that. I'm not a Member of Parliament

but I am a citizen. As David Trimble once said, just because you've got a

past doesn't mean you shouldn't able be to have a future. And what this

does is you can find everything out about everybody, you are bit smudged

for ever. That's not the world I want to live in. What is interesting

about the internet is it has introduced permanence into

reporting. Previously you would have the newspaper on your breakfast

table, stuff would be on the telly. Three weeks later there wouldn't

really be any way to get that back. Don't worry about what is in the

news, it will be tomorrow's chip wrapping paper. The internet has

changed that. I'm sorry, when you look up some of the absurd behaviour

and the way some public figures make themselves into spectacles and joke

figures... You just think... The idea that this person... You believe

your own profession. I stand accused! I see people dismantle...

Nigel Evans, very good friend of mine, spent a year defending himself

in court against sex charges and he was found innocent. When you look at

the reporting now, a massive amount about the accusations. He's got the

right to not expect all of that... I'm putting this to the audience and

the viewers as well. Does Nigel Evans have to spend the rest of his

life knowing all that stuff comes up... He doesn't deserve that. I

think it's a very specific case. In rape allegations there is a good

case for keeping the identity of the accused secret. Rape and sexual

charges, there are other problems in the mix there. But I've got to tell

you, when Ikea politicians and former politicians... The reason you

are here and that you have a career is you are using the prominence that

you gained as being an MP, using the name recognition that you had then

to do whatever you are doing now. When I hear people like that saying,

as you did, I want to be able to craft my Google results, it

terrifies me. It's exactly what you said. Winston is a former boxer. He

is terrifyingly right now! I believe 100% what this guy has to say.

Listen, you are just natural media creating the hype. People like you

are the reason why I can't find a girlfriend, man! That's a stretch!

I'm on Google... Listen, you've got to listen to me. I'm on Google as

being 61 years old. Look good looking I am! People read that...

Come on, now! The reader thinks this guy is 61 years old. How old are

you? I'm going to keep that secret. You've got the right. My political

career has been a terribly damaged. They said I joined every political

party on the sketch -- in the spectrum. I never joined Labour. I

have the greatest of sympathy for you, I'd want to sue, too. That this

inaccuracy. Everybody is entitled to privacy. Wikipedia, everybody

believes it. It's all on there. There was a very clear distinction

made in the ruling by the court that says if you are a public figure and

are in the public interest, then that can override the individual

privacy right. What is much more concerning is for people who are not

in the public realm and have damaging information for their

reputations. For example, should kids be allowed to make mistakes and

have those mistakes forgotten when they go to get a job? It's the same

fundamental rule. Let's go back over here. Mark Stevens. It's quite clear

that children are a different case. The UN covenant on the rights of the

child makes it clear that the indiscretions of childhood, use, if

you will, are the sorts of things that will be forgotten. That is Nick

Clegg with his arson offence. He was a student, he was over age, he was

living in Germany at the time. Everybody in this room has done

something they are ashamed of or would prefer things to be forgotten.

But we have to live with it, it's part of who we are. It's part of how

we grow up. It's part of what matures us. Everybody recognises

that and everybody we interact with recognises that. What about forgive

and forget? We forgive and we understand, but we embrace the

challenges we have of youth. That is not about rewriting and airbrushing

history. I promised I would come back to Lembit Opik. I see an

element of agreement developing here, in the sense that both of you

have said there are certain circumstances where this property

situation should be enforced. So we are not really arguing about the

principle now because we are all agreeing that in some circumstances

it is relevant, like innocent Nigel Evans... What we've also all agreed

as you are not eligible. In your rise. There was an element of

agreement on how far we go. There's a simple point. Every person in this

room and in this country, everyone watching this, has the right to the

public interest protection. Most of what is reported about public

figures is spurious and does -- has no relevance whatsoever to the

public... We are, I'm afraid, but you are welcome to contribute to any

of the other debates, we're out of time. Thank for that. -- thank you

for that. Now, if you have something to say about that debate, log onto

bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions. Follow the links to where you can join in

the discussion online. Or join in on Twitter as well. We are also

debating, can you be a Christian and vote for UKIP?

We won't know how UKIP has fared in the European elections until the

polls close in Italy tonight. But they gained over 160 seats in the

local elections in England's towns and boroughs, at the expense of all

three major parliamentary parties. The success was despite a lot of

slip-ups, mis-speaks, whatever you want to call them, which suggested

that some UKIP candidates don't appear to abide by Christ's

commandment to love thy neighbour as thyself, or seek to follow the

example of the Good Samaritan by helping foreigners down on their

luck. Flat rate taxes, for example, might be hard to combine with

blessing the poor. Can you be a Christian and vote for UKIP? Rev

Arlington Trotman. You wanted to come on the last one, but you can

now. What aspects of UKIP do you believe and Christian? Let me start

by a comment my son made to this question. He said, if Christians

find themselves voting for UKIP, they are on very seriously shaky

ground. What he meant was that the perception on the one hand of UKIP

as a racist party has absolutely no place within Christians as it is

expressed. But my point is this. Whose perception is that? The

general public's perception. Lots of members of the public believe that

UKIP is racist. There are reports that suggest that UKIP, 40% of its

membership are people with racist abuse. Those who support UKIP

financially are people who are on the far right. So there is a

perception there but there is also the reality. Where did you get your

40% figure from? This is a report which has recently been written that

suggests there are at least 40% of its members. What is racist about

wanting to have, whether you agree with it or not, but what is racist

about wanting to have a points -based system for immigration so

that this island doesn't become too crowded? For skilled workers from

all corners of the world rather than just concentrating on Eastern

Europe. In certain areas public services are under strain, so surely

to lift the pressure on those public services is truly to love thy

neighbour. But that started from the other end of the question. Migration

is as old as the hills. People have moved and immigrated in order to

make personal progress and progress generally as a society. The

contribution of migrants to Britain, Britain has been built on migrant

labour. Britain has continued to exploit and explore the realities of

migration in very positive way. So the question about numbers is a

non-question. Is there a Gospel imperative for mass immigration?

No, not necessarily but the reality is whether the Gospel expresses it,

it is a reality for us today. What UKIP is saying on the one hand, most

people can agree with it. That if a country is open, if there is an open

immigration policy, for example, and everybody and anybody comes, those

who will no good to people within the country, there is a question

there. But the reality is this. If you take UKIP's stands on this, and

anti-immigrant stance, several things have fuelled that. One is the

current Immigration Bill 2014. We need to get a response to some of

the stuff you've said. Sure, but the final point on this is the

anti-immigrant stance in our country doesn't stop with UKIP. It starts

with the fact that the two main political parties have not addressed

this question seriously enough, with sufficient commitment in allaying

the fears that permeate the country. So groups alike UKIP and

other far right groups can actually have their say on a question that we

all should be working on. As a UKIP candidate... Commonwealth

spokesman. Is UKIP founded an un-Christian principles? Nigel

Farage, our leader, is a Christian. This man believes in the Church of

England. At this present moment I am absolutely furious, we have this

massive situation whereby the carnival went on and the whole thing

was deemed as some sort of carnival procession to prove that UKIP isn't

racist. This word racist, which has been dreamt up by the so called

three political parties and pushed by the media, has been put out there

and been used to freely. It has been used to separate and divide people

in society. The pastor, he has his opinions. In my group we run 18

candidates for this last election. Nine black, nine white, all

different types of people. I have my two pastors here today to have it

out with you. You have got your opinions and you think what you

think, but most people are going on this media agenda. Many men, some

big men tonight, let me finish, please, you had your time and I was

polite and didn't jump in. Many men in top jobs tonight will lose their

position in life, so the agenda is to bring UKIP down and bring it to

the floor. When I look at the policies that have been created by

some of these political parties, looked deeply into them and realise

that it wasn't UKIP who pulled out the advent, it wasn't UKIP who took

us to war, it wasn't UKIP who created Air Passenger Duty will stop

looking to these political parties to see how demonic some of them are.

Demonic? There are aspects of their parties that are demonic. One

second. Nigel Farage has said some pretty controversial things. He said

he was on a train and no one was speaking English. Could you imagine

Jesus going to a marketplace and saying, there is no one speaking

Aramaic here? Loads of people say that. The comments that Nigel Farage

passes comments that... I have been campaigning in this last election

for some six months now. I knocked on doors and some of the

expressions, verbal, not abuse, but verbal taunts I got from some people

was amazing. English people coming to the door and saying, you are

UKIP? Black people, my people coming to the door. I want to vote for

you, Winston. I want to vote for you for the simple fact that we, as

black people, have come to this country and have been

disenfranchised. You speak on behalf of of communities. Who have you been

disenfranchised by? Successive governments. UKIP is the answer? We

consider ourselves to be a predominantly Christian country.

Lembit Opik is dying to come in here. -year-old I've got quite a

strong faith, and however well or badly I live my life I can't deny

that faith. -year-old Wace 's Church has a presence in the Midlands here

too. I'm not a UKIP member. It is disingenuous to say a political

party is not Christian. Nick Clegg claims to be an atheist, that

doesn't make the Liberal Democrats and unchristian or demonic party.

I'm a Christian. UKIP has been demonised to an extent. These sorts

of things don't do credit to policies, because we should be

arguing about the policies... Is it about the individuals or the

policies? It should be about the policies. You can have different

views about immigration but still have faith. Let me make my position

clear with respect to Winston. I congratulate you for standing up for

what you believe, and all the other black guys in UKIP. What I am saying

is, there is a perception of racism. And if there is a perception,

Christianity is based on the principles of justice, truth,

looking after your neighbour, etc. It is therefore crucial that not

only the perception but the reality of what UKIP stands for... Let me

put something to you, hang on. Please. Racism in this country has

killed people. Wait a minute. Let me steer it this way. This has been

much in the press as well, the whole debate about equal marriage, he said

he would not expel anyone from the party who had, as he put it,

old-fashioned views on homosexuality. Then we have the

councillor saying the floods were punishment for gay marriage. You

have got leading evangelical Christians in America who have said

9/11 was punishment for homosexuality, New Orleans was

punishment for homosexuality and so forth. Are they not Christian? As

Lembit Opik has said, Christianity is lived according to people's

perception of it, according to how people understand who Jesus was for

them, whether that is accepted or not. In this country, there are

nominal Christians, people who are regarded as Christians simply by

birth, or by marriage. There are others who live their lives every

day according to very strong core principles of justice, truth, peace

macro and so on. Therefore it becomes important to understand in

this debate that when I speak about racism, I speak about the fact that

people like Stephen Lawrence have been killed, and several others have

been demolished... There are some who say to oppose gay marriage is

unchristian, there are others who say that to support it is

unchristian. So, perception is the keyword. If you look at parties

which to identify as overtly Christian, they are overwhelmingly

awful, from the Democratic unionist party in Northern Ireland - last

week you had people they're trying to band plays, you had another

candidate, not a DUP candidate, but saying she would outlaw

homosexuality. You go across to the Tea Party in the United States, who

identify very much as Christian, all the way to the Lord's Resistance

Party, who murder thousands of people in the name of God. So I am

wearing of -- I am wary of identifying Christian as meaning

good. Did you vote UKIP? I did. The churches are groaning under the

weight of catholic Polish people, use said be celebrating that. All of

the institutions in this country are essentially very left wing, they are

horrified by UKIP. There is this assumption that right-wing opinions

and moral failing are linked, and people have normal, everyday

concerns, shared by millions of people, and it is this attitude of

saying, there is something wrong with that. I got called all sorts of

things. But I thought about it for a long time, and eventually, I came

round to giving you my vote. To say that UKIP is racist is absurd. The

BNP WAS racist. I do not think you could be a Christian and vote for

the BNP. But it is plainly obvious that Nigel Farage is not racist, the

party is not racist and it is ridiculous. I am glad we can agree

on something in the media as well, as the media has got this totally

wrong. If they wanted to cause UKIP damage, the last thing they should

have done is identifying normal, everyday worries and anxieties,

shared by millions of people in this country, as racist. The media has

got this wrong. It is the Christian principle about helping your fellow

human beings? What I am saying is, to say that love thy neighbour means

we should have an open-door immigration policy is incredibly

naive. Gentleman over there. Good morning. Good morning. I believe

that the message from UKIP is about people enjoying their rights

responsibly. You do not walk into a country believing you can get so

much from a country and putting less in. That is not fair and it is not

right. Here is a party who is making this very clear to everybody. So,

you applaud that message? I do, even though I did not vote UKIP. I

believe that! I want to hear this gentleman out, and then I want more

audience members, please. I believe that people coming to this country

should come with the aim of putting something into the country, and then

expect to take something out of the country. That is fair. And down

there, the gentleman with the glasses? It is all about people

contributing to the country, if that is the case, does that mean we can

look at people who were born here and are not contributing to the

country? It is not about that. Let's get this right... Wait, I want to

get to the audience. You come back to me, we can do some sparring. If I

have got time! On the basis of some of the arguments, would it not be

different for a Christian to vote for some of the other parties as

well, though? The fact is, at the end of the day, voting for any

political party, as a Christian, is a major issue. If we look at what

Nick Clegg has done, at what the Tories are doing, about putting

people into deeper poverty, if we look at UKIP, they are exploiting

quite cleverly in my view the things which divide society, which some

people think but do not want to say. But there is one massive thing which

UKIP has got. Over the past three months, when did you not see Nigel

Farage in the newspapers and now their media machine must be

revelling in this. They are being contribution, they are saying things

which people are saying in their living rooms. At the end of the day,

the danger is, by exploiting the divisions in society, are we going

back, Winston, to the days, and you know this, no blacks, no Irish, no

darks? That is the danger. I saw Kevin agreeing to that... I am

Irish. The Reverend said earlier on that this country was built on

immigration. So, the question now is, if you take a view on

immigration, and what we do not want to do is to take a naive view of the

immigration problem in the 21st century, or take a very simplistic,

easy hit. I agree with Lembit that just demonising a party, calling it

racist, is an helpful to the debate. -- an helpful. I take the point that

the way the debate has gone this morning is that it makes it seem as

though no Christian should ever vote for any party in this country. But

the problem then is that what you might say is that if you are a

Christian, you have to take seriously the possibility to use

your franchise for a good end. What that then means is that it is

actually using your vote in order to make sure the politicians who do get

in are the ones who actually hold those values. Whether you are a

Christian or not, I think those values are still important for a

society. So the question then becomes, what kind of society do you

want to be? Those of us who have faith, we all fall short... RU

pro-equal marriage? I am. These are difficult issues to wrestle with. I

have two very short and simple thoughts. One is that to prick food

anyone from a particular faith from a party is offensive. -- to

preclude. Secondly, if Jesus was here, and we said, who should we

vote for? He would say, vote for love. But which political party

right now is representing love in this country? None of them! One

thing with UKIP, and I am not a UKIP supporter, Winston, but one thing

with them, what you see is what you get, you know what they stand for.

People say they wish more politicians were like that, so thank

you all very much indeed for that. APPLAUSE

You can join in all the debates this morning online.

And you can tweet using the hashtag #bbctbq. Tell us what you think

about our last Big Question - should assisted dying be legal? We are

looking for audiences for the last show in this series, from Brighton,

on 15th June. Next week we are back here at Shelfield Community Academy,

with a special edition, asking one very Big Question - is there life

after death? Join us then. Last week, Lord Falconer's bill to

legalise assisted dying went through its first stage in the House of

Lords. Its aim is to make it legal for doctors to give certain drugs to

people who want to die. Should assisted dying be legal? Well, Peter

Squires, good morning. You accompanied your mother to Dignitas.

Tell us about that, it must have been so difficult? It was very

difficult. Mum was suffering from Huntington's disease, which is an

hereditary condition. She had seen her father and her elder sister die

of it so she knew exactly what it was like in the end stages. Man was

six to seven years of age, she was in the advanced stages of the

disease. She was suffering things like loss of movement, stumbling,

falling, difficult to speak, express herself. She regularly struggled to

swallow and choked on food, for example. So, very advanced symptoms

but not the end stage of the disease. She determined, based on

her understanding of what the disease looked like in the end

stages, that she did not want to go through that. Cuff had at least two

to our knowledge failed suicide attempts, the most recent of which

ended up in her being hospitalised for six months. And when she came

out of hospital she was absolutely determined that she wanted to go to

Dignitas. She discussed this with her close family, especially myself

and my brother Andrew. Of course we offered alternatives to her. But

over a period of months, it became clear that this was her rightful

choice, in our mind. Her personal autonomy? Indeed. So, we came round

to support her in her objective to go to Dignitas. Do you feel it was

released when she did go? I strongly believe that a change in the law in

this country would have a lot of benefits, including giving people

the mental and emotional safety net that there was something there for

them, that they would have control over their own death. She would have

been able to do it at home but she felt forced to make the arduous

journey to Switzerland whilst she was still fit to do so. She did not

want so in my mother's specific case, she ended up travelling to

Switzerland by our estimation several years before she would have

needed to die. But when you start the application process, which takes

several months, to go to Dignitas, mum did not know whether or not she

would be accepted right Dignitas. I remember very clearly when she got

the acceptance letter, the relief that came over her, that she knew

that she had a way out and she was not going to have to go through the

end stages of this disease, which is progressive, there was no way of

getting out of the fact that she was going to have to suffer. We felt

that sense of release with her, after we'd spent the last five days

with her. It was a very surreal experience, to spend the last five

days of her life, all three of us being strong for each other, trying

to enjoy our last five days together, at the same time knowing

that she was going to die on Friday. Hey, you had locked-in syndrome.

Yours is an amazing story. You are writing a book about it. I've

written a book. It's worth reading, it's amazing. You think this is

about personal autonomy, it's nobody else's business. Absolutely. I have

locked-in syndrome. That's where you literally can feel everything, think

normally, like I think now, but move absolutely nothing. For a short

period of time, and mine was in the acute phase in hospital, not in the

community for years on end, but in the period of time I was locked in

it was hell on earth. It was painful beyond belief. I had leg cramps that

I had no way of communicating. I had no way of relieving them because I

couldn't move a muscle. Did you think about taking this option? In

hospital, I wanted my life to end for the first few weeks. I don't

think that should be offered to anybody in hospital, so I'm not in

favour of that. But ultimately you are in favour of people having that

choice? Absolutely. We should have autonomy. It should be freedom of

choice. Specifically for people who are fully cognitive and are able to

communicate, one way or another, whether it is with a digit or an

eyelid, but to show their cognition. And have had some sort of

psychiatric evaluation, so that it's not just the patient and the doctor

or the patient and beloved one. There is a witness. I think

absolutely. You make it as safe as possible. Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick,

director of the euthanasia prevention coalition, why is it any

business of anyone else's? Isn't that exactly the point? Let's be

clear, I want to be absolutely open about this. I am not making any

judgment about these individual situations. My concern is what

happens when you legalise what is called assisted dying. Let's be

clear about our terms here. Assisted dying is described by the

full-colour Commission report as a compendium word which includes

assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia in. Lord Falconer himself

has been quoted as saying that this country is not ready for euthanasia.

And that's quite right because when people actually understand that

euthanasia is involved here, they do look at places like where I've just

been, Belgium. What's happening there? The law has just been passed

to allow children of any age, as though a child of seven who is just

beginning to have a concept of death, could actually understand

what it means to choose euthanasia. It's nine in Belgium? No, it's any

age at all. The legal age in Holland is 12, but in Holland they also...

What the circumstances that that might be enforced? For example, a

child... Part of the difficulty in Belgium is that people don't have to

be terminally ill, people are being used delays to a depressed.

Euthanasia is an emotive term. -year-old I'm talking about Belgium

now, it is a law. One of their proponents was for disabled people.

People who are depressed, people who have had failed sex change

operations, and anorexic woman who was being abused by the psychiatrist

who was treating them. These people have no hope. There is the illusion

of choice. When you have nowhere else to go. But they felt that they

didn't want to go on, so isn't... The children point I will put to

Stephen in a second, but isn't it, ultimately, as adults, their choice

and none of your business? That's exactly the point. What is happening

in individual situations... I agree, no one should have to pay Dignitas

or go through the horror of travelling out of their home and out

of the country to fulfil whatever decision. But the problem is that

when you legalise, what you get behind the law is a society that I

don't want to be part of. If Peter and his brother had helped their

mother in this country, should they have been faced with a criminal

prosecution? No. The issue is should they face an investigation. In order

to make sure that people who are vulnerable, people who are co-wurst

into killing themselves people can be, it's very subtle coercion,

should actually have protection from that coercion. In that context, when

the law is passed, that coercion... That protection order is therefore

vulnerable people. I get so frustrated when I hear people like

Kevin, who are trying to confuse the issue and compared this to the law

in Belgium. The proposed law from Lord Falconer does not bear any

similarity to the law in Belgium, it's based on a law in Oregon. It's

not about euthanasia, it's about assisted dying. It's for people who

are in the last six months of their life, suffering from a terminal

illness. How does this proposed law change make you feel? It makes me

feel cold inside and afraid. It makes me feel afraid for all of you

because we've talked about perceptions today, the things we

think, the things we do affect our perception of society. There is a

perception in society that being disabled is bad and being

perfect... We are all surrounded by these programmes about Botox. For

me, it's almost like we can say we can Botox death out of life. I would

like people to consider, if it becomes legal, and I'm sorry to tell

you, Kevin, I think it will because people don't see the big picture.

Just think, we won't be saying, when did he die, about somebody. When --

will be saying, when will he die? We are a country that like to make

formulas out of things. So what will happen, you have from care ward to

crematorium? Will a doctor come round the village, will you trust

your doctor? In Oregon there are people known as death doctors.

your doctor? In Oregon there are doctor said to my son when he was

very little, he was nervous about having injections, he said, you've

got to have them or you will end up like her. I've heard Kate talk about

the indignity you felt. I was locked in for many, many months and I know

exactly where you are at to an in for many, many months and I know

say. I'm interested as to why, from what I can gather of your

interviews, that you didn't want to live? A sort of message to your

children... I can only take from that there was a sort of message

from your children that there was a sort of message

doesn't want to come home and live. That is absolutely rubbish! It was

Peter as well. My youngest was six and my eldest was ten at the time. I

can't tell you the separation anxiety that I had. You don't need

to because I had it. I can bend, it was absolutely intense. Plus the

fact that where I was heading for was a care home, at the end of the

day. Wide? Because I was making no progress. My progress turned around

in May 2010 beyond all the expectations of the doctors. You are

confusing lots of issues here. I work in the charity I founded that

is about inspiring people to motivate them to develop, whether it

is emotionally, physically or otherwise. However... If the law had

existed and you had taken benefit from that law, you wouldn't be here.

Did you not hear what I said at the top of the programme? It should

never be offered to anybody in the acute phase in hospital. The minute

it is open... One at a time. The minute it is on the table, then the

problem is it is not just offered to you, it's offered to everyone in the

situation. Oregon, there is no regulation once the person has

passed the test. The death might happen two years later, they doesn't

even haven't -- to be anyone in the rule. The doctor who knows his

patient for ten years... Different legislation could be drafted here.

That's a false food. No, Winston, we've got people we must come to. I

want to listen to Dr Stephen Smith from Birmingham Law School, an

expert in bioethics. What do you say about Kevin Vase and Nicky's

objectives and what is happening in Belgium, how can that be right? I'm

with Peter on this. Belgium's law, it is different from what the

Faulkner bill is. People worry it will be the direction of travel.

Greene I understand that will stop I think what we need to pay attention

to is what the law is set up to do. If we are talking about what the

procedural safeguards are and those kinds of things, we need to focus on

what this law says as opposed to what other one say. The issue in

Belgium, particularly the issue involving children, is not one we

ought to pay attention to, it's not one that ought to control the

discussion. Quite simply, Lord Falconer's law doesn't envisage

anything close to what Belgium is doing with children. What about the

pressure that Kevin referred to above people feeling a burden? It's

interesting to look at the data on this. There is a reasonable amount

of data from the Netherlands, Oregon, every year in Oregon they

publish an annual report. It isn't, in fact, vulnerable groups which are

being pushed into this. The average person who undertakes assisted

being pushed into this. The average suicide in Oregon... It is... The

average person who takes assisted suicide in Oregon is white,

middle-class, college educated and younger than they otherwise, so they

tend to go younger. It doesn't pay for their treatment but it says you

can have euthanasia instead, it is much cheaper. You wanted to say

something. I'm vehicle water mater of disabled activists for dignity in

dying. -- in water mater. In terms of disabled people that have been

surveyed, recently 79% have said they support assisted dying for

terminally ill people only. In terms of people's value in society, you

support the bill with the strict... Which disabled Persons organisation

has come out in favour of this bill? You are paid by the lobby group.

There is no disabled lobby behind you. This is a nonsense. What is

your name? Greg. You believe you should have the right. You, me,

anyone, one should have the right? In terms of the bill, it is

terminally ill and dying people. And disabled people. Disabled people are

always mentioned. You pick any paper up. They are not in the bill. Lord

Falconer wants them to be in the bill. They are not in the bill. You

pick any paper up that is a pro-assisted suicide argument and

you will see, and disabled people. Every day in this country you can

hear a negative attitude. Is this not scaremongering? Will it happen?

As the doctor said from Birmingham, the bill you start with is the bill

you get. You have to look at the detail. That's what happened in

Holland, they started out with a bill for terminally ill people and

they ended up killing... Sorry, we haven't got time. They started out

with a bill for terminally ill people with cancer with less than

six months to live. They've ended up where they are. As always, the

debates will continue online and on Twitter. Next week we're back here

in Walsall for that special - is there life after death? But for now

it's goodbye and have a great Sunday.

When the first travellers crossed America, they were faced with this -