:00:00. > :00:00.Today on The Big Questions: human rights versus religious rights -
:00:07. > :00:34.which should prevail? Good morning. I'm Nicky Campbell.
:00:35. > :00:37.Welcome to The Big Questions. Well, we're back at Queen Mary University
:00:38. > :00:41.of London in Tower Hamlets to debate one very Big Question: Should human
:00:42. > :00:47.rights always outweigh religious rights? Welcome everyone here to The
:00:48. > :00:50.Big Questions. Should gay couples be allowed to marry or form families?
:00:51. > :00:54.Should women be ordained as priests or consecrated as bishops, or be
:00:55. > :00:58.allowed to wear a veil or to be segregated from men? Should
:00:59. > :01:01.employees be allowed to refuse to work on the Sabbath or to wear a
:01:02. > :01:13.cross at work, or to refuse to handle alcohol or pork products? All
:01:14. > :01:16.of these questions weigh human rights in the balance against
:01:17. > :01:19.religious rights, and some of these disputes have ended up in the
:01:20. > :01:26.highest courts in Britain and Europe. So, we have assembled
:01:27. > :01:30.atheists, Schumann this, but others from many -- believers from many
:01:31. > :01:36.different faiths this morning. You can have your say on Twitter or
:01:37. > :01:40.online. Just log onto our website, where you will find things to
:01:41. > :01:45.continue our discussion online. There will be lots of contributions
:01:46. > :01:53.from our varied lively and well informed London audience. Should
:01:54. > :01:59.human rights always prevail over religious rights? Davis Mac-Iyalla,
:02:00. > :02:07.you are the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender group Christians In
:02:08. > :02:13.Exile. You believe that human rights are universal. Explain why. Yes, I
:02:14. > :02:21.believe human rights are universal, and I also do believe that we should
:02:22. > :02:27.outweigh religious rights because most of the religious right that we
:02:28. > :02:31.talk about, love your neighbour as yourself, feed the hungry, they are
:02:32. > :02:39.all born out of natural human rights and needs. So if you follow what is
:02:40. > :02:43.human rights, you see very clearly that human rights should outweigh
:02:44. > :02:51.religious rights. Today, if you look at society, where we have problems
:02:52. > :02:55.in the context of human sexuality, you will find that religious people
:02:56. > :03:01.will want a special right for themselves, and the people who are
:03:02. > :03:06.discriminating other people who are persecuting. Human rights have no
:03:07. > :03:12.persecution or discrimination. Human rights provides for everybody and
:03:13. > :03:16.treats everybody equally. So wherever you are in the world, you
:03:17. > :03:21.should be able to vote, women should be able to drive, women should be
:03:22. > :03:26.able to be educated, there should be Gay marriage everywhere, the right
:03:27. > :03:31.to leave a religion - something we will come onto, I am sure. But
:03:32. > :03:35.should there not be, as others might say to you, respect for other
:03:36. > :03:43.religions, different cultures and different traditions? People who are
:03:44. > :03:47.religious, Christians and those faiths, can define themselves within
:03:48. > :03:54.their community. As far as I am concerned, any definition that you
:03:55. > :03:58.give yourself that excludes a section of that community... Let me
:03:59. > :04:01.use the Christian faith for example. Homosexuals have been part
:04:02. > :04:08.of the Christian faith from the beginning, and the church doctrine
:04:09. > :04:15.prevents them from marrying. Gay people cannot be priests, they
:04:16. > :04:19.cannot be bishops. Any community that excludes has lost a kind of
:04:20. > :04:25.respect. There is no human rights, there is no equality, there is no
:04:26. > :04:31.universally a la tea in such a community. People like me do not
:04:32. > :04:37.have respect. Reverend Betty King, how do you respond? Religion as a
:04:38. > :04:44.human right. We choose to worship God. So for you to say that human
:04:45. > :04:49.rights should be universal, we have a right to worship our God. We have
:04:50. > :04:55.a right to make our decision. In every religion, it is the moral
:04:56. > :04:59.conscience of the nation. So when we are worshipping, these laws are
:05:00. > :05:04.being made. Where you want to come in to tell a particular religious
:05:05. > :05:11.group what you -- to accept what you think is your right, I disagree with
:05:12. > :05:14.that. I have not seen, from Nigeria to the UK, where religious people,
:05:15. > :05:24.Christians or Muslims that I know of, have been forced to accept
:05:25. > :05:29.anything. What the society is saying to you is, live and let live. You
:05:30. > :05:32.want your right, you want to exist, you want to worship God the way you
:05:33. > :05:38.want, and you are telling other people that they don't have that
:05:39. > :05:46.right to be themselves. I will be with you in one second, Sahar.
:05:47. > :05:52.Attitudes have changed and evolved, and have progressed. We no longer
:05:53. > :05:58.burn witches, as I think Exodus tells us to do. We no longer think
:05:59. > :06:02.homosexuality is a disease. There are lots of things that we are
:06:03. > :06:06.transgressing from the Old Testament, that are now accepted.
:06:07. > :06:14.These may be seen by you as eternal truths, but the world has changed.
:06:15. > :06:22.It has, but human rights is about respecting another person. Being
:06:23. > :06:27.kind to another person. Understanding another person. Are
:06:28. > :06:31.you being kind to him if you disapprove of Davis marrying the
:06:32. > :06:40.person he wants to marry? Nobody is understanding what -- why he is
:06:41. > :06:45.doing what he is doing. It is his choice to be with a man or woman of
:06:46. > :06:49.the same gender. I don't have to believe his Troy says. It is my
:06:50. > :06:57.right, as a human being, to believe what I believe. This is a false
:06:58. > :07:00.stuck to me. Human rights initially evolved as a safeguard for the
:07:01. > :07:07.individual against the oppressive power of the state, and one of the
:07:08. > :07:12.basic fundamental human rights was the protection of religion, the
:07:13. > :07:17.right to practice your religion, to manifest your religion, to state
:07:18. > :07:20.your beliefs and conscience. Trying to make this dichotomy that you
:07:21. > :07:26.either choose religious rights of human rights, it is totally false.
:07:27. > :07:30.There is a grave danger that what we are actually doing is prioritising
:07:31. > :07:36.the sexual rights of a minority group. Let's not forget that
:07:37. > :07:43.homosexuals form 1.5% of the population. In prioritising sexual
:07:44. > :07:46.rights, we are in grave danger of overriding the traditional human
:07:47. > :07:53.rights, which is the freedom of religion. Surely minorities, whether
:07:54. > :07:58.they be the 1.5% of Christians in countries far away from here, or the
:07:59. > :08:02.1.5% of gay people in this country, surely it is minorities who needs
:08:03. > :08:09.their rights to be protected? Charlie is coming in. We have to
:08:10. > :08:13.talk about minorities. Sometimes I'm told that Jesus only had 12
:08:14. > :08:18.followers, so that is a relevant point to make. I do believe with
:08:19. > :08:21.Lynda not to separate human rights and religious right has a different
:08:22. > :08:25.thing. There is something called Article 9 on the European Convention
:08:26. > :08:29.on Human Rights that makes it very clear that everyone has a right to
:08:30. > :08:33.freedom of thought, conscience and religion. That is all beliefs.
:08:34. > :08:37.Article 9 makes it very clear that even though you can have whatever
:08:38. > :08:43.believes you want, when you manifest those beliefs, they can be
:08:44. > :08:49.restricted. It is a qualified right. Restricted in what way?
:08:50. > :08:55.Example, if you manifest your religion in such a way that
:08:56. > :09:01.infringes someone else's rights, it is right to restrict the right to
:09:02. > :09:07.manifest your religion. It is something like the B cases, or the
:09:08. > :09:11.Lady Lilian Ladele who went to Europe because she didn't want to
:09:12. > :09:17.perform a civil partnership for a gay couple. That's a very clear
:09:18. > :09:23.example of how her manifestation of her religion was quite clearly going
:09:24. > :09:32.to, and did in fact, in fringe someone else's right. That is what
:09:33. > :09:36.we are talking about. The question in the first place is based on the
:09:37. > :09:40.assumption that there was a conflict between human rights and religious
:09:41. > :09:45.rights, and that the reality is not true. Each case has to be dealt with
:09:46. > :09:50.individually. Everyone has the right to manifest what they truly and
:09:51. > :09:59.deeply believe. Let me mention that this does not mean, for the case of
:10:00. > :10:01.the B for example, that I will justify for myself to discriminate
:10:02. > :10:10.against them. From an Islamic point of view, a same-sex relationship is
:10:11. > :10:17.not permitted under Islamic. That is now agreed upon. It doesn't mean,
:10:18. > :10:21.for me, to project my belief into my action, allowing myself to
:10:22. > :10:27.discriminate against them. Human rights and religious rights are in a
:10:28. > :10:34.line, and there is no conflict. Do you understand the position of the
:10:35. > :10:37.evangelical couple who ran the bed breakfast, and then the gay couple
:10:38. > :10:42.turned up and they didn't want them staying, not just because they were
:10:43. > :10:48.gay, but because they didn't want unmarried people sharing a room.
:10:49. > :10:54.That is an important thing to say. I am speaking from the principle point
:10:55. > :10:58.of view. Even if I have this belief that is against a same-sex
:10:59. > :11:02.relationship, I wouldn't allow myself to discriminate against them.
:11:03. > :11:09.But each case has to be dealt with individually. I cannot generalise. I
:11:10. > :11:13.would like to deal with this question first. We have the veil ban
:11:14. > :11:17.in France, which is being fought at the moment in court. If that were to
:11:18. > :11:25.be brought in here, what impact would it have on your life? It would
:11:26. > :11:28.be terrifying for me, being a British active citizen within
:11:29. > :11:35.society, being a community organiser. Any such ban taking place
:11:36. > :11:40.in Britain means nothing but marginalising me and isolating me. I
:11:41. > :11:46.will not be able to contribute. Why not? Because you can't leave your
:11:47. > :11:53.home? Of course. I will be staying home, isolated, because the ban is
:11:54. > :11:56.there. It is against the basic religious belief that is protected
:11:57. > :12:03.by the human rights, that I have a right to manifest this in a public
:12:04. > :12:09.capacity. Why would it be so bad to show your face? Remind people why?
:12:10. > :12:16.It is an act of worship. I believe, for me, it is a way to strive and be
:12:17. > :12:20.closer to God. Each of us has different ways of striving to be
:12:21. > :12:25.closer to God in different ways. This is my way to be closer to him,
:12:26. > :12:30.to wear the veil, because it isn't act of worship. And it is also
:12:31. > :12:37.modesty. And I will be rewarded for it. This is what I believe. What do
:12:38. > :12:43.you believe in bout modesty? You can be modest without covering your
:12:44. > :12:48.face. This is my own manifestation. This is my own modesty. People can
:12:49. > :12:57.differ. Betti, presumably, you support human rights. I support what
:12:58. > :13:02.France is doing. I thought you supported religious rights? Only
:13:03. > :13:09.your own religious rights? Let me explain what I mean. I'm a
:13:10. > :13:14.Christian, she is a Muslim. Supporting the question of France
:13:15. > :13:22.banning women wearing burka, there is a reason for that. There are
:13:23. > :13:27.wonderful people that where a burka. Recently we found a terrorist going
:13:28. > :13:33.under a burka. When you were talking I didn't interrupted. Please let me
:13:34. > :13:41.explain. We found people hiding under the burka to cause an
:13:42. > :13:45.atrocity. In France, I believe that the nation of France goes and
:13:46. > :13:52.supports people that are fighting against one another. They go to
:13:53. > :14:00.these countries and, really, protect their human right. It doesn't matter
:14:01. > :14:04.what religion. It has happened, the Kenyan shopping mall, but that is to
:14:05. > :14:10.extrapolate from a small part of what we are talking about. They are
:14:11. > :14:18.trying to protect their citizens. David Lammy MP is looking rather
:14:19. > :14:22.frustrated. Why is this? I think we are in danger of asserting solely
:14:23. > :14:29.rights and not asserting the responsibility that goes with those
:14:30. > :14:33.rights. The point is, how do we live together? In this country, this is a
:14:34. > :14:38.pluralistic country in which there are lots of traditions and people.
:14:39. > :14:43.When I am sitting in my advice surgery, in Tottenham Townhall on a
:14:44. > :14:46.Friday evening, any one of my constituents can come and see me
:14:47. > :14:52.with a problem. It is not for me to say you cannot wear a niqab, in the
:14:53. > :14:56.same way that if somebody comes in with tattoos from their head down to
:14:57. > :15:00.their toes, they come in with the shortest miniskirt, I make no
:15:01. > :15:04.judgement at all with the advice that I offer and the support that I
:15:05. > :15:10.give to the individual. It seems to me that the state should not be
:15:11. > :15:15.engaged in that. You do make rules in relations to schools,
:15:16. > :15:20.courtrooms, pilots, where your religious belief can get in the
:15:21. > :15:24.way. But, as a responsible citizen, we have to be in a place where we
:15:25. > :15:28.support the rights and responsibilities of everyone. I
:15:29. > :15:33.totally agree. When it comes to security, I absolutely do not have
:15:34. > :15:37.any problem to take at off, whether it is in court, I have no problem.
:15:38. > :15:42.The issue is that it is clearly, clearly, this whole dilemma, it is
:15:43. > :15:50.targeting the Muslims and they are targeting the Muslim women wearing a
:15:51. > :15:59.veil, who are actually a minority. What about other religions? Yes, in
:16:00. > :16:05.just a second. Maajid Nawaz, from the Quilliam Foundation, a Muslim
:16:06. > :16:09.and also a secularist, it is fair to say? What do you think about this
:16:10. > :16:12.particular aspect? We have to strike a middle ground between what I would
:16:13. > :16:21.call the aggressive secularism of the French and aggressive Islam,
:16:22. > :16:23.forcing people to accept a certain interpretation of Islam. That middle
:16:24. > :16:34.ground I called British common sense. That means respecting the
:16:35. > :16:39.fact that people like Harmaner have the right to wear the veil. It also
:16:40. > :16:43.entails the responsibilities that they've just mentioned. That means
:16:44. > :16:46.as well as being liberal, choosing what we do with our own bodies,
:16:47. > :16:49.human rights mean that we have to respect others in their choices
:16:50. > :16:56.about what people do with their bodies. That is the relationship
:16:57. > :17:02.between liberalism and human rights. So, if we apply that to the veil,
:17:03. > :17:07.there are certain areas where the veil must not only be respected, but
:17:08. > :17:11.there are areas where it must be lifted. For example, if a parent
:17:12. > :17:15.turns up at school, it is already the case that teachers are not
:17:16. > :17:17.allowed to hand over children to strangers, to people that are
:17:18. > :17:22.unidentifiable as the parents of that child. Whether an adult turned
:17:23. > :17:27.up and says, I have been authorised to pick up these children on behalf
:17:28. > :17:31.of the parents, ID is a necessity. Likewise, it is a necessity to be
:17:32. > :17:36.able to identify a mother who claims that she is the mother of the child
:17:37. > :17:40.by asking her to lift her veil to identify herself. The same applies
:17:41. > :17:43.in examination halls, where students are expected to place their photo ID
:17:44. > :17:47.on the table so the examiner can see that it's actually the student
:17:48. > :17:54.sitting that exam. There are certain circumstances where the veil must be
:17:55. > :17:57.lifted for equality and respecting children putt right and everybody
:17:58. > :18:03.else's rights. We must respect the rights of a woman to choose what to
:18:04. > :18:06.do with her own body. A couple of members of the audience, this
:18:07. > :18:10.gentleman wanted to say something. It seems to me that human rights,
:18:11. > :18:19.they are like general, you get them because you exist. Religious rights,
:18:20. > :18:23.religious doctrine only comes around after indoctrination of it.
:18:24. > :18:25.Religious rights only exist after the human rights have had its
:18:26. > :18:29.foundation. To say that religious writer should be anywhere near the
:18:30. > :18:35.same grounds as human rights, it is invalid. You are making a mistake,
:18:36. > :18:43.of having something that can only apply to a whole applying to a part.
:18:44. > :18:46.Female genital mutilation, how can we protect these young girls when
:18:47. > :18:51.somebody's religious right to do it is equal to the person not given the
:18:52. > :18:57.human right? Is that cultural? You got the situation in Saudi Arabia
:18:58. > :19:00.were many women cover their faces, women are not allowed to drive,
:19:01. > :19:04.there is flogging and the death penalty for gays and rape victims
:19:05. > :19:09.can be charged with adultery and flogged. Is that the mark of a
:19:10. > :19:14.civilised society? Of course not, obviously not. All of this is
:19:15. > :19:19.happening in Saudi Arabia is totally different context from Britain. But
:19:20. > :19:24.we could do with human rights therefore women? You cannot compare
:19:25. > :19:29.Britain to Saudi Arabia, which is from the third World, where human
:19:30. > :19:33.rights are not invested in any way. There is no freedom of expression,
:19:34. > :19:38.no freedom of assembly or movement in Saudi Arabia. Why are we trying
:19:39. > :19:42.to imply what is in Saudi Arabia... That is under the umbrella of
:19:43. > :19:48.religion? That is all under the umbrella of religion. Who wants to
:19:49. > :19:51.come in? Sharon? I just wanted to pick up on the fact that when we are
:19:52. > :19:54.talking about the different minority groups and we are talking about the
:19:55. > :19:56.difference between human rights and religious rights, some minority
:19:57. > :20:02.groups, as with lesbian and gay people, are also religious people.
:20:03. > :20:07.We have to bring religious rights and human rights together because it
:20:08. > :20:09.is part of who we are. While we accept the adamant about the
:20:10. > :20:13.difference between religious and human rights, as a human being, I
:20:14. > :20:18.believe we all have a need and a desire for a belief structure,
:20:19. > :20:25.whether it is around humanism, one of the traditional beliefs or
:20:26. > :20:30.whatever. Being able to express a belief and faith system is a human
:20:31. > :20:33.rights in and of itself. It needs to be recognised. As we have already
:20:34. > :20:38.heard, that does not mean that they have a right to discriminate against
:20:39. > :20:42.other people. We tend to forget, when we are trying to put them
:20:43. > :20:46.against each other, that, as I say, some of us are both and religious.
:20:47. > :20:51.We need to have the freedom to express both. What I find
:20:52. > :20:55.objectionable is when my faith, in particular, but other faiths also do
:20:56. > :20:59.it, when the Christian faith tries to tell me I cannot be a lesbian and
:21:00. > :21:04.a personal faith. That is when I find that I have to back to human
:21:05. > :21:08.rights, because my religious rights are actually being taken away from
:21:09. > :21:11.me on the grounds of my sexuality. But people who run the
:21:12. > :21:16.aforementioned bed and breakfast would say their religious rights are
:21:17. > :21:20.being taken away from them? Not at all. They are able to believe it is
:21:21. > :21:23.wrong for anyone who is not married to sit together. The difference
:21:24. > :21:27.comes in the fact that they were opening up their home as a business.
:21:28. > :21:34.They were now making their rooms public property. They were publicly
:21:35. > :21:38.open and, therefore, as a public thing, they had to abide by the law
:21:39. > :21:41.of the land. The law of the land says you cannot discriminate against
:21:42. > :21:46.people based on their sexuality. In their own home, they can decide to
:21:47. > :21:50.do what they like. The problem with people that are unmarried sleeping
:21:51. > :21:54.together, not just homosexual couples. Can you please explain to
:21:55. > :22:01.me why they have had the full weight of the law thrown at them, but there
:22:02. > :22:06.are gay B in this country that are actively advertising for gay
:22:07. > :22:13.people only and will not allow heterosexual couples to stay at
:22:14. > :22:19.their B and B. I don't know of any. They do exist. Surely they are
:22:20. > :22:21.contravening the law? They are contravening the law just the same
:22:22. > :22:25.and I would hope the law would come down on them. Let me rap but this
:22:26. > :22:30.particular part, do you feel that Christians in this country are being
:22:31. > :22:34.persecuted? -- wrap it up. I think we are coming dangerously close to
:22:35. > :22:39.persecution. If you will not allow Christians to speak traditional
:22:40. > :22:46.faith based on the Bible, then you are restricting us. Discrimination
:22:47. > :22:53.is not a human rights. Freedom from discrimination is a human rights.
:22:54. > :23:04.Let's give her freedom of speech just now and I will come back to
:23:05. > :23:11.you. We have freedom from religion. Linda? We are coming to a place
:23:12. > :23:14.where there is a grave restriction on people saying any elements of the
:23:15. > :23:20.Christian faith that does not conform with the predominant
:23:21. > :23:25.cultural view. I think we are facing... We are very close to
:23:26. > :23:28.seeing active suppression of Christians, which would lead on to
:23:29. > :23:32.persecution. We have seen this developing before, in the French
:23:33. > :23:36.Revolution, in Nazi Germany, we found certain ideas were put in
:23:37. > :23:41.place and then they carried on to active persecution. Removing
:23:42. > :23:47.privileges not the same as discrimination. The Christian
:23:48. > :23:50.faith, speaking as an ordained Christian, the Christian faith has
:23:51. > :23:58.always had a privileged position within our society. What we are
:23:59. > :24:01.finding now is that... You are confusing something, freedom to
:24:02. > :24:06.express your belief is not a privilege that can be taken away, it
:24:07. > :24:12.is the articulation of faith. David Lammy? Are Christians on the edge of
:24:13. > :24:25.being persecuted? No, they are not! There are Christians... They are in
:24:26. > :24:28.Pakistan. Not in the UK. My Christian faith means a lot to me
:24:29. > :24:33.and there are Christians in Pakistan, in easyJet, in Nigeria
:24:34. > :24:37.today who are being persecuted. To say they are being persecuted in
:24:38. > :24:43.this country is ridiculous. -- in Egypt. To support these people that
:24:44. > :24:46.said, if you are gay, you cannot come into my bed and breakfast, I
:24:47. > :24:53.fail to see how different that is to the Britain of my father arrived in
:24:54. > :24:59.in 1956 that have signs outside B and establishments, no Blacks,
:25:00. > :25:05.no Irish, no dogs. We fought that, we got rid of that. We got rid of
:25:06. > :25:09.that oppression. We have to be in a society that is plural, where we
:25:10. > :25:13.support the human rights of everybody. If you don't want gay men
:25:14. > :25:19.and women in your home, you cannot open your home up to the public.
:25:20. > :25:26.It's as simple as that. They did not refuse to allow gay couples into
:25:27. > :25:29.their B and B. They simply said that they could not share a bedroom. They
:25:30. > :25:37.would have been perfectly happy to have had them in two separate rooms.
:25:38. > :25:41.How different is that... How different is that to an
:25:42. > :25:45.establishment that would have said to me and my wife, who is white, I'm
:25:46. > :25:49.sorry, I am not having a mixed race relationship in this institution?
:25:50. > :25:55.It's very different, actually, they are very committed Christians and
:25:56. > :26:03.the Bible says quite explicitly that all sexual relationships outside
:26:04. > :26:08.marriage... Yellow marker the Dutch Reform Church in South Africa was an
:26:09. > :26:12.aberration, was it? I don't know enough about it. Religious
:26:13. > :26:19.justification for apartheid. It is interesting, the justifications that
:26:20. > :26:22.can be inferred from the Bible, the Dutch Reform Church is an
:26:23. > :26:26.interesting example in apartheid South Africa? I'm very much in
:26:27. > :26:39.favour of protecting rights, I think they should have the same rights as
:26:40. > :26:43.everybody else. I think if a B owner wanted to disseminate against
:26:44. > :26:47.mixed-race couples, using theology to do so, they should not be allowed
:26:48. > :26:50.to do that. The addition of religion to objections does not lend the
:26:51. > :26:55.objections any more weight, in my book. The fact this particular
:26:56. > :26:59.couple was Christian, objecting to same-sex couples in their B, I
:27:00. > :27:03.don't see why that should lend their objections any more weight than some
:27:04. > :27:06.other couple that might have non-religious objections. I think
:27:07. > :27:10.there should be exemptions sometimes made for people that are religious.
:27:11. > :27:15.A Roman Catholic doctor should not be forced to perform an abortion.
:27:16. > :27:22.The reason is that they have a very strong moral objection. Anyone,
:27:23. > :27:26.nonreligious as well, if they have a similar objection, they should be
:27:27. > :27:29.exempt from that particular institution as well. I don't see
:27:30. > :27:34.that the addition of religion to somebody's objections and anyway it
:27:35. > :27:41.whatsoever as far as these cases are concerned. Yeti, you wanted to come
:27:42. > :27:47.in? Betty King Ministries? -- Betty. On the board said Irish,
:27:48. > :27:55.blacks, dogs, excluded. This couple were asking an unmarried homosexual
:27:56. > :28:03.couple not to come into debt institution. Sexuality is not a race
:28:04. > :28:12.it's a choice. A choice? It's not a choice. Yellow rattle homosexuality
:28:13. > :28:21.is not race. -- Homosexual it is not a race. You know what the Bible
:28:22. > :28:32.talks about. It talks about gay couples Homer sexuality. Does it
:28:33. > :28:37.mention lesbianism? It doesn't. As a Minister of the Gospel, in reading
:28:38. > :28:50.the Bible, you know what you are trying to protect is not in the
:28:51. > :28:58.Bible. Linda. You want religion without the responsibility. Davis! I
:28:59. > :29:04.find this very shocking, that in Britain Christians... I mean,
:29:05. > :29:09.talking always about my background, my origin, as a Nigerian boy who
:29:10. > :29:12.came to Britain only for the purpose for being safe and being able to
:29:13. > :29:18.practice my religion freely and being able to live my sexuality
:29:19. > :29:23.without being persecuted. Today, sitting in Britain, having
:29:24. > :29:30.Christians say that they are being persecuted because they are not able
:29:31. > :29:32.to speak their mind, they are not able to discriminate, they are
:29:33. > :29:37.claiming that because they are not allowed to disseminate. Where in the
:29:38. > :29:42.Bible... The Bible that I read, the whole of the Bible, in the Ten
:29:43. > :29:47.Commandments and that text, where in the Bible does it say... Is it a
:29:48. > :29:56.choice? Where does it say, thou shalt not be gay? I will ask you
:29:57. > :30:02.another question in a minute, Lynda, but Sahar wants to come in. I think
:30:03. > :30:15.the theological debate should be left within people who believe in
:30:16. > :30:18.Christianity. The danger is, when institutions and organisations or
:30:19. > :30:24.legal systems are getting themselves into this theological debate,
:30:25. > :30:30.interfering in someone's right to practice their religion is, I think
:30:31. > :30:32.we should make a distinction between the personal rights and these
:30:33. > :30:36.institutions going into this theology. There is a very good
:30:37. > :30:42.example I would like to raise on this particular point. I wonder,
:30:43. > :30:47.Lynda, what you think about this. You support religious rights. Do you
:30:48. > :30:53.support the rights of the Marks Spencer 's employee who was working
:30:54. > :31:00.at the till and who was allowed not to serve people who had pork
:31:01. > :31:04.products or alcohol. Do you support their religious rights? I think you
:31:05. > :31:08.need to unpack what is going on here. I don't support the right to
:31:09. > :31:13.be actually serving on the tills in a country where it is expected that
:31:14. > :31:17.you can serve alcohol or pork. If you know you are going to have those
:31:18. > :31:25.problems, she shouldn't have been on the tills there. But that is not
:31:26. > :31:29.what you were saying. That isn't what you were saying earlier. You
:31:30. > :31:34.have just taken a stance where you have defended your Christian rights
:31:35. > :31:40.but denied others' rights. So you're only stance should be secularism. By
:31:41. > :31:49.what you have just said, you have completely contradicted yourself, as
:31:50. > :31:53.did Betty earlier. She defended the French ban on the face veil, yet at
:31:54. > :32:00.the same time, proclaimed her right to prepare -- to practice her own
:32:01. > :32:05.fate. I assume you -- I assume you support the ban on the crucifix in
:32:06. > :32:14.France. You are wearing a crucifix right now. It is a cross, actually.
:32:15. > :32:18.Thank you for that clarification. The same ban on the face veil also
:32:19. > :32:23.banned you wearing that round your neck. Either you defend human rights
:32:24. > :32:29.for everyone or don't take any exclusivist stance, or you accept
:32:30. > :32:34.that you are arguing for your own rights to the exclusion of everyone
:32:35. > :32:38.else's. You need to one packed exactly what our -- what are
:32:39. > :32:49.religious rights and what our customary rights. I am not a scholar
:32:50. > :32:53.of the Koran. You are not? I am not. I believe there is no obligation
:32:54. > :32:59.laid down in the Koran that women have to become that with a niqab or
:33:00. > :33:10.burka. This has become a traditional, social custom. It
:33:11. > :33:14.isn't. It isn't an obligation. We should leave this debate to the
:33:15. > :33:22.people who believe in that faith rather than interfering... An
:33:23. > :33:28.absolute article of faith, if I may, in the UN Declaration on Human
:33:29. > :33:33.Rights, and traditionally, you said this right at the outset, Lynda. It
:33:34. > :33:39.is the right of everyone to hold the faith they want to hold and to have
:33:40. > :33:43.freedom to believe. Also key in the UN Declaration on Human Rights is
:33:44. > :33:48.the freedom to leave a religion, the freedom to get out of here and leave
:33:49. > :33:57.a religion. Stephen Law, that is vital, isn't it? Yes, absolutely
:33:58. > :34:01.key. I do agree with that. But across the world, there are death
:34:02. > :34:06.penalties if you do just that. Yes, and that is unacceptable. It
:34:07. > :34:14.concerns me that, if some polls are to be believed, there are minorities
:34:15. > :34:17.in this country of young people who believe it is unacceptable for them
:34:18. > :34:23.to leave their particular religion -- religion. Does anyone here in the
:34:24. > :34:30.studio think that? Does anyone disapprove of it? What a liberal
:34:31. > :34:36.assemblage we have here! Here is a situation that has occurred to me.
:34:37. > :34:41.What about circumcision? Is that a parental imposition of a religion on
:34:42. > :34:47.a child? Because that child, then, if that child leaves that particular
:34:48. > :34:51.religion that has circumcision as a tradition, that child... It is kind
:34:52. > :35:00.of final, circumcision. Stephen, your thoughts? Circumcision is not
:35:01. > :35:05.something I know so much about, particularly medically. Certainly,
:35:06. > :35:09.there are medical arguments to do with circumcision. Putting that to
:35:10. > :35:16.one side... It isn't the choice of the child, is it? Exactly. Supposing
:35:17. > :35:20.there was a chance who want to -- there was a child whose parents
:35:21. > :35:26.wanted to mark it in some other way, such with some facial -- such as
:35:27. > :35:29.with some facial markings. That would be unacceptable. We shouldn't
:35:30. > :35:35.accept a child to have those changes to their body at such a young age.
:35:36. > :35:39.Imposing that kind of physical change on a body, surely, that is
:35:40. > :35:46.something that should be left until later. The trial's human rights are
:35:47. > :35:52.being... ? Yes. But on the face of it, that is a pretty strong
:35:53. > :36:00.objection. Rabbi, I will come to you in a minute. I feel you want to come
:36:01. > :36:04.in here! I see this as, if you will forgive the expression, quite
:36:05. > :36:10.clear-cut moral issue. This is not laughing topic. We are talking about
:36:11. > :36:15.taking the most intimate part of a defenceless baby boy, who has
:36:16. > :36:19.absolutely no say in the matter, whose welfare is completely in the
:36:20. > :36:23.hands of other people, and we shouldn't look at that moral issue
:36:24. > :36:30.lightly. This is a perfect example, I would say, of - we spoke earlier
:36:31. > :36:35.about how some things can be justified on the basis of religion,
:36:36. > :36:40.whether it is misogyny or homophobia or something. Circumcision is a
:36:41. > :36:44.perfect example. If you are going to remove a part of your child's body
:36:45. > :36:52.for a nonreligious region -- nonreligious reason, such as...
:36:53. > :36:57.Social services would be in there. Absolutely, and that should happen.
:36:58. > :37:01.But when you throw the religion in there, everyone kind of steps back a
:37:02. > :37:06.bit. But it isn't different. You have to look at the rights and
:37:07. > :37:10.wrongs of what is taking place. It is a sharp instrument and a
:37:11. > :37:15.defenceless, naked baby, and that is wrong. Unless there was a medical
:37:16. > :37:20.reason for it. This is an infringement of somebody's human
:37:21. > :37:24.rights. They have no choice. The most compelling argument for it is
:37:25. > :37:28.that, but I personally do not agree. With human rights, we see a
:37:29. > :37:34.conversation, and religious rights are part of that conversation. You
:37:35. > :37:39.can't exclude religion from that conversation. But the child has no
:37:40. > :37:45.choice. Children have no trust over lots of things. Being a parent is a
:37:46. > :37:49.very difficult and complicated thing to do. In my congregation, people
:37:50. > :37:52.find it very difficult to answer questions of whether they should or
:37:53. > :37:57.shouldn't circumcise their children. They don't do it with the intention
:37:58. > :38:02.of infringing their child's human rights. They do it with the belief
:38:03. > :38:06.of bringing their child into a whole cultural and religious world they
:38:07. > :38:12.are part of, and that is part of the conversation. You can't just take
:38:13. > :38:18.out one component. I'm not saying it is done in tension leave harmfully.
:38:19. > :38:22.It is like double standards, and it demonstrates to us the power of
:38:23. > :38:29.religious belief, the power of religious community and belief, and
:38:30. > :38:34.also the pressure that comes from within that community to keep those
:38:35. > :38:38.traditions going. Do you understand the logic of what Charlie is
:38:39. > :38:42.saying? Of course, but as parents, we are faced with lots of difficult
:38:43. > :38:50.chill -- difficult decisions that we make for our children. Circumcision
:38:51. > :39:00.is different from utilise -- from utility, isn't it? Let's not use the
:39:01. > :39:06.term mutilation. Let's not call it mutilation, because what you then do
:39:07. > :39:09.is create a very problematic conversation about female genital
:39:10. > :39:19.mutilation, which I think is damaging to the female genital
:39:20. > :39:27.mutilation argument, because FGM is a suppression and damage of a
:39:28. > :39:32.woman's human rights. Now, let's bring you win. You two guys have a
:39:33. > :39:40.story to the House. You wanted to come in on this particular point.
:39:41. > :39:47.Clearly, as you know, there are many children who would buy from that
:39:48. > :39:50.procedure. Of course, it isn't comparable to FGM, but there are
:39:51. > :39:56.males who die from this procedure. The holy text mentions specific
:39:57. > :40:04.provisions for if the first sons dies from circumcision. It is not a
:40:05. > :40:15.case of simply caring for your child. First of all, I don't know
:40:16. > :40:19.the statistics worldwide, but the statistics in this country by the
:40:20. > :40:24.Association of Mohelim, that conducts circumcision is for the
:40:25. > :40:28.boys in my community, are all medically trained before they are
:40:29. > :40:33.allowed to conduct circumcision is. The statistical risk is very low.
:40:34. > :40:40.They audit their risk. They are very careful about how they conduct it.
:40:41. > :40:45.If there is any risk to life for that baby, then the circumcision is
:40:46. > :40:51.not permitted to go forward. But is irreversible. That's not the point
:40:52. > :40:54.he was making. He was making the point that we are killing our baby
:40:55. > :41:02.boys through circumcision, and that is not correct. What about raising
:41:03. > :41:06.the age of consent slightly with circumcision, so the child has a bit
:41:07. > :41:14.of choice? Something where the child can be consulted and spoken to a bit
:41:15. > :41:17.about it, a bit like custody with divorced parents, where the child is
:41:18. > :41:22.brought in and consulted as to whether they truly do wish to live
:41:23. > :41:25.with their mother all with their father. Sometimes, the age of 12 is
:41:26. > :41:32.where they take the opinion of the child. I would like to hear your
:41:33. > :41:38.story in a minute. We had some hands up. The gentleman in the jumper back
:41:39. > :41:44.there, with the glasses on. I just wanted to say that Chris' argument
:41:45. > :41:50.seems to be tantamount to denying a parent's right to bring up the child
:41:51. > :41:55.as part of their own community. I disagree. I was brought up in the
:41:56. > :41:59.Muslim faith, but I was circumcised later on. At the age of 12, my
:42:00. > :42:06.parents asked me whether I wanted to be circumcised as part of my faith.
:42:07. > :42:10.I disagree with the Rabbi. There are countries all over the world where
:42:11. > :42:15.children do die because they do not have the safety procedures we do.
:42:16. > :42:20.There are many countries in the world, where my parents came from in
:42:21. > :42:25.the third World, where it is not safe to circumcise boys. I am of the
:42:26. > :42:29.Muslim faith, and normally, boys are circumcised at birth. I think it is
:42:30. > :42:34.wrong. Give us a chance to have feedback from the community. I did
:42:35. > :42:43.it as an -- at an age where my parents consulted me. I said yes.
:42:44. > :42:47.The right to reply, Charlie. The right to bring up your child is a
:42:48. > :42:51.very important right. Generally, you should be able to do what you want.
:42:52. > :42:59.But freedom to manifest your own religion should stop sometimes, at
:43:00. > :43:03.someone else's body. You have to be 18 years old to have a tad too, but
:43:04. > :43:09.for some reason, you can cut your child's foreskin off. So if you want
:43:10. > :43:13.to do that, or if you want to have a tad too on your child, cut their
:43:14. > :43:25.foreskin of the first, and then you can trust to it! It is a very
:43:26. > :43:29.difficult decision, and I think it is important for the audience to
:43:30. > :43:34.hear that I have parents who join my community who make the choice not
:43:35. > :43:38.to, as well as to circumcise their boys, and they are equally welcomed
:43:39. > :43:42.into my community. It isn't about excluding people who don't make that
:43:43. > :43:49.choice. Secondly, circumcision has been used as a weapon against the
:43:50. > :43:52.Jewish community, as a means of anti-Jewish legislation throughout
:43:53. > :43:57.all of Jewish history, and you are on very dangerous territory for the
:43:58. > :44:02.Jewish can. We feel threatened by the prospect of someone trying to
:44:03. > :44:05.legislate about this. The Royal Family is a circumcised! On this
:44:06. > :44:11.point, we will leave it there. That's too much information. Tina,
:44:12. > :44:16.Catholic Studies at Roehampton University. You are uncomfortable
:44:17. > :44:24.with the gender segregation that we heard about recently. I am, but
:44:25. > :44:27.before I say why, I am also uncomfortable with the fact that we
:44:28. > :44:31.are interpreting human rights, and I agree with everyone that religious
:44:32. > :44:36.rights are human rights, religious people are human beings and,
:44:37. > :44:40.actually, it is a relatively small minority race, of secular modernity,
:44:41. > :44:47.that would have seen any possibility of separating out religion from the
:44:48. > :44:51.rest of being human. Everybody has beliefs, values, ideas they
:44:52. > :44:55.subscribe to. That is part of what we are talking about. But you can't
:44:56. > :44:59.impose them on other people, that is the key? Throughout history,
:45:00. > :45:05.religious views have been imposed on people. All sorts of views are
:45:06. > :45:09.imposed on people. I am a pacifist. I have to watch people on the BBC
:45:10. > :45:16.wearing red poppies for a month, in public. Is that painful? It is, I
:45:17. > :45:20.have to pay taxes to fight wars I don't believe in. We have to
:45:21. > :45:25.compromise all along the line. We may not all have religious
:45:26. > :45:30.identities, we have national identities, we can understand
:45:31. > :45:34.analogies if we say, how much does my community matter to me, sometimes
:45:35. > :45:38.more than my individual rights. I think gender comes in there. I am
:45:39. > :45:43.certainly not in favour of gender segregation in publicly funded
:45:44. > :45:48.places like universities. The whole ethos of a forum like that is to
:45:49. > :45:55.reflect the values of a society to which we belong and we do not accept
:45:56. > :46:03.gender segregation. Isn't that a religious rite? No. The language of
:46:04. > :46:09.rights is a blunt in strength. The language of the law cannot always
:46:10. > :46:13.address the nuances and complexities that we need to have around these
:46:14. > :46:19.areas. The B couple is a very good example. That couple have on their
:46:20. > :46:28.website that they did not welcome unmarried people sharing rooms. They
:46:29. > :46:35.had a mosaic on their reception desk saying, Jesus is Lord. Why would any
:46:36. > :46:41.gay couple want to stay there? We have kind of been over that ground.
:46:42. > :46:49.Lisa? The gender segregation, are you supportive? I am, because it is
:46:50. > :46:53.voluntary. We are not asking for gender segregation in public areas
:46:54. > :46:59.like pavements... Television studios? This is not the perfect
:47:00. > :47:05.environment for me. But I did not say to the producer I didn't want to
:47:06. > :47:12.sit next to men. Why is it not the perfect environment? Bear with me.
:47:13. > :47:16.Bear with me! Why is this not... You are oppressing me because you are
:47:17. > :47:20.not allowing me to finish my point. Why is this not be perfect
:47:21. > :47:26.environment for you? If I could, I would adhere to Islamic tradition
:47:27. > :47:31.and sit separately from men. That is my choice. What about your Muslim
:47:32. > :47:41.sisters fighting against segregation in the Muslim world? There is an
:47:42. > :47:46.underlying principle, an Islamic principle, there is no compulsion in
:47:47. > :47:49.the religion. The segregation, which I don't prefer to even call it
:47:50. > :47:54.that, it is only sitting arrangements. When you mentioned
:47:55. > :47:58.segregation, it reflects a dichotomy between superiority and inferiority,
:47:59. > :48:01.which is not true. It is a basic religious right that some groups
:48:02. > :48:08.want to manifest and it is voluntary. Let me extend my
:48:09. > :48:12.apologies for interrupting, I thought it was such an interesting
:48:13. > :48:18.point, please carry on. You have ruined my train of thought. You feel
:48:19. > :48:25.more comfortable in that situation. Do you think it is acceptable in a
:48:26. > :48:29.public place like university? If an Islamic organisation is holding the
:48:30. > :48:32.event, I expect them to allow me to adhere to tradition, it is just the
:48:33. > :48:36.most obvious. If the Islamic organisation is holding the event in
:48:37. > :48:41.a public arena like a university, a lecture hall, a conference hall or
:48:42. > :48:44.if it is in a mosque, I do expect they would allow me to adhere to
:48:45. > :48:52.Islamic tradition. But I am not saying we should extend this to
:48:53. > :48:56.buses and trains. Abhishek, you would disagree. You were at one of
:48:57. > :49:00.these meetings? It is a lie that it is voluntary. We have attended an
:49:01. > :49:05.event, two friends of mine have been evicted for sitting in the ladies
:49:06. > :49:16.area, which was at the back of the room. The men were at the front, the
:49:17. > :49:19.women were at the back. Please. If you want to have a seating
:49:20. > :49:24.arrangement, the organisation that organised the event put it out. I
:49:25. > :49:27.was at the event, there was mixed seating for those that wanted to sit
:49:28. > :49:32.together and there was a segregated seating for men and women. Sounds a
:49:33. > :49:41.bit like South Africa, doesn't it? That is what Maajid just said? The
:49:42. > :49:44.struggle that you referred to, the struggle you should be referring to,
:49:45. > :49:57.the struggle of your Muslim sisters... Let me speak. I also want
:49:58. > :50:03.to hear from David Lammy, an elected representative. You two were there.
:50:04. > :50:08.You have 40 odd women that have decided out of their own choice,
:50:09. > :50:11.choice being the operative word, to sit in the segregated area. There is
:50:12. > :50:16.no reason for men to impose themselves in the women's area. Why
:50:17. > :50:26.on earth would you object to women wanting to sit next to another woman
:50:27. > :50:30.out of their own free choice? Chris? Nobody has forced you to sit next to
:50:31. > :50:33.anyone. There was a clear force applied to those people that came
:50:34. > :50:36.into the room and were told, you cannot sit here, you cannot sit
:50:37. > :50:41.here, you have to sit here. There is force applied to those people. We
:50:42. > :50:47.were refused entry to the female area when I was with my partner
:50:48. > :50:52.because I am male. You, as a woman, have the right to sit next to
:50:53. > :51:00.whoever you like. But you do not have the right to impose it on
:51:01. > :51:08.anyone else. Let's go to Charlie. Chris? No, let's go to Charlie. A
:51:09. > :51:12.couple of these events, the females had to submit their questions to the
:51:13. > :51:15.speakers beforehand, whereas the men could just ask the questions they
:51:16. > :51:20.wanted on the day. How do you feel about that? They could have been
:51:21. > :51:24.private questions. But it was one rule for the women, one for the men,
:51:25. > :51:30.they had to filter the questions. Have you been to these events? Yes.
:51:31. > :51:39.You guys wore some T-shirts? Would you like to see them? What have you
:51:40. > :51:55.got on your T-shirt? Stop drawing the prophet? It is a cartoon, Jesus
:51:56. > :51:59.and Mo, it pokes fun at religious figures, we wore them at the
:52:00. > :52:07.freshers fair. We all know about the Danish cartoons? But it does not
:52:08. > :52:11.denigrate muslins or anything. We were asked to take them off, cover
:52:12. > :52:18.them up, we were harassed by the University staff, students union
:52:19. > :52:21.staff, over two days. You have the right to wear the veil and the
:52:22. > :52:23.niqab, I support those rights. Are you also going to stand up for my
:52:24. > :52:36.right to wear whatever I like? We talked about the face veil,
:52:37. > :52:42.segregation, there is a trend in the media, this is a different context.
:52:43. > :52:48.Does he have the right to wear that T-shirt? The segregation issue was
:52:49. > :52:51.promoted in the media by Henry Jackson Society, a far right
:52:52. > :52:58.organisation. There is Islamophobia industry going on. Segregation, the
:52:59. > :53:04.face veil feeds into that. Do they have the right to wear those
:53:05. > :53:06.T-shirts? Sunni no. Why are you trying to offend a religious faith.
:53:07. > :53:17.UR offending us. You know that many people, EDL
:53:18. > :53:20.bigots, for example, would be offended by you wearing the veil. Do
:53:21. > :53:26.they have the right to impose their sensibilities on you? Was it you
:53:27. > :53:31.that said no, they don't have the right to wear those T-shirts? Is
:53:32. > :53:38.wearing our hijab is our own right, we are not when you threaten our
:53:39. > :53:42.religion and our right, that should be a concern, not only for Muslims
:53:43. > :53:45.but for everyone else. Like you are saying, human rights is very
:53:46. > :53:49.important to us. When you do threaten our religion, we are not
:53:50. > :53:52.sitting here wearing a hijab, mocking you in anyway. It is a
:53:53. > :53:58.picture of a man with a beard, it not really Mohamed Diame stop As a
:53:59. > :54:01.Muslim, that T-shirt does not threaten my God, does not threaten
:54:02. > :54:06.my faith, it does not threaten the Koran, it does not threaten any
:54:07. > :54:11.aspect of my religion. I do not feel threatened by these men wearing that
:54:12. > :54:14.T-shirt. David, I think it is important we hear from you. Is it
:54:15. > :54:27.important that we have the right to offend? Yes. It is. But the measure
:54:28. > :54:35.of a civilised society is how we treat minorities. Therefore, we have
:54:36. > :54:38.to here and listen to the Muslim women that are in this room that are
:54:39. > :54:45.offended. Just because you have the right to offend, it does not mean
:54:46. > :54:49.that you have to go on to offend. When I am entering a synagogue in my
:54:50. > :54:55.constituency, and I represent a Stamford Hill, Orthodox, Jewish
:54:56. > :54:59.community, I wear a skull cap. I do not shake hands with the women that
:55:00. > :55:03.I am presented with because it is culturally not appropriate. If I
:55:04. > :55:15.going to a mosque, I take off my shoes. I am respectful of religion.
:55:16. > :55:19.This was a university campus. In a university campus, it is a public
:55:20. > :55:23.building, where you extend meetings to everyone. There is a reason why
:55:24. > :55:29.we talk about the liberal arts, but I think you also have to be
:55:30. > :55:34.respectful of all experiences and the fact that, probably, it is going
:55:35. > :55:39.to be very difficult to preserve any degree of segregation in that
:55:40. > :55:43.context. The Dave Allen show was repeated the other day, great
:55:44. > :55:49.comedian who offended religions at the time. Why does David Lammy say
:55:50. > :55:53.it is respectful not to shake the hand of a woman. Do you know why you
:55:54. > :55:58.are not shaking her hand? In case you are polluted by her. I didn't
:55:59. > :56:03.say I agree with it, but I respect the fact that... Who are you
:56:04. > :56:08.respecting? In every religion in the world, institutional power is in the
:56:09. > :56:14.hands of men. I think we need to address these issues in terms of
:56:15. > :56:19.power. The veil is a good example. Why do we jump solely on Muslim
:56:20. > :56:22.women in this context? The Bullingdon Club, which our Prime
:56:23. > :56:29.Minister was part of, excludes women. Golf clubs exclude women. One
:56:30. > :56:38.other very important issue. While we have time, the kirpan. The carrying
:56:39. > :56:41.of the knife. You, of course, are representing the Sikh community.
:56:42. > :56:46.There is an exemption to carry the knife. Why is it so important?
:56:47. > :56:50.Because it is one of the articles of faith. I have to say that the
:56:51. > :56:55.obnoxious French secularism affects Sikhs as well, we are not allowed to
:56:56. > :56:59.wear a turban in public places. This movement of freedom across Europe is
:57:00. > :57:03.a nonsense. I am pleased we have members of parliament here who would
:57:04. > :57:07.undoubtedly be able to defend our right to go to France and live there
:57:08. > :57:13.as European citizens without having to remove our turban. How important
:57:14. > :57:16.is the kirpan? It is the last of the five articles of faith. Once they
:57:17. > :57:23.have shown that they know it's meaning, it is the way you have been
:57:24. > :57:30.blessed to fight for some body else's freedom. So, the kirpan has
:57:31. > :57:33.been exempted from prosecution from the 1951 crime act. So far, it
:57:34. > :57:38.today, in Britain, there has not been a single case of a Sikh abusing
:57:39. > :57:52.that. It is an offensive weapon, as you say? I think that is a good
:57:53. > :57:56.point to finish on. That is an excellent example of an exemption
:57:57. > :58:01.that seems to work? It seems to work and it is so important to your
:58:02. > :58:03.faith. Listen, it has been lively, that has been really interesting.
:58:04. > :58:12.Thank you all very much for taking part. Thank you. As ever, the debate
:58:13. > :58:19.will continue on Twitter and online. Please join us next Sunday from
:58:20. > :58:21.Salford. From everyone in east London, goodbye. Have a really good
:58:22. > :58:24.Sunday. Thanks for watching.