Episode 2 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions: human rights versus religious rights -

which should prevail? Good morning. I'm Nicky Campbell.

Welcome to The Big Questions. Well, we're back at Queen Mary University

of London in Tower Hamlets to debate one very Big Question: Should human

rights always outweigh religious rights? Welcome everyone here to The

Big Questions. Should gay couples be allowed to marry or form families?

Should women be ordained as priests or consecrated as bishops, or be

allowed to wear a veil or to be segregated from men? Should

employees be allowed to refuse to work on the Sabbath or to wear a

cross at work, or to refuse to handle alcohol or pork products? All

of these questions weigh human rights in the balance against

religious rights, and some of these disputes have ended up in the

highest courts in Britain and Europe. So, we have assembled

atheists, Schumann this, but others from many -- believers from many

different faiths this morning. You can have your say on Twitter or

online. Just log onto our website, where you will find things to

continue our discussion online. There will be lots of contributions

from our varied lively and well informed London audience. Should

human rights always prevail over religious rights? Davis Mac-Iyalla,

you are the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender group Christians In

Exile. You believe that human rights are universal. Explain why. Yes, I

believe human rights are universal, and I also do believe that we should

outweigh religious rights because most of the religious right that we

talk about, love your neighbour as yourself, feed the hungry, they are

all born out of natural human rights and needs. So if you follow what is

human rights, you see very clearly that human rights should outweigh

religious rights. Today, if you look at society, where we have problems

in the context of human sexuality, you will find that religious people

will want a special right for themselves, and the people who are

discriminating other people who are persecuting. Human rights have no

persecution or discrimination. Human rights provides for everybody and

treats everybody equally. So wherever you are in the world, you

should be able to vote, women should be able to drive, women should be

able to be educated, there should be Gay marriage everywhere, the right

to leave a religion - something we will come onto, I am sure. But

should there not be, as others might say to you, respect for other

religions, different cultures and different traditions? People who are

religious, Christians and those faiths, can define themselves within

their community. As far as I am concerned, any definition that you

give yourself that excludes a section of that community... Let me

use the Christian faith for example. Homosexuals have been part

of the Christian faith from the beginning, and the church doctrine

prevents them from marrying. Gay people cannot be priests, they

cannot be bishops. Any community that excludes has lost a kind of

respect. There is no human rights, there is no equality, there is no

universally a la tea in such a community. People like me do not

have respect. Reverend Betty King, how do you respond? Religion as a

human right. We choose to worship God. So for you to say that human

rights should be universal, we have a right to worship our God. We have

a right to make our decision. In every religion, it is the moral

conscience of the nation. So when we are worshipping, these laws are

being made. Where you want to come in to tell a particular religious

group what you -- to accept what you think is your right, I disagree with

that. I have not seen, from Nigeria to the UK, where religious people,

Christians or Muslims that I know of, have been forced to accept

anything. What the society is saying to you is, live and let live. You

want your right, you want to exist, you want to worship God the way you

want, and you are telling other people that they don't have that

right to be themselves. I will be with you in one second, Sahar.

Attitudes have changed and evolved, and have progressed. We no longer

burn witches, as I think Exodus tells us to do. We no longer think

homosexuality is a disease. There are lots of things that we are

transgressing from the Old Testament, that are now accepted.

These may be seen by you as eternal truths, but the world has changed.

It has, but human rights is about respecting another person. Being

kind to another person. Understanding another person. Are

you being kind to him if you disapprove of Davis marrying the

person he wants to marry? Nobody is understanding what -- why he is

doing what he is doing. It is his choice to be with a man or woman of

the same gender. I don't have to believe his Troy says. It is my

right, as a human being, to believe what I believe. This is a false

stuck to me. Human rights initially evolved as a safeguard for the

individual against the oppressive power of the state, and one of the

basic fundamental human rights was the protection of religion, the

right to practice your religion, to manifest your religion, to state

your beliefs and conscience. Trying to make this dichotomy that you

either choose religious rights of human rights, it is totally false.

There is a grave danger that what we are actually doing is prioritising

the sexual rights of a minority group. Let's not forget that

homosexuals form 1.5% of the population. In prioritising sexual

rights, we are in grave danger of overriding the traditional human

rights, which is the freedom of religion. Surely minorities, whether

they be the 1.5% of Christians in countries far away from here, or the

1.5% of gay people in this country, surely it is minorities who needs

their rights to be protected? Charlie is coming in. We have to

talk about minorities. Sometimes I'm told that Jesus only had 12

followers, so that is a relevant point to make. I do believe with

Lynda not to separate human rights and religious right has a different

thing. There is something called Article 9 on the European Convention

on Human Rights that makes it very clear that everyone has a right to

freedom of thought, conscience and religion. That is all beliefs.

Article 9 makes it very clear that even though you can have whatever

believes you want, when you manifest those beliefs, they can be

restricted. It is a qualified right. Restricted in what way?

Example, if you manifest your religion in such a way that

infringes someone else's rights, it is right to restrict the right to

manifest your religion. It is something like the B cases, or the

Lady Lilian Ladele who went to Europe because she didn't want to

perform a civil partnership for a gay couple. That's a very clear

example of how her manifestation of her religion was quite clearly going

to, and did in fact, in fringe someone else's right. That is what

we are talking about. The question in the first place is based on the

assumption that there was a conflict between human rights and religious

rights, and that the reality is not true. Each case has to be dealt with

individually. Everyone has the right to manifest what they truly and

deeply believe. Let me mention that this does not mean, for the case of

the B for example, that I will justify for myself to discriminate

against them. From an Islamic point of view, a same-sex relationship is

not permitted under Islamic. That is now agreed upon. It doesn't mean,

for me, to project my belief into my action, allowing myself to

discriminate against them. Human rights and religious rights are in a

line, and there is no conflict. Do you understand the position of the

evangelical couple who ran the bed breakfast, and then the gay couple

turned up and they didn't want them staying, not just because they were

gay, but because they didn't want unmarried people sharing a room.

That is an important thing to say. I am speaking from the principle point

of view. Even if I have this belief that is against a same-sex

relationship, I wouldn't allow myself to discriminate against them.

But each case has to be dealt with individually. I cannot generalise. I

would like to deal with this question first. We have the veil ban

in France, which is being fought at the moment in court. If that were to

be brought in here, what impact would it have on your life? It would

be terrifying for me, being a British active citizen within

society, being a community organiser. Any such ban taking place

in Britain means nothing but marginalising me and isolating me. I

will not be able to contribute. Why not? Because you can't leave your

home? Of course. I will be staying home, isolated, because the ban is

there. It is against the basic religious belief that is protected

by the human rights, that I have a right to manifest this in a public

capacity. Why would it be so bad to show your face? Remind people why?

It is an act of worship. I believe, for me, it is a way to strive and be

closer to God. Each of us has different ways of striving to be

closer to God in different ways. This is my way to be closer to him,

to wear the veil, because it isn't act of worship. And it is also

modesty. And I will be rewarded for it. This is what I believe. What do

you believe in bout modesty? You can be modest without covering your

face. This is my own manifestation. This is my own modesty. People can

differ. Betti, presumably, you support human rights. I support what

France is doing. I thought you supported religious rights? Only

your own religious rights? Let me explain what I mean. I'm a

Christian, she is a Muslim. Supporting the question of France

banning women wearing burka, there is a reason for that. There are

wonderful people that where a burka. Recently we found a terrorist going

under a burka. When you were talking I didn't interrupted. Please let me

explain. We found people hiding under the burka to cause an

atrocity. In France, I believe that the nation of France goes and

supports people that are fighting against one another. They go to

these countries and, really, protect their human right. It doesn't matter

what religion. It has happened, the Kenyan shopping mall, but that is to

extrapolate from a small part of what we are talking about. They are

trying to protect their citizens. David Lammy MP is looking rather

frustrated. Why is this? I think we are in danger of asserting solely

rights and not asserting the responsibility that goes with those

rights. The point is, how do we live together? In this country, this is a

pluralistic country in which there are lots of traditions and people.

When I am sitting in my advice surgery, in Tottenham Townhall on a

Friday evening, any one of my constituents can come and see me

with a problem. It is not for me to say you cannot wear a niqab, in the

same way that if somebody comes in with tattoos from their head down to

their toes, they come in with the shortest miniskirt, I make no

judgement at all with the advice that I offer and the support that I

give to the individual. It seems to me that the state should not be

engaged in that. You do make rules in relations to schools,

courtrooms, pilots, where your religious belief can get in the

way. But, as a responsible citizen, we have to be in a place where we

support the rights and responsibilities of everyone. I

totally agree. When it comes to security, I absolutely do not have

any problem to take at off, whether it is in court, I have no problem.

The issue is that it is clearly, clearly, this whole dilemma, it is

targeting the Muslims and they are targeting the Muslim women wearing a

veil, who are actually a minority. What about other religions? Yes, in

just a second. Maajid Nawaz, from the Quilliam Foundation, a Muslim

and also a secularist, it is fair to say? What do you think about this

particular aspect? We have to strike a middle ground between what I would

call the aggressive secularism of the French and aggressive Islam,

forcing people to accept a certain interpretation of Islam. That middle

ground I called British common sense. That means respecting the

fact that people like Harmaner have the right to wear the veil. It also

entails the responsibilities that they've just mentioned. That means

as well as being liberal, choosing what we do with our own bodies,

human rights mean that we have to respect others in their choices

about what people do with their bodies. That is the relationship

between liberalism and human rights. So, if we apply that to the veil,

there are certain areas where the veil must not only be respected, but

there are areas where it must be lifted. For example, if a parent

turns up at school, it is already the case that teachers are not

allowed to hand over children to strangers, to people that are

unidentifiable as the parents of that child. Whether an adult turned

up and says, I have been authorised to pick up these children on behalf

of the parents, ID is a necessity. Likewise, it is a necessity to be

able to identify a mother who claims that she is the mother of the child

by asking her to lift her veil to identify herself. The same applies

in examination halls, where students are expected to place their photo ID

on the table so the examiner can see that it's actually the student

sitting that exam. There are certain circumstances where the veil must be

lifted for equality and respecting children putt right and everybody

else's rights. We must respect the rights of a woman to choose what to

do with her own body. A couple of members of the audience, this

gentleman wanted to say something. It seems to me that human rights,

they are like general, you get them because you exist. Religious rights,

religious doctrine only comes around after indoctrination of it.

Religious rights only exist after the human rights have had its

foundation. To say that religious writer should be anywhere near the

same grounds as human rights, it is invalid. You are making a mistake,

of having something that can only apply to a whole applying to a part.

Female genital mutilation, how can we protect these young girls when

somebody's religious right to do it is equal to the person not given the

human right? Is that cultural? You got the situation in Saudi Arabia

were many women cover their faces, women are not allowed to drive,

there is flogging and the death penalty for gays and rape victims

can be charged with adultery and flogged. Is that the mark of a

civilised society? Of course not, obviously not. All of this is

happening in Saudi Arabia is totally different context from Britain. But

we could do with human rights therefore women? You cannot compare

Britain to Saudi Arabia, which is from the third World, where human

rights are not invested in any way. There is no freedom of expression,

no freedom of assembly or movement in Saudi Arabia. Why are we trying

to imply what is in Saudi Arabia... That is under the umbrella of

religion? That is all under the umbrella of religion. Who wants to

come in? Sharon? I just wanted to pick up on the fact that when we are

talking about the different minority groups and we are talking about the

difference between human rights and religious rights, some minority

groups, as with lesbian and gay people, are also religious people.

We have to bring religious rights and human rights together because it

is part of who we are. While we accept the adamant about the

difference between religious and human rights, as a human being, I

believe we all have a need and a desire for a belief structure,

whether it is around humanism, one of the traditional beliefs or

whatever. Being able to express a belief and faith system is a human

rights in and of itself. It needs to be recognised. As we have already

heard, that does not mean that they have a right to discriminate against

other people. We tend to forget, when we are trying to put them

against each other, that, as I say, some of us are both and religious.

We need to have the freedom to express both. What I find

objectionable is when my faith, in particular, but other faiths also do

it, when the Christian faith tries to tell me I cannot be a lesbian and

a personal faith. That is when I find that I have to back to human

rights, because my religious rights are actually being taken away from

me on the grounds of my sexuality. But people who run the

aforementioned bed and breakfast would say their religious rights are

being taken away from them? Not at all. They are able to believe it is

wrong for anyone who is not married to sit together. The difference

comes in the fact that they were opening up their home as a business.

They were now making their rooms public property. They were publicly

open and, therefore, as a public thing, they had to abide by the law

of the land. The law of the land says you cannot discriminate against

people based on their sexuality. In their own home, they can decide to

do what they like. The problem with people that are unmarried sleeping

together, not just homosexual couples. Can you please explain to

me why they have had the full weight of the law thrown at them, but there

are gay B in this country that are actively advertising for gay

people only and will not allow heterosexual couples to stay at

their B and B. I don't know of any. They do exist. Surely they are

contravening the law? They are contravening the law just the same

and I would hope the law would come down on them. Let me rap but this

particular part, do you feel that Christians in this country are being

persecuted? -- wrap it up. I think we are coming dangerously close to

persecution. If you will not allow Christians to speak traditional

faith based on the Bible, then you are restricting us. Discrimination

is not a human rights. Freedom from discrimination is a human rights.

Let's give her freedom of speech just now and I will come back to

you. We have freedom from religion. Linda? We are coming to a place

where there is a grave restriction on people saying any elements of the

Christian faith that does not conform with the predominant

cultural view. I think we are facing... We are very close to

seeing active suppression of Christians, which would lead on to

persecution. We have seen this developing before, in the French

Revolution, in Nazi Germany, we found certain ideas were put in

place and then they carried on to active persecution. Removing

privileges not the same as discrimination. The Christian

faith, speaking as an ordained Christian, the Christian faith has

always had a privileged position within our society. What we are

finding now is that... You are confusing something, freedom to

express your belief is not a privilege that can be taken away, it

is the articulation of faith. David Lammy? Are Christians on the edge of

being persecuted? No, they are not! There are Christians... They are in

Pakistan. Not in the UK. My Christian faith means a lot to me

and there are Christians in Pakistan, in easyJet, in Nigeria

today who are being persecuted. To say they are being persecuted in

this country is ridiculous. -- in Egypt. To support these people that

said, if you are gay, you cannot come into my bed and breakfast, I

fail to see how different that is to the Britain of my father arrived in

in 1956 that have signs outside B and establishments, no Blacks,

no Irish, no dogs. We fought that, we got rid of that. We got rid of

that oppression. We have to be in a society that is plural, where we

support the human rights of everybody. If you don't want gay men

and women in your home, you cannot open your home up to the public.

It's as simple as that. They did not refuse to allow gay couples into

their B and B. They simply said that they could not share a bedroom. They

would have been perfectly happy to have had them in two separate rooms.

How different is that... How different is that to an

establishment that would have said to me and my wife, who is white, I'm

sorry, I am not having a mixed race relationship in this institution?

It's very different, actually, they are very committed Christians and

the Bible says quite explicitly that all sexual relationships outside

marriage... Yellow marker the Dutch Reform Church in South Africa was an

aberration, was it? I don't know enough about it. Religious

justification for apartheid. It is interesting, the justifications that

can be inferred from the Bible, the Dutch Reform Church is an

interesting example in apartheid South Africa? I'm very much in

favour of protecting rights, I think they should have the same rights as

everybody else. I think if a B owner wanted to disseminate against

mixed-race couples, using theology to do so, they should not be allowed

to do that. The addition of religion to objections does not lend the

objections any more weight, in my book. The fact this particular

couple was Christian, objecting to same-sex couples in their B, I

don't see why that should lend their objections any more weight than some

other couple that might have non-religious objections. I think

there should be exemptions sometimes made for people that are religious.

A Roman Catholic doctor should not be forced to perform an abortion.

The reason is that they have a very strong moral objection. Anyone,

nonreligious as well, if they have a similar objection, they should be

exempt from that particular institution as well. I don't see

that the addition of religion to somebody's objections and anyway it

whatsoever as far as these cases are concerned. Yeti, you wanted to come

in? Betty King Ministries? -- Betty. On the board said Irish,

blacks, dogs, excluded. This couple were asking an unmarried homosexual

couple not to come into debt institution. Sexuality is not a race

it's a choice. A choice? It's not a choice. Yellow rattle homosexuality

is not race. -- Homosexual it is not a race. You know what the Bible

talks about. It talks about gay couples Homer sexuality. Does it

mention lesbianism? It doesn't. As a Minister of the Gospel, in reading

the Bible, you know what you are trying to protect is not in the

Bible. Linda. You want religion without the responsibility. Davis! I

find this very shocking, that in Britain Christians... I mean,

talking always about my background, my origin, as a Nigerian boy who

came to Britain only for the purpose for being safe and being able to

practice my religion freely and being able to live my sexuality

without being persecuted. Today, sitting in Britain, having

Christians say that they are being persecuted because they are not able

to speak their mind, they are not able to discriminate, they are

claiming that because they are not allowed to disseminate. Where in the

Bible... The Bible that I read, the whole of the Bible, in the Ten

Commandments and that text, where in the Bible does it say... Is it a

choice? Where does it say, thou shalt not be gay? I will ask you

another question in a minute, Lynda, but Sahar wants to come in. I think

the theological debate should be left within people who believe in

Christianity. The danger is, when institutions and organisations or

legal systems are getting themselves into this theological debate,

interfering in someone's right to practice their religion is, I think

we should make a distinction between the personal rights and these

institutions going into this theology. There is a very good

example I would like to raise on this particular point. I wonder,

Lynda, what you think about this. You support religious rights. Do you

support the rights of the Marks Spencer 's employee who was working

at the till and who was allowed not to serve people who had pork

products or alcohol. Do you support their religious rights? I think you

need to unpack what is going on here. I don't support the right to

be actually serving on the tills in a country where it is expected that

you can serve alcohol or pork. If you know you are going to have those

problems, she shouldn't have been on the tills there. But that is not

what you were saying. That isn't what you were saying earlier. You

have just taken a stance where you have defended your Christian rights

but denied others' rights. So you're only stance should be secularism. By

what you have just said, you have completely contradicted yourself, as

did Betty earlier. She defended the French ban on the face veil, yet at

the same time, proclaimed her right to prepare -- to practice her own

fate. I assume you -- I assume you support the ban on the crucifix in

France. You are wearing a crucifix right now. It is a cross, actually.

Thank you for that clarification. The same ban on the face veil also

banned you wearing that round your neck. Either you defend human rights

for everyone or don't take any exclusivist stance, or you accept

that you are arguing for your own rights to the exclusion of everyone

else's. You need to one packed exactly what our -- what are

religious rights and what our customary rights. I am not a scholar

of the Koran. You are not? I am not. I believe there is no obligation

laid down in the Koran that women have to become that with a niqab or

burka. This has become a traditional, social custom. It

isn't. It isn't an obligation. We should leave this debate to the

people who believe in that faith rather than interfering... An

absolute article of faith, if I may, in the UN Declaration on Human

Rights, and traditionally, you said this right at the outset, Lynda. It

is the right of everyone to hold the faith they want to hold and to have

freedom to believe. Also key in the UN Declaration on Human Rights is

the freedom to leave a religion, the freedom to get out of here and leave

a religion. Stephen Law, that is vital, isn't it? Yes, absolutely

key. I do agree with that. But across the world, there are death

penalties if you do just that. Yes, and that is unacceptable. It

concerns me that, if some polls are to be believed, there are minorities

in this country of young people who believe it is unacceptable for them

to leave their particular religion -- religion. Does anyone here in the

studio think that? Does anyone disapprove of it? What a liberal

assemblage we have here! Here is a situation that has occurred to me.

What about circumcision? Is that a parental imposition of a religion on

a child? Because that child, then, if that child leaves that particular

religion that has circumcision as a tradition, that child... It is kind

of final, circumcision. Stephen, your thoughts? Circumcision is not

something I know so much about, particularly medically. Certainly,

there are medical arguments to do with circumcision. Putting that to

one side... It isn't the choice of the child, is it? Exactly. Supposing

there was a chance who want to -- there was a child whose parents

wanted to mark it in some other way, such with some facial -- such as

with some facial markings. That would be unacceptable. We shouldn't

accept a child to have those changes to their body at such a young age.

Imposing that kind of physical change on a body, surely, that is

something that should be left until later. The trial's human rights are

being... ? Yes. But on the face of it, that is a pretty strong

objection. Rabbi, I will come to you in a minute. I feel you want to come

in here! I see this as, if you will forgive the expression, quite

clear-cut moral issue. This is not laughing topic. We are talking about

taking the most intimate part of a defenceless baby boy, who has

absolutely no say in the matter, whose welfare is completely in the

hands of other people, and we shouldn't look at that moral issue

lightly. This is a perfect example, I would say, of - we spoke earlier

about how some things can be justified on the basis of religion,

whether it is misogyny or homophobia or something. Circumcision is a

perfect example. If you are going to remove a part of your child's body

for a nonreligious region -- nonreligious reason, such as...

Social services would be in there. Absolutely, and that should happen.

But when you throw the religion in there, everyone kind of steps back a

bit. But it isn't different. You have to look at the rights and

wrongs of what is taking place. It is a sharp instrument and a

defenceless, naked baby, and that is wrong. Unless there was a medical

reason for it. This is an infringement of somebody's human

rights. They have no choice. The most compelling argument for it is

that, but I personally do not agree. With human rights, we see a

conversation, and religious rights are part of that conversation. You

can't exclude religion from that conversation. But the child has no

choice. Children have no trust over lots of things. Being a parent is a

very difficult and complicated thing to do. In my congregation, people

find it very difficult to answer questions of whether they should or

shouldn't circumcise their children. They don't do it with the intention

of infringing their child's human rights. They do it with the belief

of bringing their child into a whole cultural and religious world they

are part of, and that is part of the conversation. You can't just take

out one component. I'm not saying it is done in tension leave harmfully.

It is like double standards, and it demonstrates to us the power of

religious belief, the power of religious community and belief, and

also the pressure that comes from within that community to keep those

traditions going. Do you understand the logic of what Charlie is

saying? Of course, but as parents, we are faced with lots of difficult

chill -- difficult decisions that we make for our children. Circumcision

is different from utilise -- from utility, isn't it? Let's not use the

term mutilation. Let's not call it mutilation, because what you then do

is create a very problematic conversation about female genital

mutilation, which I think is damaging to the female genital

mutilation argument, because FGM is a suppression and damage of a

woman's human rights. Now, let's bring you win. You two guys have a

story to the House. You wanted to come in on this particular point.

Clearly, as you know, there are many children who would buy from that

procedure. Of course, it isn't comparable to FGM, but there are

males who die from this procedure. The holy text mentions specific

provisions for if the first sons dies from circumcision. It is not a

case of simply caring for your child. First of all, I don't know

the statistics worldwide, but the statistics in this country by the

Association of Mohelim, that conducts circumcision is for the

boys in my community, are all medically trained before they are

allowed to conduct circumcision is. The statistical risk is very low.

They audit their risk. They are very careful about how they conduct it.

If there is any risk to life for that baby, then the circumcision is

not permitted to go forward. But is irreversible. That's not the point

he was making. He was making the point that we are killing our baby

boys through circumcision, and that is not correct. What about raising

the age of consent slightly with circumcision, so the child has a bit

of choice? Something where the child can be consulted and spoken to a bit

about it, a bit like custody with divorced parents, where the child is

brought in and consulted as to whether they truly do wish to live

with their mother all with their father. Sometimes, the age of 12 is

where they take the opinion of the child. I would like to hear your

story in a minute. We had some hands up. The gentleman in the jumper back

there, with the glasses on. I just wanted to say that Chris' argument

seems to be tantamount to denying a parent's right to bring up the child

as part of their own community. I disagree. I was brought up in the

Muslim faith, but I was circumcised later on. At the age of 12, my

parents asked me whether I wanted to be circumcised as part of my faith.

I disagree with the Rabbi. There are countries all over the world where

children do die because they do not have the safety procedures we do.

There are many countries in the world, where my parents came from in

the third World, where it is not safe to circumcise boys. I am of the

Muslim faith, and normally, boys are circumcised at birth. I think it is

wrong. Give us a chance to have feedback from the community. I did

it as an -- at an age where my parents consulted me. I said yes.

The right to reply, Charlie. The right to bring up your child is a

very important right. Generally, you should be able to do what you want.

But freedom to manifest your own religion should stop sometimes, at

someone else's body. You have to be 18 years old to have a tad too, but

for some reason, you can cut your child's foreskin off. So if you want

to do that, or if you want to have a tad too on your child, cut their

foreskin of the first, and then you can trust to it! It is a very

difficult decision, and I think it is important for the audience to

hear that I have parents who join my community who make the choice not

to, as well as to circumcise their boys, and they are equally welcomed

into my community. It isn't about excluding people who don't make that

choice. Secondly, circumcision has been used as a weapon against the

Jewish community, as a means of anti-Jewish legislation throughout

all of Jewish history, and you are on very dangerous territory for the

Jewish can. We feel threatened by the prospect of someone trying to

legislate about this. The Royal Family is a circumcised! On this

point, we will leave it there. That's too much information. Tina,

Catholic Studies at Roehampton University. You are uncomfortable

with the gender segregation that we heard about recently. I am, but

before I say why, I am also uncomfortable with the fact that we

are interpreting human rights, and I agree with everyone that religious

rights are human rights, religious people are human beings and,

actually, it is a relatively small minority race, of secular modernity,

that would have seen any possibility of separating out religion from the

rest of being human. Everybody has beliefs, values, ideas they

subscribe to. That is part of what we are talking about. But you can't

impose them on other people, that is the key? Throughout history,

religious views have been imposed on people. All sorts of views are

imposed on people. I am a pacifist. I have to watch people on the BBC

wearing red poppies for a month, in public. Is that painful? It is, I

have to pay taxes to fight wars I don't believe in. We have to

compromise all along the line. We may not all have religious

identities, we have national identities, we can understand

analogies if we say, how much does my community matter to me, sometimes

more than my individual rights. I think gender comes in there. I am

certainly not in favour of gender segregation in publicly funded

places like universities. The whole ethos of a forum like that is to

reflect the values of a society to which we belong and we do not accept

gender segregation. Isn't that a religious rite? No. The language of

rights is a blunt in strength. The language of the law cannot always

address the nuances and complexities that we need to have around these

areas. The B couple is a very good example. That couple have on their

website that they did not welcome unmarried people sharing rooms. They

had a mosaic on their reception desk saying, Jesus is Lord. Why would any

gay couple want to stay there? We have kind of been over that ground.

Lisa? The gender segregation, are you supportive? I am, because it is

voluntary. We are not asking for gender segregation in public areas

like pavements... Television studios? This is not the perfect

environment for me. But I did not say to the producer I didn't want to

sit next to men. Why is it not the perfect environment? Bear with me.

Bear with me! Why is this not... You are oppressing me because you are

not allowing me to finish my point. Why is this not be perfect

environment for you? If I could, I would adhere to Islamic tradition

and sit separately from men. That is my choice. What about your Muslim

sisters fighting against segregation in the Muslim world? There is an

underlying principle, an Islamic principle, there is no compulsion in

the religion. The segregation, which I don't prefer to even call it

that, it is only sitting arrangements. When you mentioned

segregation, it reflects a dichotomy between superiority and inferiority,

which is not true. It is a basic religious right that some groups

want to manifest and it is voluntary. Let me extend my

apologies for interrupting, I thought it was such an interesting

point, please carry on. You have ruined my train of thought. You feel

more comfortable in that situation. Do you think it is acceptable in a

public place like university? If an Islamic organisation is holding the

event, I expect them to allow me to adhere to tradition, it is just the

most obvious. If the Islamic organisation is holding the event in

a public arena like a university, a lecture hall, a conference hall or

if it is in a mosque, I do expect they would allow me to adhere to

Islamic tradition. But I am not saying we should extend this to

buses and trains. Abhishek, you would disagree. You were at one of

these meetings? It is a lie that it is voluntary. We have attended an

event, two friends of mine have been evicted for sitting in the ladies

area, which was at the back of the room. The men were at the front, the

women were at the back. Please. If you want to have a seating

arrangement, the organisation that organised the event put it out. I

was at the event, there was mixed seating for those that wanted to sit

together and there was a segregated seating for men and women. Sounds a

bit like South Africa, doesn't it? That is what Maajid just said? The

struggle that you referred to, the struggle you should be referring to,

the struggle of your Muslim sisters... Let me speak. I also want

to hear from David Lammy, an elected representative. You two were there.

You have 40 odd women that have decided out of their own choice,

choice being the operative word, to sit in the segregated area. There is

no reason for men to impose themselves in the women's area. Why

on earth would you object to women wanting to sit next to another woman

out of their own free choice? Chris? Nobody has forced you to sit next to

anyone. There was a clear force applied to those people that came

into the room and were told, you cannot sit here, you cannot sit

here, you have to sit here. There is force applied to those people. We

were refused entry to the female area when I was with my partner

because I am male. You, as a woman, have the right to sit next to

whoever you like. But you do not have the right to impose it on

anyone else. Let's go to Charlie. Chris? No, let's go to Charlie. A

couple of these events, the females had to submit their questions to the

speakers beforehand, whereas the men could just ask the questions they

wanted on the day. How do you feel about that? They could have been

private questions. But it was one rule for the women, one for the men,

they had to filter the questions. Have you been to these events? Yes.

You guys wore some T-shirts? Would you like to see them? What have you

got on your T-shirt? Stop drawing the prophet? It is a cartoon, Jesus

and Mo, it pokes fun at religious figures, we wore them at the

freshers fair. We all know about the Danish cartoons? But it does not

denigrate muslins or anything. We were asked to take them off, cover

them up, we were harassed by the University staff, students union

staff, over two days. You have the right to wear the veil and the

niqab, I support those rights. Are you also going to stand up for my

right to wear whatever I like? We talked about the face veil,

segregation, there is a trend in the media, this is a different context.

Does he have the right to wear that T-shirt? The segregation issue was

promoted in the media by Henry Jackson Society, a far right

organisation. There is Islamophobia industry going on. Segregation, the

face veil feeds into that. Do they have the right to wear those

T-shirts? Sunni no. Why are you trying to offend a religious faith.

UR offending us. You know that many people, EDL

bigots, for example, would be offended by you wearing the veil. Do

they have the right to impose their sensibilities on you? Was it you

that said no, they don't have the right to wear those T-shirts? Is

wearing our hijab is our own right, we are not when you threaten our

religion and our right, that should be a concern, not only for Muslims

but for everyone else. Like you are saying, human rights is very

important to us. When you do threaten our religion, we are not

sitting here wearing a hijab, mocking you in anyway. It is a

picture of a man with a beard, it not really Mohamed Diame stop As a

Muslim, that T-shirt does not threaten my God, does not threaten

my faith, it does not threaten the Koran, it does not threaten any

aspect of my religion. I do not feel threatened by these men wearing that

T-shirt. David, I think it is important we hear from you. Is it

important that we have the right to offend? Yes. It is. But the measure

of a civilised society is how we treat minorities. Therefore, we have

to here and listen to the Muslim women that are in this room that are

offended. Just because you have the right to offend, it does not mean

that you have to go on to offend. When I am entering a synagogue in my

constituency, and I represent a Stamford Hill, Orthodox, Jewish

community, I wear a skull cap. I do not shake hands with the women that

I am presented with because it is culturally not appropriate. If I

going to a mosque, I take off my shoes. I am respectful of religion.

This was a university campus. In a university campus, it is a public

building, where you extend meetings to everyone. There is a reason why

we talk about the liberal arts, but I think you also have to be

respectful of all experiences and the fact that, probably, it is going

to be very difficult to preserve any degree of segregation in that

context. The Dave Allen show was repeated the other day, great

comedian who offended religions at the time. Why does David Lammy say

it is respectful not to shake the hand of a woman. Do you know why you

are not shaking her hand? In case you are polluted by her. I didn't

say I agree with it, but I respect the fact that... Who are you

respecting? In every religion in the world, institutional power is in the

hands of men. I think we need to address these issues in terms of

power. The veil is a good example. Why do we jump solely on Muslim

women in this context? The Bullingdon Club, which our Prime

Minister was part of, excludes women. Golf clubs exclude women. One

other very important issue. While we have time, the kirpan. The carrying

of the knife. You, of course, are representing the Sikh community.

There is an exemption to carry the knife. Why is it so important?

Because it is one of the articles of faith. I have to say that the

obnoxious French secularism affects Sikhs as well, we are not allowed to

wear a turban in public places. This movement of freedom across Europe is

a nonsense. I am pleased we have members of parliament here who would

undoubtedly be able to defend our right to go to France and live there

as European citizens without having to remove our turban. How important

is the kirpan? It is the last of the five articles of faith. Once they

have shown that they know it's meaning, it is the way you have been

blessed to fight for some body else's freedom. So, the kirpan has

been exempted from prosecution from the 1951 crime act. So far, it

today, in Britain, there has not been a single case of a Sikh abusing

that. It is an offensive weapon, as you say? I think that is a good

point to finish on. That is an excellent example of an exemption

that seems to work? It seems to work and it is so important to your

faith. Listen, it has been lively, that has been really interesting.

Thank you all very much for taking part. Thank you. As ever, the debate

will continue on Twitter and online. Please join us next Sunday from

Salford. From everyone in east London, goodbye. Have a really good

Sunday. Thanks for watching.