Episode 6 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions: The Vatican versus the UN. Big game

hunting. And, is religion funny? APPLAUSE

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

we're live from Samworth Enterprise Academy in Leicester. Welcome

everybody to The Big Questions. This week the United Nations

Committee on the Rights of the Child issued a damning report on the

Vatican's handling of child abuse within the Catholic Church. It

called for the Vatican to remove all suspected clergy from their posts

and to refer them to the police. Is it time for the Vatican to confess?

Colm O'Gorman, author of Beyond Belief, and also a victim of Father

Sean Fortune, are they still withholding information?

Undoubtedly. It is clear that the Vatican were asked to supply to the

committee last year detailed information about their handling, or

the handling of child abuse cases. They failed to do that. The Vatican,

the Vatican has had an interesting response to the report in which it

suggested that the report didn't consider all of the facts. The

Vatican was 14 years late submitting its information to the Vatican. The

Vatican is withholding information. The reality is... What information?

Are priests currently abusing, or historical cases? Both. We know that

the Vatican jealously guards information at its own level. It is

said to the committee, its defence for not supplying information to

committee, it only shares information on these kinds of cases

in national jurisdictions where legal processes are in train. At the

same time it refused to share information to two state inquiries

being carried out be a judge in Ireland, so it is being disingenuous

in how it engages with the committee and responds to its report. The

Vatican has failed to put in place under Canon law the kinds of

measures that would properly protect children and would ensure that the

Vatican and the Catholic Church is compliant with its obligations under

the UN convention on the rights of the child. This was a UN committee

inquire ring to the rights of children that the holy sea ratified

and adopted and should be bound by. The hack should... It is a strange

construct where it has a quasi- status at the United Nations. The

holy sea signed the convention. The Vatican is inclined to claim

different legal personalities. It has so many different personalities

it jumps from one to the other, often as a way of avoiding

responsibility. The holy sea said, we signed the treaty as the

Government of the Vatican state. The committee rejecteded that notion and

said no, that is true that that's one of your entities, but you are

also the ultimate authority across the global Church and you can and do

direct the functioning of practices and parishes across the world and

the obligation of the treaty must apply to the Church at the global

level. Ultimately in short do you believe that the Vatican, the Kath

allege church, is still hiding and withholding information that should

be released? It is undoubtedly doing that. Undoubtedly? Absolutely. We

need to get the information... The fact that at this time refused to

hand over information shows that it is failing to hand over information

in an appropriate way. More importantly this report mirrors the

findings, in state investigation and judicial inquiries and grand juries

across the world. That is that the Catholic Church has, in the

interests of protecting the institution, its authority, its

money and its position, failed to protect children and has covered up

and facilitated child sexual abuse on a grand scale.

APPLAUSE On a grand scale. A litany of disgusting, heinous and

unforgivable crimes, has it been sorted? I hope we all recognise

these are disgusting crimes and there is a concern for everyone here

for the protection of children. That was why this UN report was a

travesty of ignorance and ideology over sheer facts and evidence. When

we look at the nature of the Vatican, something never taken into

account by the committee, which ignored the evidence that the Holy

See gave to the committee. The Holy See and the Catholic Church isn't a

multinational organisation, it is a hugely decentralised Holy Communion

of different Churches. Where disgusting abuse has happened, what

Pope Benedict called the filth of what happened, there is no evidence

that it happened on a Vatican level, it is utter nonsense. The reason why

we know that, the way that the actual Church works is when the CDF,

the congregation of the doctrine of faith, which has responsibility for

this, it is supposed to make sure that procedures are carried out. Not

that in each case something happens, but the canonical case in each

diocese, that means that the report fed back to the Vatican itself. That

is utter nonsense. They don't have files, they have copies. That is

utter nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about. I do

actually, I've worked in this for 20 years. You should have worked harder

then. Thank you for the insult! We discovered in an inquiry that took

11 years in Ireland that at the Vatican level were detailed reports

of internal inquiries and investigations into individual acts

of abuse which were held at the level of the Vatican. Which were

copies. So they held files. So you now acknowledge that the Vatican

holds very detail d files. Copies of files. Are people... Sorry Nicky,

one quick point. Since 2001 and beforehand, the Vatican asserted is

its authority for deciding how cases are to be handled. Yes. And when

actions are taken at the national or local level, often those that for

instance that disciplinary action is taken against appeals against and

the Vatican is the final arbitrator there. The notion that the Vatican

doesn't instruct what happens at the local or parish level is nonsense.

Talk to any priest who has dared to talk, or Bishop, about issues like a

priest marrying oar LGBT rights and you will find that at the level of

the Vatican they swoop in with extraordinary force in a way that

(Inaudible) APPLAUSE Some people believe there

is no transparency. Cardinal rats I thinker for Pope Benedict collected

all of this information. Has all of that information been released? The

CDS... The police want to file they can go to the local diocese. I have

to connect this, there are three levels on which the Vatican's

authority over local diocese, the canonical procedures, the doctrine

and liturgy. Those aren't things that... Surely Pope Benedict read

them? He did much more than anyone else and passed on this

information... To the police? It is not his job to do that at the level

level. No they didn't. ALL TALK AT ONCE

Richard Scorer, author of Betrayed: The English Catholic Church and the

Sex Abuse. In crisis. There is seems to be a camera diction between we

are centralised, decentralised e, we abide by Canon law. There is There

is evidence of a cover up, and there is a simple way the Pope and the

Vatican could deal with this. They could direct that all allegationses

have to be reported to the police and civil authorities. They won't do

that. They did, in 2010. As a lawyer they have a legal obligation you

believe to do that? Is what the Catholic Church has said is you must

obey the law of the land. If a Catholic Bishop knows about abuse by

a priest, he has no obligation to go to the police. That will come if the

Vatican give as clear direction that that has to happen. First of all,

all of us in the Kath lick church -- Catholic Church accept there was

horrible abuse and there was a cover-up. As a mother of four

children I can't begin to contemplate how that must feel...

Can I ask you one question, this has been going on for decades, they knew

about it in the 1960s and 70s' and 80s. Why wasn't anything done about

it then? There are a couple of reasons. Just to come back... Can

you come back to that? I want to come back to the point that Colm

said. I think it wasn't fully understood what was happening. A few

things went on, none of which were excusable. What do you mean? When

you find out that one of your colleagues have been abusing your

children, priests who are known and loved, the first reaction is denial,

that this couldn't have happened. A second reaction, and again it was

the wrong reaction, I think when certain cases came to light, various

diocese engaged with their lawyers, who realised that a lot of money

needed, rightly, to be paid out in compensation. And they engaged in

legal terms which meant not talking to the victims, stone walling them,

not putting their hand up and saying, we are sorry. And not fully

understanding the nature of paedophilia? I think so, in as much

as... Surely knowing that molest egg a little boy was wrong. Of course

they would know that that was wrong. We are a Church of forgiveness and

there was a lot of naive I, when somebody said, I'm sorry... With

enormous respect. Can I continue? With enormous respect, because I

understand where you are coming from, the first law was introduced

in the Catholic Church against priests in the 14th century. The

first reference was from the second century. Catholic Church history is

littered with law which the Catholic Church tried to address child sexual

abuse, sometimes in respect of eliminating it or trying to protect

the institution. In the 1940s the Vatican established a congregation

whose only support was to provide support to priests with psycho

sexual problems. The head of that congregation had told the Vatican,

had told the Pope, that priests who had offended dependence children

even following treatment shouldn't be returned to parishes, because

they would continue to abuse. He said that granting them new parishes

like granting them green pastures in which they would continue to abuse.

What went wrong? It is a myth that the Catholic Church didn't

understand the nature of paedophilia 30 years ago. I dealt with case

where the Catholic Church got clear medical evidence from psychiatrists

that a particular priest was at risk of offending and he was allowed to

continue working with children. Caroline said they didn't understand

the nature of paedophilia. They took out insurance against the risk of

compensation claims 30 years ago. Why take out insurance against

something if you don't think it is a rievg?

APPLAUSE Reverend Canon David Jennings wants to come in with a

non- perspective. I'm an Anglican, not a Catholic. The Anglican church

is by no means immune from some of the things we are discussing. Nor

the BBC. I wouldn't dare mention the BBC. I want to mention how

institutions turn in on themselves to protect themselves. We saw the

NHS, the Mid-Staffordshire crisis, the Army, where they don't deal with

rape claims. All institutions have an ability to turn in on themselves.

I think that's the kind of thing that needs to be looked at

critically and exposed, because it is very damaging to individuals,

such as was described and others know too well. It takes away any

credibility that the institution has if it can't openly face and admit

its own short comings. APPLAUSE Caroline? Just as the

diocese of Chichester in the Anglican church has recently as two

years ago has admitted it had huge safe guarding problems, no-one is

suggesting that Canterbury hoarded all the information. In Ireland

there've been three states reports into the problem of child abuse.

There are reports that the Catholic Church didn't fully investigate.

# They investigated about 86 of cases. In every one of those 86

cases it was shown that no information was sent to the Vatican

about this until 2005. This is what my report... I am quite familiar

with this. In 2005, the first Amendment talked about the

Vatican's central responsibility. The Vatican had distributed

information to bishops about how cases were to be handled. As part of

that policy, people were sworn to absolute secrecy. It talked about

the failure of the Vatican to make its dieses win of this phenomenon at

a time when it knew not only of the phenomenon, what the dangers

associated with it. That was in 2005. The enquiry dealt with about

28 priests in total. It dealt with hundreds of victims. The report

dealt with thousands of victims. We are talking about for major state

investigations. It ran for 11 years. If I may, let's speak to Evon

Brennan. What experience did you have in those industrial skills? I

am an ex-pupil of an industrial system of 18 years. My

Brennan. I and thousands of other people have gone through the system.

We people have gone through the system.

ideas of what the book says. This is physical abuse, sadism? Yes, but I

would like to talk about the legacy of the damage, the ripple effect of

what the institution has done to thousands and millions of people.

For example, the church is supposed to give comfort, love, it is

supposed to to give comfort, love, it is

of innocent children, it gave them the opposite to that, it gave them a

life of destruction, loathing of their bodies, it indoctrinated them

about complete hate. It actually bred hate. I would like to find out,

what does the Pope do with regards to all of the innocent minds that

were affected from very very young. This innocent mind has grown with

hate, with destruction, this innocent mind has then married, and

it has spread eight. The Catholic Church has spread the disease. How

do we reach all of these people who have been disease by the system? How

deep is this? It is very deep, and it takes years. It is still there.

How can you possibly get rid of something that was ingrained? In

order for it to go, you have to go back and you have to abolish it. You

have to say, where did it go wrong? You have to go back to the basics.

What does Catholicism mean? How do you become sacred? Through

persecution? Through abstinence? I think this confuses the fight. It is

important to listen to experiences like this. There have been terrible

abuses by Catholics, but to blame the entire Catholic Church for

that, I think it is a mistake. The vast majority of Catholics have

never hurt anyone. This is why the UN committee had a real

responsibility to bring out a report that would have had constructive

things to say. Is that not why all the files should be released? It did

not do that. It brought out this prejudiced report. It said to the

church that it should change its teaching on abortion. People like

Uganda have had horrible abuses of human rights. This is something

which is totally misunderstood, the nature of the Church, in terms of

its responsibilities on a local level. The report made unacceptable

claims about the church's record and human dignity. We should all be

concerned with the rights of the child. Let's get the audience. It

would appear to me and to most right-thinking people that there has

been a systematic cover-up within the Catholic Church, to cover up

these vile abuses of children. In what other walk of life would it be

right to have someone do something that morally wrong in one place, and

say, we will cover that up and move you to somewhere new? They are not

doing that any more. It is a disgrace. One of the limitations of

the report is that it did not mention that particularly in the UK

and the US, we have had 15 years of Gold standard, best practice. It has

created a climate of fear. What Evon Brennan said was incredibly

powerful. What happened to you, no Christian could condone. Think of

the Bible, anyone who causes one of my little ones to lose faith, the

better have a millstone around their neck. But what we saw in Ireland,

the state colluded with some of these institutions. They were not

monitored by anyone. If in the confessional, a priest says to

another priest, I have been doing this, is there an obligation to make

that information public or give it to the police? What is said in the

confessional has to be sacred. Why? If somebody is genuinely penitent,

we all go to confession, and we go to confession because we want

we all go to confession, and we go forgiven, and we want to amend our

lives. These are unforgivable. If you are genuinely repentant, Father,

I abused a child, you will go to the police. As a growing child, who is

becoming adolescent, and the child says to the priest, I touched

myself. What does the priest say to that? This is magical. The Catholic

Church has completely enjoyed -- has completely denied the enjoyment of

one's body. That has been the problem. With it is the Anglican

Church, the Catholic Church or any other, how do you actually select

priests and determine whether they are suitable? That procedure has

very much been sorted out. Thank you all very much for your contributions

on that debate. If you have something to say about that debate,

log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions and follow the link to where you can

join in the discussion online, or contribute on Twitter. We are also

debating live this morning from Leicester, is trophy hunting good

for conservation? And are some topics too sacred for comedy? So get

tweeting or emailing on those topics now or send us any other ideas or

thoughts you may have about the show.

Today, the Prince of Wales and Prince William issued a video

highlighting the plight of elephants, rhinos, tigers and other

species hunted for their ivory, their bones or other saleable body

parts. Britain is hosting a big international conference on the

illegal wildlife trade this Wednesday. But there are some voices

suggesting that properly licensed hunting can help conserve rare

species. Recently a permit to shoot an elderly black rhino in Namibia

was auctioned for $350,000, money which will be ploughed back into the

local community and its wildlife protection projects. Is trophy

hunting good for conservation? I am delighted to say that we have

Professor EJ Milner-Gulland. There are some estimates that 50,000

elephants were lost last year to poaching. Clearly these are

threatened and endangered species. Over 1000 rhinos killed last year.

How does selling permits to hunters to kill these beautiful animals save

them? It does seem counterintuitive, but there are a

number of examples were if it is properly managed, trophy hunting can

have successes. I have done work with brown bears in Croatia. Trophy

hunting is run with local hunting associations. Bears or annoying

neighbours to have because they destroy your property and eat your

beehives and things like that. Because it is locally done, the

compensation comes straightaway, and the population of beers is stable.

Across the border in Slovenia, it is ruled by EU la. It is the same

population of beers, and bears are protected. And yet 20% of their

population were shot as problem animals, because the people were

annoyed with them. That compares with 8% in Croatia. This is a good

example of where if trophy hunting is well managed, it can make a

difference. The animal is seen as an asset to the local community.

Exactly. You have come from Kenya, Doctor Paula Kahumbu. If you kill an

animal to save a species, that is surely for the greater good, money

will be ploughed into the community? Why do you not believe

that argument? Several reasons. I think it is ironic. It is like

saying during the famine of the 1980s, when Ethiopians were

starving, it is like having a fundraising event were your stuffing

your face. And eating competition. It is confusing for the people on

the ground. In Africa, where these animals are being shot, it is not

well-managed. Secondly, it runs counter to the value system.

European values, sport hunting, killing animals for fun... Are those

not African values? Absolutely not. Animals may be killed because they

are part of an initiation ceremony, or problem animals, but hunting

animals as a blood sport is not one of the values. There has been a

massive outrage because of the rhino in Namibia which is going to be

shot. People were so upset. It was all over the Internet. It was an

elderly, aggressive rhino. The animal is aggressive because it is

in a confined space. You cannot call it conservation when these animals

are being bred in little farms. They are contained in farms for the

purpose of hunters. That is not conservation. Having 1 million

rhinos for the benefit of these elite hunters coming in for the

United States or Europe, that is not conservation. Conservation is where

you are protecting the animals and the landscape. The communities that

live with these animals, and that happens in Kenya where we do not

allow this, I am not saying it is perfect, and we do not have all the

solutions, but Kenyans are saying that the sport hunting fraternity,

it would be the equivalent of Kenyans coming to the United Kingdom

and saying, we allow certain drugs in our markets, let's impose them on

you because we can make money out of it. This is a cultural imposition?

Charlie Jakobi, Hunter, owner of this Beales -- owner of the sports

hunting channel. What have you killed in Africa? I have shot

antelope and the zebra. This rhino that is going to be shot. It is a

lot of money. $350,000. Lots of rhinos saved. Can you imagine how

many animals you can save if you have $350,000. Is that where the

money goes? Yes. Describe the enjoyment of shooting a rhino? It is

a very complicated thing. One thing to get right about this first of

all, in Britain, we have a different view of how we should animals. We

like the idea of the rogue animal, the leopard that has taken the

child. Second is pest animals, then edible animals. In America, it is

the other way around. Trophy animals are the most important thing. What

is the enjoyment? Take us through this elderly rhino? It is

complicated. I will do my best. You'll leave your house with your

gun, you have a landscape in front of you. This is the rhino I am

talking about? Take that as an example, you're out on your farm in

Namibia. You see the landscape and suddenly everything is much better.

You often hear people that -- say that they are there for the

stocking, not for the kill. It is a much more exciting way to see the

world. Then there is the bit where you pull the trigger. A friend of

mine described it as 99% late on and 1% horror. If you're an American,

you want the rhino on your wall. If it is me, I get to cook the rabbit,

if it is a rabbit. When the animal false, there is a feeling of

completion? Why do you not shoot it with a camera? It is not the same.

Hunting goes back thousands of years. We sat around campfires in

the Stone Age. We did not talk about decorating. We spoke about who got

the biggest animal. Is it a good idea to get people to pay a lot of

money to kill a member of a species to save a species? Let's put it into

some con decks, Nicky, because we are talking about -- into context,

Nicky, because we are talking about 1,500 elephant licences, 600 lions

being killed, going to the United States. Those who are supporters of

trophy hunting will say it is good for the local community, because it

provides employment. Very weak statistics on just how many people

it really does ploy. I give you a good argument on -- that it employs.

I can give you a good assessment. The UN says 3% of money goes into

local communities. The bottom line is it is all about an elite wishing

the put the head of an animal on their wall. The head of a lion...

APPLAUSE Go on, Charlie. In Kenya sports hunting was banned in 1997

and the lion and rhino population have fallen by 90% since then What

about Botswana which has banned trophy hunting and not for a year,

it has been banned until populations recover. The reason it has been

banned is because the Minister herself said the reason it has been

Banned is because wildlife populations are in decline and

trophy hunting is playing a major role than that. No they are not. You

are muddling poaching and hunting. Where do they go? The main reason

why many of Kenya's and Africa's big five are in trouble today are

because of hunting. I'm not talking about the last ten years but

historically. The reason why Kenya put in a ban on the hunting of

wildlife is because populations of the animals were already collapsing.

So hunting, think about it, in the 1800s and 190 #0s, el fancifuling

being hunted at the rate of 100,000 a year, by sport hunters. At that

time there were no proper regulations. Africa's elephants

declined from 25 million to just a few hundred. But they weren't paying

it back into conservation. Top police stations collapsed because of

sport huntling, so now to turn it around and say, guess what, I'm the

champion of conservation. Sorry, but Africans don't buy that. They've

never been hunters in this way. And they are not really paying it back

in any significant way now. $300,000 is not significant? Wait for it. The

total wildlife-based tourism income for Kenya alone is a billion US a

year. 165,000 people employed in it. The total according to Safari Club,

not the most reliable source, is 200 million. 100 from South Africa

alone. It is incomparable. It behoves me to come back to you at

this point. You love animals. I do. How do you feel when you see there's

quite a lot of stuff goes around on the internet and Twitter of people

posing the beautiful lion that they've shot? Does that make you

queasy or do you think, not much? That's not something I would

personally want to do. What do you think when you see the photograph?

It is not nice. But let's think about conservation and Rhinos. I

agree with Paul o that over the course the century sport hunting was

the major cause of the decline. The western black rhino was declared

extinct two years ago. In Namibia they hold 9 of the -- 90% of the

subspecies they have. It is well regulated. It is not true in other

countries, but perhaps in Namibia and South Africa, rhinos are a

conservative story and a lot of it is due to trophy hunting. Nicky,

there is a problem when you talk about South Africa. EJ is right,

southern Africa has a different model, and that's shifting, most

dramatically with the recent declaration in Botswana. In South

Africa the hunting story, which did look so good, has been quickly

compromised by criminal cartels by Asia. The poachers? No, hunting.

What they are doing is brilliant. These people are much smarter than

the rest of us. They come and buy a hunting permit, which costs maybe

$20,000, for a rhino, to get the horn of the rhino, which is worst

about $1 million. You buy up all the licences, had you have people that

shoot like this, because they are not hunters. They brought in

prostitutes at one point. They started with Thai, Vietnamese and

now even Polish hunters. They shoot like this, injury the animal and the

outfitter has to finish off the animal. They take off the horn, they

stick it on a wooden plaque. They declare it and they export it with a

legal licence, because the value of that horn is monumental compared to

the price of the actual hunt. People think it makes them virile when they

slaughter? And then it goes to Poland and then to the Far East. So

it is stimulating illegal trade. I heard you say a few moments ago, why

not give the money straight away. You grew up in Kenya? I grew up in

Kenya. I watched animals hunting in the wild. I loved elephants. To

think my grandchildren might not see those elephants breaks my heart. If

they care so much about conservation, why can't they just

give the cash? APPLAUSE I will go up to my next

American millionaire and ask why don't you hand over your $350

million. And tell him to get a life. How does putting a bullet through

the animal's head make you a man? It is fun and millions of people do it.

You don't know me. I have killed a rabbit which had myxomatosis and was

suffering. I killed it to put it out of its misery. I will kill an animal

if I need to eat it if I'm in the wild, but just for the fun of

killing it and watching it die, it makes me subhuman.

APPLAUSE Anyway, is there anyway this could help stop the illegal

trade? So much money's going into, coming from the poachers through the

Chinese and Vietnamese cartels and Triads, there's AK-47s, night vision

glasses, massive amounts of money. A slaughter frenzy at the moment. Is

there anyway that some of this money can combat that? Yes, the money from

trophy hunting, from that rhino that's going to be killed in Namibia

is going into anti-poaching. They had two Rhinos killed through

poaching last year compared to the 1,000 in South Africa. Once they run

out in South Africa, the guys will go to Namibia. It is managing to

fend it off soar far. In South Africa they have a massive problem

with poaching, separate from trophy hunting. With the point about the

fake legal hunting permits, had it is legal in as much as it is not

biologically unsustainable but it is fuelling the illegal trade. South

Africa has closed the loophole with Vietnamese citizens. They are trying

to strengthen... Something I want to address is this concept, people may

have heard of it, I will try to come to audience contributions, explain

this idea of canned hunting. It is used a lot with lions. It is breed

lions in a compound and then rich Americans or whoever come and pay a

lot of money and the lion is released on the last day of the

safari from the compound and the gullible person shoots. The lion is

used to human hands. Is a lot of this going on? A huge amount. It

almost exactly is as you described. Your tourist hunter goes in on a no

kill no fee basis. There is no fair chase. There is no opportunity for

this animal to get aye. -- to get away. Is this animal used to humans?

It is taken around in a circuitous route in order to make it feel like

the guy is on a hunt and there's the animal and they shoot it. The

problem with that is that the trophy hunter takes the head home and the

body is left behind. The body is stripped of the meat. The skeleton

is legally sold, because these are captive-bred animals, so they don't

fall under the same regulations as wild animals. They are sent to the

far east, to Laos. In 2009 five skeletons were exported. In 2011,

494 skeletons were exported to Laos. This is going to have a massive and

detrimental impact on wild lion populations across Africa. The

consumer market doesn't care where they come from. How many are left?

Between 25-30,000. 1,600 a year are killed by trophy hunters. I agree

with Will. I think canned hunting is unsporting and I don't like it

Because there is no contest? It is a difficult word to describe, but

there is no sport. No sense of the landscape, of the shooting should.

There is no sense of the (Inaudible) Why are you laughing, Will? You

stand 300 metres away with your high-powered rifle. I didn't say

high-powered. You look through the scope and you take out that animal

at 300 metres. Where's the sport in that?

APPLAUSE Just on this point, I don't think Will be be subscribing to your

YouTube channel. Can something like that, if the money doesn't go into

the commercial hand and pay for swimming pools, can we get to a

situation where more of that money goes into conservation? Is that your

battle? Canned hunting that nothing to do with conservation. My battle

would be to make sure that landowners and Governments who hold

these kind of endangered species in trust for all of us are effectiven

the support they need to be able to protect them. That involves not just

anti-poaching but empty of demand in consumer countries. I think will's

-- I think Will's point about the bonus is important. If these are

getting into the illegal trade, that's an issue that needs to be

addressed by trophy hunters and Governments and anyone who cares

about these endangered species. Thank you. We have to leave it

there. Some very interesting stuff. You can join in all this morning's

debates by logging on to bbc.co.uk/the big questions and

following the link to the online discussion. Or you can tweet using

the hashtag #bbctbq. Tell us what you think about our last Big

Question too - are some topics too sacred for comedy? If you would like

to be in the audience at a future show, you can email

[email protected]. We're in Edinburgh next week, Oxford on 23

February, and Peterborough the week after that.

. This weekend Leicester launched its

21st comedy festival. In a city famous for being the most

multicultural in Britain, it must often be tricky for comedians to

raise a laugh without offending somebody in a Leicester audience. As

we know all too well, it can be a difficult line to tread. Are some

topics too sacred for comedy? When someone makes a joke about God or a

cartoon or whatever, clearly it is not offending God. Clearly God is

bigger than that. Surely it is only offending the people who want to be

offended. Otherwise don't look at it. I don't think that we want to be

offended. We worship that God, or respect that prophet, or love that

person or that book or whatever. We feel hurt because we have a deep

affection for whoever we are talking about, whether it is God or a

prophet. We have love and affection for them the way we have love and

affection for our parents or children. I wouldn't be able to

tolerate somebody making fun of my father. Lots of people don't believe

God exists, so for lots of people the jury's out or in, and for lots

of people there is no jury, but your family exist. Number one for us, God

and the prophets are real, so it is not like this is something ethereal.

I understand that, but for others they aren't. We have to show respect

and courtesy Tote people around us. they aren't. We have to show respect

That's what makes us human being. We know how to survive around people.

Our job isn't to say what we like regardless of the other person, as

long as I make the money from my next joke routine. Citizen Khan on

the BBC, I love him to bits, the programme. The Life of Brian? I

didn't find that funny. I found that quite offensive. But it wasn't about

Jesus but Brian. Yes, but a lot of the jokes there weren't.

APPLAUSE Shouldn't we be more careful not to offend people of

sincere faith like grat gratuitously? The American

journalist once said one should respect the other man's religion in

the same way once believes his wife and children are beautiful and

intelligent. She is right, in overday life we don't go around

saying what we like to anybody and just abusing people. But the point

of comedy is that transaggression to escape from the little constraints

that we put on ourselves every day. We laugh exactly because we we think

there is something that is said that maybe I thought, maybe I once

occurred to me and I didn't say it. Laughter is a release in a lot of

ways. I can remember in the 1980s, there were lots of little jokes

around sex abuse in Ireland. In some way, it was a way of dealing with

the fact that no one else was dealing with it. We knew there was

something going on. We thought, at least we can laugh at these people,

if nothing else. It is a great way of pricking pomposity? Exactly. That

is the point of comedy. Not to offend, but to make people think a

little bit. If you can use comedy, for example, I do gags about

Muslims. You are Muslim? Yes. I do gags about other religions as well.

I went to see a Buddhist pantomime the other day. Somebody shouted out,

he is beyond you. What about Pakistan, where there is a blasphemy

law? Are we in danger of having one through the back door here? I have

just come back from Pakistan three weeks ago. It is a beautiful place

with some very beautiful people. There are some very liberal people.

But on the subject of blasphemy, there are people who think you

should be killed. That is a place not to go to for stand-up comedy. It

is going to take a long time for them to understand that stand-up

comedy is a device. Comedy is a device for discussing subjects,

satire. Is there a danger that we will get that attitude kid if we are

too sensitive to people sensibilities? People overreacting?

Muslims love to overreact anywhere. It is the hot spices that weed, I do

not know! But we have to be very careful. Religious people have to be

careful not to take offence. When I see a comedian making fun of his

mother in law, I know that he is not making fun of his mother-in-law, he

is just making fun of the concept. But when God and the profit coming

to the picture, people take it personally. -- the prophet. We have

to be careful. You are right writer first bliss programmes, -- you are

right for some marvellous programmes. Was there anything in

The Life Of Brian that you find offensive? I thought it was

hysterical, but as a Christian, I found the crucifixion scene

difficult. I have been writing a book recently, retelling some Bible

stories. I have focused on the earlier parts, Adam and Eve, and

Noah and his Ark. When you get to the cross Andy Christy fiction, it

is like someone making a joke about your mum who has died in a car or

something. As a comedian and performer, I defend the right to do

whatever jokes you see fit, play the room, because I like to try and make

the most amount of people have as good a time as possible, which means

not targeting people. Other comedians like to do that. But I

think people should vote with their feet. If they do not like that, see

someone else. Is there not a difference between targeting a

race, which is unacceptable, and targeting a belief system,

religion? You cannot account for offence. As a comedian, you could

do, why does the chicken cross the road, and there could be a farmer in

the studio who has had his chicken run over and he may not like that!

What about Scientology? I think I have probably done jokes about that

at some point. You have got to think, with the laugh along with it.

Probably not. It depends on the approach you take. There are ways of

doing it. David Jennings. I do not think that religious faith needs a

great deal of protection. If it is sincerely held, people will hold it

no matter what anyone says about it. But there is a difference between

being able to make a joke about religious faith and setting out to

be gratuitously offensive. I think there is a difference. Give me an

example where someone has been gratuitously offensive in comedy? I

cannot think of anything. Not off the top of my head. But if you said

something obnoxious about Jesus, just because you wanted to say

something obnoxious, that would be gratuitously offensive. Then do not

read it, do not watch it? Comedy can give you an insight into religion

that can be helpful. It puts it into a different context. That can be

positive. It does not need all that protection. Any comedy, we need to

remember that it runs the risk of offending somebody. It depends on

the attention -- the intention of the person making the joke. Let's

get some audience reaction. Good morning. That is the microphone from

above. The thing you have to remember about comedy and humour, is

that the reason something tends to be funny is because there tends to

be some truth behind it, as minimal as that might be. Perhaps it is

interesting that when comedians poke fun at religion, there is maybe

something to think about. The people being offended should maybe think

about something being said. You're far too young to remember Dave

Allen. Check it out online. Dave Allen used to make fun of religion

all the time. The gentle man over there. Good morning. I was just

going to mention Dave Allen. Keep old fun at religion all the time.

Mainly Catholicism. Yes, but let's just call it religion. He saw the

absurdity and religion. Let's face it, we are asked to believe in a

talking snake, we are asked to believe that there was a directive

to kill witches. We are asked to believe that the prophet could hold

back the night. We are asked to believe that another prophet flew

from Mecca to Jerusalem. You say it is baloney? We are told that

documents of tombs got up and walked around the town. You can choose not

to believe it. Finally, we are also asked to believe that the young

women was debauched by a ghost. -- a young woman. The whole thing is

absurd. There are some messages that comedy can bring out that are

difficult to touch upon another whizz. But for many people, face

forms a big part of their identity, so to mark what they believe... For

example, my face makes me respectful and inspires me to do good. My faith

inspires letting me. If someone wants to more clad, I would find it

difficult. That said, people can have different comedic case. That is

perfectly fine. How do you feel about this? I want to pick up on

something that was said. When people giggled about the abuse crisis in

Ireland, that is how it got covered up. It was seen as funny. It clearly

was not funny. Generally, when we say, are some topics to sacred, who

decides? As a Christian, I believe that my faith is historically

accurate. I believe that everything that Christianity teaches is true

and can be proven. Because of that, it should be subject to test. What

did you think about the Monty Python song? Every... Is Sacred. It is a

scream. A friend of mine sang the solo on that. It is annoying in that

it completely represents -- completely miss resents the Catholic

Church. But it is funny. It is a release? Yes, it is a release. It

tells you something. The Life Of Brian, it allows you to have another

insight into the nature of Jesus. If we look at Moses. Jewish people,

Christians, Muslims, we all believe in Moses. For 40 years, he took the

children avengers -- and the children of Israel and wandered

around the Sinai Desert. What kind of sad NAFTA date have? -- what kind

of sat nav did he have. In the Muslim community, we have a thriving

gay community, or as I like to call them, clerics. You mentioned at the

start, is there an attempt to bring in a blasphemy law. We only abolish

that in this country a few years ago. I was in Northern Ireland last

week were a controversy sprung up over a play by the reduced

Shakespeare Company. People got upset that there is an nearly got

the play band. People said, you would not say this sort of thing

about the Koran. What they really meant was, we want you to be as

scared of our religion as others. People are saying, we own this, no

one else can touch this. We are the only that hold the truth. If you try

to look at it differently, and make fun of it, then you must be stopped,

because you have offended my truth. Who makes that decision? I would

just like to say, it is important that religion is out there and

talked about. If you say that we cannot talk about this and that,

you're wiping it from the debate table. The comedy club is a place

where we tell jokes. I am doing a show in Leicester tomorrow night. I

will be talking a bit about religion. The Bible is the most

shoplifted book in the world. Some people think that the Bible should

be taken, literally! Why not talk about these things? 20 seconds.

Freedom of expression is a vital right. The only limits that should

exist on that is if there is an incitement to hatred or violence.

Nobody has a right not to be offended. People should engage in

those moments where they feel offended, because that is where real

discussion can happen. Thank you all very much. I am sure you have sold a

few tickets, good luck. Likewise. As always, the debates will continue

online and on Twitter. Next week we are in Edinburgh, my home town, so

join us then. But for now it is goodbye and enjoy your Sunday.

It's your job to keep law and order, isn't it?

It must be exciting being a policewoman. It has its moments.