:00:09. > :00:11.Today on The Big Questions, hate crimes, paying for sex and
:00:12. > :00:34.meddlesome priests. Good morning. I am Nicky Campbell.
:00:35. > :00:38.Welcome to The Big Questions. Today we are live from Wychwood School in
:00:39. > :00:45.Oxford. Welcome, everyone, to The Big Questions. Now, tomorrow it is
:00:46. > :00:49.going to be 15 years since the publication of the Macpherson
:00:50. > :00:51.report, which examined the Metropolitan Police's handling of
:00:52. > :00:58.Stephen Lawrence's murder. By defining a racist incident as any
:00:59. > :01:03.incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person,
:01:04. > :01:10.McPherson change the way that society approached hate crimes.
:01:11. > :01:13.Nowadays, being a Sabbath crime because of your religion is also
:01:14. > :01:19.recognised under Law Commission is currently deciding whether to our
:01:20. > :01:30.disability, sexual orientation and gender identity to the list. Andrew
:01:31. > :01:34.Bolland, from Stop Age Uk, isn't crime absolute? A crime is a crime
:01:35. > :01:40.and nobody should be elevated in the eyes of the law because they are
:01:41. > :01:47.part of a certain group, and, by inference, rarely get it? I agree
:01:48. > :01:52.that all crime is wrong, I would talk about the impact of the
:01:53. > :02:03.incident on Stephen Lawrence was Opera family, Sophie Lancaster's
:02:04. > :02:07.family. She was the goth? Yes, the disproportionate impact on lives,
:02:08. > :02:11.that is why it should be seen as an aggravating feature, which in some
:02:12. > :02:16.cases is enshrined in the law. Which groups should we extended to? Race,
:02:17. > :02:22.religion, where should it go now? Disabilities? Certainly covered
:02:23. > :02:27.under disability, legislation is already in place, at least to a
:02:28. > :02:31.degree. Gender identity? Again, it is under 2003 legislation. It should
:02:32. > :02:35.protect somebody where the impact on the victim had a real and changing
:02:36. > :02:39.difference in their lives. People have lived through these incidents
:02:40. > :02:44.before, and they will change their life and the way they live to avoid
:02:45. > :02:49.those incidents in the future. That is why it should be treated
:02:50. > :02:55.seriously. If a paedophile is attacked by a vigilante mob, is that
:02:56. > :02:59.a hate crime? Not under legislation. Should it be? Every person in the
:03:00. > :03:03.United Kingdom have a right for protection. But you're talking
:03:04. > :03:07.specifically about groups, hate crimes, how the criminal justice
:03:08. > :03:12.system should recognise those. Is that a hate crime? I would not see
:03:13. > :03:15.that specifically as a hate crime, I think research should decide how
:03:16. > :03:20.legislation should treat that. Personal identity, that cannot
:03:21. > :03:27.change, be that race, faith, that is. Identity, that is what you have
:03:28. > :03:33.done, that is not part of your identity, that is a crime you have
:03:34. > :03:35.done. Do you want to come in? You secretly how this gets out of
:03:36. > :03:43.control. Even talking about identity, we had a murder a few
:03:44. > :03:47.years ago, somebody attacked for being a chav. Then you talk about
:03:48. > :03:50.economic identities, what about bankers? I think it's vital to see
:03:51. > :03:54.this as a free speech issue. Although hate speech campaigners
:03:55. > :03:59.like to talk about the very serious, awful crimes that have been
:04:00. > :04:02.mentioned, the majority of prosecutions for speech,
:04:03. > :04:06.specifically under section five of the Public order act. We know that
:04:07. > :04:08.section five of the Public order act has been used to criminalise
:04:09. > :04:16.political belief, it has been used to criticise, criminalise criticism
:04:17. > :04:21.of religion, used to criminalise expressions of all sorts of
:04:22. > :04:26.completely free expression. It gets us into a quagmire? Copyright. This
:04:27. > :04:31.is a freedom of speech issue. For all the time we want to talk about
:04:32. > :04:34.it inhalation to serious offences, we should spend more time talking
:04:35. > :04:39.about... But these people are getting attacked? Freedom of speech
:04:40. > :04:42.is about choice. If you are being attacked for something you have no
:04:43. > :04:45.choice or control over, that is a completely different matter. You can
:04:46. > :04:51.choose to be all sorts of things, you can choose to take different
:04:52. > :04:55.stances on things, but to be attacked, verbally or physically,
:04:56. > :05:00.because of something that you cannot change. A judge can already
:05:01. > :05:04.recognise as an aggravating feature if somebody is particularly
:05:05. > :05:08.vulnerable. A judge can recognise it, but I think the problem is that
:05:09. > :05:13.it is discretionary. It is not, it is mandatory. When it is a hate
:05:14. > :05:20.crime, it is mandatory to sentence more harshly. Discussion goes out of
:05:21. > :05:23.it. Judges now have to sentence more harshly, where there is evidence
:05:24. > :05:27.that a particular crime was a hate crime. That is where it becomes
:05:28. > :05:31.problematic. The assumption is that anyone who associates with one of
:05:32. > :05:32.these the groups is inherently vulnerable and that simply isn't the
:05:33. > :05:41.case. A great little intervention now. But
:05:42. > :05:47.if we are looking at these groups, race, religion, sexual orientation,
:05:48. > :05:52.gender identity, disability. There isn't, in fact, a group there with
:05:53. > :05:56.which we can all identify with, one of those books, it includes the
:05:57. > :06:02.entire publisher of the world? It does, you can think of it like that.
:06:03. > :06:07.A lot of us fall into those categories. So should it be the
:06:08. > :06:13.crime, rather than the hate? We all have a race, religion or no
:06:14. > :06:17.religion. I think we have to separate the emotion and behaviour.
:06:18. > :06:21.You can't control peoples emotions, but you can ask people to control
:06:22. > :06:26.their behaviour. It is about respect, or lack of respect,
:06:27. > :06:33.hostility, just because of an identity or an identifying feature.
:06:34. > :06:37.In a society governed by law, rather than by prejudice and emotion, a
:06:38. > :06:40.crime is an objective, provable thing. It has to be because
:06:41. > :06:43.otherwise how can we have a presumption of innocence, which is
:06:44. > :06:49.one of the biggest guarantees of our liberty. You can't have a situation
:06:50. > :06:52.where the prosecution doesn't actually have to prove that a crime
:06:53. > :06:55.has been committed. It's an action, not what is going on in your head.
:06:56. > :06:59.You might have all kinds of horrible things going on in your head, you
:07:00. > :07:02.might have all kinds of opinions which most of us all of us would
:07:03. > :07:07.find revolting. Until you do something, it is not the concern of
:07:08. > :07:11.the criminal law. As soon as the criminal law starts to make Windows
:07:12. > :07:18.into people's souls, it becomes totalitarian and dangerous. So no
:07:19. > :07:21.one can disagree that you have to have an axe before there is a crime,
:07:22. > :07:27.otherwise, rightly, you are in the realm of thought crime. -- an act.
:07:28. > :07:31.But it is legitimate under the law for the motivation of your intention
:07:32. > :07:36.to be relevant. I am very hostile to speech crimes, which can be acts,
:07:37. > :07:40.where you threaten people, for example. That should not be illegal
:07:41. > :07:44.if it is not intentional. Your intention, your thoughts, is
:07:45. > :07:54.relevant to the courts. If someone says I did beat him up
:07:55. > :08:00.because of racist views, because of their race, then that is capable, as
:08:01. > :08:04.Peter says, as being evidence. If the court is convinced that was the
:08:05. > :08:08.motivation, the court can make a greater sentence. If somebody beat
:08:09. > :08:12.somebody up and says I eat him up because he was racist towards me
:08:13. > :08:17.because I am black, should that mitigate his sentence, if you want
:08:18. > :08:22.to turn it around? Society has decided that it is worth, and this
:08:23. > :08:25.is what we are debating, having aggravated sentences because of the
:08:26. > :08:28.damage, not because of the victim, whether you are beaten up because of
:08:29. > :08:33.your race or because it was a random act, it can damage you badly. But
:08:34. > :08:38.society says it is very damaging to society to have mobs that are
:08:39. > :08:46.motivated by racial hate, rather than by drunkenness, say. It's very
:08:47. > :08:49.damaging to society to have huge numbers of unpunished crimes, which
:08:50. > :08:52.we do at the moment. People have to realise the criminal justice system
:08:53. > :08:56.is immensely selective. It decides who it is going to arrest and
:08:57. > :09:01.prosecute. Many crimes are never arrested and never prosecuted. What
:09:02. > :09:04.we are asking for is a form of politicised Justice were certain
:09:05. > :09:11.groups of people are protected by the law and others are not. I don't
:09:12. > :09:17.think a country can accept that. Who decides who these categories are?
:09:18. > :09:24.63.3 million people living in the Magic Kingdom are all potential
:09:25. > :09:29.victims of hate crimes, it affects everyone. The most prominent victim
:09:30. > :09:32.of hate in recent years, Fiona Pilkington, who eventually kill
:09:33. > :09:35.herself and her daughter. The police would not help her and she was
:09:36. > :09:41.surrounded by people who hated her. Nobly thought it was a hate crime.
:09:42. > :09:45.-- nobody thought was a hate crime. If it had been a hate crime, maybe
:09:46. > :09:49.it would have been? It was crying, the problem was that the police
:09:50. > :09:52.didn't treat it as a crime. There is so much of this bureaucratic,
:09:53. > :09:56.politicised prioritisation of certain things in the police force
:09:57. > :10:03.that lots of things which we experience as crimes are not
:10:04. > :10:10.arrested prosecuted. This is interesting, how do you determine if
:10:11. > :10:15.a group of white youths beats up a black youth or vice versa, how do
:10:16. > :10:21.you ascertain if that is fuelled by race hate or alcohol? Or fuelled by
:10:22. > :10:24.testosterone or whatever? If the victim says in court, knowing he
:10:25. > :10:30.will get a bigger sentence for his assailants, because it is
:10:31. > :10:39.subjective, he can say that and then you have a bit of a minefield? I
:10:40. > :10:42.think you have, that you investigated, it is the police for
:10:43. > :10:46.the crew job to investigate it properly. You have witnesses, what
:10:47. > :10:51.language was used, it is trying to get to the bottom of it. Say it was
:10:52. > :10:55.black on white or white on black, and the language was about the
:10:56. > :10:59.colour, then you could come to conclusions that, yes, this is
:11:00. > :11:05.motivated by race. But it might not have been the motive, it might have
:11:06. > :11:09.just been a verbal weapon? But I think that a verbal weapon is still
:11:10. > :11:15.very damaging. In itself? Are somebody that has suffered from
:11:16. > :11:20.that, it is very damaging. Surely crimes committed against evil. I
:11:21. > :11:24.have suffered racial abuse as a youth and an adult. I don't want the
:11:25. > :11:28.person who has done that to me to be punished for a hate crime. I think
:11:29. > :11:32.they have committed a crime, just as we have heard. I think the law
:11:33. > :11:38.already has the capacity to take into account the impact on a
:11:39. > :11:42.victim. Why not just change that? Why not just say if the impact of a
:11:43. > :11:45.particular crime, in ordinary circumstances it may not have been
:11:46. > :11:47.so severe, but is completely destroyed their life, so the
:11:48. > :11:53.sentencing should be tougher. I don't think we are going to... We're
:11:54. > :11:57.going to have 1 million different groups eventually, it makes a
:11:58. > :12:06.mockery. Everyone is covered? So why not just make it simpler? I think we
:12:07. > :12:09.need to get back to reality and stop talking about groups of white men
:12:10. > :12:14.attacking black youths. We have to talk about the role that hate speech
:12:15. > :12:18.legislation is taking in the UK, it is having a chilling effect on
:12:19. > :12:24.freedom of speech. A violent act as a crime, speech is not a crime.
:12:25. > :12:32.Speech is a crime. Crime is causing harassment, alarm or distress. If
:12:33. > :12:36.you go up to someone in this Street, abuse them racially, using
:12:37. > :12:42.threatening or abusive language, that should be a crime. But
:12:43. > :12:47.insulting and which should not be a fence. A 15-year-old was prosecuted
:12:48. > :12:53.for calling Scientology a cult, under the same act. That has been
:12:54. > :12:57.changed, and they have removed the insulting element from section five,
:12:58. > :13:02.as you know, recently. But I agree there is a problem of over policing
:13:03. > :13:07.of speech. I agree with you. But you are using this platform as an
:13:08. > :13:11.opportunity to say that, I agree. When you have violent crime, it is
:13:12. > :13:16.legitimate. Who decides? Parliament has decided that crying motivated on
:13:17. > :13:20.the basis of hatred of religion or race, and it is not it is immutable,
:13:21. > :13:27.people can change their religion, for example, I should be subject to
:13:28. > :13:32.greater punishment because there is a social need for that. What
:13:33. > :13:38.happened to you, Mohammed? I was walking around on Thursday afternoon
:13:39. > :13:45.in Glasgow, a shopping centre. I was walking with my fiance. Three guys
:13:46. > :13:50.just walked towards me and bumped into my shoulder. They just kept
:13:51. > :13:58.following me, shouting racial abuse. I mean, I kept walking away.
:13:59. > :14:02.I said to myself and my fiance, keep walking, don't look back, keep
:14:03. > :14:06.walking, don't think about it, don't listen to what they are saying. We
:14:07. > :14:10.kept doing that. I ended up asking her to go into a shop and ask for
:14:11. > :14:14.help. I got surrounded and one guy punched me in the back. I managed to
:14:15. > :14:18.get away from them and go into the shop. One of the girls that was
:14:19. > :14:24.working there actually knew the guy that was attacking me. They call the
:14:25. > :14:28.police and five minutes later the police showed up. By the time this
:14:29. > :14:31.happened, the guys had already left, they got caught quite easily because
:14:32. > :14:40.they were causing trouble somewhere else. That was a pure unadulterated
:14:41. > :14:46.attack? Absolutely. I find it intolerable that that sort of thing
:14:47. > :14:53.should happen in the United Kingdom. APPLAUSE Reason you look at the
:14:54. > :15:00.research that takes place, the three or fourfold increase in depression
:15:01. > :15:05.and fear of hate crime victims. There is an ongoing impact on
:15:06. > :15:13.victims that really should be recognised and captured. Surely some
:15:14. > :15:20.victims who aren't victims of a hate crime will also suffer depression
:15:21. > :15:25.and anxiety and that should be taken into account. I agree entirely.
:15:26. > :15:30.Statistics say when you compare hate crime victims to general victims of
:15:31. > :15:36.crimes there dem demonstrable change in statistics that say you are four
:15:37. > :15:40.times more. But others are suffering in the same way. Why shouldn't they
:15:41. > :15:46.get the same justice? It is an individual response to crime. If you
:15:47. > :15:52.will forgive me, Peter, I want to hear from Sarah. Have you suffered
:15:53. > :16:03.from this type of prejudice? Prejudice certainly, but in the
:16:04. > :16:09.workplace as opposed to within my own... Well, rather than within a
:16:10. > :16:13.criminal situation. Harassment in the workplace isn't criminal,
:16:14. > :16:20.although obviously it does have a detrimental effect. I think the
:16:21. > :16:27.Equality Act has recognised that and decided what they call the strands,
:16:28. > :16:31.the protective characteristics. Having Asperger's, which strand
:16:32. > :16:39.would you be in? That's considered a disability. Well, it is a
:16:40. > :16:47.disability. And so I think that the legislation, it is very patchy. I
:16:48. > :16:56.think we need... We need a single Act. We need to tackle harassment of
:16:57. > :17:02.disabled people before it escalates. I think, Peter mentioned the
:17:03. > :17:13.Pilkington case. Yes. That wasn't dealt with. It wasn't recorded. It
:17:14. > :17:18.wasn't reported. So often there are issues with the police not knowing
:17:19. > :17:23.something was a hate crime or not considering whether or not it might
:17:24. > :17:30.have been motivated by somebody's disability. So I think these crimes
:17:31. > :17:37.are preventible. Obviously in the in every case, but I think if we see
:17:38. > :17:41.that people aren't taking action, then I think it sends out a message
:17:42. > :17:46.to other people that, well, it is not really dealt with seriously, so
:17:47. > :17:55.it is OK to target disabled people. It is OK to target people from a
:17:56. > :18:02.different background. Mary, does it say it's OK unless it is clamped
:18:03. > :18:06.down on? Is this should not a really strong message to send to society?
:18:07. > :18:11.It is indeed. It is absolutely a strong message to send to society.
:18:12. > :18:15.There are various groups of people in this country and in the rest of
:18:16. > :18:19.Europe who are discriminated against, who do face discrimination.
:18:20. > :18:23.I think it is quite wrong to say that hate crime will apply to
:18:24. > :18:27.absolutely everybody. It won't. It's designed to apply to those people
:18:28. > :18:31.who do face that kind of discrimination and prejudice. But it
:18:32. > :18:37.is subjective. If you say it was a hate crime towards you because he
:18:38. > :18:43.called me white and he said I was a white so and so, that's your call.
:18:44. > :18:48.Then the court... No, that's just for the recording. Court has to make
:18:49. > :18:54.an objective assessment as for the motivation of the crime for it to
:18:55. > :19:00.have the exacerbating sentencing. If we are talking about hate based on
:19:01. > :19:06.what somebody is, you have to have stronger measures to deal with, that
:19:07. > :19:09.because that is something that... Stronger measures stronger
:19:10. > :19:13.sentences? Possibly, if that's what is decided and that is what this
:19:14. > :19:18.legislation seems to be saying. You cannot have people allowed to
:19:19. > :19:21.discriminate in that way. That's exactly what a lot of people have
:19:22. > :19:25.been fighting against. This is elevating people before the law,
:19:26. > :19:31.that's the other side of this. Reverend Linda Rose, what do you
:19:32. > :19:36.want to say? Is if anybody's a victim of violence, obviously we
:19:37. > :19:39.have to take measures against that. What I'm worried about today is the
:19:40. > :19:43.extension of what is called hate speech. There've been cases of
:19:44. > :19:47.Christian preachers, street preachers being arrested because
:19:48. > :19:53.they've been reading from the Bible. I'm sorry. How can you accuse them
:19:54. > :19:58.of hate speech because they are reading particular verses from the
:19:59. > :20:06.Bible or just stating their belief? Not with any... The cases that we've
:20:07. > :20:13.had are people just being on the streets and just reading. It is even
:20:14. > :20:20.worse than, that there was a case recently of an American street
:20:21. > :20:27.preacher who was over here. He was just generally trying to - it was an
:20:28. > :20:31.evangelistic tract. Are these the verses on homosexuality? No. He was
:20:32. > :20:38.accused of reading the verses on homosexuality and he was arrested.
:20:39. > :20:45.And le needed legal help to get him out of custody. That's clearly
:20:46. > :20:49.wrong. Is that hate speech, if somebody were to read verses on
:20:50. > :20:54.homosexuality if a certain place in a certain way from the holy book, is
:20:55. > :20:58.that hate speech? If the intention is to incite violence and
:20:59. > :21:06.discrimination, yes it is. The intention might be do convert souls.
:21:07. > :21:11.Parents, people who do it with the intentional aim of causing
:21:12. > :21:18.incitement... How do you ascertain the intention? There's the
:21:19. > :21:24.difficulty. Obviously incitement to violence is and should always be a
:21:25. > :21:29.crime. Even with the American version of free speech, if you
:21:30. > :21:33.incite violence, the First Amendment doesn't apply to you. If you have a
:21:34. > :21:37.difference of opinion, it is bringing opinion into the law, where
:21:38. > :21:41.it shouldn't. I wanted to talk about what happened to Mohammed. This is a
:21:42. > :21:45.disgusting and shameful event. A lot of us have perhaps at some point in
:21:46. > :21:51.our lives been threatened in the street by unpleasant people. Yes.
:21:52. > :21:56.The real problem here for Mohammed and other people and the shocking
:21:57. > :22:01.thing to me is that in the centre of a major city but be walking along
:22:02. > :22:04.with your girlfriend and be threatened by youths with a strong
:22:05. > :22:08.threat of violence and there's nobody there to help you. The police
:22:09. > :22:12.aren't there to help you. If you want to stop people being
:22:13. > :22:16.unpleasantly treated for any reason, shoe be concentrating on getting the
:22:17. > :22:22.police out of their cars and helicopters and back into their size
:22:23. > :22:27.15s patrolling the streets. APPLAUSE Thank you all very much for
:22:28. > :22:29.now. If you have something to say about that debate, log on to
:22:30. > :22:33.bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions, and follow the link to where you can
:22:34. > :22:36.join in the discussion online. Or contribute on Twitter. We're also
:22:37. > :22:39.debating live this morning from Oxford: Should it be illegal to pay
:22:40. > :22:43.for sex? And, should religions meddle in politics? So get tweeting
:22:44. > :22:45.or emailing on those topics now or send us any other ideas or thoughts
:22:46. > :22:55.you may have about the show. .
:22:56. > :22:58.Next Thursday the European Parliament will vote on whether
:22:59. > :23:02.Europe should opt for the "Swedish model" when it comes to
:23:03. > :23:06.prostitution. This is not quite what it sounds. The debate is about
:23:07. > :23:09.whether it should be a crime to pay someone for sex, an approach adopted
:23:10. > :23:13.in Sweden in 1999. And if Europe says yes, the UK may have to change
:23:14. > :23:16.its own laws, which currently target neither the clients nor the women,
:23:17. > :23:21.but criminalise those who control or incite prostitution for personal
:23:22. > :23:29.gain. Should it be illegal to pay for sex? Mary Honeyball, MEP,
:23:30. > :23:34.doesn't it just about personal autonomy for the women, people
:23:35. > :23:38.argue, and it is a business transaction - if I can say it -
:23:39. > :23:44.isn't it? First of all, I'm the author of the report that will be
:23:45. > :23:47.voted on... That's why you are here! In the European Parliament next
:23:48. > :23:50.year. Sit merely a transaction? The other thing I want to correct. If it
:23:51. > :23:57.goes through the European Parliament it is not a legislative resolution,
:23:58. > :24:02.so it may not become law for a long time. Is it merely a transaction? I
:24:03. > :24:07.don't think it is. When I ask audiences like this one and various
:24:08. > :24:12.places I've spoken at whether they view prostitution as a job like any
:24:13. > :24:17.other, nobody has yet, I haven't come across anyone who says that it
:24:18. > :24:22.is. That should tell us quite a lot. The other thing it is important to
:24:23. > :24:27.take account of in this debate is that a lot of women, and it is
:24:28. > :24:31.almost all women, are trafficked into this country and to other parts
:24:32. > :24:38.of the European Union and across the European Union for sexual services.
:24:39. > :24:45.In fact... There's law protecting these women. There are, the EU has
:24:46. > :24:50.an anti--trafficking direct active. These are statistics produced by the
:24:51. > :24:55.EU that of those trafficked in the EU, 62% of them are women trafficked
:24:56. > :25:01.for sexual exploitation. So I think it is pretty clear. Why incriminate
:25:02. > :25:07.the men? In Sweden since 1999, if you make it illegal to buy sexual
:25:08. > :25:12.services, prostitution goes down. There is a reduction. It hasn't gone
:25:13. > :25:15.down. Swedish model has been proven not to works. According to
:25:16. > :25:19.statistics produced by the Swedish police, which I'm prepared to
:25:20. > :25:25.believe, it has gone down by half. No. On-street prostitution has gone
:25:26. > :25:30.down by half. They don't know where these people are gone, whether they
:25:31. > :25:34.are still alive. They think they are probably moved online or into
:25:35. > :25:39.private premises. While the prostitution rate has gone down in
:25:40. > :25:45.Sweden, it has shot up in Denmark and Finland. Perhaps the punters and
:25:46. > :25:54.the working women have gone elsewhere. The other fact? The other
:25:55. > :25:59.fact people don't often take into account is since the Swedes brought
:26:00. > :26:04.this law in this 1999, in the enyears afterwards, rates of rapes
:26:05. > :26:10.and violence against women have gone up by 60%. Criminalising the men,
:26:11. > :26:17.would it help? No, it is very dangerous. Dangerous? Absolutely. It
:26:18. > :26:24.would distort policing practises. Last week on the news we saw Hugh
:26:25. > :26:29.Grant and Divine Brown, and in the same news clip they mentioned the
:26:30. > :26:34.grooming clip in Peterborough. They would be busy chasing the Wayne
:26:35. > :26:38.Rooneys and Hugh Grants of this world and not focusing on the
:26:39. > :26:44.grooming gangs. That's a real problem. I believe Mary is well
:26:45. > :26:49.intended with this but she is credulous. Mary said, "All the
:26:50. > :26:53.people I've spoken to." And that's the problem. Mary is only talking to
:26:54. > :27:01.people who believe what she believes. An Ipsos MORI such said
:27:02. > :27:06.59% of people felt that sex work should be an option that women
:27:07. > :27:10.should be free to use. When Harriet Harman didn't like the results, are
:27:11. > :27:14.it was repeated with the same result. Believing the police
:27:15. > :27:17.figures, and we know, we've discussed the policing figures on
:27:18. > :27:22.Stephen Lawrence, there are huge problems. To believe political spin
:27:23. > :27:29.is very dangerous. We've already got... Mary is a good European, you
:27:30. > :27:34.should know. A good European? As you know. An arrest warrant should be
:27:35. > :27:39.used properly. I want to live in a society that has more compassion,
:27:40. > :27:45.that accepts diversity, not criminalises, 25% of people paying
:27:46. > :27:51.por intimacy are paying other men, hor are RGBT or trance gender and
:27:52. > :27:57.saving up for operations. Why are we criminalising them?
:27:58. > :28:02.APPLAUSE I'm Linda, andy, you wrote this fascinating article about how
:28:03. > :28:06.in the past you used prostitutes and escorts. What effect do you think
:28:07. > :28:11.this would have on those who pay for sex? I think there'll be three
:28:12. > :28:15.effects of krillising the clients. In the first case there would be
:28:16. > :28:19.some of the clients would be dissuaded, which I believe is the
:28:20. > :28:25.aim of to legislation, to reduce committee Midland and wipe out
:28:26. > :28:27.prostitution. But to quote a New Zealand prostitute interviewed
:28:28. > :28:32.recently about the changes in Auckland, she said, if the clients
:28:33. > :28:37.were criminalised we would lose all the nice guys and just be left with
:28:38. > :28:40.all the horrible ones. Second class of customer would perhaps be
:28:41. > :28:45.deterred from visiting prostitutes in their own country wonder go
:28:46. > :28:49.abroad. Would be kicking the can across the Continent. So want to be
:28:50. > :29:00.keeping those women safe. Would be putting them in danger on someone
:29:01. > :29:05.else's doorstep. Then you have the very committed by men, the abusers
:29:06. > :29:09.and rapists, they would not be deterred at all. Even if you removed
:29:10. > :29:16.every prostitute from the street, they would target other vulnerable
:29:17. > :29:19.women. Whether it is in parliament, exploitation, there are different
:29:20. > :29:25.schools of thought in feminism, libertarian feminist thought,
:29:26. > :29:31.radical feminist thought, the women you encountered that were paid, were
:29:32. > :29:38.they exploited? Over a period of two years, I visited maybe 20 escorts.
:29:39. > :29:42.This was all high-end stuff. The reason it carried on for so long was
:29:43. > :29:47.because they all seemed so bubbly and happy, and kind. This was not
:29:48. > :29:51.just turn up, do the business and go away, this was six hours, dates, go
:29:52. > :29:56.out for walks kind of things. The illusion of the girlfriend. That's
:29:57. > :30:00.the point about the high-end, I have been accused of only talking to
:30:01. > :30:04.people that agree with me, which is absolutely not true. When we are
:30:05. > :30:08.talking about legislation, we need to be legislating for the majority.
:30:09. > :30:14.The majority have either been trafficked... No, they haven't. Or
:30:15. > :30:18.they go into prostitution because they have difficulties in their
:30:19. > :30:23.background. There are statistics that show this. Very many from the
:30:24. > :30:30.care home system, very many on heroin? And also because of
:30:31. > :30:34.poverty. I have met a lot of women that have ended up in prostitution
:30:35. > :30:39.because of those reasons. They are in the majority and they are who we
:30:40. > :30:43.should be legislating for. Your experience, working as an escort,
:30:44. > :30:49.these are not free choices, says Mary? Well, the Association of Chief
:30:50. > :30:57.Police Officers, their statistics on trafficking state that around 8% of
:30:58. > :31:00.people in the UK are trafficked, out of 80,000 people in prostitution.
:31:01. > :31:03.That is still an horrific number, and I don't see why people need the
:31:04. > :31:11.need to inflate these figures when they are absolutely horrific. Less
:31:12. > :31:19.roof finish, if I may. The majority of women in the sex trade are in
:31:20. > :31:21.poverty. 70% of them are single mothers. By criminalising their
:31:22. > :31:25.clients it is like saying to somebody, you know, you can have
:31:26. > :31:29.this shop, you can sell whatever, but nobody is allowed to buy
:31:30. > :31:36.anything from you. How are you going to feed your children, how are you
:31:37. > :31:43.going to pay your rent? I'm making it sound warm and cuddly, a real
:31:44. > :31:48.career choice. It's traumatic. One of the problems is, increasingly,
:31:49. > :31:54.historically, many use prostitutes because there was a social
:31:55. > :31:57.recognised prohibition against having sex outside marriage. It was
:31:58. > :32:01.a way of looking after their sexual needs without damaging family,
:32:02. > :32:06.without damaging that prohibition. That has all gone. It is pretty much
:32:07. > :32:10.sex wherever and whenever people want. There is not that same need.
:32:11. > :32:14.What we finding is that a lot of men are going to prostitutes because
:32:15. > :32:18.they want to have the kind of sexual indulgence, whatever, that their
:32:19. > :32:24.girlfriends, their regular partners would be really unhappy about and
:32:25. > :32:28.would totally condemn. What is the answer? Reid why are you so
:32:29. > :32:37.concerned about the men and their sexual desires? A lot of girls are
:32:38. > :32:45.being trafficked, we don't have the exact figures because it is hard to
:32:46. > :32:49.cover this. I'm getting there. OK! It is very hard to catch the
:32:50. > :32:53.traffickers. There were very few convictions last year. Trust me, I
:32:54. > :32:57.did work in this area and there are a lot of traffickers. You cannot
:32:58. > :33:02.criminalise the girls because a lot of them don't have a choice. You
:33:03. > :33:08.can't criminalise them, they are victims. But if you criminalise the
:33:09. > :33:13.payment for sex, it is much easier to crack down on it. You can
:33:14. > :33:17.actually try and deal with the trafficking problem at this level
:33:18. > :33:22.and you can protect and help the vulnerable. I would definitely go
:33:23. > :33:26.with the Swedish model. Audience as well, audience contributions. If I
:33:27. > :33:30.had ever encountered anybody I suspected of trafficking, I would
:33:31. > :33:36.gladly and willingly have reported up to the police. If I visit some
:33:37. > :33:39.body and suspect they are trafficked and I have been criminalised, I'm
:33:40. > :33:45.not going to report that. As an evangelical Christian, which do you
:33:46. > :33:49.object to most, the fact that it is sex outside marriage or the fact it
:33:50. > :33:56.is a business transaction? No, no, no, my concern is that I feel care
:33:57. > :34:01.and sympathy for the girls and the victims here. Yes, as an evangelical
:34:02. > :34:06.Christian, I would not go for sex outside marriage. Sympathy for the
:34:07. > :34:09.girls? If you feel sympathy for the girls, don't put them in more
:34:10. > :34:15.danger, because that is what this model does. You have not stood on
:34:16. > :34:18.the street, where you have got to make a quick decision because your
:34:19. > :34:22.client is criminalised, you cannot check if there is somebody else in
:34:23. > :34:26.the back of the car, you can't see if the man is strong. You need that
:34:27. > :34:31.money, whether it is for heroin or to pay for your children. At the
:34:32. > :34:36.situation in Germany, where they have taken away all restraint,
:34:37. > :34:41.legalise prostitution. That is nonsense. In Germany, there are
:34:42. > :34:49.tolerance zones. To say there are masses of traffickers, it's not...
:34:50. > :34:53.Over 500 premises with intelligence led policing, 50 police forces, the
:34:54. > :34:58.specialised forces as well, they could not find any traffickers or
:34:59. > :35:02.trafficked victims. It's an unusual day when I agree with Peter
:35:03. > :35:05.Hitchens, partly because the police were focusing on brothels where
:35:06. > :35:11.women were working safely, instead of targeting the dangerous areas.
:35:12. > :35:14.Nobody disagrees that some people are trafficked. The best thing you
:35:15. > :35:19.can do to help migrant women is give them learning and language support
:35:20. > :35:22.and to take violence against sex workers as a hate crime, as they did
:35:23. > :35:29.in Liverpool. There are things that you can do. Some audience reactions,
:35:30. > :35:35.please. That lady on the left, first of all. Good morning. Good morning.
:35:36. > :35:42.I think if you criminalise the men, you criminalise the women by
:35:43. > :35:49.default. If you legalise prostitution to an extent, and make
:35:50. > :35:54.it an open conversation, there are measures in place in places where
:35:55. > :36:00.prostitution is legal that... You can regulate it when it is legal and
:36:01. > :36:04.you can have... Keep it safe as well? Have places where they are
:36:05. > :36:10.safe, there are panic buttons in the rooms when things go wrong, they are
:36:11. > :36:18.regularly screened for STIs. It's safer. I would like to talk about
:36:19. > :36:21.the conversation going on about the sympathy and prostitution. I would
:36:22. > :36:25.like to point out the clarification, those that are
:36:26. > :36:35.penalised because the law is saying clearly that if the prostitute
:36:36. > :36:38.engaged in sex, and she met a certain criteria, I think she would
:36:39. > :36:44.be penalised. But if she did not meet the criteria, if she is below
:36:45. > :36:49.18, or if she is engaged in sex without consent, then the person
:36:50. > :36:53.will be penalised. Clearly, the Laura saying that. Clear differences
:36:54. > :37:00.as well. One more. The gentleman back there? The main point here is
:37:01. > :37:08.the safety for the women, most certainly. By making it legal, like
:37:09. > :37:13.the lady over there said, regulating and controlling it, I don't think
:37:14. > :37:19.anyone grows up wanting to be a prostitute. On that point, is it
:37:20. > :37:24.tomorrow? I don't think there is anything immoral about selling sex
:37:25. > :37:29.whatsoever. My experience was that it was very traumatic, I am not pro
:37:30. > :37:46.prostitution, I just believe that everybody... It is a moral. If I let
:37:47. > :37:50.a man take me on holiday, and I don't really like him, but I pretend
:37:51. > :37:55.I do so he gives me these things, that is immoral. But not if it is a
:37:56. > :38:02.straight up transaction. But it was very traumatic. It is not a moral
:38:03. > :38:06.question, according to Ruth? That appears to be what we are arguing
:38:07. > :38:10.about. I think it is odd that we discuss the safety of prostitution.
:38:11. > :38:16.To be a prostitute seems to be living in a snake pit anywhere where
:38:17. > :38:22.there is no real safety. The safest they would be to not go through that
:38:23. > :38:24.route in the first place. Most of us are distressed about the idea of a
:38:25. > :38:28.human creature being turned into a commodity, we would not like to
:38:29. > :38:31.happen to anybody that we know all of. Obviously it will continue to
:38:32. > :38:36.exist whatever you do, to some extent. I can't make my mind upon
:38:37. > :38:39.this law. I really don't know enough about its operation. But it seems to
:38:40. > :38:46.me that the point of law, the point of a law is that you try to find a
:38:47. > :38:50.point at which you can interrupt about things. If this works, I think
:38:51. > :38:54.we should pursue it. I think we need to know more about whether it works.
:38:55. > :38:59.If it does, it could be very effective. Back to the question of
:39:00. > :39:05.safety, the Lord is a lot at the moment to make it less safe for
:39:06. > :39:09.prostitutes. -- the law does a lot. They have effectively made every
:39:10. > :39:17.single escort agency in the country illegal. They arbitrarily prosecute
:39:18. > :39:22.these agencies. An agency could effectively be prosecuted under
:39:23. > :39:25.these legislations. These agencies are making the women's lives safer,
:39:26. > :39:29.they are able to do it in a more regulated environment, they are
:39:30. > :39:33.insuring bad clients are kept off the books, they are ensuring that
:39:34. > :39:38.the girls are treated properly. That is a real institution in this
:39:39. > :39:42.country that protects prostitutes. But it is a wholly immoral position.
:39:43. > :39:46.You are saying if it is safe, doing something bad, dangerous and wrong
:39:47. > :39:49.is all right. What you are saying is that because you think it is morally
:39:50. > :39:54.wrong you should make it less safe for the people doing it. It is a
:39:55. > :39:58.false morality. Linda said we live in a society where anything goes,
:39:59. > :40:05.anybody can have sex any time. That is not the case. We live in a
:40:06. > :40:11.society where we have rated numbers of single people, higher rates of
:40:12. > :40:15.divorce, people are a lot lonelier than when they lived in traditional
:40:16. > :40:20.nuclear family is. Higher rates of suicide, especially amongst the main
:40:21. > :40:24.demographic group that pay for sex. It is a false morality to say we
:40:25. > :40:27.will criminalise those people. Frankly, I find it very worrying
:40:28. > :40:33.that people want to... You know, that it came from one particular
:40:34. > :40:37.political party, that it is so dangerous and expensive, in a time
:40:38. > :40:41.of limited resources, it begs me think that if you can't trust Labour
:40:42. > :40:49.on the economy, you can't trust them with your autonomy. Politicising it
:40:50. > :40:53.is rather dangerous. Don't wear it on a T-shirt expat We are in a
:40:54. > :41:00.culture that things of people as objects that can be consumed for
:41:01. > :41:04.your own pleasure. Back in the 70s, Christians and feminists would unite
:41:05. > :41:09.to campaign against pornography and prostitution. It was seen as
:41:10. > :41:13.something dangerous. We have now embraced it. A lot of feminist say
:41:14. > :41:18.it is about empowerment, the right for women to do what they want?
:41:19. > :41:21.There are a lot of feminist 's who basically say, look, the new
:41:22. > :41:24.feminism looks like the old objectification. We have gone full
:41:25. > :41:28.circle and change the names. I think it is proper Matic and causes
:41:29. > :41:32.problems with lots of societies. I work with a group in Oxford, guys
:41:33. > :41:36.that want to come out of this kind of thing, they feel they have
:41:37. > :41:40.somehow been locked and trapped into a pattern of behaviour, they are
:41:41. > :41:44.feeling powerless to break it. And I think one of the good things in the
:41:45. > :41:47.Swedish model is that help is also provided for people that want to
:41:48. > :41:52.change, to provide ways to get out of a lifestyle. I think they find it
:41:53. > :41:58.often damaging for themselves. When you start thinking of other people
:41:59. > :42:01.as objects to be used, when they are demeaned in that way, there is a
:42:02. > :42:04.difference in a relationship between you and an object and you and a
:42:05. > :42:09.person. Between you and the person, it is one of connection. You and an
:42:10. > :42:13.object is one of consumption. In a lot of our sexual activity, we have
:42:14. > :42:17.replaced the idea of making a connection with another person to be
:42:18. > :42:22.in consumption, I consumed for my pleasure. By criminalising the men
:42:23. > :42:27.that paid, would that go some way to changing attitudes? I think it would
:42:28. > :42:29.be a deterrent. I know a group of businessmen in London, huge
:42:30. > :42:32.businesses that use corporate accounts to take clients out and
:42:33. > :42:35.will pay for them to sleep with whoever they want with, they are
:42:36. > :42:42.paraded in with numbers and you choose a number. I think that is
:42:43. > :42:47.very dangerous. As long as you do not name the business, I am happy.
:42:48. > :42:52.Thank you very much indeed. You can join in on the debate, log onto
:42:53. > :42:58.bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions, following the link to the online discussion.
:42:59. > :43:04.As well, you can tweet using the hashtag #bbctbq. Well, tell us what
:43:05. > :43:08.you think about our last question. Should religions meddle in
:43:09. > :43:10.politics? If you would like to be in the audience for a future show,
:43:11. > :43:22.e-mail: "Will no-one rid me of the
:43:23. > :43:25.meddlesome priest?" was said to be Henry II's plea when faced with the
:43:26. > :43:30.defiance of his Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas a Beckett, to the
:43:31. > :43:33.King's new laws. It's a phrase David Cameron may well have pondered after
:43:34. > :43:36.an onslaught of criticism for his welfare reforms this week, first
:43:37. > :43:39.from the Archbishop of Westminster, now Cardinal Vincent Nichols, and
:43:40. > :43:43.then from 27 Church of England Bishops, and 15 other Church
:43:44. > :43:50.leaders. Should religions meddle in politics? So want to be keeping
:43:51. > :43:52.those women safe. Would be putting them in danger on someone else's
:43:53. > :43:55.doorstep. Evan Harris, national sek National Secular Society, a former
:43:56. > :44:00.MP for this neck of the wooxtds isn't it great that the religious
:44:01. > :44:04.leaders made their point and the Cardinal as well and it is on the
:44:05. > :44:08.front pages? Yes. It is a leading question, meddle, because politics
:44:09. > :44:11.is for everyone and there's no reason why religious people and
:44:12. > :44:15.religious organisations shouldn't have their say. But what they
:44:16. > :44:23.shouldn't do is have privilege. They shouldn't have privileged access to
:44:24. > :44:26.law making by having Bishops... APPLAUSE We should not have
:44:27. > :44:31.privileged access to the media to make their point by the
:44:32. > :44:36.religious-only platitude of the day on the second-best radio morning
:44:37. > :44:41.programme on Radio 4, the Today programme... Thank you for that! You
:44:42. > :44:45.don't know what I'm thinking. The best one. They shouldn't have
:44:46. > :44:49.privileged access to what people, including the media, consider the
:44:50. > :44:54.moral high ground. You can have moral input into politics without
:44:55. > :44:58.religion, just as much. I think you often find, not always, more
:44:59. > :45:02.hypocrisy in religious interventions. I'm pleased
:45:03. > :45:05.personally I suspect a lot of religious people are that the Church
:45:06. > :45:10.is finally talking about poverty and not obsessing about sexual
:45:11. > :45:14.orientation as it always has. The Church of England says 1. 7 million
:45:15. > :45:20.people per month go to the Church of England and the Lib Dems have a
:45:21. > :45:24.membership of 45,000. As I say, the national society for the Protection
:45:25. > :45:30.of Birds has even more I think than religious participants, so I'm in
:45:31. > :45:34.favour of people, whatever their religion getting involved, because
:45:35. > :45:39.they are religious, because they are driven by their religious views,
:45:40. > :45:44.that's fine, but no privilege. Reverend Linda Rose, for the last
:45:45. > :45:50.election you helped out in a leafletting campaign against Evan.
:45:51. > :45:55.Because of his views on abortion and assisted is dying and secularism as
:45:56. > :46:03.well, so I guess that was a Christian intervention, some would
:46:04. > :46:10.say a non-Christian intervention. A hate campaign. Someone just said a
:46:11. > :46:14.hate campaign. If she had been allowed on the television because
:46:15. > :46:21.she was religious to put her exclusive view, that would have been
:46:22. > :46:27.problematic Which I wasn't. But you are now. Not just by virtue that I'm
:46:28. > :46:31.religious. The BBC has to meet targets for religious people because
:46:32. > :46:42.of the law. There is a religious target. Tokenism. Let's look at
:46:43. > :46:47.this. OK. Our values are founded on Christian tradition. You may reject
:46:48. > :46:51.that now but go back historically that's where it comes from. What,
:46:52. > :46:57.burning people who didn't agree with you? The Church has been an
:46:58. > :47:02.established Church of this country for centuries. A terrible history of
:47:03. > :47:06.persecuting people accused of being witches. You can't just take the
:47:07. > :47:12.good bits. Religious history of this country exists but it has not been
:47:13. > :47:21.all good. I think that's ridiculous. Let's keep it away from that
:47:22. > :47:25.appalling gender -- let's take into it religious interventions are.
:47:26. > :47:29.Meddling, to use that leading word. You've got two questions here. Evan
:47:30. > :47:34.said, and I agree with him, we are in a democracy, so everybody has a
:47:35. > :47:38.right to express an opinion. If you are coming from an religious
:47:39. > :47:43.perspective we have an equal right to express that and that's what we
:47:44. > :47:51.are doing. Do you think there should be Bishops in the House of Lords
:47:52. > :47:51.are doing. Do you think there should making laws simply on the basis of
:47:52. > :48:00.being Bishops? If I may, there's something in the newspaper today
:48:01. > :48:04.about the Government ameliorating things for those really struggling
:48:05. > :48:08.on benefits that. Looks to me, whether anything will come of it who
:48:09. > :48:13.knows, but it looks like a response to what the Bishops have said there.
:48:14. > :48:21.Linda, you wanted to come in earlier on, I saw the twinkle in your eye.
:48:22. > :48:24.Thank you for that. I would concur there shouldn't be Bishops, I would
:48:25. > :48:29.like an elected House of Lords. However, in today's paper also we
:48:30. > :48:32.saw one of the priests in Soho talking, sometime there is should be
:48:33. > :48:39.a privileged position where people are at the front line. So they are
:48:40. > :48:44.speaking in terms of subjectivity, the dangerous situation where
:48:45. > :48:54.premises, But he gets a headline, priest talks about prostitutes. He
:48:55. > :49:03.is used to dealing with issues. He has a subject sieve knowledge. No,
:49:04. > :49:08.it doesn't say man on the front line defends prostitutes, It should. I
:49:09. > :49:14.work in newspapers and man on front line wouldn't fit. Peter Hitchens?
:49:15. > :49:18.This question about religious privilege. It is true there are few
:49:19. > :49:23.Bishops in the House of Lords, but the forces of secular liberalism are
:49:24. > :49:27.hugely entrenched in our society. The Human Rights Commission and the
:49:28. > :49:31.equality and diversity laws, which everybody in the public sector and
:49:32. > :49:39.everybody who deals with it are obliged to accept, the whole ramp of
:49:40. > :49:45.political correct ideas dominate the UK BBC, the academy and the
:49:46. > :49:49.professions. Christianity has a few voices which are drowned out.
:49:50. > :49:53.Politics interferes with religion and our private lives. There is no
:49:54. > :49:56.question that politics has been interfering with religion
:49:57. > :50:02.aggressively, so for religion to reply and say we might have ideas in
:50:03. > :50:08.contradiction for yours is no bad thing and is long overdue. I know
:50:09. > :50:16.you like to say your religions are persecuted but it's not true. I
:50:17. > :50:24.didn't use the word persecuted. Let me finish the point and you can come
:50:25. > :50:29.back. In our laws are carve-outs for religions, you can discriminate
:50:30. > :50:34.against gay people in a Church and employment, it is permitted. Hence
:50:35. > :50:38.no gay Bishops, for example. You can discriminate against women in
:50:39. > :50:43.employment and religion. That's a carve-out for laws that everybody
:50:44. > :50:48.else has to obey because of religion. I think it is justified
:50:49. > :50:53.but don't come the investment you've got carvouts, you've got rights.
:50:54. > :50:59.APPLAUSE I will come back to Peter but I want to hear from Mary, an
:51:00. > :51:05.MEP. I promise you Peter I will. Mary, as an Metropolitan Police, are
:51:06. > :51:12.there any areas of legislation that concern you when -- Mary, as an MEP,
:51:13. > :51:20.are there any areas of lefgs that concern you -- legislation. We need
:51:21. > :51:23.to be careful. What are they? It is perfectly legitimate in a democracy
:51:24. > :51:28.to lobby. That is acceptable. That should be on a level playing field.
:51:29. > :51:33.Areas of concern, what are they? There are areas of concern and we've
:51:34. > :51:40.touched on them before. It is things like women's rights, like abortion,
:51:41. > :51:43.lycra exception. It is knows -- like contraception. I think as a
:51:44. > :51:48.secularist and a humanist that's a legitimate thing for law makers to
:51:49. > :51:52.be involved in. I don't accept Peter Hitchens's idea that political
:51:53. > :51:56.correctness and some liberal establishment has taken over
:51:57. > :52:02.religion. I didn't say that. It is nothing to do with taking over. What
:52:03. > :52:07.we have... He believes it is marginalised. What we should have is
:52:08. > :52:17.law makers making things on a level playing field just as interest
:52:18. > :52:22.groups, whatever they may be, So legislation on abortion and stem
:52:23. > :52:29.cell research. Abortion keeps being mentioned. Evan talks about religion
:52:30. > :52:33.burning people at the stake. The Church of England hasn't burnt
:52:34. > :52:38.anybody at the stake for hundreds of years. He supports massacre of
:52:39. > :52:42.hundreds of babies each year. This seems a much more important question
:52:43. > :52:48.than historical burning of the stake. This is interference in the
:52:49. > :52:55.law. The Christian belief that thou shallot do no murder, which is --
:52:56. > :52:59.thou shalt do no murder, which has been overridden by the law. You
:53:00. > :53:04.interrupt me every time I speak. This is very important. Politics
:53:05. > :53:07.interferes in religion. It interferes between us and our
:53:08. > :53:12.consciences in many ways. This is an example. You sit there and call
:53:13. > :53:19.abortion a right? That's you're free to do so but to moan about past
:53:20. > :53:23.persecution and to be unconcerned about mass infanticide and at the
:53:24. > :53:29.same time not to recognise the enormous interference in Christian
:53:30. > :53:37.moral at that politics has made... I don't. We are talking about
:53:38. > :53:41.economic, this is a debate we've had before and will have again, but we
:53:42. > :53:43.are talking about intervention on economic matters, matters which
:53:44. > :53:49.aren't so obviously to do with the arguments in religion. Respond first
:53:50. > :53:53.Evan. Peter changed the question. The question now it is too late. He
:53:54. > :53:57.said that secular society, politics, Parliament, was interfering in
:53:58. > :54:01.religions. Yes I think it shoot say to the Catholic Church, you have a
:54:02. > :54:09.duty to report abuse to the police. You don't have autonomy in that
:54:10. > :54:12.area. Who can disagree with that? It doesn't rewrite the Bible.
:54:13. > :54:17.Christians are entitled to say what they like about morality. On
:54:18. > :54:21.abortion it works both ways. Many women feel that religious people
:54:22. > :54:25.whose views they don't share shouldn't have the right to say you
:54:26. > :54:31.are going to be forced to have a baby and take it to term against
:54:32. > :54:36.their will. To safe abortion or contraception. It is no right of the
:54:37. > :54:42.Pope or a Catholic priest to say, you will not use a pill or husband
:54:43. > :54:49.will not use a condom. They should b pushgs tt out of people's lives. It
:54:50. > :54:54.is secularism against the religious who feel marginalised is a regular
:54:55. > :55:02.theme on this programme. Let me bring you in on interventions by the
:55:03. > :55:05.religious on political matters. Do you approve? I think the problem is
:55:06. > :55:08.not that there are Bishops in the House of Lords but there is a House
:55:09. > :55:11.of Lords. I think the problem is that we have unelected people making
:55:12. > :55:14.law. APPLAUSE You think the House of
:55:15. > :55:18.Commons is so great? Peter is right to the extent that the forces of law
:55:19. > :55:25.are going against religion in Europe today. We've seen across Europe the
:55:26. > :55:31.law intervening even more explicitly than this country. So you cherish
:55:32. > :55:38.ease interventions? No, I'm opposed to this. No, you cherish religious
:55:39. > :55:42.figures intervening? Is I see these as individuals who've a prominent
:55:43. > :55:48.place expressing their view. I think they have a right to do so. Nicky,
:55:49. > :55:54.these aren't unconnected. For many women, with speaking as a feminist,
:55:55. > :55:58.the personal is political. So, when the law interconvenience and the
:55:59. > :56:03.thing -- intervenes and the thing about Church going is connected. You
:56:04. > :56:09.look at the case in Ireland where there was no intervention when a
:56:10. > :56:14.female dentist died in order that the baby's life, the foetus, could
:56:15. > :56:17.continue. That is a big issue about morality. That is religion
:56:18. > :56:24.intervening in a matter of life or death, where some would say that was
:56:25. > :56:29.not a moral thing to do. That could be why Church going has gone down.
:56:30. > :56:34.Many women have been unhappy about the stance in their lives. Coming
:56:35. > :56:38.back to meddling in politics. Politics at its most pure is when
:56:39. > :56:42.politics make decisions and campaign on things they believe to be true
:56:43. > :56:47.and right. It is necessity vl in a democracy you will have all of these
:56:48. > :56:50.voices. I don't think it is about privileged access. If you are a
:56:51. > :56:54.leader who has millions of people you are representing will you be
:56:55. > :57:00.sought by the media and maybe other leaders. You will enjoy some form of
:57:01. > :57:05.privileged access, as I'm sure the members of National Secular Society
:57:06. > :57:10.will enjoy. Most account licks don't enjoy with their leadership on their
:57:11. > :57:15.practice on contraception. If they say I think we should ban some forms
:57:16. > :57:20.of contraception, as they have, and are entitled to do, they cannot
:57:21. > :57:24.claim a democratic mandate to justify that. No, most people
:57:25. > :57:32.realise at this point you don't seem to be representing those on whose
:57:33. > :57:36.behalf you are speaking with. And when they dos taken more seriously.
:57:37. > :57:45.It is filtered but it is inevitable. Politics will always require a moral
:57:46. > :57:50.compaxts some people will come from their position as part of their
:57:51. > :57:55.beliefs. When people don't conform to their beliefs they call them
:57:56. > :58:01.hypocrites. Would you be worried if there was no intervention by the
:58:02. > :58:07.Church, it would be like the puppet Soviet leaders. I think the Church
:58:08. > :58:12.doesn't speak out enough. Give you've as round of applause. Thank
:58:13. > :58:18.you. Sorry I didn't get back to you, Peter. That's way it goes. It is
:58:19. > :58:23.great to see Peter and Evan getting on so well. The debates will
:58:24. > :58:27.continue online on Twitter. Next week we are in peevenlt join us
:58:28. > :58:34.then. For now it is goodbye. Thank you for watching. Have a great
:58:35. > :58:37.Sunday. Turkish - next week we are in Peterborough.