Episode 8 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions, hate crimes, paying for sex and

meddlesome priests. Good morning. I am Nicky Campbell.

Welcome to The Big Questions. Today we are live from Wychwood School in

Oxford. Welcome, everyone, to The Big Questions. Now, tomorrow it is

going to be 15 years since the publication of the Macpherson

report, which examined the Metropolitan Police's handling of

Stephen Lawrence's murder. By defining a racist incident as any

incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person,

McPherson change the way that society approached hate crimes.

Nowadays, being a Sabbath crime because of your religion is also

recognised under Law Commission is currently deciding whether to our

disability, sexual orientation and gender identity to the list. Andrew

Bolland, from Stop Age Uk, isn't crime absolute? A crime is a crime

and nobody should be elevated in the eyes of the law because they are

part of a certain group, and, by inference, rarely get it? I agree

that all crime is wrong, I would talk about the impact of the

incident on Stephen Lawrence was Opera family, Sophie Lancaster's

family. She was the goth? Yes, the disproportionate impact on lives,

that is why it should be seen as an aggravating feature, which in some

cases is enshrined in the law. Which groups should we extended to? Race,

religion, where should it go now? Disabilities? Certainly covered

under disability, legislation is already in place, at least to a

degree. Gender identity? Again, it is under 2003 legislation. It should

protect somebody where the impact on the victim had a real and changing

difference in their lives. People have lived through these incidents

before, and they will change their life and the way they live to avoid

those incidents in the future. That is why it should be treated

seriously. If a paedophile is attacked by a vigilante mob, is that

a hate crime? Not under legislation. Should it be? Every person in the

United Kingdom have a right for protection. But you're talking

specifically about groups, hate crimes, how the criminal justice

system should recognise those. Is that a hate crime? I would not see

that specifically as a hate crime, I think research should decide how

legislation should treat that. Personal identity, that cannot

change, be that race, faith, that is. Identity, that is what you have

done, that is not part of your identity, that is a crime you have

done. Do you want to come in? You secretly how this gets out of

control. Even talking about identity, we had a murder a few

years ago, somebody attacked for being a chav. Then you talk about

economic identities, what about bankers? I think it's vital to see

this as a free speech issue. Although hate speech campaigners

like to talk about the very serious, awful crimes that have been

mentioned, the majority of prosecutions for speech,

specifically under section five of the Public order act. We know that

section five of the Public order act has been used to criminalise

political belief, it has been used to criticise, criminalise criticism

of religion, used to criminalise expressions of all sorts of

completely free expression. It gets us into a quagmire? Copyright. This

is a freedom of speech issue. For all the time we want to talk about

it inhalation to serious offences, we should spend more time talking

about... But these people are getting attacked? Freedom of speech

is about choice. If you are being attacked for something you have no

choice or control over, that is a completely different matter. You can

choose to be all sorts of things, you can choose to take different

stances on things, but to be attacked, verbally or physically,

because of something that you cannot change. A judge can already

recognise as an aggravating feature if somebody is particularly

vulnerable. A judge can recognise it, but I think the problem is that

it is discretionary. It is not, it is mandatory. When it is a hate

crime, it is mandatory to sentence more harshly. Discussion goes out of

it. Judges now have to sentence more harshly, where there is evidence

that a particular crime was a hate crime. That is where it becomes

problematic. The assumption is that anyone who associates with one of

these the groups is inherently vulnerable and that simply isn't the

case. A great little intervention now. But

if we are looking at these groups, race, religion, sexual orientation,

gender identity, disability. There isn't, in fact, a group there with

which we can all identify with, one of those books, it includes the

entire publisher of the world? It does, you can think of it like that.

A lot of us fall into those categories. So should it be the

crime, rather than the hate? We all have a race, religion or no

religion. I think we have to separate the emotion and behaviour.

You can't control peoples emotions, but you can ask people to control

their behaviour. It is about respect, or lack of respect,

hostility, just because of an identity or an identifying feature.

In a society governed by law, rather than by prejudice and emotion, a

crime is an objective, provable thing. It has to be because

otherwise how can we have a presumption of innocence, which is

one of the biggest guarantees of our liberty. You can't have a situation

where the prosecution doesn't actually have to prove that a crime

has been committed. It's an action, not what is going on in your head.

You might have all kinds of horrible things going on in your head, you

might have all kinds of opinions which most of us all of us would

find revolting. Until you do something, it is not the concern of

the criminal law. As soon as the criminal law starts to make Windows

into people's souls, it becomes totalitarian and dangerous. So no

one can disagree that you have to have an axe before there is a crime,

otherwise, rightly, you are in the realm of thought crime. -- an act.

But it is legitimate under the law for the motivation of your intention

to be relevant. I am very hostile to speech crimes, which can be acts,

where you threaten people, for example. That should not be illegal

if it is not intentional. Your intention, your thoughts, is

relevant to the courts. If someone says I did beat him up

because of racist views, because of their race, then that is capable, as

Peter says, as being evidence. If the court is convinced that was the

motivation, the court can make a greater sentence. If somebody beat

somebody up and says I eat him up because he was racist towards me

because I am black, should that mitigate his sentence, if you want

to turn it around? Society has decided that it is worth, and this

is what we are debating, having aggravated sentences because of the

damage, not because of the victim, whether you are beaten up because of

your race or because it was a random act, it can damage you badly. But

society says it is very damaging to society to have mobs that are

motivated by racial hate, rather than by drunkenness, say. It's very

damaging to society to have huge numbers of unpunished crimes, which

we do at the moment. People have to realise the criminal justice system

is immensely selective. It decides who it is going to arrest and

prosecute. Many crimes are never arrested and never prosecuted. What

we are asking for is a form of politicised Justice were certain

groups of people are protected by the law and others are not. I don't

think a country can accept that. Who decides who these categories are?

63.3 million people living in the Magic Kingdom are all potential

victims of hate crimes, it affects everyone. The most prominent victim

of hate in recent years, Fiona Pilkington, who eventually kill

herself and her daughter. The police would not help her and she was

surrounded by people who hated her. Nobly thought it was a hate crime.

-- nobody thought was a hate crime. If it had been a hate crime, maybe

it would have been? It was crying, the problem was that the police

didn't treat it as a crime. There is so much of this bureaucratic,

politicised prioritisation of certain things in the police force

that lots of things which we experience as crimes are not

arrested prosecuted. This is interesting, how do you determine if

a group of white youths beats up a black youth or vice versa, how do

you ascertain if that is fuelled by race hate or alcohol? Or fuelled by

testosterone or whatever? If the victim says in court, knowing he

will get a bigger sentence for his assailants, because it is

subjective, he can say that and then you have a bit of a minefield? I

think you have, that you investigated, it is the police for

the crew job to investigate it properly. You have witnesses, what

language was used, it is trying to get to the bottom of it. Say it was

black on white or white on black, and the language was about the

colour, then you could come to conclusions that, yes, this is

motivated by race. But it might not have been the motive, it might have

just been a verbal weapon? But I think that a verbal weapon is still

very damaging. In itself? Are somebody that has suffered from

that, it is very damaging. Surely crimes committed against evil. I

have suffered racial abuse as a youth and an adult. I don't want the

person who has done that to me to be punished for a hate crime. I think

they have committed a crime, just as we have heard. I think the law

already has the capacity to take into account the impact on a

victim. Why not just change that? Why not just say if the impact of a

particular crime, in ordinary circumstances it may not have been

so severe, but is completely destroyed their life, so the

sentencing should be tougher. I don't think we are going to... We're

going to have 1 million different groups eventually, it makes a

mockery. Everyone is covered? So why not just make it simpler? I think we

need to get back to reality and stop talking about groups of white men

attacking black youths. We have to talk about the role that hate speech

legislation is taking in the UK, it is having a chilling effect on

freedom of speech. A violent act as a crime, speech is not a crime.

Speech is a crime. Crime is causing harassment, alarm or distress. If

you go up to someone in this Street, abuse them racially, using

threatening or abusive language, that should be a crime. But

insulting and which should not be a fence. A 15-year-old was prosecuted

for calling Scientology a cult, under the same act. That has been

changed, and they have removed the insulting element from section five,

as you know, recently. But I agree there is a problem of over policing

of speech. I agree with you. But you are using this platform as an

opportunity to say that, I agree. When you have violent crime, it is

legitimate. Who decides? Parliament has decided that crying motivated on

the basis of hatred of religion or race, and it is not it is immutable,

people can change their religion, for example, I should be subject to

greater punishment because there is a social need for that. What

happened to you, Mohammed? I was walking around on Thursday afternoon

in Glasgow, a shopping centre. I was walking with my fiance. Three guys

just walked towards me and bumped into my shoulder. They just kept

following me, shouting racial abuse. I mean, I kept walking away.

I said to myself and my fiance, keep walking, don't look back, keep

walking, don't think about it, don't listen to what they are saying. We

kept doing that. I ended up asking her to go into a shop and ask for

help. I got surrounded and one guy punched me in the back. I managed to

get away from them and go into the shop. One of the girls that was

working there actually knew the guy that was attacking me. They call the

police and five minutes later the police showed up. By the time this

happened, the guys had already left, they got caught quite easily because

they were causing trouble somewhere else. That was a pure unadulterated

attack? Absolutely. I find it intolerable that that sort of thing

should happen in the United Kingdom. APPLAUSE Reason you look at the

research that takes place, the three or fourfold increase in depression

and fear of hate crime victims. There is an ongoing impact on

victims that really should be recognised and captured. Surely some

victims who aren't victims of a hate crime will also suffer depression

and anxiety and that should be taken into account. I agree entirely.

Statistics say when you compare hate crime victims to general victims of

crimes there dem demonstrable change in statistics that say you are four

times more. But others are suffering in the same way. Why shouldn't they

get the same justice? It is an individual response to crime. If you

will forgive me, Peter, I want to hear from Sarah. Have you suffered

from this type of prejudice? Prejudice certainly, but in the

workplace as opposed to within my own... Well, rather than within a

criminal situation. Harassment in the workplace isn't criminal,

although obviously it does have a detrimental effect. I think the

Equality Act has recognised that and decided what they call the strands,

the protective characteristics. Having Asperger's, which strand

would you be in? That's considered a disability. Well, it is a

disability. And so I think that the legislation, it is very patchy. I

think we need... We need a single Act. We need to tackle harassment of

disabled people before it escalates. I think, Peter mentioned the

Pilkington case. Yes. That wasn't dealt with. It wasn't recorded. It

wasn't reported. So often there are issues with the police not knowing

something was a hate crime or not considering whether or not it might

have been motivated by somebody's disability. So I think these crimes

are preventible. Obviously in the in every case, but I think if we see

that people aren't taking action, then I think it sends out a message

to other people that, well, it is not really dealt with seriously, so

it is OK to target disabled people. It is OK to target people from a

different background. Mary, does it say it's OK unless it is clamped

down on? Is this should not a really strong message to send to society?

It is indeed. It is absolutely a strong message to send to society.

There are various groups of people in this country and in the rest of

Europe who are discriminated against, who do face discrimination.

I think it is quite wrong to say that hate crime will apply to

absolutely everybody. It won't. It's designed to apply to those people

who do face that kind of discrimination and prejudice. But it

is subjective. If you say it was a hate crime towards you because he

called me white and he said I was a white so and so, that's your call.

Then the court... No, that's just for the recording. Court has to make

an objective assessment as for the motivation of the crime for it to

have the exacerbating sentencing. If we are talking about hate based on

what somebody is, you have to have stronger measures to deal with, that

because that is something that... Stronger measures stronger

sentences? Possibly, if that's what is decided and that is what this

legislation seems to be saying. You cannot have people allowed to

discriminate in that way. That's exactly what a lot of people have

been fighting against. This is elevating people before the law,

that's the other side of this. Reverend Linda Rose, what do you

want to say? Is if anybody's a victim of violence, obviously we

have to take measures against that. What I'm worried about today is the

extension of what is called hate speech. There've been cases of

Christian preachers, street preachers being arrested because

they've been reading from the Bible. I'm sorry. How can you accuse them

of hate speech because they are reading particular verses from the

Bible or just stating their belief? Not with any... The cases that we've

had are people just being on the streets and just reading. It is even

worse than, that there was a case recently of an American street

preacher who was over here. He was just generally trying to - it was an

evangelistic tract. Are these the verses on homosexuality? No. He was

accused of reading the verses on homosexuality and he was arrested.

And le needed legal help to get him out of custody. That's clearly

wrong. Is that hate speech, if somebody were to read verses on

homosexuality if a certain place in a certain way from the holy book, is

that hate speech? If the intention is to incite violence and

discrimination, yes it is. The intention might be do convert souls.

Parents, people who do it with the intentional aim of causing

incitement... How do you ascertain the intention? There's the

difficulty. Obviously incitement to violence is and should always be a

crime. Even with the American version of free speech, if you

incite violence, the First Amendment doesn't apply to you. If you have a

difference of opinion, it is bringing opinion into the law, where

it shouldn't. I wanted to talk about what happened to Mohammed. This is a

disgusting and shameful event. A lot of us have perhaps at some point in

our lives been threatened in the street by unpleasant people. Yes.

The real problem here for Mohammed and other people and the shocking

thing to me is that in the centre of a major city but be walking along

with your girlfriend and be threatened by youths with a strong

threat of violence and there's nobody there to help you. The police

aren't there to help you. If you want to stop people being

unpleasantly treated for any reason, shoe be concentrating on getting the

police out of their cars and helicopters and back into their size

15s patrolling the streets. APPLAUSE Thank you all very much for

now. 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're also

debating live this morning from Oxford: Should it be illegal to pay

for sex? And, should religions meddle in politics? So get tweeting

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

you may have about the show. .

Next Thursday the European Parliament will vote on whether

Europe should opt for the "Swedish model" when it comes to

prostitution. This is not quite what it sounds. The debate is about

whether it should be a crime to pay someone for sex, an approach adopted

in Sweden in 1999. And if Europe says yes, the UK may have to change

its own laws, which currently target neither the clients nor the women,

but criminalise those who control or incite prostitution for personal

gain. Should it be illegal to pay for sex? Mary Honeyball, MEP,

doesn't it just about personal autonomy for the women, people

argue, and it is a business transaction - if I can say it -

isn't it? First of all, I'm the author of the report that will be

voted on... That's why you are here! In the European Parliament next

year. Sit merely a transaction? The other thing I want to correct. If it

goes through the European Parliament it is not a legislative resolution,

so it may not become law for a long time. Is it merely a transaction? I

don't think it is. When I ask audiences like this one and various

places I've spoken at whether they view prostitution as a job like any

other, nobody has yet, I haven't come across anyone who says that it

is. That should tell us quite a lot. The other thing it is important to

take account of in this debate is that a lot of women, and it is

almost all women, are trafficked into this country and to other parts

of the European Union and across the European Union for sexual services.

In fact... There's law protecting these women. There are, the EU has

an anti--trafficking direct active. These are statistics produced by the

EU that of those trafficked in the EU, 62% of them are women trafficked

for sexual exploitation. So I think it is pretty clear. Why incriminate

the men? In Sweden since 1999, if you make it illegal to buy sexual

services, prostitution goes down. There is a reduction. It hasn't gone

down. Swedish model has been proven not to works. According to

statistics produced by the Swedish police, which I'm prepared to

believe, it has gone down by half. No. On-street prostitution has gone

down by half. They don't know where these people are gone, whether they

are still alive. They think they are probably moved online or into

private premises. While the prostitution rate has gone down in

Sweden, it has shot up in Denmark and Finland. Perhaps the punters and

the working women have gone elsewhere. The other fact? The other

fact people don't often take into account is since the Swedes brought

this law in this 1999, in the enyears afterwards, rates of rapes

and violence against women have gone up by 60%. Criminalising the men,

would it help? No, it is very dangerous. Dangerous? Absolutely. It

would distort policing practises. Last week on the news we saw Hugh

Grant and Divine Brown, and in the same news clip they mentioned the

grooming clip in Peterborough. They would be busy chasing the Wayne

Rooneys and Hugh Grants of this world and not focusing on the

grooming gangs. That's a real problem. I believe Mary is well

intended with this but she is credulous. Mary said, "All the

people I've spoken to." And that's the problem. Mary is only talking to

people who believe what she believes. An Ipsos MORI such said

59% of people felt that sex work should be an option that women

should be free to use. When Harriet Harman didn't like the results, are

it was repeated with the same result. Believing the police

figures, and we know, we've discussed the policing figures on

Stephen Lawrence, there are huge problems. To believe political spin

is very dangerous. We've already got... Mary is a good European, you

should know. A good European? As you know. An arrest warrant should be

used properly. I want to live in a society that has more compassion,

that accepts diversity, not criminalises, 25% of people paying

por intimacy are paying other men, hor are RGBT or trance gender and

saving up for operations. Why are we criminalising them?

APPLAUSE I'm Linda, andy, you wrote this fascinating article about how

in the past you used prostitutes and escorts. What effect do you think

this would have on those who pay for sex? I think there'll be three

effects of krillising the clients. In the first case there would be

some of the clients would be dissuaded, which I believe is the

aim of to legislation, to reduce committee Midland and wipe out

prostitution. But to quote a New Zealand prostitute interviewed

recently about the changes in Auckland, she said, if the clients

were criminalised we would lose all the nice guys and just be left with

all the horrible ones. Second class of customer would perhaps be

deterred from visiting prostitutes in their own country wonder go

abroad. Would be kicking the can across the Continent. So want to be

keeping those women safe. Would be putting them in danger on someone

else's doorstep. Then you have the very committed by men, the abusers

and rapists, they would not be deterred at all. Even if you removed

every prostitute from the street, they would target other vulnerable

women. Whether it is in parliament, exploitation, there are different

schools of thought in feminism, libertarian feminist thought,

radical feminist thought, the women you encountered that were paid, were

they exploited? Over a period of two years, I visited maybe 20 escorts.

This was all high-end stuff. The reason it carried on for so long was

because they all seemed so bubbly and happy, and kind. This was not

just turn up, do the business and go away, this was six hours, dates, go

out for walks kind of things. The illusion of the girlfriend. That's

the point about the high-end, I have been accused of only talking to

people that agree with me, which is absolutely not true. When we are

talking about legislation, we need to be legislating for the majority.

The majority have either been trafficked... No, they haven't. Or

they go into prostitution because they have difficulties in their

background. There are statistics that show this. Very many from the

care home system, very many on heroin? And also because of

poverty. I have met a lot of women that have ended up in prostitution

because of those reasons. They are in the majority and they are who we

should be legislating for. Your experience, working as an escort,

these are not free choices, says Mary? Well, the Association of Chief

Police Officers, their statistics on trafficking state that around 8% of

people in the UK are trafficked, out of 80,000 people in prostitution.

That is still an horrific number, and I don't see why people need the

need to inflate these figures when they are absolutely horrific. Less

roof finish, if I may. The majority of women in the sex trade are in

poverty. 70% of them are single mothers. By criminalising their

clients it is like saying to somebody, you know, you can have

this shop, you can sell whatever, but nobody is allowed to buy

anything from you. How are you going to feed your children, how are you

going to pay your rent? I'm making it sound warm and cuddly, a real

career choice. It's traumatic. One of the problems is, increasingly,

historically, many use prostitutes because there was a social

recognised prohibition against having sex outside marriage. It was

a way of looking after their sexual needs without damaging family,

without damaging that prohibition. That has all gone. It is pretty much

sex wherever and whenever people want. There is not that same need.

What we finding is that a lot of men are going to prostitutes because

they want to have the kind of sexual indulgence, whatever, that their

girlfriends, their regular partners would be really unhappy about and

would totally condemn. What is the answer? Reid why are you so

concerned about the men and their sexual desires? A lot of girls are

being trafficked, we don't have the exact figures because it is hard to

cover this. I'm getting there. OK! It is very hard to catch the

traffickers. There were very few convictions last year. Trust me, I

did work in this area and there are a lot of traffickers. You cannot

criminalise the girls because a lot of them don't have a choice. You

can't criminalise them, they are victims. But if you criminalise the

payment for sex, it is much easier to crack down on it. You can

actually try and deal with the trafficking problem at this level

and you can protect and help the vulnerable. I would definitely go

with the Swedish model. Audience as well, audience contributions. If I

had ever encountered anybody I suspected of trafficking, I would

gladly and willingly have reported up to the police. If I visit some

body and suspect they are trafficked and I have been criminalised, I'm

not going to report that. As an evangelical Christian, which do you

object to most, the fact that it is sex outside marriage or the fact it

is a business transaction? No, no, no, my concern is that I feel care

and sympathy for the girls and the victims here. Yes, as an evangelical

Christian, I would not go for sex outside marriage. Sympathy for the

girls? If you feel sympathy for the girls, don't put them in more

danger, because that is what this model does. You have not stood on

the street, where you have got to make a quick decision because your

client is criminalised, you cannot check if there is somebody else in

the back of the car, you can't see if the man is strong. You need that

money, whether it is for heroin or to pay for your children. At the

situation in Germany, where they have taken away all restraint,

legalise prostitution. That is nonsense. In Germany, there are

tolerance zones. To say there are masses of traffickers, it's not...

Over 500 premises with intelligence led policing, 50 police forces, the

specialised forces as well, they could not find any traffickers or

trafficked victims. It's an unusual day when I agree with Peter

Hitchens, partly because the police were focusing on brothels where

women were working safely, instead of targeting the dangerous areas.

Nobody disagrees that some people are trafficked. The best thing you

can do to help migrant women is give them learning and language support

and to take violence against sex workers as a hate crime, as they did

in Liverpool. There are things that you can do. Some audience reactions,

please. That lady on the left, first of all. Good morning. Good morning.

I think if you criminalise the men, you criminalise the women by

default. If you legalise prostitution to an extent, and make

it an open conversation, there are measures in place in places where

prostitution is legal that... You can regulate it when it is legal and

you can have... Keep it safe as well? Have places where they are

safe, there are panic buttons in the rooms when things go wrong, they are

regularly screened for STIs. It's safer. I would like to talk about

the conversation going on about the sympathy and prostitution. I would

like to point out the clarification, those that are

penalised because the law is saying clearly that if the prostitute

engaged in sex, and she met a certain criteria, I think she would

be penalised. But if she did not meet the criteria, if she is below

18, or if she is engaged in sex without consent, then the person

will be penalised. Clearly, the Laura saying that. Clear differences

as well. One more. The gentleman back there? The main point here is

the safety for the women, most certainly. By making it legal, like

the lady over there said, regulating and controlling it, I don't think

anyone grows up wanting to be a prostitute. On that point, is it

tomorrow? I don't think there is anything immoral about selling sex

whatsoever. My experience was that it was very traumatic, I am not pro

prostitution, I just believe that everybody... It is a moral. If I let

a man take me on holiday, and I don't really like him, but I pretend

I do so he gives me these things, that is immoral. But not if it is a

straight up transaction. But it was very traumatic. It is not a moral

question, according to Ruth? That appears to be what we are arguing

about. I think it is odd that we discuss the safety of prostitution.

To be a prostitute seems to be living in a snake pit anywhere where

there is no real safety. The safest they would be to not go through that

route in the first place. Most of us are distressed about the idea of a

human creature being turned into a commodity, we would not like to

happen to anybody that we know all of. Obviously it will continue to

exist whatever you do, to some extent. I can't make my mind upon

this law. I really don't know enough about its operation. But it seems to

me that the point of law, the point of a law is that you try to find a

point at which you can interrupt about things. If this works, I think

we should pursue it. I think we need to know more about whether it works.

If it does, it could be very effective. Back to the question of

safety, the Lord is a lot at the moment to make it less safe for

prostitutes. -- the law does a lot. They have effectively made every

single escort agency in the country illegal. They arbitrarily prosecute

these agencies. An agency could effectively be prosecuted under

these legislations. These agencies are making the women's lives safer,

they are able to do it in a more regulated environment, they are

insuring bad clients are kept off the books, they are ensuring that

the girls are treated properly. That is a real institution in this

country that protects prostitutes. But it is a wholly immoral position.

You are saying if it is safe, doing something bad, dangerous and wrong

is all right. What you are saying is that because you think it is morally

wrong you should make it less safe for the people doing it. It is a

false morality. Linda said we live in a society where anything goes,

anybody can have sex any time. That is not the case. We live in a

society where we have rated numbers of single people, higher rates of

divorce, people are a lot lonelier than when they lived in traditional

nuclear family is. Higher rates of suicide, especially amongst the main

demographic group that pay for sex. It is a false morality to say we

will criminalise those people. Frankly, I find it very worrying

that people want to... You know, that it came from one particular

political party, that it is so dangerous and expensive, in a time

of limited resources, it begs me think that if you can't trust Labour

on the economy, you can't trust them with your autonomy. Politicising it

is rather dangerous. Don't wear it on a T-shirt expat We are in a

culture that things of people as objects that can be consumed for

your own pleasure. Back in the 70s, Christians and feminists would unite

to campaign against pornography and prostitution. It was seen as

something dangerous. We have now embraced it. A lot of feminist say

it is about empowerment, the right for women to do what they want?

There are a lot of feminist 's who basically say, look, the new

feminism looks like the old objectification. We have gone full

circle and change the names. I think it is proper Matic and causes

problems with lots of societies. I work with a group in Oxford, guys

that want to come out of this kind of thing, they feel they have

somehow been locked and trapped into a pattern of behaviour, they are

feeling powerless to break it. And I think one of the good things in the

Swedish model is that help is also provided for people that want to

change, to provide ways to get out of a lifestyle. I think they find it

often damaging for themselves. When you start thinking of other people

as objects to be used, when they are demeaned in that way, there is a

difference in a relationship between you and an object and you and a

person. Between you and the person, it is one of connection. You and an

object is one of consumption. In a lot of our sexual activity, we have

replaced the idea of making a connection with another person to be

in consumption, I consumed for my pleasure. By criminalising the men

that paid, would that go some way to changing attitudes? I think it would

be a deterrent. I know a group of businessmen in London, huge

businesses that use corporate accounts to take clients out and

will pay for them to sleep with whoever they want with, they are

paraded in with numbers and you choose a number. I think that is

very dangerous. As long as you do not name the business, I am happy.

Thank you very much indeed. You can join in on the debate, log onto

bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions, following the link to the online discussion.

As well, you can tweet using the hashtag #bbctbq. Well, tell us what

you think about our last question. Should religions meddle in

politics? If you would like to be in the audience for a future show,

e-mail: "Will no-one rid me of the

meddlesome priest?" was said to be Henry II's plea when faced with the

defiance of his Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas a Beckett, to the

King's new laws. It's a phrase David Cameron may well have pondered after

an onslaught of criticism for his welfare reforms this week, first

from the Archbishop of Westminster, now Cardinal Vincent Nichols, and

then from 27 Church of England Bishops, and 15 other Church

leaders. Should religions meddle in politics? So want to be keeping

those women safe. Would be putting them in danger on someone else's

doorstep. Evan Harris, national sek National Secular Society, a former

MP for this neck of the wooxtds isn't it great that the religious

leaders made their point and the Cardinal as well and it is on the

front pages? Yes. It is a leading question, meddle, because politics

is for everyone and there's no reason why religious people and

religious organisations shouldn't have their say. But what they

shouldn't do is have privilege. They shouldn't have privileged access to

law making by having Bishops... APPLAUSE We should not have

privileged access to the media to make their point by the

religious-only platitude of the day on the second-best radio morning

programme on Radio 4, the Today programme... Thank you for that! You

don't know what I'm thinking. The best one. They shouldn't have

privileged access to what people, including the media, consider the

moral high ground. You can have moral input into politics without

religion, just as much. I think you often find, not always, more

hypocrisy in religious interventions. I'm pleased

personally I suspect a lot of religious people are that the Church

is finally talking about poverty and not obsessing about sexual

orientation as it always has. The Church of England says 1. 7 million

people per month go to the Church of England and the Lib Dems have a

membership of 45,000. As I say, the national society for the Protection

of Birds has even more I think than religious participants, so I'm in

favour of people, whatever their religion getting involved, because

they are religious, because they are driven by their religious views,

that's fine, but no privilege. Reverend Linda Rose, for the last

election you helped out in a leafletting campaign against Evan.

Because of his views on abortion and assisted is dying and secularism as

well, so I guess that was a Christian intervention, some would

say a non-Christian intervention. A hate campaign. Someone just said a

hate campaign. If she had been allowed on the television because

she was religious to put her exclusive view, that would have been

problematic Which I wasn't. But you are now. Not just by virtue that I'm

religious. The BBC has to meet targets for religious people because

of the law. There is a religious target. Tokenism. Let's look at

this. OK. Our values are founded on Christian tradition. You may reject

that now but go back historically that's where it comes from. What,

burning people who didn't agree with you? The Church has been an

established Church of this country for centuries. A terrible history of

persecuting people accused of being witches. You can't just take the

good bits. Religious history of this country exists but it has not been

all good. I think that's ridiculous. Let's keep it away from that

appalling gender -- let's take into it religious interventions are.

Meddling, to use that leading word. You've got two questions here. Evan

said, and I agree with him, we are in a democracy, so everybody has a

right to express an opinion. If you are coming from an religious

perspective we have an equal right to express that and that's what we

are doing. Do you think there should be Bishops in the House of Lords

are doing. Do you think there should making laws simply on the basis of

being Bishops? If I may, there's something in the newspaper today

about the Government ameliorating things for those really struggling

on benefits that. Looks to me, whether anything will come of it who

knows, but it looks like a response to what the Bishops have said there.

Linda, you wanted to come in earlier on, I saw the twinkle in your eye.

Thank you for that. I would concur there shouldn't be Bishops, I would

like an elected House of Lords. However, in today's paper also we

saw one of the priests in Soho talking, sometime there is should be

a privileged position where people are at the front line. So they are

speaking in terms of subjectivity, the dangerous situation where

premises, But he gets a headline, priest talks about prostitutes. He

is used to dealing with issues. He has a subject sieve knowledge. No,

it doesn't say man on the front line defends prostitutes, It should. I

work in newspapers and man on front line wouldn't fit. Peter Hitchens?

This question about religious privilege. It is true there are few

Bishops in the House of Lords, but the forces of secular liberalism are

hugely entrenched in our society. The Human Rights Commission and the

equality and diversity laws, which everybody in the public sector and

everybody who deals with it are obliged to accept, the whole ramp of

political correct ideas dominate the UK BBC, the academy and the

professions. Christianity has a few voices which are drowned out.

Politics interferes with religion and our private lives. There is no

question that politics has been interfering with religion

aggressively, so for religion to reply and say we might have ideas in

contradiction for yours is no bad thing and is long overdue. I know

you like to say your religions are persecuted but it's not true. I

didn't use the word persecuted. Let me finish the point and you can come

back. In our laws are carve-outs for religions, you can discriminate

against gay people in a Church and employment, it is permitted. Hence

no gay Bishops, for example. You can discriminate against women in

employment and religion. That's a carve-out for laws that everybody

else has to obey because of religion. I think it is justified

but don't come the investment you've got carvouts, you've got rights.

APPLAUSE I will come back to Peter but I want to hear from Mary, an

MEP. I promise you Peter I will. Mary, as an Metropolitan Police, are

there any areas of legislation that concern you when -- Mary, as an MEP,

are there any areas of lefgs that concern you -- legislation. We need

to be careful. What are they? It is perfectly legitimate in a democracy

to lobby. That is acceptable. That should be on a level playing field.

Areas of concern, what are they? There are areas of concern and we've

touched on them before. It is things like women's rights, like abortion,

lycra exception. It is knows -- like contraception. I think as a

secularist and a humanist that's a legitimate thing for law makers to

be involved in. I don't accept Peter Hitchens's idea that political

correctness and some liberal establishment has taken over

religion. I didn't say that. It is nothing to do with taking over. What

we have... He believes it is marginalised. What we should have is

law makers making things on a level playing field just as interest

groups, whatever they may be, So legislation on abortion and stem

cell research. Abortion keeps being mentioned. Evan talks about religion

burning people at the stake. The Church of England hasn't burnt

anybody at the stake for hundreds of years. He supports massacre of

hundreds of babies each year. This seems a much more important question

than historical burning of the stake. This is interference in the

law. The Christian belief that thou shallot do no murder, which is --

thou shalt do no murder, which has been overridden by the law. You

interrupt me every time I speak. This is very important. Politics

interferes in religion. It interferes between us and our

consciences in many ways. This is an example. You sit there and call

abortion a right? That's you're free to do so but to moan about past

persecution and to be unconcerned about mass infanticide and at the

same time not to recognise the enormous interference in Christian

moral at that politics has made... I don't. We are talking about

economic, this is a debate we've had before and will have again, but we

are talking about intervention on economic matters, matters which

aren't so obviously to do with the arguments in religion. Respond first

Evan. Peter changed the question. The question now it is too late. He

said that secular society, politics, Parliament, was interfering in

religions. Yes I think it shoot say to the Catholic Church, you have a

duty to report abuse to the police. You don't have autonomy in that

area. Who can disagree with that? It doesn't rewrite the Bible.

Christians are entitled to say what they like about morality. On

abortion it works both ways. Many women feel that religious people

whose views they don't share shouldn't have the right to say you

are going to be forced to have a baby and take it to term against

their will. To safe abortion or contraception. It is no right of the

Pope or a Catholic priest to say, you will not use a pill or husband

will not use a condom. They should b pushgs tt out of people's lives. It

is secularism against the religious who feel marginalised is a regular

theme on this programme. Let me bring you in on interventions by the

religious on political matters. Do you approve? I think the problem is

not that there are Bishops in the House of Lords but there is a House

of Lords. I think the problem is that we have unelected people making

law. APPLAUSE You think the House of

Commons is so great? Peter is right to the extent that the forces of law

are going against religion in Europe today. We've seen across Europe the

law intervening even more explicitly than this country. So you cherish

ease interventions? No, I'm opposed to this. No, you cherish religious

figures intervening? Is I see these as individuals who've a prominent

place expressing their view. I think they have a right to do so. Nicky,

these aren't unconnected. For many women, with speaking as a feminist,

the personal is political. So, when the law interconvenience and the

thing -- intervenes and the thing about Church going is connected. You

look at the case in Ireland where there was no intervention when a

female dentist died in order that the baby's life, the foetus, could

continue. That is a big issue about morality. That is religion

intervening in a matter of life or death, where some would say that was

not a moral thing to do. That could be why Church going has gone down.

Many women have been unhappy about the stance in their lives. Coming

back to meddling in politics. Politics at its most pure is when

politics make decisions and campaign on things they believe to be true

and right. It is necessity vl in a democracy you will have all of these

voices. I don't think it is about privileged access. If you are a

leader who has millions of people you are representing will you be

sought by the media and maybe other leaders. You will enjoy some form of

privileged access, as I'm sure the members of National Secular Society

will enjoy. Most account licks don't enjoy with their leadership on their

practice on contraception. If they say I think we should ban some forms

of contraception, as they have, and are entitled to do, they cannot

claim a democratic mandate to justify that. No, most people

realise at this point you don't seem to be representing those on whose

behalf you are speaking with. And when they dos taken more seriously.

It is filtered but it is inevitable. Politics will always require a moral

compaxts some people will come from their position as part of their

beliefs. When people don't conform to their beliefs they call them

hypocrites. Would you be worried if there was no intervention by the

Church, it would be like the puppet Soviet leaders. I think the Church

doesn't speak out enough. Give you've as round of applause. Thank

you. Sorry I didn't get back to you, Peter. That's way it goes. It is

great to see Peter and Evan getting on so well. The debates will

continue online on Twitter. Next week we are in peevenlt join us

then. For now it is goodbye. Thank you for watching. Have a great

Sunday. Turkish - next week we are in Peterborough.