:00:00. > :00:08.Privacy for public figures, power for Catholic women and turbans,
:00:09. > :00:34.Today we're live from Bath Spa University in Bath.
:00:35. > :00:45.Welcome, everybody, to The Big Questions.
:00:46. > :00:51.John Whittingdale, the culture secretary, is on the front pages
:00:52. > :01:06.again, following revelations from a soft pawn actress, saying that. A
:01:07. > :01:13.single man with the right to a private life. So what?
:01:14. > :01:16.On Friday an injunction preventing the reporting of one unnamed married
:01:17. > :01:18.celebrity's sexual frolics with another couple was back in court.
:01:19. > :01:20.The Sun on Sunday wants the injunction lifted,
:01:21. > :01:22.citing widespread reports of the couple's names
:01:23. > :01:28.on the internet and in Scottish, American and Irish papers.
:01:29. > :01:35.Our public figures fair game or is this intrusion on deeply intimate
:01:36. > :01:39.private matters? Do public figures have a right to privacy? Hello,
:01:40. > :01:46.Lembit Opik. The John Whittingdale story today. Another woman, a former
:01:47. > :01:50.pornography actress, a suggestion that he may have broken some
:01:51. > :01:55.parliamentary rules. He tweeted the photograph of a lunch at Chequers to
:01:56. > :02:00.her, which is apparently not allowed. And he showed her some of
:02:01. > :02:06.the contents of his red box. Is that a story? There is a story here, but
:02:07. > :02:09.the story is to go into public life and give up every hope of privacy. I
:02:10. > :02:13.have seen nothing in the revelation today and what has gone before that
:02:14. > :02:17.suggests that John Whittingdale has done anything to compromise his job.
:02:18. > :02:22.What I am frustrated about, and I have been through this myself, is
:02:23. > :02:26.that it is salacious and it sells newspapers but it corrodes what we
:02:27. > :02:32.are meant to be as a free society. What was it like going through it?
:02:33. > :02:35.Horrendous. It affects your life and your family and it corrodes your
:02:36. > :02:39.ability to do your job because you are going through it every day, week
:02:40. > :02:43.in and week out. I went through it for 18 months and it probably
:02:44. > :02:48.affected my career. I didn't realise it. I probably would have been more
:02:49. > :02:52.litigious if I had my time again. Unless you are a saint, think twice
:02:53. > :02:55.before you go into politics. I am not a Conservative but I think John
:02:56. > :03:06.Whittingdale has done a good job for the
:03:07. > :03:11.country and now he is only talking about his private life. I don't care
:03:12. > :03:13.who he has slept with and what he has done so long as he is a
:03:14. > :03:15.competent Cabinet minister. Neil Wallis, it was horrendous for Lembit
:03:16. > :03:18.Opik, it ruins people's lives, shouldn't you profession as the
:03:19. > :03:22.former News of the World editor, concentrate on exposing serious
:03:23. > :03:28.corruption in society? The tax exiles, tax avoidance, people
:03:29. > :03:33.casting this country billions of pounds, rather than tittle tattle. I
:03:34. > :03:38.think it is difficult to take Lembit Opik as an example of press
:03:39. > :03:43.intrusion. I am not sure anybody intruded into his private life more
:03:44. > :03:49.than Lembit Opik and his Cheeky Girl. Your newspaper attacked me
:03:50. > :03:54.time and again. You libelled me when I tried to deal with it. You ignored
:03:55. > :04:00.me. What was the public interest benefits talking about my private
:04:01. > :04:03.life when I was trying to do my job? He can answer this specifics and
:04:04. > :04:06.this does pertain to the general principle of the umbrella topic. We
:04:07. > :04:11.shall concentrate on this first and then get on to the issue of the
:04:12. > :04:15.Secretary of State and this unnamed celebrity couple. Just make this
:04:16. > :04:21.point. I think it probably does speak to a point that some people
:04:22. > :04:27.raise. People who invaded their own privacy. Neil Wallis? As I was
:04:28. > :04:33.explaining, few have invaded their own privacy more than Lembit, who
:04:34. > :04:38.sold stories to magazines, posed for pictures with his Cheeky Girl, and
:04:39. > :04:43.with his weather girl, at every opportunity. Turned up at the
:04:44. > :04:48.opening of an envelope, posed for pictures. He loved it when it suited
:04:49. > :04:52.him. There are many celebrities like that, to broaden it out. There are
:04:53. > :05:00.many and absolutely he is not unique in this. What Lembit did and how he
:05:01. > :05:06.is now talking absolutely appertains to the celebrity injunction. It is
:05:07. > :05:09.such a comparable situation. What about today's story with John
:05:10. > :05:13.Whittingdale? It has moved on from the alleged affair with a
:05:14. > :05:18.dominatrix. We now have a story of somebody who was being unfaithful to
:05:19. > :05:24.a dominatrix with a soft pornography star. It is interesting and for some
:05:25. > :05:28.people vaguely amusing but should it be in the newspapers? What do you
:05:29. > :05:33.have, as a result of the way that the BBC trampled all over John
:05:34. > :05:38.Whittingdale's privacy, that unleashes a world of further
:05:39. > :05:43.activity. What you have seen today is a rather thin version that does
:05:44. > :05:47.not change, that I can see in any way, from the original reason most
:05:48. > :05:52.newspapers did not publish this story, which is that a single man
:05:53. > :05:58.has a relationship with single woman, and that is it. But it has
:05:59. > :06:04.gone beyond that. Well, the revelation today is actually a
:06:05. > :06:09.picture of some distance of the outside of Chequers. It is not some
:06:10. > :06:12.private meeting. It is some people wandering around getting some lunch,
:06:13. > :06:18.one picture, and the suggestion that he showed her, well, she claims he
:06:19. > :06:23.showed her private papers, but interestingly, she can't recall, if
:06:24. > :06:26.you read the piece, anything that was in these private papers other
:06:27. > :06:33.than to say that she saw a letterhead. Do you want to close
:06:34. > :06:38.down any stories pertaining to somebody's sex life? Should that be
:06:39. > :06:43.none of anybody's business? We can think of various examples,
:06:44. > :06:46.politicians where it was important. I wouldn't close down that line of
:06:47. > :06:51.inquiry if it is relevant to the public interest. To my amazement, I
:06:52. > :06:56.actually agree with what you have just said about John Whittingdale. I
:06:57. > :07:00.have done it! Lets go home! There is always a but. The difficulty is that
:07:01. > :07:04.once the whirlwind rises, you can't get out of it. That is what I
:07:05. > :07:11.experienced. You may have views about my interest in publicity. But
:07:12. > :07:15.talking about John Whittingdale, I can't see anything that, misers his
:07:16. > :07:18.ability to do his job, so in this situation, yes, the private life of
:07:19. > :07:23.this Cabinet minister is nothing to do with the rest of us. Ditto Cecil
:07:24. > :07:31.Parkinson, ditto John Major, ditto Prince Charles? Prince Charles
:07:32. > :07:34.certainly. I don't think he has been inconsistent, but when there is
:07:35. > :07:38.hypocrisy, you guys have the rights to expose it. We talked yesterday
:07:39. > :07:42.about the famous photograph of Princess Diana at the Taj Mahal.
:07:43. > :07:45.Where the press right to dig and take and was Sandra Wright to reveal
:07:46. > :07:51.what was going on with Camilla Parker Bowles? Personally I don't
:07:52. > :07:55.feel comfortable with that. It is a grey area for other people. For some
:07:56. > :07:59.people it is open and shut. If you are not living up to certain
:08:00. > :08:03.standards yourself, then you are guilty of hypocrisy. That is when
:08:04. > :08:13.the media has a right to say you cannot save this or that. What is
:08:14. > :08:18.your opinion on this, as a lawyer, about what is hypocrisy at what is
:08:19. > :08:22.justifiable? I think we all accept that everybody is entitled to a
:08:23. > :08:29.certain degree of privacy. The marital bed, in its broadest sense,
:08:30. > :08:33.the hospital bed, the deathbed, the confessional. Those are areas where
:08:34. > :08:37.we all accept that there should be privacy. But you can intrude even to
:08:38. > :08:42.those areas, when there is a legitimate public interest. And what
:08:43. > :08:45.we have today with the John Whittingdale story is on the one
:08:46. > :08:49.hand a man who has never really said that he was anything other than a
:08:50. > :08:55.single man who liked dating women, who appears to have had a
:08:56. > :08:59.relationship with a page three girl, and she does not go into any detail
:09:00. > :09:05.about what happened in the marital bed, properly so in my judgment, yet
:09:06. > :09:10.there are two questions about the picture of the lunch table at
:09:11. > :09:16.Chequers and also whether she did see anything in the red box, which
:09:17. > :09:24.was relevant. Embarrassing details? Yes. Her nickname for him, and this
:09:25. > :09:31.might be brought up, was sexy bottom. That is who he was on her
:09:32. > :09:36.mobile phone. You can hear Dennis Skinner in House of Commons now
:09:37. > :09:46.quitting. The beast Bolsover is going to go for it! And he referred
:09:47. > :09:51.to his constituency as oiks, whether he did or not, that is what she
:09:52. > :09:54.alleges and that is not good. It is part of the rough and tumble and
:09:55. > :09:59.what a politician has got to deal with, but if you say that against a
:10:00. > :10:03.celebrity couple who have always advanced their children, selling
:10:04. > :10:06.pictures to celebrity magazines, and they have put themselves
:10:07. > :10:13.relentlessly in the public eye, and they have presented themselves as a
:10:14. > :10:16.happy, married, monogamous couple, and that really isn't the case, and
:10:17. > :10:22.as a consequence of that, I think we are entitled to know who they are,
:10:23. > :10:28.and come Monday I think we may well find out. The threesome business?
:10:29. > :10:32.OK. Did you sell pictures to celebrity magazines? Yes, I did and
:10:33. > :10:40.you are right to say I did that. Where you naive to do so? I was
:10:41. > :10:43.naive in that I didn't realise it would be used against me to the
:10:44. > :10:48.extent that it was but I was not guilty of hypocrisy. I think other
:10:49. > :10:51.people should live their lives. And John Whittingdale hasn't preached to
:10:52. > :10:55.other people as far as I can see. Where do you draw the line?
:10:56. > :10:59.Everybody in this studio is on television and most people will not
:11:00. > :11:03.be. Do we have the right to know what everybody in this juju has done
:11:04. > :11:14.in their private life in case they make a comment? ! This studio. If
:11:15. > :11:19.there is public interest. That is the point, that is the line that we
:11:20. > :11:24.are treading here. I think newspapers have the right to report
:11:25. > :11:28.on John Whittingdale but I don't think it is interesting, just the
:11:29. > :11:33.latest rubbish, but I wouldn't take away their right to report on it. An
:11:34. > :11:39.overzealous press can read people's private lives, a press that is not
:11:40. > :11:46.robust enough corrodes our democracy. That is the price that we
:11:47. > :11:50.pay? Yes. Look at the Panama papers. David Cameron try to say that the
:11:51. > :11:54.revelations about his father's company was a private matter but
:11:55. > :11:58.because we have got a robust press, it did not remain private and we got
:11:59. > :12:01.the full details. They were not particularly scandalous as far as
:12:02. > :12:04.David Cameron is concerned but if we lived in a country like France where
:12:05. > :12:09.they have stricter privacy laws, I don't think we would have found that
:12:10. > :12:12.out. In 1980s, President Mitterand was suffering from cancer and the
:12:13. > :12:23.public in France was not allowed to know about it
:12:24. > :12:27.because was seen as a private matter. I would argue that this is
:12:28. > :12:29.something that potentially affected his ability to govern the country,
:12:30. > :12:31.so it is all very well celebrities using... I don't think celebrities
:12:32. > :12:34.want privacy. They want favourable coverage. You have got to take the
:12:35. > :12:38.rough with the smooth. You can't use the media on one hand to sell
:12:39. > :12:42.yourself and turn yourself into a celebrity, and on the other hand
:12:43. > :12:46.whenever pictures come out that you don't like, or a story comes out
:12:47. > :12:55.that is not favourable to you, try to complain and shut it down. That
:12:56. > :12:58.is a very valid point. What I have learned is that you have got to
:12:59. > :13:02.accept criticism. That is completely fair game. People can rubbish you
:13:03. > :13:09.and ridicule you. It is when they start telling lies or doing things
:13:10. > :13:15.that are not in the public interest. There are defamation laws. Libel is
:13:16. > :13:22.a rich man's game. That is a problem. Not so much any more. It is
:13:23. > :13:28.a different problem. Neil has made the intervention that libel is no
:13:29. > :13:34.longer a rich man or woman's game. Surely it is. No-win, no fee. Ask
:13:35. > :13:38.Mark about it. You can go to a lawyer and if he has a good chance
:13:39. > :13:46.of winning, he will take your case and where he makes his money, and he
:13:47. > :13:51.is entitled to 100% increase of his fees, if he wins the case. The great
:13:52. > :13:55.irony is that the majority of people using this are not members of the
:13:56. > :14:03.public. It is actually celebrities. Celebrities use this all the time.
:14:04. > :14:09.Where is the line on public interest and someone's private life? Good
:14:10. > :14:12.morning. The thing that has made me most uncomfortable about the John
:14:13. > :14:19.Whittingdale case was the reason that it is shameful is because the
:14:20. > :14:23.professions of the women that he had relationships with. And his defence
:14:24. > :14:26.is that he broke up with a sex worker when he found out that she
:14:27. > :14:32.was a sex worker and I think that is shaming the women for what they do.
:14:33. > :14:35.It is 2016 and I think a lot of Parliament has used sex workers. Why
:14:36. > :14:44.is this still a shameful thing to have had a relationship with a
:14:45. > :14:48.working woman? Hello. We have got you. Very important thing to
:14:49. > :14:53.remember for the people who are in power, celebrities, is that they are
:14:54. > :15:05.ideals for young people. It is very important. In India, for example, in
:15:06. > :15:08.China, for example, Xi Jinping was involved in the Panama reports, it
:15:09. > :15:13.is important because we look at them. Somebody like me, I am not a
:15:14. > :15:18.public figure and if I am involved in something messy, it is fine. But
:15:19. > :15:24.if you are an ideal, a person who we want in our lives, like Sachin
:15:25. > :15:31.Tendulkar, and then people see him in the reports involved in those
:15:32. > :15:37.things, then it has a very detrimental effect for society.
:15:38. > :15:44.Nobody is perfect. Any other comments? We will come here if we
:15:45. > :15:48.can, I will continue in a second. Do you not think it depends on the
:15:49. > :15:52.level of celebrity it is that different people should be obliged
:15:53. > :15:56.different levels of privacy depending on how they use the media,
:15:57. > :16:01.whether they use it to make a brand or if they are just in the public
:16:02. > :16:04.eye due to their career, such as actresses, actors, obviously they
:16:05. > :16:08.know they will be in the public eye but they are not, perhaps,
:16:09. > :16:13.exploiting it as, say, other celebrities like Kim Kardashian? She
:16:14. > :16:20.does make the most of it, doesn't she?! And good luck to her. What
:16:21. > :16:24.about social media? That has changed the game, Mark Stephens? Let's move
:16:25. > :16:30.on this celebrity couple proceeding with enormous care because I don't
:16:31. > :16:38.want any of you wonderful people to go to prison. It is out of the bag,
:16:39. > :16:43.isn't it? It is utterly futile to stop this information coming out in
:16:44. > :16:47.this social media age? I think that is right. This particular couple has
:16:48. > :16:51.effectively committed the parish pump heresy, we might call it, that
:16:52. > :16:56.getting an injunction in England that applies to England and Wales
:16:57. > :17:01.only, not Scotland, but they should have done, as when Ryan Giggs was
:17:02. > :17:05.outed, was to register it up there, or perhaps in Ireland and America.
:17:06. > :17:07.It leads you to this internationalisation. We have
:17:08. > :17:11.different standards around the world. In this country, we have kind
:17:12. > :17:17.of adopted and imported the standards of the French, you can't
:17:18. > :17:22.know about a Prime Minister or a President's second family in France,
:17:23. > :17:27.as we have seen. We have moved inexorably towards that. Is that a
:17:28. > :17:31.good thing? I think not. The Commonwealth, who we gave our laws
:17:32. > :17:36.to, do not have that. They have the idea that there is a certain minimum
:17:37. > :17:41.standard. Then there was America, the home of social media, America
:17:42. > :17:44.doesn't really have any privacy laws whatsoever. As a result, in this
:17:45. > :17:50.particular case that we are talking about with the celebrity and a
:17:51. > :17:57.couple of other folk, what you have is that the source told an English
:17:58. > :18:01.newspaper and an American publication prior to the injunction.
:18:02. > :18:06.So the cat was out of the bag, the genie was out of the bottle. Once
:18:07. > :18:10.the information genie is out, it will be spread across the globe as a
:18:11. > :18:14.consequence of social media. There is no stopping it, Lembit Opik? Ryan
:18:15. > :18:23.Giggs, who allegedly had an affair with somebody from Big Brother, his
:18:24. > :18:29.name has been mentioned 160 times a minute on Twitter. That is a
:18:30. > :18:32.ridiculous situation? That was a super injunction, you are not even
:18:33. > :18:37.to men -- you're not even meant to know there is an injunction with a
:18:38. > :18:41.super injunction. You are right, the cat is out of the bag. The
:18:42. > :18:47.difficulty is that there is a principle at stake. Element one, was
:18:48. > :18:50.he being a hypocrite? It so, there might be public interest. Number
:18:51. > :18:56.two, does he have a right to defend himself in terms of the River Sea? I
:18:57. > :18:59.think he does. You are making the mistake of applying English law and
:19:00. > :19:07.English values. This is a global values. Lets give up on Freedom and
:19:08. > :19:12.privacy. I live in this country because of those values. Yes, but
:19:13. > :19:17.you are in a global society. This is the is you which the judges are
:19:18. > :19:22.dealing with. Because it is out, because the Americans will not stop
:19:23. > :19:28.it, what do you do? Do you ignore it, pretend in a little England way
:19:29. > :19:34.that it no longer exists? What you do is use stand-by principles, you
:19:35. > :19:37.do not give up everybody else does. Call me old-fashioned, I think
:19:38. > :19:43.pregnancy is not a dirty word, we have the right to privacy for public
:19:44. > :19:51.figures -- I think River see is not a dirty word. If you are a global
:19:52. > :19:55.individual with a global reputation, you have to play by global standards
:19:56. > :20:02.and go to each country where you are major. They are huge in America. The
:20:03. > :20:05.whole world can watch as programme through the Internet, you are a
:20:06. > :20:09.global figure right now, by your logic you do not have the right to
:20:10. > :20:15.produce the any more. Welcome to the world. -- the right to privacy any
:20:16. > :20:21.more. I am willing to the fight -- to fight for the fact that we are an
:20:22. > :20:27.island of privacy, hopefully we can get the genie into the bottle and
:20:28. > :20:32.get people's privacy back. You are living in cloud cuckoo land, Alice
:20:33. > :20:39.and Wonderland. -- Alice in Wonderland. And they are on the same
:20:40. > :20:43.side! Is this a story? Why should we know this story about these three
:20:44. > :20:48.people and the celebrity couple and the infidelity? They say themselves
:20:49. > :20:53.that they are a committed couple, and that does not necessarily
:20:54. > :20:58.involve fidelity, as far as they are concerned. Why is it any business of
:20:59. > :21:06.ours? I'm afraid, for exactly the reason that Lembit has no defence
:21:07. > :21:11.for what happened to him. This couple, as part of their bid for
:21:12. > :21:16.world domination, have sold their privacy time and time and time
:21:17. > :21:25.again. Go carefully. O'Dell but it is a huge part of their brand -- it
:21:26. > :21:30.is a huge part of their brand that they are a perfect family. There is
:21:31. > :21:36.no such thing. That is what they are trying to sell. When their children
:21:37. > :21:40.were born, it was announced and they provided more detail about it than a
:21:41. > :21:49.royal birth. It is hypocrisy. They are making money. It is not just the
:21:50. > :21:54.notes of being on live television... Caroline, you are a committed,
:21:55. > :22:00.faithful Catholic, and if somebody is in the confessional, here is a
:22:01. > :22:06.thing, say a celebrity is a Catholic and they do something wrong, they
:22:07. > :22:11.are unfaithful or something, they would go to the confessional and
:22:12. > :22:15.have penance, yet they are still exposed to their hypocrisy, is it
:22:16. > :22:20.right? If they are espousing a certain way of life then, probably,
:22:21. > :22:24.I think it is. In that situation, a Catholic would be able to put their
:22:25. > :22:29.hands up and exercise a bit of humility and say, yes, what I did
:22:30. > :22:35.was wrong, I have been to the confessional and I am trying to make
:22:36. > :22:39.amends. Honesty is key. It is interesting, Lembit was talking
:22:40. > :22:43.about British values. The British do not like being treated as if we are
:22:44. > :22:47.children, and we are being treated as if we are children by the judge
:22:48. > :22:53.in this case. You mentioned Ryan Giggs, that his name was mentioned
:22:54. > :22:57.160 times a minute. That is typical defiance, when we update you can't
:22:58. > :23:04.know about this or say this. I am not going into details, but Neal is
:23:05. > :23:10.right in that the celebrity couple involved, they have... O... They
:23:11. > :23:16.have been hypocrite... OK... Inasmuch as they are espousing and
:23:17. > :23:20.advocating certain values and it seems they are in contravention. The
:23:21. > :23:25.judge has said that if you are in a loyal, committed relationship, that
:23:26. > :23:30.does not rule out to... That does not necessarily include fidelity.
:23:31. > :23:36.That is a massive important question for the public interest, what is
:23:37. > :23:41.marriage? Is it about two people in monogamy? If they have changed
:23:42. > :23:48.marriage to include... It is a Blu-ray listed world. If marriage is
:23:49. > :23:53.about fidelity... These are moral judgments which may or may not have
:23:54. > :23:57.a place. If you were a couple in a situation like this couple, they
:23:58. > :24:02.came to you, how would you stop the News getting out, or, at the end of
:24:03. > :24:08.the day, is it impossible? Final word? You take a one-day heads and
:24:09. > :24:13.then bury all of this with good publicity which they are able to
:24:14. > :24:18.generate through PR people and the enormous number of people that make
:24:19. > :24:24.good publicity. It is a bigger story because it has been gagged. If we
:24:25. > :24:27.take privacy away, like politicians and others, there would be no John
:24:28. > :24:33.F. Kennedy, no Winston Churchill Admiral Francois Mitterrand and, two
:24:34. > :24:37.of those people, at least, are very good politicians. That was good, we
:24:38. > :24:38.got there. Thank you very much indeed.
:24:39. > :24:40.APPLAUSE If you have something
:24:41. > :24:42.to say about that debate, log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions,
:24:43. > :24:44.where you'll find links to join We're also debating live this
:24:45. > :24:48.morning from Bath... Should the Vatican give
:24:49. > :24:51.women more power? So get tweeting or emailing on those
:24:52. > :24:57.topics now or send us any other ideas or thoughts you may
:24:58. > :25:04.have about the show. Amoris Laetitia - The Joy Of Love -
:25:05. > :25:07.is an exhortation from Pope Francis attempting to reconcile modern
:25:08. > :25:11.family life with church teaching. It's long on sympathy for people
:25:12. > :25:14.struggling with their conscience over being divorced,
:25:15. > :25:15.or using contraception, But it hasn't changed any
:25:16. > :25:23.of the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine on any of the key issues
:25:24. > :25:25.that people or the planet And maybe this is not a surprise,
:25:26. > :25:32.because The Joy of Love was based on discussions held over
:25:33. > :25:34.the past three years, across the world, largely
:25:35. > :25:37.between men, celibate men. Yet most of the worshippers
:25:38. > :25:40.in Catholic churches every Their views and experience of modern
:25:41. > :25:46.family life are more informed. But women cannot be Catholic priests
:25:47. > :25:48.and none hold senior positions within the Vatican
:25:49. > :26:00.or the worldwide church. Should the Vatican give women more
:26:01. > :26:06.power? Caroline? We have a situation, Pope
:26:07. > :26:12.Francis, a 79 you rolled, possibly a virgin, definitely celibate, what
:26:13. > :26:18.does he or any of the other old virgins know about women? -- a
:26:19. > :26:22.79-year-old. For a start, every single Catholic priest has got a
:26:23. > :26:27.mother, haven't they, and they perhaps have sisters. You are making
:26:28. > :26:34.an assumption that in order to know about women, you need to have had a
:26:35. > :26:38.sexual relationship with them... Family life, having children?
:26:39. > :26:45.Contraception? Of course they would have been brought up within a family
:26:46. > :26:52.with women. The question assumes that Catholic doctrine is formed by
:26:53. > :26:55.a political party think tank in the Vatican, and that if you have more
:26:56. > :27:00.women in their then the church doctrine would change. That is not
:27:01. > :27:06.the case, that is not how doctrine is formed. Catholic doctrine is
:27:07. > :27:14.unlikely to change. When you talk about giving women more power, as
:27:15. > :27:17.you say, women make up most of the congregations of the Catholic
:27:18. > :27:22.Church. When I look at my parish and my diocese, arguably the most
:27:23. > :27:27.important person in the diocese is the finance director that makes all
:27:28. > :27:31.the decisions, the budgeting, the most important layperson in the
:27:32. > :27:39.diocese. We have just got a new one, and she is a woman. But doctrine is
:27:40. > :27:48.not immutable. Miriam Duignan, from Catholic Women's Ordination, you say
:27:49. > :27:52.that women are treated as a different species in the Catholic
:27:53. > :27:58.Church? Treated as a different species in that the ban on women's
:27:59. > :28:02.ordination is not new, but it does not reflect the original teaching of
:28:03. > :28:06.the Church and the original foundations of the face when women
:28:07. > :28:10.were equal leaders are long with men, and it does not reflect the
:28:11. > :28:15.teaching of Jesus, who went out of his way, totally against the norms
:28:16. > :28:22.of his time, to ask women to speak on his behalf. We need for the
:28:23. > :28:27.Church to reflect the Justice and equality that we teach. Not just the
:28:28. > :28:32.finance directors, but the personnel all the way up in the Vatican
:28:33. > :28:36.hierarchy, if they were to change and more accurately reflect society,
:28:37. > :28:39.how would doctrine change? It would be easy to change the doctrine of
:28:40. > :28:44.the church. What changes for the better would there be? You mentioned
:28:45. > :28:49.the sign not, this recent document is a result of this, there were a
:28:50. > :28:54.few women allowed in but they were very carefully chosen were only
:28:55. > :28:58.allowed to talk about natural family planning -- you mentioned the synod.
:28:59. > :29:02.All of the bishops were voting, there was not a single woman
:29:03. > :29:09.allowed. It has real impact on the teaching in the world. There are 1.2
:29:10. > :29:10.billion Catholics in the world, Church is the largest
:29:11. > :29:15.non-governmental provider of education and health care in the
:29:16. > :29:21.world, it real impact. When you are still saying in 2060 that artificial
:29:22. > :29:24.contraception and medical contraception is banned, as a result
:29:25. > :29:30.of discussions in the synod, because none of the bishops said they
:29:31. > :29:34.believed that the Church's teaching has to change, there are real impact
:29:35. > :29:38.for women not being able to participate in those discussions
:29:39. > :29:44.with a voice and a vote, because it then spreads throughout the world
:29:45. > :29:48.very large influence in the world on governments and the United Nations,
:29:49. > :29:53.where there are real impact. Women suffer disproportionately from
:29:54. > :29:56.violence, poverty, from abuse in the world. If the Catholic Church would
:29:57. > :30:02.just say we want to restore you to full equality, we want you to have a
:30:03. > :30:06.voice in the Church, as you used to, as Jesus modelled in asking you to
:30:07. > :30:10.speak for him, it would lift up women and instantly change the
:30:11. > :30:11.status of women around the world in the areas we are worried about.
:30:12. > :30:28.APPLAUSE I would say that women do have roles
:30:29. > :30:35.as leaders within the Catholic Church. I look at my particular
:30:36. > :30:41.parish, I see women leading confirmation classes, catechists,
:30:42. > :30:45.and we have women teaching in seminaries, who are in charge of the
:30:46. > :30:50.formation of the priests. And you are assuming that a priest or cleric
:30:51. > :30:54.is the only person who can exercise any power. Actually, the role of
:30:55. > :30:59.priest in the Catholic Church, and my husband is one, is a roll of
:31:00. > :31:08.servant. He is former Church of England Sophie had children and he
:31:09. > :31:15.has come across. -- so he has come across and had children. Let me give
:31:16. > :31:19.you this quote. The role of women in the like a dancing partner. The man
:31:20. > :31:27.leaves and the woman follows, but the woman is the centre of
:31:28. > :31:32.attention. -- the man leads. OK. But if somebody said that in politics or
:31:33. > :31:39.the boardroom, they would be laughed at, and it would be seen as
:31:40. > :31:50.fantastically patronising. Well, it is to do with Compton and charity --
:31:51. > :31:54.it is to do with Compton mending each other. You talked about The Joy
:31:55. > :32:00.Of Love, and how women were not included and it needed to be better.
:32:01. > :32:04.He talked about the plight of women, where women had been enslaved, and
:32:05. > :32:11.rejecting patriarchal cultures, and he said women were enslaved today by
:32:12. > :32:16.the sex industry, by surrogacy. He said where women's emancipation has
:32:17. > :32:21.led to equal access in the workplace and equal decision-making, that it
:32:22. > :32:26.is the work of the holy spirit. It is about education. The countries
:32:27. > :32:30.that have the most educated female workforce are the most successful in
:32:31. > :32:38.the world. Anybody else in the front row or the audience? I work for a
:32:39. > :32:43.group on psychological action and my boss is a woman, and the chair is
:32:44. > :32:48.really powerful. If you said it is a man's world, you would be laughed
:32:49. > :32:53.out of the organisation. My church in London, Oasis, would think it
:32:54. > :32:56.unthinkable to judge who does what in the church on the basis of
:32:57. > :33:01.gender. It is about faith and not body. I think we are getting
:33:02. > :33:07.confused. The role of the priest, as a Catholic Church sees it, is a
:33:08. > :33:11.vocation. It is not a job, not a secular job that is paid as
:33:12. > :33:16.employment. It is to do with the church's theology. The church sees
:33:17. > :33:24.herself as feminine, the bride, and Christ as the bridegroom. That is
:33:25. > :33:31.why we have a male priesthood. Frank in a second, but Miriam is
:33:32. > :33:36.contorting her face! The bridegroom theology is a bit troubling. It has
:33:37. > :33:41.only been used recently. There was a commission in the Vatican in 1976 to
:33:42. > :33:44.settle the question once and for all. Is there anything in the
:33:45. > :33:48.Scripture that would exclude women from being priests and the Vatican's
:33:49. > :33:52.own commission said there was nothing in Scripture that said women
:33:53. > :33:55.cannot be priests so we need to come up with something else. The
:33:56. > :33:58.development of the theory of the bridegroom has grown since then and
:33:59. > :34:07.it started to be mentioned in the 1980s by John Paul II a lot. In one
:34:08. > :34:15.of his letters it was mentioned. Is it not earlier than the 1970s?
:34:16. > :34:21.Welcome, Joseph! It was not used in the Catholic Church. The church
:34:22. > :34:27.banned women from the altar around 1150. That is complete fantasy.
:34:28. > :34:32.There is not a theologian, a Scripture scholar, in the country
:34:33. > :34:41.with a university of any reputation who would agree with that. It was
:34:42. > :34:43.written into the code of canon law in 1024. You only need to ban
:34:44. > :34:55.something when it is happening already. Complete fantasy. Joseph,
:34:56. > :35:02.you are chairman of the Latin mass society, which you believe increases
:35:03. > :35:07.the mystery of the sacraments. The Latin Mass? Yes. There is a good
:35:08. > :35:14.deal of confusion here. Doesn't the Latin alienate people? No, it
:35:15. > :35:20.doesn't, actually. What you do when you come into church formats, you
:35:21. > :35:24.want to worship God. What is addressed to God doesn't have to be
:35:25. > :35:35.in English. It have to be in something which has a certain
:35:36. > :35:40.grandeur. And more males respond to it? This is something we have
:35:41. > :35:44.observed. A lot of congregations are female dominated, which is
:35:45. > :35:48.interesting. Why are women not being represented in the church? Hang on a
:35:49. > :35:54.minute, another way of looking at it is where have the men gone? If this
:35:55. > :35:59.is such a male dominated institution, an institution serving
:36:00. > :36:04.only men, how is it that they have instituted a form of liturgy and
:36:05. > :36:11.many other policies that actually turned men of to such an extent? Why
:36:12. > :36:14.does it turn them off? Rain it is touchy-feely, and you are invited to
:36:15. > :36:18.hug your neighbour and that sort of thing. I am exaggerating. We have
:36:19. > :36:22.the situation where one third of congregations are male and they are
:36:23. > :36:28.dragged there. You don't think there is a problem for women in the
:36:29. > :36:33.Catholic Church at all. I do. Many problems. We have had people pushing
:36:34. > :36:35.for female ordination which is confusing the issue of power in the
:36:36. > :36:46.community with the question of ordination. Frank? You talked about
:36:47. > :36:53.this or not, yes, the cardinals and bishops, gathered in Rome, yes, they
:36:54. > :36:56.were male. Before the Synod, in 2014 and in 2015, the Catholic Church did
:36:57. > :37:00.a consultation at every bishops conference around the world. The
:37:01. > :37:04.call to action helped the bridge chips conference here and we had
:37:05. > :37:11.responses. They don't make good reading for the Pope and the bishops
:37:12. > :37:16.because they showed that 80% of British Catholics don't accept the
:37:17. > :37:18.church's teaching on contraception and 90% of respondents believed that
:37:19. > :37:26.divorced Catholics should be welcomed back into communion with
:37:27. > :37:29.the church. The Pope admitted it, the church has not responded
:37:30. > :37:34.adequately to the demands and needs of the laity. It is not just a
:37:35. > :37:37.question of women. I understand the aspirations of women to have a
:37:38. > :37:42.further role in the church. But actually it is about the 99% of the
:37:43. > :37:52.Catholic Church who I lay members. The church is the laity, not just
:37:53. > :37:57.the priests and bishops. What are women's position in the church and
:37:58. > :38:01.reproductive autonomy? If I am a woman and I care about something,
:38:02. > :38:06.fake, politics, health care, why should I not be able to rise to the
:38:07. > :38:12.position that I want to? Whether it is the position of Pope. I should be
:38:13. > :38:17.able to do that and I should have the autonomy to choose the
:38:18. > :38:25.contraception for my health. You do. The Catholic Church preaches what it
:38:26. > :38:30.preaches about contraception and for a very specific reason. You have
:38:31. > :38:36.your own free will. The Catholic Church believes that sex is about
:38:37. > :38:41.this and that, unity and procreation, two elements. But you
:38:42. > :38:44.can reject that. The church is not imposing what she believes about
:38:45. > :38:53.contraception are new. And the church does say to women... It does
:38:54. > :38:57.not say that every time you have sex you must have a baby. There is the
:38:58. > :39:03.concept of responsible parenthood which has been advocated. When it
:39:04. > :39:11.comes to sex, yes, I have a choice about contraception that I use but
:39:12. > :39:14.if you look at the wider teachings, I cannot go into the job that I want
:39:15. > :39:19.within the church because of my gender. How is that fair or equal?
:39:20. > :39:24.It is not a job. It has a sacred character. Why are women any less
:39:25. > :39:28.sacred? APPLAUSE
:39:29. > :39:33.The reason we are having this conversation is because after all
:39:34. > :39:37.this discussion of the last three years, the Pope has said, actually,
:39:38. > :39:43.boys and girls, I can't change the teaching. You think the paper has
:39:44. > :39:53.all the power, but they can't change it. They are not able to. Kitty,
:39:54. > :39:57.what would you say to Joseph? It is completely backwards. If people come
:39:58. > :40:01.together, they can bring this about. I am not personally religious but I
:40:02. > :40:05.get that it is a very important thing to a lot of people and I get
:40:06. > :40:09.where that is coming from, but actually it comes down to how you
:40:10. > :40:13.want your mother or sister to be treated. How do you want your
:40:14. > :40:19.daughter to be treated? Do you want them to have this imposed upon them?
:40:20. > :40:23.Actually, I want them to know the truth. I realise it is difficult for
:40:24. > :40:26.people outside the church to understand this, but the whole point
:40:27. > :40:31.of the Catholic Church is that we have this teaching that cannot just
:40:32. > :40:36.be changed. The idea of voting on new teaching it's ridiculous. If
:40:37. > :40:42.they did that, they would say they have been wrong all these years. And
:40:43. > :40:46.then the Catholic Church doesn't exist. There has been a claim that
:40:47. > :40:49.the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and it has existed
:40:50. > :40:54.continuously and taught at the same thing, but if they say we were all
:40:55. > :41:00.wrong, you are also saying that the Catholic Church doesn't exist. What
:41:01. > :41:03.about the massive problems of overpopulation on the planet,
:41:04. > :41:08.driving other species to extinction, incredible problems with resources?
:41:09. > :41:16.Do we not need to think again about contraception? That is what they
:41:17. > :41:21.were saying when they thought there would be a global ice age, and in
:41:22. > :41:24.fact it hasn't happened. The global population will begin in a few
:41:25. > :41:28.decades and then go into decline so it is a red herring. We're not
:41:29. > :41:32.talking about science. We are talking about interpretation and the
:41:33. > :41:41.Bible is an evolving story and you choose the bits that you seem like.
:41:42. > :41:47.You choose the bits that you like! Joseph, I tell you what, is your
:41:48. > :41:58.eardrum OK? My face is very wet and my eardrum is bursting! You are used
:41:59. > :42:02.to the newsroom! I find this a staggering debate and I was
:42:03. > :42:06.incredibly disappointed that a man I see as a good Pope so let down the
:42:07. > :42:14.women of this planet. It is no coincidence that a week ago there
:42:15. > :42:17.was this horrendous story of a woman prosecuted in Northern Ireland over
:42:18. > :42:22.the fact that she underwent an abortion. This was about the
:42:23. > :42:26.pressure of the Catholic Church. It is about the way that in vast areas
:42:27. > :42:34.of the world, South America for instant, Panama, Southern Ireland,
:42:35. > :42:37.the power of the male dominated Catholic Church means that this
:42:38. > :42:42.young woman he could not live there and have control over her own body
:42:43. > :42:45.and that is a scandal. If it continues, the rest of the world
:42:46. > :43:00.will increasingly turn against the Catholic Church. We have got to
:43:01. > :43:05.leave it there. Excuse me! You can join in all of today's debates.
:43:06. > :43:14.Follow the links to the online discussion. And our next debate is
:43:15. > :43:19.coming up. Next Sunday, we are not on. It is the London Marathon.
:43:20. > :43:21.But we'll be back on May 1st from Salford's Media City.
:43:22. > :43:24.If you'd like to be in the audience at that show,
:43:25. > :43:28.Or you can apply to be in the audience at the special
:43:29. > :43:30.we will be recording in the afternoon, asking, "Should
:43:31. > :43:35.Then we'll be in Oxford on May 22nd and in London on June 5th.
:43:36. > :43:39.On Tuesday it was World Turban Day, set up to remind Sikhs that wearing
:43:40. > :43:41.a turban is a mandatory part of their religion.
:43:42. > :43:48.Just as not all Muslim women wear a veil, or Jewish men a yarmulke,
:43:49. > :43:50.or Christian women don hats in church.
:43:51. > :43:52.It's just as much about culture as faith.
:43:53. > :44:21.you, now Nav Sawhney? That is fantastic. I have 50. I need a
:44:22. > :44:27.tartan one. There is a shop with a whole range? Yes, in India, and I
:44:28. > :44:33.was like a kid in a candy store. I am celebrating what I wear and
:44:34. > :44:40.exploring. Is it cultural or religious? It goes hand in hand. It
:44:41. > :44:44.is very important for me and my identity to carry out this
:44:45. > :44:49.conversation in my turban. It is like a beacon of what I stand for.
:44:50. > :44:53.You can look at me and think, right, I know what the Sikh principles are
:44:54. > :44:59.and what he stands for. But on the other hand, if a person wears a
:45:00. > :45:04.great big turban and has a great big beard and doesn't uphold the Sikh
:45:05. > :45:09.principles of selfless service, standing up for just causes, gender
:45:10. > :45:13.equality, then in the eyes of the God, I think that person would be
:45:14. > :45:23.less favourable. Can you be a totally observance Sikh
:45:24. > :45:29.without the beard or the turban? I think that in the eyes God we are
:45:30. > :45:34.all equal, it is not up to me all you to judge the person, it is up to
:45:35. > :45:39.us to help each other along our journeys, whatever faith you are, to
:45:40. > :45:47.follow a principle path. And so on and so forth. Shamsher Singh, is it
:45:48. > :45:52.God or cultural identity? I don't think God cares what you wear. We
:45:53. > :45:57.are taught that religious clothing is not a magical barrier to stop you
:45:58. > :46:01.from being a hypocrite, you can wear religious clothing and be a
:46:02. > :46:05.hypocrite. For us, the turban as part of our political identity in
:46:06. > :46:09.the world, it is to show we are part of the Sikh nation, committed to
:46:10. > :46:13.upholding the values we have been taught by the gurus. It has become
:46:14. > :46:23.as much part of our culture and identity as well. I thought you were
:46:24. > :46:26.going to come back from that? The turban is regarded as so important
:46:27. > :46:29.that you can ride a motorbike without wearing a helmet, a Kazakh
:46:30. > :46:36.country respect the importance of the turban. -- because our country
:46:37. > :46:40.respect. I think we all dress according to cultural norms. I
:46:41. > :46:44.understand what you say, it helps develop your faith, and everyone
:46:45. > :46:49.should respect that. But what we wear and what we do does not prevent
:46:50. > :46:53.us from being hypocrites, as I think there is an advantage to having that
:46:54. > :46:57.kind of discipline, like with prior, like with attending a religious
:46:58. > :47:01.event on a Sunday if you want to, but how far does it go? When it
:47:02. > :47:05.becomes fundamentalist, the ending it self rather than an expression of
:47:06. > :47:13.the end, that is when I think it might goes wrong? Amra Bone, does it
:47:14. > :47:27.sometimes become the end in itself? For some people, yes. To me, wearing
:47:28. > :47:34.modest clothes is important. God, God is perfect, right? What I wear
:47:35. > :47:39.really benefits me, so in that sense God sort of cows. Why would the
:47:40. > :47:43.creator of the universe and the heavens and the cosmos be remotely
:47:44. > :47:53.bothered by what somebody wears? It is a bit petty. Woke up God does not
:47:54. > :47:57.need my prayers all what I do. It benefits me, my way of dress
:47:58. > :48:02.benefits me. I would not say that one has to dressed in a particular
:48:03. > :48:07.way, it is categorical in that chronic teaching that you cover your
:48:08. > :48:13.bosoms and your private parts, and private parts for men -- it is
:48:14. > :48:18.critical in the teaching of the Koran. Some people want to cover
:48:19. > :48:22.their faces. For me, it is the character that comes through. There
:48:23. > :48:26.is a verse in the Koran which says we created you into men and women,
:48:27. > :48:31.nations and tribes so that you get to know one another, but the most
:48:32. > :48:36.honourable is who has the quality of the inner beauty and sincerity,
:48:37. > :48:42.honesty, consciousness, that matters the most. You could be wearing
:48:43. > :48:47.Reichs or ropes? In another place it says we have given you clothing as a
:48:48. > :48:55.form of beautifying yourself, but the best form of beauty is, again,
:48:56. > :49:01.the inner beauty. There is a balance, you wear something which is
:49:02. > :49:07.modest, but at the same time it is balanced with your inner purity and
:49:08. > :49:12.consciousness. Immodesty is the thing? James? Religious dress, if
:49:13. > :49:14.you start from the principle that people should be able to wear
:49:15. > :49:21.whatever they want, I think it is sound. Religious tresses fine, if
:49:22. > :49:24.you want to wear it, that is fine. Sometimes it is a political
:49:25. > :49:29.expression. If you want to dress modestly, that is your choice. But
:49:30. > :49:32.the issue with modesty is that it is often men imposing what they believe
:49:33. > :49:37.to be modest on women. APPLAUSE
:49:38. > :49:42.There is very little in religious instruction... One second, there is
:49:43. > :49:48.very little in religious instruction saying that men have to be as modest
:49:49. > :49:53.as women, there tends to be an obsession about female sexuality,
:49:54. > :49:59.covering up, extinguishing, sometimes, female sexuality and
:50:00. > :50:03.forced not by God but by mail patriarchal dominant figures in that
:50:04. > :50:09.community. That happens, does it not? It happens, but, on the whole,
:50:10. > :50:14.in my experience, women want to show their independence and that is why
:50:15. > :50:19.they want to cover up. Why do men not feel the same way? That they
:50:20. > :50:22.need to do that to the same extent? Men to wear modest clothing... There
:50:23. > :50:28.does not seem to be the same pressure on men. I will be with you
:50:29. > :50:32.in a second. Time after time, if you live in London or travel in the
:50:33. > :50:39.Middle East, and I was on holiday in Egypt where you see a woman company
:50:40. > :50:45.dressed in black from top to toe, including the neck out, the face
:50:46. > :50:51.veil, and a guy wandering along beside her with obscenely tight
:50:52. > :50:59.short pants -- including the Fed, the face veil. It was 100 degrees.
:51:00. > :51:04.Men dress as they want, they dress like peacocks, and worse. Not just
:51:05. > :51:09.the women, you have seen increasingly, and this is completely
:51:10. > :51:22.cultural, young children wearing burgers and headscarves at the age
:51:23. > :51:27.of six, seven -- wearing burqas and headscarves. It is a manifestation
:51:28. > :51:35.of the male idea that the woman should cover up. Let's be honest,
:51:36. > :51:44.men and women... Men tend to be more visual creatures, OK? What does that
:51:45. > :51:47.mean? OK, women have certain attributes which, obviously, catch
:51:48. > :51:53.the male gaze. Men have certain attributes that, obviously, catch
:51:54. > :52:00.the female gaze, you know? Men can control themselves. We will not jump
:52:01. > :52:08.on something that is not covered up! A man should have self-control...
:52:09. > :52:13.Attraction is mutual. But there is something about... When you are
:52:14. > :52:16.dressed modestly... When you start drawing attention to your sexual
:52:17. > :52:24.attributes, that sexually objectify is you, people can't help... Surely
:52:25. > :52:29.that is subjective and in the eye of the person... This guy and his tight
:52:30. > :52:39.jeans was clearly drawing Neil Taylor sexual attributes! -- drawing
:52:40. > :52:46.Neil to his sexual attributes. You cannot go to work in a bikini, that
:52:47. > :52:52.is not appropriate. Dr Mahinda Deegalle, not all Buddhist wear
:52:53. > :52:58.robes, why do you? Input is, only the monastic is wear robes. It is
:52:59. > :53:03.basically a uniform -- in orders, only the monastic people wear robes.
:53:04. > :53:11.You do not change your different attire. There is sanctity with the
:53:12. > :53:18.way the robes are made. It originally it was a symbol of
:53:19. > :53:24.poverty and modesty and simplicity. What is the origin of how they are
:53:25. > :53:27.made? What is the significance? The Buddhist tradition is quite
:53:28. > :53:33.interesting, they introduced a recycling system so that discarded
:53:34. > :53:41.clothes in cemeteries, wrapped up with the dead bodies and other
:53:42. > :53:47.discarded clothing in the dustbins, they were processed and robes were
:53:48. > :53:57.made out of that. Of course, there were luxury robes offered later.
:53:58. > :54:01.Taken, cleaned and remade? Yes. You cannot accept valuable clothing, you
:54:02. > :54:06.had to cut it and stitch together so it became valueless, so it is not
:54:07. > :54:10.suitable. And it signifies that you are different from the laypeople
:54:11. > :54:16.with a different way of life, you have renounced the worldly position,
:54:17. > :54:22.you have given up the world. Lots is symbolised in the robe. You don't
:54:23. > :54:25.have world interests, basically. That is a real statement of faith
:54:26. > :54:31.rather than just what you are wearing. You asked whether God cares
:54:32. > :54:36.what we wear, I don't think he cares what we wear to church, he cares how
:54:37. > :54:41.we wear our faith. You have put this two brings together beautifully and
:54:42. > :54:45.what you have just said. Joseph, if somebody came to one of your masses,
:54:46. > :54:49.and it seems like stepping back to the time of mystery in the Middle
:54:50. > :54:54.Ages when people were wondering what is going on, at the same time drawn
:54:55. > :54:59.into face and mesmerised and inspired, if somebody turned up to
:55:00. > :55:04.one of your masses in, I do know, a Leicester City top, would that be a
:55:05. > :55:07.problem? No, it would not. Sometimes in the back of Catholic Church is,
:55:08. > :55:13.not just wear traditional mass is being celebrated... A bikini top?
:55:14. > :55:17.Little signs showing somebody dressed in each wear and a little
:55:18. > :55:20.line through it, this is particularly true in Rome,
:55:21. > :55:25.frequented by tourists, please don't turn up wearing a modest clothing,
:55:26. > :55:32.because it is distracting to everyone, not just to the men, it is
:55:33. > :55:36.inappropriate. There is such a thing as appropriate dress, inappropriate
:55:37. > :55:40.dress, that is a cultural fact and people cannot like that if they
:55:41. > :55:45.like. The Catholic tradition, women covering their heads, that is no
:55:46. > :55:53.longer compulsory but it happens again now, there is a partial
:55:54. > :55:57.parallel with the revival of interest in women in the Muslim
:55:58. > :56:01.tradition. Why just women covering their head? There is a theology
:56:02. > :56:10.which apparently nobody knew about until the 1970s about the
:56:11. > :56:14.bridegroom... It is not just sexism, it is a male dominated Hegga many
:56:15. > :56:19.and, as a consequence, I am so pleased that God conceded this male
:56:20. > :56:22.dominated hegemony and will judge people when they come to the pearly
:56:23. > :56:27.gates to decide whether or not they'll pressed women into wearing
:56:28. > :56:34.inappropriate clothes. APPLAUSE
:56:35. > :56:39.-- they'll pressed women. I am glad that God can see the strength of
:56:40. > :56:45.somebody's faith whether they are wearing a bikini, tiny shorts or a
:56:46. > :56:49.full face burqa, it does not matter. Women have been leading these
:56:50. > :56:57.movements, and in Islam, back in the 70s and before... It has alienated
:56:58. > :57:03.so many women from the church and religion, generally. Women wanted to
:57:04. > :57:09.wear the headscarf, it is an historic fact. Do you think it
:57:10. > :57:13.alienates people? Yes, particularly in the younger generation. For the
:57:14. > :57:18.centre of the population go to church on a Sunday, that is a
:57:19. > :57:28.ridiculously low number which tells me... But the mosques are full! In
:57:29. > :57:33.1979 when General Khamenei came into power, before that the Shah had
:57:34. > :57:38.people taking the shawls from women's heads and bodies. About 1
:57:39. > :57:43.million newly -- 1 million women marched wanting to wear the scarves
:57:44. > :57:51.and shawls. I believe we must never force people, in Turkey, when they
:57:52. > :57:57.are not allowing women to wear the scar and women want to wear it. This
:57:58. > :58:02.macro to whether scarves. When you take it off them, they want to wear
:58:03. > :58:07.it, it is human nature. I personally believe it is part of humility, for
:58:08. > :58:11.me, it is part of modesty, but I would never force that on anybody.
:58:12. > :58:15.Women want to find independence in the mosques, they do not want to
:58:16. > :58:21.show off their bodies to any Tom, Dick and Harry, they want to be
:58:22. > :58:26.respectable. I know families where parents do not want girls to wear
:58:27. > :58:31.the scarves, husbands say I want you to go out looking beautiful. Coming
:58:32. > :58:35.from that background where I had seen a... Amra, you have had the
:58:36. > :58:37.last word, and it was very good. As always, the debates will continue
:58:38. > :58:39.online and on Twitter. It's the London Marathon next
:58:40. > :58:42.Sunday, but we'll be back from Salford's MediaCity on May
:58:43. > :59:19.first, so do join us then. BBC One's shaking up
:59:20. > :59:23.your Saturday nights...