Shamima Begum: should we forgive the IS bride?

This is Matt Rogers from Lost Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang. This is Bowen Yang from Lost Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang. We've been talking about Cupid Mayo for a minute now, and wow! So many of you already love this stuff! And if you're thinking, "Wait, what is Cupid? Do you not have the internet?" It's the OG Japanese mayonnaise, the one with the red cap. What makes it different? Egg yolks. Cupid is made with egg yolks only, giving it this rich, umami flavor that elevates to everything. Chefs use it, restaurants use it, where chefs work, of course. Food and flavor lovers use it. You haven't tried it yet? Well, find the red cap and see what everyone's talking about. Why don't you? Cupid. The original Japanese mayonnaise. Cupid! This is a global player, original podcast. I understand the anger at her, but that she's lost her passport. If she was white and she was called Sharon from Manchester, and she'd done something like that, it wouldn't even occur to the government to take them out and passport off somebody who was obviously British. So I'm deeply uncomfortable about the lack of the ability for rehabilitation and repentance. If we are a Christian country, we should do that. And then I think the way we treat people from, well, non-white backgrounds, she was saying the UK, this is a reminder, as extreme one, that we are all equal and that some people citizenship apparently isn't as secure as others. That's Tim Farrant, the former Liberal Democrat leader, in a wider discussion about faith and politics. But he was, of course, talking about Shemama Begum, who was 15 when she left Bethnal Green in East London to join Islamic State in Syria. And the decision has come today that she will remain stripped of her citizenship. And in other words, it's now stateless. Welcome to the news agents. The news agents. It's John. It's Emily. And it's Lewis. And we are in news agents HQ. And we're going to discuss the implications and the politics of the decision to keep Shemama Begum stripped of her UK citizenship. Just one thing that you just need to underline with this case is how phenomenally young she still is. She was 15 when she left to go to join Islamic State and is still only 23 years old. Still a young person. Yeah, her legal team had basically argued that it was an extraordinary and an extreme decision to strip her of citizenship, which they say. And I guess is fact condemns her to exile for life. Exile from Britain at least anyway. And they believe it should be overturned because she was a victim of trafficking. So I suppose somewhere at the heart of this whole debate is a question of how we prioritize national security and all the implications of terrorism that that brings, which we are not wearing lightly, and how we deal with miners with our children, with British children, who might have done a pauling, ignorant, rash, stupid things under the age of 16. I think we should just make clear in terms of what happened today. Special Immigration Appeals Commission Syac said that there was, as Emily's already alluded to, credible suspicion that Begum had been trafficked for sexual exploitation. They also said that as a result, it's entirely possible that UK authorities had not fulfilled their statutory obligations in protecting her as a miner, as a child, from trafficking and potential sexual exploitation. But nonetheless, under the law as it stands, the home secretary at the time, Saddi Javid, did have wide-ranging power to deprive someone of their British citizenship, their passport, and thereby render them stateless. So he had not done anything against the law, which is the thing that they were being asked to adjudicate. But it does rage two big questions, right? Like one, as you alluded to Emily, what age do we hold young people, miners responsible for things, bear in mind like the age of majority, or the age of responsibility for crime in England and Wales, is just ten, which is very low by international standards. And also whether it is just appropriate that the British state can remove people's citizenship and do so, thereby rendering them stateless, in a way that many other countries say, like the United States simply cannot do by law. Full transparency, we were discussing this this morning and trying to work out if this was, as I'll always say, an exceptional or an extraordinary case. And the weird thing is, it isn't Britain. The UK is actually the worst, or you could say, the highest country after Bahrain for stripping people of their citizenship. And it looks like over the last 13 years since 2010, the UK has stripped 212 people of their citizenship. Bahrain, I think, has doubled that number. But we are second after Bahrain. So just pause for a second before thinking this is a very odd thing to do. This is something that we do do. The argument that has been used is that, well, she could go to Bangladesh because that's where her family came from and she would get a Bangladeshi passport. In 2019, the foreign minister said that she could face the death penalty if she was to enter Bangladesh because of joining Islamic State. Now, okay, people might say, well, she deserves the death penalty. But the British State would not extradite to the United States anyone suspected of the most heinous crime if the United States said we might carry out capital punishment on this person. It's a deal breaker. So the British authorities always seek assurances before anyone is extradited to the US that they wouldn't die. They wouldn't die at the hands of the state. Yet, that is perfectly possible in the case of Shemima Begum if she ends up in Bangladesh. Let's just remind you of her story. And indeed, hear her own voice in this because she disappeared when she was 15 across the border from Turkey to Syria and no one really heard from her or her two schoolgirl friends until a time's journalist, Anthony Lloyd, discovered her. There's an extraordinary way when he sort of came across her, discovered her in a refugee camp in Syria in 2019 and shortly after that, she gave an interview to Sky News where she was asked about the things that she had seen, the crimes that she had seen, ISIS commit, and how she felt about her own actions. Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria because they had beheaded people? There were executions. Yeah, I knew about those things and I was, I was okay with it at first because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left, you know, from why I heard that, Islamically, that is all allowed, so I was okay with it. You didn't question that. I don't know. There's a struggle going on in the UK now at home about whether you should be allowed to come home or not. You know that, okay. What are your feelings about that? I think a lot of people should have like sympathy towards me for everything I've been through, you know, and I didn't know what I was going into when I left and I just was hoping that maybe for the sake of me and my child that let me come back because I can't live in this camp forever. It's not really possible. The head of the Foreign Intelligence Services in the UK says people like you are potentially very dangerous. What would you say to him? They don't have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous. When I went to Syria, I was just a housewife in time four years to stay at home, to carry my kids. I never did anything dangerous. I never made propaganda. I never encouraged people to come to Syria, so I don't have proof that I did anything that is dangerous. That was Shamima Begum when she was 19 years old. She's seen wearing a hijab, she's in full Islamic dress. In later interviews, you see her with sunglasses on her head and it all looks sort of as if it has been a PR advisor, has somehow kind of glossed the image to make her more acceptable. But I think that however she comes across is irrelevant. It's the fact that she was 15 years old when she left. This is her a bit later on, speaking to the BBC on the podcast, I'm not a monster. I'm curious about how you think people perceive you. As a danger, as a risk, as a potential risk to their safety, to their way of living. I'm not a bad person. I'm not this person that they think I am being perceived as in the media. You know, I'm just so much more than ISIS and I'm so much more than everything that I've been through. But do you understand why society has so much anger towards you? Yes, I do understand, but I don't think it's actually towards me. I think it's towards ISIS, but when they think of ISIS, they think of me because I've been put on the media so much. But they only did that because you chose to go to ISIS. But what was there to obsess over? We went to ISIS, that was it. It was over. It was over and done with. What more is there to say like they just wanted to continue the story because it was a story. It was the big story. But you do accept that you did join a terrorist group. Yes. I did. I suppose that's that's the uncomfortable thing, right, in terms of thinking about the politics, which is, has this woman, then a girl, still a very young woman, essentially become a lightning rod for this. She's become the face of this. And therefore her case is being, has been treated politically in a way that perhaps it wouldn't, if her case were not so well known, if she hadn't been in virtually every paper for year after year after year. And that's, that's uncomfortable. And it isn't also potentially uncomfortable, alluding to what we've already heard Tim Farron say, which is, you know, if she were white, if she were a different person, how she might have been treated. And I'm not saying there's a right or wrong answer about that, but it does pose uncomfortable questions about how the politics is usually this case. When I first came into journalism, we used to talk about child prostitutes, as if that was a thing. Nobody uses that phrase now. They understand that if you are involved in prostitution as a child, you are abused. You're a victim of pedophilia. Now, I'm not equating that with what Shemima did, because clearly there was agency in her choice. And yet when she talks about becoming religious just before she went, when she talks about her cases having been moved ahead of her already, there was somebody behind this. There were people behind this. There was a radicalisation of sorts behind this. And either we think it's really important to protect our kids from online harm. We're always talking about online harm to protect our kids from whatever propaganda is out there that is dealing with their minds, that is turning them into thinkers of a certain type, that if this was Andrew Tate that was behind this, we'd be going, this is appalling, right? This is, he's convinced this woman that she should be a victim and a housewife in an Islamic state. But because we don't know who's behind it, somehow it all becomes her fault. That's why now she becomes punished. I'm going to do a bit of what aboutism that I would normally call out and say, "Oh, that's just what aboutism." But last week we had the conviction of David Valentine Smith, the guard at the British Embassy, for giving secrets to the Russians. To Putin. To Putin's state. And revealing and possibly endangering British agents who are doing work and giving confidential details about individuals who are working at the British Embassy to the Russians. He has been sentenced to 13 years in prison, probably with good behavior. That will become six. And he will be free to go and continue to be a British citizen. Now, he was a fully grown man who knew exactly what he was doing. If we're using the word agency, this man had agency, and made his choices to try to help the Russians state and betray his own country and make money from it. And make money from it. There's no question that he's going to lose his citizenship. I mean, he might find it difficult to get a job. He might find it difficult to get a credit card. He might find life a bit uncomfortable. But he'll be able to carry on living in the UK without any interruption. But that's the thing, right, is that in order to justify this. I mean, there are three reasons, according to the law, that the Home Secretary can make this decision. If it's for the public good, and it doesn't make them stateless, if they obtain their citizenship through fraud, all their actions can harm UK interests, and they could claim citizenship elsewhere. The question is. Well, it could be the first. And the point is, we don't know who she's still connected to, that could still be controlling her mind, could still be infiltration. Sure, she does. And I guess that is part of the discussion. Exactly. And whether or not those things still apply, and whether or not, if she did just come back to the UK, she could be punished accordingly, she could go to prison, she could be rehabilitated, and all of those things. And she would face the consequences of her actions. The question I suppose is this is that whether that process isn't being allowed to take place fundamentally for political reasons. Yeah, and that is uncomfortable. I think it's absolutely right that if she comes back to the UK, that she faces the full force of the law, for crimes that she may have committed, because no one is above the law. And as you say, age of criminal responsibility in this country is set much younger than that. But that's not the same as saying she cannot come back at all. I think the question you raised, Luis, is the right one, because I cannot believe. Well, let me imagine the conversation that takes place in the home office with the home secretary and political advisors. Do we lose any votes, stripping her of her citizenship? No, probably not. I think it would probably be quite popular throughout the country. Keep her out of the country. It shows our talks. Where is Labour on this one? Because this is quite an interesting one for Labour. You've heard an unambiguous response from a former Lib Dem leader, which is this is racism, essentially, and this is inhumane, and this is unquestion. Labour want to be on the side of law and order, and they want to be on the side of a party that is govern ready, shall we say. Where do they sit on this? Well, the interesting thing is that, I mean, I'm sure like you, I get Labour press statements every half an hour on my phone. I've seen nothing since the judgment. It didn't come up at Prime Minister's questions at all from any Labour MP. I think the Labour Party will try and hide behind this as, oh, it's a legal decision. It's the courts have ruled not one for us. But this goes much wider than just her, right? Because the point is, as Emily has already said, hundreds of people have lost their citizenship at the Home Secretary's discretion. That was made initially made easier in 2006 under the Labour government. It's just been made easier again by the Nationality and Borders Bill, which passed on the Pretty Patel in 2021. So this is an issue which could come back repeatedly. And that was even a case of, by the year or so ago, of a man who was stripped off his citizenship by the Home Office. And they had to give it him back as a result of legal action and so on. His lawyer said that the Home Office had never provided any evidence as to why it had happened in the first place. So this is a murky bit of the law, which could resurrects and come back in months and years to come. Let's hear now from her lawyer, Daniel Forner, after today's judgment. I mean, in terms of the legal fight that's nowhere near over, we're not going to go into details about exactly what that means at the stage. I think what else this judgment calls out for, though, is some courage and some leadership from the Home Secretariat to look at this case of fresh and light of the clear and compelling factual findings that this Court has made. Thank you. But we're going to challenge the decision. Going to challenge the decision, but ask the Home Secretary to rethink what are the legal grounds for a challenge? Doesn't sound like he knows them, because it was very, it was a thought as a rather woolly statement there from the lawyer acting for her. I think that we've been waiting a long time for Swerver Brothers to change her mind on this one. Unless she goes, but that's for another day. Another day. We're going to take a pause here. Coming up, we're going to be discussing faith and politics, and whether there is room for faith in politics. We're looking at the case of Kate Forbes and her Christian beliefs, and whether she can lead the S&P party in Scotland. This is Matt Rodgers from Los Culturistas with Matt Rodgers and Boan Yang. This is Boan Yang from Los Culturistas with Matt Rodgers and Boan Yang. Okay, we've been talking about Cupid male for a minute now, Bo, and wow, the feedback we're getting. I mean, so many of you all love this stuff. You're stopping us in the street going, I love Cupid. And if you're thinking, wait, what is Cupid? Do you not have the internet? It's the OG Japanese mayonnaise. The one with the red cap and the little baby on the bottle. Once you know what, you start seeing it everywhere. People ask what makes it different from basic mayo? Will the answer egg yolks? Cupid is made with egg yolks only, giving it this incredibly rich umami flavor that elevates everything. Burgers, fries, sandwiches, chicken, noodles. Chefs use it, restaurants use it. People who really love food and flavor use it. Whatever you're eating, Cupid. So if you haven't tried Cupid yet, find the bottle with the red cap and see what everyone's talking about. You'll understand Cupid, the original Japanese mayonnaise. This is The News Agents. Welcome back. As we have been talking about, and you've been reading about and watching, there is a leadership contest going on in Scotland for who should run the SNP and lead the Scottish government. And a woman called Kate Forbes three or four days ago was the definite front runner. And suddenly, even though it was obvious for weeks and years, people have started talking about her rather socially conservative views and now they are moving against her. I mean, she's high up, you know, she's already in the finance ministry in the government. She has been in the party virtually at the top of the tree already. Lewis, where do you think things are? And why have people reacted now when everybody knew what her positions were for a long time before? Well, I suppose there is a difference between being the kind of queen over the water in this case as finance minister. And then suddenly in a race that no one thought was coming now, suddenly, potentially first minister in a month's time. I mean, the other thing to say about this is that although she's been a much fancied replacement to Nicola Sturgeon for a while, she still is very young. She's 33. She hasn't been on the political, her right has been meteoric. Younger than you, Lewis. She's even in the same age, I think. Are you thinking that I'm older than her? Yeah. Well, after being with you two for six months, quite frankly, it's like Doggie is this podcast. We've helped you Greg. Yeah, in a sense. So her rise has been meteoric. And we should say, even when the rumours were swirling, that Sturgeon might go at some point, even then people were saying her faith could be a problem. So this is something that, you know, she's been marked for one of her expressions for this as a potential Problem and we should, you know, remind people she's part of the free church of Scotland Nicknamed the Wii Freeze. I don't like that term. It's historic term But it's basically it was an evangelical breakaway in the 1840s from the main church of Scotland and they are Evangelical and they have very very hardcore socially conservative Yeah, so they're against same-sex marriage. They're against abortion rights They're in support of conversion therapy. They've said before that Scotland is currently on the highway to hell as a result of It's currently socially more liberal views in Blackfoot who is the former Westminster S.M.P. leader also coincidentally enough the MP for the same constituency as she is the MSP for also a member of the church He was called on by the church to repent for the way that he had voted despite the fact he was a member of the church And I think that there's difficult thing ultimately for Forbes. We can get into a discussion about whether it's possible to have these views and be in politics at that level I think the difficulty for Forbes is that Forbes is potentially coming in as the replacement to possibly the most socially liberal For one of their expression progressive political leader in Europe on the very most socially liberal in Western Europe And she would become at a stroke actually in terms of her private views However, she would vote in terms of policy, but in terms of her private views She would become one of the most socially conservative leaders in Western Europe It's kind of like dup plus and she would be doing that in a country which has become much more socially liberal over the last 20 years and a party which itself has become much more socially liberal Those two things just don't really map on to each other and so that is why she's finding difficulty right there I totally hear that except the parting words from Nicola Sturgeon was a recognition of the people that she can't reach in Scotland The people that she could not get to with the independence argument And I wonder whether Forbes is seen as the person who might be able to cross the divide Who might be able to reach people of a Christian value people of a Presbyterian background People who are more socially conservative Nicola Sturgeon became synonymous with two progressive Think of the telegraph headlines where as she said herself she sort of made things too toxic for her to be taken out of the argument she was trying to make And it is possible that yes the MSPs don't really like Forbes The progressive journalists don't really like Forbes but there is a constituency which she can find amongst members or potential members in Scotland Problem is is that given how socially liberal Scotland has become you potentially risk hemorrhaging in an almost number of votes to gain relatively few The other side And the wider problem is this one of Nicola Sturgeon's great triumphs and the S&P's great triumphs actually has been over the last 10 years And Brexit and the Tories and all sorts of things have helped them along this journey But what they managed to do is basically make Scottish nationalism into an unequivocally or perceived to be a progressive force Never used to be perceived that way, it was often perceived as a regressive force, one that was insular, closed-minded sort of wanting to be smaller What they have done is associate nationalism as being a progressive civic nationalism If you put Forbes in and you give lay with the opportunity to see that weakness, that vulnerability that can say "ahha" That is no longer the case and you couple that with the fact, by the way that Forbes is also not just more right-wing on social issues but on economic issues as well Nicola Sturgeon is a dyed-in-the-wall social democrat, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that if she weren't S&P, she would be Labour There was a much greater question mark about that, she about with Forbes, she is more economically conservative So you give those two big open problems But in a country that has a terrible health service and a terrible record on education, who's to say they're not looking for something that it is a bit more economically conservative in how she is prepared for money? But it's not where the S&P coalition is, isn't it? That's the problem I think What's interesting is that if you go back 30 years, the S&P were known as the Tartan Tories Because it wasn't progressives in the inner cities, who were voting S&P, it was people out in the countryside in beautiful areas of Scotland Who thought that they were all to be Scottish independence, but they were essentially conservative voters They just preferred the S&P and they didn't like Margaret Thatcher There's been a lot of talk in less up 24 hours, that it's impossible to be a Christian in politics these days and have those views I kind of feel like that's sort of off the mark I think the point is actually that if Saeed Khan was saying that, or Hamza Yusuf was saying that, who's a Muslim, I think they would be having this problem as well The point is that they are saying, well this might be my private faith, but look, in Saeed Khan's case for example, I voted for equal marriage Hamza Yusuf felt comfortable with equal marriage And I think it's totally legitimate for voters to turn around and say, of course, you're totally entitled to your religious views But ultimately, you're going to be the leader and first minister of this country And I want to know what your instincts are about me or about my friends or about these issues You've got to leave the right party for your own views Yes, and I'm not comfortable with your instincts on it, however you would vote on all of those issues Well, that is a great place to break, because in a moment we're going to talk to Tim Phan The former leader of the Liberal Democrats, whose faith, became a problem to him remaining leader of his party The highest form of approval, no haggling, no hassle, no one called him boss He's still on the couch, astonishing Sell your car today on Carvana.com, pick up these may apply This is Matt Rodgers from Lost Culture East US with Matt Rodgers and Bowen Yang This is Bowen Yang from Lost Culture East US with Matt Rodgers and Bowen Yang Okay, we've been talking about Cupid male for a minute now, Bowen And wow, the feedback we're getting, I mean, so many of y'all love this stuff You're stopping us in the street going, I love Cupid And if you're thinking, wait, what is Cupid? It's the OG Japanese mayonnaise, the one with the red cap and the little baby on the bottle Once you know what, you start seeing it everywhere People ask what makes it different from basic mayo, will the answer egg yolks? Cupid is made with egg yolks only, giving it this incredibly rich umami flavor that elevates everything Burgers, fries, sandwiches, chicken, noodles, chefs use it, restaurants use it People who really love food and flavor use it Whatever you're eating, Cupid hit So if you haven't tried Cupid yet, find the bottle with the red cap and see what everyone's talking about You'll understand, Cupid, the original Japanese mayonnaise This is The News Agents Welcome back and we're staying with the subject but hopefully in a way that we can elongate it And talk about it a bit more profoundly because we've got Tim Farron with us in the studio He's the former Lib Dem leader and a Christian And I think it's fair to say or I'm going to ask you Tim, is it fair to say that it was your Christianity Or the questions that surrounded your position on Christian issues like gay marriage That eventually made you feel you couldn't stay in the job So first of all, if anyone else is going to make the case of me being a vaguely average leader But we had a good election result comparatively, we gunned down from 8 and up to 12 so we had a gain of seats in 2017 But the experience I had as leader, I think a lot of it down to my lack of wisdom I think people could have handled it far better than I did But I got to the view that I'm either going to carry on being pursued as to what my theology and what I think my faith tells me And on one hand, and I have to be batting away those questions therefore be a terrible Lib Dem leader Because it's almost like you're only advertising holding being fandalized all the time And not the message you want to get across Or I have to kind of pretend it's only just a minor kind of cultural part of my life Which would be totally dishonest So be a crap christian, be a crap leader, I thought these are bad choices, there is a third choice which is to walk away from it Which I'm absolutely at peace of having done I'm very careful not to complain about the questions I was asked I say a lot of it is down to my lack of wisdom But I do reflect just talk about that then what would you have said differently? Well I'm not sure except that I think that there's a value in how Kate Forbes has chosen to be very straightforward about it It might finish her off, it might finish her off But I think what you cannot accuse Kate Forbes of is being slippery And so I think that's a lesson There are ways of deflecting, I think you know the thought that people believe uncomfortable things at the Bible teaches And they do it with relish because they just don't like minorities It might be true for some people, it's definitely not true for me And so what you don't get is the opportunity to explain why you believe in Jesus basically Tim, I love the canter in which you said you felt you had a choice between being a crap leader or a crap christian Could you be a good leader and a good christian? Because that seems to me the knob of what's happening with Kate Forbes now A wiser person than Tim Farr and absolutely could And I think it is possible, I think it's very important in all this that we don't And I know this is not where you guys are coming from But there is certainly a part of the media that loves this because it's all about cancel culture And the crucial thing for us to remember, first of all I know it's only the liberal democrats but I did get to be the leader of them You got Kate Forbes in the running to be First Minister of Scotland There are plenty of people in politics who are christians who have reached a relatively high level So the idea that we're excluded from the public square I think is not true I also think christians need to be very careful because christianity is counter-cultural in every single generation it's meant to be. And so either we're always going to rub up against the culture. And our response to those occasions where it is uncomfortable is not to get shouty and whiny about being cancelled. It's to turn the other cheek and model a kind of kindness and a grace that perhaps others don't. - I don't think people are talking about cancel culture. I think if I can, no. I mean, I want to take that out of this. - But I have heard it from some quarters. - Yeah, I'm just worried that that makes it sound like this is about trying to shut down the argument. But I think what we're trying to do is unpack that argument and it's hard about whether you can believe something as a person that would not impact what you do as a legislator. And on the one hand, I think we can say, yeah, you can have a belief, I think the phrase is, you know, a belief humbly held. It could be a private belief. And I think that was how Nick Clegg had described you as saying, look, these are private beliefs. But when you're a legislator. - Does it have an impact? - Where does that cross? And Jesus said, okay, she said, I would stand by gay marriage. I would back it to the Hilt. But she wouldn't have put it in as a law if she had been leader. - So I did vote for it, marriage in the commons. But I think that the, here's the thing. So what you say, there's two sides of this and they may be compatible, actually. So first of all, I absolutely, very, very, very firmly believe, as a liberal fundamentally, that I have no right to impose on people who are not Christians that they must live a Christian lifestyle. And that seemed to be illiberal, but also I don't think the Gospels encourages to do that either. On the other hand, I think the idea that a person of faith cannot bring their worldview into the room, I think that's pretty illiberal too. - Completely. - And I think where we're at in Western societies, the people we rub along against, is that there's a sense that the assumption, the neutral position is an absence of faith. We are very tolerant of people whose faith is a kind of cultural adornment. So well, they've got a church at Christmas or maybe every week, but it's just a cultural part of who they are. We are deeply suspicious of people whose worldview is in any way informed about their faith. And that is illiberal. The argument I'd really like to make is that there is no neutrality in the public square. The absence of faith is not neutral, it's legitimate, but it's not neutral, and it has to compete for its right to be just the same as faith or other worldviews. - Tim, I'm sorry, having spent last seven, eight years in my life in America. Where every candidate has to talk about their relationship to Jesus Christ, because they can't get elected in Iowa or New Hampshire unless they go to the Bible breakfast and all the rest of it. And that's in a country where there is a separation of church and state. Here we have an established religion, and here's the opposite. - And yeah, it's the absolute opposite. - I've certainly heard it say that to be, as a good friend of mine, Michael Weir, who is the former faith advisor to Barack Obama, and we talk about these things often, and we characterize it in a state you've got to invent a faith to be taken seriously. And here you've got to pretend you haven't got one, even if you have. And I think that is exaggerating the situation. I think the thing to understand about America, I'm sure you understand even better than I do, is that a lot of faith in the states is about a cultural descriptor. So just for example, you stop an evangelical on the streets of London, and you ask, do you got a church on Sunday? They go, duh, yeah, obviously. Pauling in America shows that 50% of white evangelicals don't got a church, because they're not, forgive me, actually Christians. And I'm not saying that as a kind of a criticism, evangelical in the states for white people at least, is a cultural description with lots of nationalist baggage added on. But it is a very difficult badge to wear in the UK to be openly of faith and talking about going to church and talking about God, because people think you're weird. Yeah, I think I heard the phrase of the week about being strange in public. And what Christians have is this, we are strange in public. Another faith traditions also potentially have that as well. So yes, it is peculiar. I wonder why? I mean, most of my talking on this subject this week has been to a broadly non-Christian audience to try and make the case for the place of faith in the public square. But I do my own podcast, it's not quite as popular as yours, which is aimed at Christians to try and understand politics. And what I was doing in my podcast this week is try to explain to Christians why does the people do feel uncomfortable about Kate or people like me? Tim, can I bring it back to legislation? Because that seems to me to be the rub that you can believe whatever you want. You can pose it on others. Well, I'm asking the question, which is if you're a leader, are you following the democratic will of the country, right? So we're on what, 68 or 70% of Scots believe in gay marriage. But presumably you bring leadership to it. So if you're in a most core, believe something is wrong, you're not gonna be a leader on that issue. And isn't that where the rub comes? If, for example, there will be people of faith in a certain faith that think women shouldn't go out to work. Right? Would you want them in charge of leading a country? This is why it isn't easy to deal with because you can think of very clear examples like that where I absolutely understand where you're coming from. On the other hand, I think lots of really unpopular things that most progresses would actually like me for. So on refugees in asylum, for instance. So which bit of my faith have I got to leave at the door? And I think this issue is this, if we only tolerate people of faith, whose faith tells them stuff that we are happy with, we're not doing diversity at all. And I go back to what is a genuinely liberal society is at peace, but the same time quite uncomfortable where we're able to have really deep discussions. And I phrase I heard and I've ripped it off several times. I will cite who I got it from. It's Elizabeth Oldfield who used to be the director of Theos and she talks about the lack of curiosity in public debate. When I hear somebody who says something or apparently thinks something I find distasteful, the way of the modern world, maybe in the culture war, it's a thing, evil person, terrible person, not anything they have to say. We lack curiosity as to why they think that. I get that. But if you are, if you are a gay person, Scotland. Yeah, who is married? Do you think the leader would not condone? Really, your position as a married gay person, that's not about understanding other people's opinions, you know, in a sort of vague way. It's like, this is personal. They don't believe in my rights. Yeah, and I absolutely get that and I completely sympathise with that. The issue is, I guess, and I don't think people of Christians would say this because I don't really want to think we want to play this card. But if we want to talk in those terms, the most fundamental part of my identity is I'm a Four of Jesus Christ. So, and now we are told to turn the other cheek, to be humble and not to seek to impose ourselves and other people, and that is a part of how to live as a Christian. But if I wanted to kind of step into the culture war, I'd say people dismiss what I believe and therefore dismiss my identity. So it's religion versus. I don't feel that right. Well, I don't think it is, I really don't think it is, because I think if you're a Christian, here's one thing I think we totally miss and don't say often enough. Christians believe, and Jewish people believe also, that we're all made in the image of God, and that means we're not just equal or equal at an astonishingly lofty level. That's why humans have such innate dignity. So I often say to those people who are atheists and say, I'm a believer in equality, I'm sure you are a believer in equality, but only on accidental biology, not by utterly lofty design, and you should treat people accordingly. So Christianity is the established religion, established faith in the United Kingdom. So there is an assumption that Christians are actually not a minority, but a privileged group. And so I don't think we are in reality, but I also understand why society thinks that, and we need to understand that. And then also, again, what is our response? I don't want to call it persecution, to being got out of it. Well, we're told you turn the other cheek. You do not whine about being cancelled. It's a bad look, and it's not biblical. And the other thing I'd say is there are millions of people on planet Earth who are Christians, who really are at risk of death because of their faith in Afghanistan, in North Korea, in Iran. And how dare we complain in the UK just because we get a bit of grief on the telly sometimes? Tim, it's a really good chat. Can I just ask you bring it back to blunt politics now? Do you think Kate Forbes is going to succeed, or do you think she'll have to? I think she might win. I think she's now not the favorite, but I think she could win. Because I've posed the one way of looking at this is that she has decided to be up front early on. She will be able to say to journalists who pursue her from this point on, I've dealt with that. Let's talk about the NHS and what have you. And she may well then find herself in a position where she can make the case. I think if Angus Robertson has stood, I think I'd say I think she can't win. But I think her opponents are really not that strong. And I think all of this is really bad news for the SNP. And I don't just mean Kate Forbes situation. I mean the fact that the other two candidates, I don't think are really great for their cause. So I think the SNP and the independence movement will realize maybe belatedly that Nicola Sturgeon actually was holding them together and giving them an edge. And I'm not sure that will happen from now on. But I think on paper, Kate is probably the stronger candidate. If you look at how she's managed her brief compared to Humza and how he's managed his, I think there's no comparison. That may not be enough for the electorate. Tim, thank you so much. That was really interesting. It was a pleasure to be on. Just before you go Tim, on a completely different subject, what would you have done with Shemima, vegan? Well, I guess the law's got to be followed. We say we've all done bad things and all things at 15. We've not generally gone and joined terrorist groups. And so I understand the anger at her. But that she's lost her passport. If she was white and she was called Sharon from Manchester and she'd done something like that, it wouldn't even occur to the government to take them out and passport off somebody who was obviously British. And then I think the way we treat people from, well, non-white backgrounds, she was saying the UK, this is a reminder, as extreme one, that we are all equal and that some people's citizenship apparently isn't as secure as others. Very interesting. Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you so much. - Thank you. - Right, that is nearly all. We've got time for all this week, but given we've spoken every single day about the protocol and all the night, you tried to ban the word protocol at one point, one more. - On more than one occasion. - Yeah, well, we're not doing especially well. - She's very illiberal, like she's extremely illiberal. - Certain words, she is sick, another one. - You know, I think she moon lights as Royal Dolls publisher. (laughing) - Sensitivity reasons. You only have fat on this book, actually, not once. - You will on a Friday. Anyway, of course, nothing has moved, 'cause nothing ever moves on the Northern Ireland protocol, no matter what anyone says, but it did come up at Prime Minister's questions today where Keir Starmer was needling Soonach in the most extraordinary way, once again, making clear to him that if he wanted to be brave and face down his own critics, and his own party, Labour would provide the votes. (cheering) Mr Speaker, the sound you hear is them cheering the Prime Minister pulling the wool over their eyes. (cheering) It's the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, the 30th anniversary of the Downing Street Declaration. Tony Blair and John Major both recognised that politics in Northern Ireland is built on trust and not telling people what they want to hear. And the need to take seriously the concerns of both communities, nationalist and unionists. It's vital their voices are heard. So can the Prime Minister confirm that whatever deal he brings back, this House will get a vote on it? (cheering) - I'm Minister. - Mr Speaker, of course, of course, Parliament will express its view. But what is crucial? (cheering) - It was like watching the Labour leader release a mosquito onto the other side of the Commons and just watching it buzz around their heads. And it was completely deliberate because I think Labour's position here is to say, we're there, we've told you, we'll back you. If you and Europe get a deal on this, we'll be there. And what he's trying to do is ferment just enough real instability and real pain amongst parts of the Tory party for them to turn on themselves. And that's kind of job done. - The most striking thing was that as soon as it was heard in almost silence from his own benches, the only time that he actually got a proper cheer was Kelsa Breeze, he was talking about not surrendering to the EU. It's just the same old cycle. A Tory leader kind of basically knows what they've got to do. They know what the prize is, they know what it could unlock in terms of EU relations, US relations, everything. They basically know what the deal is, but they just know that the politics of their party is toxic. - I think if you went to the bookmakers now, you're not gonna get very good odds on us not talking about this tomorrow as well. Thanks for being with us. We'll see you then. Bye. - Bye.