the authorities in sri lanka have imposed a countrywide curfew for a second night. they want to put a stop to reprisal attacks on muslims in the north of the capital colombo following the easter bombings that killed more than 250 people. a cyber attack exploiting a vulnerability in facebook‘s messaging service whatsapp is thought to have been carried out using software developed by an israeli company, and there are attempts in israel to stop the firm exporting abroad. and this video is trending on bbc.com: a camera in far east russia, has captured amazing pictures of a fire in late april. the flames can be seen moving rapidly, below an oriental white stork nest, on top of a power pylon. despite the blaze, the nest wasn't harmed. that's all. stay with bbc world news. now on bbc news it's hardtalk.

sarah montague speaks to stonewall ceo ruth hunt. stonewall was founded 30 years ago to campaign for gay and lesbian rights. when my guest today, ruth hunt, became its chief executive, she extended its work to include the trans community. but many stonewall members have been upset at the line the leadership has taken on gender recognition, that anyone can declare themselves to be male orfemale, and at their refusal to share a platform with anyone who disagrees. is this coalition which has been at the forefront of gay liberation for decades now in danger of tearing itself apart?

ruth hunt, welcome to hardtalk. thank you, hello. now, stonewall could have argued that it should be easier for trans people to have their chosen gender recognised. but you chose to go further, and say all someone needs to do is say that they are a man or a woman. why did you take that position? well, that's the current position that exists in ireland, malta, argentina, and in reality, it's the practical way in which most trans people in this country and abroad operate. very few feel the need to necessarily go through a process by which they receive another certificate. so what's classified as what's called self—identification is actually a reflection of how most people live their life. so if a colleague came in to see you and said, look, sarah, tomorrow i'm going to be coming in, and i would like you to call me

john, and i would like you to use my pronouns as male and he, you wouldn't turn around and say, can you tell me what process you've been through, have you've seen any doctors, and whether. .. so people are accepted for who they say they are, generally, in society, and that i'what ireland did, in terms of their legal recognition, and that's how it's now managed in many countries. but the question still stands, because the situation at the moment — the criticism of it is that it's bureaucratic and that it's intrusive and that it's expensive, because you have to go through a process, and you need a medical diagnosis, and then you need to go through, what, two years before a panel decides? and there would be many people who would say, you're right, it needs changing. but exactly, perhaps, because it isn't such a difficulty in practice, you can make it easier without making it something where you can just say, tomorrow i will be... so what we're suggesting is there should a process, and we think that the scrutiny that that process puts in place doesn't need to be as arduous.

some would argue there's no need for a process at all, and there's lots of people who are trans who don't go through any process now. so i think the question is, what does that process offer? and what are you suggesting the process should be? that someone makes a legal declaration, that they make a declaration that they have a full intention to fully transition, that this is a permanent change, and that that's how they should be regarded. and actually, that's not necessary now. so the reality is this is how most trans people live their lives, and i think it's important in all these discussions to remember what people are actually doing. well, let's talk about what people are actually doing. because one of the biggest concerns about this is what happens to safe spaces, particularly safe spaces for women, where it's known that predatory men have, and there was a case in canada in 2012 where christopher hambrook assaulted women in two trans shelters. he claimed he was a trans woman, and this was just after the law had changed, and he was found guilty of sexual assault and criminal harassment.

and there have been others. and there are fears that, if you make the process as simple as saying, i'm now a woman, that that will increasingly happen. it would be happening now. so i'm not saying it doesn't happen, but changing the process wouldn't make that more or less likely. so for people who want to masquerade as a woman in order to attack, they're not at the moment asked to show any documentation. nor is a trans woman asked to show any documentation. so the problem we're discussing is violent men, violent men who are attempting to infiltrate situations in which they can be abusive and violent. what do we do about that? changing the recognition process by which someone can receive a gender recognition certificate, that they never show anyone, won't mitigate that risk or heighten it. so there is a risk, but how do we deal with that? but we're not just talking about violent men, are we? we're also talking about women

who perhaps have been abused by men and want a space that they consider to be purely for women. but again, that question is legitimate. it's legitimate whether the law changes or not. and what the experts who run the centres tell us is that they have been risk—assessing people coming into these centres for a very, very, very long time, including trans people. ok, so there was a case in the uk in 2017 where somebody called karen white was jailed for life after she attacked women in female prisons, and the prosecutor who described her as an "alleged transgender female" said she has used her transgender persona to put herself in contact with vulnerable persons. now, are you saying that she would need to have gone through a process in order to get into the prison in the first place? she would, as every trans person regardless of their status, within the gender recognition act or not, would have been assessed on an individual basis. and, in this case, that assessment went wrong. so is the answer to say don't let someone have a certificate? the answer is to improve the process.

so, regardless of whether someone has a certificate or not, the ministry of justice is assessing them. if it easyjust to say, look, i'm now a woman... there is someone who might have a gender recognition certificate and would still go through a process of assessment by the prison. there is someone who might say they're a woman and would still go through separate assessment by a prison. and that process is individual, thorough, and it's supposed to avoid problems like this. this was a problem that went wrong because the process failed, not by changing the system. do you understand — do you understand why there are women who feel very, very concerned about the ease with which the... of course. ..somebody could say i am now a woman? of course, and what i would want to say is, is this happening today? are we seeing this happening? so where i am concerned is where we're seeing people saying it might happen in the future if we change the law. that isn't the case.

if it's happening now, let's talk about safeguarding procedures. let's talk about how we assess who is appropriate to gain services. so how are we looking at prisons? the reform of the gender recognition act... somebody with a certificate who says they are a woman... ..would never show that certificate. nobody would have asked to see that certificate. but if they wanted to get into the prison, the refuge? no. there is another concern which many people have, and it was articulated by kristina harrison, who is a transsexual political campaigner who works in the nhs, who talked about this. what stonewall have agreed to is entrenching a quite extreme gender ideology in law. and she makes the point that it principally redefines what it is to be female or male. these changes, after thousands of years of sex—based definitions, are happening with a minimum of political scrutiny, and she makes the point that debate is basically being shut down. it's being impeded by a toxic and authoritarian atmosphere, and that those who are being sidelined, the dissenting voices being sidelined, are particularly women. how do you answer the charge against stonewall?

well, i think that they're confusing what happened in 200a. so the discussion about what constitutes a man and a woman happen in 2004, and there was debate in parliament. the issue she is discussing about what does it mean to be a man or a woman was an issue that was discussed at length in 200a. ok, so when a billboard was put up that said — gave the google definition of woman, which is adult human female, somebody complained, said it was a symbol that makes tra nsgender people feel unsafe, and the billboard was taken down. is that billboard offensive? well, i don't find it offensive, but neither is it in my power to decide what goes on billboards or not. so part of the other thing about what you said was, is stonewall responsible for the atmosphere in which this debate is taking place? and what i would say is that there has been an extraordinary degree of toxicity on all sides of the debate, and stonewall‘s staff and stonewall supporters have experienced that in a way that we haven't seen in 30 years, in terms of some of the way

in which the debate is conducted. and in my career at stonewall over the last 14 years, i've campaigned for the rights of catholic adoption agencies to see same—sex couples, i've campaigned on many, many difficult, tricky, complex issues. there's something about how this debate is taking place that is deeply damaging for all sorts of sides. are you saying that the debate is more poisonous than any other debate you have been involved in? yes. ok, but there are plenty of people, you know, who would say that stonewall is partly to blame for that. bnd the suggestion is that — and here we are. one of the founding members of stonewall, simon fanshawe, says stonewall withdraws representatives from panels that include people who disagree with its stance on self—identification. to say these issues aren't debatable, that raising them is somehow transphobic, appears to be the stonewall position, rather than to build on the great position of concentrating on avoiding discrimination. well, simon hasn't been at stonewall in 30 years, so i'm interested in his take, but he hasn't been part of the discussion.

stonewall is constantly having debate on these issues. you have withdrawn people from panels. we have withdrawn them if we feel they're going to be unable to have their voices heard. and we have to take the safety of our trans staff very seriously, and the level of personal threats against trans staff leads me to make a call. but myjob over the past five years has been to have difficult conversations. i have had many of those difficult conversations. do you think it is transphobic to say that you disagree with self—identification? no, because they wouldn't. you know that there are people — but there are many people who think, by the withdrawing of and shutting down of the debate, that that's in effect what stonewall are saying. i wouldn't agree with the position that we have shut down debate. i think what we haven't done is said that it was stonewall‘s role to host that debate, and it's not stonewall‘s role to host a debate. stonewall‘s role is to have a very clear position that was developed

over consultation with 700 individual trans people, with all of our diversity champions, we work with 800 major employers, who have been asking us to do trans work for decades, and has been increasingly disappointed that stonewall hasn't. we're very thoughtful and considered and measured about the positions we take. what we haven't done... so why are so many lesbians in particular, feminists, stonewall, people who previously were very strong supporters of stonewall, aghast and angry at the stonewall position on trans? what we're seeing is many of our supporters are very, very supportive of what we're doing and how we're doing it. we've seen that in the way we've grown, the reach we have, the way in which we're working. we're a much bigger organisation than the way we were five years ago, and a lot of that is down to the fact that we thought about these things differently. we knew that there would be some people who didn't acknowledge or believe or want trans people to be part of that movement. there are lots and lots and lots that did. but those people — among those people are many lesbians who feel that you have changed the position, you are eroding their space. maureen chadwick.

yes. who is a creator of television programmes with her partner, kath gotts, quit and stopped funding. they had given $38,000, over a number of years... over five years, yes. ..and are now giving it to women's aid charities. they make the point that many who are longstanding supporters of stonewall share our concerns and dismay about the organisation that was the go—to lgbt authority. well, go—to lgb authority. we were the lgb authority. and this is the concern — is now telling schoolchildren that a bearded man with a penis can be a lesbian, and any boys and girls deviating from the 1950s gender norms are in the wrong body. well, as a lesbian myself, as someone who often plays and manipulates the gender norms, i don't agree with that interpretation of what's happening, and there are many, many lesbians who are very supportive of our stance. and if we're talking financial

profile, ourfinancial profile has improved, and individual giving has gone up. the number of donors has gone up. the number of high—level donors has gone up. so this is someone who disagrees with our position... is there a split? no more than there ever has been. so there was a significant split when stonewall didn't do trans. it was less interesting, the media didn't report it. it felt like a fringe issue. stonewall not doing trans was absolutely out of step... it's not the not doing trans. it's the way you have done it. i disagree. when we were not doing trans, the reflection was we were doing trans and representing trans issues. so you think these people angry because... because you are working on trans issues. theyjust don't believe that trans should be coupled with lgb, and that is a position. but the movement, the lgb movement internationally, is an lgbt movement. stonewall was very late to the party on this, and the opposition we received

for not doing trans was as loud, as vicious, as upset, as angry. i remember in 2008... what is the argument for including, because you are including identity as well as sex? what is the argument for including lesbians with gay people? these bedfellows have not always been comfortable and we are clear about trans people and lgb people experience discrimination in the same way that people who hate us tend not to differentiate. there's a similar amount of prejudice. the trans community is tiny and very left—behind and unrepresented and often when you experience homophobia, you see transphobia as well. so every international movement, and in america, they've always joined lgbt. every global movement has done lgbt. stonewall was quite odd in not doing it. is this row the reason you are going? i've been doing it for 14 years and i've been ceo for five. you've been in the top role for five years during which time you made this change and some might see that you're essentially making yourself

the lightning rod, that you are going to protect stonewall, the row goes with you. well, i hope so. one would always like to leave and support the organisation in that way. i think it's very easy to think this change has only happened because of me and that's a little bit because of how individual organisations work but the board have been completely behind this at every single stage, as have our supporters. so this isn't, it's slightly caricatured as ruth hunt, who is also a lesbian and a feminist, and knows my way around simone de beauvoir better than most people, has made this rogue decision and it's a decision that's been taken by a lot of people with a lot of thought and a lot of care. a long—term supporter has said stonewall was always clever at putting together those broad coalitions around big principles. ruth hunt lost what the big principle was. the board is now in an extraordinarily difficult situation. the board doesn't feel that and the board is clear that's what we're doing now.

when we look at our allies now, who is the coalition we're working with? we have support from every political party, support from the army, support from gchq, support from barclays. these coalitions are forming as they always have done around every campaign. but i'm also aware that every campaign, there has been division. i remember campaigning for the human fertilisation and embryology act and there was opposition from within our own communities. the difference is, these are more and more complex issues. it was quite easy to say gay people like to marry gay people, let us marry, on a postcard. arguing for trans rights is a much more complex, nuanced position. there are grey areas. prisons aren't simple, sport isn't simple, refuges aren't simple. gay rights for gays was a slightly easier narrative. but there is another charge, though, that the reason that stonewall was set up initially was to do with what was being taught in our schools and we have

a situation at the moment in the united kingdom where in a predominantly muslim area, there are a number of schools who because of a row with the parents are not teaching, and it's primary school children, but they are not being taught about same—sex relationships and that is a situation that has gone on now for some time. for decades. but particularly with the recent row over what is being taught in school, talking about a matter of weeks, people saying the government should be stepping in. what do you think the government should be doing? well, the government is. stonewall has been working with schools for the last 30 years as you say and in primary schools for the last four or five. there are 20,000 primary schools, and we work particularly with government funding with faith schools. so we will work with any faith school for free and do some remarkable work with muslim—majority schools, christian schools, jewish schools, but that always requires a conversation and negotiation with parents. there has never a school that we've worked with where we haven't had to be mindful of bringing parents on the journey and that's just not lgbt issues, it's the role

of women in society, women and their careers, puberty, all sorts of different stuff, abortion, genetically modified... lots of controversial things, and i think what the government has said very clearly now is that by making sex and relationship education, although it's called even relationship and sex education in britain now, compulsory, they are sending a clear signal that this is something that should you thought about and it should be inclusive. because there are head teachers caught up in this row who have said not only have central government been silent about all this but the information they have put out is contradictory, equality is non—negotiable and by not being clear, they are fudging it. it's unfair on the government. i'm not a government apologist or a spokesperson and there are moments where they drag their feet but they have been unequivocal on this. there is a general problem about when is it ok for parents to take the kids out of this education, at what age can kids go, i can make these decisions on my own, and it's notjust

something about lg bt. we've got some beautiful resources, different families resources that really work well in schools in lots of different contacts, and they work. so when the local mp in birmingham, shabana mahmood, talks about a conflict, she says it's been hard for parents to get a fair hearing about genuine religion is conviction in an atmosphere which often doesn't feel tolerant of religious beliefs. do you sympathise? it's a a similar conversation that we've had with trans issues. a discussion about how these debates are going on, leaving everybody slightly dissatisfied but what i know has worked well in other schools of those quiet conversations behind closed doors with parents. the conflict doesn't exist? it's dealt with face—to—face rather than via megaphones or via twitter or via 120 characters. there are conversations to be had. i come from a faith background. i understand how to navigate some of these issues. people are concerned when they don't understand what's being taught and i remember going into a school where parents were deeply concerned that sanitary towel boxes were going to be put in toilets in the primary schools. nothing to do with lgbt. ijust happened to be there. they were saying, we are

making girls grow up. girls are having their periods when they are ten. let's talk about that. that's not an influence, it's not growing up too quickly, it's just what happens. conversation, i always believe talking is a good way to do it. you believe talking behind closed doors gets more done because there isn't the twitter and the trolling that comes from it? i always think about how politicians in the ‘90s in the early 2000s would have coped with every sentence being passed over on twitter. i think there's is something about how subtlety is lost on social media and it's possible for something to be anything other than one thing and everyone is reduced to the lowest common denominator of their position and gets entrenched in that. a lot of what we do at stonewall

around peace building, particularly with trans work, we work with peace builders, is there any way of moving when someone is deeply entrenched in a position and how do you manage that and twitter heightens that and it's about how we use our power to basically achieve change and there's a real seduction in campaigning to go for a headline when actually we're about long—term sustainable change. long—term change, it's currently illegal to have sex with a partner of the same sex in 72 countries around the world. in nine countries, homosexuality is punishable with death. that would suggest that actually perhaps some people would say that that should have been the focus of your campaign, your campaigning, is on those life—and—death matters rather than perhaps questions of identity and semantics. well, for trans people, it's not a question of identity and semantics, it's a case of extreme hate crime day in and day out when they go on the trains and on public transport. the situation facing trans people is not an esoteric debate about identity. when you are talking about countries, and i didn't do so, but when you are talking

about countries where it is illegal, you can have the death sentence applied to someone found guilty of having a same—sex partner? 10% of our operation is on international work. and we work in different ways, with activists on the ground, praying them, giving them the resources we've got, and we work with businesses we work within this country, the 800 companies, lots of them have operations in those countries and their influence is quite significant. so for example, we've opened an office in northern ireland because when companies we work within northern ireland, when they talking about how important same—sex marriage and lgbt rights are, we know that that's a much greater driver than necessarily gay—rights activists doing that. lots of influencing there. also significant influencing through british politicians. 30 years since stonewall was set up, how far or how much has changed in that time? how much further needs to be gone? significant change and i've been there for 14 years so i've been lucky enough to see and be part

of a lot of it and i think the change we've seen in schools, the change with employers, the way in which police now deal with hate crime, all these things have been a massive step forward. even the bbc now talks about lesbians without blushing. we've seen a big progress on all these different things but simultaneously, we're also seeing things go backwards, particularly internationally. particularly in some countries where to support lgbt rights, there is something about their global positioning in the world in relation to their attitude to the global north, lgbt as the lightning rod to say we reject those principles, it's often weaponised in countries to put clear blue water even between isis states, at cetera, et cetera, so we are mindful of how precarious our rights are and how our rights are only comfortable if you like the gay person who's got them. so for the nice gay person who's married, might have kids, it's an easy one but the trans person who's a bit puzzling and a bit confusing, you don't really get it,

then it becomes more uncomfortable and stonewall has an absolute obligation to do everything we can to ensure equality for everybody, including those left behind. ruth hunt, thank you for coming on hardtalk. thank you very much. hello again. we have got another fine sunny day coming up today before the weather begins to change. now, on tuesday, the warmest spot in the country was against scotland, where we had temperatures of 2a degrees celsius in drumnadrochit, which is by the shores of loch ness, in highland. but by the time we get to the end of the week those temperatures are on the way down. it's going t oturn

cooler and cloudier. it's going to turn cooler and cloudier. we'll be looking at highs at best of around 18 degrees for friday. so you will notice the change in the weather for sure. for the time being, after what has been a warmer day, those temperatures are slower to fall. it will still turn fairly cool across parts of east anglia but otherwise those temperatures holding up a little better than they have done over recent nights. 0ur area of high pressure is still with us and it is going nowhere fast. just slipping a little bit further northwards. the isobars tending to ease apart. so if anything, there will be less of a wind blowing across east anglia and south—east england, where coastal areas were kept a little bit cooler on tuesday. but for wednesday those winds a little bit lighter. again, with the winds circulating in a clockwise a sense, we will get the warmest day pushed up to the north and west of the uk but it's another one of those days where for many of us there will be sunshine from dawn to dusk, perhaps just a little bit of cloud developing and bubbling up across the pennines and maybe also the mountains of scotland. in the best of the sunshine, the warmest parts again likely

to reach 2a degrees celsius although fairly widely we'r elooking to reach 2a degrees celsius although fairly widely we're looking at temperatures into the high teens to low 20s. so another fine looking day coming up on wednesday. looking at the charts then towards the end of the week, we start to see some changes. an area of low pressure that has been bothering central europe recently, sneaks a little bit closer. the isobars get a little bit close together as well. so we wil have a stronger easterly breeze blowing across these eastern shores of scotland, eastern parts of england. that will tend to knowck the temperatures down. butas well as that there's likely to be a little bit more cloud around, maybe a few showers dotted around across the north and west. otherwise it's mainly dry. but the temperatures, you'll notice, generally into the high teens rather than the 20s. that trend into slightly cooler weather continues on into friday. still quite a bit of cloud around. there could be a few splashes of rain here and there. probably the best of any dry weather and sunshine towards the north and west of the british isles. scotland probably having the best of it. those temperatures, well, quite a bit cooler. looking at highs between 13 and 15 degrees celsius for our towns and cities. now, on into the weekend, it looks like is likely to be

quite an unsettled kind of weekend, cooler and cloudier. there will still be some sunshine around but i think there will also be spells of rain for some at times. that's your latest weather.

hello, everyone. this is newsday on the bbc. i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: increased security and a second overnight curfew in sri lanka, in response to a wave of anti—muslim violence on monday. a prominent philippines journalist is brought before court on libel charges. she says it's because of critical reporting on president duterte. i'm samantha simmonds in london. also in the programme: we speak to a lawyer who was a victim of the whatsapp cyber attack and track down the company which developed the software in israel. we meet the former monk who's now dispensing words of wisdom to 25