across the european union. new lockdown measures have come into force in poland and across large parts of france including around the capital paris. switzerland is among other countries extending their restrictions. european leaders have shown support for the astrazeneca jab. the french prime minister, jean castex, received the vaccine and urged the public to do the same after eu regulators found it didn't cause blood clots. here in the uk, borisjohnson also received his first astrazeneca injection. president biden has appealed for unity during a visit to atlanta, saying many asian americans now live in fear. his comments came in the wake of a killing spree at massage parlours in atlanta which left eight people dead, six of them women of asian descent.

that's it for me, mark lobel will be here at the top of the hour. now here on bbc news, senate it's time for global questions. ——now on bbc news, global questions. hello, and welcome to global questions with me, zeinab badawi. are people becoming intimidated into not expressing their opinions freely in public? many have been de—platformed or boycotted because of their views. has cancel culture gone too far? we hear both sides of the debate. well, to bring you this addition of global questions, our two panelists and our questioners join us via video link from all over the world. let me tell you who is in the hot seat this

week giving the answers. billy bragg is a british singer—songwriter and campaigner. his music blends folk and punk rock with lyrics that are often political. billy's world of music focuses on bringing about change and involving the younger generation in activist causes. he says cancel culture does not stifle debate, but it does challenge the old order. and sarah haider is a pakistani american writer and political activist. she created an advocacy group, ex muslims of north america, which aims to promote dissenting voices within this community. she's a critic of what some describe as "wokeism" or "politically correct views". welcome to you both and, of course, wherever you are watching this programme, remember, you too can join the conversation at... let's get down to our first question. we go all the way to sao paulo brazilfor ourfirst question from marianna vieira.

marianna, what do you want to ask billy and sarah? to what extent is it _ acceptable to cancel someone? "to what extent is it acceptable to cancel someone?" billy bragg? well, i think the main place where cancel culture happens is in social media. the thing about social media is it's an immediate response. "cancel culture", so—called, in some ways is part of this ability to respond immediately. and i always feel when someone does cause upset online, that they should be given the opportunity to apologise or to reflect, and if i've hurt someone or, you know, someone made some unfortunate comments, if they immediately respond by saying, well, i'm sorry, that's not what i meant, and they attempt to clear it up, although they may have caused offence, i am willing to give them

the benefit of the doubt, that they did it inadvertently. but is it acceptable, though? sorry to interrupt you there, billy, but just very simply, it's a simple question, a simple answer, is it acceptable to cancel someone? well, the terrible curse of social media is that perception always trumps intention. you may say something you think is fair, someone else may take offence at it. so you must be aware to that. and i think it is fair to challenge somebody. what you call "cancel culture" is when people are challenged on their points of views, yes, i think it's always correct to challenge people who are making offensive statements. all right, that sounds like a yes to me, although, you've kind of switch the word cancel someone to challenge someone. what do you think, sarah? i agree, of course it's acceptable to challenge people. i challenge people all the time. i get challenged all the time, and this is normal, healthy discourse. but it is never acceptable to cancel someone, because cancellation is, i think it's very important to understand, cancellation is not like other forms

of consequences for a perceived bad behaviour. cancellation is almost never about criminalisty. in fact, i would say it's never about criminalisty. actual criminals don't get cancelled, for example, harvey weinstein didn't get cancelled and he got arrested. jeffrey epstein didn't get cancelled, he got arrested. it's cookbook authors who get cancelled for committing culinary appropriation, for essentially being too influenced by ethnic cuisines. with cancellations, the crime is not often, you know, a crime at all, it's just behaviour that some people might find off—putting, or worse, it'sjust simply holding the wrong opinion. so, no, it is never acceptable. let's go now to missouri in the united states to dakota jennifer, and i did check with you, that is the right way round with your name, dakota is your first name. what is your question please? my question is, without cancel culture, how do we hold - people accountable ? right, sarah? well, first, i think it's

important to understand that cancel culture often doesn't hold people accountable. that's what it claims to do, that's what it claims to want to do, but we are here discussing cancel culture because of how often the outcomes of cancel culture aren't at all warranted, how often and how frequently it is unfair, how frequently it ends up creating victims rather than standing up for them. so, first of all, i mean, if maybe we want to find other ways to, qoute, unquote "hold people accountable" but cancel culture isn't doing that to begin with. but secondly, i would question this instinct of tojudge people, of holding our selves up as these mini prosecutors for the crimes that other people have committed. i think this is something about our culture that is quite nasty. it's vindictive, it's focused on the crimes that others may or may not have committed,

performing what i like to call offence archaeology, which is to say, going back into someone's tweets, into someone's previously held opinions and seeing what we can do to bring them up back into current day discourse and holding them to account for it, which isjust to say to punish them for it. all right, so, billy, do answer dakota's question, but also what do you say to sarah who very clearly says that cancel culture does not hold people accountable, and that there are other ways of trying to engage. well, really, there is no such thing as cancel culture. it doesn't really exist. it's a right—wing argument that seeks to turn the person who has caused the offence into the victim. and if you look at any list of people who have been the so—called victims of "cancel culture", they are always people who are expressing status quo views.

so it's why cancel culture is a means by which the people in charge are able to police the limits of debate, and in some ways, what sarah just suggested there, was that attempt to say, "yeah, you can make your criticism, but not like that." you know, it's the equivalent of saying, "you can make your "protest, but don't kneel in front of the flag." "you can make your protest, but don't sit in the cafe "in the seat that should be a white person's seat." you know, all the time the right are trying to control the way that people protest, because they are trying to hold onto their power. cancel culture is another word for accountability, and that is why the powerful don't like it. sarah, i mean, is that right? it's a way of maintaining the status quo? i can see you shaking your head all the time when billy was speaking. why? absolutely. i mean, absolutely not. it's not about holding people accountable, and it's not about the right or the left in this, you know, binary way, as billy poses that. certainly, the right

is using cancel culture to enact outrage, and they can do that because it really is something that is unfair, and a lot of people recognise it being unfair. there is poll after poll that comes out and shows us that people, the average person, is afraid to speak their mind in public to share their opinions, to participate in public discourse. this is effective silencing, but not of the most powerful, of the least powerful. 0k. all right, dakota, what you think about what you have heard? lots to get your teeth around there. yeah, i think cancel culture i is about creating a safe space. so i would agree that i think cancel culture is important. because i can't criticise - someone for wanting to create a safer space for themselves and cancelling someone - who does something harmful. so you think it is a good way of holding people accountable? i think it is, yes. all right, let's now go to hamburg in germany to isaac. isaac, your question please. thank you very much.

i want to ask what cancel| culture seeks to achieve? all right, let's come to you, billy. what does cancel culture seek to achieve? well, i would think that cancel culture is the means by which the ordinary person who has access to a social media account is able to question someone who normally would be protected as a celebrity, or to comment about that person, and in some ways, it is the voice of the masses out there who are trying to get into the debate. and as i say, sometimes that can, you know, get out of hand, and you can have a situation where people are kind of mob. it's not nice, it's happened to me, and i don't like it at all, but people do have the right to express their opinion if they are angry about what somebody has said. and i think cancel culture, that term, has arisen because people who previously were only criticised by their peers, so we are

talking about newspaper columnists, radio celebrities, anybody, really, cooks, as sarah mentioned, previously, they only had their peers to criticise them, and it was under control. now anybody can criticise them. and i think they don't like it, and i think that's why they have invented this idea of "cancel culture", which is reallyjust, they are having to accept other people's opinions. all right, just very quickly, billy, you said you've been the victim of cancel culture, although, you do give your qualified comments about what exactly constitutes cancel culture, but what happened to you? was it really devastating? it was. it was very upsetting because, you know, i made a statement and i wasn't clear about it, and the implication of it was that i was, you know, undermining the rights of the victims

of racism to define what is and what isn't racist, and that wasn't my intention at all. it was, again, a perception trumping intentions. so i did, what i mentioned in the first answer, i apologised immediately, and everybody who criticised me, i apologise to them, and i sought to explain to them what i meant. it went on for a few days, as i say, it wasn't very nice, but i can, you know, i wouldn't say that i was cancelled. here i am, still speaking on the bbc, alive and well, still got myjob. most certainly, you are definitely with us. 0k, how do you answer this question, sarah, from isaac in germany? what does cancel culture seek to achieve? first, let me respond to what billy said. it's true that billy hasn't been effectively cancelled and that he has survived a cancellation. and this is why i would like to protest the framing of this discussion and framing that billy presented, which is that if this is about holding the powerful to account and it's the powerful who protest when they get cancelled, what is the truth is that it's the powerful who can

survive a cancellation, and then continue to speak afterwards. the average person who speaks their mind can't survive when the mob comes after their livelihood, when they force their employers to push them out of a job. jk rowling can survive a twitter mob. the average person who might agree with her opinion, she can't survive it. and so she learns to shut up. cancel culture takes away the freedom of expression from the least powerful among us, from those who go paycheque to paycheque, who are considered the most disposable in the workforce. so i would just like to protest that framing about who is exactly the person that's being... so, you mentionedjk rowling, because of course come you and along with 150 other writers and activists signed a letter last year saying that cancel culture is really undermining and restricting debate, and you sayjk rowling can survive the cancel culture, although, she has of course suffered, you know, loss

of prizes and publishing deals and all the rest of it, but, 0k, what is your answer to isaac? what does cancel culture seek to achieve? cancel culture claims to be aboutjustice, that's what it says it seeks to achieve, but it is anything butjust. in fact, it creates victims again and again, and i would argue that regardless of what it claims to achieve, it's actual purpose is about making the participants in the cancellation, the mob throwing the stones, feel powerful and morally righteous. i think it taps into something really deep and ancient and ugly that's within human nature, one that enjoys burning witches, and i would like to remind everyone in this conversation that if we were alive at the time of actual with burning, the chances are very very high that we would be among the many burning the witches, not the very few accused of being witches. so let's keep that in mind before we start to utilise social ostracism, particularly one that can be so devastating the way cancellation can be as a tool to enact so—called

justice. billy, you wanted to come back quickly? yes, very briefly, sarah kindly illustrated what i was talking about there in the way that's cancel culture is an attempt by the offender to turn themselves into a victim. she suggested that there are victims of cancel culture. i'm afraid i don't accept that. i would like to also point out that the witches, such as they were, if they ever existed, were fighting against the status quo and were victimised by the status quo. the status quo is the catholic church in mediaeval europe. they were against that. it is very easy to know what the status quo is, it's very easy to know who the powerful and the powerless are in hindsight when we are looking at history. it's very hard to know that right now, unless you can claim to have perfect knowledge of our discourse. well, if you could offer me an example of cancel culture, if you would like to offer me an example. i offered an example of the cook who lost herjob effectively because she was accused of culinary appropriation.

i mean, it's absurd that people can lose their positions and jk rowling is another example of somebody who is very prominent who has lost it, who has lost deals because of it. but, of course, she's powerful. if i may... she will recover. billy? if i may, i think that nobody should lose theirjob because of what they believe in. i think that's the issue about... but that's what cancel culture is. i accept that, but unfortunately, modern employment contracts often have a clause in that allows you to be fired by your company for what you believe in. i'm against that, and i'm happy to campaign against that. let's just have a click reports from isaac who asked the question. thank you very much, zeinab. the answers that i've gathered so far, that there is some - restrictive element that runs through the answers, - and it is in direct opposition to freedom of speech, - and if that is the case, i then clearly, the purpose for which cancel culture

came into force has - not been achieved. thank you very much, indeed. ok, let's now go to indonesia. what you want to ask? hi, zeinab. my question is how can we make sure the voices calling _ for the people to be - cancelled are the real voices that come from citizens, not based on influencesl from certain parties. with certain agendas? sarah, what would you say to her? i would say there is no real way of separating cancel culture from being able to be influenced by, you know, other parties with hidden agendas. cancel culture is inherently vulnerable to be influenced by the most powerful, again, to contract what billy said, it is not so clear to me who the powerful are and who the weak are in any given scenario. and i would say that, you know, it's the powerless to have the most to lose.

and actual criminals with power, again, someone like jeffrey epstein, don't have to worry about cancellations. it's people who just say the wrong thing at the wrong time who get cancelled. it's due process, due process that protects the least powerful, protects minorities, protects the disadvantage. billy, she says that it certain parties with certain agendas who call for people to be cancelled. do you agree with that? no, i don't. i think in some ways, the answer to her question is in the question, how do we find out who is driving the driving the argument, is google, you know? almost everybody�*s findable on google these days. you have to do your own bit of research. and often, in a debate, someone will pop in to point out the person you've just spoken to has a particular agenda, if they do. so i think we have to rely on being honest with one another. yeah, i would agree with billy. i think probably everyone . here as responsible citizens, we can help by not forwarding or sharing something - without checking. and also, probably get -

the support from social media platforms to flag it as well, so we can understand - which ones are true, - which ones are ambiguous. 0k, thank you. let's now go to washington in the united states to jacqueline merrill. jacqueline, fire away. one of the challenges that we have in the i united states is that many people think that those who are on the other end - of the political spectrum are not just those - with different views, they are actuallyjust bad people, and how is it- that we can overcome - polarisation if people aren't willing to socialise with those whose political views differ. from their own? all right, billy, so, it doesn'tjust shut down debate, cancel culture, does it? it leads to a lack of engagement with people who may have different views from your own. what would you say to jacqueline? you have to work really hard. you have to work really hard to engage with people with different views. you have to follow people who you don't necessarily agree with, but unfortunately, it's been a trend, particularly

in the us in the last a0 years, away from moderate discussion. you know, ronald reagan abandoned the fairness doctrine in american broadcasting that stated that broadcasters had to give both sides of any story, and that allowed the rise of first shock jocks, and then in their wake, of course, outlets such as fox news. in response to fox news, you have other stations giving a one—sided story from the other side, so people watch these programmes, and never hear the other side. so when they are challenged, they are shocked, outraged and feel as if they have been "cancelled", whereas you know, really, debates go on all the time and always have gone on, all the way back to ancient greece. so i think we need to find a forum where we can come together, a space where we can come together to express our freedom of speech, to treat each other equally, and to be accountable to one another for what we say and what we do. and if we can have that kind of framework, than i think we can have a discourse

in which we can learn from one another. all right, 0k. i just want to insert a quote from a nobel literature laureate who says, "young writers are self "censoring their work because they fear being cancelled by an online lynch mob." so, just bearing that in mind, what would you say, sarah, to jacqueline? i think we have to be careful not to see politics as a religion with sins and sinners. politics is about working together as people, that includes this process of working through disagreements and finding common ground, of reaching consensus. that process requires us having the ability to see the person as a persuadable human being, as may be even a good human being. once we begin to see people who disagree with us as simply bad people, we will give up trying to persuade them. we will give up trend to reach them. we willjustify in our own minds their dehumanisation and think about ways of punishing them, of which cancel culture isjust one form.

and again, you know, for me, my experience has been someone who loved my faith, there are religious conservatives who think that i deserve to die simply for no longer believing in their god or in any god. and to them for this difference of opinion means life is forfeit. and this is the road that we walked down once that we walk down once we begin to see simply difference of opinions as the difference between having or lacking virtue. all right, thanks. if i canjust make a very quick comment? yeah, sure, billy. as i am here making a stand for accountability, you can have too much accountability. it has to be a balance. you know, the attack on salman rushdie is unacceptable, it's too much account ability. the murder of the charlie abdo journalist, that's too much accountability. there needs to be a balance in society between liberty and account ability. that's what i'm advocating. all right, ok, thanks. see, this is what i think i'm confused by in this discussion, which is that there, on the one hand, we as people need to be able to challenge

people for about opinions, but of course we should be able to challenge the discourse is part of that challenge. and then there is the alternate, we need to be holding them accountable, which implies punishment. so i guess i would like to know what kind of punishment are acceptable in your view, billy? — it's not so much punishment as to have their opinion challenged. i think the thing about... of course, that's just talking, right? that'sjust discourse. no, no, idisagree. you asked a question, let him answer it. go on, billy. i disagree. i think the whole letter that you signed was an attempt by certain people on that list to avoid being criticised, to pretend that they are open and believers in free speech, but to seek to restrict the free speech of others because they are criticising them. ultimately, i'm not talking about punishment. i'm talking about people being able to see that there are other opinions out there that are just as valid and that through the things that they say, these people who are making this offensive points, they can cause genuine harm to people in the world. i think we all have

to be very aware that words have consequences. of course discourse has some consequence, of course, that's what we want. we want to persuade people, we want to change people's minds. that's why we are participating in discussion to begin with. but when it comes to cancel culture, when it comes to accountability for speech, that means something like a punishment, i mean, i have personal experience with this because i work on blasphemy laws across the world where people don't make the distinction between speech and any other kind of act, and they want to punish speech with real harm in the real world, and this is extremely devastating to those communities and those countries, and what it ends up being is a culture in which progress is extremity difficult to achieve. let's now go to our final question from lagos in nigeria. the goal of cancel culture - suggests justice in our society is not effective, transparent

or immediate enough. - my question is can cancel culture actually result - in positive change? sarah, do you think that's cancel culture that cancel culture could ever be positive? no, i don't. i don't think it can. especially because it aims to implement swift justice, which is kind of a contradiction, because it'sjustice...in order to be just has to be deliberate, it has to take its time, has to be unbiased, and this is all the things cancellation culture is not. all right, billy? i think it can, i mean, you know, if you look at the great political movements of the 21st century, they have all risen from social media. black lives matter, instinction rebellion, me too, and i think they reflect that the younger generation is more interested in accountability than it is in free speech. it allows marginalised people

to be heard, and i'm afraid cancel culture is the mainstream reaction to having their values challenged. every generation challenges the values of those that went before, and accountability for this new generation is absolutely key. the person who filmed george floyd being murdered was 14 years old. thank you to my two panelists, billy bragg and sarahh. ——thank you to my two panelists, billy bragg and sarah haider. that's all for this edition of global questions. has cancel culture gone too far? clearly our two panelists have very different views, haven't they? thank you also to my questioners who havejoined us from all corners of the world, and of course to you wherever you are watching this programme. don't forget, we are the programme that brings you the trend lines behind the headlines, and if you want to be part of global questions and you can e—mail questions at the headlines, and if you want to be part of global questions and you can e—mail us at... until the next time, from me, zeinab badawi, and the rest of the global

questions team, goodbye. hello there. there's a lot of dry weather to come this weekend, but for some, there's a big jump up in temperatures on the way. those some, particularly those who live across northeast england, where yesterday, temperatures struggled tojust 6 celsius. today, we are looking at highs up to 14 celsius in the same areas, the change in temperatures is brought about by a change in the wind direction. yesterday, we had chilled northeasterly winds working in over the cold north sea. today, northwesterly winds, hence those much higher temperatures widely across a swathe of eastern england. on the pressure charts, the big picture, we've got a weather front that's going to stay slow moving across england and wales throughout saturday. a cold front, meanwhile, will work into northern scotland later in the day. but this first front is bringing an odd patch of rain, not a lot, but it

will keep the skies pretty cloudy across a swathe of england and wales. further north, the rain moves into northern scotland late in the day. but central southern scotland and northeast england, that is where the best of the sunshine will be. and we could see temperatures going as high as 17 celisus in the warmest spots.

welcome to bbc news. i'm mark lobel. our top stories: europe braces for a third wave of coronavirus infections with fresh lockdowns in france and poland. the french prime minister gets the astrazeneca vaccine and urges others to do the same, as the eu resumes use of the jab. president biden visits atlanta after the murder of eight people this week. he calls for unity and an end to violence against asian americans. they've been attacked, blamed, scapegoated and harassed. they've been verbally assaulted, physically assaulted, physically assaulted, killed. tanzania swears in theirfirst female president after the death of john magufuli on wednesday.