that the -- that is constantly put to us. who can replace assad? well, there are answers. >> i did ask about mapping. i know i'm out of time. maybe the foreign secretary, it's a bigger question. you can write to the committee with some of the details about the work that's being conducted on mapping. >> very glad to do so. >> good morning, foreign secretary. delighted to see you in your new role. there's one word that's been missing from this morning's discussion that i've not heard from your lips, and that is the word commonwealth. lord haig said there was going the sea back to the fco. not much happened after that. what is the new foreign secretary intending to do to ensure the common wealth is paramount in our long-term planning and thinking for trade, cooperation and friendship? >> the commonwealth -- thank you, mr. rosindell. i know you've long been a champion of the commonwealth and

indeed of britain's relations with the commonwealth. thanks for what you do. the commonwealth is a wonderful asset for the world. it's -- and it's yet another forum in which britain is able, our country, is able to express our values to get things done and to get things moving. and yes, we see it as vital for our future overseas. we're having in 2018 -- and probably coming to this city, there's still discussion about that. we are using the common wealth and our networks to principally, if you think about it, this is the growth of the countries over the world, this has been one of the staggering developments over the last 25 years. while the eu has been mired in

low growth, it is these commonwealth countries bounding ahead and yet we haven't been able, because of our constriction under the eu treaties for 43 years, we haven't been able to do free trade agreements with them. many of them now stepping up, volunteering to do these deals and it's a very, very exciting prospect. and one of the other. australia, malaysia, new zealand, standing up and saying they want to increase trade with the uk. >> so brexit is an opportunity, in your view, for the united kingdom to do a whole lot more with the commonwealth and perhaps rekindle those relationships that we neglected since we joined the common market? >> absolutely. and i yield to no one in my admiration in the commonwealth office. and i walk around, this great daily state of wonder.

it has many, many mansions and it's a fantastic thing. but i -- when i used to go around the world doing trade missions for london, one thing that some of the fco wallows used to tell me is actually they thought a huge operation dedicated to the eu. but perhaps not quite enough when he went into some of the other areas. and i'm not saying i want to subtract a commitment to other european work because that is obviously vital and 44% of our trade is with the eu and it is a colossally important. but there are opportunities. and i meant what i said earlier about the enthusiasm of the people of the fco. i think they really see this. they want to do it. and they see an opportunity here.

>> so you agree with me that the commonwealth flag should fly from embassies and high commissions from around the world as you remove the european flag? >> okay. mr. rosindell, you're testing my sigilography here. the flag of the commonwealth -- i don't think i'm going to make any plan commitments about the flag of the commonwealth -- >> you're happy for it to fly from embassies and high commissions. >> as soon as someone can identify it to me. i'm going to have to own up. i'm unaware of the exact configuration of the commonwealth flag. there you go. >> okay, moving on. >> what does it look like? >> there's my drawing. >> that's a very good drawing. okay, that's effective. a lovely flag.

it looks like -- wait, wait, wait, it looks like a lovely flag, mr. rosindell, but i'm not going to commit to flying it everywhere now -- >> can you check that up and come back to this? >> would you -- >> right. thank you. >> but if you could come back on that particular point, if that's okay, foreign secretary. could i move on now to the next item? apart from the commonwealth, united kingdom actually has sovereign power over 21 which your department is responsible for. one of which is gibraltar. they are, of course, particularly affected by us leaving the european union. can we expect more bulldog spirit now in dealing with madrid? can we have the more robust stance in tackling the way spain has treated gibraltar or are we

foreign office effectively the line of pussyfooting which allows spain to continue to think that one day they may achieve their wish of claiming the rock under the spanish flag? >> you're going to see a completely implaquable memorial rock like resistance on the part of this government to any such claim. we see no justification in law for that claim. and obviously we see no particular reason to be in any way difficult with our friends in madrid. if they can raise it with us and we simply make our point politely but firmly. and i think that i remember when i think the spanish foreign minister raised it with me and i felt that, you remember, marlon brando and "the godfather" and i

must tell you, i'm sorry, my answer is no. >> and if they do get difficult and they have become difficult, they've done some things that have made the lives pretty bad over the years. can we expect a thorough and robust response from now on rather than effectively diplomatically pushing the issue into the lawn grass? >> i think we've been clear that we see no whatever for any change to the sovereignty of gibraltar and people of gibraltar i think by 98.5% support the status quo and the status quo is going to remain. >> would you welcome a possibility of a visit to gibraltar by her majesty, the queen. she hasn't been for over 50 years. people of gibraltar have asked repeatedly over the last five to six decades that their queen visit gibraltar.

for some reason foreign offices never seem to recommend that to her majesty. would you make a change of policy on that issue? >> well, i'm more than happy to consult the foreign office and indeed the palace. i didn't know the thinking behind her majesty's eitinerary. but obviously, you know, a lot of people want her majesty to go to a lot of places at the moment. she is a much in demand across the world as you can imagine and i think you have to be careful about issuing promises. >> commend you secretary on your well known robust stance in terms of supporting self determination for all the peoples of former british colonies. british overseas territory and the falkland islands and you have spoken up in favor of self determination. can i just confirm that that is

your view today, the view of the british government and that all people, of all former british colonies should have the absolute right of self determination? >> of course. self-determination? >> of course. that is our -- that is our view and if you look at what's happening in the falk lands and argentina, in fact, you know, we have to be careful, but i think there is -- the relationship with ba when knows arrows is improving. >> it's the people themselves. >> the people themselves. >> would that include norfolk island as well? >> i can't remember what the views of the people of norfolk island are. >> would their views be equally as respected as people of the

falkland islands, to give an example? >> we have no intention of changing government policy towards norfolk island or its people and their rights will be protect protected. >> the self-determination you support for norfolk island? >> i support self-determination as a principal. >> how about the british overseas territory, their people have -- should have the same rights as the other overseas territories, would you agree with that, foreign secretary? >> well, that is a difficult question because there are, as you know, trevosians who have been involved from that area and we're conscious of their concerns and i have met some of them and we are in a state -- we are in negotiations about them -- with them at the moment, but discussions at the moment, but the position of diego garcia and the rest of those islands

remains unchanged. >> one final very last question, if i may. >> be brief. >> will the government consider the possibility of restoring a royal yacht and if so will you be giving your full support to that policy? >> it is not a government priority, i must tell you, regretfully and i must also inform you, alas, that the former royal yacht, britainia is i am told incapable of being refloated because it's engine has been removed and a hole has been carved in its side to make it into a museum so you can't do that. what i have said is that if a consortium of philanthropists wished to give her majesty a yacht and pay for it then obviously that's not something that i would impede.

>> thank you. >> or try to impede. sorry. >> thank you. >> there is a bit of good news about syria over the last 24 hours in that the united states and -- the united states and -- are meeting in switzerland to discuss what may in the future and given that that meeting is taking place with russia that must be a hopeful development. and in that case as one speaking of myself who advocated marching outside embassies, would you agree that in this case it would

be advisable to wait to see what comes out of this meeting over the weekend and if it doesn't come out the way we want it to come out we should involve marching on all the embassies involved in the current situation in syria? >> thank you, misclws clwyd. obviously we must all hope that the contact between the russians and americans does produce something on saturday. we've been here behind, the old process ran for quite a while, it did not actually interrupt the bombing. you will have seen from the front pages of today's paper that that continues, people are continuing to die in aleppo far more civilians being killed than

mill lish is that men. this is a gross, gross crime against humanity. you spoke very powerfully in the house the other day about that and i agreed with every word that you said and i also thought you were right, by the way, to point out the pea kul latery that the stop the par coalition do not think it suitable to speak up against this war against an innocent civilian population and i think that that is an oddity that has been noticed. >> given the number of players in this horrible situation that perhaps if this weekend they don't come to some agreement we can also focus attention on the embassies of other countries involved. >> yes. okay. well, let me be very direct, then. i think it important not to let

a general sort of blame game diffuse the central responsibility of what is taking place. this is the assad regime, 95% of the people that have been killed have been killed by the assad regime, they are being backed up by the russians and the iranians, those are the culprits. >> how many casualties have the syrian taken? >> my information is from the foreign office is that the vast majority of the casualties that have been sustained -- >> is this -- i'm assuming you a meant the conflict as a whole. >> the conflict as a whole. >> i have heard data that the syrian have taken 70,000 fatalities in the course of this conflict. i just think there is a -- i

would be interested -- the point -- >> i would defer to you, mr. blunt, but the figures i've been told is the assad regime is responsible -- of the 400,000 fatalities that are regularly quoted by the u.n. and by the special representative the overwhelming majority to the best of my knowledge have been claimed by the assad regime. andy point to mrs. clwyd is that that should be the focus on our outrage and, you know, as i say, i think it peculiar that the stop the war coalition doesn't see it that way. >> can i ask what policy options you think are open to the uk to respond to events in aleppo? >> well, as i said in my opening remarks i think it's very

important not to get hopes up too high because you will remember what point the parliament got to in 2013 when this house took the step -- took a big step backwards from intervention. i thought that was regrettable at the time and i know that you did, too. and we've left -- we've vacated the space which has been occupied by the russians and our options now are to rye on the humanitarian front to try to find extra ways of getting help into aleppo, to do what we can to warn the people of aleppo about impending air strikes, to support the white helmets, all types of humanitarian relief, intensify sanctions on the key prayers in the assad regime and on the russians as well and also of course it is right now that we should be looking again at

the more kinetic options and the military options but we must be realistic about how these, in fact, work and what is deliverable. certainly you can't do anything without a coalition, without doing it with the america and, you know, i think we're still a pretty long day's march from getting there, but that doesn't mean that discussions are not going on because they certainly are. >> can i ask you about the situation with the kurds, there has been so much emphasis on the rule of the peshmerga and of course the peshmerga were very useful in liberating people like the yazidis but the turks have seemed to have now turned against the kurds and i wonder how we are going to attempt to

protect the kurds having used them and praised them, how do we then protect them? >> well, you know, you are asking an incredibly good question. there is no doubt that there are difficulties with the turkish/kurdish relations in the north of syria and clearly the turks have concerns about some groups of kurds and they make no distinction between the white pg and the pkk, for instance, and whereas the americans see things differently. i think one thing everybody agrees, including the turks, is that the -- i think the peshmerga, the iraqi kurds who have been so important in driving daesh out of their bits of iraq, they have the

confidence of the turkish leadership and that's been very encouraging. >> mosul of course is very much on the agenda at the moment and people are -- the public seem to be very concerned about how we protect the civilians in mosul once the liberation of mosul is under way. and i'm not quite clear how that is going to happen. >> well, i think that is going to be a huge question for all of us in the course of the months ahead. mosul must be liberated from daesh, the question is how to do it in such a way as to minimize civilian loss of life. it's a city of at least 1.5 million people, very largely sunni, they are not going to want to be liberated to put it mildly by shia militias, it is going to be a very, very difficult and delicate

operation, but it has to be grasped and it will require a great deal of thought and also requires us collectively to think about mosul post liberation, how is it going to be ordered, how is it going to be run, who is going to be in charge, these are all questions we need to be answering now. >> what exactly is our role in mosul? what is the uk doing? >> our role in mosul at the moment is obviously to prepare for the -- to help prepare for the liberation of mosul and to think about how we will order it. you may be interested to know that on sunday i'm calling a meeting of fellow foreign ministers, john kerry is coming over, my french counterpart, my

german counterpart and others to discuss exactly how we're going to proceed, not just in syria, but in iraq as well. and i think the general feeling is that, you know, obviously it's good that things are happening again in geneva, but most people -- and i think including john kerry -- feel that the -- the -- the process of argument, the process of discussion with the russians has basically run out of road and on sunday we will be talking about all the options that we think are available to us and to the west. and i'm not going to pretend that there is any easy answer here because there isn't, but i think most people -- and i'm interested in what you say about polls from the uk public -- most

people i think are now changing their minds about this and they're thinking we can't let this go on forever. we can't just see aleppo pulverized in this way, we have to do something. i thought the move of the house of commons the other day was very telling, i think it has changed from 2013. whether that means we can get the -- get a coalition together for more kinetic action now i cannot prove aside, but certainly what most people want to see is a new set of options. >> we will come back to this -- >> may i ask quickly -- >> brfly. >> can i ask you about yemen? >> yes, of course. >> are you satisfied that the protection of civilians is something in our sights given the horrible stories that are coming out of there, given the

role of saudi arabia, given the role -- our role in selling arms to saudi arabia? >> obviously we have a very elaborate -- probably the most elaborate of any arms exporting country an elaborate system of trying to check that our -- the things we export are being used in conformity with international humanitarian law and, look, i mean, we take all the allegations, all the news from yemen incredibly seriously. you saw what happened on saturday in sanna, it was extremely worrying. we have to encourage and we do encourage very strongly our saudi friends to go for a ceasefire to sort this out and

to investigate thoroughly what has taken place and they are investing -- >> let's try to come back -- to a very substantial subject which deserves significant time of its own. let's see if we can create that time at the end, but secretary it may be in your hands it point. mike gapes. >> foreign secretary, can i go back to your initial remarks where you said you wanted to forge a new identity as a global britain. you controversial yael drew attention to the park part kenyan heritage of the united states president and you yourself have part american and part turkish heritage. are you part of what the prime minister would refer to as a citizen of the world? >> i used to say on the back of the -- of the honey, produced from more than one country it

used to say. yes, i certainly am in that sense and i think we all are. you know, the human race probably emerged from africa. we are all -- i'm -- that's why, by the way, i was so -- i was so offended by the french prime minister's article in the ft today. >> sir, are you offended by the prime minister's attack on the people who see themselves as citizens of the world in her speech at her conference? >> did she -- >> yes, she did. >> i'm a citizen of the uk and a proud citizen of the uk and so are we all and that's our primary identity. i also think that we're all, you know, part of the same great species and we should, you know -- it's why i get back to my point.

we should be open to people from other countries. we really should. >> okay. >> and it's something that has been of immense value. it's a two-way thing. britain is the biggest exporter of its own people of all the rich countries. you know, we send brits abroad and it's a fantastic thing that we do and the world in my view is better for it, but britain is also better for having some brilliant people working here. >> good. including perhaps on our plans for how we do with the european union people working at the lsc and elsewhere. >> that was complete -- mr. gapes, i am so glad you mentioned that because i'm able to knock that one totally on the head because that was absolute nonsense. someone rang up the foreign office and there was a phone conversation in which it was made clear what is standard procedure, anybody working for

the foreign office or for the fco as a member of staff or -- has got to get security clearance. that's always been the case. but there is absolutely no reason for anybody who is supplying research data or whatever or analysis to the -- to us to have security clearance. >> so nothing has changed. >> and the lsc inaccurately reported this conversation in an internal e-mail and presented it -- or somebody did, some remainor presented it as a post referendum change in policy and it wasn't true. it wasn't true and it's like -- you know, everybody is attributed to brexit. it was total nonsense. >> nothing has changed. >> right. fine. food. >> nothing has changed. >> can i then ask you about this relationship between your department and the department for leaving the european union. the secretary of state your

colleague david davis came before us a few weeks ago and i asked him questions about that and he said -- i asked him whether [ inaudible ] would be reporting to him or to the fco and he said there would probably be a pay in russian's link. i don't know. could you clarify does akrep report to the foreign office as well as the department for leaving the eu. >> of course it does. i have regular contact with ivan rogers who is our rep. all european embassies obviously -- you know, we run the network, but i want to stress this is -- i think has been -- of all the sort of fictions in the media, this is the most -- the idea that, you know, these threes competing poles of foreign -- it's

complete nonsense. we are working together. the fco holds the network we are immensely supportive of the work being done by dit and dexu and we have to get on with it. >> in that context there has been since the referendum vote caused by ministers in france, in italy, in germany for a revitalization of the acceleration towards an eu defense policy. your colleague the secretary of state of defense has said that we would block such a development, but given that we are intending to go out of the eu within around two years or so, is it wise for us to obstruct what other eu countries wish to do to increase their defense corporation? won't it actually damage the possibility of us getting a good deal in the negotiations if we take that attitude? >> well, i mean, a couple of points.

first of all, i think it's perfectly right to point out as michael fallon has done that an eu defense pact that undermines nato is a bad idea and, you know, we want to make sure that our -- the defense architecture of europe, of this part of the world, continues to have the americans very much in it. i think that's something that is widely understood across other european capitals. if our friends want to go ahead with new security architecture as they have pledged to do, by the way, many times over the last four decades because i remember all of them quite well, i don't think -- as you've indicated -- i don't think post brexit we can reasonably stand in their way. i think what we might suggest is that given that we are the biggest military player in the area, second biggest only other nuclear power it wouldn't be a

bad idea if they do propose -- if they do genuinely go ahead with such things a way in which britain could be supported, involved in the enterprise and i think that might be something is that would commend itself to commissioner high representative mogorini and others currently involved in this venture. >> finally i'm not sure how much time i have left, chairman. >> thank you. >> your predecessor one william hague in november 2012 said that the uk recognized the national coalition of syrian revolution and opposition forces as the, quote, sole legitimate representative of the syrian people. now, there was some questions about that, i myself queried it in terms of did it really represent all the opposition

forces. is it still the position of the government that the national coalition are the sole legitimate representative of the syrian people? >> no, i think what we're saying is that the -- you know, the high negotiations committee which is this broadly-based body -- >> which is wider than -- >> which is wider -- i think has a great deal of credibility. they should be at the center of the geneva negotiations, but i don't exclude that there might be others who could also have a claim and we should not be so -- if there are others who want to be useful to the future of syria then of course their claims should be considered if they're democratic, if they're pluralist i can. >> you're confirming that the government no longer regards the

national coalition as the sole legitimate representative? >> well, what i'm saying is that we think that the hnc is a powerful and credible voice for those opposition groups. >> okay. well, we maybe want to explore that. finally, during the urgent -- this statement that we had on the debate which andrew mitchell introduced a couple of days ago parallels were drawn between what russia is doing in aleppo with what the nazis did in gurnica. given that's the history of what russia has done in ukraine, what it did in georgia, what it did internally in its own country in flattening grosnic, isn't it

time for us to fundamentally reassess our attitude to russia and linked to that given the threats to the baltic states, the positioning of nuclear tipped missiles which can potentially hit berlin as well as poland and the revelations about the hacking of the democratic national committee and the attempts to interfere in the american election process, do we not need to have a fundamental reassessment of our attitude in russia. >> i heard your powerful day the other day, too, in the commons about gurnica and the russian bombing and i think your feelings are shared by millions of people in this country. i think two points. it is very important to stress that we have no quarrel with the russian people, we are not hostile to russia as a country, far from it.

and i would go further and i would say that i don't believe that russia is as -- for all its very, very -- you know, it's doing many, many terrible things as you rightly say, but i don't think that russia today can be compared with the soviet union that i remember as a child, i don't think that it is as much of a threat to the stability of the world as the former soviet union. i don't think it's entirely right to talk about a new -- i think it's right to talk about a new cold war, but it is obvious, and you correctly list the ways in which russia is being reckless and aggressive, it is obvious that we have a serious problem. and our sanctions are biting, the russian economy shrank by

almost i think 3.5% more last year. it is tough for people in russia, but the regime seems determined to remain on its present course. i think we have to remain very, very tough and it's the uk that is in the lead, both in the u.n. security council, in drafting and passing resolutions on russia's behavior, it's the uk that is escalated the question of whether the bombing of aleppo may amount to a war crime and it's the uk that's in the lead in making sure that we keep the sanctions tight on russia because of what's happening in ukraine. and there is another terrible conflict, 9,200 lives claimed in eastern ukraine. mr. gapes, i cannot disagree

with your analysis. we have a very serious problem, but we have to engage with russia. we have to persuade the russian government. we have to persuade vladimir putin there is another path for him and for his government and that fell lead the way and bring peace to syria then he will deserve credit and the thanks of the people of this world, but if he continues on the present path of barbarism then i'm afraid, as i said in the house, russia is in danger of being reduced to the status of a rogue nation and i think that would be a tragedy if you consider where we were 25 years ago when we had such hopes at the end of the cold war, we really thought that it could all be so different. i don't want us to get back into a logic of endless confrontation with russia at every part of the

world. that would be crazy. we have so much -- there are things we have to do together. we have to fight terror together. russian people, russian holiday makers and british holiday makers both face the threats of being blown out of the sky by terrorists. we have things we must do together, we have common interests, but at the moment the behavior of the russian government is making it very, very difficult for us to pursue those interests together. >> one more thing on this subject before i get on to syria, what affect do you think the sanctions are having on russia with regard to ukraine? specifically are they changing russian policy? >> no. the sanctions are biting, as i said, the russian economy has shrunk. the affect of the sanctions is hard to distinguish from the result of the collapse in the ofprice hydrocarbons but there is no doubt the sanctions have

hurt the russians, particularly their ability to raise finance. we must continue that pressure and it's not uncontroversial with our european friends. there are plenty of my fellow foreign ministers in the eu who have told me privately that they feel their economies are feeling the pressure of these sanctions because after all they may have considerable trade with russia. our own trade with russia as you know as a committee you all know has fallen dramatically following these sanctions, they are having an affect on both sides but at present -- >> so the difficult conundrum you face is we are now examining presumably over the course of the activity over the weekend that's coming about what to do about russian action in syria is that so far the levers available to us over the ukraine have no policy effect?

>> i wouldn't -- >> -- saying they are now questioning presumably either the efficacy or their affect on their own economies? >> no, i wouldn't go so far as to say that. i think that they are certainly having an affect, they are biting. i think that the strategy of the russians or the kremlin seems to be basically to keep the dombas region in a state of turmoil to make ukraine very difficult politically to govern as a united whole and i'm afraid that we are -- we could be in for a long haul here, but -- >> charter rou-- chart a route to how we get russia out of the cul-de-sac it has placed itself. >> i'm afraid it needs both sides in ukraine to make

progress and i do think the minsk -- i went to he so for myself what was going on. members of the committee mustn't underestimate the psychological affect on the people of ukraine of this war. i mean, they have lost lots of people and they feel very, very -- >> we're going next week. >> i'm delighted to hear that. they feel very deeply and bitterly about what russia is doing, but it is also true that -- and it's incredibly difficult as a result for ukrainian politicians but it's also true that they have to try to take the thing forward. there needs at some stage to be a democratic process in the dombas region, the minsk process has got to get going. that means that there must be form in -- in ukraine and progress is perhaps not as fast as ukrainian leadership would like. >> but my question was picking up your widest strategic point

about the need to have a constructive relationship with interest and all the interests we actually do have in common, and yet at the same time you are using rhetoric about russia becoming a pariah state, the terms under which our ambassador and the u.n. spoke about russia were extremely severe, presumably on your instruction. how are we going to get russia into a place where we can begin to have that kind of constructive relationship? you have mr. baro next to you who is obviously something of an authority in this area. >> he is. i think both kiev and moscow he has represented us. look, it's very important -- i want to get back to what i was saying to mr. grapes. russia is a great country. i went there when i was 16. it's an extraordinary culture and civilization from which we can learn endlessly and profit, we should be friends with the russians, we should be building relations, we should be keeping

channels open. we should be constantly talking with them. we must not get into a logic of being -- of a new cold war. i think that that would be totally wrong, but i think the route forward is for us to recognize that by russia, acknowledge russia's importance and on the world stage, but to make it clear that that recognition is only possible if they will cease from what i'm afraid are barbaric acts in aleppo and in syria and if they will help find a way forward in ukraine. i think you've got to -- the committee can see what's happened to the former soviet union over the last 25 years. everybody can see the reasons why the russians might

collectively feel that they were -- they had been squeezed. they have lost huge amounts of territory that they once conceived of as belonging to them. they see nato -- you have to see things from a certain -- to a certain extent from the russian point of view, but the russias have got to understand that the way forward for them is to do the right thing. and doing the right thing means doing a deal in syria. let's hope that john kerry and his counterpart have success on saturday and let's see where we get. and doing a deal in ukraine. but the points that mr. gapes makes about russian cyber activity and all that, those are, i'm afraid, valid and we need to think about them. but the answer is not to -- is

to engage. sorry. >> moving back to syria. we will take the opportunity to take evidence from you or responsible minister and hopefully mr. barrow before we include that inquiry. turning back to syria and our understanding of the syrian position, which is behind my question about the challenge of casualties. how well do we understand the reasons for the resilience of the assad regime? and i wonder if there is anything further you can say on the casualties? because i understood that the syria arab army had taken 70,000 fatalities which would be significantly more than 5%. >> i understand that. would you forgive me -- >> is the carnage on both sides here and are we -- is there a

misappreciation of why people in syria -- we might not like it -- as to why they're looking to the regime for security because they're fearful of the islamist threat? >> look, i mean, you know, clearly one of the things that assad did almost immediately in 2011 was to release the islamists and to create this false equivalence between -- to create this scenario in which -- in which we know that he was inviting everybody to choose between himself and a bunch of jihadis, and that is not true, there are -- there is a significant moderate opposition. i can't give you the figures i'm afraid for the casualties that are being sustained. if i can write to you i would be happy to do that. >> turning to the moderate

opposition and the hard power that the hnc and the free syrian army have on the ground, give us your assessment of exactly what hard power they have in this conflict. the evidence this committee has taken suggests that that's -- that that's not particularly great. >> yeah. >> well, this has been a subject of a great deal of controversy. i remember the former prime minister used a figure of 70,000 as i recall in the house for the number of -- as it were -- moderate opposition fighters. i'm not going to give you a particular figure. i'm told that they are -- their numbers are still very substantial, though obviously one of the disasters of what's been happening is that the moderate people as a result of the behavior of the assad regime and the feeling that no one is sticking up, some of them have

become more radicalized, i don't think there is any particular controversy about that, but there are still large areas i think in homes, harma, aleppo, many parts of syria which are basically run by a moderate opposition and we should never forget that. >> syria strategy is obviously now under -- there is going to be some reassessment as there is with all these meetings being had over the weekend. do those -- are those meetings going to include -- i have seen reports they might include foreign minister meeting between turkey, iran, saudi arabia, qatar alongside the united states and russia. do you give us a picture of what the diplomatic activity is this weekend, which obviously -- and how it comes together on sunday. >> well, what we're doing on

sunday is bringing together like-minded countries to see what -- everybody will note that the syrian diplomacy has been conducted basically through the isssg and that has brought together 25 countries, a very big forum with the russians and the americans as it were sitting as joint chairs and everybody else around the table. so they have had the aariranian and everybody there. in the end it has not worked, the last session was extremely acrimonious as speaker after speaker effectively denounced the russian position and it turned into a sort of slinging match in which the iranians came to the assistance of the russians and the conversation

really got nowhere. we need to think about what our options are and so on sunday we will be getting the -- john kerry and others, a like-minded group, i can't give you the exact -- at the moment because it's in the process of being assembled, but it will be like-minded countries who wish to canvas all the options and i just, you know, repeat my caution to the committee. those options of course include more kinetic action but there are grave difficulties as the prime minister said in the house yesterday. >> take us through the -- presumably one of the prime difficulties at the moment is

the current american administration has set its face against no fly zones presumably because of difficulties you are alluding to. what change do you think that might come with a new administration under the stated policies of hillary clinton? >> i think it's really too early to say and i have had discussions with some people in washington who may or may not be close to any future administration, but i just think we're -- you know, hillary clinton has taken a tougher line on syria than perhaps the current white house, but i really think it will be -- it's too early to prove aside. >> how close do you think the russians and assad regime are to achieving their military objectives? >> again, i would not like to speculate. i think that the tragedy is that they might achieve what they

think are their military objectives but that would not be a victory. they have to understand that whatever happens they will not have recaptured the people of syria. even if -- he has done too much damage, he has murdered too many people ever to have a claim to be the ruler of a united syria again. i think we are right to say they cannot be part of the solution. there's got to be a transition away from assad. we do not say that has to happen immediately, but it must happen. resolution 2254 sketches out the route map, a iksix-month periodf continuity, then 18 months of a condominium between the has said -- elements of assad regime and the opposition but assad going. don't forget it was only a few years ago in 2012 that the russians were -- they were on the verge of dumping him

themselves. so this thing is possible and people should not lose hope. >> we have had a discussion at the beginning of this about the efficacy of sanctions on russia because of the ukraine. what measures could we -- short of kinetic engagement, which -- >> in ukraine? >> no, with regard to syria. what sanctions would be available given russian action in syria? >> well -- >> and how would you differentiate those sanctions to the sanctions applied to russia on ukraine? >> clearly the big anomaly in the whole issue of sanctions against russia is that much of western europe continues to take huge amounts of russian gas and, you know, there are some

european countries who say that that's where the sanctions should go next. now, that would be very difficult because i think 50% of german gas supplies come from russia. you know, that's -- that's big stuff and, you know, that would be damaging to the -- those economies as well as to -- as well as to russia. >> i'm going to allow my colleagues -- i hope we can continue this until 11:00. i just want to return briefly to europe. on brexit you said we are going to get the best possible deal for trade and services. it'sot in our gift, is it, it's perfectly possible there might be no deal because we can't command the 27 on the other side of the table and the difficulty we face is that -- i think you may have heard my question to the brexit secretary -- that the better the deal looks for the united

kingdom the more difficult it is politically to deliver amongst the 27 and it may get vetoed by the european parliament anyway and we can't control that parliament let alone ours. >> which is why i think it's so important to get -- to recast this whole conversation and to look at brexit as an evolution in the development of the eu and as a solution to the british problem and to stop thinking of it as this acrimonious divorce. it's not going to be like that. there is going to be the development of a new european partnership between britain and the eu and it will be beneficial for both sides. >> however -- >> and that's the way to look at it. >> however, the first phase of that might be a two-year negotiation which does not end in a deal. >> well, you know, let's see where we get to. i think it's -- >> wehat i'm inviting you to do is assist this committee on identifying what the

consequences of no deal would be because business and commerce and industry could do with a deal ofertainty about if the worst-case scenario is no deal how bad is that? what are the implications? what does it mean for trade policy into the wto? this committee was very critical of the last government and i notice in your response to our report on the implications of brexit in your rather brief letter we might be asking you to give us a slightly more substantial reply to that report that you offered no defense to this committee's charge that the last administration had been grossly negligent in failing to do any contingency for the election might actually vote for brexit and i think you should be doing some -- we should be making it clear to business, industry and commerce what the implications of no deal would be because no deal is perfectly possible and we cannot control the outcome of these negotiations. >> well, a couple of points.

i don't obviously, you know, take any particular responsibility for the failure of the government to produce a plan for -- >> that was evident in your letter. >> -- for brexit since after all it was one of my central charges that i was making in the run up to june 23rd, but -- seriously, on the deal/no deal question, i think there will be a deal, i think it will be a great deal. if -- and i don't for one moment suppose this to be the case. it can't be done in two years then there are mechanisms for extending the period of discussion. i don't think that that will be necessary. i think we can -- we can do it and we can produce -- >> i think your characterization of it is correct, this is the first stage of the revolution of a process for a new relationship

between the uk and the eu, it may be that we may be that we have move towards a deep and comprehensive trade agreement, but there is -- but we need to give some degree of certainty to industry and commerce for the investment decisions they have to take over the next two and a half years and i'm wondering whether you are going to assist in that process. >> yes, i think they can be absolutely certain that britain will remain the number one place to invest in this region, simply because of our time zone, the language, the skills base, our incredible diversity of our economy in the 21st century sectors of the economy. we are the place to come and that is going to be a giant fact of life. even if we and our partners are so foolish as not to do a great deal in goods and services. i think we will. i'm absolutely confident we will because it's profoundly in the interests of elected politicians

like ourselves over the channel to do it for the good of their constituents. that's what this is all about. in the end this isn't about theology, this isn't about the ideology of the european union, that is entirely secondary to the imperative of taking forward the european economy, a strong european economy and strong uk economy. >> i look forward to the active assistance of the office and what will be our inquiry into the consequences of no deal. mike gapes then -- >> sanctions. >> very briefly. >> we currently -- we implement european union sanctions and we, as you've said, we are at the forefront of pressing for those. when we leave the eu, will we still be implementing the eu sanctions or will we, because we have the more robust attitude, move towards a position like the united states and perhaps move towards a magnitsky act or

something similar. >> an extremely good question and one i've been thinking a great deal about how exactly it's going to work -- and we've been thinking about it with our european friends because clearly they want us to stick with them in a broadway when it comes to these foreign policy questions. do you do it -- do you have to do it within -- around the table in the eu council or are there other intergovernmental mechanisms that we are going to produce to reflect the new european partnership between britain and the eu that will mean we can do it in a different way. either way i think we're coming out of the treaties, whatever we do will be done purely inter government alley and i think there's going to be a strong interest on both sides to have a concerted approach, but what's interesting is, you know, it

might be that there will be scope for the uk sometimes to do things -- to go further. it might also be that we would want to keep ranks and march forward together. that's a discussion that we're going to have over the course of the negotiation. >> i will ask my colleagues for their final question to be very brief. we are in your hands as to how long the answers take. john baron. >> foreign secretary, can i just press you a little bit on syria in the sense that i would urge -- and many of us here in parliament would urge you to be careful what you wish for and urge caution when it comes to contemplating additional military force. you will be the first to recognize that syria represents a multi-layered conflict involving shia, sunni, the

persian gulf rivalry around saudi arabia, russia in the west and in the mix jihadism, extremism, et cetera. if history is anything to go by, our involvement in iraq, hell mund, libya and the fact that we've almost changed sides in syria between 2013 and '15, intentionally or not, we have got to progress with caution because force in the end has not always been wholly positive and there are many in this place that have remained silent on this issue but perhaps will raise their heads if it looks like we're going town maybe repeating previous errors when it comes to military intervention. >> i absolutely accept that and understand that and although -- and by the way i understand completely what you mean about the voices of caution that weren't raised the other da any parliament. we did have lots of passionate voices raised in favor of no fly zones and so on. as i say, it's vital that we consider them and we will do that now, but the points that

you make are certainly valid. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. stephen gethins. >> foreign secretary, thank you for saying so long and for your evidence. earlier on i asked you about -- just after i accused you of not have a clue you said you were inn happy that david cameron had signed up to the list bonn treaty but gordon brown signed the list bonn treaty just for the record are there any other -- would you like to answer that question in terms of what david cameron signed up to -- >> let me just clarify. if you remember there was a -- there was a pledgehat we were going to have a referendum on the list bonn treaty which we then in my view regrettably did not carry through. that was what i was referring to. and one thing i should also clarify i referred to moderate fighters in holmes, i should have said north of holmes just for the record. >> ann clwyd. foreign secretary, do you think we should suspect arms sales to

saudi arabia until we are satisfied that they are not being used against civilians in yemen? >> well, i repeat what i said about our deep concern about what is happening in yemen and on the export licensing. we have one of the most robust systems in the world and we do consider each one against the -- each license application against the consolidated criteria and export licenses that do not meet knows criteria are not licensed, but we are keeping this under -- i can tell you -- a very careful review at the present. >> the report we made on this and dissented from that report -- >> i did notice that. >> but there is -- but there is a view of this committee and the

requirement about getting proper investigations, independent investigations under way into saudi arabia's conduct and the coalition's conduct into the operations there. andrew rosindell. >> one issue unresolved in europe not to do with the european union is the issue of cyprus, will the foreign secretary undertake to work with the republic of cyprus and the turkish republic of cyprus to work for a fair and amicable solution while at the same time not conceding sovereignty over the british sovereign basis of -- >> look, i think we are on the potentially -- on the verge of some great progress in cyprus and i pay tribute to both leaders on both sides, mr. yardas and kuncho, i met them both and the foreign minister in new york. the turks are playing their

role, the greeks are playing their role, we obviously have a role, too, and the territory of our bases is huge in cyprus. we're willing to cede some of that certificate tore that we don't need to help move the process forward and it's a good thing. i think it's too early to count our chickens in cyprus, you know, it really s but i think that -- cyprus is one of the examples, few examples in the world of two leaders who are willing to -- talk about lack of -- these two guys are trying to make a difference for peace and been willing to take a risk with the lake effect rats behind them rather than just behave just solely, you know, obeying the narrow party politics of the group that's got them into power. they are really reaching out for peace and i think that they are doing a great thing.

>> well, the secretary of state your predecessor said i think pretty much the same thing a year ago. let's hope that -- >> i think i said it was too early to count our chickens there. >> we're going to bring it home on -- or continue to bring it home on cyprus. thank you very much for your evidence this morning. >> thank you. >> i may refer to you as mr. barrow, my apologies, but thank you to you and simon for accompanying the secretary of state. thank you very much for this evidence. >> thank you. >> order of the meeting is now adjourned. republican vice presidential nominee mike pence is holding a rally in salt lake city, utah. as polls show the normally republican state is coming into play for hillary clinton. you can see that event live on c-span 2 at 5:30 eastern. the obama administration announced this week that average prices in health insurance exchanges are going up about 25%.

health and human services secretary sylvia burwell will discuss why this afternoon at 6:00 eastern live on c-span. while congress is on break until after the november elections, american history tv continues tonight with a look at the civil war and reconstruction. it begins 8:00 eastern with the war in gettysburg. and aou lease sees grant after the war. and peoples's refugee camps. american history tv primetime all this week at 8:00 eastern. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, saturday morning from 9:00 eastern until just after noon -- >> the british empire and its commonwealth last for a thousand years. may we still say this was our finest hour. >> live for the 33rd national

churchill conference in d.c. focusing on friends and contemporaries. speakers include british historian andrew roberts, author of "masters and commanders." later on saturday at 7:00, texas general commissioner george p. bush, and musician phil collins talk about the spanish mission, the alamo, in austin. >> the memories identify were that this group of people were going. they they were going to die but they went. or they were there. crockett went. but there was something very noble and very, you know, romantic. i've learned that it wasn't quite as black and while. and that's one of the things i think would be good in this take

and age. we put it into context. sunday evening at 6:00. >> macarthur is up front. notice he is not wearing a weapon. he would often lead attacks carrying nothing but that the riding crop that you see in his left hand. the men looked at this and realized, hey, if the colonel, later the brigadier, if the colonel can take it, well, i can take it too. >> we visit the macarthur memorial in norfolk, virginia to learn about the earth life of douglas macarthur. and at 8:00 -- >> they serve as con science in chief. so we can always count on them to do the right thing when times get tough or when no one is looking. . the ten commandments for presidential leadership, what they are and provides examples of presidents who excelled at

each one. for our complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org. the u.s. supreme court heard oral argument in a raise balancing jury secrecy against the 6th amendment right to the an impartial jury. the defendant is a hispanic man seeking to overturn his conviction because of racially charged statements made by a jury during jury deliberations. he's the case of pena-rodriguez versus colorado. this is about an hour. the argument next in case 15606 pena-rodriguez versus colorado. mr. fisher? >> may it please the court. roughly half the trials in this country from new york to california to south carolina are already conducted under the rule we seek today. mainly a requirement that judges consider evidence of racial bias when it is offered to prove a

violation of the 6th amendment right to an impartial jury. this court should require colorado to follow the same rule. indeed, colorado already has a turnkey system for implementing a system to racial bias. colorado already has multiple exceptions to the principle of jury secret is seu. all colorado has. >> what about religious bias? same thing in this case except it's not -- you know, this is how mexicans act. this is how catholic or jews act so they're obviously guilty. wouldn't that also come under your exception? >> there is frequently overlap race and lidge on. >> that seems to be a sraoeuding the question. catholics. >> all the court needs to decide in this case is race. >> number i don't think that's fair.

once we decide race -- this is not an equal protection case. it is a 6th amendment case. invocation of race is impermissible enough, i guess, that we will pierce the jury confidentiality. the next case will be religion. whatever we say on race will have to have a limited principal that makes sense or open up a category of cases. >> i don't deny there will be subsequent cases if you decide this one in my favor. you can-can and should do what prefers courts have done, which is start with the race. the court said time and time, rose against mitchell, hamm against south carolina, that race is different. race is unique. it is -- >> sometimes we saturday with race. you're not being very helpful to the court in your answers. suppose we start with race. and the next case involves religion. now, how would you distinguish

religion from race if we were to reach an opposite conclusion? >> what you would do in that case, justice alito, is conduct the same analysis you're being asked to do here. look at the tanner factors and discuss how effective safeguards are. >> why? >> why would you ask that? >> why? i mean, the this is not an equal protection case. the 6th amendment applies through the he fourteenth amendment, correct? >> he yes. >> i always thought the most pernicious and owed kwrus is based on race. >> i agree with that. >> all right. so why is a rule that says given the exceptions we've recognized since the 1800s that have said that race is the most pernicious thing in our justice system, why can't we limit this just to race

using principles of the fourteenth amendment as well? >> i'm not denying that you can. of course the constitution needs to be read structurally. >> sexual orientation, someone gives a bigoted speech in the jury room about sexual orientation and how particular types of people are more likely to commit crimes than the ones before them? is that owedous. >> you have to have an answer for this reason.

nobody on the other side thinks this is nothing but jury miss behavior. sit is not a question of the validity of the behavior. it's invalid. the question is the timing of when somebody has to object. and point is they have to object before the verdict comes in. because if you don't have that rule, you will, in fact, open the door to all kinds of evils, which they mentioned. all right. that's their argument. so what we're really asking for is your reply to that argument. it doesn't really rely to say maybe you're going to have a bunch of other things too. because then that strengthens their argument. on the other hand, that may be what you think. is that opening the door to these other things which will mean tell the jury, jury, if somebody says a racist comment, write me a note, the judge says,

before you reach a verdict. do you get the point? that's why the question is being asked. that's why i too would like an answer. >> i think you have asked a more specific question about objecting. for objecting, let me just say it is impossible for the defendant to object to the misconduct in this case because the defendant is not in a jury room to hear it. >> please concentrate on the question the justice has asked you. >> all right. >> which is answer his question. he's talking about the general principle. he says everyone is afraid to open the door. all right. and to the extent that your answer is simply the door is open once you rule for me, there are other biases that will be viewed the same. that's what justice the buyer said. so tell me why that fear is not valid? >> i think there's two reasons

why. one, you can look at the court's cases, rose against mitchell, hamm against south carolina where we have race-specific rules that have never been extended beyond race. and the second reason is because i know this isn't strictly speaking in equal supervision case. but the same values of the he fourteenth amendment infuse the sixth amendment. >> why doesn't it belong under national origin rather than race? >> i think the court's case law fused the two concepts particularly when it comes to people of hispanic origin i think everybody agrees race and ethnicity is interchangeable in this case. >> it is only true with respect to hispanics?

>> it is is most true with respect to the hispanics. i think the tiers of scrutiny provide a helpful analogy. >> you keep getting cut off before you get to the tiers of scrutiny. but the cases where the court has said a lawyer has to be allowed to ask on voir dire about bias, is that only true of racial bias, or is that true of any other kind of bias as well. >> under this court's cases, only race. remember hamm was decided in 1963. i don't know of any lower court decisions. >> i think it's gender. it's just race? >> i believe so. >> in batson, he wrote an opinion about race. the question of gender came back

several years later. it didn't automatically follow from the first. you would ask about the tanner factors and the other factors the state has pointed out, the composition of ordinary juries. it is very different when you're talking about sex than race. >> is it so different? say it is an automobile accident. what do you expect of women drivers? women shouldn't be allowed to drive cars. every woman i know is a terrible driver. what if that were saided? >> you would ask the same questions but through a different record and different set of balancing. you might conclude, as it did in batson, you should extend to sex. maybe now i can make my tiers of scrutiny point. remember sex discrimination is

treated differently than race discrimination. it is not that one is or odious than the other or one doesn't violate the amendment. different tools must be available to root out different kinds of discrimination. that's the whole point. we do not leave any stones unturned when itomes to race. >> it is no longer fatal in fact. and for gender discrimination you must have an exceedingly persuasive justification for it. >> of course justice ginsburg that's correct. think about the problem of how to apply sixth to different kinds of alleged bias. >> it is bias based on innate characteristics of the offensive remarks.

but the question is what is most likely to depart a risk of depriving the defendant of a fair trial. and it seems to me there are statements that have nothing to do with race, gender, sexual orientation or anything that might have a far greater impact. i'm wondering why we don't allow impeachment of the jury verdict in those cases. somebody comes in and says, look, i know that witness. that witness lies all the time. believing you can't take anything he says. that could have a greater impact. so why don't we allow impeachment of the jury processes in that case. >> it is very important and goes to the heart of the case. you could have used mcdonnell against bless and tanner and worker. the court has time and again race is different. compared to racial bias, which is a stain on the entire

judicial system and the integrity that it's built upon. that is the different in rose versus mitchell, batson line of cases. it is the stain on the system. >> what do the 20 states do? >> 18 states and two federal jurisdictions. but those jurisdictions have all limited their exception to race. if that's what you're asking. and, remember, some of those exceptions have been around since the '60s. in minnesota, since the '70s. so we have vast experience in the states. when all the arguments are made on the other side, which i would respectfully say are all arguments that would come from adopting the rule, there is an empirical answer based on the experience across the country. >> race is different for some

purposes. but why is it different from other things for sixth amendment purposes. it protects the right to the a fair trial, to an impartial jury. and if we allowed the exception that you are advocating, what do you see to the defendant who the prisoner who is going to be spending the rest of his life in prison as a result of the jury verdict that was determined by flipping a coin? >> that is woefully unfair. but when the court does its balancing of harm on the one sigh, judicial system and the defendant against the state interest, the balance is different when it comes to race. >> how does that connect with the right to an impartial jury? a jury can be partial for racial reasons. it can be partial for some other reason. >> because the values of the fourteenth amendment are read into the sixth amendment as

well. is and if i could the court an analogy. think of bowling versus sharp. equal protection clause applies to the federal government, which it doesn't by its terms. but the court said the due clause does. that should be in fused with equal protection. and it should be read into that amendment as well. that's all we're asking here. >> have there been any case other than boling v. sharp but i don't know of any other case where you have that kind of corporation. >> i think justice the ginsberg is hamm. the voir dire line are all due process case. the nothing singles out race. but this court's opinion does and it says the structure and

the unique problem of race in our history and our society requires special medicine. >> do you think the entire body of law in connection with racial discrimination is the problem and apply that to your case. you have a very offensive and direct appeal to race. what if it's, oh, you know, he's from that neighborhood. i know people -- people from that neighborhood always commit crimes like this. obviously that could well be challenged as based on race. does that -- do you impeach the secrecy of the jury proceeding for something like that? >> to be asking them to decide the case based on rarely bias.

remember. >> it's very different from the first. >> i'm sorry if i confused the court. the key when you're talk the building people such as from that neighborhood whether or not it is understood as race-based as opposed to something else. >> i like the second better. otherwise, you have a hearing in every allegation. other jurisdictions don't. >> right. >> it has to be a test that tells you when what's the difference between a stray remarks and something that has impact. >> right. >> and i'm sorry confusing on that. you asked whether it went to the evidence in the case and the defendant's guilty or whether it was app off-color joke made during a break or something like that. let me stress two things. the jurisdictions that exist already do this. even jurisdictions like colorado already do this.

go to justice briar's question. if a juror sent a note out five minutes before the verdict in this case describing racial bias, the judge would make all the same inquiries. >> i don't see the problem there. somebody could say, well, on defense the attorney could send us a note before instruction. but you want to go beyond that and impeach the jury. even though we can imagine case that are just as unfair, flipping a coin, et cetera, part of the purpose of these amendments is to create a judicial system that is seen as fair beyond the individual cases and it is more likely to be fair

in other cases as well. now, if i'm really honest i think, yeah, that's probably right. is and then the history and everything become relevant. >> for what exactly? >> what we are doing here in creating the exception, despite the fact that we can think of justice alito's case is just as unfair, though it doesn't involve race, is we are trying to create a fair system in general and one that will be perceived as such and there race is a special problem. so i wonder, and i could wri write -- but i'm asking is there support. >> you almost verbatim out of the lopez opinion in 1931. this is a principle that goes quite a ways back which is

perception of fairness when it comes to racial bias is pair mount. if i could add two points about your question what if the jury could be instructed to send a note out. there's two problems with that. they are always instructed to use common sense experience in the jury room to draw on that. remember how these are couched as is afpb toff the case. a jury instruction is going to be cross-cutting against another jury instruction and not even work. with improper influence, which is compensations colorado recognizes, jurors are always instructed not to do those things. and yet they do sometimes. and the system demands we give a remedy when they don't follow the instructions.

>> what is it when the proceeding that you have if we accept your proposal and interview the jurors. >> a threshold showing where there was a statement. >> the facts are as alleged here, i guess. what do you do once you have that in the record. >> so if the other jurors come in and testify and they say, well -- but of course the guy was guilty, no doubt about it. they say of course he was guilty. it was very offensive. everybody, we agreed in five minutes. does that make a difference? >> is so i think you have asked two questions there. the first is, is one juror

enough? and the second is do you look at the strength of the government's case. now, the question on whether you look at the strength of the government's case is to whether to grant relief, the one issue on which the 20 jurisdictions across the country are divided. some say the mere fact that a single racially biased juror took that into account in issuing his verdict is enough for relief. and some other states will look at the overall strength of the government's case. for obvious cases they need not resolve that in this case. that could come out however it wish. >> specifically what happens next, the chief asked the question. do all the jurors have to come back and each one testify? first of all, did the two jurors

say he had and maybe found out about that. and whether any of them were influenced by. >> so there are two questions, skwrjustice ginsberg. who said what. was the verdict affected biracial justice the. that is purely objective. very much like what courts do every day when there is a bad jury instruction. they don't bring all the jurors. they say with the improper statements into the jury room, would the -- reasonable probability the jury would have erred. >> i think they would have found him guilty regardless? >> no. that's the issue with chief justice on on which courts are divided. the court might hold in a future

case it is enough to have a racially biased juror. >> that would be a structural error? >> that would be the question the court would ask. i meant the context in which a statement was made during deliberations. it might be somebody said something and somebody spoke up and corrected that person. oh, i meant something else. >> here we have -- in this case we have a plate ant statement. but let's consider the standard that now applies on a lot of college campuses as to statements that are considered by some people to be racist. what would happen if one of the jurors has the sensibility of a lot of current college students and think that something is saided in the jury room falls into one of those categories was a racial comment?

>> something considered improper on the college campus today and another juror thinks it shows racial bias. >> it is an objective test. the. >> yeah. how will the judge decide whether the statement is racist? >> well, i think it is the same he would have in an equal protection case. is the statement directly and intentionally on its face a case based on on race. >> the judge faces the same situation if the jury comes in during procedures, is that right, and then the judge has to the make that decision whether this is something we have or not. >> precisely. it is is entire possible to the

discuss the basis for your verdict. that afternoon if jurors say this is how we decided the case. the judge may make the exact same inquiry. >> does it make any difference if it were not the jurors as here but the lawyer for the defense went around and contacted all the jurors and elicited testimony. so it wasn't the jurors volunteering but the lawyer questioning the jurors to see if they can come up with something. >> so long as it comported with the local rules with respect to contacting jurors, it would be the same case. in minnesota, which is the one place -- well, i think there is a case about a lawyer breaking the rules in terms of talking to the juror, the judge might deny the relief. if i could reserve the remainder of my time.

>> thank you, counsel. >> mr. yarger. >> safeguards to ensure full and fair debate in the jury room. the jurors alleged statements in this case are no doubt reprehensible. the vital interests apply just as readilieer as they do in other serious alleged cases of juror misconduct and bias. a me admissioner is not shown -- >> let's assume that is not true. that the state interests are basically the same. and assume that the voir dire don't operate. the interests in preventing

unfairness of this kind are much greater. that's really the difference is the fact that verdicts based on race discrimination pose a harm. but verdicts based on other unfairnesses which exist in the world and are terrible but still it is just not the same kind of harm. >> and we certainly don't dispute that racial bias is a particular problem and a particular problem in the constitution. but i don't think it's correct that other forms of bias won't cause the same types of constitutional harms. of course this course recognized that in jed versus alabama when it claimed two gender biases. the verdict based on the fact that they are muslim, catholic, mormon or any religious group would just as significantly call into question. >> the one question is whether identity based harms are

different than other kinds of unfairnesses, as we have talked about in the warner case, for example, or the one before that. and then another question is whether race -- racial bias is different from other identity-based bias, right? but could you concede the bias is different from the kinds of bias we have discussed in other cases. >> i wouldn't concede that in this specific context the, when you are dealing with an impartial jury in a fair trial set against the important and vital interest that the rule serves to allow the jury to do its job. >> it is this is a sixth amendment case. but it seems artificial not to think about the sixth amendment issue as informed by the principles of the equal protection clause. and those principles, as we have always understood them, said

there is a special harm in treating people worse. and certainly in punishing people because of their race. you know, maybe especially because race is so associated with particular stereotypes respecting criminality. that's about the worst thing you can do to a person. and it's also the worst you can suggest about the criminal discuss advertise system that it allows that to happen. so both of those two things, the harm to the individual for being punished because of your race and the harm to society at large. and that would i think be the -- yes, you're right. state interests are exactly the same. voir dire functions similarly. but it is just a different kind of harm. >> i think it would be difficult in the context of the sixth amendment and the same courthouse in colorado until they get to impeach the defendant because of the error

that happened to occur during deliberaons is racial where across the hall it was religious or the jurors disrespecting the jury system enough to flip a coin. you're going to be putting the individual defendant's 6th amendment night had can be was implicated in a wide range of cases which are weighty, important and why rule 606 b has survived so many years. >> suppose this were a capital case. the united states going to make this argument that the person can be executed despite what we know happened in the jury room? >> your honor, that might raise different issues. there are cases said in the briefing that are capital cases in -- >> our position is it should apply there. if the jury system is so important to be protected in

these other contexts and this rule is necessary to fully and fairly deliberate the issues, it ought to apply in that context as well. again, i don't think that question needs to be confronted. >> do you have any evidence that in the 20 jurisdictions that permit this challenge that they have been overwhelmed. >> i think there are two responses to that. the petitioner does point to jurisdictions in which this exception was made. but he doesn't link that up with evidence that this is not occurring. that the harassment and the effects on full and fair -- >> you can't prove a negative. that is almost impossible. can you tell me the positive. is there some evidence of a

number of motions filed in any particular case based on racial discrimination, rampant jury harassment, any of the you are predicting in your brief. >> we have specific examples where harassment is a very real problem with respect to racial bias where after all 12 jurors, a large number of jurors are pulled into the courtroom, it is is determined that the affidavit was manufactured by the attorney and the allegations were untrue. an example is your case from massachusetts. the other i would say is the iowa rule, the most permissive of the impeachment rule was on the table in 1975 when this court considered adopting 606 b. they were made in tanner and what congress decided and the vast majority of states decided

was that the strict version of the nonimpeachment rule best balances these interests. it is a very difficult balance. we certainly acknowledge that. but six states apply that iowa rule. and certainly that's their judgment to make. but that doesn't mean that the exception is limited only to racial bias. in six states that acknowledge a sixth amendment exception, they don't apply a cat cal rule that allows racial bias to come in in every case in which it is alleged. they an extreme case. >> i think mr. fisher told where his number is 20, yours of six is right, this is limited to race. that would not be applied to gender, sexual orientation, and national origin other than

hispanic. >> justice ginsburg, that is true. the cases do only deal with racial bias. but we have seen extreme instances of religious bias against j with jews and muslims. to date it has been racial bias. in the six jurisdictions, though, even when there is a very disturb statement the courts still say, well, the rule still applies here. we're not going to create an exception. >> what exception would you recognize? as far back as reed, we have said qualified 606b's predecessor and 606b wagner, there might be a case so extreme

that we would not apply this rule. if race is not extreme, what if your mind would be? >> whether or not the other safeguards that are necessary to ensure a fair trial will meet available in that particular case. if he evidence serviced post trial that misconduct influenced deliberations, an exception might be necessary. the same if a court was giving some hint that bias crept into jury deliberations and didn't do anything about it. that would be a situation in which the no impeachment rule should yield. if we're focused on that balance -- >> well, right now we don't permit or require questioning bias except for race on voir dire. so where does your exception

work? because things do creep in. we don't make exceptions for those things. >> i think that is precisely right. we don't make exceptions. we expect counsel and voir dire to be the mechanism we explore all the biases when it is not taken advantage of -- >> the problem is that assumes, if the question is asked, that every juror is going to be truthful. different people can have different experiences. but, you know, it is more rare than common that when a question is asked, is anyone biased that most jurors won't raise their hand. >> and, your honor, i think the same challenges arises with nearly any bias that is crucial to a defendant's 6th amendment rights, which is precisely why the practice guides the petitioner himself cites is asking the general question is

generally not the best way to expose the types of biases during voir dire. here not even the general question was asked. >> what other types of questions -- what types of questions would you propound if you were trying to elicit whether there was bias on the part of a prospective juror? >> i would propound the same type of questions that counsel used below in other issues. people's experiences on the subject. whether they believe racial issues still persist in this country. >> but many lawyers won't ask that question even if they could because just by asking you're putting race in the minds of the jurors. and you would rather not do that. >> and certainly the argument the petitioner makes here. but what experience has shown is a careful and mature voir dire on race is not likely to infuse racism into jurors.

quite the opposite has been observed to happen. they tend to counter any racial bias that might come up during the thought process. >> how do you know that? >> that's the research we set from professor summers in the briefing. courts have looked at that, mckeown in massachusetts said precisely the same thing. voir dire is a good time and good mechanism to raise these issues -- >> that's one of the problems here. it may be a good time to alert people who have this bias not to talk about it. it seems to me that is a very hard thing to measure this sort of bias. and one question is whether impeaching the verdict in this way will cause people with biases like that to keep quiet

about it and yet still have the same pernicious effect on the verdict. >> and that's one of our concerns, mr. chief justice. i think page 16 of the commissioner's reply brief, allowing this only on issues of racial bias might drive racial bias underground. when he says that's unlike, the florida supreme court said it might happen. it strikes us and colorado that if the effect is only exception to the impeachment rule drives racism underground where it can't be to the judge the balance colorado strikes by not carving out subject matter exceptions to the no impeachment rule is a good one. >> there's a lot of talk about political correctness or not. and some people think it is a negative thing. and others think it is a positive thing. but if an individual is harboring racial bias, suspect

it better to harbor it than infect the everyone else's deliberations on the basis of it? if you're not saying every mexican commits this kind of crime but you're forced to argue the evidence to convince your jurors, isn't that exactly what we want? do we want deliberations on on evidence and not deliberations on someone's stereotypes and feelings about the race of a defendant? >> that is absolutely what we want. >> so why shouldn't we try to drive it underground? >> well, your honor, with respect to i think that if the jury harbors that bias and is on the jury, that's going to influence the verdict one way or the other. and i don't think -- >> do jurors even know about the existence of the rule that

jurors can impeach their verdict? >> justice the ginsburg, what jurors know when they enter the deliberation room is that is a secret proceeding and they're told after they leave they can talk to people as much or as little as they want about what goes in the jury room. so calling multiple jurors to take the stand under penalty of perjury and cross-examination about what was said during the deliberations will have a significant effect on t. >> i take it that in civil cases, lawyers who may be trying a similar question questions the jurors after the fact, after the verdict, in order to see how to improve their arguments in civil cases and criminal cases is is this an argument generally? are there articles and statistics about the prevalence of this and whether or not this

is destructive to the system >> translator: post trial? >> yes. >> that is a common practice in the state of colorado. but one concern is that certainly a skilled lawyer in every case this going to present evidence of alleged bias. it is only after inquiring of the jurors, putting them on the stand about what was said, when it was saided and what was meant in context will you get to whether this exposed racial bias or something else. at that point you have done what rule 606b seeks to prevent courts from doing in order to create the atmosphere of full and fair debate in the jury room. >> when this rule was first pronounced they were thinking

about motion verdicts. i get the bias didn't figure back inening land when this rule was first articulated. >> certainly that might be true with the time common law was. but 606 b was debate in the 1970s. since then, no rule maker has decided to draw lines within the rule based on the subject matter of the misconduct of the juror. i think that reflects the tension we were talk building earlier. it doe't matter what kind of bias arises in the proceedings. all of it has significant 6th amendment concerns for defendants. to no other type of misconduct wouldn't give adequate reason

not to draw further lines down the road. the iowa rule, which this court and congress and the vast majority of states is have rejected. your honor, no further questions. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court. racial bias is a real problem that the united states is committed to eradicating. but there are ways to address that without undermining structural protections of the jury system that whisked the legal challenges for hundreds of years. a different rule should apply under the 6th amendment when a particular form is at issue. i want to underscore how that is

without foundation in this court's cases. >> it seems there are two lines of cases in which we've recognized that racial bias in a jury room is an especially important problem and there needs to be special rules to address that problem. the first line of cases is the ones that on voir dire say a lawyer that wants to the ask has to be able to ask about racial bias. that apply toss nothing else except for racial bias. and the second is that batson line of cases where we say we are going to prevent lawyers from doing what we otherwise allow them to do when striking jurors will lead to -- may lead to race bias in the jury room. now, here we have a screaming race bias in the jury room. we have the best smoking gun evidence you're ever going to

the see about race bias in the jury room. and notwithstanding in these two lines of cases we have said there need to be special rules to address the prevalent and toxic problem in our criminal justice system. here we're not going to do that. the question is why would this category of cases be different from those other two? >> your honor, we think this court has never treated some 6th amendment violations as more serious than others. to talk about the two lines of cases that your honor raises. if your honor looks at the voir dire, race was the particular issue that it confronted there. it is indicating and indicates in other you have to the conduct the kind of voir dire to protect the biases that may be present in a particular case. those particular kinds of case involve high risk of racial bias. that's why the court said voir dire on race is required there. to answer the question, your honor, as co-counsel, they have

applied that in other contexts. under the 6th amendment you sometimes need to ask questions about ability to consider mitigation evidence. and lower courts have said that same principle requires voir dire on on other topics. and the second is the equal protection area. we think even there the court has not distinguished among different types of constitutional violations and said we are going to treat some violations as particularly serious. what the court said in those cases we think, your honor, is that there has to be special care taken when the government acts based on race. so some conduct that wouldn't be be unconstitutional at all if it were based on some other criteria is unconstitutional -- >> the reason would be the 6th amendment said all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a trial by an impartial jury. i agree with you that racial

comments in the room can be equivalent to other comments. but there may be -- that's what i wanted to know, a proep lactic, i have to deal with the problem of racial confidence in the work of the jury. and that's a reason stemming from the language of the amendment to treat race specially. and we have 20 states that have done so without the reasons for limitation swamping the process. now, that's what i understand is a textual argument and purpose it that would in fact, allow constitutional protection of the kind they're asking for. >> so i think, your honor, when considering a prophylactic approach for the 6th amendments, considering the costs for this rule and other mechanisms are availabl