germany had talked a controversial new build, beefing up the country's knock down power as thousands out in full scope. want to get on planes to as protests turned violent to some to above it. all pilots on the streets of paris as fronts debate the bill to publishing images of police with intent to harm the apart from that was caught up in the trouble we all cells were forcibly chucked out by the police, my cameraman, who grabbed by offices. while he was filming,

while we were trying to do an interview on the wall down, she taped an agency for loss of the u.s. for a double standard. it's off to the senate acts a bill to jail, those behind, joking and support, except in america, 50 8 pm head moscow. you're watching, as i'm sure you've guessed already. national thanks for picking us this wednesday. well, to get us started job many has adopted a new no, allowing its authorities to impose tougher coronavirus related restrictions. but it didn't cost of that incident inside the pin to start. m.p.'s taunted each other while outside the situation. tun file and protest is against the rule, clashed with riot police who respond didn't want to count on you'll start to say

almost 200 people have been detained and 9 offices and it i, i i, i, i, i, i, well what we were looking out was the amendment to the protection against infection act. what we had was a series of points that were essentially government advice. what this amendment would do would in trying them in law that's what drew people out onto the streets. we're hearing as many as 14000 from some police sources that may have been out on the streets of berlin. at least demonstrations turned quite nasty. what we saw was, what could spy works thrown at the police bottles, rocks, pepper spray, according to the police union be used against officers. there police returned with

water cannon that was used to douse the crowds to try and essentially make them wet, miserable, and go home on their own volition. that hasn't worked for a hardcore nucleus, though we've remained and continue in a standoff with, with police officers. now we also saw one of the politicians over the understand getting involved in this for a car that's been going on cost him his who's a member of alternative for germany and a member of the bundestag shared a video which alternative for germany. his party on mr. hill say, show him being confronted by police officers for not wearing a mask. he then produced a documents that he says gives a me a medical exemption from wearing a mask. the police weren't accepting not him. he was taken away in a very forceful manner. put alternative for germany on just making accusations based on that video. they're also being the subject of some accusations. this is after a number of protesters seemingly gain access to the bundestag and they were able to

harass a number of politicians, including german economy minister, a close ally of peta altmire. the free democrats have suggested that it was alternative for germany who let those people into the building. those allegations haven't been backed up yet, but what it all comes down to is the points that are included in this amendment to the law. basically, it will allow orders to stay home, forcing to people being forced to wear face coverings, and people being ordered to social distance will now be enshrined in german law. now, while it's being quite tense, outside of parliament and on the streets of berlin, also go a bit spicy in parliament in the bundestag during the debate. today's draft is an empowerment of government on the scale you on seen in decades in some from merkel's own party, had made these restrictions go against the constitution. merkel's drop concludes

that the rom no alternatives, typical markowitz. but the reason alternative for germany is that what we just saw was a drowning political force clutching at straws. they are drowning as a party because they have no topics, ideas and no answers of their own. you are not capable of creating. all you can do is be against your radical friends outside have been calling to block the entrance to the parliament. and you just like them. want to block the way of lawmaking. you want to hold the whole institution of parliament through the mud because you hate it. that your real agenda, you've got my will turn it if all you want is turmoil. well, the amendment to the act went through 415 members of the bundestag in favor, 236, against with 8 stanchions. but while that's passed, what we have seen all wednesday is that there is a large number of people who are willing and are committed to coming out onto the

streets to show how unhappy they are with how the german government is handling this pandemic. we spoke to the foreign policy spokesperson for alternative, for job many who told us it's not only the f d a f d fighting against this new law. it's not only our party, it's not only the members of the parliament. there are so many, many people on the streets, and also experts, law experts and university teachers. just yesterday, professor rupert childs said the, this law is absolutely constitutional. and you cannot suspend to basic your rights such as freedom of assembly or the right to privacy. this is very serious, violation of the chairman constitution. of course they are saying that that there is the koran up on them and that they would like to to protect the people it by

just a look at how the cover meant is protecting the people. the government is already now sending police and beating the people just because they are demonstrating for. busy ready their arrives. protests have todd violent in france following a drop security bill to ban the publication of images of police with intent to cause them harm. then terrorism at a stand says the bill will protect officers, but it sparked outrage for rights. campaigners take acid, want to kalam a fight in the french capital to discuss those angry crowds on tuesday.

only as you can see, police vehicles are moving down and pushing the protesters down that this street protests too soon come a time comes to global security. lure to draw. 7 for real that's being discussed in the national assembly on tuesday evening. this is a mall which includes an element which if cost could make it illegal for people to disseminate to record and publish images of police officers. if there is intent to harm criminalizing soon, all right could lead to mourning amphoras who are in a 45000 new room. and we have seen police battening and whacking protesters trying to move them from the streets behind us. you can see

that there is a row of police vehicles here that water cannon as well that's being used tonight as has ample tear gas. thank you. thank you. i've seen women having their hay young and being used to be grabbed by the head to be thrown to the floor by police officers, medics being hit by police battens. and in fact, as we were just at the metro station filming some of the violence against the protest as we ourselves were forcibly chucked out by the police, my cameraman, who grabbed by offices while he was filming. while we were trying to do an interview and objected from not crowd that you know, 0. 7 my god,

not just this protest by journalists who happens, but i am sure the law has been criticised by you and you are seeing terms of its democratic consequences. the bill could lead to significant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in particular, the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression. intent is a concept that is open to interpretation and hard to determine any photos or video showing a dent a fireball. police officers that are published or broadcast by critical media outlets, or are accompanied by critical comments, could find themselves being accused of seeking to harm these police officers. for journalists, the legal risk exists, and the possibility of conviction would be real images over the police are protests, have been used time and time again,

showing the violence that's been used that this is law, would essentially stop. that's what unions say, they say that it is censorship. however, the government says this new is needed to protect police officers from the violence . because while i'm talking about the police hitting protesters trying to move them around, we have also seen violence towards the police this evening. we've seen bottles thrown into woods and far as being lit. we have seen destruction here on the streets of paris with the bus shelters being smashed in. so there is violence on both sides. and the government says this noor is needed to protect the police. police unions say it doesn't go far enough and if it is a choice between freedom of the press and liberty, when it comes to showing these images of the security of their offices, they will side with the security of their offices every time anybody who would be found guilty of if this law passed would find themselves one year behind jail with

a fine of 45000 you is that is a severe punishment. but let you tell me this. a severe punishment is being on the frontlines in an evening like this when the tensions are so high. is that attack from the police? possibly because they're also afraid of the protesters. but the reality is it is been a brutal like with violence from both sides. but from where we have stood, the violence has been main coming from the police to watch protesters who for the most part, we haven't witnessed them doing anything to well deserve some of the violence. this evening we spoke to french, john estime, or at one fell night. he believes that restricted filming is crucial for police to abide by the rule to violence may be used within the framework of the law when there is so steep turns, or if the use is strictly necessary and proportionate. and, but only only the human freely without constraints gives these guarantees. but

the record turnout of this is who does not like the expression of police violence because he thinks that there is legitimate and illegitimate violence. i think in a nutshell, we can see that france is experiencing an authoritarian bonapartists rift, as it has been fortunately, often experienced in its past. i'm sorry to say that almost half of the u.k. would support to making coronavirus vaccinations. mandatory. that's according to a recent government survey, and despite more than one thought of britain still opposing at one scene, a m.p. has said those who refuse the job should expect to be banned from public places. if vaccination works, and if we're confident it's safe and all indications so far are good, then i can certainly see the day when businesses say, look, you've got to return to the office and if you're not vaccinated,

you're not coming in. the tory politician went on to suggest that the use of public transport should also require a possum just to be vaccinated. a backlash followed online, questioning the safety of the anti covert drug, as well as the possible divisions that could emerge from making it mandatory. wanting great britain, the idea is bounced around some nations in europe already putting a road map in place to make the vaccination compulsory and denmark. a new epidemic role could become a permanent feature and allow peace police to administer the job by fools for people. groups have triggered widespread protests with reports now suggesting that copenhagen could backtrack on the plan dozens, gusty issue. let's cross live now to our gas, frank fred, who is a professor of sociology and the web, a political commentator on ruin nearly a health policy on lest one former n.h.s. trust chairman. or if you're very welcome to the program, like for joining until all. * start with you, i mean, legislation has had

a dramatic effect, not the areas of public health and safety. so the solve seat belts in cars banning in dual smoking why not the same approach with immunization? well, it's creator and subject to the house. i mean, what we're, we've saved your previous reports are basic create sobers of an awful lot of terms space that work. because we're looking at these mandatory action suit respects hold a back seat, which isn't actually needed by the 99 percent. so the population because basically most people are not at risks. i'm certainly not against vaccinations. i've had a policy myself. well, the situation is that we should hurries but nations were necessary. and you could argue that there's a school proportion of all of global people who will be salute sensible and

see how to tax a nation. but the problem is these vaccinations and oversee the u.k. government supports a fever scenes. ready and are assessed and lives on with people spending 1000000 in oh, i think we've got about people at the british medical journal who read it and i thought we don't hear from anybody else back. yes. we've got people at the bush medical journal, stating there isn't enough information to approve these vaccines. we go on suit. our professionals from various medical schools also saying, you know, rose was the, i mean, if you look at the facts, but most folks since take years to actually be approved yet. so this law is being

fast tracked. and also great bizarrely. the government is ensuring that people cannot sue the manufacturers, all the government for anything which happens. he's as a result of this vaccine. now, you know, you have to go back to this 130 vaccination. and remember that we're in 16000, people who are terrified that when the government wants a payout, 60000000 pounds in compensation. so not against, let's say, since it sucked, but let's be proportionate because the sensible, let's play absolutely. sure this has been properly tested, is a completely safe and certainly the professionals, like i've heard of so far are not convinced. and so, you know, it's very irresponsible to must roll this out to virtually everyone in the

population when you're not sure if it should and some, i think you're not even sure peter, to have a repeat backs of the action. there's so many question marks on this and of course, making it compulsory is actually against people symon rights such a when it's not necessary for most of the questions why the government wants to make it to me else. ready, frank, i want to go to you. now i want to ask what's still learning so much about the virus? you know, some a saying the antibodies only last for 3 months, maybe it's longer now. it turns out that minx can potentially pass them on to humans. if vaccination and compulsory vaccination not jumping the gun a bit have well, i think there are 2 different issues. one is whether you want to have the vaccination rule down. and i think we do. i think that's where in

a real emergency situation and it's not like, you know, i. 6 years ago when you make choices ready or not, you have actually seen a major threat, major public health threat. and they're frightening government. these are the right and speeding things up. i think we need a grown up discussion about that at the same time and make it go to find out what it is that has been speeded up with this back and what has been left out in terms of the trial. so that we can have a proper assessment of it, but by and large, i do think that in this, in this situation rather than reining in the way that we usually do them actually is integrated. it's useful and makes sense to go ahead even with what i heard has been said about the vaccine. i think different than compulsion. it's always wrong from healthy food, to take medicines, a safe x. nation against their inclination, that's their bodily autonomy,

then remitting. and that is probably wrong, especially in this position when the vaccine is there as a new rocks, there's a lot of discussion and debate about it. a lot of people are mistrust of the vaccine because, you know, people are saying, well, there's all these big pharmaceutical companies coming in there making loads of money on it. who knows what's really behind them. so naturally there's, there is suspicion and i would arrive at their results because christians openly might think this and that, and he's betting this and creating a situation where those of us like myself really want to go ahead with this back. you sort of get indexed there and get them out was in the meantime, you begin to convince the rest of the population because the worst thing that you can do is use words that were we strolled along. and then he read into our i want to talk about trust the coming years. so

we talked about how people are worried that this essentially is kind of straying into the area of draconian or a bit of an authoritarian tench to it. what do you respond to people who allege that well, it is interesting, isn't it? i think there are 2 clear issues here. i think on the one hand there is the current vaccinations that are on offer. it's true, it's very early days. we've already seen press releases and we haven't seen data. and then there is the question of compulsory vaccination. now if we separate that, and let's assume for one moment we have a vaccination which is safe. what should we do with that vaccination? should be obliged people to have the vaccination. well, there is no law here in the u.k. that the government could use at the moment to make you know, bigotry. in fact, the 984 act, which comes closest to it actually prevents the government requiring people to

undergo medical treatment, all vaccinations. so there isn't a law if you look at what's happening in other countries. if you look what's happening, for example, in america, australia, and it's really you can't send your children to school and this, they even have a certificate of vaccination, of all the facts that the kids have these days when they go to school. now that's quite a clever what have doing it. he says if you go to vaccination, you can do something if you have it, you call them. so i think what we're likely to see is a compromise emerging here is that it is possible that maybe public transport would say you can't use public transport as you can prove you had a vaccination, although there is some good reason why you should. you can't go to a theatre unless you can prove you've been vaccinated unless you can prove that. he will be by exception. i think. i think the government to oblige it in a draconian y.a. would, would be too difficult. i mean, if you look, for example, of identity cards in this country,

it's pretty clear we need an identity card. but winsted of that, we use a credit card, a driving license, we use a utility bills who identified a whole lot easier if we just had an id card. but the government won't push an idea because there's a strong public opinion that says we want to carry an id cult. so it's going to be a brave government says you have to have a vaccination. but i think the way they do it is, is to make it people who can have a vaccination, no. make it difficult to get around to do things if they don't have one that will just end up having one. so think that's the approach. and now i want to just pick up on something that we talked that were just mentioned about brave governments. now we've seen in denmark how mass protests are probably seen that epidemic told me to drop in your opinion. is there a concern though, that all the governments wouldn't listen to the public in the way the time?

i think certainly a number of governments. i think what we heard from the, the, the only or common spacious asymmetry if the government goes down that route. so basically it's the same discourse of acceleration because if you can't get over american public transport, i'm going to rush total, whatever. if you've got about see which most people are going to meet. and then we are in the types of totalitarians states. but i think what's happening with countries which is just going to have to not listen to the public. and i don't see . and they this survey, by the way i've taken care of, most people are getting sick, the most crowded tree. i think what's happening, particularly the parity is more capable. why are getting to get there will be, i think, your friendship international alliance to fights,

always things which are happening already. we've got growing number of concerts that have been, he's are making objections to the government. and i can see it's just a massive time before will go to sufficient home base to change the course of 3. the government is actually going at the moment. there will be more protests because a lot of outreach people who are very, very concerned about this whole story. but salacious of this particular for the expect part of speeches, most people do not need a slip thing. you can understand about solution to something where there's a good reason had its why are the whole populations surprised? there's not a medical reason for it. it is far better for governments to spend taxpayers' money, on creating people's and needy system. and creating the n.h.s.,

making prescription was free. many, many things they solved at c.b.s. poll. monkey doesn't actually eat you and your kids. so these policies, i want to find jasko when frank one question each. 'd why thoughts are with you is that not a concern that this could lead to a nation of those people who for example, are a gates vaccination on the grounds. 6 of religion doesn't not open up a whole can of why i'm solved discrimination against not. yes. i mean you, you would have to exclude people on religious grounds for example. you hope his witnesses, for example. i don't think have immunization. they certainly don't have blood transplants. and there are some people of course on medical grounds that can't have vaccinations as well. so they would have to be the exceptions. but i'm not sure it's true to say that people don't need a vaccination. i think the, the, the, it's up to us all because we are all capable of spreading a virus if we're asymptomatic. too vulnerable,

people would not know we've done it. so some measure of how good immunity, as it's called, has to be achieved in some wire or another. and he seems to me the quickest way to do that is via vaccination. and frank finally, just to wrap up with you, if we got a hold on treatment rather than vaccination, and we kept doing what we're all trying to do. when mosques, why blog, social distance is not, not enough or 2, we really need to stray into as people are saying, this realm of to konya north stepping and a stepping on the toes of people's liberties. well i think that if we continue the way we are already getting on people who are going to be, i would rather not wear a mask and i would rather not socially this. and through the rest of my life, i would rather have a vaccine. and so with millions, a lot of equal i think most people that i know you from different sorts of backgrounds, you know, are actually very happy to get the vaccine. the are hope that there will be on the out to go back to a normal real life. instead of the present circumstance which take

a free kick for freedom or liberty, go with it. so most promotes people. a vaccine is a liberating intervention. and i think it's very still lee to say that we don't need a vaccine. i don't, i mean, i'm not perfect by any means into regulating people who live. but i think most of us recognize that in this circumstance and vaccine will allow us to big just meant a different kind of a world sort of problem that you know, that we kind of confronted with it. some people don't want to roxanne, and i think we can conquer compromise on that. i don't know exactly how we'll do it . i firmly sure that the british government is not there in truth. i don't think that it will go against the whole grain or its previous economics, and there will be a really major reaction. so we have to find the way in which you can use social pressure and intellectual arguments. the comments equal. we trust the rocks. and once we've demonstrated safe younger means that this will not be

a problem in the medium term. well, certainly a very controversial issue will wait to see how it goes when it goes into mass production. i was frank friday, professor of sociology antony webber, political commentator unavoidably health penny policy analyst and former n.h.s. tracked chapman. thank you so much. well done to an agency has blasted the u.s. over a bill that could jail those involved in sports except in the u.s. domestic leagues want it described as double standards on a freepost for professional unclench athletes in america. duping agency wishes to understand why this legislation excludes vast areas of u.s. sport in particular, the professional leagues, and all college sport. it is not good enough for american sports. why is it fine for the rest of the world? washington's rolled out its latest offensive in the war on performance enhancing drugs. it's called the rod shank of act, the rather chink of anti doping act of 2019 which strengthen the integrity of

international sports competitions by imposing criminal sanctions on certain persons involved in international doping fraud conspiracy. the act would green light washington for legal action against doping conspirators in games involving american players and it outlines some hefty penalties fines of up to one $1000000.00 as well as prison sentences of up to 10 years. a dream come true for the usa today. it is a monumental day in the fight for clean sport worldwide, and we look forward to seeing the act soon become law and help change the game for clean athletes for the good. considering how the u.s. has treated domestic doping in the past, the log book could probably use of updates take julian edelman, the patriots shining star and super bowl m.v.p. his career, seen some great achievements with a little help from dope history. it's why.