Woman's Hour - Choreographer Cathy Marston & 'The Cellist', her new ballet inspired by Jacqueline du Pre

Episode Date: February 17, 2020

A new ballet 'The Cellist' opens tonight at the Royal Opera House in London. It’s inspired by the life and work of the British cellist, Jacqueline du Pré. It portrays the highs and lows of the virtuoso’s life after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, aged 28. Its choreographer, Cathy Marston, talks to Jane Garvey about why it was such a personal project for her.Journalist and novelist, Joan Smith discusses the death of Caroline Flack, the CPS decision to prosecute her, and what impact have the findings of the Levenson inquiry really had?If you’re someone who follows the various targets on climate change, then the year 2050 is surely on your radar. It’s the very latest date scientists agree the world needs to be carbon neutral by in order to avoid life-changing and irreversible damage to the planet. A mere 30 years away – a lot of radical change needs to happen in the next TEN years to make that 2050 target feasible. Christiana Figueres has co-authored a book called ‘The Future We Choose’. It details positive action we can all take – and also specifically as women – to help us reach that 2050 target. Friday’s Court of Appeal ruling says under English marriage law Islamic marriage is an "invalid" non-legal ceremony. What are the consequences of that decision for thousands of Muslim women? Director of Southall Black Sisters, Pragna Patel, explains.Presenter: Jane Garvey Producer: Kirsty StarkeyInterviewed Guest: Joan Smith Interviewed Guest: Cathy Marston Interviewed Guest: Christiana Figueres Interviewed Guest: Pragna Patel

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. I'm Natalia Melman-Petrozzella, and from the BBC, this is Extreme Peak Danger. The most beautiful mountain in the world. If you die on the mountain, you stay on the mountain. This is the story of what happened when 11 climbers died on one of the world's deadliest mountains, K2, and of the risks we'll take to feel truly alive. If I tell all the details, you won't believe it anymore. Extreme, peak danger. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

BBC Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts. This is the Woman's Hour podcast. Hello, good morning. We are going to talk about Caroline Flack on the programme today. Also, the choreographer Cathy Marston is here. Her new work is about Jacqueline Dupre. It is called The Cellist, appropriately, and it opens at the Royal Opera House in London tonight. So Cathy is our guest. And you can hear, too, from the formidable Cristiana Figueres.

She was the former UN climate change director. She is somebody who really does feel passionately that we all have a duty to do something about climate change and we can all change our behaviour. And she's also adamant that it's women who can drive change. Hear her thoughts on Woman's Hour this morning. First of all, just looking at the front pages, I've got all the tabloids in front of me here.

It is all about Caroline Flack, who very sadly took her own life over the weekend at the age of just 40. Thousands of people have now signed a petition calling for Caroline's Law, effectively stricter regulation to protect people in the public eye. We're going to talk to the columnist and author Joan Smith, also the chair of the Mayor of London's Violence Against Women and Girls Board. What we know, Joan, is that Caroline Flack was facing a court case. She had been charged with domestic abuse in terms of a relationship with her boyfriend. Some people

are saying that she should never have been charged by the CPS because she was a damaged individual. Can I just play you this clip? This is the barrister, Dr Charlotte Proudman, on Radio 4 earlier this morning on the decision to prosecute Caroline Flack. It does seem to me that it was a show trial, an example here of how the CPS are taking such cases of domestic abuse very seriously, but also another example of how they will prosecute, perhaps overzealously, cases where the complainant is indeed a man and the alleged perpetrator is indeed a woman. That is her view, Joan, that the CPS might be inclined to be overzealous when the victims of domestic violence are male or alleged victims are male. I usually agree with Charlotte

and I don't on this occasion. And I think what you have to do in situations like this is step back because there's a lot of emotion and distress, understandably, washing around this case and what's happened is absolutely awful and tragic but it's very rare for the Crown Prosecution Service to be accused of being overzealous in prosecuting and what we actually you know if you step back from it and look at what is happening to domestic abuse cases we actually don't have enough of them being prosecuted and in the year up till March last year, the police actually recorded 750,000 what they thought were domestic abuse crimes in England and Wales, and under 100,000 of those ended in a conviction. Now, you can argue about whether

they were overzealous because she was a woman. But I think there's a lot of confusion because people are saying, oh, her boyfriend didn't want to press charges. It's absolutely not down to the victim to press charges in this country. It's a charging decision by the CPS. But isn't that relatively recent, that change? It's been that case for a few years. And it's very important because if you look at the broader section of domestic violence cases, many women, and women are mostly the victims, are living with the perpetrator who will put them under enormous emotional pressure, may threaten them, may actually physically attack them to stop them actually going ahead and giving evidence. So it's very, very important that we step back and actually look at what's happening overall to domestic violence in this country. And overall, it's not taken seriously enough.

None of us are experts on the life and times and thoughts of Caroline Flack, but it is clear from much of what you read about the poor woman, that she was beleaguered, that she had relatively poor mental health, that she also, I understand, had a history of self-harming. Honestly, was it fair to charge this woman? And would a man with similar issues also have been charged? Well, of course, we don't know what factors led to the CPS making the decision to charge. And it has to be said that a lot of defendants would actually fall into that vulnerable category. A lot of men who were accused of domestic abuse will have mental health problems, they will have a substance abuse problems, they may be alcoholics, they may

be using illegal drugs, and so on. So that's an element in that decision. But I think people are rushing to judgment against the CPS. And I don't think that's an element in that decision. But I think people are rushing to judgment against the CPS. And I don't think that's actually what we should be looking at here. I think it's much more about the public hounding of a fragile woman in the media, I'm afraid. We'll get onto that in a moment. But you are someone who and you sat here in that very chair many times over the years on this programme, and talked about the need for the CPS, the police, all of us, to take domestic violence lightly. So you don't say things like that lightly, do you? This is a troubling situation. It's a very troubling situation. And as it unfolded, I mean, I was

very shocked when I saw the news alert on Saturday night. And as it unfolded, she was actually charged with the lowest level of assault, assault with beating, which you don't even go to a Crown Court. It's not a jury trial. And weirdly, because it was the lesser assault charge, she wasn't going to be appearing in front of a jury. And I think, oddly, that has allowed more press comment than there might otherwise have been because the contempt laws are much stricter if there's going to be a jury trial. So I think it is really important not just to rush into judgment on the CPS on this one case and to actually step back and say, but how do we want people treated when they're accused of domestic abuse? And it has to be the same. That's very true. It has to be the same for men and women. But we don't know yet in this case that she was treated differently from a man in similar

circumstances. Right. Certainly, you're right that she was somebody who attracted headlines. Do women of her sort, her type, attract a different sort of attention to male celebrities who also need the public acclamation, who also want the attention? I think that's undeniably true. And I think that's what's so disturbing, that we've seen this happen to other women before, that behaviour that in a man might be laughed off, or men are seen as a bit of a lad if they have lots of relationships and things like that, is actually treated very differently if you're female.

And what really bothers me about this case is that once Caroline Flack was charged, it's perfectly legitimate for the press to report that somebody has been charged. It's all information in the public domain. It's what happens then. And so the headlines about a bloodbath and things like that, they're actually quite prejudicial. But also this woman who had mental health problems and was very vulnerable and was actually posting to say that she was feeling vulnerable, could hardly walk out of her front door without meeting photographers, without pieces appearing about. She was wearing a leopard skin skirt. She was wearing a Burberry scarf. I mean, that kind of attention for somebody who is fragile is really frightening.

Well, I'm just looking at a tweet from Kate Williams, the historian Professor Kate Williams, who said over the weekend, the press hounded Diana. After her death, we said it would never happen again. Then others. They splashed Amy Winehouse's suffering across the front pages. Meghan has been so attacked she had to leave. Our society hunts women down for kicks, and it can't seem to stop.

Now, the last time I looked, I think over 50,000 people had approved, had liked that tweet on Twitter. That is a, it's a popular opinion, isn think over 50,000 people had approved, had liked that tweet on Twitter. That is a it's a popular opinion, isn't it? It is a popular opinion, but there's a sort of weird thing about it. I agree completely. I think the way that Amy Winehouse, she was also hounded. This is another woman who had eating disorders, self-harm. You know, even when she went on holiday to the Caribbean, she was followed by crews and camera crews and photographers and so on. It does seem to be open season on these women. But you know, you actually

also have to say that a huge number of the people who are saying how terrible this is, actually then rear up if you say the press needs to clean up its behaviour. And I think part of the problem is everybody sees most people see this on a case by case basis. So it's like, oh, this is this has happened to a particular woman, Princess Diana, or in this case, Caroline Flack. That's really awful. Something ought to happen. And then it all dies down again. But we did actually have an inquiry, the Leveson inquiry, which I myself gave evidence to about press intrusion. And whatever happened?

And whatever happened to that? You know, we had a new regulator set up called IPSO, the Independent Press Standards Organisation. I remember saying at the time, it's not independent, you know, it's too much influenced by newspaper editors. And I still think that's the case. We were told there were going to be a million pound fines for press intrusion. What you get is a kind of paragraph of three lines at the bottom of page two saying, oh, sorry, you know, we didn't really mean it. And in the great Venn diagram of life, there might very well be people who have signed that't really mean it and in the great venn diagram of life there might very well be people who have signed that petition or supported it and may go on to sign

it later on today who will also make a point of popping out for a tabloid and i'm i should say in the interest of transparency i'm probably one of those people i will read this stuff i think i think a lot of us feel very passive about how we consume news. And I think it's got much worse. Keir Starmer was right at the weekend. He said that the stories about Caroline Flack in the media were amplifying stuff that had appeared on social media. And I think that, in a way, is why it's got worse since Leveson, that people post horrible stuff online,

and then newspapers report that as if it's an actual story. There's a sort of echo chamber. So people read about, you know, celebrities and the tabloids, they then post stuff about them, the papers then pick that up. And I think it's made the whole conversation much more coarse, much more misogynist. So there are calls now from all sorts of people, not all of them celebrities for us all to be kind or kinder, more thoughtful, do you think it will last? It lasts for about 10 minutes usually, doesn't it? I mean, I think it's, in a way, I think all of this is a monument to, you know,

what's really good about having second thoughts. When I post things on Twitter, I actually stop myself and think, do I really want to post this? I wish a lot of people would do that and also think about the effect it might have on the people they're posting about who may well read it. Joan, thank you very much. Good to see you. That's Joan Smith, columnist, also the chair of the Mayor of London's Violence Against Women and

Girls Board. I know she's writing about Caroline Flack for The Guardian. So I think that will be online tonight and in the newspaper tomorrow. Thank you, Joan. Now to the new ballet, The Cellist, which opens tonight at the Royal Opera House in London and the choreographer is here, Cathy Marston. Welcome, Cathy. Good you, Joan. Now to the new ballet, The Cellist, which opens tonight at the Royal Opera House in London. And the choreographer is here,

Cathy Marston. Welcome, Cathy. Good to see you. Now this is about the life and work of the cellist Jacqueline Dupre. So I think most of our listeners will know something about Jacqueline Dupre. I think we ought to start really by just hearing a little bit of inevitably the Elgar

Cello Concerto. Here we go. ¶¶... Jacqueline Dupre, the cellist, playing Elgar's Cello Concerto Part I. So, Cathy, that music does feature in the ballet, doesn't it? Yes. But there's also an original score. It's an original score brought together by Philip Feeney, but it incorporates some of the repertoire that Jackie played. So, for example, the Elgar, also some Rachmaninoff, some Fauré, Mendelssohn and so on.

Now you are a great one for stories, aren't you? Your ballets have incorporated the life of, I think Queen Victoria was one, Lady Chatterley's Lover. So where does it all start with, for you, with you? Very often in works of literature. But as you've just said, I made a ballet on Queen Victoria, Anna Goldie who was supposed to be the last witch, the last person being killed to be a witch in Europe yeah for witchcraft and now Jacqueline Dupre so biography is also sometimes the seed of a ballet for me. Yeah and is that and these are all female characters obviously that's just coincidence?

That is really. I'm known now for often creating works with a central female lead. Perhaps that's because it's more unusual than or less frequent than it's happened less frequently in the past. But it's not the only thing that I do. Right. Jacqueline Dupre died. She was very, very young when she died. Multiple sclerosis was what killed her, unfortunately. The ballet is very powerful because it incorporates the cello as a character. It does. Explain how that works, because I've only seen film of rehearsal, obviously,

because it doesn't open until tonight. Well, I was really drawn to the idea of creating a work which is essentially a story of love and loss, but where that is primarily felt between a woman and an object, but also music. So when we say that the man is playing the cello, he is sometimes an object. He is the cello that she's holding and bowing to some extent, and that gets more poetically expressed throughout the piece. But he's also, in a way, the spirit of music.

And I think the human heart has an enormous capacity. We don't just love people, we don't just love one people, one person, but we love things and we can love. I love dance, I love music, literature, and sometimes we love places. And it occurred to me that it would be a wonderful thing for dance to express that. So it is the relationship between Jackie and music. Yes, and you can see just from the snatches that I've been able to see that the cello is at times calling her back.

It doesn't understand why they can't work together anymore. It sounds idiotic, but it isn't. It's incredibly moving. I mean, we wanted to think about how this cello feels having lost his partner. I mean, his partner, its partner. And he wants to remember the relationship, the way they flew together. They played these amazing concerts and shared such special moments together. And I think the cello would feel the loss of that. And the space that we tell the ballet in is this sort of memory space that suggests...

It's very sparse, isn't it? It's very sparse. It suggests the inside of a cello. That was the initial inspiration for the design, which seemed to me to be a place in which memories reverberate and resound. And so it's a memory piece, and the cello, in a way, is telling Jackie's story and resound. And so it's a memory piece and the cello in a way is telling Jackie's

story and remembering her. So I should say that the other character is her husband, Daniel Barenboim, who is a dancer in this piece. Yes. So are there scenes where the three of them are interacting? There are, in fact, that you just played the Elgar Cello Concerto. So I've used a little artistic license in how Jackie and Daniel meet in the ballet. In real life, they met at a party, but they did meet playing music at this party. And everyone I spoke to who had known them, and indeed Daniel himself, when I met him, spoke about how music really brought them together and held them together to a great extent. And so in the ballet, there's a moment in which Daniel

conducts Jackie playing and the corps de ballet are the orchestra. And for the beginning of the El Garcello concerto, they're sort of on these two little platforms as if they're in concert together. And then the orchestra fade away. And there's a trio between Daniel, Jackie and the cello. And it's unusual for a dance trio because very often in ballet, if you get two men and a woman dancing in narrative work, there's usually jealousy involved or some sort of love triangle. But in this case, the three of them were absolutely after the same thing, which was to ride the music together. And they fall in love through the music, with the music. So it's a joyful paratois in many respects.

How does a dancer react when they're told they are playing an inanimate object? Because it's not the easiest thing. No, it's not. I mean, Marcelino, who plays the part and will dance it tonight, is very open and he's a very musical dancer, very enthusiastic. And I felt nothing but support and constant new ideas from him in every rehearsal. He does admit now that the piece has gone far further than he ever imagined. In what sense? Well, you know, of course, we started by sort of how does a cello look like? And a cello is very human in its shape.

We refer to its neck, its body, its curves. That's true. And people speak about the sound of the cello being the closest to that of the human voice. So it's not that far away from a person. And Jackie embraced her cello and sort of held it close to her and swayed with it. She was a very physical performer and was known for that. So there were many reasons why it felt possible and right to bring this to a ballet. But of course, the longer we've worked on it, the more we've investigated, well, what would the cello have been like when he wasn't being played? And the idea of her particular cello being a Stradivarius, very old, very fine, very expensive. And it would have, of course, known great relationships before her. You know, it had experienced love and loss before. So whereas she was very much in the spring of her life and young and youthful and full of this sort of energy and humour,

her nickname was Smiley, the cello would have had a sort of more mature way of beginning their relationship. It's interesting, isn't it? Because she's still out there, Jacqueline Dubreuil, even those of beginning their relationship. It's interesting, isn't it? Because she's still out there, Jacqueline Dupre. Even those of us who, I confess myself, I don't know a huge amount about classical music,

but that name still hits home. People understand Jacqueline Dupre and her tragedy, I suppose. Yeah. You were a dancer yourself, obviously. I say obviously, but are there any wonderful choreographers who have never been dancers? There are a few, but many were dancers. So at what point do you decide, actually, I'm a choreographer really or I want to be a choreographer?

I decided it as soon as I knew what the word meant. And I think I'd been choreographing from a very young age, but I joined the Royal Ballet School when I was 16 and you were given the choice to be part of the choreographic programme or not, and immediately I wanted to do that. And I knew I wanted to dance before, but always with the goal of being a choreographer. Right. When I've watched you in rehearsal, it's all, obviously, these are the bits they put out, I don't know what bits don't get put out it all seems very collegiate and polite and wonderful effective communication between you all is it always like that it is actually I have a disappointing sorry I have a wonderful time working with the dancers I mean

there are difficulties but I tend to share them and I feel like as much as I if I get stuck or blocked you know there's no point me sitting in a grump at the front of the studio. I throw it out there and the dancers help me unravel whatever it is I'm stuck with. Right. OK. Well, it looked to me to be absolutely wonderful. So I hope to be able to get to see it. Thank you very much indeed for coming in this morning. Thank you. Cathy Marston, the choreographer. And it starts tonight, doesn't it? Tonight, yes.

So best of luck to you and to everybody else involved in The Cellist at the Royal Opera House in London this evening. Now, a treat in store on Friday when Phoebe Waller-Bridge is on the programme talking to Jenny. It's an in-depth interview. They discuss everything fleabag from celibacy, religion and sexual fluidity to shame and feminism. Oh, and a bit of Killing Eve as well.

And what it's like to work on the new Bond film and how Friends can be the greatest love story of your life. And also how those small details in life can sometimes make it into a script. You know, I sometimes have these ideas and you think, it's like I'll have a conversation with my sister and I'll just say,

why is hair so stressful? Why is hair, why is it so stressful? Why does it feel like it's everything? And then we have such a relief talking to each other about it, a sense of relief. And then that sort of goes away but then a kernel of it stays in the back of my mind. And then I think, oh, I'll just write a little bit about that

just as a nod to that conversation I had with her or just because it feels a little bit true. And those are always the ones that surprise you and blow up because they're these little truisms. And I think when that happens, that's when I just feel a little bit less alone in the world because I'm like, you too? Oh, thank God.

Phoebe Waller-Bridge will be on Woman's Hour with Jenny on Friday of this week. Now, this is a really important voice you're going to enjoy listening to. Cristiano Figueres, former Costa Rican diplomat and the woman who was in charge of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change until 2016. Now, I don't think anybody is more passionate about the need for urgent radical change in human behaviour. 2050, that's only 30 years from now, and it is only 30 years, is the latest date that scientists agree the world needs to be carbon neutral to avoid life-changing and irreversible

damage to our planet. Christiana is adamant that we can all do something about this, but particularly women. And she outlines her thoughts in a book she co-wrote called The Future We Choose. For two reasons, Jane. First, because it has been my experience, when I see women lead, good things actually happen. So just from an experiential point of view. Can you give me an example? What's your best example of that? Well, my best example and the most exciting, actually, is all of the young women who are leading these student movements around the world. In Norway, you have Penelope Lee. In the UK, you have Holly Gillibrand.

In, well, obviously, you also have Greta. In Germany, you have Luise Neuberger. I mean, they are just fantastic women, young women who have truly understood what is at stake and are eloquent. They're bright. They're inclusive. They are always trying to get more and more attention to other people as well. They lead in collectivity rather than individually. And it is actually just so refreshing to see that these women, young women, are looking down long term. They're not concerned about what is happening right now in their individual life. They're looking long term. They understand that change

has to be collective change. And they have just unleashed an incredible power around the world. But against them, we have figures like the current American president, who basically calls them all doom mongers and tries to trivialize what they're doing. So is there really any cause for optimism? What do you think? Well, first of all, it's a total lack of respect what he says about these very powerful young women leaders. And beyond that, I think one has to say, first of all, it is entirely possible that we may go into a world of constant destruction,

of strife, of conflict, of increasing heat, of increasing forced migration. That is entirely possible. This is based on, for example, drought, meaning that people simply have to leave. Droughts, fires, floods, cyclones, hurricanes, all of those events will continue to increase in both numbers as well as in their potency.

So it is entirely possible that we may go into a world like that. But not inevitable. But exactly, exactly. It like that. But not inevitable. But exactly, exactly. It is possible, but not inevitable. And that is exactly the central message of the book that we are putting out, The Future We Choose, in which we actually describe the world that we are heading for, unless we take action. But we also contrast it to the world that we're heading for, if we do take action over the next 10 years. And those two worlds are completely different. Britain itself has set a target of being carbon neutral by 2050. Is that ambitious enough?

Yes, that is what science demands. That's very clear that in order to keep us within manageable risk, because one has to really admit that we're not going to be able to completely wipe off the face of this earth, the effect of climate change, but we single country, i.e. if the global economy goes to zero net carbon by 2050, we can actually manage the transition into what is coming next. And it can be, if we intended to be so, it can actually be a much better world. Can you give me, I really like the example from India about solar power and an organization I think called Solar Sisters. Solar Sisters. What is that exactly? entrepreneurs and to help women in communities to understand that they can light up their homes and their communities through solar power. And all of these women for the first time begin to have solar energy in their homes, in their communities, in their small health centers. And they themselves take on the responsibility for being the entrepreneurs, for doing the maintenance, for doing the selling. It really is a transformational experience for

these women who previously were only sitting at home, taking care of children and had not had the opportunity to actually affect the quality of life of their own communities. So they had literally no agency, and this project has at least given them that. And this, I suppose, comes back to an age old problem about educating women and giving them opportunities of any kind. Well, absolutely. And I think in the climate change, the first, I think, big realization came with the publication of a book called Drawdown, in which they identified 100 solutions to climate,

and they came to the conclusion that collectively, the most powerful solution to climate change was actually educating women for many different reasons. And we pick it up in the book that we're publishing, The Future We Choose, in which we also say that actually ensuring that we have gender equality at the decision table is probably one of the most effective things that we can do to mitigate climate change. But what about overpopulation? Because, well, we know that population control itself can be extremely destructive and lead to situations in China, for example, where there's an imbalance in the genders, which causes all sorts of issues. Well, true, but educating young girls and avoiding that they have to go into forced marriage, educating so that they can begin to make their own decisions about their own bodies, so that they can aspire and go into the productive economy, that already in itself actually is a very, very

powerful population growth measure. Some people will say we're expecting too much too soon, and that there are various parts of the world that simply cannot cope with the challenge of change in this area or these areas? What do you say to them? Well, actually, I would say too little too late. That's where we are, because we have backed ourselves against the wall here, where we have known for sure about climate change for at least 30 years. And we have done sadly, very little. So we do have the Paris Agreement, which is a very important global framework for everyone to collaborate in doing what science demands us to do, but it is not being implemented at the rate that it should. And now we have backed ourselves into a very difficult situation in which we now have a very, very short 10 years.

This decade that just started now, the decade of the 20s, is the most important decade in the history of humanity because it is this decade during which we're going to determine the quality of life on this planet for you and me, but also for many generations to come. So this isn't hyperbole on your part? No, no, this is not. Right. I mean, so this isn't hyperbole on your part. No, no, this is not. I'm Latin American, but this is no hyperbole. Truly not. No, I'm not.

This is science. This is science, not hyperbole. But it's quite something to say this is the most important decade in the history of humanity. And it needn't have been, right? Because had we started a long time ago, we would have had more time for the transition. The problem is that we have done some, we have had some progress, but not enough. And so now we've backed ourselves up against the wall and we have to be able to half emissions, one half of the emissions that we have today, we have to be at 2030. It is the most consequential decade in the history of humanity. Never before have we had an opportunity and the obligation, actually, to take the responsibility for creating the future that we want. What about our average listener? I am the average listener. What changes can I make, in your view, to my daily life, that will be some sort of positive contribution?

Well, first of all, let's take note that climate change was produced by us humans, therefore, it is only us who can do it. So at the individual level, first, what do you eat? If you're still eating red meat seven days a week, that is completely irresponsible for the planet and also for your own body and your own health. So slowly but surely give up red meat, move over to plant-based diet. Secondly, how are you transporting yourself? If you live in London, and I used to, and the one reason why I loved living in London is because of the public transport. But that is actually not something that everyone has. And those who have it don't take it very seriously. But really, you have to figure out what is the carbon footprint of

transport, sharing cars, public transport, electric vehicles, all of those are options for bringing down the carbon footprint of transport. Thirdly, particularly in this country, we have to look at energy efficiency in buildings. There are so many beautiful but old and inefficient buildings here, or many of the homes. And we have to be able to include energy efficiency in the care and maintenance of our home, because otherwise we're just wasting money and wasting electricity. Can I just put you on the spot? Is it grossly irresponsible to have more than two children? Is it grossly irresponsible? In a developed country, definitely. The situation is very different in a developing country, because in a developing country where I come from,

many parents reach the conclusion that having children is the only long term guarantee that they're going to have for their old age. And that is one of the reasons why people have more than two or three children, because first, they don't know how long those children are going to live. And they definitely want at least one child to be there when they grow old. So it's a very different situation in industrialized than developing countries. Right. But I mean, you really were unequivocal about that. In Britain, you should have two children and that's enough. Why would you want any more? Yes, yes, I am very clear about that. Well, I mean, you have to say that was clear. Two children and that is enough. That is the

view of Christiana Figueres. And you might remember, I hope you do remember, 20th of January was a phone-in programme which I really found interesting. Loads of people called up with some really fascinating points of view on the topic which was would you have a smaller family to save the planet? So if for whatever reason you didn't catch that edition of

Woman's Hour, go back via BBC Sounds and hear the programme from January the 20th and I was really intrigued that day because a lot of people were ringing to say they had indeed made a decision to have a smaller family than their parents way back 20, 30 years ago. So it wasn't new, but some really interesting points of view. Cristiana Figueres was the interviewee there and her book, which is out next week on February the 25th, she co-wrote it and it's called The Future We Choose. Now Islamic faith marriages are not valid under English law. This according to a court of appeal ruling at the

end of last week. Campaigners are now concerned that that means that thousands of Muslim women have no rights in the event of a divorce. Friday's decision reversed an earlier decision allowing a couple who'd only had an Islamic ceremony to legally divorce. So let's clear all this up. We've got Pragna Patel here from the Southall Black Sisters. Welcome to the programme, Pragna. And a young woman we're going to call Samia. Samia, thank you very much for being here as well.

Pragna, first of all, just tell us why that decision last week is so important. The reason why that decision last week is so important. The reason why that decision is really important is because what it effectively does is lock out of the civil justice system a great many women, particularly Muslim women, but other minority women too, who through deception and coercion find themselves unable to have a civil marriage and are made to forego a civil marriage in favor of just a religious marriage only. And that is often a deliberate ploy that's used by abusive partners and families to ensure that those women have no rights in the event of a breakup of a marriage.

And it is that that really is at the heart of this. So what we're trying to do and what we tried to do by intervening in this case is to say to the Court of Appeal that there is a massive injustice that is taking place against particularly Muslim women. The numbers of Muslim women who are having to go through religious marriage are on the rise. And this is causing enormous problems because often when their marriage breaks down due to abuse, they have no rights in terms of matrimonial assets. And that causes an enormous injustice. I'll come back to you in a second, but thank you for that. Samia, briefly, what happened to you? I was married to a British man in a religious-only ceremony for 10 years. Initially,

when we got married, I was promised a civil marriage, and they kept on procrastinating, saying that... Who is they in this case? Pardon. That's right. It's my ex-husband and his family. They kept on saying that we'll do it later after the honeymoon and then kept on saying later. Eventually it didn't happen for the next 10 years. During my marriage to my ex-husband, I was subjected to a lot of violence, abuse and control. I was not even allowed to go out, work or make friends. And during the marriage, I was also afraid to raise up this issue in the fear of being subjected to further violence. I'm sorry you've been through such a tough time. When you asked to have a civil ceremony, what was actually said to you? I was told if you speak further than what you should

be, we are going to back you up and send you back home. So I was threatened with deportation and also threatened of being taken my children away from me. So your ex-husband's family, did they have a tradition in their family of only having religious marriages? No, no, no, not at all. His sisters, all of them, had a civil marriage. So this was just subjected towards me in order to control me. Well, I believe, you know, if women had a say in this matter, whereas in my case I did not have a say in this matter, if they had a say, they would have opted for a civil partnership

that would give them security um and why wouldn't they i believe you know if in such cases you know women don't have a say usually no and then he made sure i had nothing to my name for the 10 years that i was married to him so when i got out of this marriage i had nothing to my name for the 10 years that I was married to him. So when I got out of this marriage, I had nothing to me. And a lot of women, you know, have nothing to stand on when they get out of such marriages. Samia, thank you very much, because I know it's not easy for you to speak out. And we're very grateful to you. I'm really very grateful indeed, actually. Thank you. Pragna, it does seem a rather backward ruling from the Court of Appeal

last week were you surprised? Yes and no. Yes because we really look to the courts to redress these kind of situations of injustice and inequality and discrimination, particularly where vulnerable women are involved, women who have no power, who have no say in the process of their marriage, who have no say in how marital assets should be distributed on the breakup of that marriage. So to that extent, yes, because you always look to the court and hope concepts in this case of marriage, which is out of step with the modern world. So what is your message then to any young Muslim woman in England or Wales right now about how they approach marriage? Well, first of all, they must make sure that they obtain legal advice and do not enter into religious only marriages.

Make sure that you register your marriage. That is vital because you will be left without rights of any kind. What if you are not actually born in Britain and you find yourself marrying a British citizen? Abroad, I think the main thing to do is get legal advice if you're not sure of what your rights are in the course of your marriage. There are remedies. There are very inadequate remedies available if you have not had a valid marriage in this country. How many women actually are we talking about?

We don't know for sure. There's been very little research in this country. How many women are we talking about? We don't know for sure. There's been very little research in this area. Anecdotally, I would say that we're aware that there are hundreds, if not a few thousand women. There was a Channel 4 documentary in 2017 that suggested that the problem of particularly Muslim women entering into religious-only marriages was rising. And I know for a fact, having worked in this field for 40 years, 40 years ago, Muslim women almost always had a civil marriage. Why? Because in their communities, civil marriages were accepted as legitimate. The fact that we are now seeing hundreds, if not thousands, of Muslim women

being forced to opt out of a civil marriage is largely because of very fundamentalist norms that are being embedded in minority communities. You believe that is the change, then? I think that is the change, that fundamentalist norms have come to dominate minority communities, Muslim communities, and women are told that secular laws are illegitimate. And your belief then, presumably, would be that the Court of Appeal has actually made that more likely.

Absolutely. It's created, it's contributed to a culture of impunity as far as abuses are concerned. That's been the Court's intention, though, surely. It may not have been their intention, but that is the outcome. What we're saying is we're not asking for recognition of religious marriages. We're asking for an injustice to be remedied. So now that the Court of Appeal has made this decision, we've got to look to Parliament.

We've got to look to the Law Commission, that I understand is carrying out a review on marriage at this moment. It really needs to tackle this problem and bring marriage laws up to date so they're in step with the kind, you know, and reflect the diverse relationships that modern society has. Right, so that's going to be your emphasis will be on getting politicians on side. But in the meantime, your concern would be that some young Muslim women are going to be potentially risking destitution in the event of their relationship breaking up. Absolutely. They're going to be locked out of the civil justice system. The Court of Appeals made it clear that that is not the place to go to for justice.

That is incredibly alarming and worrying. And we need to basically campaign to try and change that situation. That the view of Pragna Patel from Southall Black Sisters, you also heard in that conversation from Samia. Now to your thoughts on the programme today, Caroline Flack. This is from Janet. Love Island is symbolic. Love Island is the dating programme that Caroline Flack used to present. Janet says, Love Island is symbolic of everything that's wrong with our world. The toxic culture of the celebrity is to blame for all of this, not the law.

It's not surprising that mental health issues around the programme have existed. It promotes a ghastly overemphasis on eternal youth and hypersexuality. And the values vacuum of this culture is to blame, says Janet. Nora on Twitter said, I haven't bought or read a tabloid since the death of Princess Diana. That's my choice. And I talk about it. I turn them over and put them upside down in shops. It's my power, says Nora. Personally, says Jory, I'd never heard of Caroline Flack, but when you want to make money as a celebrity, put your life on social media, get millions of followers,

and be on the front page of the tabloids, surely you have to realise the world isn't full of kind people who wish you well. From Andrew, I'm glad to hear that your guest Joan Smith is giving a balanced view. Take the exact same facts, then change the biological sex of the aggressor and the victim, and Woman's Hour would be supporting prosecution loudly. Yeah, well, Andrew, I think you've slightly missed the point of the conversation I had with Joan, which was an acknowledgement of indeed that. That's why I was talking to Joan, that we have, as I said, during the course of the conversation with her, many times on this programme, talked about how important it is for domestic violence to be taken seriously

and for perpetrators to be prosecuted. And Joan was simply outlining her belief, and we were letting her do it, that the biological sex of the alleged aggressor shouldn't be relevant. From Hannah, I'm an ex-service provider in the domestic violence field and I was frustrated with the approach offered on this morning's programme about the Caroline Flack case. The approach of your commentator, that was Joan Smith, was that all prosecutions need to increase in order to bring some kind of justice, citing the low conviction rates for domestic violence cases overall. She suggested that Caroline's case was part of a movement to move towards achieving higher accountability

for domestic violence. I think this is a deeply reductive approach which fails to note that prison and conviction are not the best solution for domestic violence cases as the dire conditions and the lack of rehabilitation inside prison mean that perpetrators are likely to re-offend. Furthermore she stated, that's Joan Smith, that vulnerability is essentially irrelevant when it comes down to the perpetrator's eligibility for trial. That surely is bonkers in my view. The perpetrator, if suffering from mental health conditions, the commentator listed, such as addiction and depression,

must be offered rehabilitative support rather than the neglect of prison. Well, that's certainly a view. Hannah, thank you very much. And we know that prison is by no means perfect in any circumstances. From Simon, I realise the importance of the issues surrounding the tragic passing of Caroline full facts are not yet in the public arena, and relatives and friends are still coming to terms with it, is inappropriate. It sadly reflects how social media has numbed our sensitivities, just as much to blame, in my opinion, as the dreaded press that basically feeds off social media initiated by us all. I feel it would be a very different story if the presenter at the heart of this had been a man. Well, again, that was exactly what I was talking to Joan Smith about. And as for it being in poor taste, it's a tragic case, there's no doubt, Simon. But it has been featured on many, many other programmes, radio and television,

since the unfortunate death of Caroline Flack. And I think for Woman's Hour not to have referenced it this morning would have been slightly odd. And from Mike, does your presenter understand the hypocrisy of saying that she reads tabloid trash while fulminating against the press? She should get a grip and realise that she's part of the problem. And again, I said that and acknowledged my own hypocrisy

because my belief is that we are all, or almost all of us, guilty of hypocrisy. Thanks to everybody who contacted the programme. We always appreciate it. And we are back tomorrow. My guests include the star and one of the writers of this country, Daisy May Cooper. What are you interested in? And I mean really interested in. Really into box certificates. Pencils. Crinoline mania. So much so that if you see it or hold it or just think about it, then everything stops. And then one day it just vanished.

Each week in the Boring Talks podcast, join me, James Ward, as I introduce a guest speaker to share their own fascination for a very niche subject. But what could it possibly be? From the personal joys of pencils and teletext, to the expectant sounds of old computer games loading, every talk is a varied and surprising treat. Hear that? Lovely.

The Boring Talks. Subscribe right now on BBC Sounds. I'm Sarah Treleaven and for over a year I've been working on one of the most complex stories I've ever covered.

There was somebody out there who was faking pregnancies. I started like warning everybody. Every doula that I know. There was somebody out there who's faking pregnancies. I started like warning everybody. Every doula that I know. It was fake. No pregnancy. And the deeper I dig, the more questions I unearth. How long has she been doing this? What does she have to gain from this? From CBC and the BBC World Service, The Con, Caitlin's Baby. It's a long story, settle in. Available now.