Woman's Hour - Israel-Gaza war, Talking on the phone, Online safety, Baby stealers in Kenya

Episode Date: October 17, 2023

As the war in Israel and Gaza heads into its 10th day, Emma talks about the role of hostages in this conflict with Rachel Briggs the CEO of Clarity Factory and an associate fellow at Chatham House. BBC's Chief International Correspondent Lyse Doucet also provides an update about the humanitarian situation in Gaza.Are we becoming afraid of our phones? A recent survey suggest half of 12 to 26 year olds don't answer the phone to their parents and a third of them feel awkward speaking on the phone generally. But are we any different? Emma talks to Helen Thorn, a writer, podcaster and comedian and to 17-year-old Iona Cooke Mcintosh.Britain's long-awaited Online Safety Bill setting tougher standards for social media platforms has been agreed by parliament and is days away from becoming law. It will regulate online content to help keep users safe, especially children, and to put the onus on companies to protect people from the likes of abusive messages, bullying and pornography, Emma talks to Legal expert Joshua Rozenburg about what will be in the Act and also to Baroness Kidron who has been very involved in getting the act through the houses of parliament and to Rashik Parmar the CEO of BCS the chartered institute of IT about the future of online safety.In 2020, an undercover investigation by the BBC’s Africa Eye exposed a network of baby stealers and traffickers in Kenya. It sparked public outcry in the country and led many officials to make public promises of government action. Journalist Njeri Mwangi went undercover to cultivate a network of whistle-blowers in these trafficking networks. She’s revisited those impacted by the trade in a second documentary, What Happened to the Baby Stealers.Presenter: Emma Barnett Producer: Lucinda Montefiore

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. Hello, I'm Emma Barnett and welcome to Woman's Hour from BBC Radio 4. As the war in Israel and Gaza heads into its 10th day and preparations are made for the visit of the US President Joe Biden, it is the faces of women and girls that are dominating the images on the front pages of our newspapers and news websites. We will come to some of those details shortly. And as Hamas releases the first hostage video of a 21-year-old Israeli woman, we will also hear about the role of hostages in this conflict and specifically the role of female hostages. Also on today's programme, politics closer to home. The long-awaited bill

worked on by four different prime ministers designed to make us all safer online, in particular children and vulnerable people, is nearly, ever so nearly, law. We will explore what it will mean for you. And taking technology and general communication, it seems, as a bit of an unwitting theme on today's programme, a poll shows half of 18 to 24 year olds do not answer the phone to their parents and a third of them feel awkward speaking generally on the telephone. Is the phone call over? What are some of the best conversations you've had on the blower. What will we miss? I have to say, you might not be surprised to hear this with my occupation. I absolutely love talking on the phone. I think I was almost a professional at it when I was younger. Why don't you pick up? It's not just people in the age group of 18 to 24 as texts and WhatsApps and voice notes take over. What is it? I know friends of mine, if I ring them sometimes and actually ring them, they say, what's wrong, Emma? Is everything okay? No, no, I'm just ringing to say hello and see how

you are. Because, you know, I am perhaps called old fashioned in this respect, but at the age of 38, I grew up slightly pre-internet and then slightly post-internet and with it now all the time. Where are you with phone calls? Are there some people in your life who you can't imagine never speaking to on the phone? You can't live close to each other. And we'll include FaceTime videos. We'll just about include them because that is still talking live to each other.

Are there times when only a phone call will do? Text me here on 84844, an irony that, on social media at BBC Women's Hour. You can send a WhatsApp message or a voice note using the number 03700 100 444. We're giving you all forms of communication to get in touch about communication. So please do and let us know and let us know how you like to do it with you and yours. But first, two girls faces featuring on some of the newspaper front pages this morning, the British-Israeli teenage sisters, 13- and 16-year-old Yahel and Noya.

Both had been reported missing following the unprecedented attacks on Israel when Hamas massacred festival-goers and entered people's homes on Kibbutz's border in Gaza 10 days ago. The girl's mother, Leanne, had already been confirmed as killed. Her family have said she was a beloved daughter, sister, mother, aunt and friend who enriched the lives of all those lucky enough to have known and loved her. But shortly before coming on air this morning, the BBC has heard that her youngest daughter, 13-year-old Yahel, is now confirmed by her family to have also been killed by Hamas. Her sister, Noya, is reportedly still missing, as is her father. It is unknown whether Noya or her father is one of at least the 199 hostages Israel has said to have been taken by Hamas.

And on that, late last night, the first hostage video appeared. Again, it featured a woman, this time a 21-year-old Israeli woman who identifies herself as Maya Shem. In the video, Maya says she was taken from a party in Israel and pleads for her release. She is also shown receiving treatment for an arm injury. It's certainly a video that a lot of people have seen, but also some people haven't at this point. Another striking front page image today is of a Palestinian woman trying to leave Gaza, sat on a bag on the floor at the Rafah border. She is holding and feeding her young child with a bottle and surrounded by other children as they wait. Palestinian officials say Israeli strikes on that border have killed 49 people.

Overall, more than 2,700 people have died in Israeli retaliatory strikes in Gaza and 1,300 people in Israel have been killed by Hamas in the last 10 days. In a moment, we'll get the latest from the BBC's chief international correspondent, Lise Doucette, in southern Israel. But first, Rachel Briggs, the chief executive of Clarity Factory and an associate fellow at Chatham House. She joins me now. She's writing a book about hostage taking and hostage diplomacy. Good morning, Rachel. Hello. Last night, the BBC did confirm, I mentioned it there, that first hostage video being released by Hamas. It shows a young woman speaking Hebrew who identifies herself as a 21-year-old who calls herself Maya Shem. What do you take from the

release of that? Well, I think there's a few different things to say, actually. The first is that, believe it or not, it's good news and it should give us some hope. It's what you would call in the hostage business, the hostage community, if you like, a proof of life video. And it's always the first thing that any negotiator wants to establish, because in most cases, of course, what you're trying to work out is, has this person or these people really been taken? Are they still alive? Is there something to negotiate about? And are we talking to the right people, the right group?

And so this is a proof of life video and it should firstly bring us hope that this young woman is alive. The second thing, I guess, is that it's a, as strange as this might sound, it's a form of communication from Hamas. And in that way, it is a step forward. They are clearly trying to say something and the authorities will be going over this with a fine tooth comb to figure out what they're saying and why and and what all of this means but there is a at least an effort to communicate which again I take as strange as it might seem in these circumstances as a positive thing um and then I think the the final thing to say um although I have to say rather about sort of what the video means, if you like, is it's a it's a form, it's a way for Hamas of sending a message. And I think trying to say, trying to control the

narrative somewhat around who they are and and what's happening. Yeah, we have to work under the assumption that the video was scripted, that this young woman did not choose freely of the words that she used, that would certainly be true in other proof of life videos. And so I think it was no accident that she talks about, as you mentioned, receiving medical treatment. I think she says she's well looked after. She pleads for her life as well, as you have rightly said. And so to me, that says something potentially about Hamas trying to say, you know, we're appealing to our base. We're not the people we're being painted out to be. And it's an attempt to sort of shift the narrative and how they're perceived.

It's striking. This is your area of expertise. And we should say, obviously, not just in this war, you know, looking looking around the world. But the phrase proof of life video, because how do you have to take that at face value? Because, you know, as journalists, we're used to trying to date things, find out when they're from. Obviously, I'm talking to you live right now on the radio.

You know, it's happening at the moment. But, you know, how do you take that as proof of life without knowing more? So there will be a huge process that's going on behind the scenes right now um the authorities will be combing over every last detail of this video um they will have their technicians looking at the file type all of the sort of i'm no technician myself so um i i leave the boffins to to do what they do but they will be pouring over every technical aspect of this. They'll be looking at the video and saying, what can we see in the video?

What can we hear in the video? Are there any messages in the video? They'll be trying to establish the answer to questions like, when was this video recorded? Can we sort of get any idea about where it was recorded? Who recorded it? And so on and so forth. can we sort of get any idea about where it was recorded, who recorded it and so on and so forth. So a proof of life is a proof of life that at the point at which the video was created, we have to assume that person is alive. But it is a positive sign.

But the authorities, as you rightly say, will be combing over every last detail to try and understand the where, when, who and how of this particular piece of footage. You know, it may be just how things are this morning as I talked to you. But, you know, again, I wonder from your perspective around, you know, they say at least 199 hostages. In this instance, it's a young woman. Is there anything about that? You know, it's an interesting question I've been asking myself this morning, it's a young woman. Is there anything about that? You know, it's an interesting question I've been asking myself this morning, actually. And, you know, taking women and children as well in these kind of in hostage cases is really unusual. So I suspect it's not an accident that it's a woman that's been taken. taken um i think it possibly and i'm speculating here but i think it possibly tells us something

about an attempt to project um some strength here on the part of of hamas i think it possibly also links into the fact you know there's been so many calls you know from from you know minute one of this situation you know at least let the women and children go. And so there's a question in my mind about whether it sends both that strength message I mentioned, but also, does it inches towards a message of, okay, let's start talking about the women and children, I may be pushing that too far. I think we're all trying to read into this as much as we can, aren't we? Well, it also brings to mind a report by Anshul Pfeffer who wrote in The Times, I think it was last week, that there was division within Hamas,

his sources had told him that, about whether that strategy of taking women and children was the right one, that somehow he had heard that from his sources, that there'd been division on that point. But as you say, people trying to take what they can from the limited information. But as you say, people trying to take what they can from the limited information and talking about information, you know, also trying to be aware of people's security. Is it, what does it do? And what is the impact of knowing this individual's name, knowing this girl's name?

Yeah, it's, I mean, if we look at, if we look at hostage cases, generally, and there are many, many cases every year around the world, what negotiators and governments will usually say to the family is, you know, stay quiet. Let's keep this out of the headlines as much as possible. And the reason that they're doing that and you can argue about the pros and cons, but their rationale for doing that is, as one negotiator said to me, you can't unring a bell. Once a name is out there, once a face is out there, it can never not be out there again. And from a negotiation standpoint, what the

negotiators are trying to do is figure out who's got this person, what is it they want for them, what are we willing to concede, and how might this play out. And until you understand who's got them, what the motives are, what the parameters for negotiation are, you can't really decide whether it's in the hostages' best interest to have them known or to not have them known. Is that an advantage or a disadvantage? I think in this case, I can't possibly put myself in the shoes of families who are in a state of utter terror right now. But I suspect part of their calculation of releasing family members' names and photographs is, of course, this is a situation that isn't just about hostages. You know, there is a conflict going on, there's a very serious conflict going on. And there are, you know, we're anticipating at any moment, Israeli forces going in on the ground as well.

And so I suspect from a family perspective, some of those old rules kind of have simply gone out the window because what they're trying to do, understandably, is to keep their family members alive, to keep their name alive and to keep them prioritised alongside all of the other priorities, which are kind of unfortunately at play here, as well as the plight of the hostages. You mentioned there the families and some of the decisions with the limited power they will have. And as your specialism is hostages,

you will have talked to, I imagine, families around the world when their loved ones have found themselves in this incredibly distressing and tragic and scary situation. What is it like for those families at this time? Yeah, and in fact, my own family has experience of this, which is how I kind of ended up doing this with this area of expertise. And I can tell you from my experience and many families that I've talked to over the years, utter terror goes without saying. This is a terrifying situation. The information point is absolutely critical here.

Families are desperate for every shred of information about their loved ones. And, you know, the thing that's so difficult about these cases is that on the one hand, there's so little good quality information available. And on the other hand, there's no shortage of misinformation, even disinformation, conspiracy theories, rumours. So for families, they're constantly trying to get hold of every shred of information they can to try and sift through and work out what the plight of their loved ones is. And that's why it's so critical that relationship between a family and the government, which is responsible for negotiating, because they're often privy to information that is important they release to the family. A sense of helplessness. We heard that from the British families in their news conference a few days ago. You know, this sense of trying to maintain hope, but feeling utterly helpless. And I guess the other thing, and this is always something I say

to any family I'm in touch with is, you know, unfortunately, you might be preparing for a marathon rather than a sprint. And, and as difficult as it is to, you know, make sure that you get sleep and make sure that you eat and rest. And as sort of silly as that advice can seem in the middle of this dreadful circumstance, you know, it's really important for families that they're getting that advice and that they're sort of trying, if they can at all, to preserve their energy, preserve their strength, because the days, weeks and possibly longer ahead are going to be tough on them. Rachel Briggs, Chief Executive of Clarity Factory and Associate Fellow at Chatham House,

who's writing a book as well about hostage taking and hostage diplomacy. I had been hoping to talk to the BBC's Chief International Correspondent to get the latest on what's going on in Gaza and with her sources that she's talking to there, especially after that image I mentioned of a woman sitting on her bag, waiting at the RAFA border, feeding her young child and surrounded by children. But also what's the latest in terms of the preparations for the US president, Joe Biden, going into Israel tomorrow and the focus on women and girls

that we have seen in the media and with also the release of that hostage video we were just talking about, at least Doucette is in southern Israel. If I can go to her a little bit later, I will. As you can imagine, it's quite difficult at times to make sure we have a safe line up to our correspondents. So hopefully I'll speak to Lise Doucette, the BBC's chief international correspondent and someone who's been keeping us very much in the loop and an eye on women and children in this war, in the Israel-Gaza war, a little bit later in the programme, if I can. And I will also be coming later in the programme to some of the issues around communication and politics and safety to do with a long-awaited bill that has been drafted and redrafted many times over the last six years in a bid to keep us all safer online. That's all coming up very shortly as well in today's programme.

So do stay with me for that. But you have also been getting in touch, it seems, via the preferred method of communication in our society, safely on text and on email rather than the telephone call. This isn't a phone-in, I should say. We do sometimes do a special, so I won't hold you to account for that. But there is a recent survey which suggests that half of 18 to 24-year-olds do not answer the phone to their parents. That's a specific question. And a third of them feel awkward generally speaking on the phone.

And it also suggested 60% of parents of children aged between 13 and 25 believe the younger generation are scared of answering calls and only hear from their children via WhatsApp and text. But is it just younger people? There's a lot of people going off the phone generally. Helen Thorne is here, the writer, podcast and comedian. She's not here with her two teenage children, but I'm reliably informed she has them. And we've also got Iona Cook-McIntosh, who's 17, I'm told nearly 18. And safely for us, we've got her into the studio because calling her this morning might not have gone so well. Iona, is that because you don't like the phone?

It's true. I don't like the phone. I'm not a fan. What is it? Tell us. I mean, I always say I don't feel like my phone is the real world. It's so intangible compared to my real life that I'm like, what am I doing answering the phone? What am I doing texting people? And texting as well? Yeah that I'm like what am I doing answering the phone like what am I doing texting people take and texting as well yeah I'm not a fan of either okay well maybe you're slightly different then than a lot of people are talking about texting if I could stick with the phone call bit for a minute what's your reaction when you get a phone call um if if I haven't been

told that someone's gonna call me I'm shocked because I'm like, oh, having access to my phone 24-7. Why do you have access to me 24-7? But I'm shocked and then I'll have to consider. But then I answer. Yes. I ask my mum, but I won't necessarily answer other people. OK, again, maybe bucking the trend. Do you answer your mum first time or does she have to call a couple of times?

First. What would happen if you didn't? I don't want to know. Okay, again, maybe bucking the trend. Do you answer your mum first time or does she have to call a couple of times? First, first. What would happen if you didn't? I don't want to know. I don't know. I don't want to know. I'm never going to not answer. Yeah, I was going to say, I remember the first message, we've got so many messages coming in about the phone.

And there was one here that just came to mind straight away that said, my teen son, this is from Lizzie, blocked me and I wondered for ages why I couldn't reach him. Then I said I wouldn't pay for his SIM if he did it again. Children tend to or our children tend to text or WhatsApp rather than speak. But the teens are not known for big conversation. Does that go along with what you and your friends are feeling? Yeah, I think so. Most of the time if my mum calls me, it's like to find out where I am or what I'm doing.

But I'd rather text her first and be like, oh, here I am. So then she doesn't have to call me. So it's done. Just eliminate all chance of getting a phone call. So, yeah. You know, it's such an interesting thing. Helen, let's bring you in at this point. Where do you come to this?

Well, yeah, because I've got a daughter who's nearly 15. And it feels like talking on the phone is the worst thing. There's such anxiety around it. And she said, like, her friends don't like talking on the phone. There's such a disconnect. And yet, they're so available for text. And, you know, they communicate, yes, but talking, absolute minimum. And I think it's so different to me. I'm 44. Getting a phone call was the most exciting thing. I'm one of five children. We used to elbow each other in the hall to get there.

And then, you know, you would talk on the phone all night to friends. And it was delicious. You know, you talk about gossip, what happened at school. And now it's like the dreaded phone call. It's really funny. And I think it's really funny the word, can we talk, is so loaded now. Because beforehand, it's like, can we talk? That's so loaded now because beforehand it's like, can we talk? That's a great thing.

But now it's associated with like, I don't know, breaking up a relationship or that you're going to get fired. It has been completely switched around. But just even the word talk and people, I'm sure there's listeners getting a bristle now because, you know, a text feels there is emotional disconnect from it. And you can kind of think about it. You can send an emoji, but you hear so much from a voice. There's an honesty, there's an authenticity in a voice. You can't hide how you're feeling,

but you can send a whole lot of emojis to let people know you're kind of okay. I mean, I think I was so busy on the landline as a 16-year-old, it was like I was running a call centre and I did used to work in a call centre. And the thrill of not knowing who was calling was actually a big part of it, you know, that thing. And I think what's interesting to bring you back in, Iona, is the idea of, you know, now needing to have that warning of the conversation

because that's quite old-fashioned, weirdly, in a way, if you think back to it. I don't know why I watched this, but a few months ago I saw, it was to do with the anniversary of technology in our homes and we saw a footage it was BBC Archive of a woman saying well it can, that thing in the corner, it was when

the landline was first introduced, it can just call whenever it wants and I have to pick it up and it was an intrusion, so maybe we're going full circle, I don't know what you think about that No I agree, I do feel like I do feel taken aback when people are trying to contact me when I'm in my house, I'm like oh but I'm at home, like I'm kind of I've logged off, it's like it's not time for me to chat anymore and I do feel taken aback when people are trying to contact me when I'm in my house. I'm like, oh, but I'm at home.

Like I'm kind of I've logged off. It's like it's not time for me to chat anymore. And I do think when I do think like the phrase, oh, can we talk? It's way more loaded. I feel I do feel very anxious. And I was like, can we can we talk or can we call specifically? I feel like I'm about to have a big moment, like something something's about to happen. Yeah, it does feel like a doom thing. Exactly.

You're like, why do they want to talk to me? Just send a funny emoji or a meme to say what you mean. It's really interesting. But I know people in my generation, like I'm a comedian and, you know, organising tours and things like that and so many people would prefer an email or like, can we just talk and then we'll get this sort of sorted in five minutes. You can solve so much. That's so many things quick i know but also

can we can we just quickly talk about the voice note and the endless long voice note when when someone sends a six minute voice note you have to take notes you've got it i'm like all right i need to slot in time in my day to get back to my friend and the 28 points that they've just made. If we had a phone call for like two minutes, we could go back and forth. Drives me mad. Drives me mad. The voice note's an interesting development here. Obviously, we had the voicemail, but the voice note being there and then there being, you know, I have friends where they load on.

There's three or four, they keep going, they've thought of something else, they've walked past, a siren's gone off. I mean, it's a whole like, again, in my line of work as a live broadcaster I think wow this is like a dispatch it could be a correspondent on the radio it's a podcast it's it's there but it what's interesting about it which I'm I don't love if I'm honest although I do like hearing my friends voices and people I care about is it's one way right so so there is no way of just immediately going well hang on what do you mean by that or if they they're feeling sad or something's wrong, you can't go, no, no, I don't think that is right.

I mean, I don't know what you make of that. No, yeah, I am someone who does send 20 voice notes each a minute long, 20 minute podcast. You have to listen to the whole episode. You have to take notes. You have to really set yourself up to listen and answer. But like, I do agree that it's this thing where I can't, you can't really respond. Like it's this thing where I can't you can't really

respond like it's not a back and forth I can't interject and be like wait but are you sure about this or how do you feel here or I'll forget stuff and then I'll be like okay this is pointless and I don't want to respond anymore because I'm lost and you're lost and we're both lost and so like yesterday my friend was doing this and I was like can we actually just can we actually just call yes and did you yeah we did because it was like, can we actually just call? And did you? Yeah, we did. Because it was like, I can't actually keep responding to your voice notes. It's difficult because I think what's the issue of text is you can't convey tone without emojis or something. But even emojis is limiting.

But voice notes, you can convey tone, but then there's still the emotional disconnect. What do you do, Helen, to bring it back to where some of this started, which is if children don't pick up to you? Iona's not found out about that because she's always answering the phone. But have you got a strategy? Oh, yeah, because I start with a phone call because especially when I'm away

and as a single parent, I want to hear my children's voices. But I'm so monosyllabic and so like, how are you? How was your date? Good. How was school? Okay. I'm like, I want to hear how you feelic and so like, how are you? How was your date? Good. How's school? Okay.

I'm like, I want to hear how you feel. I want to, but no. So I'll send a couple of texts. I'll try different ways. I've now joined Snapchat just so I can communicate with my daughter because I know I can see her online. I'm like, I know, I know where she is. There's Snap Maps.

I can see where she is. So I've tried different strategies in which I can communicate with them. But it's not the same. Like when they want me, they'll send me like 18 texts like, mum, mum, mum, you're online, you're online, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing. But if I want to contact them, in a minute, I was being present with my friend. So it's slightly, it's slightly insane, but they'll get there. But it's such an art is a good conversation. Like, you know, you don't want to be on the phone for six hours. But I think listening to people, properly listening, not a voice note, but listening and responding is really important. I mean, there is concern about losing that art.

There are people writing in about that and then what that will mean in the workplace and how you move forward. What do you think about that, Iona? I'm not sure I think I think it's difficult because a lot of the reason why I think I prefer to text or not call is because I'd rather have a conversation in person so I don't know if that maybe that is development of the art of conversation because I'd rather be able to read your body language and like see your facial expression and really understand your tone but and I think I'm not sure I think I think having a phone and I think being able to see like I can see my friends snapchat stories or their instagram stories so I think me not having to engage all the time with people's lives might actually be taking it back and maybe

maybe lose the art of community of conversation do you think you'll keep talking to your mum on the phone especially as you get older move away yeah you've got that link because people's chats you know we are women's are with their mums there's a bit of a theme as well of how important those relationships via phone are yeah I think I that I mean I know that I definitely will I talk to my I don't need to call my mum because I live with her but if I'm not with her then I do like I'm like okay we'll be on FaceTime for half an hour or something I don't really I don't know if I want to call but I want to see her face and hear her voice so I'll FaceTime her for like for a while and my cousin just went to uni and now all of a sudden I suddenly want to

FaceTime he suddenly wants to see my face so I think that there's that link with my mum will still stay no one I don't need to call anyone else but my mum yeah she's on the favourites yeah the ones who can have the shortcut through well there you go maybe that will reassure you to feel a bit better about your role perhaps as as your children get older, Helen. It's lovely to talk to both of you today, in person and across the microphones like this. Iona Cook-McIntosh and Helen Thorne, thank you to both of you. Many messages coming in around your relationships

and also some of the rituals around it. You know, someone's saying here, I FaceTime my best friend of 50 years every week. We've done it ever since lockdown. We're always there for each other. I would hate to be without the option to speak to her. We haven't even brought up lockdown. I think that did change how some people were talking to each other. So keep those messages coming in. There are many and I will come back to them if I can. But talking about coming

back to, I did say we were trying to reach the BBC's chief international correspondent, Lise Doucette, in southern Israel. We were just talking there about the latest and specifically around the hostage video that's been released of a young woman yesterday by Hamas. Lise Doucette, I believe I've got you now. Hello, Lise. Hello, Emma. You can reach me anywhere in the world and I'll be ready to speak with you and be with your, with your many listeners on women's hour thank you so much for for talking to us today and we'll just start by talking uh around um the situation in in gaza because there's there's movement there in terms of aid supplies making their way there but borders are still closed emma so much aid is at the only way in and out of g Dozens of lorries packed with food and medicine and other desperately needed supplies. Also fuel tankers.

They're all piling up. They've been piling up for days on the Egyptian side of what's called the Rafah crossing in the south of the Gaza Strip. But that crossing is shut. There are thousands of people massing on the other side. And yesterday there was a flurry of excitement, and no doubt most of all among people desperate to leave, people who haven't eaten, washed, slept properly in days and days, desperate to get out as soon as possible.

And that only means people, Gazans who hold a second passport. There was a report that Israel had agreed to a ceasefire in southern Gaza, which would persuade Egypt to open the border. Instead, those reports were all denied, and last night there was another airstrike, an Israeli airstrike, in the area around the Rafah crossing. Even the United Nations said there were 8,000 Gazans huddling, seeking refuge at its centre close to Rafah and it described the tension there as very high.

I mean, it's almost impossible for us to imagine how frightened people are, how exhausted people are. We heard from our reporter there, he said the situation is at breaking point for more than a million people who fled from the north only to get to the south of Gaza to find the bombardment hasn't stopped there. There isn't water. There was three hours of water this morning. That's not enough for people. Fuel is going to run out, the UN says, in the next 24 hours for all of the hospitals in Gaza. No wonder the World Health Organization is using a language I've never heard from it before,

saying this is a death sentence. The situation, as you say, is moving. It's good to be put in the latest picture, if I can put it like that. We were also, this morning, just before coming on air, heard that the youngest daughter, Yahel, we're not giving the surname there, British-Israeli teenagers, there's two sisters, their faces are on the news sites and on some of the front pages this morning, has been confirmed by her family

to have also been killed by Hamas alongside her mother. Her sister and her father are still missing and also very striking, we were just talking about the images of women and the first hostage video appeared last night, the BBC confirming that, featuring a woman, a 21-year-old Israeli woman who identified herself as Maya Shem.

What do we know about the hostage situation and the response as the Israeli government looks at that video? Emma, war is the cruelest of human experiences, brutal, merciless, and the most cruelest of wars where they don't discriminate between men, women, between children and elderly and people of all ages and genders have been dragged into this conflict. We saw that image early this morning of Maya Shen, 21 years old, long blonde hair. So many people looking at that video could say that could be my daughter, my sister, my friend, in which she says, first of all, the fact that she speaks into a video gives hope to her family, relief that she is alive, but horror to see her saying, I was injured. They treated my injuries in hospital in Gaza. But please, anyone who can do anything to get us out, please, please get us out.

And there was also a video this morning of a young man, and it was reported that he had been killed in one of the Israeli airstrikes. This is psychological propaganda by Hamas. It puts pressure on all of those, and there are many countries, including the United States and Britain, those who have experience with hostage-taking situations, whose own nationals are involved, who are trying to give advice to Israel about how, in really an impossible situation, how to conduct a military operation, but also rescue hostages. This is uncharted territory for Israel, for so many countries.

BBC's chief international correspondent, Lise Doucette, thank you very much, coming to us from southern Israel. 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. 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.

It is just days until the Online Safety Bill will get royal assent and finally become law as the Online Safety Act. It will make social media firms responsible for users' safety on their platforms. It will force firms to remove illegal content and to protect children from some legal but harmful content. That includes pornography and material which promotes or glorifies eating disorders, self-harm and suicide. It's taken six years to get the legislation onto the statute book and inevitably that process has led to compromises. Some wanted the legislation to go further,

but many of the technology companies are concerned the Act is too far-reaching and worry about the scope of what they'll be required to censor and whether or not they're even capable of doing so. Well, the filmmaker and crossbench peer Baroness Beban Kidron has been instrumental in getting the legislation through Parliament. She joins me now here in the studio. Good morning. Good morning. And I'm also joined on the line by Rashid Palmer, who's the Chief Executive of the British

Computer Society. But just before I speak to both of you, and for our listeners, I know you will have heard the phrase of the Online Safety Bill before, but let's just get a recap about the background to this law from Radio 4's Law in Action presenter, Joshua Rosenberg. This goes back as much as six years, exactly six years. There was a green paper, a consultation on internet safety in October 2017. The government responded in May the following year. Further consultation called the Online Harms White Paper in the spring of 2019. Response from the government in 2020.

Draft Bill 2021 considered by MPs. The bill itself was published in March last year. Final text running to nearly 300 pages debated for 18 months in Parliament finally agreed by MPs and peers last month waiting for Royal Assent, which is a formality. But even that is only the beginning. The new Act won't take effect until sometime next year.

OK, so it's quite a journey. Quite a journey. You truncated it well for us, thank you. And what's of course unique about perhaps what it's trying to legislate about and what it's trying to change is how fast moving that world is and how long this has taken and there are concerns around what will have changed perhaps in that time. Yes, the bill has been modified even while it's been going through Parliament. New offences have been created. But obviously, this is intended to be flexible and it relies on codes which are going to be drafted by the regulator Ofcom, which will be running the whole show. And obviously, those codes can be updated.

And why was it felt that the need for this legislation was there? We all use the internet, don't we? The government says that 99% of 12 to 15-year-olds are online, but the internet can be used to spread terrorist or other illegal or harmful content. It can be used to undermine democratic values and abuse or bully people, particularly vulnerable people. Sometimes it can lead to self-harm.

So the challenge is to support freedom of expression online while protecting those of us who may be vulnerable. Now, in the past, that's been left to the providers, the tech companies. There is some law that's going to be revised once this new legislation takes effect. But in general, they've been left to get on with it. And the government says that self-regulation is not good enough. And what's needed is this new regulatory framework. You talked about harmful but legal content, and that's what's also spoken about. There's illegal as well, and there's harmful but legal. Can you give us some examples of what's illegal or what will be or what could be and then what's harmful but legal.

Illegal content that platforms will have to remove includes child sexual abuse, controlling or coercive behaviour, extreme sexual violence, fraud, hate crime, inciting violence, promoting suicide, promoting self-harm, revenge porn, selling illegal drugs or weapons, sexual exploitation, terrorism and the government says this isn't just about removing existing illegal content, it's also about stopping it from appearing in the first place. Platforms will need to think how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place. Then you also referred to content that may be lawful for adults, but may be harmful for children. And so the tech

companies will have to protect children from encountering things like pornographic content, content that doesn't meet a criminal threshold, but perhaps encourages or provides instructions for suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, anything that encourages serious violence, bullying content. And there's also some content that internet providers will have to be careful of, quite modern. This is a content which depicts real or serious violence against a person or an animal or even a fictional creature, content that encourages a challenge or a stunt, which is highly likely to result in serious injury, and content that might encourage a person

to take poison. So far and you correct me if I'm wrong tech companies have not been subjected to the same rules as say traditional publishers does the act change that? It certainly changes that and what it does is it imposes restrictions on these internet providers, these service providers, tech companies, which go much further than the law regarding newspapers and other publishers. Because of the nature of the internet, the largest platforms will have to offer adult users tools so that they can have greater control over the kinds of content they see and who they engage with online.

They'll be allowed to filter out unverified users, which will help stop anonymous trolls from contacting them. And the providers will have to put in place systems that allow users to report specified types of content, to establish a transparent and easy-to-use complaints procedure, while protecting users' legal rights to freedom of expression. And at the same time, they'd have to put into place systems to ensure that if people come across unreported child sexual exploitation and abuse content, that's reported to the National Crime Agency. So it is a question of balancing our rights as adults and our rights as adults to see things which others may not wish to see against the vital importance of protecting young people, particularly teenagers, particularly vulnerable people be run by Ofcom, I'm sure they'll make

mistakes to begin with. But presumably over time, we will all learn how to cope and the internet service providers, the tech companies that produce this content will know what they can do and more importantly, what they can't do. That's Radio 4's Law in Action presenter Joshua Rosenberg doing, I suppose, some of the heavy lifting of what this will contain. Listening to that Baroness Beban Kidron, the crossbench peer and the film producer who got this with others through to this stage. And Rashid Parmar, who is chief executive, I believe, of the BCS, the Chartered Institute for IT, as well as I'm sure other roles that he'll bring to bear in this conversation. Beban, let me come to you. How do you feel at this point?

And do you think the companies that are now going to have new rules imposed upon them, if I could put it like that, are up to the job? Well, I think the good news is they've got to be up to the job. And that's the point about law and regulation is actually society saying, you know what, this exceptionality narrative that you've had, that you are different, has allowed that phenomenal list that Joshua gave just now of completely illegal activity in their business model and to spread it very widely. And it's saying, no, no, you can't do that. You actually cannot be the purveyors of that kind of material. So that's an argument that you have won in the law.

But do you think in reality, those in charge of implementing it, so we've heard about Ofcom's role, the media regulator, will perhaps, as Joshua says, get things wrong at first as this sort of beds in. But do you think they will be able to enforce it? I think they will. And I think the way to think about it is this, that in the 19th century, we had no less than 17 factory acts to sort out how factories should be. And I think people should expect not only more legislation on the digital companies, but also sector specificspecific legislation coming in. For example, you know, the battles that we see about Hollywood writers on AI or actors on AI. There will be moves made to live alongside and with technology.

But the one thing I wanted to pick up that Joshua said was he talked about vulnerable users and he talked about, you know, women and children specifically as vulnerable users. What he didn't mention, and I think this is the big important thing about the bill, is the way in which these services make women and children vulnerable. That it isn't the case that every little boy is out there looking for porn. It's that they're pushing it into the hands of children. It isn't the case that all of us women are seeking a political fight. It's that we are bombarded by violence when we speak out. And what the bill does is it says, hang on a minute, you are businesses, you are making money from your products. And what you have to do is take a risk assessment

against these sorts of outcomes and show the regulator how you're going to make it better. Roshig is the technology there in place and do you think that to be able to make these modifications and do you think it will actually happen? So I mean a lot of the technology that government are assuming is there is quite frankly not there. And there's a lot of work to be done to both develop that technology and make it reliable and dependable. So when people say it's 99.5% accurate, that's nowhere near good enough when you've got millions of users because that means there's 50 000 people who who will be either false positive or false negative under some of these things which which is a very difficult problem to to try and tackle what are you talking about specifically with with what technology to do what and so technology that that can do things like age verification technology

that can to do things like uh you know identify the the harmful content You can't just let technology do that. There's great examples of where people are sending images legitimately across the internet. There's a great example, in fact, of a father during the pandemic who sent an email to his doctor because his four-year-old son had an inflammation in the groin. That email was picked up by the email provider and seen as child pornography, and his email account was shut down. So not only did they stop him from sending emails, they shut down all

of his email. So for a six-month period where he battled with email providers to try and get his email back, he was locked out of that. All his communications during the pandemic was stopped because of that. So assuming that technology can judge what is illegal or inappropriate and what is not is a big challenge. And we need to find effective, efficient, effective ways of doing that. It's not just technology, it needs to be a combination of education. And it's got to be a learning process. And Ofcom is going to learn that as we go forward. What do you make of that? I think it's a slightly false argument. I mean, there are always grey areas, and there will be accidents. And one of the things that the bill says is that they've got to have better reporting processes. That's what we heard already. And I think that they've got to, they will make mistakes,

but they're going to put them, they've got to not take six months to put that guy's emails back in loops. But the idea that the technology is not there is actually sort of, it's a slightly false note because a lot of what we're asking for is for them to turn off and stop pushing algorithmically material that they are pushing because it's public. What do you make of that, just on that point? Because you're both making several points and then you kind of move away from one and I want to give you the chance.

Rashid, what do you make of that? Yeah, no, so I think the point on algorithmic behaviour is an important one. Ultimately, the platform providers have got to take that risk assessment, as Baroness said, and they've got to use their risk assessment to figure out which is the right way of deriving the content for both societal value and commercial benefit. Remember from the BCS, I don't represent the technology. I represent 70,000 technical professionals. And my focus is how do we make sure...

But are you expecting, sorry, on that point, are you expecting that technical professionals will now, if I'm just going to make this up, but let's say in one of these big businesses, we say, listen, this new app's come in, we're going to get a massive fine if we keep algorithmically pushing this content that's going to make this girl feel terrible about her body,

but was getting us some quite nice ad revenue in the way that we've set this up. Will people in your world be told, can you now do it the other way? Can you rewrite the algorithm? So the professionals absolutely want to do that. So the conversation that we have with our professionals, they want to keep children and women safe on the internet. They want to do everything they can. And they are trying to develop those algorithms and those technologies that can help do that.

But they have to be commissioned, don't they, by the bosses and incentivized financially? Correct. And I think having Ofcom encourage or even enforce that is really helpful. So we absolutely welcome Ofcom supporting the professionals in this journey. I think you've said it brilliantly, that actually it literally puts it in the in-tray, at the C-suite, at the profit level, and say, actually, you need to do this. You need to protect children. First, the risk assessment process. You work out what isn't safe about your product. And I think the other thing I'd just like to say, the bill did bring in some very important new ideas. First of all, access to data for coroners and bereaved parents when a child has died. That is something that is so crucial.

So being able to go into your child's account or being able to look at messages, all of that? Yeah, but it would be done through formal processes, you know, Ofcom, coroners and so on, but not making families like Molly Russell's family wait five years to get hold of that information. And also it's shifted a bit from simply thinking about content to thinking about functionalities and how the functionalities of design create problems. So addiction, for example, and those sorts of things, thinking about them in advance instead of this move fast and break things when the things that are being broken are the kids is really crucial. And perhaps also, I mean, this is another discussion for another day

and I'm sure we could both do that and thank you for being with us, is around whether it will stop certain people posting things in the first place, whether it also will change the behaviour. You can't rely on that. That's why we're seeing this law, as I say, six years in the making. You know each step of it.

But also, if there are ramifications now that are real world, you see the technology companies having to change their behaviour. But I don't know, do you think there will be a change? I think there will be some cultural change. I think that the anything goes era, you know, may be over. But I think that all of us are committed to freedom of speech, but we are not committed to pushing, you know, harmful material, illegal material around the world with all the radicalisation and all the problems that it creates.

Baroness Bibin Kidron, thank you to you. Rashid Parmar, thank you very much for your time and speaking on behalf of those that you represent. A government spokesman said the Online Safety Bill is a world-leading piece of legislation that will make the UK the safest place in the world to be online by protecting our children and empowering adults to have more choice over what they see online.

It is designed to be tech neutral to ensure it keeps pace with emerging technologies. This means, for example, that content generated by AI and then shared on regulated services will be treated consistently with other content. And an Ofcom spokesperson said, Ofcom, the media regulator, tackling violence against women and girls online

is a priority for us. Our research shows that women are less confident about their personal online safety and feel the negative effects of harmful content like trolling more deeply. We're ready to start implementing the UK's new online safety laws very soon after they receive royal assent. We'll consult on the first set of standards that will expect tech firms to meet in tackling illegal online harms, including those which disproportionately impact women and girls, such as harassment, stalking, threats and abuse. Now, it has been three years since our colleagues at BBC Africa Eye exposed a network of individuals stealing babies in Nairobi, who preyed upon some of Kenya's most vulnerable women. You may remember this report.

The team's investigation triggered a public outcry in the country and promises a firm government action. The day, in fact, after the film was broadcast, the Labour and Social Protection Minister at the time in the country said no effort would be spared in ensuring the safety of children and mothers. Well, Njeri Mwangji is a journalist who went undercover and cultivated a network of whistleblowers, has revisited those impacted in a second documentary called What Happened to the Baby Stealers? She joins us now. Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you for having me. Thank you for being here. And just to remind people, I tried to a little bit there, but the original investigation uncovered what? Kind of sold them before they were born, found buyers and then found a mother who wanted to get rid of her child. And then she would convince this woman to give up her child, but then should give them very little money and sell the baby for profit. And, you know, following what's happened to these women is a big part of this, I know. But did you and were you and the team ever able to discover what was happening to these babies? No, the investigation was not able to discover what happened to the children because we couldn't even tell who the buyers were, where they were coming from. So it was hard to know where the children went because they just disappeared. And the women that you've spoken to, tell us about them.

The women who were selling the children um the what there was a homeless woman on the street and she she knew she was living on borrowed time and she she would get the children from the mothers unsuspecting mothers when they were sleeping that sniff glue in the streets to fall asleep to not feel hungry to just be numb and she'd snatch their children while they slept and sell them without being known. And then we had the social worker from the hospital who was a guy called Fred. And his sole responsibility was to just make sure that children that are abandoned in hospital or whose mothers die and there's no next of kin listed, was taken to a home where children can be taken care of. And so what Fred would do is he'd sell these children and without the system knowing,

or at least that's what it seemed to be like, without the system knowing and he'd pocket the money for himself. Then, yeah, so those were the three leads that we were following. And I was just going to say, you know, there was also some change after this, a little bit, certainly when it came to the laws and the public outcry and the reaction. Tell us of that. So when we published the story, immediately the hospital responded and put some people, some people were arrested and the police went in there and arrested Fred and the person that she was working with called,

jeez, I've forgotten her name. She was arrested and so the two were arrested immediately and then there was the... This is Selena, Selena Adundo and Fred working at the hospital that you're talking about. So carry on. The point was there were arrests made, in some sense, some justice there. There was justice that seemed to have been taking place because then the case went on in court and eventually they were charged and sentenced with different charges, the two of them.

Unfortunately, Mary Ahuma, who was the one who was um getting the children born and then selling them she seemed to have disappeared and to date they've not been able to locate her or find where she is but then anita who was the homeless woman shortly after the production of the film in 2020 she she like i said earlier she was of ill health and she passed and she passed away sorry that the line slightly cut there and I mean do you think there's a change more generally and the desire from from those in charge to make a difference on this? Well sadly I don't think there's really much that has been done because they said they would put a special task force that would ensure that there's child safety and from the government side I wouldn't say I have seen or there's

anything much they've really done since. The only person who was doing and is still doing something was a lady called Mariana and she runs Missing Child Kenya at Old Tree Line where people can report missing children and so she tries to work with the police. But in terms of anything that has changed in that regard, I wouldn't say much has happened since. The second documentary is called What Happened to the Baby Stealers. And you know, even that title, if you didn't know about the first part of it, it will catch people's eye. It will perhaps make them engage with a story that they don't know anything about, which is, I'm sure, what you're hoping to be able to do. Yes, I think with the sentencing of Fred and Selena, it sends a big message that you can lose your life

by being arrested and sentenced to a long time in jail. So that is a bit of a preventative and a danger to anyone who is, or at least it would discourage somebody who's doing that. And so with that, and knowing that still we are watching and the world is looking, I think it puts people on their toes. But also even to parents with young children, they're very much more vigilant now and they take care more than they did because they see that child trafficking is still there. And while something may seem to have been done, it still does not take away that as a threat to their children. Njeri Mawangi, thank you very much for talking to us this morning on Woman's Hour.

Thank you to you for your messages, many coming in about communications and how you talk to those in your life. There's one here saying, morning Emma, I speak to my 30-year-old daughter every day coming back to this discussion. My wonderful mum and I did the same and I'm blessed that even though all my children have busy lives, they still get on the phone and chat to their needy mum. I'm laughing because yesterday it got to 7pm and I hadn't spoken to my daughter

and as I thought that, the phone rang. I love to talk. Well, so do I. And tomorrow I'll be talking to Colleen Rooney or Wagatha Christie, as she became known in her first radio interview since that big announcement. All that to come tomorrow. I'll be back with you then. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Thank you so much for your time. Join us again for the next one. Hello, I'm Melvin Bragg and I'm back with a new series of BBC Radio 4's In Our Time. We're celebrating our 1,000th episode,

so there's an extraordinary range of topics for you to get stuck into, from history, science and philosophy, to religion and the arts. This series we're discussing Albert Einstein, E. Mark Bergman, Plankton, the Versailles Treaty and much more. In Our Time is like an audio encyclopedia, we're told, and you can hear it all on BBC Sounds. I hope you enjoy it. I'm Sarah Trelevan, 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. 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.