This topic was discussed on World Have Your Say on 4 March 2011. Listen to the programme.

World famous singers and rappers, a university and global business are all facing criticism for making money from Libya.

Beyoncé, Mariah Carey, Usher, 50 Cent and Nelly Furtado have been pressured to give back or give away money they earned from performing at parties thrown by Colonel Gaddafi's family.

Mariah Carey advises:

We need to be more aware and take more responsibility regardless of who books our shows. Ultimately, we as artists are to be held accountable.

Stephen Pollard writes that the LSE 'is not the only university that has reason to feel ashamed' but Chris MacDonald who blogs about business ethics doesn't think it's necessarily a good idea for companies to stop doing business with Libya:

I'm sure many will be tempted to say that foreign companies should pull out entirely. But then, it's not clear that such a blanket prohibition does much good for the people of Libya as a whole. Note, for example, that Libya currently imports about 75% of its food. Stopping doing business with Libya would mean starving its population.

Is it right to criticise people for making money from Libya and the Gaddafi family, particularly after the regime was 'brought in from the cold' by politicians like Tony Blair years ago? Or should it be 'business as usual' with issues of ethics and trade kept separate?

This topic was discussed on the programme on Mon 31 Jan. Click here to listen.

Washington and European capitals want to keep Egypt stable and allied to the West. Up until now, President Mubarak has been viewed as a man who can deliver that.

But now it seems they are not so sure if they should back him and push him to change, or to support an alternative.

The Egyptian government can't reshuffle the deck and then stand pat. President Mubarak's words pledging reform must be followed by action.

But later he tweets what Hillary Clinton said over the weekend:

#SecClinton today: U.S. supports a peaceful, orderly transition to free, fair and credible elections that lead to real democracy in #egypt.

And then again:

#SecClinton today: The government must open an inclusive national dialogue with the people of #Egypt as part of a lengthy process of reform.

Do they want Mubarak's government to have a dialogue with the people or do they want a transition to a new government?

Some Egyptians certainly feel let down.  Osam in Cairo says: "Obama has to be on our side. Where is your democracy? You say Arabs are just donkeys, but the USA is supporting the system, not the people" and Arab journalist, Shoruk_K tweets: P.J Crowley "support peaceful transition" REALLY? So tear gas canisters MADE IN USA is peaceful? #jan25 #egypt

Mubarak it seems is in no doubt about damage done by previous outside pressure for change in the Middle East. According to leaked US diplomatic cables, he says past attempts have only produced chaos; including the ousting of the Shah in Iran, and the election of Hamas in Gaza.

But opposition figure Mohamed ElBaradei has pressed the US to do more to abandon Mubarak:

The American government cannot ask the Egyptian people to believe that a dictator who has been in power for 30 years would be the one to implement democracy. This is a farce... And you (the United States) have to stop the life support to the dictator and root for the people.

In the region, reactions have been very mixed. Some in Israel are worried that Mubarak could be replaced by forces that oppose the peace treaty, possibly the Muslim Brotherhood. Barry Rubin writes in the Jerusalem Post: "The situation could not be more dangerous and might be the biggest disaster for the region and Western interests since the Iranian revolution three decades ago" and cites a recent poll which says that twice as many Egyptians support Islamists over modernisers.

According to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Israel called on the United States and a number of European countries over the weekend to curb their criticism of President Mubarak to preserve stability in the region.

And Israel is not alone in its concerns. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have all reportedly criticised the protesters. Perhaps some leaders fear the example could spread in their direction. While Iran has said Egyptian authorities should respect the demonstrators.

But Egyptian protesters say "We are not Iran, We are not Afghanistan. Egypt is different."  Joseph Mayton likens the moment to Eastern Europe in 1989 and says attempts by some US media outlets to compare the uprising to another Iran is 'simply fearmongering'.

What do you think? Do you want President Mubarak to step down?

See listeners' comments about this programme

Cyber-scepticism - the idea that social media is distancing people from reality and each other is part of what some are calling an 'intellectual backlash' against the values and methods of modern communication.

That's what MIT professor Sherry Turkle argues in her new book, Alone Together. She thinks people are being made "less human" by sites like Twitter and Facebook:

technology is threatening to dominate our lives and make us less human. Under the illusion of allowing us to communicate better, it is actually isolating us from real human interactions in a cyber-reality that is a poor imitation of the real world.

The recent case of a woman in the UK has been used to back up this argument. Simone Back died after posting a suicide note Facebook. None of her 1,048 so-called Facebook 'friends' tried to save her and some responded with cruel messages.

But lots of people disagree with Sherry Turkle. Here's what these people have posted and tweeted on the subject:

Mona says on our Facebook page: Being from and living in the Mid East, through facebook, I'm able to go on threads and comment and read comments and communicate with people I would NEVER EVER have the opportunity to talk to in the 'real world'. Where in the world or in the real world would I get a chance to listen to the other side, regardless if I agree with other opinions or not; at least I am exposed to them, which didn't exist for me before social networking.

Sheena from Dubai but living in Florida also says on FB: ...it connects people more. Especially for expats like me with friends & relatives all over the world, social media connects us all in a way that wasn't possible a decade ago.

Joannejacobs in London tweets: Happy Monday! Contrary to Sherry Turkle's perspective, I don't think any of u are 'mad', and sure you'll commune with more than tech today.

But Chris Lott tweets: Turkle's book is good. People don't want to speak of the truth in it. To detriment of all.

EzyStvy in Dallas writes on this Pcmech forum: hmmmm. I do emails with my mom several times a week. Before email - calling her on her birthday and mothers day and a visit once a year was about it.

And Khalil in Illinois says on the same forum: I don't understand the facebook addiction, I have customers bringing in their badly infected machines, they are so desperate to have them fixed so they can get back on facebook as soon as possible. We had a lady litterally weeping because she was going to be without farmville for 2 days. I can see how it can cause people to become isolated from reality but as Ezy said, email is a great thing and it is a good way to maintain contact with those you love. I have no use for facebook or myspace, twitter I never botherd with, seems like a gimick to me.

Post your thoughts here.

Reacting to news of the leaks Doha-based journalist Blake Hounshell tweeted "I think today may be remembered as the day the two-state solution died #palestinepapers."

@Elizrael, based in Israel, thinks Israel will come out of this looking worse, tweeting: #PalestinePapers make the Palestinian leadership look bad, but think about how Israeli leaders come across - refusing peace time after time.

Here's a few of the comments people have emailed the BBC:

Idan south of tel Aviv: If this offer is genuine, it is a fantastic offer and I would have agreed to sign it today. The question to be asked is: was this offer made as "End of claims". If this is truly the case, I have problems understanding Israel refusal. It feels like something is at amiss.

Gearoid in Belfast says: If true these leaks show the PA to be as weak as it is corrupt with a proven track record of enriching themselves at the expense of the Palestinian nation. These leaks explain why Hamas was voted into power in Gaza - and would also rule in the West Bank if Israel's poodle Abbas would call an election.

SeifAllah in Cairo says: I am actually more concerned about the leakage of the documents in such a critical time. I have not seen a single sign of authenticity and the internal conflict in Palestine is in no need for further divisions. The concessions shown above are a sign of treason for many Arabs, which will culminate the divisions between Fatah & Hamas further.

Mohamed in the Maldives: The biggest impact will be that Hamas will be greatly strengthened and more Palestinians will abandon any hope of a peaceful solution to this problem. In the end this could lead to more violence in which Palestinian civilians will suffer most.

This topic was discussed on World Have Your Say on 03 December 2010. Listen to the programme.

More than 190 countries are gathered in Cancun, Mexico for the latest round of UN climate talks. But expectations of making any progress are low. This journalist is convinced they will fail altogether.

If so many people across the globe accept that climate change is happening, why aren't we taking more action to tackle it? Is it something in our psychology or culture, a lack of leadership or a problem of economics?

As part of a series of programmes on the BBC called the Climate Connection, WHYS is asking: What's stopping us?

]]>On today's show we'll hear from people working on ways of changing our behaviour to reduce our impact on the planet.

Guests include Noah Goldstein, one of the authors of 'YES!' whose research focuses on ways of getting people to do things by persuading them that their actions are either socially acceptable or unacceptable, like not re-using your towels when you stay in a hotel. 

We'll also speak to Annika Todd, a behavioural economist from Stanford University. In an email to me she outlines some of the things she's like to talk about on the show:

Why people aren't currently trying to save energy? Is it procrastination, monetary rewards that are too small and too far in the future, or lack of knowledge? There are methods that can be used to get people to change their energy behaviour - like incentive schemes, competition, games and information, and community based social marketing and I can talk about these. But an important question that gets lost in the discussion a lot of the time is whether it is socially the right thing to do to try to change people's energy behaviour in the first place - i.e. should governments spend money, and how much money, trying to persuade people to conserve energy - do we actually want that as a national policy?

But not everyone's a fan of this kind of approach.  Adam Curtis says:

modifying human behaviour in these ways raises serious political questions. Not just about individual freedom, but about who decides what is "good" behaviour, and what happens when others decide it is bad.

And some consider it a cheap way of avoiding regulation or raising taxes. 

We'll also speak to people who have participated in a survey by the BBC and the Public Insight Network from American Public Media, who have noticed signs of climate change where they live. People in over 80 countries have so far shared their observations and you can do so too - by clicking here. Here's some of the results already.

Post your questions for Noah or Annika here, and tell us what you think is stopping us from tackling climate change.

p.s. Here's an idea I like - it's about making things fun to get people to change their behaviour 'for the better'.

See listeners' comments about this programme

This topic was discussed on World Have Your Say on 22 November 2010. Listen to the programme.

UPDATE 23/11/10:  The Vatican has clarified the Pope's comments about the use of condoms being justifiable in certain circumstances. It said they refer to sexual activity involving men or women. The Pope had said, in a book released today, that condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS could be seen as an act of moral responsibility -- and he gave male prostitution as an example. A Vatican spokesman (Federico Lombardi) asked Pope Benedict whether he meant his remarks to apply only to men, and the Pope said it didn't matter -- the important thing was to take the other person's life into consideration

In a new book out this week the Pope talks about the use of condoms:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralisation

When asked if the Church is not, in principle, opposed to the use of condoms he says:

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

This has sparked a debate about whether this means the Church is relaxing its ban on contraception. And whether that is a a good idea or not, especially in the fight against HIV.

He has shown that theology... is capable of evolving. Context may not be everything, but it matters: authority, even when it is spiritual, needs to take account of contemporary reality.

Catholics from Canada to Australia support the Pope's comments and in South Africa there's been a cautious welcome from aids activists, although the general secretary of the Treatment Action Campaign, said they "still fall below what we expect" from the Catholic Church.

But not everyone is hailing this as a step forward. In Scotland a spokesman for the Church said:

Crucially, the Pope is not saying that the use of condoms is moral or virtuous. Nor is he saying that their use can be justified on pragmatic grounds as a policy of Aids prevention.

EditorCT commenting on the Catholic Herald thinks:

the pope is wrong to even give the appearance of promoting the same message as the condom pushers - CAFOD will have a field day now - this has been their position all along. In season and out of season, whether it is popular or unpopular and without watering it down in any way, popes must proclaim the teaching of Christ and His Church - end of.

And here's some comments from people emailing the BBC...

Miakpo in Nigeria says: Sex outside wedlock is a sin and must not under any guise be condoned by the church. Prostitution itself is also a sin and cannot also be condoned by the church. Abstinence remains the only real solution to the spread of HIV.

Jake in North Dakota: Whoa, whoa, whoa... So the Catholic Church is condoning the use of condoms by prostitutes, when the Church forbids both prostitutes and condoms separately? I sense moral hypocrisy.

Martin who's a Catholic in Germany: Thank god, he finally makes this official statement - his position on condoms has been painfully embarrassing for many catholics. This announcement really does change a lot for the catholic church. I believe this to be is an important step towards a modern and more enlightened way of religious practice.

Barney Zwartz warns progressive Catholics not to get too excited.

Benedict's careful strategy of releasing his idea apparently casually in an interview rather than in a formal teaching is the Vatican equivalent of a politician running an idea up a flagpole and seeing who salutes. If the response is too negative, it can easily be denied as yet another "misinterpretation".

The comments certainly do leave a lot of question marks. Kelechi in Lagos on our facebook page wonders if it will make any difference at all:

The comment of Pope indicated the first line of cracks in the precept of catholisim regarding HIV control. However, I can bet u that milions of catholic faithfuls world over are using condom regardless of the institutional teachings from the seat of Vatican.

And Andrew in Ghana asks:

What about a married person who has HIV, can that person use condom in order to protect the patner?

Is the Pope right about condom use? Is this a step in the right direction for the Catholic Church? Post your comments here.

And here is part 3:

This topic was discussed on World Have Your Say on 28 October. Listen to the programme.

This blog post was written by WHYS editor Mark Sandell...

I've just flown into Belfast from London Heathrow this morning. A one hour flight from one part of the UK to another. Before boarding the plane I had to put all my luggage (when I say 'all' it was just a plastic bag but that's not important) through a scanner and had to remove both my belt and shoes before being allowed to go airside.

 Standard form of course and no bother (as they say here), and all in the interests of security. The shoes of course have become a standard part of the checks since a man called Richard Reid tried to detonate a bomb in his footwear on a flight from Paris to Miami nine years ago. And of course we can't take liquids on board since a plot was uncovered to assemble bombs on board transatlantic airliners in 2006.

If I'd been flying this morning between, say Boston and Los Angeles, I may not have needed to remove my shoes. If I'd been flying out of Israel I may not have needed to leave all my moisturisers and face creams at home.

So why is there one rule for the rest of the world and another for some domestic flights in the U.S.A or in Israel where the authorities "profile" people to decide whether there's a security risk?

 

British Airways chairman Martin Broughton has led the way for changes to be made - after suggestions that the UK was the USA's "poodle" and the British Government look like they may agree.

Is it time to ease off the security a bit? Would profiling - hated by some people as a way of discriminating against certain ethnic groups or religions - be a better and more efficient way? Why should a family off on their holidays - or a business executive who travels the same routes regularly - be subjected to the same scrutiny as a suspected terrorist?

See listeners' comments about this programme

After weeks of protest and days of strikes, it's the students turn today. They are planning mass street rallies in France. But as a quarter of refinery workers return to work and rubbish collectors suspend their strike in Marseille, some are claiming the protests are running out of steam.

Seven refineries are still closed and unless they re-open France could still face an even worse fuel crisis. The French government, which is due to have a final vote on pension reforms this week, has warned the disruption is harming its economic recovery. People around the world are split over whether they think the French people are setting the right example.

Linda in Texas: I agree with the President. In order to help to get the economy back on track you have to have more people working. The retirement age is 65 in the states. The protestors are not using the brains that God gave them.

Lebaud in Morocco: Bravo Sarkozy and the Senate. Wake up France and face reality. Those famous 'egotistical' words of De Gaulle, 'without France the light of the world would go out' no longer applies. If the strikers and the unions continue to hold France at ransom the only light that will diminish is in France.

And Christopher in Switzerland: I fail to understand the French. I think they have it too good for too long. In the rest of Europe retirement is between 65 and 70. I am 66 and happy to continue working and indeed am glad that I am still considered to have a value for our business. Wake up France you cannot continue to pay more than you receive, a recipe for bankruptcy.

Piglet in France blogs: How many people do I know that are still students in France aged 28, 29 or even 30? I'm not talking about foreign students either or mature students, I'm talking about people who have never worked (it's not that normal to get a student job here), never contributed to the system and are now demonstrating in the streets so that they get their pension?

Kurren tweets: France: out of the market, no internet access, permanent strikes, nonsense state support for newspapers. Is France the new Portugal?

But lots of people do admire what the French people are doing...

Sherry in the USA blogging about the US mid-terms says: Look at the mass strikes and protests in France involving millions of workers and youth who are defying policies that will gut their welfare state. They are showing an alternative route to social and economic change that is more likely to have a profound impact on their future than anything that happens at the ballot box.

Doris in Canada emails: World-wide, ordinary people have figured out that these "austerity" measures are to pay for the bank bail-outs.

And Bob blogs: They are striking to protect a way of life that they have already fought hard to acquire, a way of life that provides them with the kind of social security that protects everyone, from the most disadvantaged members of society right on up to Madame Bettencourt, the kind of security that the nation that proclaims itself the greatest in the history of the earth should be providing to its citizens.

What's your response? Do you admire the French Protesters?

We've cut the programme into three chunks; here's the first ...

And here's part 3 ...

In the past 10 years African economies have grown by 6% on average and foreign investment and exports have increased four-fold. Growing external demand for its goods and Africa's growth as a market for goods from elsewhere could see Africa becoming the next major emerging market.

But despite this, the vast majority of Africans have yet to benefit from the economic success.

Africa still accounts for only 3.3 per cent of global trade and there's been no improvement in higher-education funding, so there's still not enough doctors, teachers and other professionals.

The G20 should commit to increasing aid to Africa from 2010 onwards to a further 16 billion pounds per annum by 2015

Here's what these people have to say, commenting in Canada's Globe and Mail:

Alastair James Berry: Africa is a disaster..... I have given up owning any shares in Africa... The political elite become megalomaniacs if they attain power and consider it their right to pauper everyone else! My advice, trade by all means but do NOT invest!

Diane Marie: The Chinese are making hay in Africa because they don't lecture the locals. They provide the things demanded by the local leadership (infrastructure, sports stadiums, etc.), which serve to keep the populace thinking that social and democratic progress is being made.

The Caring Jailer: How many more of our billions of $$$ should we throw at Africa before we should start seeing some results? People in the wealthy countries are tired of their hard earned money being wasted overseas.

Daystrom: Sounds like this report was recycled from the 70s. More aid, more money blah blah blah. Stop enabling the continental kleptocracy.

The 9th anniversary of 9/11 has been brought into sharp focus because of the debate raging about the Islamic cultural centre planned for New York and Pastor Terry Jones. Ros Atkins is joined by guests in New York, Cairo, London, Karachi, Tehran and Baghdad to discuss America's relationship with Islam. See the rest of the TV discussion below.

And here's the final part of the tv programme:

Defending the decision to release Megrahi, who has cancer, the Cardinal describes the row as a "clash of cultures" comparing Scotland's "culture of compassion" to the "culture of vengeance" America has in its concept of justice. Citing the use of the death penalty in the US, he says it is 'only outdone by Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and China'.

Americans are rightly outraged at the injustice of a convicted terrorist released on the advice of one medical official amid dubious circumstances only to return to his native country to be celebrated as a hero.

But Jim Swire who's daughter died in the attack says he is sure that if tried in the United States, Megrahi would have been:

judicially executed by a system which operates perilously close to the doctrine that might is right, and that truth can be bought.

The American Catholic blog says the Cardinal is making a fool of himself and questions if compassion had anything to with freeing Mr Megrahi.

And although Thomas agrees with the Cardinal:

From our draconian prison system to our recent invasion of central Asia, one of America's primary driving forces (second only to the profit motive) has been a lust for revenge.

These people certainly don't:
Mack: The Cardinal has no mercy for the victims, only for the murderers.
JJ: All we want is an eye for 200 eyes...
The Original: The first time a murderer has compassion on someone who he/she decides to murder will be the first time I show a murder compassion. Not until then.

What do you think? Are Americans too vengeful?