Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

The morality of surrogacy

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Surrogacy is a complicated transaction involving at least three individuals, usually more, with moral complications and grey areas around the rights and responsibilities of the two active parties – surrogate and intended parent(s) – and the best interests of the child. The issue was thrust back into the headlines earlier this year with the Law Commission recommending changes to the law in the name of ‘benefitting the child, surrogate and intended parents’. Surrogacy divides its advocates on the specifics of its implementation, as well as there still being opponents of the process altogether.
Pro-surrogacy campaigners defend the bodily autonomy of surrogates and the fantastic outcomes it can have for families unable to bear their own children. It is argued that it is nobody else’s prerogative to decide what a woman does with her body and being a surrogate has been a rewarding and fulfilling experience for countless women. Complications in surrogacy arrangements are unusual, with their frequency sensationalised by the media.
For example, while the practice of the rich and famous paying another woman to have their child can create shocking headlines about wombs for hire, commercial surrogacy is illegal in the UK. Surrogacy is also a biologically practical answer for many infertile or gay male couples, providing a way for people to raise the family they always wanted. Where is the harm if all are consenting adults? Moreover, pro-surrogacy activists suggest that children of surrogacy have performed better in life than the average, perhaps because every child of surrogacy is genuinely wanted and therefore loved.
Some feminists have argued surrogacy exploits vulnerable women and reduces them to vessels of people’s biological narcissism in a world where thousands of children are waiting to be adopted. Surrogacy now also features in contemporary rows on sex and gender identity with the accusation that surrogacy reduces women and their wombs to commodities in the reproductive marketplace, reducing the role of mother to that of egg provider and gestator. This criticism has a particular salience in an era in which it has become acceptable to refer to women in dehumanised terms such as ‘menstruators’ or ‘birthing bodies’.
There are also ‘post-feminists’ who argue surrogacy undermines the idea of motherhood per se, feeding the many social ills caused by the sexual revolution. From this perspective, surrogacy is an assault on an essential and foundational human relationship and contributes to gradual societal breakdown.
Surrogacy is not always an easy issue to debate. Those who have questioned the morality of gay celebs, such as Elton John and Tom Daley, having children via surrogates have been accused of homophobia. However, these morally charged questions need to be addressed.
With a declining birth-rate and growing prevalence of ‘non-traditional’ families, do we need to make all forms of reproductive technology easier to access and come to a moral and legal consensus? How can we balance the bodily autonomy of the surrogate with the interests of the intended parents, all while prioritising what is best for the child? And given the complex moral field in which surrogacy stands, can the process ultimately be justified at all?
SPEAKERSLexi Ellingsworthco-founder, Stop Surrogacy Now UK
Sarah Joneschief executive, Surrogacy UK
Gary PowellEuropean special consultant, Center for Bioethics and Culture; research fellow, sexual orientation and gender identity, Bow Group
Ella Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want
CHAIRDr Jan Macvarisheducation and events director, Free Speech Union; author, Neuroparenting: the expert invasion of family life

Israel at war

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The first weekend of October was the darkest in Israel’s history. A murderous Hamas attack on southern Israel killed at least 1,200 and wounded about 3,000. At least 200 were captured and taken to Gaza. How is it possible to begin to make sense of such a terrible event? Is this the return of pogroms of Jews? Clearly Israel is having to contend with a force that can truly be described as evil.
One issue is why and how Hamas felt so emboldened to launch this murderous assault. There seems to be a broad consensus that the success of Hamas’s brutal assault represented a devastating failure for Israel’s famed intelligence services and military. Some are wondering if this year’s bitter conflict over judicial reform in Israel proved to be a distraction from the deadly external threat. The country has been sharply divided, and military reservists in elite units, including intelligence, were encouraged by the protest movement to refuse to serve.
Perhaps a proper review of what happened will have to wait. Israel has enough to deal with and faces many other imminent challenges. There is the possibility of it becoming embroiled in a ground war in Gaza, which could bring with it a heavy human cost for both Israelis and Palestinians. Israel faces judgement internationally on the scale of its response and the dangers posed to civilians in Gaza. The violent conflict could also spread to the West Bank and even within Israel itself. It is no exaggeration to say that Israel is facing the greatest challenge in its 75-year history.
How should Israel deal with the horrors it is enduring? What are the roots of these challenges and how can Israel best deal with them? Why was Israel so vulnerable in the first place? Will the unity of a country now under attack render recent divisions irrelevant? How can Israel deal with the strains of a war that may have to be fought on multiple fronts?
SPEAKERSDaniel Ben-Amijournalist; creator, Radicalism of Fools; author, Ferraris for All: in defence of economic progress and Cowardly Capitalism
Dr Jake Wallis Simonseditor, Jewish Chronicle; author, Israelophobia
Lord David Wolfsonking’s counsel; member of the House of Lords; former justice minister
CHAIRSimon McKeonarchivist and writer

Bad Boys of the EU? Demonising Poland and Hungary

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
One notable aspect of European Union politics in recent years has been internal tensions when member states’ national priorities clash with EU rules and priorities. Specifically, Hungary and Poland have faced stringent sanctions and have had billions of euros of EU funding withheld under Article 7 of the EU Treaty, for an alleged failure to uphold the EU’s foundational values. What have both countries done to warrant such actions and being targeted as the ‘bad boys’ of the EU?
For Poland, following the 2015 general election, the Law and Justice party (PiS) won control of both the presidency and the parliament. Since then, the government’s wide-ranging reforms of its judicial system are accused by the European Commission of undermining judicial independence. These laws certainly raise questions about Poland’s ability to apply EU law, from the protection of investments to the mutual recognition of decisions in areas as diverse as child custody disputes or the execution of European Arrest Warrants. But do these reforms mean ‘the country’s judiciary is now under the political control of the ruling majority’, as is alleged?
Judicial independence is also a key aspect of the EU’s dispute with Hungary, though issues relating to inadequate anti-corruption measures and media plurality have also been cited. Most recently, the EU has taken Hungary to the Court of Justice of the European Union for enacting child-protection legislation that forbids the promotion of homosexuality and gender reassignment to those under the age of 18.
Hungary and Poland argue they are defending their democratic right to organise their affairs and protect their traditions and customs as they see fit. For example, as far as the Hungarian government and many others are concerned, the education and upbringing of Hungarian children is not the business of the EU and Hungary has every right to protect its children from inappropriate sexualisation. Despite claims to the contrary, Poland still seems to be a functioning democracy, with the results of October’s elections suggesting that PiS has lost power to a coalition led by a former prime minister and president of the EU Council, Donald Tusk.
To its critics, the EU is acting as an imperious technocracy, seeking to impose woke values on nations with different priorities and principles. However, others suggest that Hungary and Poland are using the rhetoric of national sovereignty to justify ‘democratic backsliding’, not just an affront to the EU club’s rules, but a threat to democratic norms domestically.
Is the EU right to intervene in defence of common values or is this simply imposing the values of Brussels technocrats on everyone? Are Poland and Hungary justified in asserting national sovereignty or is this just a smokescreen? What does this ongoing battle tell us about the future direction of Europe and democracy?
SPEAKERSSteven Barrettbarrister, Radcliffe Chambers; writer on law, Spectator
Balázs HidvéghiMember of the European Parliament (member, LIBE and Foreign Affairs committees); former director of communications, Fidesz; former member, Hungarian Parliament
Agnieszka Kolekhead of cultural engagement, MCC Brussels; artist; curator; founder, Passion for Freedom London Art Festival; former deputy director, Ujazdowski Castle, Centre for Contemporary Art, Warsaw
Anna Loutfiequality and human rights barrister; consultant, The Bad Law Project
CHAIRTony Gillandchief of staff, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

I predict a riot: France in flames

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Over recent years, France has seemed to be constantly in flames. Thousands taking to the streets, mass arrests, vehicles set ablaze, buildings ransacked. The most recent unrest came after an unarmed teenager, Nahel Merzouk, was shot by police following a car chase in Nanterre. The riots afterwards were perhaps the most violent yet, and reflect how many from France’s migrant communities, often in segregated and deprived banlieue housing estates, feel totally disconnected from and discriminated against by the French authorities.
Taking to the streets has not been confined to the marginalised. Earlier this year, the prime minister, Élisabeth Borne, used Article 49.3 of the French constitution to force through President Emmanuel Macron’s unpopular pension-reform plan without a vote in parliament. As a result, millions were up in arms. Public militancy was so intense that a planned visit by King Charles was postponed.
And who can forget the gilets jaunes (yellow vests), dressed in their unmistakable hi-viz jackets, blockading highways and petrol stations, occupying roundabouts and toll booths, and marching through town centres. These protests in 2018 were initially sparked by a hike in fuel tax, but escalated to embody a wider resentment towards the status quo that became associated with international grassroots resistance to technocratic rule, far and wide.
This contemporary France seems far removed from the romanticised ideal of a liberal, secular republic based on a revolutionary land of liberty, equality and fraternity for all. Institutionalised rioting, racial segregation, deep-seated religious tensions – from the Charlie Hebdo massacre to the state’s burqa ban, heavy-handed, paramilitary style policing is now the order of the day. Following the Hamas attacks on Israel, a blanket ban was imposed on pro-Palestinian protests. What on earth has happened?
When Macron was first elected president in 2017, he talked hopefully of a better, fairer future and promised to overcome the left-right divide, to rule by consensus. Now, as Nabila Ramdani, a French journalist of Algerian descent and author of Fixing France: How to Repair a Broken Republic argues, Macron rules by decree over an increasingly divided society.
Ramdani, herself born and raised in a neglected Paris suburb, will discuss these shifts along with a panel of respondents.
SPEAKERSDr Marie Kawthar Daoudalecturer in French language and literature, Oriel College, University of Oxford; author, L’Anti-Salomé; fellow of Ralston College, Savannah
Dr Charles Devellennessenior lecturer, University of Kent; author: The Macron Régime: the Ideology of the New Right in France
Nabila Ramdanijournalist and broadcaster; author of Fixing France: How to Repair a Broken Republic
Dr Ralph Schoellhammercommentator and podcaster; lecturer, Webster University Vienna and MCC Brussels
CHAIRFraser Myersdeputy editor, spiked; host, the spiked podcast

Understanding Modi’s India

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In August, India made world news by being the first nation to land near the Moon’s South Pole. Prime Minister Narendra Modi described it as a historic moment for humanity and ‘the dawn of the new India’. Meanwhile, India’s digital transformation of its financial system is reported by payments systems company ACI Worldwide to be operating on a larger scale than even in the US and China. Earlier this year, UN population estimates suggested India has overtaken China as the world’s most populous country, with over 1.4 billion people.
As America’s rivalry with China heats up, the western world has warmed to India. A month before the Moon landing, President Joe Biden had rolled out the red carpet for Modi’s state visit to America. The US wants a more meaningful, closer and stronger relationship with India. The German government is discussing a possible submarine deal. French President Emmanuel Macron invited Modi to celebrate Bastille Day, calling India a strategic partner and friend. But there have also been tensions over India’s neutral stance over the war in Ukraine. Are these signs of India’s arrival on the international top table? Can India rise to this challenge?
India has a huge population, but the vast majority are still poor – the country is ranked 139th in the world for nominal GDP per capita – and faces massive inequalities. While India receives much adulation from the Western elites, its undermining of the freedom of the press and its clampdown on the judiciary have been heavily criticised. The Economist Intelligence Unit‘s Democracy Index showed India falling from 27th position in 2014 to 46th in 2022. But the White House is calling India a ‘vibrant democracy’. Which is it: a faltering democracy or a vibrant one?
India is also facing much internal disquiet within its population. Most recently, ethnic tensions have flared up between the majority Hindus and the Muslim minority just 20 miles outside of New Delhi. Ethnic strife between Hindus and Christians also continues especially in the North-east state of Manipur.
With this backdrop of domestic instability, can Modi and his BJP party retain control in the 2024 elections? What will India’s future role be on the world stage – both politically and economically?
SPEAKERSLord Meghnad Desaicrossbench peer; chair, Gandhi Statue Memorial Trust; emeritus professor of Economics, LSE
Dr Zareer Masanihistorian, author, journalist, broadcaster
Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbertdirector, Don't Divide Us; author, What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth
CHAIRPara Mullanformer operations director, EY-Seren; fellow, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

Still in the race: understanding Trumpism

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Trump is perhaps the most widely vilified political leader of modern times – yet he retains a huge measure of support. So seemingly assured of securing the Republican nomination that he can forgo the candidates’ televised debates, he also transformed his arrest for interfering with the 2020 election into a world-shaking media opportunity, with his mugshot reverberating across the globe. But what underpins his appeal?
For some, it is precisely the relentless demonisation of Trump that generates the appeal – whatever Trumpists think of some of his policies or personal conduct, they identify with his vilification by the same liberal, coastal elites who denounce them as ‘deplorables’. Others insist that Trump invents and exploits animosities against immigrants and evokes a ‘paranoid’ vein in American politics. Or perhaps Trump simply appeals to voters fed up the stale consensus that has dominated American politics – or maybe he just livens things up.
What explains Trumps’ enduring appeal, and how should liberals, conservatives and populists alike respond?
SPEAKERSMary Dejevskyformer foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster
Matthew Feeneywriter; head of technology and innovation, Centre for Policy Studies; former director, Cato Institute’s Project on Emerging Technologies
Michael Goldfarbjournalist and historian, creator, FRDH Podcast; documentary maker, Evangelical or Political Christianity?; author, The Martyrdom of Ahmad Shawkat
Dr Cheryl Hudsonlecturer in US political history, University of Liverpool; author, Citizenship in Chicago: race, culture and the remaking of American identity
CHAIRJacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Debating Matters: ‘Social egg-freezing empowers women’

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Debating Matters is a sixth-form debating competition that has become renowned for its rigorous and intellectually challenging format – one that values substance over style and getting to grips with real-world issues. This is a special one-off showcase debate for the Battle of Ideas festival. The competitors are school students whose challenge is to think through the thorny moral issues at the heart of every Debating Matters motion and the audience are sure to enjoy the high standard of debate.
Egg-freezing is the process of harvesting eggs from a woman’s ovaries, freezing them unfertilised and storing them for later use. Until recent years, it was used primarily for women undergoing treatments, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, which can affect fertility. But the debate has now move on to include ‘social’ egg freezing – that is, women with no medical issues who simply opt to freeze their eggs as a fertility choice, putting motherhood ‘on ice’ until they decide they’re ready.
Discussion about the pros and cons of social egg-freezing has increasingly appeared in the news over the last decade. Technological advances, celebrity endorsement and corporate assistance make the procedure more widely known and available. In the UK, the issue has received particular attention as campaigners successfully lobbied for the time limit on egg freezing to be increased from 10 years to 55 years.
However, questions have been raised about the effectiveness of the social egg-freezing with some research suggesting the success rate for women trying to conceive this way is just 18 per cent and should be regarded as a ‘lottery ticket’ rather than an ‘insurance policy’. Furthermore, many suggest it is just a technical fix for broader social economic problems, such as the trouble people have finding partners willing to commit to children or an economy that makes it difficult for women to have a career as well as have and raise kids.
So, does social egg-freezing inspire a positive culture shift giving women control over their own bodies? Or does it have a negative impact on how we view motherhood and lead to more tired, older mums who have prioritised their career over having a child?
DEBATE TEAMS:
Proposing the motion: New City College
Speakers: Noor Ebrahim and Chidinma Kalu
Teacher: Toby Marshall
Opposing the motion: Richmond upon Thames College
Speakers: Monica Pirvu and Lauren Faulds
Teacher: Kasim Agpak
Judges:
Linda Murdoch
Dr Günes Taylor
Professor Sir Simon Wessely

Making babies in the lab: the morality of reproductive technologies

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Forty-five years since the first ‘test-tube’ baby was born through in vitro fertilisation (IVF), the world of reproductive technologies is almost unrecognisable. New screening opportunities and better understanding of genomics has meant that the creation and selection of embryos has become more precise – offering a somewhat more certain process than the gamble of natural conception.
But while many who have experienced fertility issues might cheer new advancements in reproductive technology – IVF is now a routine treatment – others have concerns. Earlier this year, surgeons performed the first womb transplant on a woman in the UK, potentially allowing infertile women to be able to carry their own children. While some hail this a medical breakthrough, others have pointed to the problem of prioritising ‘gestational parenting’ over all else, with some medical professionals arguing that transgender women might be able to get pregnant with a donated womb.
It doesn’t stop there. Scientists have recently generated what some have called ‘embryo-like’ structures from stem cells, even implanting them in monkeys to model early pregnancy. While some have called these ‘synthetic embryos’, the International Society for Stem Cell Research has stressed that these ‘embryo models’ are just that – models. While these ‘can replicate aspects of the early-stage development of human embryos, they cannot and will not develop to the equivalent of postnatal stage humans’, the ISSCR warns. For some, this research provides vital insights into early pregnancy, and could provide information to prevent or lessen defects or even miscarriages. For others, this is a step too far in the direction of playing God.
Should we draw a line when it comes to meddling with baby making? What ethical implications arise from scientists attempting to artificially create life – or even mimic it? By medicalising conception, do we lose something of its magic? In her 1914 poem ‘Parturition’, the poet Mina Loy wrote of the process of pregnancy and childbirth as each new mother becoming a ‘woman of the people’ wearing a ‘ludicrous little halo / Of which she is sublimely unaware’. Does the advent of a reproductive technology-boom – with everything from egg-freezing to womb transplants – deepen our appreciation of the miracle of childbirth, or mess with our halos? Is this a medical no-brainer – taking the mystique out of making babies meaning less heartache and more certainty for couples who want to become parents? Or is there something to be said for leaving some things up to mother nature?
SPEAKERSDr Mehmet Çiftçipublic bioethics fellow, Anscombe Bioethics Centre
Nicky Drurygenetic counsellor, Nottingham Department of Clinical Genetics; former member, United Kingdom Human Genetics Commission
Ann Furediauthor, The Moral Case for Abortion; former chief executive, BPAS
Dr Günes Taylorresearch scientist; public speaker
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want
 

Sex and drugs and rock'n'roll: has music lost its edge?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The Stones, the Beatles, Bowie, Oasis, Zeppelin, Hendrix: all the cliches of musical greatness tend to some sort of party lifestyle. But, according to some, the life in the fast lane is on the decline among our pop stars. In a more health-conscious era – and in the wake of #MeToo – celebrities seem far less likely to let loose. Plenty would argue that this is a good thing, shown by our collective shock at the accusations levelled against Lizzo for things that once might have seemed run of the mill within the industry. From this perspective, the decline of the rockstar lifestyle is merely part of the progression of society. After all, what’s wrong with an artist who is family-focused, sober, and happy?
But others lament a bygone era: a time of boundaries being pushed, mistakes being made and mainstream art having real value. Disgruntled complaints that music ‘isn’t like it was in my day’ are nothing new – but, today, some argue the heady mix of corporatisation and squeaky-clean artists leads to no limits being pushed and no artistic headway being made. While there is clearly great success and popularity among international stars like Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus or Harry Styles, some argue that pop music has become sterile, cheap and formulaic. Gone is the time when the men in suits had the good sense to let shaggy-haired, badly behaved visionaries do what they needed to do. Today, we are offered an array of PR-trained, straight-toothed smiles with expensive voices. Is this new pop the sound of tomorrow? Afterall, some argue that a lot of the sex and drugs of past musical periods covered up the poor quality of bad tunes. Or are we merely listening to the noise of a dying industry, suffocating creativity as the last bits of cash are squeezed out?
Has the creativity gone from music? Was the rockstar lifestyle ever anything to do with it at all? Or do degenerate lifestyles provide a mystique that makes us sanctify bland music? Is music really that much cleaner today? And can we make something new without chemical help?
SPEAKERSProfessor Aaqil Ahmeddirector, Amplify Consulting Ltd; professor of media, University of Bolton; former head of religion, Channel 4 and BBC
Tom Collyerresearcher, Pagefield; writer; musician; alumnus, Debating Matters
Jenny Hollandwriter and critic; former assistant, New York Times; author, Saving Culture (from itself) Substack
CHAIRDr Carlton Bricklecturer in sociology, University of the West of Scotland; co-author, Contesting County Lines: case studies in drug crime and deviant entrepreneurship

'15-minute cities’: Conspiracy versus reality

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The idea of a ’15-minute city’ is highly fashionable – and hugely controversial. At the Conservative Party Conference in October, the transport secretary, Mark Harper, declared: ‘Right across our country, there is a Labour-backed movement to make cars harder to use, to make driving more expensive, and to remove your freedom to get from A to B how you want.’ But others believe that this view of ’15-minute cities’ is little more than a conspiracy theory, one no longer the preserve of fringe groups on social media but perpetrated by the mainstream such as Harper.
For supporters, the concept is simple enough: placing essential services within 15 minutes’ walk will ensure that we ditch our cars and walk more, improving health and the environment. Surely it is just common sense to have frequently used amenities withing easy reach?
And in those terms, the concept is popular. A YouGov poll published in March found that ‘a majority of the public (62%) would support their local authority making it a target to make their area a 15-minute neighbourhood, including three quarters of Labour (73%) and over half of Conservative voters (57%)’.
Local services, fewer cars and cleaner streets seem like a good idea. Like Ultra Low Emission Zones (ULEZ) and also Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), advocates say such initiatives are an important part of city and town improvements to make life better for all. But there are plenty of critics. Charging for driving the wrong type of cars or making car-driving more onerous, with longer journeys forced on those negotiating LTNs or even prohibited in 15 minute Cities, is causing a popular backlash. Many people work, shop or go to school further afield. Specialised services rely on customers and clients from the wider city and beyond, from niche bookshops to major hospitals. Moreover, when it means that people are forced to use services within their own neighbourhood, locality is being prioritised over the freedom to choose.
And what about the freedom to travel? Councils such as Oxford are proposing dividing the city into zones and placing limits on how often people from neighbouring zones can drive through them. Such policies, critics say, are authoritarian and akin to lockdown restrictions being expanded into new areas of our lives. LTNs, ULEZ and 20mph zones were installed without democratic consent and cause vast economic harm. Are they conspiracy theories? Some say it feels like a type of gaslighting when the media alleges critics of 15-minute cities are conspiracy theorists – a means of delegitimising the huge numbers of people worried about anti-car measures.
Are enforced restrictions against ‘unnecessary journeys’ illiberal, even authoritarian? Or is the reaction to 15-minute cities – that they are part of a grand plan to restrict our freedoms on the pretext of saving the planet – overblown? If restrictions boost health and the environment, is there anything wrong with the state taking the initiative and individuals making sacrifices? What is a city for and who should decide how we live and travel?
SPEAKERSEmily Carverbroadcaster and columnist; presenter, GB News; former director of communications, Institute of Economic Affairs
Alan Millerco-founder and chair, Together Association;
Ali Mirajbroadcaster; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ
Martin Powellgroup sustainability director, AXA; former head of sustainability, Siemens Financial Services Americas; former mayoral advisor on the environment; editor, The Climate City
CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; convenor, Critical Subjects Architecture School

From Covid to climate change: have we lost faith in (the) science?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Since the Covid pandemic began, arguments have been raging about all aspects of the science and governments’ responses. Critics have claimed, despite evidence of millions of deaths, that Covid is no worse than flu or even made up altogether as a ‘plandemic’. More recently, there have been rows about vaccines and whether they are potentially responsible for many deaths. Equally, claims have been made about the effectiveness of masks and restrictions on society that seem to run ahead of the evidence.
If these claims are mostly made on the margins of public debate, they do raise concerns for many people beyond ‘conspiracy theorists’ and ‘anti-vaxxers’. Appalled by the consequences of lockdowns, some go further than simply criticising restrictions on our liberty and call into question mainstream science itself. Many argue that science has become politicised in recent years, from climate change to obesity, while vaccine hesitancy became a problem long before the pandemic.
Yet science and technology have achieved huge advancements for humanity. Even setting aside the many deaths prevented by Covid vaccines, our ability to understand quickly what the SARS-CoV-2 virus was and to understand how best to treat Covid was astonishing compared, for example, to ‘Spanish’ flu a century earlier. Similarly, thanks to early warnings from meteorologists, Bangladesh was able to prepare for Cyclone Mocha in May and potentially save thousands of lives.
Why are so many willing to believe that science should not be trusted? If science has been politicised in recent years, who is to blame? How can trust in science be restored?
SPEAKERSDr Stuart Derbyshireassociate professor in psychology, National University of Singapore and the Clinical Imaging Research Centre
Professor Sunetra Guptaprofessor of theoretical epidemiology, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford; award-winning novelist
Professor Mike Hulmeprofessor of human geography and head of department, University of Cambridge; author, Why We Disagree About Climate Change and Climate Change Isn’t Everything; former founding director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Graham Stringer MPmember of parliament, Blackley and Broughton; select committee member, Science and Technology Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee
Thomas Walker-Werthfellow and editor, Objective Standard Institute; co-host, Innovation Celebration
CHAIRTimandra Harknessjournalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; author, Big Data: does size matter?

From BBC to GB News: can the media be impartial?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Earlier this year, for the first time ever, Match of The Day aired without a host after Gary Lineker was removed from the airwaves by the BBC’s director general, Tim Davie. Lineker was said to be in breach of the BBC’s impartiality guidelines for tweeting that the language surrounding the government’s new asylum policy was ‘not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 1930s’.
The incident was just the most high-profile in a growing list of BBC controversies that include its allegedly biased coverage of the coronation of King Charles, and Carol Vorderman’s scathing criticism of Conservatives. There was also controversy over the decision not to broadcast an episode of Sir David Attenborough’s flagship series on British wildlife after allegations that the BBC had taken funding from two charities previously criticised for their political lobbying. Following the October attacks on Israel, a huge row has broken out over the BBC’s refusal to describe Hamas as ‘terrorists’.
But it’s not just the BBC that finds itself grappling with the problem of impartiality these days. Journalists, presenters, news organisations and even podcasts such as The News Agents are regularly called into question, with all sides of the political spectrum crying foul. The BBC’s Nick Robinson has said the corporation’s reputation for impartiality built over decades faces an existential threat from the growing influence of partisan political figures on newer channels. Ofcom is investigating GB News and TalkTV over a willingness to push opinionated television news into controversial areas that result in misinformation and use of politicians as presenters.
What do we mean by ‘impartiality’? And how does that ideal match up to how it plays out in practice? Some argue that there is a considerable difference between the duties on news programmes and presenters and the hosts of other programmes who express views on personal social feeds. Should celebrity presenters be held to have breached impartiality rules or does this impinge on their free expression? Will our existing opinions and reaction to external pressures not always play a role?
Others say the problem is not presenters lacking objectivity or young journalists lacking training, but rather the rules themselves. Does it make sense for Ofcom to try to apply a broadcast code written in a different period dominated by the BBC and ITV in an era of new independent channels? Is it sensible or even possible for an individual to insist that organisations show true impartiality? And ultimately, what’s at stake if we ditch the idea of impartiality altogether?
SPEAKERSMichael Bookereditorial director, GB News
Iain Macwhirtercolumnist, The Times and Spectator; author, Disunited Kingdom: how Westminster won a referendum but lost Scotland
Helen Searlschief operating officer, Feature Story News
Baroness Stowellchair, Communications & Digital Select Committee
CHAIRMax Sandersonsenior editor, audio, Guardian

Bookshop Barnie with Peter Hitchens: A Revolution Betrayed

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In his latest book, A Revolution Betrayed: How egalitarians wrecked the British education system, Peter Hitchens describes the misjudgements made by politicians over the years that have led to the increase in class distinction and privilege in our education system, exploring the history of, and contemporary conditions at, independent, grammar and comprehensive schools. He argues that by trying to bring about an educational system which is egalitarian over the years, politicians have created a system which is the exact opposite.
A review for the Higher Education Policy Institute says that the book celebrates an ‘out-of-time world (that) I am deeply thankful not to inhabit’. The Spectator review says that this is a history book with a ‘bee in its bonnet’. The far from impartial website Comprehensive Future considers that Hitchens cannot ‘offer any personal experience of grammar schools, having been educated entirely in private schools’.
This session is an opportunity to critically engage with the issues raised in A Revolution Betrayed in an open, honest and intelligent setting. Sit up straight and pay attention!
SPEAKERPeter Hitchenscolumnist, The Mail on Sunday; author, A Revolution Betrayed: how egalitarians wrecked the British education system
CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; convenor, Critical Subjects Architecture School

Should we leave the European Convention on Human Rights?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Most people acknowledge that there is an issue with Britain’s borders. The question is: who or what is to blame? For many, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and its courts in Strasbourg, has become the focus – either as the bulwark against anti-refugee sentiment, or the block on democratic process. With deportations being halted on the grounds of ‘human rights’, one’s view on membership of the ECHR has become shorthand for where you stand on the issue of refugees, asylum seekers and illegal migrants.
Rows over the ECHR have been brewing for some time. In 2000, the Human Rights Act made the Convention an integral part of domestic law, that individuals could enforce in British courts. Since then, many, particularly on the Right, have questioned the wisdom of what they increasingly refer to as Labour’s Human Rights Act. In recent years, the Conservative Party has been committed to reforming human rights by replacing the HRA with a British Bill of Rights. But no such legislation is forthcoming – and many have pointed out that, as long as Britain remains signed-up to the ECHR, a British Bill of Rights would be superfluous. Much like the European Union, the ECHR seems to have split the Tories. Some MPs hope to cut ties completely – nearly 70 Tory MPs, many from Red Wall seats, backed quitting the ECHR in a vote on a Private Member’s Bill last year. Others – like Tom Tugendhat’s Tory Reform Group – remain concerned about what a Brexit-style exit might do to the UK’s international reputation.
In the aftermath of the Second World War the European Convention on Human Rights was seen as a protection against the tyranny and oppression that some European nations had recently endured. Nowadays, those who support it stress the importance of human rights as setting a minimum standard which democracies should guarantee. Is the problem therefore simply one of European judicial overreach, or is it essentially about the very notion of ‘human rights’ themselves? Are human rights and democratic, collective action doomed to forever be at loggerheads? With courts in Strasbourg and London ruling to impede government plans to stop small boats crossing the Channel, are human rights making popular government impossible? Or is the ECHR being scapegoated for inadequacies in our own backyard?
SPEAKERSSteven Barrettbarrister, Radcliffe Chambers; writer on law, Spectator
Jamie Burtonfounder and chair, Just Fair; barrister (KC), Doughty Street Chambers; author Three Times Failed: why we need enforceable socio-economic rights
Luke Gittoscriminal lawyer; author, Human Rights – Illusory Freedom; director, Freedom Law Clinic
John Oxleywriter, New Statesman, Spectator,and UnHerd; consultant; barrister
Angelica Walker-Werthwriter, editor and programmes manager, Objective Standard Institute
CHAIRJon Holbrookbarrister; writer, spiked, Critic, Conservative Woman

Misinformation wars: who fact-checks the fact-checkers?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
There’s no doubt that the growth of social media, online self-publishing online and, now, AI, has resulted in many untruths circulating in the public square. It can be hard to tell what is true or false, when nonsense and unfounded assertions can be spread on the internet without challenge – sometimes by tinfoil-conspiratorial proponents and bad faith actors, sometimes by well-meaning if naïve individuals.
In response, an international industry of official fact-checkers and mainstream media dis-and-misinformation organisations has been born. But do the public need protection from untruths? And how do we respond to misinformation being weaponised as a way of to justify discrediting and censoring dissenting views?
Earlier this year, US  Judge Doughty said the evidence presented in the case of Missouri vs Biden showed that, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the US government ‘seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth”’. Why? US officials had worked with Silicon Valley leaders to suppress reports of the lab-leak theory of Covid’s origin – which is now considered the most likely explanation by many countries’ state agencies. Similarly, the Twitter files exposed that the reporting around Hunter Biden’s laptop, which was initially dismissed and suppressed as a Russian disinformation operation, was in fact true, and has since been verified by mainstream outlets. With all this in mind, it becomes difficult to differentiate between what is labelled disinformation, and what are simply inconvenient truths.
Meanwhile, some argue the fact-checkers are themselves not immune from spreading misinformation. In her recent podcast series Marianna in Conspiracyland, Marianna Spring, the BBC’s ‘disinformation and social-media correspondent’, used a BBC commissioned survey to suggest that a quarter of British people believe ‘Covid was a hoax’. Spring argued that huge numbers had attended conspiratorial demos and were reading obscure conspiratorial newspapers. The survey has since been discredited, as ‘100 per cent false’. Even though the i paper’s Stuart Ritchie put the figures down to a mix of tiny sample sizes and woolly worded questions, and an academic institution conceded the figure were misleading, and that the figures were uncritically pushed by the BBC and the Guardian as fact.
Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? Should a society that respects free speech need to prove that all ideas are true before they are aired? Or does encouraging ill-informed debate risk distorting and damaging the public square? Should we tolerate the threat of ‘disinformation’ to avoid censorship of dissent? Or is there something we can do to promote truth and freedom?
SPEAKERSLiam Deaconcommunications and campaigns consultant, Pagefield Communications; former journalist; former head of press, Brexit Party
Andrew Lowenthalwriter and researcher; director, liber-net; co-founder and former executive director, EngageMedia
Florence ReadUnHerd producer; presenter, UnHerd TV
CHAIRTessa Clarkejournalist; author; documentary reporter; deputy director, Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF)