Academy of Ideas

#LondonLegalSalon: Abortion and Protest - Do We Need Buffer Zones?

In late 2014 the Labour party indicated their support for legal ‘buffer zones’ around abortion clinics to prevent protests from interfering with the provision of services. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), Britain's largest abortion provider, supported the move saying that the pro-life protests outside their clinics cause unwarranted levels of distress to those seeking to access lawful healthcare. Is this an acceptable limitation on the freedom to protest, or an unnecessary expansion of the law into the regulation of free speech?Speakers: Frank Furedi (University of Kent), Tim Stanley (Daily Telegraph).Chair: Luke GittosThis Podcast was recorded at the London Legal Salon event at the October Gallery in London on February 10 2015. To find out more about the London Legal Salon's upcoming series of debates on abortion click here.

#BattleFest2013: Do we live in a top-shelf society?

Sexually explicit material has always challenged censors
and traditional moralists. From the 1960s, liberal values on sex and
sexual relationships became one of the markers of a civilised, modern
society. Over the past decade, however, there’s a gnawing unease that
sexually explicit material has gradually stepped down from the top shelf
and into the mainstream. Whether it was Rihanna’s raunchy display on The X Factor,
Jonathan Ross’ lewd chat shows or Katie Perry simulating oral sex in
pop videos, pornographic imagery has become the wallpaper of
twenty-first-century society. With the rise of the increasingly
ubiquitous ‘celebrity sex tape’, fans of chart-friendly pop stars such
as Tulisa Contostavlos are exposed to increasingly graphic and intimate
depictions of their icons. And then there’s Fifty Shades of Grey.
Traditional moralists have always found much to censor in modern
society, but when former champions of sexual liberalism, such as Joan
Bakewell, start bemoaning the onslaught of naked flesh into the living
room, something appears to have changed. Indeed, it is fortysomething
ex-punk journalists turned parents who have started to wonder aloud why
thong-thrusting pop videos are being shown at lunchtime.
But could it be argued that we’ve been here many times before? From
Elvis Presley and David Bowie to Madonna and Prince, pop stars have
sought to challenge and question society’s taboos around sex. Surely
Rihanna and Perry are simply the latest practitioners of taboo busting
exhibitionism? Or is it the case that sex and relationships have become
devalued, with porn aesthetics the new low-grade currency? A civilised
society should be open about sex, but are we in danger of forgetting
that civilised values also means the separation of the public and
private, the decent and the debased? Is the rush to smash sexual taboos a
sign of healthy libertarianism or of self-loathing by a cultural elite
unwilling and unable to promote higher culture? Are the sexual-taboo
smashers really hammering elite traditionalists and conservatives or is
it a radical way of sneering at ordinary people’s ‘small minded’ values? Neil Davenportwriter; head of sociology, JFS Sixth Form Centre; contributor, spikedDr Jan Macvarishresearch
fellow, Centre for Health Services Studies; founding associate, Centre
for Parenting Culture Studies, University of Kent, CanterburyAnna Percyfeminist
performance poet; member, Stirred Feminist Poetry collective; organiser
and facilitator, live poetry events and writing workshops Chair:



Suzy Dean
freelance writer; blogger, Free Society

#PodcastofIdeas: Charlie Hebdo, Debating Matters and the Greek elections.

In the first podcast in a new series, Rob Lyons speaks to Dave Bowden about the state of press freedom in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Justine Brian fills us in on the latest news from Debating Matters, and Geoff Kidder gives us the lowdown on the upcoming Greek elections.

#BattleFest2014: America - the twilight years?

America’s problems at home and abroad have
led many to wonder if the US is in decline. US foreign policy, from
Syria to Ukraine, appears rudderless and impotent. The Iraq War is
widely seen to have been a failure, while US forces are leaving
Afghanistan with the Taliban still active and the country far from being
a happy democracy.
The US recovery from the recession has been weak, too, while China
and India – and even parts of Africa - seem to offer more glittering
possibilities for expansion and wealth creation than the US. China may
overtake the US as the world’s largest economy in GDP terms by the end
of the decade.
At home, the American political class appears to be almost at an
impasse, unable to address its challenges, as epitomised by last year’s
shutdown of the federal government. Political commentator Timothy Garton
Ash argues ‘the politicians in Washington behave like rutting stags
with locked antlers’. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign
Relations, says that the failure of politics in Washington has been
‘hastening the emergence of a post-American world’.
Yet such declinist talk is hardly new, as exemplified by Paul Kennedy in his 1987 bestseller, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.
America is still the largest economy in the world, despite having a
quarter of the population of either China or India. America is still by
far the greatest military power, has the world’s top universities and
produces the most cutting-edge research and technological innovation.
Even in ‘soft power’ terms, America is the pre-eminent source of the
world’s culture. In contrast, the much-vaunted ‘BRIC’ countries of
Brazil, Russia, India and China are all faltering in one way or another.
Is the US truly facing the prospect of being replaced as the world’s
greatest power? Is the sluggish America today in similar circumstances
to Britain at the time of First World War - the faded Greece to Asia’s
Rome? Or, is the declinist view overly pessimistic? After all, periods
of introspection and worry about US decline over the past 30 years have
given way to later resurgence. Is this time different?







Speakers




Dr Yaron Brook
Executive director, Ayn Rand Institute




Dr Jenny Clegg
senior lecturer, Asia Pacific Studies, University of Central Lancashire, Preston




Dr Sue Currell
chair, British Association for American Studies; reader, American Literature, Sussex University




James Matthews
management consultant; founding member, NY Salon; writer on economics and business




Sir Christopher Meyer
chairman, PagefieldAdvisory Board; former British Ambassador to the United States


Chair



Jean Smith
co-founder and director, NY Salon

#BattleFest2014: Shopping and fretting - the ethics of buying the right thing

The public outrage that followed the
discovery of several ‘forced labour’ labels sewn into clothes stocked by
budget clothing shop Primark has brought the issue of the ethics of the
supply chain back into the headlines. Just what is the real cost of
cheap goods in the West? In April 2013, 1,100 people – including garment
workers who had been producing clothes for UK retailers - died when the
Rana Plaza commercial block in Bangladesh collapsed. Earlier this year,
the Guardian claimed fishmeal used to produce farmed prawns for
UK supermarkets was produced using fish caught with slave labour. These
revelations fit into a history of claims made about ‘sweatshop’
conditions faced by workers producing everything from fashionable
footwear to top-of-the-range consumer electronics. However the problem
is not restricted to developing countries, as cases of exploitation and
abuse of labourers continue to emerge across the UK, too.
Some have called for UK retailers to boycott firms or even entire
countries that allow unacceptable working practices. After the Rana
Plaza disaster, Labour MP Michael Connarty demanded legislation to force
UK firms to audit their supply chains. But others believe boycotts do
more harm than good and that a better solution is to maintain commercial
links while demanding suppliers improve and work towards higher
standards. As a recent report by the British Retail Consortium notes:
‘Retailers drive positive change by embedding certain values and
standards in their supply chain that are central to its brand and which
address specific issues or concerns that are important to their customer
base.’ Withdrawing entirely from a country, some argue, would actually
make things worse by causing thousands of relatively poor people to lose
their jobs. What is more, given the long and complicated international
supply chains that big retailers deal with today, is it really possible
to ensure goods are produced in an ethical fashion? Or do we need ever
more scrutiny of big businesses to ensure they don’t turn a blind eye
for the sake of profit?
While retailers debate how best to restore trust and demonstrate that
their products are ethically sourced – for example, by making details
of supply chains more transparent - shoppers are under pressure to ‘buy
responsibly’. Maybe it makes business sense, too, as ethical fashion
labels have become trendy and no doubt attract higher profit-margins
than low-cost clothing. However, some commentators warn against
demonising those who seek out cheap bargains or undermining the harmless
joys of shopping by turning retail therapy into an anxious moral maze
of label-checking.
Is virtuous shopping really a case of guilt-ridden consumers in the
West showing off their consciences rather than helping exploited
producers? Or is it at least better than nothing, a morally worthwhile
alternative that reminds us of our responsibility to others? Could
clumsy interventions by retailers, responding to pressure from
campaigners, make things worse rather than better for developing-world
workers? Should concerns about working conditions be dealt with by
governments and workers in the producing countries rather than by
shoppers and stores in the UK?

Speakers




Sandy Black
professor of fashion & textile design & technology,
London College of Fashion, University of the Arts, London; editor and
co-author, The Sustainable Fashion Handbook; author, Eco Chic the Fashion Paradox




Barbara Crowther
director of policy and public affairs, Fairtrade Foundation




Andrew Opie
director for food and sustainability, British Retail Consortium




Nathalie Rothschild
freelance journalist; producer and reporter for Sweden's public service radio


Chair



Jason Smith
partnerships coordinator, Debating Matters Competition; freelance journalist; co-founder, Birmingham Salon

#BattleFest2014: To boldly go - what is the point of space exploration?

When Neil Armstrong made his first steps on
the moon on 21 July 1969, he was watched by over 500million people. Many
stayed up through the night to witness it, and those who were children
at the time often recall being woken up to see the momentous occasion.
Today, numerous scientists, engineers, writers and others cite
witnessing the moon landings as an inspiring moment that influenced
their choice of career. While achieved by Americans, the positive
reaction was international – there was a sense that what had been
achieved was on behalf of all mankind, and had opened up a sense of
unlimited possibilities.
But it is the moon landings’ backdrop of the Cold War space race that
perhaps dominates how we view them today. Increasingly, we are given to
viewing the Apollo missions as political, with dubious scientific merit
– certainly, at least, some argue that the money could have been better
spent on less glamorous but more worthy missions like probes or
telescopes. Those who are even less charitable see the moon landings as a
colossal vanity project, wasting millions that could have been spent
alleviating problems here on Earth.
Today, the worth of manned space missions is under discussion again, with the Chinese Chang’e 3
lander seen as the start of a push to place taikonauts on the moon
within a decade. India has followed suit, making its own plans for a
manned landing. The Americans, too, have begun to talk again about
returning to the lunar surface. More generally, manned spaceflight seems
to be coming back into fashion, as exemplified by the rise to celebrity
status of Canadian astronaut Commander Chris Hadfield.
Are we witnessing the return of the space race? Are these plans any
more than just propaganda missions, aimed at projecting the power of
rising countries like India and China? Do the missions have enough
scientific merit, and should we celebrate them even if the benefits are
slight? Should we have gone to the moon in the first place, or should we
have been focusing on more earthly concerns?







Speakers




Professor Ian Crawford
professor of planetary science and astrobiology, Birkbeck College, University of London




Ashley Dove-Jay
PhD researcher, University of Bristol; programme member on NASA/ESA-related projects




David Perks
principal, East London Science School; author, What is science education for?; co-author, Sir Richard Sykes Review of school examinations and A defence of subject-based education




Dr Jill Stuart
visiting fellow, London School of Economics; editor-in-chief, Space Policy




Will Whitehorn
chairman, Transport Systems Catapult and Speed Communications; former president, Virgin Galactic


Chair



Craig Fairnington
online resources manager, Institute of Ideas

#BattleFest2014: Our morals, their moralism?

The charge of ‘moralism’ or ‘moralising’ is
always complicated. Nobody endorses immorality, we all know the
difference between moralism and morality. Or do we? The former implies
an unattractive self-righteousness; the latter is ‘the real thing’. But
without righteousness, does morality have any meaning? The obvious
danger with rejecting moralism is that we abandon any attempt to talk
about right and wrong. Indeed, contemporary culture seems uncomfortable
with the language of morality. Terms like good, bad, right, wrong,
should, should not, duty and obligation are often seen as moralistic
‘tut tutting’ that unfairly stigmatises people.
To some extent, the kinds of moral judgements that are acceptable or
not change with the times, such as attitudes to slavery or eugenics. But
do changing moral norms always reflect more enlightened attitudes, or
just changing prejudices? For example, is the routine denigration of
those who embrace traditional ideas of morality any more than a new form
of ‘moralising’? Earlier this year, UK Supreme Court judge Lord Wilson
of Culworth declared that the nuclear family had been replaced by a
‘blended’ variety, and that Christian teaching on the family has been
‘malign’. Paradoxically, though, something like homosexuality was not
only once considered immoral and now seen as fine; one’s attitude to it
has become a marker of one’s own moral standing: ‘enlightened’ or
‘bigoted’. The intriguing result is that those who still frown on
homosexuality might well protest against the ‘moralism’ of those who
condemn them, while the latter retort that some moral judgements are
beyond debate.
In other cases, moral etiquette changes for seemingly more fickle
reasons. While judgementalism about sexual mores is ostensibly frowned
on, the intense moral reaction that followed recent allegations of
historic sexual offences seemed to go beyond particular crimes to
condemn old-fashioned attitude to sex, and even the past itself. Or take
the sphere of public health, in which medics and politicians cite ‘the
science’ while engaging in what otherwise looks like a moral crusade to
change attitudes to what we eat, drink or smoke, showing a remarkable
willingness to tell others what they can and cannot do, or else. The
zealousness of those policing behaviour in relation to lifestyle choices
points to another apparent contradiction in today’s moral landscape. If
religious moral values are seen as too narrow, we seem less troubled by
formalised norms dictated by rigid codes of conduct, ethics committees,
or ‘you can’t say that’ speech rules, the last of which cast certain
words as morally reprehensible, and dubs those who may utter them as
beyond the pale.
Such discrepancies are hard to explain rationally, perhaps because
they have less to do with individual or collective moral judgements than
with moral ‘fashion’. So is it possible to engage in serious moral
debate that avoids both self-righteous groupthink and relativistic
indifference? Are morals best left to individuals, or is there a place
for ‘intelligent moralising’?







Speakers




Dr Hannah Dawson
historian of ideas, New College of the Humanities; author, Life Lessons from Hobbes




Kenan Malik
writer and broadcaster; author, From Fatwa to Jihad and The Quest for a Moral Compass




Alister McGrath
Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion, University of Oxford


Chair



Dolan Cummings
associate fellow, Institute of Ideas; editor, Debating Humanism; co-founder, Manifesto Club

#BattleFest2014: Kindergarten culture - why does government treat us like children?

In the past, government may have intervened
frequently in the economy, but our private lives were our own to live as
we saw fit. In recent years, however, government has largely given up
on being the ‘hand on the tiller’ of the economy and intervenes
regularly in once-private aspects of life. Smoking is now banned in most
public places, and smoking in cars in the presence of children is about
to be banned. Environmental concerns have led to new efficiency
standards for domestic appliances, and smart meters may regulate our
electricity usage from afar, while we are constantly told to reduce our
consumption of everything and there is serious discussion about how
procreation should be limited to save the planet. Even now, parents are
increasingly lectured to about how they should raise their children and,
in Scotland, the Named Person rules mean a specific government employee
will oversee each child’s upbringing.
Even non-governmental organisations, charities, voluntary associations
and academics increasingly see it as their role to ‘educate’
ill-informed, non-expert adults. From public health to environmental
campaigns, the assumption is that left our own devices, we will make the
‘wrong choices’. England’s chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally
Davies, complains that ‘three quarters of parents with overweight
children do not recognise that they are too fat’. How can we trust
adults who don’t understand the impact of their gas-guzzling family car
on the planet or that feeding their kids junk food is leading to an
obesity epidemic?
While such attitudes and interventions are viewed as annoying or
threatening in some instances, few people actively protest against them.
And often there are popular demands for more regulation and legislation
to protect us from harm. Why has government become so keen to make
decisions for us? And why do we not even seem to take ourselves
seriously as autonomous citizens? Or is such ‘infantilisation’ actually a
sensible response to our limited capacities and propensity to shoot
ourselves in the foot, based on a recognition that in fact, ‘there are
no grown ups’. Is it reasonable to allow the ‘experts’ to decide how we
live? If not, what should we do about it?







Speakers




Martha Gill
journalist, the Economist




Dan Hodges
blogger; columnist, Daily Telegraph




Ben Pile
independent researcher, writer, and film-maker




Chris Snowdon
director, lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; author, The Art of Suppression


Chair



Simon Knight
director, Generation Youth Issues; board member, Play Scotland