Intelligence Squared

Tony Curzon Price interviews Will Hutton ahead of next weeks event with Anatole Kaletsky. The financial crisis only proves the strength of capitalism on Tuesday February 8th, 2011 How badly wounded is modern capitalism by the financial crisis? Is it mortal or just a flesh wound? Will the state have to expand its powers and take on new responsibilities for jobs, investment, financial regulation and redistribution as we limp out of recession? And was the success of laissez-faire of the last 30 years just illusion built on unstable mounds of borrowing? Or was real wealth-creation unleashed? Does the crisis just point to the work that still needs to be done to make the capitalist-democratic state more nimble, smaller, less bureaucratic? Will that finally demonstrate the superior values of freedom and decentralisation over authoritarian economic models to the East? Crossing swords on these pivotal issues are Anatole Kaletsky, principal economic commentator for The Times and Will Hutton, Observer columnist and author of The State We’re In.... and of course you, the Intelligence Squared audience.

Jerusalem is the Holy City, the capital of two peoples, the shrine of three faiths, the prize of countless conquerors, the site of Judgement Day and the battlefield of today’s clash of civilisations. In this talk historian Simon Sebag Montefiore will take us on a 3000-year journey through Jerusalem’s many incarnations, through the wars, adventures, love-affairs and messianic revelations of the men and women who created, destroyed and left their mark on the city – from Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad to Cleopatra, Herod and Caligula, from Saladin to the Kaiser and Churchill, from Disraeli and Lloyd George to Moshe Dayan, King Hussein and Yasser Arafat

Interview with John Gray

Interview with Geoff Dyer

Is science the only path to truth? Does it have all the answers? Join actor and writer Jack Klaff of Intelligence Squared for an evening of informal, intelligent and exciting chat.

The Canadian Oil Sands, located primarily in the prairie province of Alberta, are the world’s largest oil reserves outside of Saudi Arabia. Counting 170 billion recoverable barrels of oil, they are in Canada the embodiment of a global debate: how do we balance the economic boons of oil production with its environmental impacts? Canada is the largest importer of oil to the United States, shipping 2.5 million barrels across the border every day. These shipments alone account for close to 5% of all global oil exports. And with Oil Sands production expected to grow to almost four million barrels per day by 2020, Canadian citizens are having to evaluate the worth of the Oil Sands to their country’s development, just as the world grapples with the place of oil consumption in its future

Short extract from the IQ2 audio debate "Engaging Pyongyang is pointless". It was clear, even before the smoke cleared over the tiny South Korean island bombed by North Korea on Tuesday afternoon, that this would be one of the most serious crises the peninsula has faced. Some 200 North Korean artillery shells killed two marines, and later the bodies of two civilians were found on Yeonpyeong Island. Dozens of locals and military personnel were injured, and villages burned. South Korea retaliated, firing some 80 shells back across the border, and scrambling jets. The event reawoke the anger that followed the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel earlier this year, killing 46 sailors – almost certainly caused by a North Korean torpedo, although Pyongyang denied responsibility. And it also stoked the fears caused by the totalitarian state’s recent exhibition of its nuclear facilities to a small group of invited American experts, who reported that Pyongyang has some 2,000 impressively high-tech centrifuges capable of producing the fuel for nuclear power stations – and nuclear weapons. Some see the seeds of new global tension in the conflict - the US, Japan and Europe have declared strong support for Seoul, and America embarked on military exercises off the coast of the peninsula. But both South Korea and the US have been careful to avoid immediate threats of retaliation which might escalate the conflict, the US has not repositioned its 29,000 troops in the South, and nor has it explicitly agreed to provide South Korea with nuclear protection. Meanwhile China – a longstanding ally of North Korea – held back from any strong statements, with a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman yesterday urged both sides to "do more to contribute to peace and stability in the region". Although Beijing has distanced itself from the Pyongyang regime in recent decades – in the 1980s the two countries previously claimed to be “as close as lips and teeth” – it is concerned about instability in the North and the prospect of a unified Korea dominated by the US. But while the superpowers pussyfoot around the crisis, discussion and doubt has centred on North Korea’s motivation for such a blatant act of provocation – and the question of what can possibly be done about it. Simon Tisdale argues in the Guardian that “North Korea uses military power, or the threat of it, where others use diplomacy. It is the only real leverage the regime has.” It wants respect, an end to sanctions and diplomatic isolation and no more threats of regime change. The leaders want “food aid, electricity, financial assistance, investment, trade. Finally, the ailing dictator wants backing for the postulated dynastic succession of his youngest son, a scheme that could yet collapse amid acrimony or worse.” What are they offering in return? An end to their troublemaking. This may not be popular in the west, but in the end, Tisdale argues, a deal is “doable and desirable”. Writing in the Times, Bronwen Maddox argues that “preparations for the succession to Kim Jong Il, the Supreme Leader, are the root cause of rising tension. Kim Jong Un, his son and presumed successor, needs the support of the army – hence, many think, the upsurge in military provocation this year.” She also argues that the regime has been destabilised by the recent increased availability of international television to North Korean viewers, which lets them see that “another life could be – and should be – theirs.” On her reading, then, the attacks are a show of strength intended for North Koreans as well as the enemies on the peninsula. In the Financial Times, Robert Kaplan also interpreted North Korea’s behaviour as an internal issue, a way of shoring up the splintered leadership. As he wrote, “the heightened aggression shown by North Korea therefore may be a sign that the regime is in deep trouble. A sudden implosion could unleash the mother of all

"Like a lepidopterist mounting a tough-skinned insect with a too blunt pin he screwed himself into her". This year, the Literary Review's Bad Sex Award, set up in 1993 by Auberon Waugh to draw attention to the "crude, tasteless, and often perfunctory use of redundant passages of sexual description in contemporary novels, and to discourage it", was given to Irish novelist Rowan Somerville for The Shape of Her. Another scene goes like this: "He unbuttoned the front of her shirt and pulled it to the side so that her breast was uncovered, her nipple poking out, upturned like the nose of the loveliest nocturnal animal, sniffing the night. He took it between his lips and sucked the salt from her." And it seems that not even the biggest superstars of contemporary fiction are immune from occasional lapses into purple prose. Salman Rushdie once wrote that "[Boonyi] pulled her phiran and shirt off over her head and stood before him naked except for the little pot of fire hanging low, below her belly, heating further what was already hot." Philip Roth, whose novels like Portnoy's Complaint and Sabbath's Theatre are amongst the horniest in the English language, wrote that "It was as if she were wearing a mask on her genitals, a weird totem mask, that made her into what she was not and was not supposed to be." In Jonathan Franzen's Freedom, a character's clitoris is described as a "protuding pencil of tenderness". Negotiating the rocky path between ham-fisted metaphors and dull mechanics of the "he unbuttoned her top, she nibbled his ear" sort is certainly tricky. And the sniggering ridicule of those who judge - and comment on - the Bad Sex Award may well play some role in discouraging writers from writing about sex. Indeed, no less a writer than Martin Amis, whose debut The Rachel Papers revolves around a series of adolescent bedroom antics, recently said that writing about sex was practically impossible. "It's not that surprising," he said, "Of all human activities this is the one that peoples the world. With that tonnage of emotion on it, if there is going to be one thing you can't write about then that would be it. It's a bit like why it's so difficult to write about dreams." Many readers feel that contemporary authors aren't taking the risks they should when writing about sex; the sort of risks which DH Lawrence took in Lady Chatterley's Lover. "She clung to him unconscious in passion," Lawrence wrote, "and he never quite slipped from her, and she felt the soft bud of him within her stirring, and strange rhythms flushing up into her with a strange rhythmic growing motion, swelling and swelling til it filled all her cleaving consciousness, and then began again the unspeakable motion that was not really motion, but pure deepening whirlpools of sensation swirling deeper and deeper through all her tissue and consciousness, til she was one perfect concentric fluid of feeling, and she lay there crying in unconscious inarticulate cries." So, writing about something as profoundly personal as sex is difficult but doable. We invited Sarah Duncan, whose Kissing Mr Wrong has been longlisted for the Romantic Novel of the Year award, and Guardian journalist Susanna Rustin, to debate what they thought was the way to do it.

Terry Jones, the Florida preacher who angered Muslims around the world when he planned to commemorate 9/11 with a mass burning of the Qu'ran, has been invited to speak at a rally in Luton by the English Defence League, a far-right Islamophobic group. Should Jones be banned from entering the country under incitement laws? Or is it best to let him exercise free speech, however despicable his opinions? The Home Secretary, Theresa May, is considering that decision today. Where do you stand on this? The law limits in all sorts of ways the harms that one can do to others. Intentional physical harm is criminal; harm to people's interests through theft, for example, is illegal. But in the USA, you can cause a great deal of emotional and mental harm in the exercise of your free speech rights. Not so in the UK, where hate speech is much more subject to control. Which is the better system? Listen to American writer Wendy Kaminer, an ardent critic of censorship, clash with Femi Otitoju, a British equality campaigner. This is the short 2.45minute version. Visit http://www.intelligencesquared.com for the full version

This weeks quick debate.

Steak and kidney pie. The Sunday roast. Mmm, delicious. In fact more than delicious, part of our way of life. Part of our common humanity, too, since eating meat is probably what allowed our brains to grow big enough to become fully human in the first place. So how could anyone be persuaded to give up eating it? Easy, say the vegetarians. Go to an abattoir. Listen to the shrieks, look at the fear in the eyes of the cow. Then go to a supermarket and look at the results of that bloodfest all neatly packaged up to disguise the cruelty and suffering that preceded the shrink wrap. No one with a streak of compassion, no one who calls themselves human could then stretch out their hand, plonk the slaughter in their shopping basket and feel they were doing right. Or could they? Come to the debate and find out. Speakers for the motion - Abbas Daneshvari, Heather Mills and Peter Singer Speakers against the motion - Julian Baggini, Robin Dunbar and Paul Levy

Event information: An elected second chamber. Who could argue with that? Surely it’s what all good democrats would like to see in place of the present House of Lords with its party appointees and hereditary rump? Or is it? Never forget the overweening dominance of political parties in British political life. If members of the Lords have to submit to the same electoral cycle as MPs won’t they just suffer the same fate as MPs and become entirely dependent for advancement on the party leadership? Become the Cabinet’s creatures? Elections may confer the patina of legitimacy to political arrangements, but in Britain’s elective dictatorship, as Lord Hailsham called it, they simply end up reinforcing the power of the executive in parliament. And since the purpose of a second chamber is to serve as a check on the arrogance of executive power, since an independence of spirit is required whenever members of that chamber revise legislation and use their suspensive veto, then open elections to the Lords are surely the last thing we need? Appoint them; elect them indirectly; choose them from pre-selected professional categories; any system you like, but not direct elections. Or so those resistant to reform like to argue. Are they just being ante-deluvian diehards? Is this just cover for the retention of existing privileges? Or are they right? Speakers for the motion - Vernon Bogdanor, Shami Chakrabarti and Sir Simon Jenkins Speakers against the motion - Lord Adonis, Billy Bragg and Polly Toynbe

Prince William’s wedding to Kate Middleton at Westminster Abbey next April will be attended by hundreds of foreign dignitaries and marked by street parties, a concert in Hyde Park and a national Bank Holiday, at a cost of more than £10 million. Our monarchy is the most expensive monarchy in Europe and the most cosseted. More significantly, it is the one with the strongest vestigial political role. Although the Swedish royal family was flung into controversy recently, when a new book, Carl XVI Gustaf - The Reluctant Monarch, alleged that the eponymous King enjoyed wild sex parties and whirlpool liaisons with strippers, for years the Scandinavian royals have been known for their modest style; the term the “Bicycling Monarchy” was coined following the former Danish Queen Juliana’s fondness for bicycling, and her often unscheduled interaction with the public. Here, we invite LabourList columnist Paul Richards and writer Jerome di Costanzo to debate if Britain would benefit from a modernised Royal Family, or whether the pomp, ceremony and constitutional fudge is

It was clear, even before the smoke cleared over the tiny South Korean island bombed by North Korea on Tuesday afternoon, that this would be one of the most serious crises the peninsula has faced. Some 200 North Korean artillery shells killed two marines, and later the bodies of two civilians were found on Yeonpyeong Island. Dozens of locals and military personnel were injured, and villages burned. South Korea retaliated, firing some 80 shells back across the border, and scrambling jets. The event reawoke the anger that followed the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel earlier this year, killing 46 sailors – almost certainly caused by a North Korean torpedo, although Pyongyang denied responsibility. And it also stoked the fears caused by the totalitarian state’s recent exhibition of its nuclear facilities to a small group of invited American experts, who reported that Pyongyang has some 2,000 impressively high-tech centrifuges capable of producing the fuel for nuclear power stations – and nuclear weapons. Some see the seeds of new global tension in the conflict - the US, Japan and Europe have declared strong support for Seoul, and America embarked on military exercises off the coast of the peninsula. But both South Korea and the US have been careful to avoid immediate threats of retaliation which might escalate the conflict, the US has not repositioned its 29,000 troops in the South, and nor has it explicitly agreed to provide South Korea with nuclear protection. Meanwhile China – a longstanding ally of North Korea – held back from any strong statements, with a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman yesterday urged both sides to "do more to contribute to peace and stability in the region". Although Beijing has distanced itself from the Pyongyang regime in recent decades – in the 1980s the two countries previously claimed to be “as close as lips and teeth” – it is concerned about instability in the North and the prospect of a unified Korea dominated by the US. But while the superpowers pussyfoot around the crisis, discussion and doubt has centred on North Korea’s motivation for such a blatant act of provocation – and the question of what can possibly be done about it. Simon Tisdale argues in the Guardian that “North Korea uses military power, or the threat of it, where others use diplomacy. It is the only real leverage the regime has.” It wants respect, an end to sanctions and diplomatic isolation and no more threats of regime change. The leaders want “food aid, electricity, financial assistance, investment, trade. Finally, the ailing dictator wants backing for the postulated dynastic succession of his youngest son, a scheme that could yet collapse amid acrimony or worse.” What are they offering in return? An end to their troublemaking. This may not be popular in the west, but in the end, Tisdale argues, a deal is “doable and desirable”. Writing in the Times, Bronwen Maddox argues that “preparations for the succession to Kim Jong Il, the Supreme Leader, are the root cause of rising tension. Kim Jong Un, his son and presumed successor, needs the support of the army – hence, many think, the upsurge in military provocation this year.” She also argues that the regime has been destabilised by the recent increased availability of international television to North Korean viewers, which lets them see that “another life could be – and should be – theirs.” On her reading, then, the attacks are a show of strength intended for North Koreans as well as the enemies on the peninsula. In the Financial Times, Robert Kaplan also interpreted North Korea’s behaviour as an internal issue, a way of shoring up the splintered leadership. As he wrote, “the heightened aggression shown by North Korea therefore may be a sign that the regime is in deep trouble. A sudden implosion could unleash the mother of all humanitarian problems, with massive refugee flows toward the Chinese border a

In the US, militant Christians protest with signs reading “God hates fags” at military funerals. In the UK, hate speech law forbids this abhorrent behaviour. So should we ban it? Wendy Kaminer, a US free speech absolutist clashes with Femi Otitoju, a British equality campaigner