Intelligence Squared

Voluntary euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide is legal in the US state of Oregon, Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland, and more than 90 British citizens have taken advantage of Swiss laws that allow them to die with help from doctors and nurses at the Dignitas clinic in Zurich. But in Britain, the 1961 Suicide Act states that while suicide is not illegal, "a person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years". Debbie Purdy, a woman from Bradford who suffers from multiple sclerosis, has led a high-profile campaign to change the law. She took on the Director of Public Prosecutions in the High Courts, seeking clarification that her husband wouldn't be prosecuted if he helped her to travel to Dignitas. But despite her best efforts, the realities of ever-ageing politicians and public support, so far politicians have been squeamish about changing the law. Many of our audience were swayed into changing their mind over the course of this debate. Will you be? Speaking for the motion - Emily Jackson, Debbie Purdy and Mary Warnock Speaking against the motion - Alex Carlile QC, Richard Harries and Patrick Stone

“Bring back the canon” sounds a bit like a call to return to some unspeakably violent backward social educational practice. But this is about the literary canon - those works that are so clearly central to culture that they have been “canonised”. At the Conservative party conference, Education Secretary, Michael Gove urged; “the great tradition of our literature – Dryden, Pope, Swift, Byron, Keats, Shelley, Austen, Dickens and Hardy – should be at the heart of school life.” This front in the culture wars pits conservatives and traditionalists against a diverse army of feminists, multiculturalists, anti-colonialists and other proud minorities. Another skirmish in this war has been unfolding around Katharine Birbalsingh, once a Marxist teacher who delighted the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham with her very traditional educational opinions. She argued that children are “lost in a sea of bureaucracy”, that teachers are “blinded by leftist ideology” and that children love nothing better than to be told what to do by an authoritarian teacher. She won Michael Gove’s friendship but lost her job as deputy head of a South London academy for her comments about the shocking failures in the school system. So, should the government - or indeed the State - be behaving as super-head-teacher and telling us what to read? And if so, should it be the Govian canon

10:10, the climate campaign group, have been forced to apologise after their No Pressure video, which was scripted by Richard Curtis and featured guest appearances from David Ginola and Gillian Anderson, attracted widespread complaint. The video showed children, workers and footballers being exploded for refusing to cooperate in making lifestyle changes to reduce their carbon emissions, and 10:10, a group trying to persuade individuals, schools, businesses and organisations to take simple measures in a bid to cut their carbon emissions by 10% in a year, were forced to admit that they'd overstepped the mark and issue a public apology. The affair has become known as Splattergate. The intention of the film was to use slapstick comedy (the exploding children die in a blaze of ketchup-like gore) to shock viewers into reassessing their lethargy on climate change. Headed by Franny Armstrong, the documentary filmmaker behind The Age of Stupid, 10:10 are concerned that climate change is no longer receiving the emphasis that it should from either the media or the public, and they wanted to get people talking about it once again. Global warming sceptics, who claim that the media is saturated with stories on climate change, have seized upon the video as a spectacular own goal by the environmental movement, and claim it betrays the underlying anti-human sentiments of 'eco fascist' green leader. One of the criticisms levelled at the video is that, in a few years time, there may well be an eco-terrorism movement. On the other hand, many environmentalists, often accused of failing to see the funny side themselves, believe that with the world teetering on the brink of ecological calamnity, No Pressure is both funny and deeply necessary.

‘I don’t get the feeling that nothing is happening,’ replied the father of Cyberpunk. ‘I just get the feeling that more and more of it is happening on a different field.’ This Intelligence Squared event at Cadogan Hall in London saw the coming-together of two great believers in the vibrancy and power of the present: William Gibson and Cory Doctorow. Despite the discussion covering topics unrestrained by time - reaching back to the age of the Victorians and stretching, via 1940 and our ‘increasingly interesting’ present, to 2060 - or location (we were taken from the Far East to western Canada, with stop-overs in Shoreditch and Brooklyn), Gibson repeatedly underlined the centrality of the present in his work. He stressed that good science fiction writing is based on looking at ‘all the things around you’ and finding ‘the ones with the most obvious legs to carry you into the future.’ What sort of a future that will be, however, remains a mystery to Gibson. There are simply ‘too many wild cards in play,’ he said, for us to casually erect accurate futures. One thing that seemed certain was the sustained threat to any genuine subculture. We are now left, he lamented, with only ‘splinters of Bohemia,’ the violation of which seems almost complete in a world where ‘the way D. H. Lawrence looked is ... much more important than what D.H. Lawrence wrote.

Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to order the demolition of gypsy camps across France and to expel many Roma travellers back to the countries where they were born has attracted widespread criticism. So far, French police have deported more than 1,000 Roma to Romania and Bulgaria and dismantled more than 100 camps. A leaked interior ministry document told police to focus on the Roma "as a priority". This behaviour has led to a threat of legal action from the European commission, and comparisons with Nazi persecution of gypsies - some half a million travellers died in concentration camps during the Second World War. But although Europeans have lined up to criticise France, can other countries - and particularly the UK - feel any pride when it comes to our own treatment of travelling communities? In the UK, where Irish travellers are the largest nomadic group numbering around 300,000, recent research has shown that the average traveller has a life expectancy of about 50 years – some 25 years shorter than the settled population. Infant mortality is three times higher among travellers, and a traveller mother is nearly 20 times more likely to lose her child before their 18th birthday than the UK average. Some see in these facts a manifestation of Europe’s ongoing prejudice against travellers, a form of racism which, they believe, perpetuates stereotypes about dirt, crime and illiteracy, holding back travellers who would like to work or integrate and pushing the community into further isolation. Others, however, say that travellers must take responsibility for their own plight, and argue that the problems travellers face can be blamed – at least partly – on their failure to educate their children, respect the planning codes, work for a living and obey the law. Beyond such chicken-and-egg arguing - which came first, the prejudice or the exclusion? – lies more abstract questions about whose way of life has primacy. Should the settled community acknowledge that travellers have different attitudes and approaches to home, property, family and ways of life, and make space – physically and culturally – for the travellers to live in their own way? Or should travellers – and their politically correct, over-indulgent supporters - acknowledge that gypsies cannot live on land without planning permission, and that if their lifestyles are incompatible with the world today, they must change them? In this Intelligence Squared audio debate, barrister David Watkinson of London’s Garden Court Chambers, who regularly acts for travellers and recently fought on behalf of the travellers encamped on the site of the London Olympics, will argue for the motion, maintaining that Britain has badly let down its own travelling community, pushing them into unstable, unhealthy ways of life by depriving them of the space and the legal protection that they need. The motion will be opposed by journalist Harry Phibbs, who writes for The Mail and is a Conservative councillor in West London, who argues that British and European law is too generous to travellers, who should be expected to abide by the same rules as the settled community – and who claims that Sarkozy’s decision to eject France’s foreign-born Roma is justified

"Many people are asking that I should come back". Fresh from launching his own political party, the All Pakistan Muslim League, in June this year, and expressing his desire to re-enter the turbulent world of Pakistani politics, former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, a Londoner since 2008, will appear in conversation with Sir Christopher Meyer for Intelligence Squared this September. Musharraf hasn't always been so pally with the West. When he came to power in a military coup in 1999 he was shunned by many as a dictator. And his tenure in what TIME Magazine described as “the most dangerous job in the world” was not without its difficulties. He had to face the escalation of hostilities with India over Kashmir, which brought the two countries to the brink of war in 2002, a 2005 earthquake that killed over 73,000, the threat posed by the AQ Khan nuclear proliferation network and two assassination attempts on his life.

During the ongoing global financial crisis, the values on which our society and economic structures are based have been called into question. In a new book to be published by Palgrave Macmillan, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Larry Elliott, Economics Editor of The Guardian, have brought together a collection of leading commentators to examine the role of morality and ethics in business. At this event, both discuss these fundamental themes together with Zac Goldsmith MP, Editor of The Ecologist, and Robert Skidelsky, professor of political economy, politician and historian.

“I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don't want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment.” - Woody Allen “Singularitarianism”. Remember the name. It is the most respectable of the quasi-religious movements to come out of Californian techno-libertarianism. Its basic beliefs are that: * computers are about to become better problem-solvers than humans * humans, still in charge, will get the computers to make nano-robots that can repair organic tissue * we will also direct them to the problem of downloading our consciousness onto digital back-up systems *our conscious selves will then be able to replicate, be uploaded into other physical devices, etc * nano-technology, consciousness engineering and old-fashioned big iron computing will solve any problems of energy supply and climate control that might limit the infinite plenty ahead * humanity will thus create the kingdom of heaven and live eternally in a world of plenty, all of it built by the people and technologies of Silicon Valley The movement's Pope is Raymond Kurtzweil, an otherwise thoroughly bona fide inventor and entrepreneur. Its Mecca is in the area between the Stanford University campus in Palo Alto and Mofett Field airbase, with Google's headquarters a stone's throw away. There, Kurtzweil presides over the Singularity Institute, which, like the early Church councils, is busy working on the details of eternity. What if they were right? Should we want eternity on those terms? Is it really time to put an end to death

This event took place at Methodist Central Hall, Westminster on 21st September 2010. Highlights of the debate will be available on this page soon, and full video for our Premium Members will follow soon after. Arguing in favour of the motion are Shlomo Ben-Ami, Mustafa Barghouthi, and Edward Luttwak. Shlomo Ben-Ami believes that there is a very serious asymmetry in the positions of the two parties. Whenever Zionism is faced with the choice of more land without a Jewish majority or less land with Jewish hegemony, they choose the latter. Mustafa Barghouthi states that the talks are taking place between unequal sides. Israel is strong and Palestine is weak; in the absence of any serious international pressure on Israel, the peace process has become the substitute for peace. Edward Luttwak says that throughout history it has been war itself that has brought peace, not Swedish diplomats, US senators and former British prime ministers. The peace process perpetuates the illusion of peace. Arguing against the motion are Manuel Hassassian, Jonathan Paris, and Martin Indyk. Manuel Hassassian concedes that, for some Palestinians, the very idea of making peace with the perpetrators of so much Palestinian bloodshed and misery is hard to fathom, but that without peace, their suffering will only be prolonged. Jonathan Paris is “cautiously optimistic” that, this time round, the peace process has a chance. Among his reasons he lists the threat of Iran, the slowed rate of settlement building under Netanyahu’s government, and the popular support for the peace process among Israelis and Palestinians. Martin Indyk agrees with Luttwak that peace has to come out of the “education of war”, but he says that this is exactly what is happening. He points to certain encouraging new factors in the case for peace, most tellingly an uncharacteristic willingness in right-wing Netanyahu to support the process. First vote: 407 For, 315 Don't know, 332 Against Final vote: 543 For, 521 Against, 40 Don't know The motion is carried by 22 votes

Infamous feminist contrarian Camille Paglia has caused controversy again recently by describing everyone’s favourite pop goddess Lady Gaga as a “plasticised android” whose popularity heralds the death of sex. Numerous fans in the media have come to Lady Gaga’s defence – she’s clever, she’s funny, she’s a great performer. Meanwhile, the internet has been a-flutter with responses to the ‘meat dress’ Lady Gaga wore to the MTV Video Music Awards, which has been variously interpreted as a protest against the objectification of women and a meaningless fashion statement. Whatever your opinion on Lady Gaga – and even if you have none at all – her music, her videos and her public persona have become battlegrounds for debate around porn, pop culture and the status of women in the music industry

You've seen the billboards for the movie 'Eat, Pray, Love' showing a pensive, questing Julia Roberts. The author of the book that inspired the film gave an exclusive talk in London for Intelligence Squared on 15th September 2010, in which interviewer Paul Holdengräber brought the intellectual side of Gilbert to the fore. Gilbert’s childhood evenings were peopled by eccentric, drunk, and competitively outrageous family members, who made Elizabeth Gilbert realise that when it comes to storytelling 'no one’s going to give you the floor...you have to earn it by telling the best story'. Gilbert recounts how she literally 'married' writing when she was a teenager in a ceremony in her bedroom, and also how, since the success of her globe-trotting memoir ‘Eat, Pray, Love’, she has become a more sedentary creature, like Candide nowhere more content than gardening at home in New Jersey. Gilbert and Holdengräber share a delighted reverence for Balzac, Calvino, Tom Waits, and their conversation turns into an unashamed worship of good writing

Are you entitled to your private life? Or do you think the News of the World has every right to make it public? Should you just take it on the chin when prying newshounds inform the world of whatever details, true or false, they rake up on your private life, leaving you to clear up the inaccuracies only after your reputation has been trashed? That would appear to be the case in Britain, given that - unlike say in the USA or France - there is no right to privacy here, only a “right to confidence”, and the tabloid press have allegedly been tapping the phones of prominent figures for years. But Max Mosley and many who support him think this is wrong, which is why he is applying to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for a change in the law that would make it compulsory for journalists to inform people before publishing private information about them. Has he got a good case? Or is he making an outrageous assault on press freedom

The CATO Institute's report in 2009 entitled 'drug decriminalisation in Portugal: lessons for creating fair and successful drug policies. To discuss whether imitating these policies would benefit others is Tim Lynch, who was closely involved in producing the report from the CATO Institute. Arguing against the motion is Anders Ulstein, the Secretary General of Europe Against Drugs, a European not-for-profit drug policy foundation.

“Science is value free. So is a gun.” And similarly, science writing is used instrumentally towards political and social ends, exemplified most clearly in the Daily Mail’s schizophrenic reporting of the cervical cancer vaccine; they were ferociously negative in Britain where the vaccine is legal, yet wrote with impassioned outrage that the drug was not available in Ireland. Here, British science writer and medical doctor Ben Goldacre describes the problems with science coverage in the mainstream media. In the Times Literary Supplement there are plenty of references to authors you’ve never heard of, yet with scientific pieces editors insist on dumbing down the content. Goldacre laments the lack of challenging and interesting science writing and points to the approach of Radio 4, in which the vast majority of material comes from the scientists themselves, as the correct approach. Clearly in the case of the cervical cancer vaccine, the reports were not about the suitability of the trial process or the validity of the scientific conclusions but about political agendas; this is Goldacre’s main grievance with science writing not by scientists. He does, however, identify the huge potential of the new mass media to change the way science is reported. Whether it be a lecture recording that goes viral or a fantastically entertaining and eloquent blogger, there are many channels to bring great science to the public sphere

Tony Blair has had to cancel the Tate Modern launch party for his memoirs, A Journey. A crowd of anti-war campaigners, and artists including Tracey Emin and Brian Eno, had signalled their intention to protest outside the event. But after facing similar disruption at a book-signing in Dublin, Blair called the night off. "I don't mind going through protesters...but for others it can be a bit unpleasant and frightening," he said. "It's sad in a way. You should have the right to sign books or see friends. Some of them are not political at all." Evidently, the man who led Britain between 1997 and 2007, perhaps the most prosperous period in its history, still inspires enormous ill-feeling from both sides of the political spectrum. Gideon Rachman, columnist for the Financial Times, defends the motion that "Hatred of Blair has been much overdone". He approves of Blair's record on domestic and economic policy and feels that Blair was wrong, but not blameworthy on the decision to invade Iraq. Clare Short, who resigned from Tony Blair's Cabinet two months after the invasion, responds. By trampling on international law, Blair not only condemned the Iraqi peace to failure but also did long term damage to security in the world.