Debating Matters

Germany should pay reparations for its colonial past

updated 2024

INTRODUCTION

Following wartime reparations, most notably to Holocaust survivors, attention now has turned towards reparations in relation to Germany’s colonial past. In particular, there has been a long-standing discussion surrounding reparations over the genocide against the Herero and Nama people of Namibia [Ref: BBC]. In June 2021, the German and Namibian governments published a Joint Declaration to come to terms with the genocide in Namibia. Instead of reparation payments, the government promised development aid amounting to €1.1 billion, to be paid in the course of the next 30 years. [Ref: Guardian]

However, there has been criticism from some commentators who say the agreement does not include representatives of the Herero and Nama tribes [Ref: Guardian], with others arguing the Namibia agreement should mark a beginning, and not an end to negotiations [Ref: DW]. Furthermore, in 2022, the Namibian vice president demanded the renegotiation of the 2021 treaty, saying the old one was insufficient [Ref: Deutschlandfunk Kultur].

Tourism benefits the world

updated 2024

INTRODUCTION

On 25 April 2024, the city of Venice implemented an entry fee scheme for day-trip tourists [ref: Independent]. According to city officials, the scheme is aiming to ‘safeguard the city from “overtourism”’. Other European cities, including Prague, Barcelona, Athens and Seville, are considering similar schemes [ref: Guardian]. The Scottish government is considering allowing cities like Edinburgh to levy an accommodation surcharge to fund events like the loss-making but hugely popular Hogmanay celebrations [Ref: Guardian]. Although the Venice initiative is a pilot scheme, which will be reviewed after a year, the authorities want to assess whether there is a deterrent effect on tourism.

Tourism has traditionally been seen as a way of showing appreciation for different places, peoples and cultures, and many cities around the world have a thriving tourist industry that benefits inhabitants. However, mounting fears about the impact of mass tourism have led many to question whether tourists are actually ruining the places they love. A debate about the effects of tourism on tourist destinations has been going on for some time [Ref: Telegraph], leading to the rise of related ideas like eco-tourism [Ref: International Ecotourism Society] or sustainable tourism [Ref: Wikipedia].

Populism is a threat to democracy

updated 2024

INTRODUCTION

Populism is the political buzzword of the day – with commentators, political theorists and politicians all debating its meaning and the merits of its apparent rise in recent years. Examples of populism abound: from Brexit and Trump which dominated discussion in 2016, to more recent examples such as the 2023 election of Javier Milei in Argentina [Ref: Populism Studies], the Europe-wide farmers’ protests [Ref: Financial Times] and the rise of the Reform Party in the UK [Ref: The Week] or most strikingly the overwhelming rejection by referendum in Ireland of a proposed constitutional change [Ref: The Guardian]. Whilst many discuss populism as a right-wing phenomenon, it has a long history on the left as well, with recent examples of Syriza in Greece [Ref: New Statesman] and Podemos in Spain [Ref: BBC News].

But particular alarm is caused today by its right-wing variety. Some insist it is dangerous for democracy and liberal values, going so far as to suggest that it has echoes of the emergence of fascism in the 1930s and 1940s [Ref: Guardian]. Such fears seemed to be confirmed when news broke in Germany of an alleged meeting between members of far-right populist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) and neo-Nazi groups. This led to widespread public protests and even calls to ban the AfD [Ref: The Guardian]. The call to ban a political party, supported by a large number of Germans, gets to the heart of the debate about populism: is populism a reflection of widespread anger and disillusionment with the mainstream, or is it a dangerous force which justifies suspending the democratic process in order to contain it?

Assisted dying should be legalised

2024

INTRODUCTION

Physician assisted dying is a term encompassing both assisted suicide and euthanasia. Assisted suicide is the practice of allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending drugs to be administered by individuals who want to die to avoid further suffering. Euthanasia is where someone else – usually a doctor – administers the lethal drug.

The past few decades have seen an international trend of legalising this practice, sometimes for just the terminally ill, sometimes the chronically ill, and sometimes even people whose body is healthy but whose mental illness is so extreme that their suffering is thought to justify the procedure. As this has happened in several liberal societies, many questions have been raised. Can someone ever rationally justify taking their own life, or is it a simple, reasonable choice to make for those who are suffering? What are the wider implications to a society that accepts that sometimes life isn’t worth living? Does the medical profession suffer when the role of the doctor is extended from life-preserver to include life-taker, or is it better that the option to die is put into the hands of professionals?

Humanity should fear advances in artificial intelligence

updated 2024

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the increasing ability of machines to replicate or even supersede human abilities in complex tasks has been impressive. Already, artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have been used to allow machines to beat the best players in the world at both chess [Ref: Time] and the Chinese board game Go [Ref: Guardian]. IBM’s Watson has beaten the best human players on the long-running US quiz show, Jeopardy! [Ref: Techrepublic]. AI has long been built into consumer goods such as Google search, Alexa and Siri, and is being rolled out in the NHS [Ref: Gov.uk]. Things really took off in September 2022, however, with the release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Its ability to produce convincingly human-sounding text in response to prompts written in everyday language was a sensation, reaching one million users within five days [Ref: Exploding Topics]. Since then, AI applications have hit the mainstream, available and easy-to-use for anyone with an internet connection; alongside text-generation products like ChatGPT, AI-powered tools for generating images, audio, video, code and more have proliferated.

But the implications for society are only just becoming apparent. In January 2024, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund claimed 40 per cent of jobs worldwide will be affected by AI. She warned that it will likely worsen global inequality, but could also enhance some humans’ performance and create new jobs [Ref: Guardian]. Jobs lost could range from call-centre staff being replaced by chatbots to highly-educated law and finance professionals; these industries are now projected to be among the most affected by AI [Ref: Guardian]. Facial recognition systems, combined with ubiquitous CCTV, could erode our privacy. AI-powered autonomous weapons, or bioweapons developed using AI technology, could herald new and deadlier forms of warfare. The world-famous physicist, Stephen Hawking, even claimed that ‘AI may replace humans altogether’ as a ‘new form of life’ that can rapidly learn and improve, making people obsolete [Ref: Independent]. However, AI is also projected to boost the UK’s GDP by up to 10 per cent by 2030 [Ref: PwC] and has the potential to revolutionise fields as diverse as medicine, education and sustainability. So, should we welcome AI’s potential, or are the risks too great?

Cancel culture is a threat to freedom of speech

updated 2024

INTRODUCTION

Cancel culture is one of the buzzwords of the social-media age. It describes the view that there is a new assault on freedom of expression and belief, beyond traditional free speech controversies like ‘no-platforming’. Cancel culture is a form of boycott where a person who has shared a controversial opinion, expressed an ‘inappropriate’ viewpoint, or whose actions are perceived as offensive, is called out and then ‘cancelled’ for their errant behaviour.

It seems there is an example of a celebrity getting ‘cancelled’ every week. Author JK Rowling, singer Winston Marshall, radio presenter Danny Baker and actors Mark Wahlberg and Mel Gibson are just a few who have been fired and lost work for expressing their views. But it’s not just limited to the world of celebrity. Harper’s Magazine published a joint letter from a diverse range of 153 prominent writers, including Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood, concerned more generally that ‘the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted’ [Ref: Harper’s Magazine].

But plenty of commentators think this is no threat to freedom of expression, arguing call-outs are the natural consequence of voicing prejudiced and bigoted opinions, and those who complain that they are held accountable are the ones really trying to crack down on freedom of speech [Ref: Varsity]. So, does this new culture stifle debate and jeopardise free speech, or is it merely what fair and open debate looks like in the social-media age?

Western museums should repatriate cultural artefacts

updated 2024

INTRODUCTION

In January 2023 it was revealed that the British Museum has been in talks with Greek officials about returning some of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece on loan in a ‘cultural exchange’ for other ancient artefacts. Legal ownership of the marbles would, however, remain with the British Museum [Ref: Daily Mail].

The news reopened debate about what should happen to the Marbles and other artefacts removed from the Parthenon by Lord Elgin in the early nineteenth century. Former cabinet minister Lord David Frost wrote in response: ‘My view is that it is time for a grand gesture. Only the government can make it. It is to offer to return the marbles as a one-off gift from this country to Greece, as part of a new wider Anglo-Greek partnership.’ [Ref: Telegraph]

But William Atkinson, the assistant editor of Conservative Home, argued that the loan offer by the British Museum’s chair, George Osborne, ‘should horrify not only his fellow Tories, but anyone with even a passing interest in history. It would be an act of vandalism, based on spurious historical and legal arguments, that would fatally undermine a world-leading museum.’ [Ref: CapX] He cites historian David Abulafia’s argument that the British Museum is ‘one of a select number of what might be called Great Universal Museums’, ‘embrac[ing] the history of all the world’s civilisations’ [Ref: The Telegraph]. Abulafia argues that this allows visitors to experience the Marbles not just in the context of Greek history but informed by, and in the presence of, all the world’s civilisations.

Corporate sponsorship is good for the arts

updated 2024

INTRODUCTION

In December 2023, the British Museum announced a new £50m partnership with BP, six months after the end of their previous sponsorship deal was hailed by climate protesters as a ‘seismic shift’ [Ref: Culture Unstained]. Climate groups immediately announced plans to protest it and pursue legal action to block the deal, while reports emerged of ‘strong personal disagreement’ among trustees [Ref: Museums Association]. This follows a decade of campaigning for major arts institutions to divest from fossil fuels [Ref: BP or not BP?]: in 2019, a trustee of the British Museum resigned in protest against the Museum’s relationship with BP [Ref: LRB blog]. In 2016, BP ended its 26-year sponsorship of Tate Galleries, as well as its 34-year sponsorship of the Edinburgh International Festival, with suggestions that the possibility of controversy influenced the move [Ref: Guardian].

The Sackler name is another high-profile example of the push in recent years for arts institutions to reject funding from bodies deemed ethically questionable. In February 2019, the American photographer Nan Goldin threatened to boycott the UK’s National Portrait Gallery if it accepted a £1m donation from the Sackler fund, which was deemed controversial given the Sackler family’s connection to the opioid epidemic in the US [Ref: Guardian]. Numerous arts institutions have since stopped accepting Sackler funding including the Tate [Ref: Guardian], the Louvre [Ref: Art Newspaper] and the V&A [Ref: Guardian].

Healthcare workers should not be allowed to strike

2023

INTRODUCTION

With the UK economy in the doldrums and following a period when inflation significantly outpaced wage growth, a wave of industrial action has hit the UK. While many strikes have been in industries accustomed to industrial action, there have also been strikes in essential healthcare roles like nurses, ambulance crews and doctors. This has been divisive, triggering some to accuse healthcare workers of neglecting their duty of care for their patients and jeopardising the already overstrained National Health Service.

In reaction to the upheaval caused by this fresh phase of striking, the government has put forward a bill to further curb the right to strike and ensure, by law, minimum levels of service [Ref: UK Government]. This has been heralded by some as a saver of the public’s time (in the case of transport, communications and postal strikes) and protector of many lives (in the case of healthcare strikes). On the other hand, opponents argue this takes away the fundamental democratic right to withdraw one’s labour, as well as ignoring the fact that minimum levels of service are already maintained during healthcare strikes.

DM Berlin: Healthcare workers should not be allowed to strike

2023

INTRODUCTION

As a new recession begins to take effect and inflation has outpaced wage growth, a wave of industrial action has hit the UK, Germany and other European countries. While many strikes have been in industries accustomed to industrial action, there have also been strikes in essential healthcare roles like nurses, ambulance crews and doctors. This has been divisive, triggering some to accuse healthcare workers of neglecting their duty of care for their patients and jeopardising already overstrained health services. In Germany, for example, health workers in the Verdi trade union staged a two-day strike in March 2023. [Ref: The Local Germany]

In reaction to the upheaval caused by this fresh phase of striking, the UK government has put forward a bill to further curb the right to strike and ensure, by law, minimum levels of service [Ref: UK Government]. This has been heralded by some as a saver of the public’s time (in the case of transport, communications and postal strikes) and protector of many lives (in the case of healthcare strikes). On the other hand, opponents argue this takes away the fundamental democratic right to withdraw one’s labour, as well as ignoring the fact that minimum levels of service are already maintained during healthcare strikes. In Germany, there are certain legal guidelines in place concerning who is allowed to strike and under what conditions [Ref: Artz.de]. But even where there is legal guidance, a number of ethical questions remain [Ref: BDI.de].