Debating Matters

Monuments to controversial historical figures should remain

Updated 2021

INTRODUCTION

In June 2020, in a response to the Black Lives Matter protests and the toppling by protestors of a statue of Edward Colston [Ref: BBC], the Mayor of London set up the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm [ref: Wikipedia]. The aim of this commission is to ensure London’s monuments, plaques and street names reflect the diversity of the city today [ref: London.gov.uk]. Reviews of statues are being planned in other cities too, including Cardiff, Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle [Ref: Sky News]. Edinburgh City Council has convened a review group to look at public monuments, street or building names which have links to slavery and colonialism [Ref: Edinburgh Evening News].

The appointment of these commissions is the latest chapter in a long-running debate about historical monuments, with campaigns such as Rhodes Must Fall having argued for some time that such statues and public landmarks are more than just a symbol of past oppression – they represent the institutional racism which continues to exist today [Ref: BBC News]. ‘Protesters’, says one columnist, are ‘compelling entire nations to confront their present through a new understanding of their past’ [Ref: Guardian]. Some, however, worry that there is a tendency to ‘cleanse’ history of unsavoury – even appalling – elements. In the words of historian Mary Beard, ‘statues offer different challenges to our view of history … and remind us of our own fragility in the judgement of the future’ [Ref: TLS]. Others argue that history has now become ‘the most active front in a new culture war’ and that ‘actions are being taken widely and quickly in a way that does not reflect public opinion or growing concern over our treatment of the past’ [ref: Policy Exchange].

The UK should reduce its foreign aid budget

2021

INTRODUCTION

The UK government is planning to reduce the amount it spends on foreign aid [Ref: UK Government]. Prior to the decision, the foreign aid budget stood at 0.7% of gross national income (GNI), the amount targeted by the UN [Ref: United Nations]. Following the announcement, including news that there would be cuts to aid sent to countries struggling with widespread hunger, such as Yemen, South Sudan, and Somalia, a group of charities wrote to the prime minister urging a rethink, warning that ‘history will not judge this nation kindly if the government chooses to … destroy the UK’s global reputation as a country that steps up to help those most in need’ [Ref: BBC]. The plans have been defended by government officials as a necessary decision in light of ‘the seismic impact of the pandemic on the UK economy’ and that it has spent ‘more than £10 billion this year’ on good causes around the world [Ref: BBC].

The level of foreign aid has long been a controversial topic in British politics. For many, foreign aid is a moral imperative arising from the UK’s position as a rich country and its moral duties to help those worse off [Ref: Archbishop of Canterbury] – a duty that is doubly serious given the UK’s history of colonial exploitation and military intervention [Ref: Guardian]. In addition, many insist that foreign aid is a key source of ‘soft power’ for the UK and a way to ensure its international reputation and spread its values [Ref: The Conversation]. Nonetheless, others insist that ‘charity always begins at home’ [Ref: Express] and it is unacceptable that the UK spends money on relieving poverty abroad while homelessness and poverty exists in the UK [Ref: Guardian]. Likewise, they note that much foreign aid is given to relatively wealthy global economic powerhouses such as India and China [Ref: The Week]. In a time of economic crisis, such dubious expenses are said to be increasingly unaffordable.

Universal basic income is not a solution to our social and economic problems

2021

INTRODUCTION

Government policies in response to the Covid-19 pandemic have reignited interest in the idea of a universal basic income (UBI). [Ref: France 24] The UK government has paid millions of workers 80 per cent of their wages when they are unable to work due to government-imposed restrictions. Yet this still left millions more people – particularly the self-employed – with little or no financial support. Proponents of UBI argue that this situation shows that governments can make resources available if it chooses to do so and that a universal payment to everyone would be fairer.

Campaigns for UBI have been frequent in recent years, but the idea has generally been rejected. In 2016, for example, Swiss voters rejected proposals for UBI in a referendum [Ref: Financial Times]. If passed, it would have seen all Swiss citizens receive a guaranteed yearly payment, regardless of their employment status. Parties opposed to UBI argued that it would damage the economy by removing people’s motivation to work, and incentivise excessive immigration. In the same year, the UK Government ruled out the scheme as unaffordable. [Ref: Independent].

Vaccine passports benefit society

2021

This topic guide builds on a thread of Twitter posts by Adam Wagner, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers and Visiting Professor of Law at Goldsmiths University.

For the purposes of this debate, the term ‘vaccine passport’ means some form of immunity certificate, for use both domestically and for international travel.

INTRODUCTION

Almost as soon as the pandemic struck in the UK and lockdown was introduced, questions have been raised about whether people with immunity from the disease should be allowed more freedom. [Ref: Stats News] At that time, such immunity would have come from having had the disease and recovered. The debate has re-emerged as the vaccination programme has proceeded. With vaccinated people now having a high level of protection from the worst consequences of the disease, should they now be allowed more freedom – and should there be a system to allow them to prove that they have been vaccinated?

For proponents of the idea, it would allow society more freedom overall [Ref: BBC News]. Instead of everyone being subject to lockdown measures, only those who had yet to be vaccinated would have to abide by the rules. Businesses like pubs, shops and gyms could reopen knowing that millions of people would be able to use their services. For those businesses that rely on personal services or where staff need to enter customers’ homes – from health and social care to hairdressers and plumbers – making vaccination compulsory for staff could provide protection and reassurance for clients and patients.

Germany: Monuments to Controversial Historical Figures Should Remain (Updated 2021)

INTRODUCTION

In the UK in June 2020 as part of Black Lives Matter protests, a statue of Edward Colston [Ref: Wikipedia] was toppled by protestors and thrown into the harbour [Ref: BBC] and a few weeks later Oriel College, Oxford, voted to remove the hotly debated statue of Cecil Rhodes [Ref: Guardian]. In the United States, protestors and city officials have removed hundreds of statues of controversial figures, including those of confederate General Robert E. Lee [Ref: List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests, Wikipedia]. In Germany, the debate focuses primarily on street names and military barracks named after colonialists. These actions are the latest chapter in a long-running debate about historical monuments, with campaigns such as ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ having argued for some time that such statues are more than just a symbol of past oppression – they represent the institutional racism which continues to exist today [Ref: BBC News]. “Protesters,” says one columnist, are “compelling entire nations to confront their present through a new understanding of their past” [Ref: Guardian]. Others believe that these monuments make reconciliation difficult or even impossible. Some, however, worry that there is a tendency to ‘cleanse’ history of unsavoury – even appalling – elements. In the words of historian Mary Beard, “statues offer different challenges to our view of history … and remind us of our own fragility in the judgement of the future” [Ref: TLS]. At its heart, the debate is about our relationship with history, and whether removing statues and monuments has a role to play in reappraising historic wrongs, or whether they encourage us to airbrush out difficult and contentious parts of our history, rather than engage with and understand them. Should monuments to controversial historical figures remain?

In the digital age, we should not expect our online activities to remain private

Author: Kaja Molinksa

INTRODUCTION

Has the expectation of privacy become outdated? Over half the world’s population uses social media [Ref: Datareportal] and there are now many official ‘track and trace’ apps to combat coronavirus infections [Ref: The Atlantic]. Many today declare they are worried about privacy, but continue to use services that hoover up their data, a contradiction termed the ‘privacy paradox’ [Ref: Guardian]. From the proliferation of connected devices (in 2020, 34 per cent of UK households had a smart speaker [Ref: Statista]), to taking advantage of the benefits of targeted advertising [Ref: Forbes], it seems that few consumers genuinely take their online privacy seriously. In fact, over 90 per cent of consumers agree to a website’s ‘terms and conditions’ without reading them [Ref: Business Insider]. One study suggested students would even choose free pizza over secure email addresses [Ref: Forbes].

However, from the Cambridge Analytica scandal [Ref: Guardian] to high-profile data breaches, such as in 2018 when over 300 million Marriot International guests had data including addresses and passport numbers exposed [Ref: TechAdvisor], we still profess to “loathe that our data is mined and scraped” [Ref: New York Times]. For many, privacy remains an indispensable right and safeguard against overbearing governments – such as in Belarus, where the privacy-focused app Telegram allows protestors to organise against the government [Ref: The Economist]. For others, such as governments attempting to track and locate infectious persons during the coronavirus pandemic, online privacy stands in the way of keeping us all safe [Ref: The Atlantic]. Where should the line be drawn?

Germany should pay reparations for its colonial past

This topic guide is a companion to ‘Britain should pay reparations for its colonial past’

INTRODUCTION

Following wartime reparations, most notably to Holocaust survivors, attention has turned towards reparations in relation to Germany’s colonial past. In particular, there has been discussion surrounding reparations over the genocide against the Herero and Nama people of Namibia [Ref: The Guardian].

While relations between the Herero and Nama people and the German government have encountered many issues, including the repatriation of stolen remains and recognition of the act of genocide, the most contentious ongoing dispute surrounds financial reparation. With failed attempts to bring the German government to court in 2001 and, most recently, in 2018 [Ref: teleSUR], the Herero and Nama people have been calling for personal reparations to their tribes, while the German government argue that their ongoing aid to Namibia is sufficient [Ref: The Guardian]. Namibia’s claims have been followed by similar demands from Tanzania, another former German colony. [Ref: DW].

These are just two examples of an increasing demand for reparations from Western nations to individuals and countries who have been affected by colonialism. Reparations relating to the transatlantic slave trade [Ref: UNESCO], for example, are thought to add up to as much as $14 trillion [Ref: Newsweek] and some argue that slavery facilitated the rise and wealth of colonial powers to such an extent that its effects are still felt today [Ref: New Statesman]. The implication of this is that slavery has filtered down through generations and had a discernible material impact on the present, benefitting the descendants of those who owned and traded slaves, and holding back the descendants of slaves [Ref: New Statesman].

Climate Emergency: People should not have more than two children

INTRODUCTION

In July 2019, Prince Harry announced that he and the Duchess of Sussex will not be having more than two children for environmental reasons [Source: New York Times]. Many praised the decision, especially following the creation by Blythe Pepino and Alice Brown of BirthStrike, ‘a voluntary organisation for women and men who have decided not to have children in response to the coming “climate breakdown and civilisation collapse”’ [Source: The Guardian]. Many argue that it is immoral to have children in this context, given the environmental impact of having children [Ref: Population Matters] – or even that it is wrong to bring children into a world where they will face the results of climate disasters [Source: The Guardian]. However, many argue that population control will not make much of a difference to world emissions [Ref: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] and that it is an authoritarian step, with colonial undertones, and with problematic implications for women’s freedom [Ref: Spiked].

Childhood vaccinations should be compulsory

View a PDF version of this topic guide here.

INTRODUCTION

Across Europe, 2016 saw the lowest number of measles cases on record. Two years later, the number of cases, and deaths, were at their highest level for at least 15 years [REF: BMJ]. Declining vaccination rates are widely thought to be to blame. In response, the UK’s health secretary, Matt Hancock, said in May 2019 that those who spread anti-vaccine messages have ‘blood on their hands’ and that he was now considering making vaccinations compulsory [REF: Guardian]. Similarly, New York City’s mayor, Bill de Blasio, has declared a public health emergency and ordered mandatory vaccinations after the largest measles outbreak for over 20 years [REF: Telegraph].

Countries across the world are still dealing with the consequences of a controversial research paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield, published in medical journal The Lancet in 1998, which suggested a connection between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination and the development of autism in children [REF: FT]. Although Dr Wakefield’s research has been discredited, it is widely agreed that the doubts created about MMR [Ref: Independent] resulted in a decline in vaccinations in the UK – falling from a peak of 94 per cent for two year olds in 1995, to 78 per cent in 2003. Whilst vaccination rates in the UK have improved since then, the fears about MMR have reverberated around the world, creating a generation of so-called ‘anti-vaxxers’, and playing into trends towards, and concerns around, everything from populism [REF: Guardian] to fake news [Ref: The Big Issue].

Tourism benefits the world

View a PDF version of this topic guide here.

INTRODUCTION

Tourism has traditionally been seen as a way of showing appreciation for different places, peoples and cultures, but 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 ethical tourism [Ref: Tourism Concern] or eco-tourism [Ref: International Ecotourism Society].

Most recently, there has been a renewed focus on the impact that tourism has on major or historic cities. Scottish authors Ian Rankin [Ref: Times] and Val McDermid [Ref: Edinburgh News] have clashed on whether tourism is ‘killing’ Edinburgh. Barcelona is widely considered to have been ‘ruined’ by tourism [Ref: The Guardian], and Venice has considered taking radical steps including banning sitting down in key areas to alleviate the supposed problems of overtourism [Ref: Telegraph]. Moreover, the short-stay rental service Airbnb – used by many tourists – has been accused of driving up rents for locals, turning residential areas into unofficial hotels [Ref: BBC] and even robbing cities of their individuality [Ref: The Verge].