Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Six participants argue for their choice in a light-hearted debate with a serious intent. Audience participation encourages you to agree, disagree, challenge, assess… and dismiss those arguments and adaptations that you find unworthy to wear the crown.
The panel have a few minutes only to convince you of their choice. Would Jane Austen have seen Colin Firth’s Mr Darcy in a dripping shirt as a suitable heir? Or would she have preferred Alicia Silverstone’s Clueless teen? Did Blade Runner and Apocalypse Now adapt the original material, or simply use them as inspiration? Was A Handmaid’s Tale more or less terrifying when confined to the pages of Margaret Atwood’s novel? And do you agree with the Wall Street Journal, that the latest adaptation of Charles Dickens’ Great Expectations ‘belches out the problems of literary adaptation with the dyspeptic regularity of a coal-fired Victorian ironworks’ ?
The discussion allows just five minutes for each panellist’s defence before the audience takes them to task. The audience then votes to chuck three contenders out of the virtual balloon before the remaining candidates make a final plea for their vote. 
SPEAKERSJonathan Grantchartered accountant; arts critic
Ethan Greenresearcher, Ideas Matter; fellow, Common Sense Society; national committee member, Speakeasy Group
Phil Harrisonwriter; author, The First Day; filmmaker, Even Gods
Sibyl Ruthwriter and editor
Dr Maren Thomlecturer; writer; acting and vocal trainer; podcast host, Performance Anxiety
Barry Wallcourse director, Edileaditandliveit.co.uk
CHAIRDavid Bowdenassociate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Publishing books has never been such a minefield. Take sensitivity readers, for instance, whose job is to review submitted manuscripts for ‘problematic content’. In a world where biblioclasm in the name of modern tastes is widespread, proponents of sensitivity readers argue that they ensure no literature need ever be revisited in the future and deemed problematic – as it would be shorn of anything that might upset minority groups before it’s even published. More broadly, this means a moratorium on authors creating fiction outside of their lived experience.
It’s not just new authors writing contemporary works that find themselves in trouble. Books by the children’s author Roald Dahl underwent a sweep of edits by sensitivity readers in February 2023 after Puffin Books deemed the old work too offensive. ‘Enormously fat’ was shortened to ‘enormous’ in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, with the Oompa Loompas now called ‘small people’ instead of ‘small men’.
An immense public backlash led Puffin to revoke the changes, but such revisions continue to be made to other books. In 2011, American academic Alan Gribben republished Mark Twain’s classic, Huckleberry Finn, replacing the use of the ’n’ word with ‘slave’. More recently, plans are afoot to republish Ian Fleming’s James Bond series to remove ‘racial slurs toward black people’.
Publishers justify updating old books as guarding against modern audiences reacting badly to outdated content. What was normal 100 or even 30 years ago might be highly inappropriate today. However, critics argue this is less about protecting readers than the publishing industry defensively accommodating to a small group of self-appointed guardians of political correctness.
There is also concern that these edits undermine the potential of novels – as historical documents – to provide unique insights. Censoring them is an affront to the artistic freedom of the author, but also insinuates that today’s readers can’t take their historical context into account. For modern writers, it’s feared that the likes of sensitivity readers can only mean self-censorship and less freedom for the literary imagination.
Are sensitivity readers merely sensitive editors, attuned to nuanced matters of representation and identity? Do they help today’s writers make their characters true to life and ensure the longevity of old books by making them continually relevant? Or is there something more at stake for literature, if classic and modern texts are subject to the whims of contemporary political debate, forever under threat from the red pen?
SPEAKERSPhil Harrisonwriter; author, The First Day; filmmaker, Even Gods
Masimba Musodzanovelist in ChiShona and English; blogger, The Times of Israel; writer
Tomiwa Owoladewriter and critic; contributing writer, New Statesman; author, This is Not America: Why Black Lives in Britain Matter
Jane Robinsauthor, White Bodies; journalist; co-writer, People Like Us
Sibyl Ruthwriter and editor
CHAIRSheila Lewisretired management consultant; book-club founder

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Performance Anxiety is a podcast that analyses the film, television, theatre and comedy performances that everybody is talking about.
So many contemporary discussions about performance have become politicised – argumentative, overwrought, joyless and indifferent to the art itself. Hosts Alex Dale and film expert Dr Maren Thom love the art of performance, and think the most radical way to understand it is to enjoy it. In previous podcasts, they have discussed Pedro Pascal and lumbersexualism, Immanuel Kant and Guardians of the Galaxy, Barbie and the culture wars and whether it matters if an Irish actor played Oppenheimer.
Listen as they give the art of performance the love and understanding they think it really deserves. In this special live recording at the Battle of Ideas festival, Alex and Maren are joined by writer and broadcaster Timandra Harkness to discuss the thinking behind the podcast, before analysing the performance of the moment.
SPEAKERSAlex Daledesigner and writer; podcast host, Performance Anxiety
Dr Maren Thomlecturer; writer; acting and vocal trainer; podcast host, Performance Anxiety
CHAIRTimandra Harknessjournalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; author, Big Data: does size matter?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Graham Linehan is one of the most acclaimed comedy writers of his generation. He is the co-creator of Father Ted and Black Books, and also wrote and directed The IT Crowd. During his career, he has won five BAFTAs, including a lifetime achievement award.
In recent years, Linehan has become a campaigner for the rights of women and gay people, and his opposition to gender-identity ideology has seen him effectively blacklisted from the comedy industry. As such, he is one of the most high-profile examples of what has become known as ‘cancel culture’.  His recent foray into stand-up saw his performance at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe cancelled by two venues; in the end, he performed on a makeshift platform outside the Scottish Parliament.
Linehan has now written a memoir – Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy – in which he reflects on his successes and the strange turn his life has taken.
SPEAKERSGraham Linehancreator and co-creator, Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd; comedy writer, Count Arthur Strong, Brass Eye and The Fast Show; author, Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy
CHAIRAndrew Doylepresenter, Free Speech Nation, GB News; writer and comedian; author, The New Puritans: how the religion of social justice captured the Western world and Free Speech and Why It Matters

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
When it was announced earlier this year that the BBC Singers were to be axed, there was a huge backlash. Musicians called the move ‘devastating’ and ‘cultural vandalism’. There was a broader public outcry that forced the BBC to suspend the closure proposal while it ‘actively explores’ alternative funding models.
The BBC Singers victory was especially important because many in the classical world feel embattled, as they see the status of the genre increasingly questioned. The BBC has also cut salaried posts in three orchestras; the Arts Council England has controversially introduced cuts to English National Opera and the Britten Sinfonia in the name of ‘levelling up’. There is a perception that school music is in jeopardy, with a significant drop in provision of GCSE Music, and that Brexit has damaged UK’s classical touring internationally.
The backlash against the move to close the BBC Singers no doubt took the Beeb’s bean counters by surprise.  After all, in recent years, classical music has borne the brunt of accusations of elitism and inaccessibility. Even voices within the cultural sector have accused classical music of being out of touch with the social mores of the twenty-first century, instead prioritising relevance and inclusion. More recently, classical composers have been dragged into the culture wars, denounced as representative of white supremacy and colonial attitudes.
Many classical music supporters have attempted to defend the tradition by emphasising its utilitarian worth, claiming it is important for improving numeracy, mental health, anti-social behaviour and economic growth. It is rare to hear anyone rigorously defending the intrinsic value of classical music for its aesthetic virtues or the stature of the European music tradition as the epitome of Enlightenment ideals.
Ironically, it seems that it’s Big Tech rather than conservatoires or musicologists which is more optimistic about the genre’s popular potential. Apple made classical music its flagship project of 2023 and its Apple Classical Music project delivers 115,000 works by 20,000 composers in any number of interpretations, touting the size of its library and quality of its sound. Could new technology replace live performance, creating a new normal?
In a period of economic stagflation, is it reasonable for the state to subsidise often expensive orchestras, opera productions and music traditions from eras long gone? What arguments should be used to ensure the long-term sustainability of the classical-music genre? Do we even know how best to argue for the transcendental qualities of high art and the concept of art for art’s sake?
SPEAKERSDolan Cummingsauthor, Taking Conscience Seriously and The Pictish Princess.. and other stories from before there was a Scotland
Jack Huesmusician; member, Wang Chung; creator, Primitif
Professor Ian Pacepianist and professor of music at City, University of London
Dr Lola Salemlecturer in French and music, University of Oxford; author; professional singer, Maîtrise de Radio France; critic
CHAIRElisabetta Gasparonilinguist; teacher; founder, Aesthetic Study Group

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The true-crime genre is a huge phenomenon. When news of Nicola Bulley’s disappearance in Lancashire went public earlier this year, online sleuths began filming and podcasting their own investigations around the crime scene. The popularity of podcasts like Serial or shows like Making a Murderer, which follow real cases, have inspired appeals and even overturned convictions.
Murder mysteries and crime fiction have long been popular. But instead of watching Columbo or reading your favourite Agatha Christie, the popularity of true crime seems to be centred around the ‘true’. Netflix is saturated with documentaries investigating the inner workings of humanity’s worst individuals. Millions of people indulge in tales of Fred West, the ‘Tiger King’ or Myra Hindley.
Some argue that our true-crime addiction is nothing more than a modern-day appreciation of a good whodunnit. Many fans of the genre favour stories of cold cases or wrongful convictions. Contrary to a morbid fascination with murder, some argue that raising awareness of such cases has led to corrections of justice. The Australian’s podcast The Teachers’ Pet was cited as helping to convict Chris Dawson for the murder of his wife Lynette. The podcast was so popular that it was taken down in case it unfairly influenced potential jurors and witnesses.
On the other hand, an obsession with true crime can blur the boundaries between fact and fiction. As it turned out, conspiratorial hypotheses about Bulley’s disappearance and police corruption turned out to be untrue, and many criticised true-crime fans for turning a tragic accident into a spectacle.
Does the popularity of true crime simply represent the latest chapter in humanity’s obsession with the macabre? Are we becoming desensitised to immorality by turning criminality into conspicuous consumption? Or is our fascination with the darker side of life a sign of our complex humanity? And if we all become armchair detectives, what are the consequences for law and order?
SPEAKERSSue Cookbroadcaster and novelist; former presenter of Out of Court, and CrimewatchUK, BBC TV
Dr Ruth Dudley Edwardsjournalist; historian; crime novelist; broadcaster; awards include the Crime Writers’ Association Non-Fiction Gold Dagger for Aftermath: The Omagh Bombing and the Families’ Pursuit of Justice
Luke Gittoscriminal lawyer; author, Human Rights – Illusory Freedom; director, Freedom Law Clinic
Graham Wettoneretired police officer; author, How to be a Police Officer; policing commentator
CHAIRMax Sandersonsenior editor, audio, Guardian

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Seven years on from the historic decision to leave the EU, British voters may be left wondering when exactly they get to ‘take back control’. While it is true that decision-making has (mostly) reverted from Brussels to Westminster, it often feels like we have had all the downsides of Brexit with few benefits.
Leaving the EU has not been the disaster that many people – including the leading lights in politics and business – predicted. But there’s been precious little sign that the demand for wider transformation – whether it is raising living standards, controlling the UK’s borders or a sense that politicians are really paying attention to the concerns of voters – has been met.
But perhaps all this is missing the point. As the authors of Taking Control: Sovereignty and Democracy after Brexit argue, the EU is not a supranational nanny state, nor an internationalist peace project. It is the means by which Europe’s elites transformed their own states in order to rule the void where representative politics used to be. From this point of view, leaving the EU is a necessary but not sufficient step towards closing the chasm between rulers and ruled.
When the current government looks spent of ideas and the main opposition hardly looks much better, politics is in a dysfunctional state. Is political life now destined to be forever moribund or is there a way forward that can strengthen representative democracy and improve the lives of everyone across the UK? Whatever happened to ‘power to the people’?
SPEAKERSDr Philip Cunliffeassociate professor, Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction, UCL; author, The New Twenty Years’ Crisis 1999-2019: a critique of international relations and Cosmopolitan Dystopia; co-host, Aufhebunga Bunga podcast
James Hallwoodhead of policy and external affairs, Council of Deans of Health
Baroness Kate Hoeynon-aligned peer, House of Lords; former Labour MP; former sports minister; former unpaid commissioner for sport, London Mayor's office; Leave campaigner
James Hollandwriter and political consultant; Leave campaigner; former communications director, European Conservatives and Reformists Party
Peter Ramsayprofessor of law, London School of Economics and Political Science; author, Taking Control: Sovereignty and Democracy After Brexit
CHAIRRobert Hoeyconsultant

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In her recent book, Transgender Body Politics, author and philosopher Heather Brunskell-Evans takes to task the politics of transgenderism. She argues that, for years, Gender Identity Development Theory has become increasingly accepted as a medically ‘progressive’ idea, yet one that bears all the hallmarks of a religion.
According to this modern creed, Brunskell-Evans argues, gender is believed to be independent of the physical body, resembling something akin to a ‘soul’ which should take precedence over biological sex. Centring on values such as equality, gender diversity and inclusion, it is backed by symbols such as chants, flags, parades and ‘holy’ days. There is a belief in secular transubstantiation – that boys can become women and girls can become men. Organisations like Stonewall, Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence act like a secular clergy, giving ‘sermons’ on right-think in training workshops. Critical individuals are denounced as infidels and detransitioners are akin to apostates.
Has the recent closure of the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at the NHS Tavistock Clinic turned the tide on this development? Has wider society begun to seriously debate the consequences of young people undergoing unnecessary sex-change surgery that could have lifelong implications for them? Or is it simply the first siren call to a much larger cultural phenomenon which reveals a thriving, well-funded and unaccountable transhumanist movement that should be firmly on our radar?
In this special lecture for the Battle of Ideas festival, Heather Brunskell-Evans presents the findings and thoughts contained in her book. Three respondents will then kickstart a discussion aimed at getting to grips with important issues surrounding transgender politics.
SPEAKERSDr Heather Brunskell-Evansphilosopher; co-founder, Women's Declaration International; author, Transgender Body Politics
Sonia Gallegosenior producer and reporter, Al Jazeera English
Marc Glendeninghead of cultural affairs, Institute of Economic Affairs; author, Transgender Ideology: a new threat to liberal values
Rosie Kaydancer; choreographer; CEO and artistic director, K2CO LTD; founder, Freedom in the Arts
CHAIRTimandra Harknessjournalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; author, Big Data: does size matter?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
We live in contradictory and often confusing times. How do we explain why millions consistently dumbfound and dismay the Left by their love of mass consumption and their acceptance of the logic of commerce – while, at the same time, expressing mass revulsion at inequality, exploitation, unfairness, and greed? Why have so many on the Left embraced identity politics, while showing contempt for ‘Red Wall’ voters and traditional working-class values? And what can young radicals learn about fighting today’s battles from analysing the insights of past activism?
In The Embrace of Capital, Don Milligan recounts and analyses why working people have developed a love-hate relationship with capitalism. What can we learn about the fate of Left-wing politics, from someone who has a long history of radical, social and political activism? 
SPEAKERSDr Don Milliganwriter and social commentator; author, The Embrace of Capital
CHAIRDr Michael Owensurban planning consultant and lecturer; author, Play the Game

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
It can sometimes feel as though the whole lockdown period was a bad dream. Did it really happen? Most of the population might wish to forget and move on. Even while the fallout is still having a profound impact – such as the 140,000-plus ‘ghost children’ who haven’t returned to school after lockdown – there can be a reluctance to face up to what happened.
Perhaps we are suffering from an awkward defensiveness about having allowed our liberties to be suspended so easily. Did we really let the UK parliament declare itself ‘non-essential’ and shut down, only to reopen with legislation in place that allowed the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, to rule by decree? It is almost too depressing to remember that, for months on end, we were banned from leaving the house without a state-sanctioned excuse. Police rifled through people’s shopping baskets and arrested people for sitting on benches. We deprived children of schooling. Did we really sit by as diktats were issued on everything from casual sex to singing?
By now, there’s widespread cynicism about whether the public inquiry into the UK’s handling of the pandemic will really ‘rigorously and candidly’ investigate the government’s actions. Public hearings are not expected to end until 2026, but it already seems to have accepted the conventional, ‘expert’ narrative that the suspension of liberty was essential to save lives.
So, who will explore more sceptical lines of enquiry about the cost of lockdown – to freedom, education, social services, health and the economy? Three authors – Jennie Bristow, Laura Dodsworth and Thomas Fazi – have tackled the topic in new ways – writing accounts to help us learn lessons and allow a proper debate about the rights and wrongs of lockdown. Can we investigate this dark period without going down rabbit holes, obsessively demanding retribution or getting stuck in a grievance loop? Do we need to free ourselves from the ‘new normal’ by getting some closure on the old one?
SPEAKERSJennie Bristowsenior lecturer in sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University; author, The Corona Generation: coming of age in a crisis and Growing up in Lockdown
Laura Dodsworthwriter; photographer; author, Free Your Mind and A State of Fear
Thomas Fazijournalist and writer; author, The Battle for Europe: how an elite hijacked a continent - and how we can take it back and The Covid Consensus: the global assault on democracy and the poor - a critique from the Left
CHAIRViv Reganmanaging editor, spiked; director, Young Journalists' Academy

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Ever since the days of William Hogarth and Edward Linley Sambourne, cartoonists have gleefully poked a disrespectful finger in the eye of the political establishment, using attention-grabbing drawings and incisive wit to expose pomposity, pretension and hypocrisy.
The power of cartoons to threaten the status quo has prompted repressive regimes to jail cartoonists – such as Atena Farghadani in Iran, Musa Kart in Turkey and Jiang Yefei in China. Yet in the proudly ‘liberal’ West, cartoons are increasingly being subject to censorship. Many creators have lost their livelihoods, or even their lives, for their work or views.
In recent years, Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell’s long-running If… was cancelled, while his colleague Martin Rowson was praised for conceding and apologising for anti-Semitic motifs in one of his recent cartoons. Stella Perrett was fired from the Morning Star after complaints that her cartoon about women’s single-sex spaces was ‘transphobic’. Most tragically, the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were murdered for offending radical Muslims.
Following a series of cartoon-related controversies, the New York Times stopped publishing daily political cartoons altogether, in favour of long-form visual journalism that expresses ‘nuance, complexity and strong voice from a diversity of viewpoints across all of our platforms’. Is publishing political cartoons simply too big a risk to take in the midst of a divisive culture war?
What is the role of political cartoons today? The Spectator’s Fraser Nelson argues that ‘cartoonists lampoon everyone and everything and have done for centuries’. But can a medium that thrives on caricature, exaggeration and righteous anger operate in a ‘be kind’ culture which shrinks from causing offence? Or are we seeing an overdue corrective that will encourage cartoonists to refocus their bile on targets that truly deserve it?
SPEAKERSDr Graham Barnfieldconsultant; founder, Emalone Books; former senior lecturer in journalism
Andy Daveyfreelance cartoonist
Stella Perrettcartoonist, Radical Cartoons; author and illustrator, 2020, The Year We Were All Cancelled; women's rights campaigner
CHAIRHarley Richardsonchief product officer, OxEd and Assessment; organiser, AoI Education Forum; blogger, historyofeducation.net; author, The Liberating Power of Education

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In August 2023, the Danish government proposed a bill banning the public burning of the Holy Koran, stating that it will send an ‘important political signal’ to the rest of the world. Sweden is also considering amending legal bills which will give greater police powers to refuse permits for such demonstrations. The recent acts of public burning of the Koran have become a national security issue for both countries, with threats by foreign Islamic governments, as well as Russia, and domestic threats to security internally.
The public desecration of the Koran has not only been enacted by far-right organisations against their perceived fear of Islamisation of their countries. Salwan Momika, a refugee in Sweden from Iraq, set fire to pages of the Koran outside a Swedish mosque on the first day of Eid. Allegedly defending freedom of speech, Momika said: ‘this is a democracy. It is in danger if they tell us we can’t do this.’ The Iranian Danish artist Firoozeh Bazrafkan recently staged a public-art action outside the Iranian embassy where she shredded the Koran with a kitchen grater. Bazrafkan described her performance as a tribute to the brave women and men of Iran struggling for freedom.
While holy books are not being burned outside embassies in the UK, there have been protests and public rows about the Koran. Four boys were suspended from Kettlethorpe High School in Wakefield – including one autistic pupil – after a Koran was allegedly dropped in a corridor. Police became involved, and the child’s parents were even asked to engage in a filmed public apology. Meanwhile, revenge attacks have taken place in Pakistan with the burning down of Christian churches after the Koran was allegedly desecrated.
Should there be limits to freedom of expression, especially regarding the desecration of holy books? Most incidents have involved the Koran – is it easy to defend the desecration of a sacred text when it is not your own? Would opposition to law changes be softened if it were the Bible being burned in town centres or mistreated in schools? Can we defend free speech but oppose acts that encourage violent reactions – especially those which might pose a threat to national or domestic security and to peoples’ lives? Or should Western governments stay out of policing political, religious acts of protest – however offensive – for fear of creating new blasphemy laws?
SPEAKERSManick Govindaguest co-curator, Culture Tensions, Ujazdowski Castle Centre for Contemporary Art, Warsaw, Poland
Khadija Khanjournalist and commentator
Lois McLatchiesenior communications officer, ADF UK; commentator
Hardeep Singhjournalist, author
Peter Whittlefounder and director, New Culture Forum; host, NCF YouTube channel
CHAIRDr Piers Bennphilosopher, author and lecturer

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
A special live recording of Last Orders, the spiked podcast all about freedom and the nanny state.
This is the show where Christopher Snowdon, from the Institute of Economic Affairs, and Tom Slater, editor of spiked, discuss the latest in modern-day puritanism – from killjoy attempts to clamp down on smoking, drinking, ‘junk food’ and assorted other vices to the never-ending campaign to cleanse speech and culture of anything the least bit offensive.
SPEAKERSPatrick Christyspresenter, GB News; former presenter, Drive Time, talkRADIO; former local reporter
Madeline Grantcolumnist, assistant comment editor and parliamentary sketchwriter, Telegraph; former editorial manager, Institute of Economic Affairs
Tom Slatereditor, spiked; co-host, spiked podcast and Last Orders
Christopher Snowdonhead of lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; editor, Nanny State Index; author, Killjoys

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The first Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF) branch was formed at the University of Edinburgh in March 2022. In the time since, AFAF has grown rapidly with branches now covering over 20 universities. This is a unique achievement in the face of threats and intimidation by censorious individuals and groups.
All AFAF branches and their membership are committed to freedom of speech and the promotion of open debate and discussion. AFAF offers an independent voice as universities work out how to respond to the requirements of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which charges universities with a duty to champion free speech and academic freedom.
Branches have focused on a variety of issues, such as reviewing policy papers, defending individuals with controversial views, opposing ideological imposition by university administrators and management, and ensuring that there is viewpoint diversity throughout the disciplines.
AFAF’s ambition is to open branches in every university in the UK. Come along to hear about this compelling free speech success story – and to find out about how you too can get involved!
SPEAKERSDr Firat Cengizsenior lecturer in law, University of Liverpool
Dr Ruth Mieschbuehlersenior lecturer in education studies, Institute of Education, University of Derby; author, The Racialisation of Campus Relations
Professor Ian Pacepianist and professor of music at City, University of London
CHAIRDennis Hayesprofessor of education, University of Derby; founder and director, Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF); author, The Death of Academic Freedom? Free speech and censorship

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Contemporary protests raise tricky dilemmas for those committed to free speech and civil rights. Protests by Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil have caused traffic mayhem and disrupted major sporting events. There have been Muslim pickets at cinemas and schools. Women using abortion services have been intimidated and upset by pro-life protesters outside clinics, while pro-choice protesters have picketed the homes of US judges. In each case, the right to protest seems to conflict with other rights. Other forms of protest – like pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the wake of the Hamas invasion of Israel – are deeply offensive to many.
To date, British police have taken a fairly ‘hands off’ approach to dealing with environmental protests, leading some civilians to take matters into their own hands by dragging road-blocking protesters away. Causing inconvenience is one thing, but many have complained that the protesters ignore the serious damage being done in missed hospital appointments and lost earnings.
But perhaps there are signs that the authorities are tiring of these stunts. Pro-life campaigners have been banned from ‘buffer zones’ around abortion clinics. Insulate Britain’s Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker received substantial prison sentences after their protest shut the M25 at Dartford in October last year. However, the prison sentences faced criticism. Former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger declared that the English have ‘a rather proud record of not incarcerating non-violent protestors acting on a matter of conscience’ and suggested that the UK was becoming less tolerant.
How far is too far when it comes to protests? Should the UK follow France in banning pro-Palestinian protests? Does an honest belief that we live in an ‘emergency’ situation justify widespread disruption? Who decides what is acceptable or not?
SPEAKERSCharlie Bentley-Astorwriter; commentator; free-speech advocate
Mark Johnsonadvocacy manager, Big Brother Watch
Kevin O’Sullivanpresenter, TalkRADIO and TalkTV; reporter; showbiz editor; media correspondent; features editor
Sarah Phillimorebarrister; campaigner, Fair Cop
CHAIRSally Millarddirector of finance; co-founder, AoI Parents Forum