The European Alliance of Academies organized a Café Climate Paris on19 June 2025 at Maison Heinrich Heine.

Café Climate is an initiative of the Climate Group of the European Alliance of Academies and creates a space for open dialogue on the impact of the climate crisis on everyday life, democracy, art and culture. In a relaxed café atmosphere, international experts, artists and the audience discussed various topics together at different tables:

– Matteo Barsuglia (astrophysicist): Climate change and visions of the future 
– Lucie Taïeb (writer): Climate and Ecological issues in literature
– Kirsten Reese (composer & sound artist): Climate and art in university teaching
– J. Emil Sennewald (philosopher) & Liesbeth Bik (visual artist): The role of imagination in the climate discourse
– Claire Dehove (artiste diplomate): Diplomacy for the rights of the natural commons
– Pauline Durand-Vialle (CEO Fera): ‘Green Filming’ – Sustainability in film production

The UK’s different nations operate under different laws and live with different memories and traditions. I am writing as a long-time Londoner, a city that has its own atmosphere and has prided itself on its open-minded hospitality to different viewpoints and open debate, and relished argument and dissent as being productive of greater social vitality, in itself a good for one and all.

Freedom of speech has been a founding principle of this self-image of the country and its citizens. Hyde Park Corner, where anybody can take a stand on a soapbox and proclaim their creed, ideology and programme for reform or revolution, has been a symbol of this openness – my father took me there in l953, when we were first back in London from Egypt, to show me with pride what a splendid open-minded community we English belonged to.  There was a John the Baptist calling us to Jesus and announcing the end of the world was at hand, while a Socialist far to the left of the then government, called to the crowd to rise up and drive off the toffs with their grouse moors and their stately homes. 

Social media have now taken over the role of these street orators, and at a hugely amplified level.  At this point, I find it useful to adopt the term ‘freedom of expression’, to distance myself from the Right and its practices in the name of freedom of speech, especially in America (though they do not observe it, being eager to stamp out any form of dissent or criticism). Freedom of expression, by contrast, can be applied to forms of speech that attempt to foster a structure of feeling that still aims at values now derided as woke – hospitability, reciprocity, and affirmative responses to difference. But the principle of freedom of expression is not at all stable, and in public and in private, its observance is fitful and extremely fractious. Public prohibition at one end of the spectrum and unacknowledged self-censorship at the other have attenuated the exercise of the right. Over my lifetime, I have encountered explosions of fury over a publication or an utterance. I remember for example that the Institute of Contemporary Arts bookshop, back in the Eighties, refused to stock a little Indie magazine called The Fred, very avant garde in content and design, because some of its contents were allegedly misogynist and depicted violence against women. In l989, Visions of Ecstasy, a short film dramatizing the voluptuous writings of Saint Teresa of Avila, was charged with blasphemy and the film was suppressed (I was called as a witness for the defence). The Blasphemy law, which allowed direct censorship, was abolished in 2008, its function partly replaced by laws against hate speech; the film was at last released in 2012.   

 Today, flare-ups around freedom of expression are fierce and extremely distressing to all sides, but especially to someone like me, who does not see herself as a reactionary but is perceived to be so when rejecting censorship in certain matters. For example, the quarrel over whether trans women are women has grown even more bitter since the Supreme Court ruling in April 2025 that a woman is defined by biology. The continuing war in Israel/Palestine presents another issue in which saying certain things leads to censure and in some cases to silencing. Those who protest on behalf of Gaza and the Occupied West Bank are accused of antisemitism, by government as well as in the press and within institutions, leading to muffling and muting discussion of the situation. In both intense disputes, freedom of expression is the chief arena of struggle: what the limits are on what is permitted to be said.

What is said does not, under these constraints, fit with what is thought.

The Supreme Court added that their normative definition does not diminish the rights of transgender people to equality and protection under the law. But it has caused anguish and rage. Legal speech can’t capture the psychological complexity of expressing these states of being.

My own position is that expressing complexity is literature’s role, and that freedom of expression is necessary – and that while we still enjoy it, in part, we writers need to exercise it and bear witness to what is thought, on all sides and not give the official line. I have just re-read The Master and Margarita, by Mikhail Bulgakov, and what a warning it issues about the consequences of censorship and repression, the climate of fear they produce, the corrupt, toadying, mediocre writing! I realise freedom of expression often leads to a very uncomfortable situation. But it is the freedom – the privilege of fiction and of all its sister arts – that it can, by representing what is thought, by struggling against the current, open possibilities of doing things differently.   

Members of the European Alliance of Academies have signed the Bratislava Declaration, which was published during the Open Culture! International Conference on 30 May 2025.

The two-day conference organised by the alliance Open Culture! / Otvorená Kultúra! brought together over 400 cultural professionals in Bratislava to discuss the cultural policy situation in Slovakia and throughout Europe and to develop strategies to defend artistic freedom. 
Manos Tsangaris, President of the Akademie der Künste,  discussed together with Bohunka Koklesová, rector of the Academy of Fine Arts and Design in Bratislava, and Mart Kalm, rector of the Estonian Academy of Arts, the freedom of art in the university context. Alliance members Josip Zanki from Croatia and Ferenc Czinki from Hungary contributed their experiences as artists and cultural workers in authoritarian systems to the ‘Authoritarian Cultural Policies’ panel.

The Bratislava Declaration reflects the experiences of cultural professionals, artists and representatives of institutions who are confronted daily with the consequences of the erosion of artistic freedom in Europe. The signatories call for a European Artistic Freedom Act, which the institutions of the European Union can use as a legal instrument against the growing influence of populist and nationalist governments in the arts and culture sector. It has so far been signed by 14 European and international partners, including the European Alliance of Academies, Wiener Festwochen, Culture Action Europe, Artistic Freedom Initiative and Trans Europe Halles.

Since a left-wing populist-right nationalist government took office in autumn 2023, cultural institutions in Slovakia have been systematically restructured and artistic freedom restricted, while extremist rhetoric has increased in public discourse. Under the leadership of Culture Minister Martina Šimkovičová, experienced professionals have been removed from top positions in key national institutions, including the Slovak National Theatre, the Slovak National Gallery and the Slovak National Museum. The Slovak Arts Council, which plays a key role in funding independent cultural initiatives, is currently unable to function.

The cooperating Artistic Freedom Initiative has released their new advocacy report entitled, „Early Warning: The Politicization of Slovak Arts and Culture.“ where you can find a thorough description of the destruction of the cultural sector in Slovakia.

As an official co-operation partner of the Open Culture! International Conference, the European Alliance of Academies has expressed its solidarity with Slovak artists and cultural workers since 2024.

👉 platformaok.sk/bratislava-declaration

by Prof. Manos Tsangaris, Anh-Linh Ngo
President and Vice President of the Akademie der Künste

The relationship between art and politics is complex and fraught with tension. On the one hand, art is a critical medium that reflects social conditions. On the other hand, it is at risk of being instrumentalised by politics. In Europe, the way in which the resilience of democratic society can be weakened by political interference in culture is being demonstrated in countries such as Hungary, and also, increasingly, in Italy. These worrying developments should serve as a warning – attempts by politicians to restrict artistic freedom, such as the proposals currently under discussion in Germany, can lead to similarly negative consequences.

Art can only fulfil its social function, articulating grievances, addressing social injustice and initiating discourse around social change, if it is independent and speaks with its own voice. It fulfils this function by contradicting and provoking, by exploring and crossing boundaries, through empathy and critical reflection, as well as through seemingly escapist ramblings and work that does not appear to serve any particular purpose. Where such autonomy is lacking, there is a danger that politicians will appropriate art and culture for their own ends. The politicisation and instrumentalization of art can lead to control being exerted over artistic messages and forms of expression, in order to promote specific political narratives and to suppress the voices of opposition. Art thus becomes a tool of power and its ability to react critically to world is severely limited.

At the same time, we are seeing politics becoming increasingly characterised by symbolic gestures. Conflicts are reduced to cultural issues instead rather than being treated as questions of politics. The culturalization of politics obscures the need to take real political action. One current example of this is the conflict over how to deal with antisemitism and criticism of Israel’s policies. This also concerns the art world; the Middle East conflict is a major issue of our time and impacts many artists personally, especially those from Jewish and Arab communities. Following the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023, in which over 1,200 people were killed and hundreds kidnapped, and the subsequent harsh response from Israel, which Hamas had counted on provoking and which has so far claimed around 55,000 lives and left hundreds of thousands homeless, there have been worldwide expressions of solidarity for both sides. Meanwhile, antisemitic attitudes and crimes against Jewish people have increased, even in places that are usually bastions of open-mindedness and anti-discrimination.

It is a historical fact that antisemitism, as a form of false consciousness, exists across the entire political spectrum. Antisemitism is not an exclusively right-wing ideology; it is just as compatible with leftist, liberal, decolonial and progressive milieus. It is precisely this adaptability and contextual diversity that has made it so historically persistent and dangerous. Recognizing this danger and continually educating one’s own environment with self-criticism and responsibility is the task of every generation. However, it is also true that political criticism of the actions of the current Israeli government and its way of waging war does not automatically make those voicing criticism anti-Semites, especially when such criticism does not target Israel’s right to exist but is rather part of democratic debate within Israeli society.

We must, however, acknowledge that in Germany within the solidarity expressed by parts of the left, cultural stakeholders and the Arab-Muslim diaspora with the Palestinian cause, and their recognition of the suffering of the Palestinian population, antisemitic arguments have also surfaced. Such Israel-related antisemitism must be addressed critically within these communities through education and awareness-raising, and through measures to counter antisemitism, racism and misanthropy. Cultural institutions bear a special responsibility in this regard. That said, it would be a mistake to make antisemitism a “wokeness” problem. Nor is it an imported issue, as the right-wing insinuates when it alternately blames the growing Arab diaspora, the woke left, Islam, or even the critical Jewish diaspora for the rise of antisemitism in Germany. The aim of these projections is to exonerate those making such claims; they fail to acknowledge that, according to representative surveys, a quarter of the German population still harbours antisemitic prejudices (see Stefan Kornelius, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 23 October 2019).

The far right is strategically exploiting the current conflict in its culture war. Following the antisemitism scandal at Documenta 15, the AfD tabled a motion in the Bundestag that has astonishing parallels with the current debate on tightening funding guidelines. The AfD attributes the antisemitic incidents at Documenta and within the Middle East conflict to “post-colonial ideology,” which it claims fuels “resentment against ‘whites’” (Deutscher Bundestag, document 20/2598, 06/07/2022). The party, which is classified as a secured extremist organisation by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany’s domestic intelligence service, demanded that “with immediate effect, no further federal funding should be made available for research or cultural and educational projects that seek to affirmatively promote post-colonial ideology, in order to prevent further dissemination of antisemitic ideas in German cultural life” (ibid.).

Three years ago, the Bundestag rejected this motion. Nevertheless, the AfD has won the debate. All other parties and cultural administrations have since adopted similar arguments and attempted to regulate art and science, whose freedom is enshrined in the German constitution, through restrictive funding guidelines. Last year, the Bundestag were drafting a resolution on the protection of Jewish life in Germany. Meanwhile, provisions to counter antisemitism and discrimination were discussed on various levels. It sounds like a matter of course – who wouldn’t be in favour of protecting Jewish life in Germany, and against antisemitism and discrimination? Yet, behind these initiatives lies an attempt to tie the funding of art, culture and scientific research to tests of political attitudes. Ironically, the seemingly obvious argument of not using taxpayers’ money to fund anti-democrats comes from genuine anti-democrats, as the AfD quote shows.

This is the background against which the current debate on artistic freedom is taking place in Germany. The adoption of laws and clauses that can withstand legal scrutiny has stalled on the grounds that the freedom of art is guaranteed in Art. 5 para. 3 of the German Constitution without any restrictions (see Lisa Berins, Frankfurter Rundschau, 21/07/2024). As a result, politicians are resorting to the politics of symbolism. Instead of enacting legal provisions, the Bundestag voted on the aforementioned resolution, which, by its very nature, is not legally binding, and as a parliamentary statement not subject to legal scrutiny.

You may think that there is no need to worry since this is just symbolic politics and that the freedom of art is not truly at risk. But as artists, we know the power of symbols. It is no coincidence that symbols have always been a powerful instrument when it comes to politics. They have a deep impact on the collective consciousness, shaping the norms and values of a society. Symbolic gestures often operate subtly, but they have far-reaching effects on the social fabric. This also applies to legally non-binding parliamentary resolutions, such as the BDS resolution of 2019. According to the Bundestag Research Service, such resolutions have a significant political impact despite their lack of force in law (see Elaboration on the BDS resolution of the German Bundestag, document 19/10191, 21 December 2020). In the realm of cultural policy, the non-binding nature of the resolution leads to lack of legal clarity, and insecurity, which in turn can lead to abuse and manipulation.

The constitutional guarantee of artistic freedom, a benchmark of an open and democratic society, is being called into question and jeopardised here, through the back door. This freedom includes not only protection from state censorship, but also the ability to openly discuss artistic, social and political issues. Critical debate, including on politically sensitive and controversial topics, is an essential component of free art. Or, as Patrick Bahners puts it in his comments on the debate in the Süddeutsche Zeitung (13/08/2024), “Such questions of demarcation are by their very nature the essence of democratic debate, to which artists, intellectuals and scientists can contribute ideas that challenge the dominant routines of thought.”

In the context of a deliberative democracy, art provides space for critical reflection and debate that is often lacking in other areas. If political guidelines restrict artistic freedom, art loses its essential function. Instead of reacting freely and independently to developments in society, it becomes a tool of political propaganda. In the hands of anti-democratic forces, the restriction of art, no matter how well-intentioned, becomes a threat to democracy itself. It is up to all of us to defend the freedom of art and ensure that it remains a valuable asset in the future. This is the only way that art can continue to hold up a critical mirror to society and promote openness and democracy.

In the 21st German Bundestag, which was constituted on 25 March 2025, the AfD is the second strongest force. It is now important to secure the democracy-orientated institutions for the future.

The Akademie der Künste has gone through many diverse phases as an institution. It was founded in 1696 by the ruling Prussian elector to serve representative purposes. It underwent an important reform process in the 18th century. In 1933, the institution actively cooperated, conformed and fell into line with the National Socialists. After 1945, German successor academies were founded in East and West Berlin ‒ a process of fusing both institutions into one followed in the 1990s.

When the institution was officially entrusted to the federal government, it was stipulated by law in 2005 (which went into effect in 2006) that it is autonomous.

“The Akademie der Künste … is tasked with promoting art … The Akademie der Künste expresses independent responsibility.”

This was written into the law for good reason.

Academy President Manos Tsangaris and Katarzyna Sitko, Deputy Director of the Polish Institute Berlin, opened the event. They claimed that artists have a crucial role when it comes to political protest. Institutional representatives, artists and cultural professionals discussed how the Polish art and culture scene is dealing with the ongoing political changes. A special focus lied on the role of women in the cultural political transformation process and the impending disillusionment of Polish women regarding their fight for reproductive rights.

by Valerio Rocco Lozano

In recent years, several creators (rappers, writers, artists and playwrights) have been censored in Spain by different political authorities, with some of them condemned and forced to move abroad (i. e. the Valtònyc case, see below). These cases have highlighted the need to reinforce existing legal mechanisms to defend artistic freedom. The cultural and academic sectors have promoted an interesting debate in this regard, which is expected to influence political decision-making in the next years.

Valtònyc case

The Valtònyc case has been one of the most mediatic events related to the artistic freedom that has taken place in Spain, with a great public repercussion. Moreover, it reached an international dimension when this rapper escaped to Brussels, involving Belgian Justice and the Strasbourg Human Rights Court.

José Miguel Arenas Beltrán, also known under the name of Valtònyc, is a 32-year-old Spanish rapper. He defines himself as a pro-independence citizen and his lyrics are based on an anti-fascist, republican and anti-capitalist ideology.  

In August 2012 he was arrested and accused of terrorism exaltation, instigation of hatred, incitement to violence and injuries to the Crown, in the lyrics of 22 different songs, included in three different albums. In 2017 the Spanish National Court sentenced him to three and a half years in jail. A year after, he appeared in a video on Twitter, where he encouraged killing policemen and putting a bomb on prosecutors. A few weeks later, on the 23^rd of May, just one day before he had to go to prison, he fled to Brussels.

At the beginning of June, the Strasbourg Court rejected Valtònyc’s request to delay his imprisonment. Afterwards, the Belgian justice released Valtònyc without bail and decided not to extradite him to Spain on the sole condition that he does not leave Belgium while his case is open.

Other cases of artistic censorship or attacks on freedom of artistic expression in Spain

– Pablo Hasel is a young rapper that was sentenced in 2017 to two years in prison for glorifying terrorism and insults against the Crown. Three years later, upon appeal, the sentence was reduced to 9 months in jail. 

– Puppeteers arrested in Madrid for a script.Two puppeteers were arrested in 2016 accused of glorifying terrorism during the Madrid Carnival. They represented a play in which a small prop banner was shown where the terrorist group “ETA” was mentioned. They were in prison for five days and later they were released. In 2017 they were cleared of all charges. The case was followed with much expectation and indignation and later the play was performed in many cities throughout Spain. 

– Santiago Sierra censored during the Spanish Contemporary Art Fair, ARCO.In 2018 Santiago Sierra, a well-known and internationally acclaimed artist, showed at the ARCO art fair a series of photographic portraits of politicians accused of rebellion and sedition. The project was entitled “Political prisoners in contemporary Spain”. His work was withdrawn by his gallery, Helga de Alvear, at the request of one of the fair organizers (Ifema). The artwork was sold very quickly after this controversial situation. It was a clear case of artistic censorship that was highly criticized by the artistic and cultural sector.The controversy continued during the next edition of the same fair, when the same artist -along with Eugenio Merino, another Spanish artist- presented a four-meter “ninot” of Felipe VI, the king of Spain, a statue to be burned by the buyer of the piece. The “ninots” are individual sculptures that make up a traditional Festival called fallas, in the city of Valencia. These figures are colossal statues made with cardboard, wood, paper and plaster. They are remarkably lifelike and usually depict improper, satirical scenes inspired by current political or public events. 

– The Book “Fariña”.The journalist Nacho Carretero wrote a book about the detailed history of Galician drug trafficking. In response to the petition of a mayor mentioned in the book, a judge agreed in 2018 to the precautionary seizure of the book. The book was sequestered for three months and there was a great social debate about it. Sales of the book skyrocketed after its release. 

– The rise of extreme right parties in many city councils throughout Spain has resulted in the censorship of previously programmed theatre plays across various municipalities. Recently, both a play about a Republican teacher and one by Virginia Woolf addressing homosexuality were targeted by local town councils. El mar. Visión de unos niños que no lo han visto nunca, a renowned play by Xavier Bobés and Alberto Conejero, tells the story of a Republican teacher who promised to take his students to the sea but was executed at the beginning of the Spanish Civil War before he could fulfil his promise. This play was cancelled by the city council of Briviesca, where the story takes place. The decision was made by representatives of the far-right party “VOX”, citing economic and technical reasons. Similarly, also Virginia Woolf’s play Orlando faced cancellation, with the Valdemorillo city council -again, under the pressure of the party VOX- attributing it to economic concerns. These acts of censorship sparked protests from the Spanish cultural community. Both plays have been performed in other municipalities, and El mar has recently been adapted into a movie: The Teacher Who Promised the Sea. 

In summary, it can be concluded that the main threats to artistic freedom in Spain come currently from two sources: the first is the legislative framework, especially the law punishing offences against the Crown. Recently, the government of Pedro Sánchez has proposed to remove this offence from the Criminal Code, precisely to defend freedom of expression. The second source of problems for artistic freedom comes from the rise of extreme right-wing parties (especially, but not only, VOX), which seek to ban the work of artists in various disciplines. For the moment, it seems that these far right-wing forces are not growing in terms of voting intentions, but the global geopolitical context is worrying and could also affect Spain in this sense.

Find all contributions here

by Nikki Petroni

In 2015, Malta sparked a nationwide debate on censorship following the obscenity trial of novelist Alex Vella Gera and publisher Mark Camilleri. Amendments led to the abolishment of ‚vilification‘ of religion law in 2016. The ban was subsequently upheld by the Constitutional Court of Malta, ending any further possibility for redress domestically, and the theatre company turned to the European Court of Human Rights.

The Court found that the law relied on to ban the production was unclear and that the regulations allowed for unfettered power in the film board’s classification of stage productions. In his findings, the ruling Judge Küris questioned the board’s capacity “to rule on the ‘literary, artistic or educational merit’ of productions, ‘if any’, and to ban some of them as ‘not fit for exhibition’. This privilege, so indiscriminately worded, smells of discretionary censorship”.

In 2018, the European Court of Human Rights found that the banning of the theatrical production in Malta of the play ‘Stitching’ by Scottish playwright Anthony Neilson was a violation of the right to freedom of expression. The ban was issued by the Maltese Board for Film and Stage Classification because the play was deemed to be blasphemous, insulting to the victims of Auschwitz and portraying dangerous sexual perversion. The play tells the story of an unfaithful couple, who spend part of the play debating whether to have a child before Abby falls pregnant. They decide to have the child to save the relationship but, sometime later, when the child dies, their relationship disintegrates. Described as an extreme and unsettling work, the play is of a genre of works by playwrights who present vulgar, shocking, and confrontational material on stage as a means of involving and affecting their audiences.

The European Court of Human Rights ruling allowed the play’s successful staging in 2018, yet the situation caused financial strain on the theatre company.

Malta’s House of Representatives unanimously approved an artistic freedom bill on July 12, 2023. Introduced by Ministers Owen Bonnici and Byron Camilleri in June of the same year, it protects artists from prosecution and promotes broad cultural expression, with specific provisions in the Criminal Code and Electronic Communications Act. The bill focuses on credible and realistic threats in court action and safeguards online statements under artistic, satirical, or comic contexts.

The case had a wider, positive impact, with the protests against the ban playing a part in the removal of blasphemy as a crime in 2016 by a new government less influenced by religious bodies. The Maltese Board for Film and Stage Classification was also replaced by a Film Age Classification Board that would no longer be able to censor works.

The event was a sign of solidarity with Hungarian artists and cultural stakeholders who, under the influence of the Orbán government since 2010, have seen artistic freedom in their country increasingly threatened. Hungary still holds the EU Council Presidency until December 2024.

Tuesday, 1 October, 5 pm
Akademie der Künste, Hanseatenweg 10

The Café Climate aims to engage in a dialogue at equal level with civil society, experts and political actors on the topics of climate injustice and arts and culture. In an informal atmosphere, at small tables, like in a café. 

The Café Climate event series is taking place for the 5th time – always in different contexts and settings such as playgrounds, university campus etc. On 1 October, Café Climate takes place in the context of the symposium Time to Listen

Three questions move us:

– How the climate crisis affects our daily lives.
– How the climate crisis sounds.
– How the climate crisis affects art and culture.

We cordially invite you to discuss different aspects of climate (in)justice with following experts:

Alexandra Nehmer (Architect), Bernhard König (Composer), Jovana Popić (Visual artist), Eckhard Roelcke (Journalist and activist Letzte Generation) and Dr. Carla J. Maier (Cultural Anthropologist, Planetary Listening Collective). Café Climate is organised and moderated by a working group of the European Alliance of Academies: Iris ter Schiphorst (Composer), Cécile Wajsbrot (writer), Petja Ivanova (Visual artist) and others

An event of the European Alliance of Academies as part of the symposium Time to Listen

More information: Time to Listen 2024: An Open Space on Sustainability in Contemporary Music | Akademie der Künste, Berlin (adk.de)