Monday 29th June 2026
Blog Page 1159

An open letter to OULC

0

Dear Sirs,

On Monday 15th February, the members of Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) voted to endorse Oxford’s so-called “Israeli Apartheid Week”. As former and current Chairs and Executive members of OULC, Jewish student leaders and other members and friends of Oxford University, we condemn and oppose this poorly considered course of action. We also congratulate the bold decision of one of the current Co-Chairs, Alex Chalmers, to resign in response. “Israeli Apartheid Week” purports to be a conference promoting intellectual discussion. In reality it is little more than a gathering of activists promoting a one-sided narrative, seeking to dismantle the only majority-Jewish member-state of the United Nations.

It principally serves as a vehicle for promoting the academic, cultural and economic isolation of the Jewish state. In doing so, it strengthens the hand of those who oppose the two-state solution and emboldens extremists who seek to “resolve” the conflict by extinguishing one of the parties to it.

It is wrong to contend that Israel – a multiracial democracy – even remotely resembles the horrors of South Africa’s racist dictatorship. Israel is a nation largely composed of refugees and their descendants – from both Europe and the Arab world, living in a land to which they have deep historical and religious ties. It is not a settler-colonial state. It belongs to the Middle East’s rich tapestry of religious and ethnic diversity. Today, more than ever, minorities in the Middle East need their own states. Worse still, the appropriation of the term “apartheid” is an affront to black South Africans. The supporters of “Israeli Apartheid Week” would do well to remember the words of Nelson Mandela: “As a movement we recognise the legitimacy of Palestinian nationalism just as we recognise the legitimacy of Zionism as a Jewish nationalism. We insist on the right of the state of Israel to exist within secure borders, but with equal vigour support the Palestinian right to national self-determination.” We share this vision and believe it is in the best traditions of OULC – and more importantly, the ethos and values of Oxford University.

We don’t pretend for a second that there are no problems in Israel-Palestine. We don’t ignore the imperfections of Israeli society. We don’t overlook the tragedy of conflict. But we are troubled by OULC’s decision and feel compelled to speak out. In a climate of rising anti-Semitism, we have a duty to oppose initiatives that foster an intolerant political culture which intimidates Jewish students.

Lastly – but most distressingly – we observe with horror what Mr Chalmers describes in his note of resignation: “members of the Executive throwing around the term ‘Zio’ (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan)”; senior members expressing “solidarity” with Hamas; claims that “most accusations of anti-Semitism are just the Zionists crying wolf” and the fact that “a large proportion of both OULC and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews”.

We note that OULC and the Labour Party have a long and distinguished history of fighting racism and injustice – and we therefore urge current members to remember that tradition and to reconsider their distressing decision.

Yours sincerely,

Baroness Ruth Deech, QC (Hon) DBE, Former Principal (St Anne’s College)

Lord Carlile of Berriew CBE QC

Lord Pannick QC

John Mann MP

John Bowers QC

Professor Richard Susskind OBE

 

Oxford University Labour Club

Ella Taylor (Executive Committee)

Louis McEvoy (Executive Committee)

David Klemperer (Co-Chair MT 2015)

David Cesar-Heymann (Co-Chair HT 2015)

Helena Dollimore (Co-Chair MT 2013)

Aled Jones (Co-Chair MT 2013)

Jonathan Metzer (Co-Chair TT 2013)

Tom Adams (Co-Chair MT 2012)

Anthony Breach (Co-Chair TT 2012)

Kevin Feeney (Co-Chair TT 2012)

Claire Smith, Co-Chair 2012

Lincoln Hill (Co-Chair TT 2011)

Colin Jackson (Co-Chair 2011)

Kathleen Shields (Co-Chair HT 2011)

Sapandeep Singh Maini-Thompson (Executive Committee TT 2014)

Jack Evans (Co-Chair HT 2011)

Tom Rutland (ex OUSU President 2013-14, OULC Executive Committee 2011)

Hannah Cusworth (Co-Chair HT 2010)

Alistair Strathern (Co-Chair TT 2010)

Kieran Cunningham (Co-Chair MT 2010)

Jacob Turner (Co-Chair TT 2009)

Ben Lyons (Co-Chair 2009)

Ayo Ajanaku (Co-Chair 2009)

Emily Benn (Executive TT 2009)

Jamie Susskind (Co-Chair TT 2009)

Martha MacKenzie (Executive Committee 2009)

David Green (Co-Chair TT 2008)

Sarah Hutchinson (Co-Chair TT 2008)

Alice Taylor (Co-Chair 2008)

Mark Baker (Co-Chair TT 2007)

Harriet Myles (Co-Chair 2007)

Phillip Patterson (Co-Chair TT 2006)

Martin McCluskey (Co-Chair MT 2005)

Stephen Longden (Co-Chair HT 2005)

Alex Brodkin (Co-Chair 2005)

Jack Graves (Co-Chair 2005)

 

Oxford University Jewish Society

Yoni Stone (Current JSoc President)

Aaron Simons (Former JSoc President)

Jake Berger (Former JSoc Vice-President)

Matt Rose (Former JSoc President)

Paul Erdunast (Former JSoc president)

Rachel Grabiner (Former JSoc Vice-President)

David Miron (Former JSoc Vice-President)

Rebecca Freedman (Former JSoc Vice-President)

Vladimir Bermant (Former JSoc President)
 
Andrew Freedman (Former JSoc President, barrister)

 

Oxford University Chabad Society

Jonathan Hunter (Former Oxford Chabad President, Former Vice-President of JSoc)

Sam Bodansky (Current Oxford Chabad President)

Fien Barnett-Neefs (Current Oxford Chabad Vice-President)

 

Oxford University Liberal Democrats

Jack Ford (Co-Chair)

Matt Sumption (Former Co-Chair)

Anne Cremin (Secretary)

 

Oxford University Conservative Association

Thomas Jackson (President)

Shane Finn (Treasurer)

William Robert Rees-Mogg (Committee Member)

Richard Black (Ex-Publications Editor, Former JSoc Publicity Officer)

Dan Freeman (Ex-Political Officer)

Jack Matthews (Ex-President)

Jan Nedvidek (Ex-President)

Benjamin Woolf (Ex-Returning Officer)

 

 

 

 

 

100th birthday for lacrosse varsity

0

As its Oxford-Cambridge Varsity match enter its 100th year, Lacrosse continues to be one of the fastest growing sports in the UK. To mark the momentous, historically significant occasion, University Parks is set to be transformed into a hub of on and off-field entertainment this February 27th. Following the controversial government decision to retract visas from a number of American coaches, who were in the UK to develop the sport, Lacrosse needs this high-profile day of matches at now more than ever. 

To reflect this, and the general magnitude of the occasion, this year’s event is bigger than ever. The smorgasbord of sport will begin early, as both men’s and women’s alumni teams take on Cambridge opposition. In total, seven matches will be played across the day, and ex-Chair of the England Lacrosse Association David Shuttleworth will be presenting the trophies. Oxford rarely allow a moment of historical significance to pass quietly, so an alum from the 50th Varsity match will join Shuttleworth at the day’s presentations. The fact that this is the first year both men’s and women’s second teams’ will have their own trophy is a mark of just how far the sport has come.

Katharine Bailey, the women’s Blues captain, sees this year’s encounter as a perfect opportunity to celebrate the ‘amazing team sport’ and the ‘friendly and vibrant university clubs’ that have been fostered in both Blue camps. Given the sport itself is technical, physical and incredibly athletic, a full programme of matches from Blues to alumni looks set to be one of the sporting highlights of Hilary term. 

Of course when it comes to Varsity, putting ceremony aside, only one thing matters: the result. Whilst Bailey is under no illusions as to challenge her Blues side face – they have lost 12-11 and 8-4 to their undefeated light Blue counterparts this year – she is confident Oxford can reverse these narrow defeats to put the recently crowned South Premier champions ‘in their place’. For the women’s seconds, which Bailey describes as ‘one of the strongest’ squads that she can remember, a 12-6 victory over Cambridge in Michaelmas provides cause for buoyant optimism as their Varsity match approaches. Obviously, as with all great one-off sporting encounters, the form book rarely counts for anything. The fact both women’s squads have been approaching training with an exceptional ‘enthusiasm and intensity’, therefore, has left Bailey confident, if not expectant. 

On the men’s side of the encounter, both the Blues and the seconds will be looking to build on a hugely successful 2014-2015 season, which culminated in an outstanding set of Varsity performances on Cambridge soil. Whilst the second team drew 12-12 against a Cambridge side with far greater depth, the Blues secured an impressive win. In fact, last year’s 13-10 triumph sealed the men’s Blues fourth consecutive victory, so success in this 100th anniversary year will come with a special significance. 

As a university sport, Lacrosse is growing in support and the quality of on-field performances is, as a result, rapidly improving. This trend is being reflected across the country. However, as the movement of foreign coaches into the country to promote and develop the sport is restricted, Lacrosse still has a long way to go. The 100th Oxbridge Varsity encounter will undoubtedly help to protect and progress the profile of this burgeoning sport.

Is it the end of the road for TMO?

0

With modern technology offering ever-increasing ways of utilizing video reviews and additional support for match officials, should sports reject the advances or are they simply stalling the inevitable?

Let us return to the events of the summer, during the Rugby World Cup quarter final, when official Craig Joubert awarded Australia a last minute penalty without consulting the Technical Match Official (TMO,) commonly known as a video referee. The resulting three-point kick sent Australia to the semis and Scotland crashing out. It was one of the most controversial moments of what was otherwise a fantastic summer of sport.

There are concerns in rugby that we are moving towards a situation where the real referee is the man in the car park in an office next to the television scanner rather than the highly-trained official in the centre of the pitch. Previously, and at levels of the game without TMO, the whole nature of being a rugby referee is that your word is final and everyone respects that decision. The level of respect is far superior to that in football and many other sports.

However, TMO has made referees doubt themselves. The referee should be the sole arbiter and have complete liberty over making his decisions. When you have a TMO in the background, the referees end up getting more things wrong because they are not as decisive. It breeds doubt which by its nature is not a trait anyone wants a referee to have, especially in a sport as fast-paced and free-flowing as rugby.

So then what are the arguments for video view and additional support for match referees in any sport? Accuracy seems to be the main argument, namely that the right decisions will be made and everyone will go home happy. Controversy will be removed from a situation. However, to believe that a few slow-motion shots from a variety of angles will remove all doubt from a complex sporting situation is ludicrous. In rugby, tackles always look ten times more serious in slow motion, leading to an increasing number of sin bin offences that should never have been given.

If it doesn’t remove the controversy from all situations, then is there a place for it in the game? Despite all the criticisms above, I would say yes, but only in limited circumstances. At the discretion of the man in the centre of the pitch, technology can be used to ascertain in cases of disputes where there is a clear binary whether a try should be awarded, or a ball crossed the goal line. Even so, it should be used sparingly so as not to disrupt the flow of the game, the speed of the action and the sense of spontaneity and jubilance when a try or goal has been awarded.

Technology should be embraced in the name of accuracy and fairness, but not at the expense of the spirit of the game. It should always be remembered that rugby, football, all sports in fact are games of humans and we should love them for their imperfections. Sport belongs to men and women, not robots, and it should stay that way.

Cross-party coalition slams OULC in open letter

0

A cross-party coalition of student politicians, academics and public figures has signed an open letter for publication in Cherwell condemning and opposing Oxford University Labour Club’s (OULC) vote to endorse Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW), an annual series of lectures that opposes Israeli occupation of Palestine and supports Boycott, Divest and Sanction movements.

The letter’s 65 signatories include more than 30 former OULC Co-Chairs, as well as a number of Oxford University Jewish Society and Chabad Society current and ex-leaders, and significant figures from both Oxford University Liberal Democrats and Oxford University Conservative Association, including presidents of both. Six public figures have also signed the letter, such as Baroness Ruth Deech, Former Principal of St Anne’s College, and legal expert Lord Carlile of Berriew QC.

The signatories express “horror” at the anti-Semitism within the club alleged by Alex Chalmers in his resignation as OULC Co-Chair on February 15th.

They continue by criticising OULC’s “poorly-considered choice of action” to endorse IAW, which they describe as “little more than a gathering of activists promoting a one-sided narrative, seeking to dismantle the only majority-Jewish member-state of the United Nations.”

IAW is especially controversial this year given that the theme of “solidarity with Palestinian popular resistance” coincides with a resurgence of attacks on Jewish civilians since October.

The signatories add that “it is wrong to contend that Israel – a multiracial democracy – even remotely resembles the horrors of South Africa’s racist dictatorship.”

“Today, more than ever,” they write, “minorities in the Middle East need their own state.” The letter also challenges the use of the term ‘apartheid’ to refer to Israeli policy, saying, “The appropriation of the term ‘apartheid’ is an affront to black South Africans.”

While acknowledging the “imperfections of Israeli society,” the signatories state that “in a climate of rising anti-Semitism, we have a duty to oppose initiatives that foster an intolerant political culture which intimidates Jewish students.”

The letter highlights as “most” distressing Chalmers’ examples of anti-Semitism, like “members of the [OULC] Executive throwing around the term ‘Zio’ (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan.)”

The signatories end their letter by calling for members of OULC to return to the organisation’s “distinguished history” of combating prejudice.

Chalmers’ resignation is a move that has earned attention outside of Oxford as well, provoking significant national and Israeli coverage as well as stirring up broader debate about anti-Semitism within the left.

The Oxford University Jewish Society (JSoc) responded swiftly to Chalmers’ statement, writing that it was in full support of his decision but “unsurprised” by the anti-Semitic reports.

In a statement released on its Facebook page, the society claimed, “It is not the first time that Oxford JSoc has had to deal with anti-Semitic incidents within the student left and it will not be the last.

“It is a significant and worrying issue and one that on many occasions, Jewish students have felt that they are fighting alone.”

The statement added that Jewish students who attempt to point out anti-Semitism often have their concerns dismissed by liberal students, or outright mocked. But the accusations of anti-Semitism have provoked contrition among Labour leadership, with few choosing to defend the club.

Although both Michael Muir, former Social Secretary, and Noni Csogor, Chalmer’s Co-Chair, said that the vote to support IAW at Oxford was not itself indicative of anti-Semitism, the OULC official statement on Wednesday made no mention of the club’s vote, and only vowed to begin the process of investigating anti-Semitism among its membership.

Writing that it “whole-heartedly” condemned anti-Semitism “in all its forms,” OULC promised to co-operate fully with an investigation launched by the national group Labour Students into anti-Semitism and intimidation of Jewish students by OULC members.

Labour Students has already begun to make steps in their probe. A letter on behalf of Labour Students’ National Chair Michael Rubin was posted in JSoc’s Facebook group on Thursday afternoon and sent out by email a few hours later, with Rubin writing that he was “keen to meet with any member who has experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism” or could otherwise aid in Labour Students’ investigation. Evidence is to be submitted by Monday 22nd February and Rubin said Labour Students aims to publish its findings the day after.

On Wednesday, both the Israeli embassy in London and British Labour leadership issued statements condemning the alleged anti-Semitism within OULC.

Ed Miliband also cancelled plans to address OULC at its John Smith Memorial Dinner on March 4th after hearing the news.

A spokesperson for the former Labour leader told the New Statesman that Mili-band was “deeply disturbed to hear of reports of anti-Semitism in the Oxford Labour Club and would not appear until the investigation was resolved.

Later the same day, universities minister Jo Johnson urged Oxford University’s leadership to consider disciplinary sanctions, stating that “strong disciplinary action” should be “taken where necessary.”

A University spokesperson said in a statement that “Oxford University does not tolerate any form of harassment or victimisation,” but added that it “cannot comment on individual cases or complaints for reasons of confidentiality.”

Some students have extended the debate to the broader politics of the left-wing of the to the broader politics of the left-wing of the Labour party.

One Jewish student wrote in The Guardian that “the student left conceives of Jews as white.” He argued that Jews of Arabic or African descent are “ignored” and that framing Jews as white allows the left to attack the Jewish community as beneficiaries of privilege.

Similarly, a former OULC Co-Chair, David Cesar-Heymann, who also signed on to the open letter, posted on Facebook that “there has been a concerted effort from the Oxford hard left to take over the club.”

He alleged that activists linked with the Labour leader’s Momentum group are partly responsible for anti-Semitism within OULC.

Five reasons for a Premier League All-star game

0

Now, before you all boo and hiss and scream about how the All-Star game is a money-hungry American concept designed to further commercialise sport and all that we believe to be pure and holy, let me say this: I completely agree. According to the University of New Orleans Hospitality Research Center, the overall economic impact of the 2014 NBA All-Star Game in New Orleans was around $106.1 million, which isn’t even that surprising if you take into account the fact that this year, a ticket to the all-star game could cost you around $1,200.

So yes, an All-Star game ticket may cost you most of your student loan, but even if All-Star games are money-making schemes from hell, they’re justified
by their entertainment value. Take last weekend for instance, when the NBA hosted its All-Star Weekend in Toronto – forget the other events such as the Slam Dunk Contest or the three-point Shootout; the record-shattering 196-173 score-line for the game itself, in which the best talents the NBA has to offer forgot about defense and basically re-enacted Space Jam, was enough to justify the weekend’s very existence.

And that’s honestly why we need an All-Star Game for the Premier League – because it would be an incredible amount of fun for the fans, who one could argue are just as stressed throughout the season as the players. If you don’t believe me, go watch a Spurs game with my co-editor and see for yourself the strenuous impact a team can have on one’s life.

However, if you need more convincing, I’ve got a whole lot more reasons why the match needs to happen.

1. It wouldn’t even be that difficult to set up. All you need is an extra week’s gap between week 19 and 20, and the FA to pick a stadium for the match to be played in. The choosing of the teams will be fan-dominated – every fan who chooses to vote gets to select his or her Dream XI from both sides, and players with the most votes will qualify, whilst the Premier League coaches pick the bench.

2. Have you ever played FIFA with your mate where you both pick your favourite clash of titans? This game would be just that, except it would happen in real life. Obviously, the game’s intensity will vary – at times the players would just go out and have some fun – but these footballers are competitors, and when it gets close, I’m sure that someone like Koscielny will be out there trying to dominate and break some legs and egos during the process.

3. This brings me to another reason – fans’ voices matter. Every year, when the FA picks its Team of the Year, you hear fans complain about a snub and the whole legitimacy of the team is questioned just because it doesn’t really take the fans’ consideration into account. Being picked as an All Star would be an honour. Yes, sure, the fans would obviously get it wrong from time to time, but if sport, and football in particular, is supposed to represent our ideals for society, then it damn well should be democratic.

4. The game might just be worth having just to see ArseÌ€ne Wenger and Louis van Gaal become internet memes by busting a vein complaining about how the FA is endangering their players’ health.

5. The sides ideally would be geographical – if we draw a hypothetical line below Stoke and Leicester but above Swansea and Norwich, you actually get an even division of teams between North and South, with Liverpool and Manchester-based teams headlining the North and the London Premier League squadron representing the South side. Would you not pay to watch Vardy, Mahrez and Agüero take on Fonte, Koscielny, Azpilicueta and Bellerín?

I certainly would. At the end of the day, All-Star games are just a bit of fun and a way for the league to show the fans some love, which is exactly why the Premier League needs to have one, and have soon

Lessons from history: abolition of Russian serfdom (1861)

0

Lessons on improving global working conditions can be learned from the Emancipation of the Russian serfs on this day in 1861. Tsar Alexander II’s Imperial Proclamation abolished the right of landlords to restrict the movement of their tenants, or serfs, putting an end to a system which had dominated Russian society since 1649. More than 23 million former serfs could now own property, sue in courts and vote in local elections. In reality, however, prospects for the newly emancipated remained grim.

Using money lent by the landlords themselves, they were forced to buy tiny plots of land from landowners at inflated prices, with debts often being passed down from generation to generation. Such amendments benefi tted the ruling classes whom the tsar had tasked with organising the reform.

Ultimately, emancipation, along with other attempts at modernising Russia, would prove insufficient for solving the problems of Russian society, instead contributing to the disquiet which would lead to the revolutions of the twentieth century. It might be a wise move to draw parallels between those 23 million serfs and the 27-30 million people feared by the United Nations to be slaves today.

14 million slaves are thought to live in India alone – more than one per cent of its population. As we work to emancipate modern slaves, therefore, and put an end to the de facto slavery of sweat shop workers, we must be careful to ensure that our solutions do not further compromise the world’s most vulnerable. Unlike Tsar Alexander, we must not leave reform to their enslavers.

Clickbait: The six lies you tell each week

0

There’s nothing quite as wonderful as our unshakable belief in our own abilities. Everyone hates Monday mornings, but at least it comes with that comfortable feeling that this week will somehow be different. All those broken promises we make ourselves, again and again, those honourable intentions to really improve, to get our lives together come flooding back in. Unlike Friday night, in those dread moments as we contemplate the mess we’ve made, Monday comes with a renewed sense of purpose. The start of a week makes us think we can do anything, we can have the productive week we’ve always dreamed of. Then before you know it it’s Thursday and you’ve told yourself the same old familiar lies, and here they are:

 

“This reading will only take me an hour!” 

Other people seem to get cookies, letters from home or presents in their pidge. You get a mammoth wedge of reading from your tutor for a seminar, covering fifteen extracts on a topic you didn’t even know existed. As you pull it out and feel its hefty weight crushing your soul you convince yourself that you’ll not leave it until the last minute this time. You’ll make notes and read it thoroughly, paying actual attention. Then suddenly it’s an hour before your seminar and you’ve only read the title, but admittedly you’ve read it sixteen times. You’re a quick reader! It’ll be fine. You manage to convince yourself that you can get through it all in time. Spoiler alert, you can’t. 

“I’m getting up early every day this week. Lie-ins are for the weekend.” 

But your bed is so comfy. Let’s be honest here, you’re still shattered, so maybe it’d be better if we just lay here and caught up on our sleep. Then we’d definitely pay more attention in the next lecture. That way, when it comes to working later, we’ll be so much more productive. Yeah, it totally makes sense to stay right here for another three hours. 

“No Kebabs this week. I’m only going to eat meals. No more snacking.” 

The annoying thing about this one is that you’ll keep it for a while. You’ll feel really good about yourself and find you’re actually enjoying the healthy life style. Then someone will mention Hassans, or Achmed’s, or McDonald’s or anywhere really and the image of that gorgeous fast food will float into mind. You’ll start salivating uncontrollably and a hunger will develop deep in the pit of your stomach which can only be satisfied by a pile of greasy chips laden down with cheese. There’s no fighting it, you’ve been entrapped. 

“I’m not going out this week.” 

Oh but you will. Trust me you will. It’s never just one drink. You’ll never go to just pres. Your FOMO will take over, that glittering promise that tonight could well be the best night of your life, and you will find yourself in the queue for Bridge, ignoring the little voice in your head that’s screaming at you for your terrible life decisions. 

“I’ll ring my parents more.” 

You have the best of intentions if nothing else. Then time runs away with you and when you finally get around to calling them, they genuinely seem surprised you’re not dead. 

“I’m going to tidy my room.” 

You simply cannot live like this any longer. The piles of clothes that has devoured your chair. Tripping over the empty takeaway boxes, the folders falling off the bookshelves, your unwashed bedsheets congealing on the mattress. That soul-crippling embarrassment having to reveal this ungodly mess to your scout every week. You’re going to get a black bag, you’re going to gut this place and it’s going to be sparkling clean! But you can’t do it tonight because you’re going out. Then you’ve got that essay to do. Then your parents are coming to visit. You know what? You’ll get to it at some point.

Review: King Lear

0

★★★☆☆

The Creation Theatre’s decision to stage a 5-man production of King Lear, a play deeply concerned with the complexity of individual characters, was always going to be ambitious. The family tree of the characters printed in the programme, outlining their relationships, was a warning sign: the characterization, with each actor playing multiple parts, would inevitably make it difficult to keep track.

Whilst the portrayal of Cordelia and the Fool by the same actor is a nice nod to original Jacobean productions (The two characters famously never appear on stage at once, so were often played by the same actor), the effect falls short with Goneril and Reagan both being played by Natasha Rickman. The two sisters are often confused, and their similar portrayal by the same actress further denies them differentiation and individuality. Once the actor playing Burgundy walked on in a burgundy cap and scarf in a desperate attempt to convey his character change, I started to question the directorial decision of tackling so many roles at once. Nonetheless, the multiplicity of characters played by each actor does add a pleasing meta-theatrical twist. Lines such as ‘You know the character to be your brother’s’ and ‘I do profess to be no less than I seem’ take on yet another layer of meaning, referring not only to the deceit and counterfeit within the script but the confusion arising from trying to portray so many characters at once.

Similarly, the effect at the end of the play is striking. When Albany says ‘produce their bodies, be they alive or dead’ and just Goneril and Regan’s clothes, rather than bodies, can be brought on, the play’s focus on how far our identity lies in our material trappings is emphasised: as Lear himself says ‘Through tattered clothes great vices do appear, / Robes and furred gowns hide all.’ 

However, despite confusion produced by multiple characters being played by one actor, the quality of the performances is largely superb. Lucy Pearson takes on the ambitious task of portraying Cordelia, Edgar and the Fool and carries it off with energy and dynamism. However, the impact of her multiple roles is evident: in her first appearance as Edgar, the liveliness and eccentricity from her depiction of the Fool are carried over, sadly trivializing many of Edgar’s most important moments, including the poignant cliff-scene with Gloucester. However, as she settles into the role she sheds her ‘foolishness’, and masterfully navigates both the characters of Edgar and Poor Tom. Max Gold makes a fantastic Lear; the intensification of his madness is accurately conveyed through subtle yet noticeable fluctuations between rage and a delight in his own confusion.

Staging decisions are variable: the set remain the same throughout, with blue light, a barren tree and piles of books. In the storm scene, the actors make lightning noises by slamming books onto the stage  – whilst it is clearly suggestive of the play’s theme of the destructive power of the written word, the allusion seems a little neat and overstated, especially when the actors start flapping books in Lear’s face to evoke the raging wind.

At points the production seems somewhat genre-confused: it is not a modern adaptation, nor a comedy, but flashes of modernity and comedy appear sporadically. During the love-test scene, which in the script takes place within the privacy of Lear’s palace, Goneril and Regan’s sycophantic addresses to Lear are greeted with paparazzi and cheering crowds, making for an almost Hunger Games-esque depiction of the division of the kingdom. Whilst the use of hip hop music to convey Lear’s rowdy retinue of knights is amusing, it seems somewhat misplaced. Although there are genuinely comedic moments in King Lear, particularly those evoking proto-Beckettian tragicomedy and absurdism, these are passed over, and instead comedy is injected into somewhat random areas of the script. Overall, the brilliant performances seem to go to waste, held back considerably by questionable casting and directorial decisions.

Trump and Berlusconi: is this the new politics?

0

When a political persona is formed and a new kind of politician is introduced to a country’s democratic spectrum, one ought to be ill at ease with the possibility of it becoming or being indicative of a trend, especially if the character (caricature?) in question is someone like Berlusconi. When, on Bloomsday 2015, Donald J. Trump announced his candidacy from the New York building which bears his name, the obnoxiousness of his balderdash speech was enough to alert the world press of his striking resemblance with the Italian media magnate.

 From Rula Jebreal’s, former MSNBC commentator, to that of Italy’s own Beppe Severgnini, author of multiple biographies on Italy’s longest-serving PM, numerous articles of political analysis have been composed, drawing parallels between the two personalities. Now, ten months away from the re-assignment of the world’s most important political post, Trump’s refusal to participate in the Republican debate, mirroring Berlusconi’s long (and successful) record of avoiding public confrontation, draws the two tycoons closer still.  

The resemblance of the two is overwhelming: their similarity is so clear-cut that we need not resort to the contrived comparisons that are often seen in such cases. But if their similarly clementine-tinged public complexion and antics – extreme and unjustified political incorrectness, vague promises of prosperity and security, personal attacks on political opponents – have a large degree of convergence, it is nothing compared to what happens in their private life. The similarities are so evident and numerous that listing them would be as boring as it would be dispiriting. It is enough to mention, lest we become too moralising, their shady business history, their evanescent marriage contracts and their rather addictive habit of frolicking around with their hair, among other things.

With Trump’s rise in US politics, it is easy to believe that history is repeating itself, but as a tragedy rather than a farce, or even that Berlusconi and Trump are setting a precedent for the rise of a new kind of politics and political leader. In fact, it is exactly this common theme that unites the previously mentioned stream articles spawned by Trump’s presidential race: what can recent Italian history teach the US, or the world more broadly? Very little, fortunately. Trump’s unexpected ascent has its roots in the anti-establishment sentiment of Republicans and, after years of Fox News’ fear mongering, traditional run-of-the-mill xenophobia. Conversely, Berlusconi’s electorate was not rooted in the Italian far right, nor was his success brought about by Italian disillusionment with its political class. Following a corruption scandal that virtually wiped out all Italian political parties except in the far left, Berlusconi occupied and exploited the political vacuum created, attracting votes in the millions, for there genuinely ‘was no alternative’, to adapt Thatcher’s famous slogan. The difference between the two cases is as subtle as it is important, for an alienating party system serves democracy better than a non-existing one in preventing the rise of demagogues. Italians really lacked an alternative, while Americans fortunately don’t.

Herein lies the main difference between the two businessmen, which will surely reflect on the results come election day. Trump’s victories in the primaries set him in good stead, but on the other side there is a solid Democrat opposition, recently strengthened by the change in voter demographics and Trump’s very own polarising effect. In short, Trump cannot win, and this isn’t merely wishful thinking. American citizens will be glad to not experience twenty years of buffoonish government, with its inevitable economic decline and national humiliation.

Western democracies are not experiencing the rise of a new kind of politics, and the private and political resemblance of the Berlusconi-Trump duo does not indicate the future rise of anti-political businessmen or, as the humble Italian once defined himself, men of ‘Providence’ to power, but is rather a freak coincidence, which shares no common origin or future.

Containing an epidemic: what is the Zika virus?

0

The WHO has recently declared a global public health emergency as Zika continues to spread worldwide, the outbreak which started in Brazil now affecting more than twenty other countries and possibly 1.5 million people. Although Zika is not usually fatal or even harmful in most cases, with only one-in-five experiencing any symptoms at all, ranging from headaches or mild fevers to rashes or joint pain, the virus is thought to be linked to both microcephaly and Gullain-Barr syndrome. Brazil itself faces a pandemic due to the outbreak of the virus which is thought to have caused the 4,700 cases of microcephaly reported there since October, a staggering number compared to the mere 150 cases reported in the previous year.

Microcephaly causes babies to be born with below-average head size and brains which don’t grow at the normal rate, a condition which already affects 25,000 children in the US. The condition can be fatal and causes delayed development and intellectual disabilities. It is known to be caused by infections such as Rubella, substance abuse during pregnancy or genetic abnormalities (the Guardian) – but the massive increase in Brazil and other South American countries has been attributed to Zika. Much discussion has been generated over the questions still concerning this huge surge in the number of cases of microcephaly and the difficulties of stopping the spread of Zika, the threat the virus poses to the 2016 Olympic Games and even the fact that President Obama plans to visit both Cuba and Peru this year, two countries in which Zika will be endemic in a few months according to scientists. Colombia, which has not yet seen an increase in cases of microcephaly but has experienced the outbreak of Zika is also a focus of concern, for the disparity between the impact of Zika there and in Brazil as well as for the many pregnant women who are being encouraged to have abortions in case their babies are born with microcephaly. All these issues are hugely important and must be understood, in order to comprehend the enormous impact Zika can have on a country and possible solutions to these problems.

But there is another issue we should be looking at – how to support parents and their children who are affected by the Zika virus worldwide. These parents need information about microcephaly and how it could affect their children as well as the options open to them. Ana Carolina Careces, a journalist who has microcephaly herself, has written about the importance of putting prejudice aside, ignoring the scaremongering tactics of people such as the Brazilian minister of health who has warned of a ‘damaged generation’ and realizing that ‘microcephaly is an ugly name but it is not an evil monster’. Microcephaly of course does not mean an easy life, and Careces herself calls herself one of the ‘lucky ones’. But it is a disability like any other and the children who are affected with it should not have to grow up in a world that sees them as irretrievably damaged, even as the world continues to try and fight the Zika virus to stop more cases of microcephaly.  Scientists have developed a testing kit to quickly identify carriers of the Zika virus, while money – Obama planning to pledge $1.8 billion to fight Zika – is being fuelled into finding a vaccine. Another potential solution is the genetically modified mosquito developed by scientists that could reduce the mosquito population by 99%.

Zika originated in 1947 in Uganda, “the world capital of viruses” and is spread by the mosquito Aedes Africanus and the Aedes Aegypti, the latter responsible for the transmission of Zika in Brazil. Scientists warn that the encroachment of humans into forests may disrupt the normal behaviour of mosquitoes, resulting in increased transmission of disease. Uganda itself has not seen any cases of microcephaly so far, but it has been questioned whether we would see the same worldwide response to an outbreak there, in a country which itself “mostly shrugged” at the outbreak (Mukwaya); malaria is currently epidemic in the north of the country and 1.5 million Ugandans have HIV, thousands suffering from Hepatitis B, Ebola or Marburg.

It is now just as important to work towards helping those affected by Zika as by Ebola as it will become just as widespread, according to WHO, a statement that reveals the enormity of the problem and the extent of the danger posed to families worldwide.