A complaint has been made against the bus company Stagecoach Group regarding alleged incidents of Islamophobic discrimination along Cowley Road.

According to a complaint made against Stagecoach Group Muslim commuters were ignored on two separate occasions by company bus drivers on the number 10 bus route. The complaint was submitted to ‘Tell MAMA’ (Measuring Anti Muslim Attacks), a project that records anti-Muslim abuse in the UK.

On the first occasion, the complainant stated, a couple who “were obviously Muslim… tried to flag the bus down but the driver despite seeing them completely ignored them and continued to drive on.” In the second instance, a bus driver “deliberately chose to drive on” after “being flagged down by a group of people, one of whom was clearly wearing a Hijab and clearly identifiable as a Muslim.”

In a written response to the complainant, a Stagecoach employee apologised for the incidents, saying, “I can see the situations you described. I am at a loss to explain why the driver did not stop. I completely understand how these incidents have been interpreted. I give you my assurances that matters of this nature are treated very seriously. We are an equal opportunities employer who ensures that all customers, employees or job applicants are treated fairly and equally.”

Further assurances were also made, including a formal interview with the driver and an investigation “in line with the Company’s disciplinary procedure.”

In a statement to Cherwell, a spokeswoman for Stagecoach Group said, “We would be very disappointed to hear of any situation where a driver is found not to have stopped for passengers waiting at a bus stop. We have investigated the matter fully, including viewing CCTV and speaking to the driver involved.

“There was one occasion on which a customer remained inside the bus shelter as the vehicle passed the stop and did not appear to clearly indicate a desire to board that particular bus. There were a number of other buses in the area at the time. In addition, we have not found any evidence to suggest that the driver’s behaviour on this occasion was racially motivated.

“The welfare of our customers is of the utmost importance to us and we are very clear that anyone employed by Stagecoach should treat both customers and colleagues fairly and with respect and that we will not tolerate discrimination of any kind.”

According to Tell MAMA, transport is one area where victims of anti-Muslim abuse “consistently raise concerns.” The organisation was founded in February 2012 to record physical, verbal, written and online attacks against Muslims and provide support to the victims. In 2014-2015, 548 verified incidents were reported.

Kiran Benipal, Co-Chair of OUSU’s Campaign for Racial Awareness and Equality (CRAE), told Cherwell of her “horror and disgust” at the alleged incident, stating that “the racial tension which it highlights is particularly poignant at this time of the year – Ramadan.”

“Incidents such as this one and those similar have become all too commonplace, and are too rarely logged. Instead, they have become anecdotes for Oxford BME residents and students to share and momentarily reflect on, before they return to the reality of Oxford life as a ‘racial minority.’”

The University has pledged that a minimum of 30% of professorships and senior positions are to be filled by women by the end of 2020.

This is part of the United Nations’ ‘HeforShe’ campaign to increase gender equality. It is one of 10 universities and 20 world institutions to make this new commitment.

Vice-Chancellor Andrew Hamilton is quoted on the official HeforShe website as saying, “Addressing gender equality and ensuring that Oxford is a safe and inclusive space for all our students have been among my main priorities. We have already agreed targets for improving the representation of women in academic roles and we will now consider under the HeForShe Campaign how we can achieve greater equality for women across all areas of our work.”

When asked why 30% was chosen as the target, rather than a higher proportion, a University spokesperson told Cherwell, “We know that 30% is the threshold at which women achieve meaningful representation and it should be seen as the minimum we are seeking to achieve. Our overall aim is to create a larger pool of academic women who are able to serve in the University’s most senior leadership roles.

“The 2020 target is challenging, but realistic. Currently only 26 per cent of academic staff and 21 per cent of professorial staff are female. This is not out of line with many other UK universities and compares favourably with many British and international research-intensive universities. That said, we recognise that we must achieve more.

“The challenge over the next five years will be to diversify our leadership without imposing too many administrative roles on the relatively small number of senior women. 30 per cent may sound like a small target, but evidence from the 30 per cent Club, designed to increase the proportion of women on UK company boards, shows that this is the critical mass needed to achieve further positive impacts. So 30 per cent represents an important step.”

OUSU Vice-President for Women, Anna Bradshaw commented, “I am pleased to see the University commit to working for gender equality in such a serious way.  I am in particular pleased that OUSU has been able to work closely with the University on these commitments so that a number of the student-facing commitments relate directly to supporting OUSU work.

“Having said this, I do believe that there are a number of very serious problems with the HeForShe campaign, and I look forward to the University being able to offer constructive critique to the HeForShe campaign from their new position.”

As part of the campaign, the University has also announced an intention to make Undergraduate sexual consent workshops compulsory. They were first introduced in Freshers’ Week 2014 and attendance was encouraged but optional. Cherwell understands they will operate in the same manner this upcoming year, with the addition of ‘Race 101’ workshops, which aim to combat perceived cultural appropriation and racist micro-aggressions in the University.   

A national civil rights organisation, Liberty, has threatened legal action against Oxford City Council’s proposed restrictions on busking and begging in the centre of Oxford.

Oxford City Council were to vote last Thursday evening on a new Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) to tackle non-aggressive begging and non-compliant busking. However, the vote was postponed after concerns over potential legal action by Liberty.

If the new PSPO had been approved, it would have allowed police and council staff to serve fixed penalty notices, with those failing to pay facing court action and prison.

Currently, Oxford City Centre is covered by a PSPO under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. It is a breach of the PSPO to busk not in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Busking and Street Entertainment in Oxford, which is a list of ‘Do’s’ and ‘Don’ts’.

The ‘Don’ts’ currently include not selling merchandise, not busking “in a way that is repetitive, intrusive or causes a nuisance”, and not busking for more than one hour at a time.

However, the civil rights group Liberty delivered a letter addressed to the City Council last Thursday morning, claiming that the new PSPO was unlawful and would “criminalise homeless people and buskers”.

After receiving the letter, the Council dropped discussion of the proposed PSPO from the City Executive Board meeting agenda.

Freya Turner, Chair of the OUSU-led ‘On Your Doorstep’ campaign, explained to Cherwell, “We at On Your Doorstep applauded the Council’s concession on rough sleeping in the PSPO, and hoped that it might be an indication of their willingness to listen to a range of voices when seeking the proper approach to supposed ‘anti-social’ behaviour.

“However, their plans to ban and criminalise persistent begging and non-compliant busking are badly thought through and, due to the intersections between busking, begging and homelessness, will likely have a detrimental impact on a highly vulnerable group. As we face the onslaught of austerity and further welfare cuts in the next five years, it will become all the more important for local campaigns to stand up for a compassionate treatment of vulnerable people. This is why we cannot support the criminalisation of ‘persistent begging’.”

When the PSPO was being drafted, a Member Reference Group was set up to consider the need for and potential content of a PSPO for the city centre area. This group comprised ward councillors, the Board Member for Crime and Community Response and a Scrutiny Committee member. The Member Reference Group then presented a list of anti-social behaviours, as drafted by the City Council, to the public for consultation on an online voting system called eConsult.

In the poll, 54 per cent of respondents voted against ‘persistent begging’ being included on the list of behaviours to be criminalised, and 53 per cent voted in opposition to the inclusion of ‘Busking or Street Entertainment’. Only 13 per cent of respondents were in favour of criminalising busking; the remaining 36 per cent of voters were ambivalent.

Prior to the threats of legal action made, the City Council explained their decision to propose the new PSPO in a report given to the City Executive Board, stating, “The inclusion of persistent begging in the Order will provide other staff to regulate this behaviour and will provide an updated legal remedy, including the use of fixed penalty notices.

“This is likely to prove a more cost effective and proportionate approach to controlling this activity. Linking the Code of Conduct to the PSPO provides a means of enforcement of the Code for flagrant breaches which do occur infrequently, causing considerable nuisance to people in the street and occupiers of nearby premises”.

In response to the ‘On Your Doorstep’ campaign, the City Council stated, “We have an excellent track record of supporting homeless people and helping them find a bed or a home. Oxford City Council spends over £1 million on support for homelessness. It is wrong to suggest the proposed PSPO would change any of that support. It is also untrue that the proposed Order would ‘criminalise’ rough sleeping. The proposed City centre PSPO is aimed at tackling persistent types of anti-social behaviour which can spoil the experience of using the city centre for residents, businesses and visitors.”

A protest against the planned PSPO took place on Thursday on Cornmarket Street. Ruthi Brandt, Green Party Councillor for Carfax Ward, and attendee at the protest, told Cherwell during the demonstration “It’s [the protest] highlighting the problems with the PSPO that’s been suggested for the city centre in Oxford. There are lots of issues with it.

“It would be possible to fine someone £100 for begging-as a beggar, that’s ridiculous, and if you don’t pay the fine then you go through the court system. That could get them up to £1000 in fines, so we’re here to protest that, and to call on the City Executive Board not to pass that.”

Rhodes scholars chose not to toast colonist politician Cecil John Rhodes at their ‘Going Down Dinner’ on Saturday. The dinner signals the end of the class of 2013 Rhodes Scholars two year scholarship at the university.

The Rhodes Trust replied to Cherwell‘s request for comment by saying it was a “a collaborative process with the Scholars to find their preferred wording for the toast this year. The Trust worked with the Scholars to craft a toast for their Going Down, and was happy to do so.

“The Rhodes Trust is proud of its contribution to Oxford. Without these international Scholarships, the student community would be less diverse, and Rhodes Scholars both in Oxford and around the world are keen advocates of social justice. The change to the toast reflected the wishes of the Going Down class, and we propose to actively involve each future Going Down class in the scripting of future toasts.”

British-born Cecil Rhodes was the Prime Minister of Cape Colony in 1890 where he enforced racial segregation policies. Rhodes University in South Africa was named after him, where he set up the Rhodes scholarship which supports selected international postgraduate students to study at Oxford University.

Though the decision to change the toast was an indepedent decision on behalf of the Rhodes Trust and the Rhodes scholars, it was appreciated by the Rhodes Must Fall Campaign, which campaigns against similar homages to Rhodes. They describe themselves as “an organisation determined to decolonise the space, the curriculum, and the institutional memory at, and to fight intersectional oppression within, Oxford”.

They have spent this Trinity term campaigning for greater representation of BME students and greater racial sensitivity. Two events of particular precedence have included their stand against the Oxford Union’s ‘colonial comeback’ poster and their protest outside Oriel College which holds a Cecil Rhodes statue.

In relation to the most recent event, Rhodes Must Fall stated on their Facebook page: “We honour the hard work of those, both within and outside the Rhodes Community, who unwaveringly dedicated their time and energies to tabling the issue of the toast and raising why it is problematic.

“Rhodes Must Fall Oxford believes that it is through violent cultures and traditions like the toast to Rhodes that the colonial mind-set – which is still alive and well at Oxford, and in Britain in general – sustains itself. We believe that such cultures and traditions have no place in a scholarly environment in the 21st century.

“We further understand that the issue of the toast will be further deliberated on within the Rhodes Community, and will keep a close eye on the developments. We maintain that we will not rest until violent and oppressive practices of this nature are totally eradicated, and oppression itself intersectionally rooted out from Oxford!

“Rhodes is crumbling, and the process of his inevitable fall is well and truly in motion at Oxford!”

Kirandeep Benipal, chair of the Campaign for Racial Awareness and Equality (CRAE) and organising member of Rhodes Must Fall, told Cherwell “I think it’s brilliant. I’m astounded and in awe of the initiative taken by Rhodes scholars who clearly feel the need to deconstruct the narrative of celebratory colonialism which shrouds the ‘prestigious’ scholarship that they hold.

“Rhodes scholars tend to be the most intelligent, forward thinking students on campus- so it’s in many ways, unsurprising that they chose to take the campaign to decolonize to their own community. If Rhodes scholars can recognise how problematic the uncritical celebration of colonial figures is, so can the institution which perpetuates it. The decision not to toast was a powerful act of resistance against the legacy of Rhodes. I commend them.”

Zuleyka Shahin, candidate in the recent Union presidential elections, has had her Oxford Union membership suspended for one year, been fined £250 and has a life-time ban on holding office, following an election tribunal.

The tribunal consisted of two cases, one of which was held against Shahin. It lasted approximately six hours and took place on Saturday of 8th Week. The panel consisted of three members, with a collected 27 terms’ worth of membership or more, none of whom are current students or resident in Oxford. Of those three members, one was a woman, one was a person of colour, and two were qualified lawyers.

Election tribunals are held after each Union election in 8th week against any candidates thought to have broken election rules. The Returning Officer has no authority to dismiss complaints of electoral malpractice, and so if a complaint is made, a tribunal must be called. Shahin did not choose to bring any tribunals against anyone herself, and chose to not attend the tribunal against her.

She was found to have violated Rule 33(a)(i)(6) of the Union, which states “A person shall have committed an Electoral Malpractice if he performs any of the following actions: extortion, blackmail or intimidation in connection with the Election”.

Election rules state that if she fails to pay the fine within seven days, it will increase by 10%. If she does not pay the fine within 14 days, her membership of the Oxford Union Society will be revoked.

Shahin told Cherwell, “Unless I find £250 in the next 7 days, I will not be paying the fine. I simply do not have that kind of money. Nor do I wish to validate this process by paying, even if I were to find the money.

“This proves once again everything I campaigned about relating to access and the use of fines as punishment. It makes no sense that a panel, I am guessing of mostly men, can whimsically decide on a cause of punishment as such. Other members of my team have also been fined, others who will also undoubtedly struggle to find the cash. Yet the Union talks about opening its doors to all and inviting more people to run for office. This is why we get the same types of people running for office term in term out.

“The entire “Election Tribunal” is a waste of members’ money, with tribunals costing up to £4000.  

“I would like to know: Who was on the “Election Tribunal” panel? How many women? How many people of colour? Were these some of the same people who heckled me in Hustings? The same people who attacked my campaign page? How impartial was this judgment?

“Instead of fining me £250, somebody needs to look into refunding my lifetime membership fee following my services to the Oxford Union Society.  I feel I have been treated unfairly.”

Cherwell now understands that the fine increases will begin on the seventh day of Michaelmas 2015 rather than from the day of the tribunal itself.

The panel which made the ruling against Shahin is due to publish a report on the tribunals. Suspended members are not automatically banned from the Union premises, rather, they have the same status as non-members.

Peter Orlov, a member of the tribunal, told Cherwell in a personal capacity, “it is frankly amazing that Ms Shahin should paint the tribunal’s composition or decision as being somehow opaque or “whimsical”: had she bothered to attend herself or send a representative, she could have had all of the answers she claims to seek and made such representations as she wished. 

“The panel was comprised of three members of the Union, who happen to have been a man of colour, a woman and – myself – a gay man who has previously been Chair of OUSU’s “Queer Rights” campaign and has been involved with LGBT campaigns and charities (including NUS’ LGBT campaign and Stonewall) since my teenage years.”

Orlov conceded “as a trans woman of colour, some of Ms Shahin’s successes in life will have been more difficult than they may have been for others” but went on to say Ms Shahin “has sought at every stage to present every personal gain at the Union as a result of her tenacity and every failing, however manifestly unconnected, as a result of some animus against her as a member of one or more minorities. In this case, there is no malice towards her whatsoever – her being found guilty of electoral malpractice is a result of her own actions which breached the rules of both the Society and, frankly, of basic decency.”

Conor Diamond, Hertford College, one of the two students to bring claims against Shahin in a joint case but which were not upheld, commented: “I’m saddened that things ended this way, but ultimately very pleased that the judgement recognises the necessity for fair and well-conducted elections.

“Ms Shahin’s race or gender had absolutely no influence on my behaviour in dropping out or my decision to take up a formal complaint. I continue to hold Ms Shahin in high regard and to wish her well.”

The student whose claims against Shahin were upheld by the tribunal has been approached for comment.

University College JCR has raised concerns about the ‘Shakespeare Society’, a secret and selective dining society at the College.

A motion condemning the College’s actions towards the Shakespeare Society was passed after discussion at a General Meeting. It was revealed that the society uses College facilities twice a year, once in the SCR, and membership is drawn from JCR members with a senior member present.

The motion noted, “Because it is an exclusive body they are obliged to pay the full external rate”. It also noted that students have recently expressed their anger that “Univ is simultaneously promoting their access work as progressive and innovative, yet condoning the society by offering it the special privilege of the SCR.”

Members describe the society as existing “for the celebration of the arts”. Prior to the motion, the JCR President met with some of the members of the society, in which they expressed their desire to reform the society.

Responding to allegations that the society was secret, a member of the Shakespeare Society said that it was not secret, but, “People just use their discretion in not mentioning it. We are keen to reform this.”

During the meeting, concerns were raised over access, transparency, and the reputation of the College. The motion noted Univ’s progressive work in access; the College won an OxTalent award last year for its access website staircase12.org.

The motion further resolved to “condemn College’s decision to allow exclusive societies use of the SCR” and “to encourage Governing Body to ban the society, in its current form, from using the SCR”.

When quizzed about the selection criteria for membership, another member said, “There isn’t an exact criterion, which is an issue in itself, and is exactly what we hope to change.”

The JCR further resolved to “begin a discussion between College, members of the Shakespeare society and the JCR as how best the society’s aim might be met in such a way as to not be exclusionary.

“The onus will be on the society to prove that a) it can be rehabilitated and b) that is best placed relative to other organisations (Univ Revue, Univ Players, UCMS etc.) to pursue their stated aim”.

It concluded that if the Governing Body were to propose to disband the Shakespeare Society, the matter would be brought to a JCR meeting to debate.

Joshua Richards, University College’s JCR President, told Cherwell, “I am glad that the JCR recognised and affirmed that the Shakespeare Society is a problem in need of a solution. The motion has started a conversation as to how best Univ students’ contribution to the arts can be celebrated in an open and fair way.  

“That is a conversation to be continued by my successor, members of Univ’s arts community, and College Officers. I am confident that they will reach a solution that reflects the inclusiveness of the Univ community.” 

The Senior Member has been contacted for comment.

Defeated Oxford Union Presidential candidate and out-going Treasurer Zuleyka Shahin has published an open letter detailing her experiences of the term’s campaign and levelling accusations of transphobia and racism against members of the Union.

Published on her Facebook page, the letter was entitled, “An Open Letter: Some Truths You Do Not Know” and detailed alleged transphobic abuse written on spoilt Union ballots, as well as alleged smear campaigns.

Speaking about an allegedly negative campaign run against her, Shahin said, “1055 people did not vote because they were inspired by Mr Webber [Stuart Webber, Shahin’s rival candidate]; I believe a majority of them voted because they opposed the monster I was made out to be. A very successful smear campaign was launched, weaving a web of hate and lies. This is the game of politics, but it is a game I do not have to continue to subject myself to.

“I chose the moral high ground and because of it I lost. I wasn’t about to engage in an election of mud slinging and dirt. Our campaign focused on what we could do. The members did not wish to see my team or I take that leading role and I fully accept that.”

She added, “When STEP sat down in a room, they must’ve said, ‘How do we get everyone to hate this woman?’ and, like the real world of politics and power, called up all their friends in the media to begin churning out the stories.

“There is evidence out there of candidates for Officership from STEP sending screenshots themselves, directly to the newspapers in question. Some papers even refused to print this mess. And they must have thought, ‘If we can get everyone to turn on her – a trans woman of colour who a lot of people in Oxford like – we can do anything!’”

Screenshots of messages sent between members of Shahin’s slate appeared in a VERSA article last week entitled, “Scrutiny report: all the drama, deception and juicy detail of BOTH Union slates”.

Shahin further claimed that ballot papers had been spoiled with transphobic abuse, saying, “To those people who spoilt their ballots with Transphobic abuse, thank you. Thank you for exposing the Oxford Union and Oxford University for what it really is. To those who wrote things like ‘MAN’ next to my name, thank you. You are gutless and spineless.

“To those who drew pictures and wrote whole sentences about how much you despise my transgendered being, I wish you had the courage to come out and say it to my face. It says even more about the Union that people want to focus on what I did ‘wrong’, what I did during elections and whether I brought Rocky and NOT the transphobic hate written on those spoilt ballots. Transphobic hate that was so prevalent, those in the count gave up reading them out loud in the interest of time. This is the Union I belong to. This is what cut me the most.”

According to Union rules, all messages written on the back of ballot papers must be read aloud by Deputy Returning Officers conducting the count. The count is held in camera and as such the Returning Officer was unable to comment.

She added, “To those of you who sat on benches, in parks and quads discussing my “blackness” my gender or my identity, you succeeded in keeping your life basic. Trust me, the last thing you want to be in the Union is black and trans.”

She further expressed fears over tactics used during the campaign period. “I did not eat my food in the Union for the last few weeks because as history has shown, a ‘roofie’ in a drink is not uncommon during election season.”

Other issues addressed included the furore around A$AP Rocky talking at the Union, for which Shahin claimed, “I brought Rocky. Simple. I know it, you know it, the Union knows it. It took 12 weeks of negotiations. The powers that be are on tape in Scrunity, despite my having sponsorship in place, saying that ‘A$AP Rocky will NOT be coming to the Union’.

“And so I looked to other alternatives, hence Christ Church and the event page. Some white people, who didn’t know who he was, saw the page, saw the hype, panicked, and tried to get him back. Nothing was ‘leaked’.

“We stood in the room that night, having drinks with Rocky, many people of colour circling around him, engaging in free flowing and fun conversation. And the powers that be stood in the corner, their faces contorted in confusion. But a part of them got it. That this nobody black boy with a $ sign in his name means something to somebody.”

The letter closed, “I wish everyone the very best and remind everyone to stop and think about our value as humans. Compassion is a quality in a human that is so rare. This election has taught me that much, if nothing else. Finally, I am pleased to say.. I don’t live here anymore.”

At the time of publication, the post had received over 140 likes.

Shahin, Webber and Union President Olivia Merrett have been approached for comment.