An extraordinary open meeting was held by St Catherine’s College JCR on Wednesday, due to a debate concerning an undemocratic poll on Facebook which would decide which newspapers should be stocked in the JCR.

The JCR voted on Saturday 7th March to reverse the decision made by this Facebook poll because it was deemed to have been made undemocratically, on the ground that the vote on the JCR Facebook page was not anonymous, did not include all JCR members and included members who no longer attend the college.

As a result of the debate earlier this week, the JCR President decided to hold an extraordinary open meeting in which two motions were proposed to around 80 students in light of the issue. The first addressed how the decision to stock tabloids in the JCR should be carried out and the second was in relation to stocking The Sun specifically.

The first motion noted, “A previous motion (Hilary Term Week 3, 2014) mandated the JCR to reduce spending on newspapers. This was conducted via a Facebook poll which was then decided to be unlawful and the results were reversed. We have reverted to all of our previous newspaper subscriptions.”

The motion resolved to conduct an anonymous poll on the College’s JCR website with a ‘yes’ to cut a paper, ‘no’ to not cut a paper and a ‘don’t mind’ vote, cancelling the JCR subscription to the newspapers which received more than 50% of ‘yes’ votes.

The outcome was an amendment to mandate the IT Representative to hold an anonymous poll on the JCR website, listing all papers from the current order with options to vote for ‘Keep’, ‘Don’t keep’ and ‘Abstain’ for each newspaper. Each paper which received more than 50 per cent of votes for the ‘Keep’ option would be ordered for Trinity term, and if fewer than six papers received 50 per cent of the ‘Keep’ vote, the six papers with the highest ‘Keep’ votes would be ordered.

This vote is to be repeated in 8^th week of each term in order to keep up to date with new members of the JCR and changing opinions. The amended motion passed 73 votes to one.

The second motion noted, “That ‘all national newspapers’ would include both The Sun and The Daily Star as options, newspapers which (among their myriad other examples of harmful attitudes & content) contain images that cause undeniable discomfort to a significant proportion of the JCR…The Sun’s Page 3 is currently the only widely legitimised form of female nudity in a society which otherwise deems it necessary that female breasts should be covered at all times (see, for example, Facebook/Instagram obscenity guidelines), thereby stating that the only acceptable naked female body is a narrowly sexualised one…The Sun and The Daily Star contained offensive content as well as controversial images with particular focus being placed on the female nudity of The Sun’s Page Three.”

The Sun was not included in the original Facebook poll intentionally due to the JCR’s past support of the NoMorePage3 campaign and The Daily Star was accidently missed off the poll.

The motion stated that by stocking The Sun in the JCR, Catz would be supporting the objectification of women and thus resolved for The Sun and The Daily Star to be removed from the poll as options until the sexualisation of the female body was removed from their content.

The proposition, made by members of Catz Feminist Society, argued, “The Sun is an ideological statement. We need to make a clear statement that Catz shouldn’t support this. It is a chance for Catz to make a really admiral statement. We need a binding motion, regardless of the newspaper ordering system.”

The speech in opposition then responded, “We are arching over what the JCR stands for. People have a right to vote on each individual paper. We shouldn’t censor the list. We remove the fundamental right for people to decide their own choices.

“To show how the JCR really feels, we need to poll beyond the people who are here today. The Sun is the most widely read paper in the country, reaching around ten million people. How can we construct opinions about The Sun without reading it ourselves? We need to continue to be aware of it. To only see broadsheets would have class implications. All papers should be treated the same to be truly democratic.”

The concluding opposition argument stated that the decision to not stock The Sun and The Daily Star should be voted by a poll rather than in the open meeting.

After a call for a secret ballot, 31 voted in favour of the motion to not stock The Sun, 61 voted against and three abstained.

Cherwell spoke to a student at St Catherine’s who was present at the open meeting. She commented, “The debate on the JCR Facebook page a few days ago clearly showed that there were two issues that people were conflating, that of the way we vote on papers and that of the JCR’s general stance on newspapers which feature Page Three-type content.

“I think students rightly feel very strongly about making sure they have a say in the types of newspapers the JCR orders. People feel strongly about Page Three for a number of reasons, one of which is that it is a very visible manifestation of the way women’s bodies are sexualized and objectified in the media – if it’s fair for the images in The Sun or The Star to be visible in the JCR, I should also be allowed to take my top off on Facebook without it violating obscenity guidelines – as it is, there’s a double standard.

“People also have strong views about anything that they feel censors the free press, so people were concerned that the second motion cancelled out the democracy of the first. The issues understandably became conflated, but the idea behind motion two was not to undermine the JCR’s vote on newspapers but rather for the JCR to make a stand and not consider The Sun and The Star as appropriate options until their Page Three images are removed.”

On the topic of the representation of the JCR at open meetings, she stated, “I think the attendance at last night’s meeting showed that people do attend meetings on the issues they care about, and the range of opinion showed that the meetings do represent a broad cross-section of views from across the JCR.”

Vincent’s Club, whose membership is all-male and overwhelmingly made up of Oxford Blues, has recently voted against the admission of their female Blue counterparts as full members.

The club, informally known in the sporting community as ‘Vinnie’s’, has recently released a statement covering the details of this consultation. The consultation was launched after the establishment of the V150 project, which was established in 2013 as a review of several aspects of the club and its administration. The project coincided with the club’s 150th anniversary. It was decided that there should be a consultation of members and alumni on whether the word “male” should be removed from the club’s constitution, thus allowing women to become Vincent’s members.

Currently, to access the club, any non-member must be invited as the guest of a Vincent’s member; however, members of Atalanta’s Club, a similar society for female Blues, have full access to the King Edward Street clubhouse.

The decision was made by both alumni of Vincent’s Club, consisting of around 5000 members, and residential members, of whom there are about 150. The statement regarding the vote, which was jointly issued by the committees of both Vincent’s and Atalanta’s, includes a breakdown of the vote.

According to the statement, “695 alumni members gave their opinion: 12% abstained, most saying it is up to the resident members to decide. 25.5% were against deleting the word “male” from the Constitution, and 62.5% alumni members were of the opinion that change should occur.” With regard to the residential members, a majority of resident members voted to remove the word “male”. However, in both cases, the barrier to female membership could not be removed because there was not the two-thirds majority support which is required for a constitutional change.

The statement continues, “In addition, Vincent’s Club consulted Atalanta’s as part of this process. Atalanta’s members expressed the view that they would rather Atalanta’s remained as the sole club representing women’s sport in Oxford. Vincent’s and Atalanta’s will continue to maintain their close relationship and women will continue to be welcome to enjoy the Vincent’s clubhouse.”

However the vote has met with a mixed response among the Oxford sporting community. The Oxford University Netball club told Cherwell,”As the only female-only sports club in Oxford, OU Netball Club believe that Vincent’s membership should not discriminate on the basis of gender and that women should be able to be members of Vincent’s club, should they meet the ‘social, sporting and intellectual’ criteria for membership. Having our options restricted because we are women is NOT gender-equality. As frequent users of Vincent’s Club space, OU Netball Club were deeply shocked and disappointed to hear that the vote did not pass. We honestly believed that there was no tolerance in modern-day institutions for gender-based assumptions, exclusions and segregation.

“Many of the men who voted against removing the stipulation of ‘male’ from Vincent’s membership requirements appear to have done so based primarily on the belief that it was not wanted by Atalanta’s Club, representative of the views of sportswomen of Oxford. OU Netball Club wish to make clear that the Atalanta’s position on the admission of women to Vincent’s Club is not an adequate nor accurate representation of the views of sportswomen in Oxford. Atalanta’s represents only 7.8% of sportswomen in Oxford and there are women’s Full Blue sports who have no Atalanta’s members at all.

“The outcome of the Vincent’s Club vote has reaffirmed the institutionalised sentiment within Vincent’s Club that women (or anyone who identifies as anything other than ‘male’) are not welcome, wanted, or worthy of Vincent’s Club membership. It is deeply disturbing that one of the strongest opponents of Vincent’s Club membership becoming open to women was from Atalanta’s, a club set up to strive for the equality of women’s sport in Oxford University. The extent to which this influenced the outcome of the vote remains unclear.

“OU Netball Club are, and will remain, committed to promoting gender-equality and decry the upholding of institutionalised sexism at Oxford University.”

Rosie Barker, Women’s Lacrosse Blue and a student at St Catherine’s College, also commented on the decision, remarking, “I think people aren’t really giving their opinions [on women’s membership of Vincent’s] because we are all quite divided on what should happen. I think we could just concentrate on making Atalanta’s a stronger club and have some integration with Vinnie’s. Equally, there should be equality between the sexes in sport and therefore I do think it is bad that the men’s club have voted essentially against this principle.”

 

 

 

Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre in Kidlington will not be expanded, the Home Office revealed today, after months of protest and an independent review.

Campaigners had feared that the centre, currently able to hold 216 detainees, would be doubled in size.

However, in a letter sent to Oxford West and Abingdon MP Nicola Blackwood, James Brokenshire MP said,”The Home Secretary has asked officials to initiate a detailed piece of work on future requirements, to take account of recent and potential future legislative changes.

“In light of this, the Home Secretary has decided to withdraw the planning application for the proposed expansion of Campsfield House.”

Commenting on the expansion, Blackwood declared, “Finally, common sense prevails. I am delighted that the Home Secretary is withdrawing the planning application.

“These plans would have made Campsfield one of the largest detention centres in Europe and it was clear to me that the case set out by the Home Office did not justify building on Green Belt land.

“And of course there were serious problems with the design of the building and how it would work in practice.”

The news comes three weeks after Cherwell District Council postponed a decision on  the expansion, after a letter written on behalf of campaigners raised legal issues concerning insufficient consideration of evidence.  

The letter was written by a team of solicitors on behalf of the Stop Campsfield Expansion group.

Bill MacKeith, spokesperson for the Campaign to Close Campsfiel, declared, “This is a great victory. But the new government in May must implement the recommendations of the parliamentary Inquiry into Immigration Detention: a 28-day time limit to detention and full judicial oversight of individual decisions to detain.

“This would be a further step forward and entail some closures of detention centres. Above all, this is a chance to point to the need for the end of the barbaric imprisonment every year of 30,000 innocent people under 1971 Immigration Act powers. Close Campsfield. Close all immigration detention centres.”

In November, a letter from Oxford academics arguing against the expansion was sent to the Prime Minister. In response, the Home Office insisted that a larger Campsfield “would provide modern accommodation and facilities for detainees”, and that “detention and removal are essential and effective parts of immigration control.”

The government’s current policy on Immigration Detention has been heavily scrutinised in the run up to the election after Channel 4’s recent investigation into the abuse of detainees at Yarl’s Wood IRC, while Cherwell also uncovered claims of poor living conditions and self-harm by Campsfield detainees.

Two male Oxford students were allegedly told to stop kissing by a bouncer in Lava & Ignite Nightclub on Wednesday 4^th March.

According to one of the students involved, who wishes to remain anonymous, the bouncer then proceeded to watch the two for the rest of their time on the EDM floor, which the student presumed was an effort “to make sure we wouldn’t carry on” and left both feeling “very uncomfortable”.

The student told Cherwell, “Around an hour or so into the night, I began to kiss another male near the bar stools at the side of the EDM floor upstairs, near the entrance to the toilets. A bouncer came over, pulled me away from the guy by my shoulder, shook his head and quite bluntly just said “no”, indicating we should stop what we were doing. This was in spite of the fact that there was a heterosexual couple doing exactly the same thing almost directly next to us.

“As he walked away, we were astonished at what had just happened and it was quickly condemned by witnesses nearby who said how inappropriate and out of order it was. Nobody seemed to have a problem with it but him.”

Following the incident, the student emailed Lava & Ignite Oxford to report the bouncer’s behaviour, stating, “As a nightclub who regularly serves Oxford University students – a university which prides itself on accepting and celebrating people from of all sexual orientations, I feel your establishment should be ensuring at all times that your staff are behaving appropriately and respectfully to everyone who provides you custom.”

In response to the allegations, Lava & Ignite Oxford Nightclub told Cherwell, “We would like to apologise for any offence that may have been caused. Lava & Ignite is a well-run, professional venue and our main priority is to ensure that all of our guests have a great night out.

“We do not tolerate discrimination of any kind and would like to stress that this is an isolated complaint.  We are currently conducting a thorough investigation into this allegation with the company that provides our door teams and will, if necessary, take appropriate action.”

When describing the impact of the incident, the student commented, “This incident is upsetting for me for many reasons, one of which is the fact that I have only been openly bisexual for two months so this is the first act of discrimination I’ve experienced based on my sexuality.

“This incident is also only representative of the wider problem of homophobia from bouncers in Oxford and elsewhere. It is shocking that this sort of discrimination is still occurring at all, let alone in places like nightclubs which should be openly accepting of people of all sexual orientations.”

These allegations follow an incident in The Cellar Nightclub on 26th February, where two gay Oxford students were the victims of homophobic abuse.

Undergraduate Ally Pugh, who witnessed the event, commented, “I feel it was probably the bigotry of a single bouncer rather than the policy of Park End, but shouldn’t they have some kind of training or policy for their staff to make sure they don’t discriminate like this? It’s so unfair.

“It’s also shocking that the bouncers feel they can abuse their power like this – none of us were really in a state to do anything about it at the time, because had we said anything, I’m sure we would have been asked to leave.”

Rowan Davis, the Trans Rep for the LGBTQ Society and a member of its committee, said, “The repeated actions of clubs in Oxford towards LGBTQIA members of our community is representative of a wider queerphobia in this city and I strongly encourage people to get involved with the work that the LGBTQ Campaign and the LGBTQ Society is doing to stamp this out.

“We deserve to be able to go out and have a good time just as much as any of our cisgender, heterosexual friends and I hope that people continue to speak out about this important issue. As a side note if this happens to you and you feel up to it, please get in contact with the LGBTQ Society so that we can continue to fight this.”

Anyone involved in similar incidents can contact Oxford Friend LGBT Support on 01865 726893 and Nightline on 01865 270270.

General election hustings took place at St. Anne’s college on Monday evening with the local constituency candidates running in the upcoming General Election.

Three of the Oxford West and Abingdon candidates were present, including Sally Copley (Labour), Layla Moran (Liberal Democrat) and Larry Sanders (Green Party). The UKIP candidate Alan Harris declined to attend and the local Conservative MP Nicola Blackwood was unable to attend due to Parliamentary duties. The event was chaired by the Principal of St. Anne’s College, Tim Gardam, and approximately 50 students attended the town-hall style event.

The seat was a closely fought Tory-Lib Dem marginal at the last election, with the Conservative candidate, Nicola Blackwood, winning by 176 votes. Polling by Lord Ashcroft last summer suggested that the Tories now lead in the seat, on 38%, with the Lib Dems not far off the pace on 30% and Labour some way behind, on 18%. UKIP polled at 9%, the Greens 4%.

The Labour candidate, Copley, began her five minute speech by quoting John Lennon, “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.” She said that her two main aims were to tackle the NHS, inequality and living costs, emphasising that the cuts under the current government have led to a dramatic increase in poverty and inequality and claiming that all Labour proposals were financially achievable. She praised Ed Miliband for standing up for ordinary working people and concluded that this was “a fascinating seat”.

The Liberal Democrat representative, Moran, then claimed that this was a centre-left seat, the sort of seat which will decide the outcome of the general election. She also stated that “whatever people think, this coalition government was stable”, asking for people not to judge them “on the one mistake but the 75 per cent of the rest of the manifesto we pushed through.” She said she was proud of the Liberal Democrats for introducing a new system of progressive tuition fees and pushing forward gay marriage.

The final candidate to speak, Sanders, stated that the Green Party’s top priorities were inequality and the NHS. He criticised the fact that one percent now own nearly 50 per cent of the world’s wealth as well as the fragmentation and privatisation of the NHS. Sanders also said that “climate change will destroy the livelihood of 10s of millions of people”. He concluded by arguing that Labour and the Liberal Democrats have been a disappointment to most of their people.

The first concern raised by the student audience was housing prices, with the fact that this area needed 24-30,000 a year yet only has a capacity for 10,000. Copley partly blamed the constraints of land supply and informed the audience that Labour would work towards changing the regulations of getting money to build affordable housing. Moran stated that “housing is a macro-issue”, revealing Liberal Democrat plans to build 300,000 more houses across the country and aiming for a 42 per cent increase in housing in the next 15 years. Meanwhile Sanders argued that this was a “very simple supply-demand issue” with a ratio of 16:1 for the price of housing compared to outrunnings in Oxfordshire.

When the discussion moved to social inequality, Copley stated that Labour was committed to enforcing the living wage and increasing the minimum wage and criticised tax dodging. Moran struck back, telling the crowd “a little bit of inequality is a good thing or we have nothing to aspire to. Just like a little bit of inflation is good.”

The relationship with the SNP came up. Sanders told the audience that “the future with Scotland has to do with the decency of this government.” Copley addressed the issue less directly, criticising the “broken and alienating” character of politics. Moran told the audience that “we would be willing to work with anyone other than UKIP”.

Immigration was a hot topic, though consensus reigned that immigration is a good thing. Moran said the Liberal Democrats wanted to re-introduce entrance checks while Copley said Labour pledged to employ 1,000 extra border staff. However, Sanders said the Green Party’s policy “is fairly relaxed. There is no policy to kick people out. We are not worried about immigration.”

The NHS came up last. Moran told us that the Liberal Democrats want to endorse the ‘Five way forward view’ published by NHS England last year to unify healthcare provision. Copley was more radical; repeal of the Health and Social Care Act. Sanders chipped into this onslaught on the 2012 NHS, pledging to end ‘privatisation.’

Hannah Lovell, co-chair of OULC, spoke to Cherwell about the importance of the event, commenting,“[They bring] politics more to life more often than not. The closest people get to politicians is watching Prime Minister’s questions.”

In response to the Conservative candidate not turning up, Lovell said “it is pretty shocking especially as these are her local constituents. She did not even bother to send a replacement.”