Find out how the volcano affected your fellow Oxford students, learn about geologic history and climate change, and ponder deep questions about the interference of nature in our highly technologically-advanced world.
Blog Page 1994
Hertford Democracy Saved
Hertford JCR has avoided the threat to their democracy posed by the motion that would establish a House of Lords composed of PPE students to rule the JCR.
The original motion was amended during this week’s meeting so that the whole JCR were made members of the new House of Lords, and endowed with the title “Lord X of Hertford JCR”.
Further amendments were that the House of Lords would agree by default with any decisions made in JCR meetings, hence removing the need ever to convene a meeting of the House of Lords.
The new motion was passed near unanimously, the only people voting against it in amended form being those who had proposed the motion in the first place.
One student, who wished to remain anonymous, said, “I think it is excellent to recognize that it is not PPE students, but the whole Hertford student body, who is truly elite”.
A follow-up motion to disenfranchise the PPEists who proposed the original motion was not submitted in time but will be discussed at the next meeting.
The General Election
Contributors: Rilly Chen, Naomi Richman, Luke Bacigalupo, James Gibson, Beth McKernan, Jerome Mayaud and Jess Benhamou.
Edited by Chris Greenwood
In Defence of Religion
The defamation of religion, according to a non-binding resolution newly passed in the Human Rights Commission, is an infringement of liberty. An article in The Economist entitled ‘The limits of freedom and faith’ claims that it is not the “defamation” of religion that threatens rights but rather measures that supposedly defend it.
The argument is fairly simple: such statements embolden countries that use blasphemy laws to criminalize dissent. Insofar as any ambiguously worded resolution is open to misinterpretation and abuse, it certainly will be used to curb dissent. However, the danger exists in either scenario. If no restrictions are made on the kind of criticisms we can level against religion, it lends legitimacy to state actions that unnecessarily clamp down on religious freedoms. This is already the case in France, where intolerance and xenophobia are concealed under the patriotic cloak of secularism. Even more insidious is the normative signal it sends to countries like China where the clampdown on religion, particularly in the case of the Buddhists and the Falun Gong, can be justified under the banner of constructive criticism. So the question then is not if religious defamation can open the door for abuse, but under which paradigm is the abuse more dangerous.
Take the case of those countries that do curb dissent under guise of blasphemy. More often that not, these countries tend to be hardened theocracies. Regardless of whether this non-binding text is passed, they are not about to go volte-face on their intolerance of dissent. It emboldens them only to the extent that Malaysia is persuaded by CEDAW to provide equal status for women (which it does not). Neither does the passage of the text affect the normative signals sent to the international community that human right abuses occur in these countries. The crusaders of democracy are not about to brush off claims of authoritarianism even if they hide under the banner of religion.
On the other hand, when first world beacons of democracy, like France and Denmark, go out of their way to permit criticism of religion in the public sphere, it has a far more insidious effect. It lends legitimacy to the rhetoric of vengeance that Islamic extremists espouse, justifying, for instance, the asymmetrical treatment of Christians and Ahmadis in Pakistan. Even more dangerous is the situation where a free flow of religious criticism encourages the view that states should stand silent when messages of hate are propagated until riots break out and casualties are recorded. India, a secular state, learned this the hard way from the Ayodhya crisis where the free flow of hate caused not only the destruction of a 400 year-old mosque, but also brutal religious massacres.
There is such a thing as pointless criticism. The Danish cartoons of the prophet served no purpose other than a cruel litmus test to ascertain the pecking order of the right to free press. It is true that there is no right to ‘not be offended’. To suggest so would amount to blatant rights inflation. But, in the real world, unnecessarily offending an integral part of a person’s identity will not result in benign consequences. It is high time the secularists get off their ivory tower of free expression and develop a modicum of sensitivity.
Nakba Day
“We travel like everyone else, but we return to nothing. As if travel were a path of clouds. We buried our loved ones in the shade of clouds and between roots of trees.” Thus wrote Mahmoud Darwish, the Palestinian national poet. Born in the village of al-Birwe, in the Upper Galilee, he spent his life in exile: in 1948, when he was just six, his family fled to Lebanon as the Israeli army occupied and destroyed his village, and though they managed to return ‘illegally’ a year later to what had by then become the State of Israel, they remained classified as ‘present-absent aliens’.
Caught in a labyrinthine web of military rulings designed to make Palestinian lives unliveable, he could not even travel from village to village without permission. He finally left in 1970 and did not return until 1996, when he was allowed to settle in the West Bank – but for him, this was nevertheless exile. He died in 2007 and is now buried on a hill above Ramallah, from where, on a clear day, you can just see the Mediterranean of his childhood.
Let me see an end to this journey, said Darwish. The exile of which he wrote is a fate shared by millions: there were 4 million Palestinian refugees registered with the UN in 2002, and many thousands more were killed in the massacres of 1948 and have died under the subsequent 62 years of Israeli occupation. May 15th, Nakba Day, commemorates what in Arabic is called the ‘catastrophe’; yet it also expresses the steadfastness of the Palestinian people in their hope to one day return home. Though Darwish did not live to see that day, let us hope that today’s exiles will.
Notes on a scandal
At the risk of equating politics with the Premier League (let’s not be silly: we all know which is more important), what might Gordon Brown and Steven Gerrard have in common? For one thing, both have endured torrid campaigns: it was a long, long time ago that Labour and Liverpool last plummeted so far out of the public imagination. Brief mid-decade successes (Brown’s promotion to the premiership; Gerrard overturning AC Milan’s half-time landslide to win the European Cup) gave way to more sober realities of bad management, misspent budgets (Darling=Benitez) and collapsing expectations. They both ply their trade for the team in red, too.
On the theme of colours, another similarity reared its gruesome head this past week: each man seems utterly determined to help his respective rivals, the boys in blue. Brown’s now-notorious slip of the tongue has slashed his stock even further, arguably presenting the election on a silver platter to Cameron and his Tories. Gerrard could not have been kinder to a grateful Didier Drogba: there’s nothing like an incisive through-ball into your own box to gift the title to Chelsea, who just happen to be vying for that honour with Liverpool’s bitterest enemy, Manchester United…
Question Time: Did He Do It On Purpose?
Brown might be incompetent, but Gerrard might be something worse. Last week, I speculated that Liverpool’s active attempts to lose such a pivotal game against Chelsea would prove to be pure fantasy- on that count, I think I was wrong. Gerrard has produced some unbelievable moments in his career (for all the right reasons), but that slothful pass on Sunday is the most incredible. Watch the footage, scrutinize Gerrard’s position, and note the direction in which his eyes are pointed: his vision is entirely unobstructed.
He sees the onrushing Drogba, and in a moment that does not befit a career of good professionalism, decides to play a pass that, in any other contest, he wouldn’t have chanced. To put it subtly, he doesn’t exactly seem over-concerned in heaping the pressure onto Pepe Reina and his defenders: ‘hospital’ balls like that are heinously amateur even for the Uni Parks on a Wednesday afternoon, let alone for Anfield on a Ford Super Sunday. And, as you should have noticed, Gerrard does not customarily play like a talentless schoolboy.
Most readers will find this conclusion unacceptable and ludicrously conspiracist- common sense should prevail, you might argue; no sportsman would ever willingly choose to lose. To that, I can only implore you to watch and re-watch the goal: Gerrard is running towards his own keeper, and has plenty of scope for surveying the pitch ahead of him- he clearly isn’t blind-sided or impeded. The hard evidence, allied to a compelling theoretical case (again, read last week’s blog) certainly gives my argument serious credence. Make up your own mind, and feel free to leave comments in the space below- it’d be interesting to poll an Oxford consensus on this.
What happened, happened. Now, Chelsea are on the brink of a first championship since 2006, and they most definitely deserve it. Wigan will not submit easily (let’s hope Charles N’Zogbia takes the team bus), but the sight of a crowned trophy on the sideline, adorned with blue and white ribbons, will surely power them to finish first past the Premier League post. And, speaking of celebratory blue and white ribbons… fancy a crack at the Liverpool job, Gordon?
Here’s What You’ve Missed: TTW1!
This week audiences put Greek hero Odysseus and ITV2 heroine Sally Morgan under the review spotlight.
"Whoever wins, you’re the ultimate losers!"
In a crowded lecture room at Brasenose, students engaged in their own take on the Leaders’ Debates, with undergraduates taking on the roles of the party leaders.
‘Cameron’ (staunch Labourite Scott Ralston by day) promised to create “a cabinet of schoolmates and Bullingdon chums”, while ‘Brown’, played
by OCA’s Treasurer Chris Adams, defended his prized economic policies, but was clearly still haunted by the ‘bigotgate’ gaffe.
Gavin Fourie’s ‘Clegg’ was suitably vague in his promise to “stop the old ways”, suggesting we “say yes…after all, over 30 women have”. The bigoted ‘Griffin’, wittily portrayed by Arv Singal, appeared limited to continually reiterating his paranoiac prejudice against “the non-indigenous peoples of this country”.
Questions ranged from the irreverent “What would you fill a black hole with?” to more serious-minded queries about proposed spending cuts. The answers provided by the ‘politicians’ were often uninformed, or frankly ridiculous. Their mockery of the leaders highlighted student exasperation with an electoral system that has become more about the public face of the parties rather than their policies.
Alex Eagle, President of the Addington Society which organised the debate, said that the light-hearted event struck a more serious note by reflecting an increasing disenchantment with national politics. He said that students increasingly felt there was “no real difference” between the parties. ‘Salmond’, the leader of the SNP, closed his argument with “whoever wins, you’re the ultimate losers”, suggesting that there is no ideal candidate to lead a government with such wide-spread problems to tackle in the coming years.
‘Cover-up’ Cardinal to visit Oxford
The Oxford University Newman Society has invited the Cardinal Sean Brady, the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, to a series of three events on 12 May.
The Newman Society supports the faith and life of the Catholic Church in Oxford University.
Cardinal Brady is currently facing allegations that he participated in the cover-up of child sex abuse within the Catholic Church. He has refused to resign from his position.
The charges against Cardinal Brady include the allegation that he assisted in concealing complaints of paedophilia made against Brendan Smyth, an Irish priest.
According to news reports, Brady has “confirmed that he attended a secret Church hearing in 1975” which required two of Smyth’s child victims, an altar boy and a teenage girl, to sign an oath stating that they would not discuss the abuse that they had received at Smyth’s hands with anyone other than an approved priest.
The hearings were allegedly held at the Dominican friary in Dundalk, County Louth, and at the Holy Trinity Abbey in County Cavan.
According to reports, Brady acted as recorder of evidence on behalf of the current bishop and questioned witnesses. The issue was then kept behind church doors.
In 1997, a woman came forward in a High Court case stating that Smyth had abused her as well, and in December of last year, Judge Eamon de Valera allowed the woman to amend her statement, in which she asserted that she had suffered assault, battery, and bodily trespass.
She named Brady as one of three defendants in the case. Smyth was jailed in the Republic of Ireland on the grounds of molesting 20 children. He died in prison in August after a heart attack.
Brady himself now faces legal challenges due to the court case, which began thirteen years ago. He is being sued both in his individual capacity as a priest who took part in the secret tribunal, and as the Primate, the position which he currently holds.
In spite of these legal proceedings, he has refused to resign his post.
The Newman Society has invited the Cardinal to a number of events including their termly Thomas More Lecture. Brady will deliver a lecture on the topic of “The Challenges Facing the Church in Ireland in the Twenty-First Century”. He will also hold a Solemn Pontifical Mass in Trinity College Chapel, and attend a black tie dinner in his honour at St Benet’s Hall.
According to the society’s website, “Cardinal Brady’s lecture takes place in the wake of the Holy Father’s recent letter to the Catholics of Ireland on the issue of sexual abuse of children. The Cardinal will use his speech as an opportunity to respond to the issues raised by the Holy Father and to reflect on how the church can move forward”.
Although some students expressed concerns at the invitation, others welcomed it as “a sign of openness and co-operation”.
The Newman Society declined to comment.
Benet’s head ejected for Brown heckle
The Dean of St. Benet’s Hall was escorted out of a Labour election campaign meeting on Saturday on “public order” grounds.
Julian Borthwick was led out of the National Glass Centre in Sunderland by Gordon Brown’s police protection officers after questioning Brown about his reference to Gillian Duffy as a “bigoted woman”.
The Prime Minister carried on speaking while Borthwick, shouting “we’re broke”, was escorted from the room. He was not allowed back into the venue until Mr Brown had left.
Borthwick had questioned Brown about the incident with voter Gillian Duffy, asking, “What about that bigoted woman?”.
The remark refered to the widely reported incident earlier in the week in which Brown was overheard referring to Mrs Duffy as a “bigoted woman” on a Sky News microphone. This occurred after she had asked him about his tax policies and how he would pay back Britain’s escalating national debt.
Brown would not answer the Dean’s question, saying there would be “plenty of time” to do so later.
Borthwick spoke to Cherwell about his banishment from the speech.
“I strongly suspect the reason why Brown couldn’t handle a comment was that he, like an automata, was reading the text from the two auto prompters alternating between the left and right,” he said.
“There is no real dialogue with the voters”.
One woman present at the meeting tried to stop Borthwick asking his question and forcibly grabbed him by the arm, repeatedly shouting at him to “Get out”. She told him, “this isn’t about getting your name in the Press” and branded him an “attention-seeker” and an “idiot”.
Borthwick said he was annoyed that the Prime Minister had such limited contact with the public while he was on the campaign trail.
“Real politicians are going around talking to real people and Mr Brown isn’t doing that. Mr Brown needs to see real electors, not just hand-picked people”, he said.
The Dean of St. Benet’s, which is one of Oxford’s Permanent Private Halls, said, “The event on Saturday had almost no connection with Sunderland, it could have taken place anywhere.
“Election campaigns can’t be limited to parachuting in supposed politicians to read other people’s texts from auto prompters to the waiting media.
“I see that he repeated the exercise in Manchester yesterday, and will keep doing this until the electorate decide that they require more from their politicians than toggling from left to right reading other people’s autoprompted texts in front of a rather sinister electronic ‘countryside’ projected backdrop”.
Borthwick had been specially invited to the meeting by Labour party supporters, although he is not a member.
He says he is not a “political person” or a member of any party, despite Labour officials’ claims he was a Conservative.
“I hadn’t followed the election until Mrs Duffy got involved. It’s all so stage-managed and I felt that somebody really needed to confront Gordon Brown,” he said.