Oxfordshire County Council has this week announced plans to make Oxford a 20mph city.
The new speed limit will be introduced on most residential streets, as well as sections of A and B roads in busy shopping areas.
The initiative, which will cost around £250,000, is designed to reduce fatal road accidents. Councillors hope to see a five percent reduction in casualties as a result of the change.
Oxford follows Portsmouth to become the second UK city to introduce the new blanket speed limit.
The oldest-known book dust jacket has been discovered by a librarian in the Bodleian. The jacket, dated from 1830, wraps a silk-covered gift book entitled “Friendship’s Offering”.
Michael Turner, the Bodleian’s head of conservation, made the discovery when ordering an archive of book trade memorabilia bought by the Bodleian in 1892. The jacket had been removed from the book. It has been discovered when an American scholar of dust jackets contacted the library looking for the earliest known example.
Silk-bound books tend to be very vulnerable, so the dust jackets were used by booksellers to protect the binding. As a result, the jackets were often removed as soon as the book was bought. Thus, very few have survived.
King Lear, veteran Oxford director Simon Tavener says, is in essence a family drama. Yes the violence and dystopian excitement of cities in mutiny, countries in discord and treason within palace walls are inescapable and vital, but this play hinges first and foremost upon Lear and his daughters, Gloucester and his sons and the conflicts that rip flesh from blood. Think of this production from the highly acclaimed Oxford Triptych Theatre, then, as a sort of 18-rated Shakespearean soap opera, with special effects and modern dress added for good measure.
There is a lot that works in this production. The casting is strong and the dynamic interaction between fully-fledged stage actors and first-years taking their baby steps out onto the Oxford platform is enjoyable to watch. Jonathan Sims plays the bastard Edmund with the delicious darkness characteristic of somebody whose theatrical resume reads like a who’s-who of villainy. However while twisted smirks and spine-chilling understatement work for this actor, Goneril, played less magnificently by first year Amelia Peterson, feels more like a sneering Ugly Sister than a cruel and murderous usurper.
For an actor more at home in sketch comedy, Dominic Bullock as Gloucester makes the change to tragedy well. The wronged brother Edgar, played by Oxford-stage virgin Joe Robertson, is a revelation. As moving in one scene as he is mad in the next, he is certainly one to watch over the next few terms.
A strong supporting cast is what keeps this play afloat; what lets it down is Lear himself. If, as the director tells me, the madness we encounter should not be insanity, but manifestations of anger, then unfortunately Colin Burnie’s performance falls short. His arrival on stage is like the welcome return of a doddery old war veteran and though many of the best and most terrifying speeches are delivered with tempestuous rage, the illusion is not maintained and hints of cuddly granddad sneak in. For most of the time he was just not angry enough for me; one might be forgiven for thinking that they have sought to develop a diagnosis of senility rather than develop a character whose fury consumes his every thought and word.
We are told that this production will feature billowing smoke, distorted voices and sounds from nature that conspire to invade the mind of Lear as he battles the stormy elements. While this all sounds exciting, I hope that the director exercises moderation so that the emphasis put on characters and successful storytelling is not compromised. Yet, for a clear presentation of a complex classic, viewers could do worse than seeing this enjoyable, generally well-acted, but far from life-changing production.
Three stars
OFS Studio Tuesday 28th April – Saturday 2nd May
A former Oxford University scientist has been jailed after pleading guilty to charges of sexual assault on a toddler and the possession of 20,000 images of child pornography.
Andrew Lintern, 55, pleaded guilty to 31 charges at Southwark Crown Court on Monday. These included an indecent assault on a 17-month infant, taking sexualised photographs of his victims and distributing the images.
Lintern, who used to work as a chemistry researcher at Oxford, was caught by the London Metropolitan Police’s Paedophile Unit while posing as a 9-year-old girl on an online messenger service.
Lintern contacted someone he believed to be a 13-year old girl, who was, in fact, an undercover police officer. Police arrested Lintern after he arranged to meet the “13-year-old.”
The former chemist is suspected to have indulged in paedophilic activities for the last 10 years. He has been found to collect stories describing the rape and murder of children. He also wore nappies while at home.
Detective sergeant Jason Tunn from the Met’s Paedophile Unit said, “certainly by 2002 he was abusing children hands-on… He is a dangerous sexual predator on children.”
Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC said that the evidence raised “concerns about [Lintern’s] state of mind.” He considered him to be “a significant threat to the public.”
He told Lintern, “taken all in all, the charges you have pleaded guilty to amount to such a great catalogue of offences involving child abuse that it is difficult to grasp the scale of your offending.
“And it is just as difficult to grasp what has prompted a man like yourself to become steeped in activities involving the serious exploitation of children and the literally immeasurable harm that was done to them.”
Lintern was given an Indeterminate Public Protection sentence, with the minimum jail time of three-and-a-half years. He will only be freed if the release is approved by the parole board or the Secretary of State, and will otherwise face an indeterminate sentence.
Jason Tunn commented, “the probation officer that assessed him, the judge and the psychologist agreed that the risk of re-offending is high and the fact that he’s been given an indeterminate sentence reflects that.”
Some have found the sentence to be insufficient. A second-year medic from Christ Church said, “three and a half years minimum is a disgustingly short sentence for someone who basically was planning to rape a thirteen year old girl. Even if he doesn’t get out that soon, that the minimum was set so low really trivialises rape and that is going to put women and children at risk.”
Rosanna McBeath, OUSU VP for welfare, commented, “I’m shocked and disgusted to hear about this case. It is upsetting to hear that someone who was once part of the Oxford community committed such heinous actions. If anyone at the University was affected by this, I would urge them to seek support.”
A first year CAAH student commented, “that’s really disturbing. It’s scary that there are people around like that. You think of Oxford as a safe place and put your trust in the people who work here… this news comes and it makes you feel sick.”
A third-year Magdalen student added, “it’s horrifying to think that this pervert ever had a connection with a teaching institution; even more horrifying that the institution is the same one I go to. The man was clearly messed up.”
The University refused to comment on whether Lintern could have posed a threat to students and staff during his career at Oxford.
A National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children spokesperson noted, “we must not forget the fact that behind many abusive images are real children. Receiving or downloading abusive images of children perpetuates its production and reinforces the cycle of sexual exploitation.”
An OUSU blunder has cost the Student Union thousands of pounds in lost affiliation fees over the past five years, a Cherwell investigation has revealed.
It was only in September of last year that financial officers discovered that OUSU had been using the wrong inflation rate to calculate how much college common rooms should be paying.
The lost revenue – calculated to exceed £16,000 – will have served to further worsen the financial situation of the Student Union, which still owes £250,000 to the University.
Lewis Iwu, the OUSU President, admitted, “An administrative error has led to common rooms over the past 5 years being undercharged for their affiliation fee. This had been corrected at the start of this year and now the correct amount is being charged.”
OUSU Representative of Trinity College commented that the problem might have been caused to the lack of long-term planning. She said, “The fact they have been using the wrong index is indicative of the management of OUSU. This however does not seem to be because of a lack of enthusiasm or competence of individual members of staff or executive, rather not having any planning and the relatively quick turnover of staff. Without any real long-term plan, financial mis-management is inevitable.”
A graduate student commented, “I find it hilarious that OUSU bungled this simple calculation for so many years.”
Alex Bulfin, JCR President of University College expressed his relief that the problem has been solved. He said, “It’s a shame that this will add further to the perception of some students in the University that OUSU is unprofessional and ineffective. OUSU provides many valuable and vital services to students and common rooms, but events like these only seek to undermine much of the good work the Students’ Union does.”
He added, “That said, the problem has now been remedied and the work that the current Executive are conducting into funding at the moment should ensure that OUSU are far better placed financially than they have been hitherto. This is why it is important that OUSU continues to professionalise its operations in the future.”
Iwu praised the enthusiasm of OUSU’s accounts staff, “I would like to reiterate that the staff of the Student Union have done the students of Oxford a service through their hard work, commitment and enthusiasm since this Student Union was created.”
OUSU is meant to base its annual increase in common room affiliation fees on Retail Price Index from September each year. However, it was found that in the last 5 out of 6 years the figures on common room invoices do not match RPI indices published by the government.
Cherwell’s examination of invoices revealed that the percentage increases correspond instead to an increase in the value of a basket of goods bought in 1987. The finance teams had then divided these indices by 100 in order to obtain a percentage used to increase the subscription fees.
The figures obtained have been consistently lower than the Retail Price Index, resulting in OUSU undercharging common rooms by thousands of pounds over the past years.
A scholarship fund for gifted students has been created in the memory of John Ddungu, a Lady Margaret Hall student who died in February.
John Kavuma Ddungu Memorial Trust for Academic and Sports has been created by the mother of the student.
The fund will support talented children from “Britain and all over the world” who “don’t have the opportunity and don’t know the system.”
Gladys May Kavuma explained that she decided to set up the trust in order to honour her son’s memory. She wanted to realize her son’s dream to set up a charity to help children in Africa.
She said to This is Croydon Today newspaper, “Last July he told me that he wanted to set up a charity to help children in Africa to go to school in the UK. He said to me that he wanted deprived children to have the same chance that he had.”
Ms Kavuma revealed has been left “numb” not knowing what caused her son’s death.
She explained, “It hasn’t really sunk in.”
Since Ddungu’s death many messages of support have appeared on his personal webpage.
Ms Kavuma commented, “Reading his Facebook page makes me see how many friends he had and lives he touched.”
She added, “I just need to know what happened to him. I’ve seen his body, which helped because he looked peaceful. I think it will hit me at the funeral but for now I am being strong.”
Ms Kavuma asked all those who attended John’s funeral to make a contribution to the fund instead of bringing flowers. She will need to raise £5,000 to register the charity.
The cause of the death is currently unknown. However, the police are not treating the death as suspicious.
LMH Principal Frances Lannon, speaking through the University Press Office, said “We were shocked and profoundly saddened by the death of John Ddungu, a second-year undergraduate at Lady Margaret Hall. Our thoughts and deepest sympathy are with his family and friends at this very difficult time.”
Sourav Choudhury, JCR President at LMH, echoed Lannon’s sentiments. “John was a universally popular and well liked student within LMH. His death has naturally upset and touched both his close friends and the wider college community. At this difficult time we ask to be allowed to grieve in private.”
Members of Oxford’s Bullingdon Club have denied the claims made by a Proctor last month that they have been threatened with Anti-Social Behaviour Orders.
In a speech he made in March, outgoing Proctor Professor Donald Fraser said that the first case he was given during his first week in office was to deal with complaints about the club members’ behaviour during incidents in October 2007 and March 2008.
Residents in Jericho, north Oxford, contacted the Proctors’ office to report that students living in a house near the Phoenix cinema ‘had taken habitually to the drunken braying of ‘We are the Bullingdon Club!’ at 3am.’
According to a transcript given to the Proctors’ office, a neighbour complained but was greeted with what the Times called ‘a well-educated torrent of abuse.’
Fraser added that, ‘the transcript of what they called the wife of the neighbour who complained was written in language that is not usually printed’.
The matter was then referred to the police because the incident did not occur on University property and the Bullingdon Club is not an official University society.
‘After conferring with the Proctors’ Officers, I thought that an ASBO might concentrate the minds of those concerned. I referred the matter to the police, who did mention the word ASBO before awarding the members of the club an ABC – Acceptable Behaviour Contract – that would magically and automatically turn into an ASBO if provoked within six months.’
Members of the club are denying the accusations, which recently appeared in the Daily Mail and The Times.
A 47 year old single mother and Jericho resident told the Daily Mail, ‘They had a party and were chanting again and started throwing glass champagne bottles out of the window. The street was carpeted with broken glass.’
She added that two of the students – Francesco Ciardi and Konstantin von Bismarck – later contacted her to apologise.
Bismarck, a descendant of the Prussian Imperial Chancellor who founded modern Germany, rang the woman up to offer apologies. Ciardi, a friend of Princess Beatrice, apologised in person and offered her chocolates, which she refused.
The two denied being members of the Bullingdon, but admitted that they allowed the club to use their house.
One member denied that they were given the disciplinary orders, saying that the newspapers’ allegations came ‘probably from their more exotic daydreams.’
He added, ‘But then again the Mail recently hazarded to allege that the club members ritually burn bags of cash exceeding £500, which really pushes the borders of insanity.’
While the inner workings of the club remain secret, the same member did comment that, ‘There is no formulaic trashing ritual’ and insisted that breakages ‘are always swiftly dealt with.’
In December 2004, four members of the Club were arrested following the alleged trashing of the cellar of the White Hart pub in Fyfield, an incident that prompted the press to refer to the club’s activities as ‘despicable’ and ‘reprehensible’.
The society was founded in the late 19th century as a hunting and cricket club, but has gained a reputation as an exclusive drinking society. It has made headlines in the last few years due to the prevalence of its ex-members on the Opposition front bench. Conservative Leader David Cameron and Shadow Chancellor George Osborne were both members of the society while students at Oxford, as well as the London Mayor Boris Johnson.
One member added, ‘We are not a bunch of vandalising socialite terrorists.’
Between 16 April and 13 May 2009 national elections are being held in India. In what happens to be the largest electoral exercise in the democratic world, a 714 million-strong electorate will vote over 5 phases in 543 parliamentary constituencies spread across 28 states and 7 union territories. The principal adversaries are the incumbent United Progressive Alliance (UPA) led by the Indian National Congress; the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by the Bharatiya Janata Party; and the Third Front – a coalition of regional and communist parties. The main issues are internal security (particularly, in the wake of the Mumbai terror attack and the growing Maoist insurgency), widening socio-economic inequality and regional disparity, rising assertiveness among the majority and corresponding alienation among minorities.
Flawed as it may be, Indian democracy’s continued existence defies historical precedent and conventional wisdom. When they were first held in 1952, Indian national elections were called the “biggest gamble in history”. 57 years and 14 editions later, the only gamble around them remains political and not existential. It is important to appreciate that this diverse country routinely holds reasonably free and fair elections across its vast length and breadth and is interesting to understand why and for whom the Indian electorate votes. As a group which seeks to celebrate India and bring together not only Indian students and students of Indian origin but anyone who is interested in this diverse country, the Oxford Indian Society (OIS) launched its online debate series with a three-week long focus on the Indian elections. It debated the pros and cons of coalition centred politics in the Indian electoral scene, discussed the presence or absence of clear and responsible ideological divide among Indian political parties, and deliberated upon the desirability of left-wing politics and its impact on governance and policy-making.
The OIS debate provoked some searching questions: Historically, Indian elections have tended to be as much about good governance as about identity politics. What should a democracy’s pivot be – aspirations towards socio-economic representation of hitherto marginalised groups or functions towards deliverance of good governance? A zealous pursuit of identity-bound representative character by regional parties and their coalitions has certainly brought them closer to power and policy-making but has also turned Indian politics into a completely amoral business of bargaining for power and benefits. For Indian polity the question that looms large is whether it desires a society derived from the patterns of the exercise of political power or a polity reflective of its varied socio-cultural fabric?
Second, while this so-called ‘battle for egalitarianism’, is being waged using the instruments of electoral democracy, has become the dominant thrust in Indian politics, it is pertinent to ask whether there is room for ideology-politics as opposed to identity-politics in a responsible national landscape? In a parliament of 543 seats, 272 are required for majority. Since 1989 a socially fractious and economically divided electorate has regularly voted indecisively resulting in a fragmented politics of coalitions. The current UPA government is a coalition of 13 parties spearheaded by the Congress with 151 seats while the single-largest opposition party, BJP, has 142 seats. The real power thus lies with the regional parties. Any government then will be a delicate balance act amidst the compulsions of coalition politics.
And finally, on the economic front: Is increased state intervention desirable and if so, then how is it to be financed? Can India abandon fiscal management without reverting to isolationism? How does a developing country with serious resource constraints prioritize spending on alleviating poverty without wreaking systemic havoc? As the largest nation-state in world’s least integrated and most unsettled region, India, as ever, remains a fascinating – in turn exhilarating and frustrating – prospect. On the one hand, it has a growing poor population (400 million), rotten infrastructure, dreadful public services of health and education, cumbersome labour and land laws, and ranks 4th in the list of Asia’s most corrupt nations. On the other, it boasts of the third annual growth rate in Asia over the last five years (behind China and Japan), an increasing employment rate, a healthy forex reserve, a young population (half of them under 25), and fast-growing manufacturing and service sectors (driving the 300 million strong urban, middle class and its consumption boom) – the players of which are now getting world-wide recognition viz. the Tatas. Whether one characterises India as a tiger on a pacy prowl or an elephant on a sluggish grind, the numbers to bolster either image can be bewildering, hence the importance of the coming elections.
The OIS debates archives can be accessed at http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ois/debates.html.
Serj Tankian, the multi-million selling Grammy Award-winning musician, best known for his work with System of a Down, came to Oxford last Wednesday 22nd April to talk to an issue very close to his heart: genocide. Screamers is a film that follows the band, all of whom are descendents of survivors of the Armenian genocide, as they tour and it points out the horrors of modern genocide that began in Armenia in 1915 and continue to the present day.
The screening of the film, put on by a partnership of the University’s Development Office and the Aegis society, gave an opportunity for students to ask Serj and other panellists Raffy Manoukian – London-based philanthropist and donor to the University who helped fund the film – and Professor Theo van Lint – Oxford’s professor of Armenian Studies and Fellow of Pembroke College – their questions in a panel discussion. We caught up with Serj before the event:
Have you had much time to see Oxford?
I’ve been to Oxford before! We actually played about an hour away in Reading over the summer and stayed in Oxford overnight. It was beautiful.
Not spent much time here today then just been travelling?
No we’ve just got here and have been travelling all day. Haven’t had any time to eat- [eats]
Do you know particularly or have any relationship with the other two men that are on the panel with you at the talk: Raffy Manoukian [London-based philanthropist] and Professor Theo van Lint [Calouste Gulbenkian Professor of Armenian Studies and Fellow of Pembroke College]?
I Know Raffy really well- I met him because he worked with the BBC on the production behind Screamers. I met him through that and became since then and he’s been very very active in promoting awareness about genocide. In terms of pushing the film as well getting distribution for it and screenings and working with different non-profit organisations he’s done a great job. He’s done a lot to be respected.
How did you get involved with making the film?
I was approached by the film maker Carla Garapedian a number of years ago and she was keen on getting System of a Down involved in making a film about genocide. So I met with her and I was really interested in presenting the similarities of different genocide and holocaust because I see a connection between them all. She was down for that idea which was cool and I thought that the uniqueness of the experience of the Armenian genocide in terms of it being denied by the perpetrators still after 94 years.
Urm, so, we kind of had a meeting of minds and I said OK let me go back to the other guys from SOAD and see if they are willing to participate and they were so we, you know, as a band we didn’t do anything differently than we did on a regular basis: our concerts, our activism, our meetings with congressional delegates. Everything that we do we did anyway we would do anyway with or without the film. We allowed her access so that she could film it and tied that into her story. So the film is really about genocide but it involves the band.
A lot of your song writing is affected by your politicization- how did this politicizing come about?
The hypocrisy of the denial of genocide in a well known democracy was the first spark for my politicization as a young adult and made me wonder how many truths there are out there that are being denied for economical or geo-political interests. Since then I’ve found a lot of others truths or injustices I might say that need shedding of light. So that was the first trigger for me growing up.
Was your primary motivation for making this film to raise awareness of the genocide issues surrounding it?
When I first decided to be involved with the film, one of the primary reasons was to raise awareness of the Armenian genocide another was to raise awareness of the human disease of this genocide in general. I think we haven’t realised the importance of prioritizing the reaction to genocide intervention to genocide as a global society and we still allow different interests to supersede intervention regarding genocide- Sudan being a prime example of our times today and how we- when I say ‘we’ I am primarily referring to the western nations and governments- have not really interfered in a major way.
Like you see Sudan collaborating a number of years back with the CIA and US intelligence on Al Qaeda authorities within the country because obviously Bin Laden had spent a quite a bit of time there and it’s purported that Bin Laden was there after it was known that genocide was going on- this was after George Bush Jnr. called the atrocities genocide within Sudan. So you start to think and think OK I guess for America that meant that fighting terror was more important than helping victims of genocide and that is a prime example of how our priorities are misplaced.
Are any of your songs particularly relevant to the issue of genocide?
System of a Down has two songs that touch upon genocide: one is from the first album we ever made and one is from the last album that we ever made. The songs are ‘P.L.U.C.K’ and the other ‘The Holy Mountains’.
Do you think that you could have been part of such a film if you didn’t have your status as a musician?
I would have wanted to have been part of such a film if I weren’t a musician- I’m not sure that anyone would be interested in asking me though!
So, do you consider it important for musicians such as yourself and Tom Morello to speak out on political issues? Do you think that it is an important voice?
I think every artist has his or her own vision- I think that it is important for every artist to follow that vision. I don‘t think every artist should be political. I think that … I’ve always said that a really great love song is more important than any political song ever written: it can change the world in much more interesting ways than any political song. However, that said, I think that music is a great narration of our times. It’s a great truthsayer of our times.
You listen to Bob Dylan’s music of the sixties and on and you see that it’s a great way of presenting some truths and a great way of fighting injustice and power through the arts. So, I think it’s definitely been part of my vision in life to always, you know, kind of bring certain topics to the forefront- you know, whether it’s through music or through conversation. Every artist has their own vision and I respect that.
Which love songs and political songs do you think are the best ones for conveying their message?
One of my favourite – I don’t know whether you can call it a love song – but one of my favourite songs is ‘Yesterday’ by Paul McCartney as one of those songs that is changing. It is a change oriented type of song. It makes you think back in time but it also paraphrases life in such a beautiful way.
But there are a lot of beautiful love songs. I think more sixties- because that’s when a lot of great lovin’ was going on [laughs]. The Summer of Love and a free and open society. But there’s a lot of good stuff being written today or quite recently.
Are there any up-and-coming bands or those of the past that are particularly good at conveying their political message?
There’s a lot more bands touching upon political subjects today than there were, I would say, six or seven years ago. All I remember is that right after 9/11, certain parties, myself inclusive, Tom Morello [Rage Against the Machine] inclusive were questioning some of the actions that were taken and some of the ‘gung-ho’-ness of the flag-waving involved. I appreciate authenticity and emotion in any type of situation but there was a lot of fear-induced flag-waving going on if that makes sense.
Also reactions that were prevailing: ‘Let’s cut them down’ that kind of stuff- very illogical type of response which I guess is acceptable for a tragedy. However, I don’t think that most people understand that the sources of those tragedies were injustices themselves from elsewhere- that it stemmed from somewhere and it didn’t just come out of thin air as a tragedy. It came as a reaction to foreign policy of the US, Britain and a lot of nations post WW2 and 1 having to do with the Armenian genocide and other topics. There are a lot of things that if we go back in history and look at how we’ve interacted as nations we can see how things are affected by that today.
Last term, there was a motion put to Oxford University Student Union amounting to a condemnation of the actions in Gaza. This provoked fierce debate amongst colleges as to whether it was the place of the student union to put forward a strong opinion on political issues- do you think that Student Unions should?
Most activism has started in universities. Historically, you look at the sixties, seventies, eighties, and I think university students are at a prime age and period of cognisant recognition of the world around them to be able to stand up for things and still have the youthful romanticism necessary to not be sceptical enough to actually put in their time and efforts to do so. I think that it is a very promising thing.
I don’t like sceptics of activism; we have plenty of it ourselves in what I do and what Tom Morello does- people saying ‘why should we listen to you you’re musicians and not foreign policy experts. I say I’m a human being beyond my particular job description and I happen to be involved in a number of things that include American foreign policy and I read a lot about that and I have so for the last 25 years so that doesn’t make me an official expert but I’ll sit down with an official expert and I’ll have a good repartee, you know?
Is there anything else that you think is particularly important to say in relation to Oxford students?
I went to university myself – I didn’t go to Oxford [laughs] but I went to Southern California University. It was a time of growth of the mind. I personally don’t think that you learn anything constructive in University. I think what you learn in University is to allow yourself to learn. I think that that’s what you learn. You learn to be open to things and to allow things to enter your mind without critically cutting it down and that openness to learning. You’ll retain some of the knowledge obviously but I think the average is about fifteen percent if at all. I certainly don’t remember anything that I learnt from my business degree in college except maybe a few quotes or something like that from funny professors if anything.
But I think it’s important, though, to have the community where you’re able to communicate with other people about things happening not just domestically but around the world and having like I said the lack of scepticism to be involved in standing up for what you truly believe in.
Serj Tankian, the multi-million selling Grammy Award-winning musician, best known for his work with System of a Down, came to Oxford last Wednesday 22nd April to talk to an issue very close to his heart: genocide. Screamers is a film that follows the band, all of whom are descendents of survivors of the Armenian genocide, as they tour and it points out the horrors of modern genocide that began in Armenia in 1915 and continue to the present day.
The screening of the film, put on by a partnership of the University’s Development Office and the Aegis society, gave an opportunity for students to ask Serj and other panellists Raffy Manoukian – London-based philanthropist and donor to the University who helped fund the film – and Professor Theo van Lint – Oxford’s professor of Armenian Studies and Fellow of Pembroke College – their questions in a panel discussion. We caught up with Serj before the event:
Have you had much time to see Oxford?
I’ve been to Oxford before! We actually played about an hour away in Reading over the summer and stayed in Oxford overnight. It was beautiful.
Not spent much time here today then just been travelling?
No we’ve just got here and have been travelling all day. Haven’t had any time to eat- [eats]
Do you know particularly or have any relationship with the other two men that are on the panel with you at the talk: Raffy Manoukian [London-based philanthropist] and Professor Theo van Lint [Calouste Gulbenkian Professor of Armenian Studies and Fellow of Pembroke College]?
I Know Raffy really well- I met him because he worked with the BBC on the production behind Screamers. I met him through that and became since then and he’s been very very active in promoting awareness about genocide. In terms of pushing the film as well getting distribution for it and screenings and working with different non-profit organisations he’s done a great job. He’s done a lot to be respected.
How did you get involved with making the film?
I was approached by the film maker Carla Garapedian a number of years ago and she was keen on getting System of a Down involved in making a film about genocide. So I met with her and I was really interested in presenting the similarities of different genocide and holocaust because I see a connection between them all. She was down for that idea which was cool and I thought that the uniqueness of the experience of the Armenian genocide in terms of it being denied by the perpetrators still after 94 years.
Urm, so, we kind of had a meeting of minds and I said OK let me go back to the other guys from SOAD and see if they are willing to participate and they were so we, you know, as a band we didn’t do anything differently than we did on a regular basis: our concerts, our activism, our meetings with congressional delegates. Everything that we do we did anyway we would do anyway with or without the film. We allowed her access so that she could film it and tied that into her story. So the film is really about genocide but it involves the band.
A lot of your song writing is affected by your politicization- how did this politicizing come about?
The hypocrisy of the denial of genocide in a well known democracy was the first spark for my politicization as a young adult and made me wonder how many truths there are out there that are being denied for economical or geo-political interests. Since then I’ve found a lot of others truths or injustices I might say that need shedding of light. So that was the first trigger for me growing up.
Was your primary motivation for making this film to raise awareness of the genocide issues surrounding it?
When I first decided to be involved with the film, one of the primary reasons was to raise awareness of the Armenian genocide another was to raise awareness of the human disease of this genocide in general. I think we haven’t realised the importance of prioritizing the reaction to genocide intervention to genocide as a global society and we still allow different interests to supersede intervention regarding genocide- Sudan being a prime example of our times today and how we- when I say ‘we’ I am primarily referring to the western nations and governments- have not really interfered in a major way.
Like you see Sudan collaborating a number of years back with the CIA and US intelligence on Al Qaeda authorities within the country because obviously Bin Laden had spent a quite a bit of time there and it’s purported that Bin Laden was there after it was known that genocide was going on- this was after George Bush Jnr. called the atrocities genocide within Sudan. So you start to think and think OK I guess for America that meant that fighting terror was more important than helping victims of genocide and that is a prime example of how our priorities are misplaced.
Are any of your songs particularly relevant to the issue of genocide?
System of a Down has two songs that touch upon genocide: one is from the first album we ever made and one is from the last album that we ever made. The songs are ‘P.L.U.C.K’ and the other ‘The Holy Mountains’.
Do you think that you could have been part of such a film if you didn’t have your status as a musician?
I would have wanted to have been part of such a film if I weren’t a musician- I’m not sure that anyone would be interested in asking me though!
So, do you consider it important for musicians such as yourself and Tom Morello to speak out on political issues? Do you think that it is an important voice?
I think every artist has his or her own vision- I think that it is important for every artist to follow that vision. I don‘t think every artist should be political. I think that … I’ve always said that a really great love song is more important than any political song ever written: it can change the world in much more interesting ways than any political song. However, that said, I think that music is a great narration of our times. It’s a great truthsayer of our times.
You listen to Bob Dylan’s music of the sixties and on and you see that it’s a great way of presenting some truths and a great way of fighting injustice and power through the arts. So, I think it’s definitely been part of my vision in life to always, you know, kind of bring certain topics to the forefront- you know, whether it’s through music or through conversation. Every artist has their own vision and I respect that.
Which love songs and political songs do you think are the best ones for conveying their message?
One of my favourite – I don’t know whether you can call it a love song – but one of my favourite songs is ‘Yesterday’ by Paul McCartney as one of those songs that is changing. It is a change oriented type of song. It makes you think back in time but it also paraphrases life in such a beautiful way.
But there are a lot of beautiful love songs. I think more sixties- because that’s when a lot of great lovin’ was going on [laughs]. The Summer of Love and a free and open society. But there’s a lot of good stuff being written today or quite recently.
Are there any up-and-coming bands or those of the past that are particularly good at conveying their political message?
There’s a lot more bands touching upon political subjects today than there were, I would say, six or seven years ago. All I remember is that right after 9/11, certain parties, myself inclusive, Tom Morello [Rage Against the Machine] inclusive were questioning some of the actions that were taken and some of the ‘gung-ho’-ness of the flag-waving involved. I appreciate authenticity and emotion in any type of situation but there was a lot of fear-induced flag-waving going on if that makes sense.
Also reactions that were prevailing: ‘Let’s cut them down’ that kind of stuff- very illogical type of response which I guess is acceptable for a tragedy. However, I don’t think that most people understand that the sources of those tragedies were injustices themselves from elsewhere- that it stemmed from somewhere and it didn’t just come out of thin air as a tragedy. It came as a reaction to foreign policy of the US, Britain and a lot of nations post WW2 and 1 having to do with the Armenian genocide and other topics. There are a lot of things that if we go back in history and look at how we’ve interacted as nations we can see how things are affected by that today.
Last term, there was a motion put to Oxford University Student Union amounting to a condemnation of the actions in Gaza. This provoked fierce debate amongst colleges as to whether it was the place of the student union to put forward a strong opinion on political issues- do you think that Student Unions should?
Most activism has started in universities. Historically, you look at the sixties, seventies, eighties, and I think university students are at a prime age and period of cognisant recognition of the world around them to be able to stand up for things and still have the youthful romanticism necessary to not be sceptical enough to actually put in their time and efforts to do so. I think that it is a very promising thing.
I don’t like sceptics of activism; we have plenty of it ourselves in what I do and what Tom Morello does- people saying ‘why should we listen to you you’re musicians and not foreign policy experts. I say I’m a human being beyond my particular job description and I happen to be involved in a number of things that include American foreign policy and I read a lot about that and I have so for the last 25 years so that doesn’t make me an official expert but I’ll sit down with an official expert and I’ll have a good repartee, you know?
Is there anything else that you think is particularly important to say in relation to Oxford students?
I went to university myself – I didn’t go to Oxford [laughs] but I went to Southern California University. It was a time of growth of the mind. I personally don’t think that you learn anything constructive in University. I think what you learn in University is to allow yourself to learn. I think that that’s what you learn. You learn to be open to things and to allow things to enter your mind without critically cutting it down and that openness to learning. You’ll retain some of the knowledge obviously but I think the average is about fifteen percent if at all. I certainly don’t remember anything that I learnt from my business degree in college except maybe a few quotes or something like that from funny professors if anything.
But I think it’s important, though, to have the community where you’re able to communicate with other people about things happening not just domestically but around the world and having like I said the lack of scepticism to be involved in standing up for what you truly believe in.
Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.
Oxford Student Publications Limited
© 2025 - All Rights Reserved
| Privacy Policy