Friday 11th July 2025
Blog Page 2264

Church versus state

0

One of the running themes of Pope Benedict’s addresses during his visit to the United States has been that of the condition of recent immigrants, with a particular outreach to the Latin American communities. The New York Times, in a recent article, described his stance as calibrated with care, and there were certainly no direct criticisms of United States policies or specific recommendations for legislation.  Nevertheless, again according to the New York Times, there was enough there for the Republican Tom Tancredo to accuse the Pope of ‘faith-based marketing’ and suggest that it was not the Pope’s job to engage in American politics.

In fact, much of what Pope Benedict said echoes the message of John Paul II and the position articulated in the United States Bishops’ 2003 document ‘Strangers No Longer’ (see http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org). Both Popes have supported the US Catholic Church in its local response to a global situation of conflict between legality and justice, between the demands of states and the needs of the poor.  That there is a balance between the right to migrate in search of a better life and the right of states to protect their borders was already articulated by Pius XII in 1952. To find that balance is something that every economically developed state is struggling to do today.  But Benedict has again taken the opportunity to remind the States of its special status as an immigrant nation and accordingly its unique tradition of welcome for the stranger.

 
So what did he do?  Clearly he spoke to the US President about the issue, with particular reference to ‘humane treatment’ and families whose lives are disrupted by the new Mexican border controls.  That is an important piece of advocacy on behalf of the voiceless. When he spoke to the US bishops he encouraged them in their Christian duty to welcome immigrants and ‘support them in their trials’.  That has been gratefully received as confirmation of the work in political advocacy and pastoral support that the US Catholic Church has undertaken.   He spoke in his interview on the way to the US of the need to look for a global solution to economic migration. Well, the elephant in the boardroom for any immigration-obsessed state is the global economic inequity which makes people risk lives and dignity just to stay alive.  Finally, he spoke directly to the Hispanic community most affected, affirming that the Christian message is in harmony with our human aspirations for a life that is full and free. He offered his people hope and encouragement in their hardships.

Was it his job to engage in American politics?  At the White House, the Pope touched on that theme which is so sensitive for every secular state, but rooted it in the logic of the very origins of the US: ‘a commonwealth in which each individual and group can make its voice heard’.  Catholics in the US have a right to be heard just as much as anyone else.   And when their spiritual leader visits, he becomes their voice.

Thumbs up for Hands Up

0

In the past week, Hands Up For Darfur (HUFD)’s fundraising methods have come under attack. Yet for the greater good of the world’s impoverished and violated people, who cares how money is raised? Funding for aid programs facilitated by charities such as Médicins sans Frontières and Kids for Kids is constantly and desperately needed. It is our universal responsibility to contribute and respond by whatever means possible. Consequently, the £50k raised by the HUFD committee last year can and should only be seen in a positive light. Perhaps we should dismiss the £150m raised by Live Aid, another event supposedly cheapened by the shame of people enjoying themselves whilst giving to and gaining from a major charitable initiative. How dare the masses raise money, educate citizens and stand in solidarity with the world’s poor and voiceless? Controversial or not, quite frankly it works.

The fairly obvious shortcoming of Friday’s undeveloped and sensationalist attack on the Hands Up Fashion Show was its failure to distinguish its status as a fundraising as opposed to awareness raising event. As was kindly pointed out, the committee holds several educational events and programs a term dedicated to providing exposure to the massive violations of human rights and humanitarian law occurring in the region. Fundraising however, is the lifeblood of any non-profit organisation and put simply, needs to be done. The devastated refugees in the camps of Eastern Chad will not begrudge nor belittle us for the means by which their (sadly temporary) salvation comes. And neither should Max Seddon.

Furthermore, he should really get his terminology right. It is not a college commemoration ‘ball’. It is proudly a ‘fashion show’, and one for which he clearly didn’t do his research. We may be providing champagne, canapés and a catwalk showcasing the creations of dozens of the world’s designers. But one should not ignore the concerted effort to draw attention to our worthy cause throughout. A speaker from Médicins sans Frontières will open the event to discuss her experiences of the conflict. We are presenting extensive photographic exhibitions, have included several different African designers in the show itself and music from Mattafix, a band strongly affiliated with the Darfuri cause. Decadence for Darfur? Or the good old cliché of Brideshead regurgitated? How very original of you Max, how very thought-provoking. The sad truth is that HUFD, like so many other charities has had to adapt to the fact that students don’t part with £50 easily, even for a good cause. Provocative ad campaigns, appealing to the bacchanalian sides of the juvenile character-yes we are using these mediums as ‘vehicles’ for selling tickets. Perhaps we have preyed upon the abstract, detached mentality of some towards distance and far flung foreign conflicts. But at least we are a team committed to doing something asides from self publication.

 I really do sympathise with Mr. Seddon’s idealistic outrage geared towards the West’s moral corruption and relative indifference to third-world crises. If I thought it would help, I would also bravely preach about the debasement of society and corporate philanthropy in the 21st century to anyone who would listen. Even if the premises are true however, the majority of his arguments are weak and invalid. I deeply resent his self-righteous derision of a team of people who have worked phenomenally hard to produce this Fashion Show. It smacks of the very social stereotyping and snobbery he has tried so hard to expose. Are students not allowed to raise money for Darfur and get a summer job? Are only those who spend their holidays in African refugee camps deserving of the accreditation of trying to make a difference? So what if a 19 year old values teaching English on their gap year as a formative and helpful experience. That is their decision to make and not yours to patronise.

However let me take this opportunity to apologise to Max for holding the after-party at ‘Thirst Lodge’-despite the owners generously lending us the property for free I can see why the name might seem offensive. Perhaps we should have held it at ‘Filth’-that would have been far more appropriate. Or given we are talking about the plight of over a million refugees, should we have chosen ‘Escape’? Or why not ‘Imperial’? Would Mr. Seddon like HUFD to shoulder the blame for the unfortunate trend in names for Oxford clubs as well as the West’s social evils? Furthermore I am baffled by the ridiculous attempt at associating our fundraising evening with the ball held by the EAS, indeed funded by the Chinese government. The two are entirely unrelated events, run by different societies. How many people bought tickets for both? To be honest I really don’t know, but given the vast difference in the ideologies and political leanings of their organisers, probably not many.

There can be little doubt that holding a Fashion Show in aid of a humanitarian crisis provokes some deeply discomforting realisations regarding the vast gulf existing between the personal freedom of the inhabitants of Oxford and Darfur. It is important to remember however, that despite the connotations with frivolity and fantasy with which fashion is inextricably intertwined, ultimately it is a mode of creativity and individual expression. The terrible contrast that this evokes for Max, myself and many others only clarifies the urgency with which we must act in order to alleviate the plight of so many. If a film star such as George Clooney wishes to spend weeks lobbying at the UN and making films exposing the horrifying fall-out of civil war, thus making Sudan’s plight a cause célèbre, then so be it. The more people who hear of the atrocities, the more who can think and eventually act.

I would like to know of a suggested alternative from Max that will raise more than £50k in one evening. Even with that substantial sum aside, if just one person comes and understands more about the Darfur cause then the Hands Up committee will have fulfilled some of the intentions that fuelled the 6 months taken to prepare the Show. To attack and belittle the project shows a determination to publicly damage and destroy the efforts of dozens and furthermore deter people from showing their support for a deeply worthwhile project. What doe¬s such selfish article ultimately achieve for Darfur? It was with a sense of real sadness that I read the end of his piece, utterly concerned with an encompassing ‘we’ mentality of his own society’s disgusting and hedonistic notions of how to aid the underprivileged. Altruism is not purely an avenue of self-development; to end upon himself and his readers entirely neglected the pressing issue at hand. Let us keep our focus on those afflicted by the Sudanese conflict and what we as a community can do to help them. Regardless of the critics, the funding and publicity that arises from tonight’s Fashion Show is aiming to do just that.

Beware the surfer stasi

0

How free is the internet? Many of us perceive it as a new universe of possibility and cultural expression where we can do as we wish, oblivious to the threat of our movements being monitored. It may surprise some to find out that the internet is largely controlled from one building in California, and that a rising number of countries is seeking to restrict the access of their citizens to it. The world wide web is at risk of becoming territorialised despite its ethereality, and the cultural revolution involved could be being denied to millions.

Amazingly, until 1998 one man, Jon Postel, a computer science professor, controlled the internet from his office in The University of Southern California. Then came the explosion in online access, followed by the dot.com boom.  The US Government switched Internet control rights to an NGO called ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). The government still has a controversial influence over ICANN; its chief reports to the Attorney-General of California. Many other states have come to see this as just another extension of American ‘neo-colonialism’, but President Bush, ignoring mounting international pressure, particularly from the UN, made the defiant announcement in 2005 that America would control the internet for the indefinite future.

All of this is vitally important to cultural expression. On the face of it, US belligerence is easily criticised in a world where burning Bush effigies are a resident feature of the current affairs landscape. However, we should be thankful that the internet has been controlled from the USA, and lassez-faire Americanism is embedded in its development. The idea of decentralising internet control, something that would allow each country far greater ability to dictate what its citizens can do on the web, whilst logical, is incompatible with the American ethos. So the internet has grown up as a sprawling, unrestricted mass of indeterminate proportions. There are statesmen around who would like to see it mature into something far more definable.

Because of those same American values, so often bemoaned for their global influence, the internet has become the world’s new cultural hub. People dream of achieving near-instantaneous stardom not by being spotted at a small club or a film festival, but through their work being discovered by and spread among internet users. But some countries, China in particular, have made repeated calls for an international agency to be set up to control the internet, that would probably become part of the UN ‘family’ of institutions. This would give states other than the USA a much bigger say in how the internet is run. In other words, those countries wishing to suppress cultural freedom would have greater power to do so; you only have to look at the lengths some are already going to in order to prevent free expression online.

In 2006, Reporters Without Borders listed 13 ‘enemies of the internet’, these being countries that strongly suppress online freedoms. The number is set to rise with the power of internet expression dawning on further authorities.Take Syria as an example. In the last month it has introduced new legislation requiring all internet cafes to keep a log of who uses a computer and when, creating an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship. Some Syrians have been imprisoned for posting writings critical of the Syrian regime on internet forums, and to date, 153 websites have been officially blocked by the government, including Facebook, Youtube and Blogspot. A similar trend can be spotted in other countries. The ‘Great Firewall of China’ or Golden Shield Project (its official title) attempts to block all websites deemed inappropriate by the government. Emails sent by the Chinese public are scrutinised by over 30,000 government agents.

The disconcerting truth is that the internet is far from an unmonitored realm, even in the western world. Every computer has a unique number which allows internet users to be tracked wherever they go and traced to a home address. All of these numbers are stored by the ICANN and every visit made to a website is logged. People are already suffering at the hands of web-surfing Stasi; if this information became available to repugnant regimes, the consequences would be atrocious. Currently, the web is very hard to control because of its sprawling nature, but data that ICANN have on record is the type sought after by many a secret police chief.

It is a shame that in some countries, the world wide web cannot be utilised to encourage expression through new media. There are already numerous figures in the arts who were either inspired by things they saw on the internet, or were able to hone their talents or be discovered because of the networking and creative opportunities it offers; we can even become our own record label or film studio. The internet has encouraged many millions to delve into new artforms: uploading photos onto Flickr, showcasing your band on MySpace, writing whatever you like on Blogger; the possibilities are endless.

Take Diablo Cody.  A literary manager contacted her after stumbling upon her blog (The Pussy Ranch) about her experience as a stripper. Impressed, he encouraged her to write a book, and then a screenplay, which culminated in an academy award for Juno. Cody is one of a new generation of internet-inspired rags-to-riches stories. The ‘net sometimes receives criticism for playing host to amateurs attempting to make art, as it embraces mediocrity. I’m not suggesting that Youtube is a repertoire of high-brow art, just that it makes people think in different ways and gives them the impetus to attempt new things. It might be the case that to find the gems, you have to surf through a sea of the substandard, but what is the harm in people trying to create something, even if they have the sum talent of a Cheeky Girl?

At a time when there has been an upsurge of homogeneity in the content produced by artists, when the independent has been ousted by the commercially minded, the internet has been vital in championing diversity. Instead of being forced to change their style to meet a brand image, artists have been able to gather a following online, showing the money men that there is a market for material that would otherwise never have appeared on the market. MySpace is often lamented for being at the axis of an emo generation; true, there are legions of fifteen-year-old girls trying to look sincere whilst pouring out their hearts through My Chemical Romance lyrics, but it also propels quality music that might otherwise go unheralded into the mainstream. Last year, Koopa made UK chart history by becoming the first unsigned band to have a top 40 single, which wouldn’t have happened without the online promotion power of MySpace.

The paradox for people living under oppressive rule is that many have the less desirable aspects of western culture forced upon them. For instance, KFC, the embodiment of American over-consumption, has over 1000 outlets in China; meanwhile, people are denied access to Western websites, inventions that could inspire rather than impair. The current situation of maintaining the internet from under a single roof in California is untenable: things will change. Let’s just hope that power will not be handed down to regimes that seek to control online expression.

Cricket: ChCh vs Magdalen

0

The two sleeping giants of college cricket collided on Wednesday, Christ Church confirming their status as Second Division favourites with a comfortable eight-wicket win over a depleted Magdalen side.  

Magdalen skipper Alex Canfor-Dumas called incorrectly, and after being inserted by Christ Church caption Pomfret, attempted to atone for his misjudgement. He set about the seam bowling of John Perkins, playing majestic shots on all sides of the wicket. The other end was quieter, Sonmir Sidhu playing it safe at the other end. Will Clerk kept things tight.
After five overs each Clerk and Perkins were replaced by Tom Leary and Chris Perfect. Sidhu and Canford-Dumas, however, continued unperturbed on their way to a 50 stand. Five runs later, Perfect broke through, forcing Sidhu to chip a catch to square leg.  The next man in, Dave Winterton, was dismissed in Perfect’s following over for a disputed catch behind. Canfor-Dumas looked for a half-century, but ran himself out for 40. Having looked set to register a big total, the loss of Magdalen’s top order put them on 66/3.

Two right-handers, Adam Rushworth and Mahir Kelshiker, led a rebuilding period for the away side, putting on over 20 runs. But Rushworth’s concentration was broken by a drinks break and he missed a straight ball from Leary in the first over back: 85/4.  Kelshiker, playing a series of fluent strokes, had Elliot Ridgeon as his next partner. Together they took the visitors to three figures. Christ Church captain Pomfret, sensing that Kelshiker had found out his seamers, introduced off spin from both ends. It was an inspired decision: Kam Adle from one end and Olly Broomfield from the other induced a precipitous collapse as Magdalen lost their last six wickets for 15 runs in 29 balls.
Kelshiker hit Broomfield’s first delivery for four, and attempted the same with the next ball. It was caught at long off, bringing to a close Magdalen’s second best individual innings.

 

Later in the same over, Elliot Ridgeon was bowled off his pads, reducing Magdalen to 109/6. The helmetless Australian, Paul Bonnitcha was next out, leg before to Adle. Broomfield took his third wicket in his second over, when Magdalen captain Canfor-Dumas gave his wicketkeeper Sean Elias out leg before. It took a fantastic diving catch from Adle at long on to get rid of Peter Kennedy, before George Dix hit wicket off a slow full toss. A remarkable collapse: Adle (2.5-0-7-3) and Broomfield (2-0-8-3) turned the game for Christ Church.

Chasing only 116, Christ Church got off to the worst possible start. Adle, perhaps tired from his bowling exploits, edged Ridgeon to Elias behind the stumps for a duck in the first over. Hard as they tried, Pidgeon and Winterton were blunted by having to use the old ball. Will Clerk and Danny Pomfret, with time on their side, slowly built the up innings, picking off the rare bad balls.  Never getting much beyond two runs per over, Pomfret played some classical shots without ever risking his wicket.

Clerk, tall and textbook, a right-handed Alastair Cook, built up his innings with increasing vigour. Whittington and Winterton were very tight; Kelshiker and Dix less so, but Magdalen missed their OUCC strike bowler Alex da Costa. They never looked like doing what they needed to; bowling out Christ Church to win the match.

 
Increasingly confident of this, Clerk and the previously Boycottian Pomfret began to accelerate their scoring. Only two runs away from a deserved half-century, Clerk misjudged a drive off Dix to provide an easy return catch. Needing 26 more runs to win, number four Simon Oakes had no intention of using all eighteen remaining overs, whipping his first ball through midwicket for four. Oakes was almost stumped in the following over, trying to hit a Rushworth offbreak into the Cherwell River. But the winning runs came comfortably to Christ Church. Living up to their Second Division favourites tag, Olly Broomfield declared, ‘We look hard to beat: the rest of the Second Division should be scared! Now for Cuppers!’ They could well prove to be this summer’s dark horse.

Cricket: New vs Balliol

0

The most enticing of Wednesday’s 40-over matches, between New and Balliol, finished in a surprisingly easy six-wicket victory for New. Last season Balliol romped to the title without even suffering a league defeat, while the hosts finished a creditable third, managing to knock Balliol out in Cuppers.

A close game had been expected therefore, one that even as the opening game could well affect the destination of the trophy: if this proves to be the case, then Balliol have reason to worry, and New can be well satisfied.
Winning the toss, Balliol elected to bat – unsurprising with sunny skies, although as it turned out a slow pitch caused frustration and difficulty in getting the ball away. More immediately alarming, though, was the capitulation of the top order, with three ducks. The New opening bowlers, Matt Keyworth and Bishop, combined to produce a formidable spell; the former accurate, the latter erratic, but providing the welcome variation of a tall left-armer. Poole was the first to go, bowled by Bishop.

At the other end, Trudgian looked uncomfortable, and soon had his stumps removed by Keyworth with a ball that kept low. After further wickets fell, things looked bleak for the defending champions as four wickets had fallen for just 17 runs. Fortunately for them, Penfold emerged to stabilise the innings, scoring the game’s first boundaries off successive Bishop overs.

The New College captain and wicketkeeper, Alex Asher, spilled difficult chances off both Robin Penfold and Alla, before Davies was introduced; a like-for-like replacement for Bishop. Keyworth, however, was kept on to bowl all his permitted overs in a ploy to try and break Balliol’s increasingly slow accumulation, and it worked: Alla edged, Asher again spilled it, but fortunately for him his first slip reacted quickly and took the catch. Balliol were now vulnerable at 31-5, and Keyworth had fine figures of 8 overs, 5 maidens and 3 wickets for 6 runs. Then less threatening spinners were introduced and the batsmen continued warily, with only the occasional boundary being hit, in a stalemate.
This lasted until shortly after Balliol’s most successful over, scoring 6 runs off Dungate. Penfold, growing complacent, then tried to sweep him and was bowled for a well-made 33. Head scooped a catch off Tomlin to backward point soon afterwards, and it was left to the lower order to drag the total out to a still meagre 98, helped by defensive fields and the somewhat strange decision not to recall Bishop.

New started their chase nervously. Sam Tomlin was dropped at slip, and the Balliol opening bowlers, Tommy Douglas and Clark, at least matched those of New. They experienced less reward though until the ninth over. Clark had an LBW appeal against Asher turned down, forced him back with the next ball, and shattered his stumps with the third, to leave the score at 10-1 and the run rate on a sluggish pitch beginning to cause worry.
The introduction of the spinners brought mixed relief: the aggressive Corby lofted Poole for a boundary, but seemed unlikely to resist holing out to a fielder for long. However, the score was in fact 53 before Corby, followed one run later by Tomlin, was out. Their replacements showed no circumspection, with Sutton blasting a 6 and rapidly taking them to their target, requiring a mere 30 overs.

Such a small run chase was never going to be a difficult task for such a confident New College side, and Balliol’s total proved to be insufficient. However, don’t count Balliol out as Champions just yet: they murmured about the imminent return of high quality batsmen; by the look of it, they need them.

Interview: Robert Fisk

0

Robert Fisk’s reputation precedes him. For the past 30 years, he has unerringly sought out those places in which civil strife is most deep-seated, from Ireland to Lebanon and Iraq. His reporting has made him ‘probably the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain’ – and maybe the least likely to allow complacency in that country’s government to go unmentioned.

In 1988, he left The Times after an article of his about a British attack on an Iranian plane was bowlderised. Later, he moved to a more congenial position at The Independent, but his happier professional situation has not dulled his insight. Though Osama bin Laden praised Fisk’s reporting as ‘neutral’ after three interviews with him, he has not always been so well-received abroad or at home. Western conservatives have immortalised him in the slang word ‘fisking’ – definition: ‘savaging an argument and scattering the tattered remnants to the four corners of the Internet’ – though Fisk himself downplays the word and describes its originator as ‘some crackpot.’

The preceding biography would seem to suggest a rather fractious left-wing firebrand, but Fisk does not fit such a stereotype. When I went to meet him, I was prepared to see my political counterarguments thoroughly shredded. However, I soon found that Fisk’s convictions are neither untempered by humour nor held without serious scrutiny.

Though his detractors denounce him as a pundit masquerading as a journalist, he might be better described as a journalist-historian, for whom recent events in the Middle East are only the latest chapter in a continuing saga of mismanagement and injustice.

As a rookie journalist in Newcastle, Fisk ‘used to read history books on Sunday afternoons,’ to gain a sense of perspective. He compares the huge American bases in Iraq to crusader castles. As for the argument that withdrawal from Iraq will lead to civil war, he notes scornfully that David Lloyd George had stood up in Parliament in 1920 and said exactly the same thing about the same country, as well as claiming that the British came to it ‘not as conquerors but as liberators.’ Glancing back over three failed American wars, he predicts: ‘Americans must leave Iraq, they will leave Iraq, they can’t leave Iraq. That is the equation that turns sand into blood.’

Furthermore, in defiance of the stereotype of the liberal as the man who sees the past as another, unenlightened country, Fisk’s articles and speeches are suffused with a deep respect for history. He says of politics today: ‘Where are the Roosevelts? Where are the Churchills? In the old days,’ he observes, ‘people had an extraordinary ability to plan ahead’ – but no one bothered to draw up a detailed plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Instead, Fisk believes that the Bush administration went into Iraq with only the ‘visceral need of empire to expand’ and the dictum that ‘we can go to Baghdad, so we will go to Baghdad.’ Fisk is equally perceptive in diagnosing the failures of the left. ‘In America,’ he remarks, ‘the academic left will not talk to the poor. They talk about how they can get their message out to, and network with, other academics…what they don’t do is go down to the person at the truck shop serving coffee, who’ll see a chance for better pay and education and join the Marines.’

Fisk, in contrast, is not afraid to talk to those whom academics reject. One of his key insights into the Iraq war is drawn from a letter from a veteran with a son in the military who mentions that a changed US Army Code now highlights adventure and aggression instead of service to one’s country.

Fisk also possesses an old-fashioned sense of the power of language. In a stance very similar to George Orwell’s in his 1946 essay ‘Politics and the English Language,’ he can locate behind most euphemisms and imprecisions an act of moral blindness which can ‘semantically destroy the reality,’ and which begins ‘in the brains of journalists.’ Journalists, with their ‘osmotic, parasitic’ reliance on government sources, fear being branded as ‘unpatriotic, potentially subversive.’ Thus journalists begin to refer to occupied territories as ‘disputed’ and to preface quotations unquestioningly with the phrase ‘US officials say…’ Nonetheless, the readers are not always fooled.

‘Most people in most places are quite bright…2,000 people come to hear me in LA, not because they want to hear from Bob, but because they know they’re not getting the full story.’

However, Fisk’s long years of experience can be a fault as well as a virtue. The natural stance of the historian is chronic pessimism, and, unlike the politician, he is not required to offer solutions. He has never voted in an election, and when asked how he would advise the next generation of Western leaders, he concludes: ‘I see no hope anywhere in the Middle East. It’s a deeply depressing situation. My crystal ball is broken.’

Furthermore, Fisk’s worst offences against truth and ethics tend to spring from his occasional inability to break free from history, to concede that the issues and moral equations of the past are not necessarily those of the present: namely, those instances in which a sense of postcolonial guilt overwhelms rational argument. Fisk sums up Iraq as ‘the battle against the occupation forces by the insurgency,’ as though there were only one unified insurgency and the suffering citizens of Iraq were those of colonial India or Africa.

However, most journalists would agree that suffering alone does not give the victim a carte blanche for a violent response. Fisk himself might have learned that lesson when he was attacked in a fit of anti-Western sentiment by a group of Afghan refugees.

Instead, Fisk wrote forgivingly of his assailants that their ‘brutality was entirely the product of others’ and that ‘The people who were assaulted were the Afghans, the scars inflicted by us – by B-52s, not by them…If I was an Afghan refugee in Kila Abdullah I would have attacked Robert Fisk. Or any other Westerner I could find.’ To state that the cruelty of these Afghans – or of the 9/11 terrorists – was entirely the product of Western foreign policy is an act of startling condescension: why should the Afghans lack the moral insight to distinguish between those politicians and soldiers actually responsible for bombing them and a random Englishman accidentally caught in the crossfire?

Holding all innocent individuals of one race accountable for the sins of the few is no more attractive in Afghans than in Western racists. Fisk’s desire to attribute nefarious schemes to former colonial powers also leads him to endorse some embarrassing conspiracy theories, as though he would like to believe America and Israel not only wickeder but smarter than they are. In truth, most of the conservatives I have spoken to claim that they would have liked nothing better than to have left Iraq the day after the Baathists fell. They are guilty of political naiveté and arrogance, perhaps; but they are not nineteenth-century imperialists.

After thirty years in the Middle East, however, Robert Fisk can be forgiven for letting his anger come to the fore. The precise political conclusions that he pushes, after all, could never outweigh the invaluable service that he has rendered to the casual British reader: reminding them that the printed word is always a distortion of reality, that journalists have vested interests too, and that the phrase ‘officials say’ is not necessarily a guarantee of truth, or even an attempt at it.

Publish and be damned

0

On May 22, 2007, the Guardian carried a front page story disclosing Iranian plans to invade Southern Iraq over the summer. Contrary to what one might expect from such a explosive allegation, in an article which talks of ‘firm evidence’ and a real strategic threat, the Guardian based its entire report on the testimony of a single, unnamed US official, parroting the official American line and repeating totally without question his unsupported and unverifiable claim – and all this in the front page of our leading centre-left broadsheet.

Would the newspaper have accorded so much credibility to a comparable claim by Iran? No. That would be about as likely as Robert Fisk becoming a strident neo-con, or Chomsky confessing a sneaking affection for the principles of American foreign policy.

We have here in Britain many news sources, some of which – like the Guardian – claim objectivity and fairness to be among their primary traits. However, it is an unavoidable fact that each and every one of our news sources – our papers, radio, television broadcasts, even much of the Internet – suffers from some level of bias, be it right-wing, left-wing, or a tendency to meander between the two.

To a certain extent this is taken for granted; we all know that the Independent is likely to reflect the attitudes of those noisily bewildered citizens clotting our streets in support of Rabbit Rights; we all know the Telegraph is, indeed, the ‘Torygraph’; we all know (or suspect) that Sky News, The Sun, and The Times may well discreetly toe the Murdoch line on important issues.

Thus a certain degree of bias becomes accepted, even loved. Many of us may have chuckled at the blatant spin that party politics produces. So we simply learn to take journalism with a pinch of salt, and think little else of the trend’s effects – the phrase ‘don’t believe everything you read in the papers’ is so well-used as to have no discernible effect on our judgement.

This bias, however, is far more pervasive and damaging in our media than the almost comically obvious distortions of the Daily Mail might lead us to expect. Our media, including apparently critical, balanced and fair institutions like the BBC, Times, and Guardian, and even the more avowedly iconoclastic Independent or New Statesman, practise self-censorship, manipulation of the truth, and a hidden slant in favour of the government or major corporate interests.

Articles about the Middle East and about the environment, in particular, have long been plagued by this veiled partiality. ‘Leftie Bollocks!’ I hear you say. ‘Probably written by some sort of anarchist, or a small Gallic ape covered in cheddar.’ Perhaps, or perhaps not.

I ask you to consider two factors. Firstly, that our media is primarily composed of corporate entities that depend on advertising for the majority of their income, and secondly, that in order to have news to report, journalists and editors must take steps not to alienate their main source of raw information, the government.

Newspapers, in order to maintain revenue, often fail to report stories critical of their sponsors or manufacture false debate on important issues in order to keep some editorial leeway – hence why we still can see the tiny minority of climate change sceptics being afforded prominence comparable with the overwhelming majority of scientific opinions.

As mentioned, our media must maintain good relations with the government in order to get much of its information, and nowhere can this policy of pandering to official ‘reality’ be more evident than in the manipulation of foreign news.

Consider the eagerly swallowed ‘45 minute’ claim in 2003, the allegations of WMDs, the non-existent SCUDs threatening to spread destruction across the globe – and then consider that Hans Blix, UN weapons inspector, had repeatedly reported that 95% of Saddam’s armaments had been destroyed as early as 1998, with the other 5% reduced to obsolescence.

Consider language: Israeli attacks are legitimate responses to Palestinian aggression; Palestinian attacks are fundamentally incomprehensible acts of hate against those who just happen to have seized their lands and put them into occupation.

Consider the numbing elaborations of the West’s great existential threat – ‘Islamo-fascism.’ ‘Why are we hated so?’ ask our pundits. Our politicians give the answer. It’s our values – of course! bikinis, booze, and sausages have driven fanatics into skyscrapers! – not, despite the repeated protestations of Bin Laden and company, the fact American and British oil interests bend the Middle East to their will and that American troops occupy sacred Islamic lands.

In his book Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky highlights how these and other factors serve to grossly corrupt the independent capacity of our media. He draws attention to the methods used by government and corporate entities to exert control over the mass media: the malevolent effects of lobbyists or vocal and well-funded pressure groups; the threat of lawsuits; and the manipulation of a perceived Communist or terrorist threat.

All this, he argues, amounts to the propagation of disinformation, lies and pretty pictures – and we call it ‘Public Relations’. Truth is thus manipulated without us even realising it, and, more damagingly, any criticism of the prevalent model ends up looking nonsensical, or worse, like pandering to terrorists and Third World despots.

A recent study by Cardiff University’s Department of Journalism, of over 2,000 news stories from the four ‘quality’ dailies (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent) and from the Daily Mail, found that over 80% of articles were wholly, mainly or partially constructed from second hand material, provided by news agencies and the PR industry.

With statistics like these, it is no wonder that the integrity of our media is under threat. This article is neither of the Left nor the Right, nor is it a Chavista-style denunciation of our government and media as imperialist: we continue to have one of the most open and admirable media cultures in the world. But don’t believe everything you read in the papers.

Speak attack egg-throwing student

0

 



 

Footage of Saturday’s protest (Daniel Rolle)

 

Protesters marching in favour of animal rights have broken a long-standing promise never to attack University students – after turning on a student who threw an egg at them..

A student, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was pursued, harassed and allegedly brought to the ground by demonstrators before police intervened.

The incident took place during the march by animal rights group Speak last Saturday. The student had thrown an egg at marchers, sparking the attack, and was arrested and fined £80 for his actions.

In February 2007 Mel Broughton, one of Speak’s co-founders, promised that the organisation would “never target students of the University”. The scuffle between protesters and the undergraduate was the first time this promise was broken.

Members of Wadham witnessed the tussle, which took place on Parks Road, as the march entered Broad Street.
The 20-year-old student threw an egg at the marchers before running towards Wadham and then down Holywell Street.

Nick Coxon, a first year undergraduate at the college, described how he saw “a guy who appeared to be a student being chased by three protesters, in the opposite direction to the way the marchers were going.

“He got quite a long way away before the three protesters chasing him, who were still holding their protest signs, caught up.

“There was a bit of a scuffle, which it was hard to see due to the fact that many of the protesters had realised what was happening and joined in, some running about 30 yards to be in the centre of the action.

“It was quite shocking how quickly so many of the protesters became interested in violently apprehending the guy, without seeming to have any idea for what reason they were actually chasing him.”

Helen Smith, another Wadham student, said, “We were looking out our window at the protesters, who were taking up the whole of Parks Road, and all of a sudden I was aware of a student being chased down the street.

“I wasn’t sure if he fell or if the protesters brought him down but he was on the floor and it looked like a number of the protesters were attacking him.

“It didn’t last very long because about ten policemen ran in and broke it up. It completely halted the protest for a short while though.”

Thames Valley Police confirmed, “A student was arrested on Mansfield Road after an egg was thrown at the protesters,” but had no record of the alleged violence that followed.

Reporting of the story on the website of the Oxford Mail drew comments from members of the march. One protester wrote, “It is wonderful to see this little wimp getting a nice fine. I was at the march, it was wonderful, and I saw the man do it. Guess he won’t be messing with us again!”

A second protester wrote, “They were all decent people on that march – men, women, children, even a few babies – and that missile could have quite easily struck one of them.

“Yes, there were a few protesters who were angry, and they gave chase. What would you have done if a member of your family or a friend was attacked by a missile throwing thug? Would you just stand there like a coward and let them get away with it?

“The police did protect that thug on Saturday – I just hope that he has learnt the error of his ways.’”

 

Oxford University recently obtained an injunction against Speak, in which the harassment of students was made legally punishable by fines or jail-time.

Section 2 of the Order, dated 25 January 2008, states that, “The Respondents shall be restrained from…assaulting, harassing, molesting, threatening or otherwise interfering with any Protected Person so as thereby to pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment.”

However the same act states that such harassment isn’t punishable if it was aimed at preventing or detecting a crime.
A spokeswoman for Speak claimed that protesters only pursued the student for the purpose of restraining him.

She said, “People chased the student who threw the egg,” but added that “people chased him to apprehend him.

“All I was informed of was that someone had thrown something – we weren’t sure if it was an egg or a rock at first, and at the time it was rather alarming.” The spokeswoman, at the front of the march, was unable to comment on the details of the resulting chase behind her.

The spokeswoman added that Speak believed the march had been successful and peaceful.

She added, “We think it went very well. We had a large turnout, with lots of people passing by joining in the march.” Speak themselves had a large stewarding presence at the event.

Speak first moved to Oxford in order to prevent the completion of the new University animal testing laboratory on South Parks Road. The group’s aims have subsequently expanded to include trying to stop all animal testing at the University.

The group holds regular protests around Oxford, with this particular march organised in observance of the “World Day for Animals in Laboratories.” More than 400 people attended the march, which went from Oxpens Road through Oxford to South Parks Road.

Proctors rake in record fines

0

A trashing victim pleads his case

 

Proctors have fined Oxford students over £10,000 for exam ‘trashings’, more than five times last year’s figure – largely through the use of Facebook evidence.

OUSU President Martin McCluskey has demanded an end to the use of social networking sites such as Facebook in disciplinary matters, and has called for a fairer and more transparent fining process.

Between Trinity Term 2007 and Hilary Term 2008, the Proctors collected over £11,065 in fines, compared to £1670 and £2385 in the last two years. Over £10,000 came from offences linked to trashing, where prosecutions relied upon evidence taken from sifting through Facebook posts and photos.

Such ‘trashings’ are a relatively recent Oxford tradition and involve graduating students spraying each other with champagne, flour, eggs, confetti, shaving foam, ‘silly string’ and other substances. In recent years there have been some reports of students hurling squid and cat-food. In 2004, following complaints by residents, the University resorted to spot-fines of up to £70, but only fourteen students were caught.

This year, using photos posted on Facebook as evidence, fifty-six fines were given out for “engaging in activities likely to cause injury or impair safety and/or disorderly behaviour”, compared to none the previous year. These ranged from £40 to £500, with the great majority of fines £150 or less.

Four students were fined without even committing physical acts. They were fined for “inciting or conspiring to engage in prohibited activities”, with three students fined £40 and one £80 for the crime of “posting messages which could be interpreted by others as encouragement to breach the regulations.”

Outgoing Senior Proctor James Forder revealed the increase in fines at his Oration to University Congregation on 12 March, and was open about the use of Facebook postings to identify culprits and dismissive of subsequent student outrage.

Forder, an Economics tutor at Balliol College, said, “there is one clear sign that we took the right line over misbehaviour after examinations: everyone was furious with us.”

“OUSU expressed a fury. What could be more innocent than celebrating the end of the best undergraduate education in the world than by destroying the environment in which it was enjoyed? What could be more reprehensible than looking at a Web site to crack down on it?”

“We were asked these questions by student representatives, in slightly differing words, at almost every meeting with them during the year. Indeed, it even knocked OUSU’s requests for more money and more representation on University committees into second place in their representations to us.”

OUSU President McCluskey’s initial response over the past week was to call attention to the issue with the creation of a Facebook group named ‘Judge, Jury and Executioner: Proctors Take £10,000’, with over 240 members having joined so far.

Following on from this, there will now be a motion on the issue in the OUSU Council on Friday, demanding action from the Proctors.

OUSU are calling for “the publication of a schedule of fines to ensure that people know the fines they face for various offences,” as well as “an end to the use of Facebook and other Social Networking Sites” in pursuing disciplinary cases, and “the introduction of a more fair and transparent system, suitable for a modern University.”

At the Council, petitions will also be handed out to collect signatures for these demands ahead of a meeting OUSU have scheduled with the Proctors on Thursday of 2nd Week.

McCluskey says that the aim is “not to try and justify trashing – not to try and justify people throwing things at their friends – but to tie down a proper system of fining. There is no explanation of what constitutes a £40 fine and what constitutes a £500 fine.”

“I want to move the debate away from just trashing. What happened last year points to major problems in the system that allow one group of Proctors to pursue a certain agenda, in spite of precedent and the expectations of students based on previous sets of Proctors,” McCluskey continued.

“I agree that things got out of hand last year and that the impact on the local community was detrimental. However, the way to stop it is not to progressively become more punitive. This issue has come up at nearly every Proctor’s meeting with OUSU since 1992 and things haven’t improved.”

“If we’re ever going to see any real change, it’s only going to be by entering into a constructive dialogue with everyone involved and I’m glad that the new Proctors have been more open to listening and engaging with students over this issue and others,” he concluded.

Council bills for clearing up after ‘trashings’ can run into thousands of pounds, but the University fines are not used to pay for this. Instead, an Oxford University Press Office spokeswoman said that “the yearly funds from fines go to a good cause within the University.”

This year, the fines were split equally between the Bodleian Library Redevelopment Fund and the Friends of the Pitt Rivers Museum.

Matmos – "Supreme Balloon"

0

Matmos’ label, Matador Records describe Supreme Balloon as ‘a holiday from conceptual responsibility.’ The duo’s recordings in the past have been famed for the use of unlikely instruments, ranging from amplified crayfish nervous tissue to a recording of aspirin tablets hitting a drum kit, however this album provides a stark contrast – a record made solely out of synthesizers.

It might initially seem unimpressive that an electronic band has made an all-electronic album. But this album is to electronic music what the Queen and Rage Against the Machine albums with ‘No synthesizers were used’ written in the linear notes were to rock and pop music.

Has this creative restriction led to a coherent album or a self-indulgent experiment? The answer lies somewhere between these two extremes – whilst the album strives to take the listener on a journey from the rhythmic 8-bit pop of the first four tracks to the sprawling epic of the title track, it lacks sufficient cohesion to achieve this.

The album stumbles as Matmos give their electronic take on baroque composer Francois Couperin’s ‘Les Folies Francasies.’ However this lapse is more than compensated for by the following track, ‘Supreme Balloon’, clocking in at just under 25 minutes long, which passes elegantly through several movements building up to an ethereal climax entwined in swirling arpeggios.

Whilst Supreme Balloon makes for very enjoyable listening it is hindered by the unique creative restriction Matmos placed upon themselves in creating it. It is telling that the most interesting and original aspect of this album is its method of creation rather than the music itself.

3 stars out of 5