Back from mid-term holiday, 24-ers and back to checking the headlines. Here's my favorite story from the last two weeks:
On February 5th, a tornado struck the South-east U.S., especially Tennessee, where it was election day. Polls stayed open late, but many voters couldn't get to the polls to vote. Normally, natural disasters are news for the weather channel but it being a Super Tuesday state and all, the Tennessee tornado was major news and all the big networks wanted live photographs and video to run with the story.
There's a small uni in Tennessee called Union, and in the storm, they canceled classes and did their best to keep students informed of safe havens. This involved posting information and alerts on the University's Facebook wall, where all the students would see it. Meanwhile, individual students started using the site to post their own photographs of the damage taking place outside their windows.  Alumni who saw the wall from afar sent their good wishes to friends and former classmates. Then, CNN found the images that Uni officials and students had uploaded and used them in their news coverage.
I'm not so shocked to see a University use Facebook in this way: it's about time they realized where their students actually look for information. Nor am I scandalized that CNN credited Facebook, not the Uni or the students, for the photos. This is all legal under Facebook's new application-based platform agreement, where most of what you post belongs to Mark Zuckerberg, not you. Nor I am shocked that Union students let this slide, because (after all), we're the Web 2.0 generation that thinks boundaries are a waste of time, right?
What shocks me is that the University–a bastion of bureaucracy, regulation and resistance to change–didn't press CNN to be credited for information. I've long predicted that the Internet, like any other media change, is not threatening to unravel the fabric of society because eventually, the mainstream develops new rules to make the new technology stable. Is Union's choice to be open source with their footage the first step to making Web 2.0 culture the establishment norm? Is this the beginning of tomorrow?

Unlike their predecessor Henry II, the political elite at Westminster were no doubt positively delighted by the intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury last week. No sooner than did the words ‘sharia law’ escape Rowan Williams’s lips, than the knights of the 24-hour media, like their 12^th century counterparts, charge towards the meddlesome priest with their swords drawn. With the news cycle moving away from the turmoil in the financial markets and the Oscar Wilde-inspired and tax payer-funded sartorial habits of an MP’s son, Labour and Conservative parties alike must have heaved a sigh of relief. As pundits and journalists from across the whole political spectrum gathered to lynch the man in the mitre (or as the Sun helpfully put it, to ‘bash the bishop’), the politicians could finally catch their breaths before the next round of – inevitably – bad news.

Obviously, in strict accordance with the Law of the Media Circus, the amount of vitriol and hysteria which is generated by said circus is inversely proportionate to the actual cause for alarm or concern. Since I am not a lawyer or an expert on Islamic jurisprudence, I cannot offer any particularly helpful insight into overall merit of Dr. Williams’s proposals. I am, however, literate and was able to actually read the speech which ignited this controversy.

Unfortunately, this presumption of literacy was not borne out in the case of most of the self-proclaimed defenders of the rule of law and Western civilisation. In recent days, the Archbishop has extended an offer of pax, apologising for any ‘unclarity’ in his speech which might have led some to misunderstand his meaning. But really, unless by ‘misunderstand’ he meant ‘wilfully ignore large chunks of speech which directly and thoughtfully addressed the concerns rabidly paraded in the press’, I am not sure why even this muted apology was justified.

Perhaps journalists these days are too busy defending Enlightenment values or pondering Britney’s downward spiral to read primary sources when these exceed their 150-word attention span limit. I am genuinely puzzled by the charge that Williams was naively unaware of the disadvantaged status of women, the problem of ‘forced marriage’, and the extreme incompatibility of some provisions of sharia with human rights, when these concerns were all dealt with at length and with evident application and research.

So for the Johann Haris, Yasmin Alibhai-Browns and the rest of the muscular liberals and/or secularist paranoiacs, the solution to their nightmares of the coming oppressive theocracy is simply to learn to read. I recommend particularly the sentence (only 44 words!) where Williams insists that ‘If any kind of plural jurisdiction is recognised, it would presumably have to be under the rubric that no “supplementary” jurisdiction could have the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights.’

The remedy for some of the less savoury platoons in the anti-Williams army will unfortunately have to be more radical. The drumbeat they march to is leading the faithful in a grand crusade to save Western Civilisation from what they see as the confessional and demographic threat of Islam. Of course, by no means all of Williams’s critics fall into this category; indeed, thankfully few do. But a distressingly vocal band of the usual suspects has used the controversy surrounding the Archbishop as a screen to advance their, much more sinister, agenda.

Over at the Daily Telegraph for example, Damian Thompson graciously admits that Williams rejects unequivocally such abominations as the stoning of adulterous women. But Thompson points out that Williams’s fault was to find some actually accommodating things to say about sharia (shock! horror!), rather than to take Thompson’s line of comparing Islamic law to Nazism (carefully inserted by referring to the Archbishop’s speech as ‘Vichyite waffle’).

Make no mistake about this: Thompson’s hatred of sharia does not stem from any special love for human rights. His astoundingly reactionary blog features frequent calls for aggressive Catholic proselytising, an end to stem-cell research and the rolling back of equal rights for women and homosexuals. So his venomous opposition to any accommodation of the Muslim community beyond reluctant toleration really comes down, not to a robust defence of liberal democracy, but to Islamophobia.

Don’t take my word for it when you can read Thompson’s own mewling for yourself. Apparently when he yearns for the conversion of Jews to Catholicism, he is merely recognising the ‘universal salvific nature’ of his faith, whereas when a small mosque in East Oxford wants to broadcast the call to prayer once a week, this will ‘strengthen the sense of territorial domination that is central to modern Islamic identity’. All attempts to reach reasonable accommodation with Muslims is labelled ‘dhimmitude’, a term which refers in Islamic jurisprudence to the protected but subordinate status of non-Muslims in an Islamic state, and in Thompson’s writing to the deplorable capitulationism of woolly-minded multi-cultis to the coming Islamic domination.

It is this same irrational fear – the definition, after all, of ‘phobia’ – which has inspired the recent crusade, headed by Oxford historian of science, Dr. Allan Chapman, to prevent the East Oxford mosque from broadcasting the adhan. The bow tie and deerstalker hat-wearing Chapman, who seems to have picked up both his clothes and his views from the 1890s, thinks the mosque’s request represents not an appeal to the freedom of religious expression, but the ‘right to torment the community’, afflicting him with the ‘horrible sound’ of the call to prayer and offending his no doubt legendary ‘sense of neighbourliness’.

Like Thompson and his fellow-traveller Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, Chapman thinks broadcasting a short prayer in classical Arabic constitutes an attempt to ‘dominate’ and ‘Islamify’ the community. Chapman has been joined by the rector of St Aldate’s church, Revd Charlie Cleverly – clearly one of God’s mysterious ways is to give people ironic surnames – who claims the professions of faith contained in the adhan make it an attempt to impose that faith on the community. I hate to break it to Revd Cleverly, but (presumably) unlike him, most Oxford residents are not fluent in classical Arabic. And when it comes to imposing one’s faith on others, frankly St Aldate’s church is hardly the most innocent of the charge.

So as the latest wave of bishop-bashing breaks, spare a thought for Rowan Williams and his increasingly embattled attempt to forge mature and thoughtful debate on a difficult subject. But spare a thought also for the hoary old Islamophobes who have come out of hiding. They seem to be having trouble finding their way to the 21^st century. Please, when you see them, give them a hand.

Caleb Yong is a finalist in Modern History and Politics at Christ Church. The views expressed here are entirely his own.

Holywell Music Room, Sunday 17th February 2008Another full house at the Holywell Music Room, as an expectant audience gathered to see cellist Gemma Rosefield and pianist Michael Dussek play G minor cello sonatas by Beethoven and Chopin.  And it was pleasing to see several students amongst the generally mature audience.

Whilst titled ‘cello sonata’, in both Beethoven’s G minor cello sonata, opus 5  no. 2, and Chopin’s G minor cello sonata, opus 65, the piano certainly shares an equal role. Michael Dussek, described by the BBC Music Magazine as an ‘outstanding artist’, performed with amazing control, especially in the furious passages in the finale of the Chopin sonata and the sections at the end of the first movement of the Beethoven.

Rosefield’s performance, too, was quite enthralling, and she was clearly immersed in the music, playing with her eyes shut almost throughout: she transmitted this love of the music to the audience, who even seemed quietly amused at some points in Beethoven’s humorous rondo.

When writing his cello sonatas, Beethoven was worried about a problem with balance, with the cello overpowering the 18th century fortepiano.  However, with powerful modern pianos the balance problem is often reversed in concerts today: Rosefield and Dussek managed to get this about right, however, and their performance of this piece was reminiscent of the Barenboim-Du Pre recording of the same work.

The Chopin sonata was very well received by the audience, with the juxtaposition of the contemplative largo with the scherzo and finale that surround it particularly effective.  These three movements could have made a complete work in itself, without the allegro first movement: in fact, in Chopin’s first performance of this piece the first movement was omitted, due to its reference to Chopin;s failing love affair at the time.

The concert ended with an encore, Elgar’s ‘Salut d’Amor’, which Rosefield announced as ‘in honour of the recently passed Valentine’s day’.  This was a beautiful end to yet more high order musicianship in the Holywell Music Room coffee concert series.

The next coffee concert at the Holywell music room is next Sunday, February 24th, at 11.15am, and will feature the Sacconi and Navara string quartets performing together, playing a Mendelssohn octet and Brahms sextet (tickets available from Tickets Oxford 01865 305305).

Magdalen Junior Common Room was forced to censor a comment on their JCR message board after a student complained that they found it offensive. The censorship caused some outcry amongst members of the JCR as they suggested that their right to free speech was being threatened.

A student took offence after a request was made for a stripper for a friend’s birthday. The affronted student complained to the JCR welfare representatives which led to the President having to remove the thread.

Jon Wright at Magdalen was drawn into the debate after somebody suggested he apply for the stripper position and suggested that the JCR had overreacted. He said, “As far as I'm concerned, whether or not that sort of thing is suitable for the JCR website should be up to the discretion – and sense of humour – of individuals.”

“Admittedly, as threads go it probably wasn't the best use of JCR web space but to find it offensive would presumably require an almost superhuman degree of thin-skinned humourlessness,” he added. “At any rate, the only person with grounds for a legitimate personal grievance was me, since a friend posted a comment along the lines of "Jon Wright'll do it. I hear he's desperate for money…”, which certainly didn't offend me in the least, though I did almost choke to death on a cup of tea from laughing.”

JCR President, Jon Griffiths, explained that the situation proved difficult due to the conflict of interests faced by the JCR, he said, “Welfare did indeed receive a complaint that someone was uncomfortable with the nature of the post and it was removed. This opens up a bit of a can of worms – welfare officers are mandated to cater to the needs of the JCR, whilst as a student body we have professed our defence of freedom of expression on several occasions in the recent past – but the area where the two meet is very hazy.”

Currently if a student does not wish to appear in Magdalen’s college magazine, the ‘Bogsheet’, then they can make a request to the Welfare representatives who will ensure the removal of their name. Jon Griffiths explained that it was this precedent that had been followed after a student complained about the content of the JCR thread, “a complaint to Welfare leads to removal of the offending comment by the person responsible for the upkeep of the medium used, in this case the Computer Rep. However Welfare, the Computer Rep and I recognise that this raises issues; we are treading on new ground, and policy regarding it requires clarification.”

Those who opposed the decision to remove the thread argued that the JCR was being hypocritical, having passed a motion defending the Union’s invitations to Irving in Michaelmas term in defence of free speech. Gil-Aid Schwartz was against the censorship and said, “There is a fundamental distinction between the interests of a person included in the content of a comment (such as gossip reported in the Bogsheet) and the interests of a third party. For that reason there is a logical flaw in the "Bogsheet precedent" which was applied.”

Since the incident there has been an Equal Opportunities committee meeting which agreed to propose a change to the JCR constitution. The change will propose a clear cut policy defining what is unacceptable on the message board, similar to the codes of conduct that many forum sites already have. Complaints received by Welfare would be dealt with in strictest confidence to decide whether they should be upheld according to this policy, and, if so, the Computer Rep as moderator would edit the offending post alone, explaining why.

President Jon Griffiths admitted that under the new constitution the censorship would not have taken place, but added that to focus on such a detail was to miss the point. He said, “Posts drawing complaints will still put Welfare in a difficult position when not covered in the agreed policy; they have a duty to the JCR to do whatever they can to address their concerns, whilst being powerless to deal directly with things said that are perfectly within one's rights, but equally could offend or intimidate. We will now have clear guidelines to determine if a post should be removed, and if not, Welfare can still act in a personal capacity to address said concerns.

He urged students to use the message board responsibly in the future. “Given the usual content of our message boards, I think this issue has become one of principle rather than genuine concern for a lack of freedom of speech. Hopefully with the matter settled common sense will prevail, and our message boards can return to being a beneficial resource for the whole JCR.”

Holywell Music Room, 16th February 2008Both on the piano and when talking, Tallis Barker is a natural performer. He won the affection of tonight's audience by offering them a running commentary on the deficiency of his piano stool, even obliging us with a few experimental squats to tease out a squeak in evidence. Even his programme notes displayed his personality, inviting the audience to to fill the ample floor space of the Holywell Music Room with our dancing but warning them “not to be surprised if my shoe flies through your airspace.” This line summed up the feeling of tonight's concert, which was one of mesmerising skill combined with Barker's obvious enjoyment, and a freshness which is sometimes missing in the performances of more jaded musicians. This was obvious from the opening bars of the first piece, Haydn's Variations in F minor, where Barker infused the antecedent and consequent phrases with distinctive characters. Whilst maintaining the restraint appropriate for this classical work, he managed to portray the drama contained within it through subtle manipulation of tempo and soft finger work: The shimmering right hand passages were tickled out of the keys and offset by perfectly timed pauses. Barker's nimble touch was taken to dizzying heights in the following piece, Beethoven's Sonata in C major, the “Waldstein” sonata. In the opening movement,  Barker's dexterity, combined with the constant return of the main theme, put  one in mind of a circular roller-coaster ride. Luckily we could take comfort in  the knowledge that we were in the hands of somebody who kept us gripped to the rails, even if we ended up a little white-knuckled in the process. Against the  furious muttering of the accompanying chords, Barker somehow managed to bring  the lyrical melody to the foreground whilst maintaining his light-handed  approach, emphasising its celestial quality. It was in the second half, however, that Barker's passion really took hold.  Chopin's Polonaise in F sharp minor, whose main theme (according to Barker) “asserts itself and all of Poland” was a perfect outlet.  In his rendition, Barker expertly channelled his emotion through the sustenance of phrases and by using the pedal to build up the tones of the key while his hands furiously snaked up and down the entire breadth of the piano. A brief period of calm returned with the Prelude in F sharp major, the Waltz in C sharp minor and the Nocturne in B flat minor. Here we could observe Barker's attention to detail: Each finger was weighted individually, allowing certain notes to be given more prominence than others, contributing to a very expressive performance. He kept the audience riveted by varying his material. Each time the main theme of the waltz was played, its character was varied. The eruption into the final Scherzo in C sharp minor provided a final kick to the system, and one which Barker clearly enjoyed administering. His enthusiasm was infectious and right up until the concluding hammering chords, he kept the audience absolutely spellbound.by Hannah Nepil

St John’s passed a ‘Motion of Pity for Keble’ at their JCR meeting last Sunday, after agreeing that declaring war against Keble “would be like smashing a toddler’s Lego fort.”

The motion, passed by St John’s, resolved to deliver a letter of sympathy to Keble JCR along with a £10 Argos voucher so that they can “buy themselves something nice to make themselves feel better.”

This is the latest action in a long-standing rivalry between the two Colleges. It comes in response to several recent incidents allegedly involving Keble students, including loud late-night singing outside St John’s and a “kebab missile attack”, which was apparently launched at a fresher’s window.

Jason Keen, a fresher at St John’s, had originally proposed a declaration of war against Keble. His motion noted, “With the likes of Tony Blair amongst our alumni, this JCR should be no stranger to and have no qualms about starting wars with very weak justification.”

However the declaration of war was amended to a ‘Motion of Pity’ on the grounds that, “A self-respecting College like St John’s can find no honour in targeting an institution much weaker and of such lower standing. It would be rather like smashing a toddler’s Lego fort.”

The student who proposed the amendment wished to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, but he explained that pity was the natural reaction to the recent actions of some Keble students. “Whilst being upsetting we understand antisocial behaviour often occurs due to deep-seated emotional problems and we therefore pity them,” he said.

St John’s JCR President James Osun-Sanmi said, “Keble and St John’s have a historic rivalry so a motion of pity was a perfectly natural occurrence. To be honest it’s surprising that more Colleges haven’t passed motions of pity for Keble.” He also defended the use of JCR resources to buy a £10 Argos voucher for Keble. “Supporting those who are less fortunate is never a waste of time or money: it’s called charity,” he said.

Keble JCR President John Maher was gracious in his response. “We would like to thank St John’s for proving once and for all that wealth does not imply class,” he said.

He added, “We assure St John’s that if we send them anything in response it will be at least £15 in value.”

Sam Aldred, a history student at Keble, said, “This motion reflects St. John’s intense fear at Keble’s ever growing strength and power. Much like the last years of the Roman Empire, St. John’s has succumbed to luxury and complacence, appearing strong externally but in reality rapidly decaying from within. Complete collapse is inevitable.”

Oxford’s flirtation with the darker side of human nature has reached its climax this week with the staging of Quills. The play explores the battle between meaning and nothingness through a clash of personalities, the Marquis de Sade (Max Hoehn) and the Abbé de Coulmier (Alex Bowles), within an asylum in Napoleonic France. The play’s impetus stems from the arrival of Doctor Royer-Collard (Tom van der Klugt) and his mission to impose stringent measures on the asylum, which begins a battle not simply to confine the Marquis, but to “cure” him. The plot is driven throughout by the irrepressibility of the id, as the Marquis continually finds other methods of writing or unleashing his art upon the world, until his final work, a piece that is innocent in its content, is twisted out of all shape by the id that has surfaced in both the Abbé and the Doctor. This final work and their interpretation of it provides the key to the Marquis’ central point: that the physical existence of man with its dark reality is just as valid a part of humanity as the spiritual, possibly more so, and that his art by extension is simply the free expression of an undeniable part of what it is to be human. The readers, and thus humanity itself, are just as culpable as the Marquis for the production of his art, since it is their own passions, emotions and hatreds that make the art possible. Perhaps the most poignant expression of this is in the way that the Abbé himself in the end becomes another medium for the voice of the Marquis, which he had so savagely tried to silence. The execution of this play does not betray its themes: the acting is always masterful. Alex Bowles as the Abbé perfectly depicts the gradual decline of the humanitarian priest as he is conquered by more sinister forces within himself; his altercations with the Marquis (Max Hoehn) have an energy that resonates deeply and never appears anything less than genuine. Max Hoehn is consistently brilliant in his vast range as he plays the Marquis. He quickly changes from witty socialite, to a dark brooding poet, to a beast, and finally to a miserable wretch at the end, who manages to hold onto his defiance until the last. Tom van der Klugt is also extremely accomplished in his role, one which could quite easily have fallen prey to caricature: the physical register constantly informs and elaborates the language as he provides Doctor Royer-Collard with a clinical air of selfishness and ambition, whilst keeping him completely human. Though the final scenes of the play might have been too numerous and disjointed at times owing to prop changes, the quality of the acting always redeemed these minor problems. A few times I even found myself shivering at the actors’ mere descriptions of the horrors at Charenton, since they possessed so much power. I can quite honestly say this is the best student play I have seen: I hope you enjoy it.

Turn of the Screw, Hertford College chapel
13/2/2008

Many of us cannot resist the  thrill of a supernatural tale. For some this comes at the expense of serenity in the later hours, as we attempt to free our minds of ghoulish flashbacks. Benjamin Britten's haunting opera Turn of the Screw, based on the novel by Henry James, certainly satisfies this self-destructive craving. The Oxford Opera Company's rendition of the opera will give the most insatiable glutton for punishment a run for their money and send them scrabbling for their teddy bears.

The chapel of Hertford College makes a perfect setting. The billowing curtains of the chapel's entrance, the echoing acoustic and the February chill outside contributed to the eerie sense, which the performers' proximity with the audience helped to heighten. Admittedly this set-up could have led to a messy collision between some hapless audience member and one of the formidable underskirts: however, it allowed close-range appreciation of the full ghastly glory. Only at this distance could we note the unnervingly blank expression of the children's faces, or the way in which Mrs Jessel's crimson dress brought out the blood-shot hue of her eye makeup. Combined with Britten's chromatic score, the performers' slow and stylized movements, and some appropriate banshee-style wails, the opera was most affecting.

The inimitable atmosphere was owed largely to a sterling cast. Sara Jonsson gave an extremely expressive performance as the Governess. She moulded her powerful voice to fit the nuances of dynamics and tempo, combining these with vivid facial expressions and gestures. Adam Tunnicliffe as the Narrator and Peter Quint were also highly impressive, producing an intensely rich tone, and Katherine Cooper as Miss Jessel conveyed a great emotional range through the variation of her vibrato.  Heather Uren and Toby Pleming as the children made their mark not only with the sweetness and clarity of their tone but through the use of vocal articulation and gesture to convey their transition from innocence to childish spite throughout the course of the narrative.

James Ross as conductor managed to sustain the tension within the orchestra effectively through slowly building crescendos, culminating in the climax of the ending. Perhaps the efforts of some of the sections as a unit were not always entirely cohesive but the clarity of the solo lines stood out, and in certain sections, such as the Bell scene of Act two, the orchestra and the voices came together with a hushed, menacing incisiveness that provoked shivers from the audience.

Some might not enjoy the unsettling sensation that exists throughout the opera, but whether the spider that crawled across the aisle during the fade-out of the final scene was there by accident or had been strategically planted to enhance the atmosphere, it certainly leads to an entertaining evening!

by Hannah Nepil

Helena Zaba and Rachel Williams catch up with the crowd outside British Sea Power at the Academy, check out the first round of this year's IMSoc Battle of the Bands and interview Narcissists DJs.With thanks to Oceanographers and High Risby for use of their music.
 

French duo Xavier de Rosnay and Gaspard Auge are who they say they are. They are not Daft Punk, they are not electronic music, they are not the “new French wave.” They are the “kings of useless remixes,” they love pop music, and they only collaborate with artists to see their names on the albums of people they like.The duo’s self-professed background is in mainstream pop, but they love Metaliica (“et Justice pour tous”) and Snoop and a lot of disco. “Always we like accessible stuff. I never listen to Gang of Four and uh, Joy Division or stuff like this. As kids of the 90’s, we liked really normal things” says de Rosnay. He does contend, however, that “at the end, what we do doesn’t really sound like what we used to listen to.”  Their pop background does help them create what people will enjoy, “because we are simple music listeners, it helps us to make music that can speak to a larger audience.” The idea for their album title, the cross symbol, came when they saw Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon album, and liked the simplicity of the prism on the cover. Religion does play an important role for them, however, with tracks like “Let There Be Light” and “Waters of Nazareth”.  “We just noticed that religion and music has a link because they are two things that are able to get people together. When we were about to make our second single, we said okay, let’s make a track that can turn a club into a church for two minutes.” They are talking about Water of Nazareth, where organ music comes in about halfway through the track. “We don’t use [the cross] in a provocative way.”  Who is the next big thing? Fresh talent? Their former and current tour mates Spanish Midnight Juggernauts and French rock band Fancy are two notables, as well as Scenario Rock, another French band, who they have previously collaborated with on their track DVNO.  But tonight, de Rosnay was excited about their Oxford show simply because his brother and sister-in-law were in the audience.
by Pamela Takefman