Sky Highdir Mike Mitchell2/5Billed as the American answer to the Harry Potter series, Disney’s Sky
High has raised expectations in line with its title. It is hardly a
signal for JK Rowling’s loyal following to lay down their Quidditch
brooms, but director Mike Mitchell’s film pleasingly and predictably
adheres to Disney’s magic family formula. This consists of an ample
base of flashy special effects, a moral message of tolerance and
equality so blatant it feels like a truncheon-blow from the PC Police,
and a sharp dash of ironic humour to keep surly teens and weary parents alike from snoring into their popcorn.
That said, the screenwriters achieve nothing of the sophisticated
and cheeky humour which appreciative adult viewers have almost come to
expect since the celebrated animation
Shrek. With Sky High, Disney has sought to reinforce its status as the
providers and originators of reliable, old-fashioned family movies,
perhaps a wiser move than
attempting to answer the challenge of their inventive and irreverent
rivals at Dreamworks.
The film charts the arrival of Will Stronghold, son of the world’s
greatest superheroes, the Commander and Jetstream, at the super-kids’
high
school, located (as those who’ve figured out the devilishly clever
title pun will guess) in the sky. Initially, due to his apparent lack
of superpowers, dejected Will is lumped in with the class of sidekicks,
who, to avoid
causing offence, have been collectively re-dubbed ‘Hero Support’.ARCHIVE: 2nd week MT 2005

The story goes that when Queen Marie-Antoinette was told that the French people were starving through a lack of bread, she flippantly replied, “If they have no bread, then let them eat cake.” In the aftermath of the recent New Orleans tragedy, hundreds of American journalists compared the Bush administration’s slow response to the clueless indifference of this Marie-Antoinette. Alas, for journalists (and the authors of pub quizzes everywhere), this popular legend has not even the slightest vestige of truth to it. Rumour has it that the line has not been included in the new $40m biopic of the queen, directed by Sofia Coppola and starring Kirsten Dunst. Marie-Antoinette’s reputation for frivolity would have surprised her contemporaries.Republicans and royalists died disputing whether she was a she-wolf or a saint; even strong-minded English politicians, like Horace Walpole and Edmund Burke, gushingly described her as “the goddess of our age”. When the fiery young republican Antoine Barnave met her in 1790 he instantly became a royalist and went to the guillotine clutching a portrait of her in his pocket. It was only decades later that history stereotyped her as an 18th century bimbo with more money than sense: the Paris Hilton of her day.Marie-Antoinette-Josèphe- Joanne was born on 2 November 1755 in the Hofburg Palace, Vienna. She was the eleventh daughter of the Empress Maria-Theresa, who was so used to having children by this point that she didn’t even stop reading and signing state papers during labour. Antoinette’s childhood was idyllic, and she was very pretty.Legend has it that when the young Mozart performed in front of the Imperial Family, he was so smitten with Marie- Antoinette that he asked the Empress if he could marry her. The Empress laughed which, then as now, was the acknowledged way of decimating someone in a social situation. At the age of fourteen, Marie-Antoinette was sent to Paris to marry the heir to the French throne.Rotund, awkward, shy and socially-retarded, Louis preferred reading atlases and mending locks to engaging in court life; if he had hoped for a plump hausfrau for a bride then he was sorely disappointed when he laid eyes on the vivacious Marie-Antoinette. “How does she do everything so gracefully?” he lamented, before tucking in to his gargantuan dinner.The marriage, needless to say, did not get off to a great start. Aside from the obvious clash of personalities, there was also an element of sexual discord. When someone jovially advised him not to eat so much before his wedding night, Louis declared between mouthfuls that he always slept better on a full stomach. In this pre-Cosmo, Sex and the City and FHM era, no-one had ever told Louis or Antoinette what sex was exactly.So this royal marriage was not fully consummated for its first seven years, even though a genuine fondness did grow between the couple. Most pinned the blame on Marie-Antoinette, asserting that she must be frigid. She escaped humiliation the way countless people have before and since: shopping. Once her husband became King Louis XVI in 1774, Marie-Antoinette and her friends indulged themselves spectacularly.She owned thousands of dresses, hundreds of shoes, gloves and hats, and a mountain of exquisite jewellery – pearls and diamonds were her favourites. Her perfumers, milliners, tailors and hairdressers were the best in Europe, and she had a strict beauty regime which included abstinence from drinking anything but water in order to maintain her famous alabaster complexion.A never-ending series of balls, banquets, dinner parties, opera visits, dances at the queen’s own private village and farm, performances in her new personal theatre and midnight dances in the illuminated grottos at Versailles were the stages on which Marie-Antoinette, bejewelled and bedazzling, earned her place as ‘the Queen of the Rococo’. Economists and liberals had toreach for their smelling salts when the queen’s expenses were calculated, and they never forgave her for any of it.Royalists, outraged at liberals’ having the gall to express an opinion of any kind, retaliated by loudly declaring that all liberals were stupid or bitter and that Marie-Antoinette was both beautiful and fabulous. Royalists couldn’t (and still can’t) see what all the fuss was about, especially when they pointed out how generous Marie-Antoinette was to charity.They were right to argue that she was being made a scapegoat for over one hundred years of financial mismanagement, but what they failed to grasp was that the queen’s spending was a PR disaster. In 1778, after Louis had finally achieved sexual maturity, Marie-Antoinette was forced to give birth to their first child in front of a crowd of two hundred courtiers, as precedent demanded.This humiliatingly public birth for her daughter, Marie- Thérèse, marked the end of Marie-Antoinette’s patience with Versailles’ infamous etiquette. Her three other children, Louis-Joséph, Louis-Charles and Sophie-Béatrix, were all born in private. Marie-Antoinette’s last ten years at Versailles were spent as a devoted mother, loyal friend, charming hostess, compassionate wife, good Catholic and generous patroness of charity – in short, the perfect Queen Consort.She was particularly generous to children, who she adored; she burst into tears if she heard of the slightest pain inflicted on any infant. Events now overtook the Royal Family, and indeed the entire world, when France finally admitted bankruptcy in 1789. The problems stemmed from the ineffi ciency of the tax system and the astronomical cost of providing aid to George Washington and his rebel army in America.Louis XVI was forced to call a national assembly, known as the Estates- General, to tackle the problem, but conservatives were worried that the liberals would use this as a platform to attack the entire monarchy. Just at that moment, Louis suffered a complete nervous breakdown when hiseldest son died an agonising death from tuberculosis. Marie-Antoinette, equally devastated, tried valiantly to revive her husband’s spirits, but for the last three years of his life Louis XVI suffered from intermittent clinical depression. Anti-monarchists played shamelessly upon the people’s xenophobia against l’Autrichienne, and a torrent of pornographic journals accused Marie-Antoinette of every imagined sexual and political perversion. Mob violence now became the real currency of politics in France and, in Marie-Antoinette’s own words, everything around them was “hatred and violence”.Versailles was besieged and the royal family were taken to the capital to be placed under virtual house arrest. Marie-Antoinette made several attempts to escape and tried to convince foreign armies to intervene and save her family, but events spiralled out of her control. On a hot August day in 1792 the mob attacked again, and the National Assembly voted to make France a republic.The royals were instantly incarcerated in the grim prison-fortress of La Temple. Two weeks later, over a thousand royalists were butchered on the streets of Paris, including the queen’s best friend, Princesse Thérese de Lamballe, who was tortured and mutilated. Her head was placed on a pike and carried through the streets to be displayed outside Marie- Antoinette’s prison window.Over the next few months, the rest of the royals spoke occasionally to their gaolers, but Marie-Antoinette would look through them as if they were glass. Later, King Louis was separated from his family, condemned as a traitor and sent to the guillotine on 21 January 1793. His widow never recovered from his death: somehow she had grown to love him and recognise him for the good-natured gentleman he truly was.The final horror took place when her beloved eight year old son was taken from her. He was placed in the room beneath his mother’s cell where she could hear him crying out for her. “Why is he crying?” she sobbed, “What are you doing to him? Why won’t you let me go to him?” Later her tears stopped, and when she suffered any physical pain she would respond in a dead tone of voice, “Nothing can hurt me now.”In the middle of October she was finally placed on trial on a series of charges so viciously absurd (treason, debauchery and incest) that they actually had the effect of provoking sympathy for the queen. Still, the republicans wanted her head, and on 16 October 1793 they got it. “It gave me great joy”, crowed the journalist Hébert, “to see that fucking tart’s head separated from her body.” Haggard and prematurely-aged, the thirty-seven year old Marie-Antoinette went to the guillotine without any sign of fear. Her body was later recovered by royalists and lovingly interred in a beautiful crypt, where it remains to this day.The Marie-Antoinette that legend has built has almost nothing to do with the real woman. Marie-Antoinette deserves our sympathy and, personally, I admire her enormously, though I can see why others would be hesitant. She died defending a system of government which now seems antiquated, and her mistakes were numerous. But she was not stupid, nor was she cruel or indifferent to people’s suffering, and that, in the age of the French Revolution, is surely to her eternal credit.ARCHIVE: 2nd week MT 2005

Police are appealing for witnesses after an Oxford student was sexually assaulted in the early hours of last Thursday. The incident occurred at around 1.40am as the woman was returning home from a night out in Cowley. The 19 year old was followed as she walked alone along Cowley Road. The man approached the student outside a derelict bingo hall, speaking with a foreign accent. He then continued to follow her into Cumberland Road, where the assault took place.PC Rebecca Burley, based at Cowley Police station, said that, “The woman [then] managed to run away from the man" as she "saw [her attacker] run in the direction of Cowley Road.” The man is described as Asian, with a shaved head and wearing a dark top. He is thought to be about 5ft 6 and in his late twentie or early thirties. Holly Ware, JCR Welfare Officer at the nearby St Hilda’s College, described the attack as a “reminder of the need to be cautious and to take sensible precautions”. She added, “I’m not going to allow this incident to prevent me from leaving my house at night.”The spokesperson for Thames Valley Police advised students not to walk home on their own. She also suggested that students make themselves aware of Thames Valley Police’s ‘Safer Streets’ campaign. This new campaign hopes to make young people “safe and secure while out and about”. The attack comes close to a report made to the police this week of a “serious” sexual assault at the Turf Tavern at the beginning of the month. On 1 October, while former students were celebrating their graduation, a middle-aged woman was sexually assaulted in the public house. Detective Constable Stuart Teasdale, of Oxford CID, said that “the pub would have been very busy at the time as there were lots of graduation ceremonies being held on that day.”OUSU advises students, particularly females, to carry an attack alarm, and urges first years to be particulary vigilant and aware of street safety. They also remind males that although 96% of rape is female, men should not take undue risks eitherARCHIVE: 2nd week MT 2005

A motion to hold a referendum on
whether the OUSU position of Vice-President (Women) should be kept has been
rejected by members of OUSU council. The referendum would have been held in 6th
week for female members of the University with the question “The position
Vice-President (Women) should continue, yes or no?” The motion, which was put forward
by Helen Bagshaw from Balliol and Lorna Stevenson from Hertford was defeated by
an overwhelming majority of council. Both declined to comment on the motion to
Cherwell.James Lamming, Merton JCR
President, who was present at the meeting said the reasons for putting forward
the motion appeared to be “to encourage consultation and discussion on whether
the VP (Women) should still exist, rather than to call for its removal.”OUSU President Emma Norris said, “The
major issue for rejection seemed to be the lack of consultation with those who
matter such as women’s officers and common rooms.” She said the reasons for
creating the post of VP (Women); “to fight discrimination and make provision
for women in a male-dominated university” had not yet been dealt with and
added, “A simple yes or no doesn’t address all the responsibilities of the VP
(Women) and opportunities for changing the post rather than getting rid of it.”Bex Wilkinson, a former VP
(Women) said that she was “very glad that the motion was defeated,” and felt
the issue was raised because “people always want to change things about OUSU
and, because OUSU is limited by money, there are always positions that people
think can be moved or got rid of.”Lamming said that he supported
discussion of OUSU’s various roles but said that “a referendum in the middle of
an election campaign would have simplified and trivialized the issue too much.” He continued, “More generally I
support the role because a VP (Women) is much better qualified for a variety of
female welfare issues such as pregnancy, which I do not believe a male welfare
sab [sabbatical officer] would be as approachable for.” He added that he was “pleased
the motion did not pass”.Ellie Cumbo, the current VP
(Women) believes that the motion was rejected because “there is still a strong
recognition in common rooms that the post is still necessary as long as women
remain in the minority at every level of Oxford
life.” With regards to Bagshaw and Stevenson, Cumbo said, “I know that their
motions were pure if a little naïve.” She said that she wants to “show students
how valuable the position is” and move closer to a time when “the need for
someone to campaign full-time on these issues will disappear.”ARCHIVE: 2nd week MT 2005

Two male students from St
Catherine’s gatecrashed St Hilda’s matriculation photoshoot on Saturday, and will
appear on one of the photos that will be available for freshers to purchase. Nick Troen and Archie Hardyment dressed
in full sub fusc as well as hair bands and make-up. Troen was sporting a skirt
and tights. Posing as ‘Nichola’ and ‘Annabelle’, they mingled with the crowd as
the students from Hilda’s queued for the photograph, but were spotted by
Georgie Edwards, one of the College’s Entz reps. Fellow Entz rep Tamsin Chislett
recalled, “She [Edwards] told me there were two boys heading for the photo, we
went to investigate with our JCR President and asked them sweetly if they had
name cards…they admitted defeat reluctantly and stepped out of the queue.” Both Troen and Hardyment managed to
appear in St Hilda’s 2005 matriculation photo, thanks to the obliging
photographer. Chislett explains, “The  hotographer
took two photos, one with them and one without.” She added “The college JCR has
no plans of selling the photo with Troen and Hardyment in it. But, the
photographer will have it on file and Hilda’s freshers can purchase it if they
want to.” Troen said, “It was just an idea
that popped into my head before term started. I’m quite a fan of little pranks
and stuff; we’ve climbed a lot of colleges, and once put traffic cones on every
single philosopher’s head outside the Sheldonian. Everyone talks about crashing
matric photos so I thought: what would be the ultimate one to get into?”Troen explained that they were
aided by a ‘secret’ fresher at St Hilda’s, as well as “a fantastic make-up team
here at Catz who were really great in lending us clothes and doing our faces
and hair. Our costumes consisted of full sub fusc, skirts, tights, very painful
girls’ shoes (I’m a size 11 and I could only find size 7 shoes) and of course,
the obligatory socks ‘n’ bra combination. A couple of necklaces here and a
bracelet there completed the disguises.”Carina Berry, the boys’ ally at
St Hilda’s, said, “I walked onto the grass to find him [Troen] there with his
friend, trying desperately to blend in involving a handbag to cover the ’bulge’
area and crouching down to minimise height and shoulder breadth. They got as
far as lining up in height order for the photo.“Unfortunately, they were
discovered by the girls on the JCR Committee who he actually knew and their
cover was blown. Luckily they’re cool girls – anything for a few boys around! –
and they got to join in the ’comedy’ shot. I think that’ll go down in every
freshers’ memory – the temporary addition of ’Nichola’ and ’Annabelle’ to our
ranks!” Berry commented on the duo’s disguise,
“Nick at least made a lot of effort, and there are some manly looking girls in
this world.” Troen said, “Had the entire thing worked, i.e. no one had noticed,
I wanted to put my name down as Amanda Skyzed.”Hardyment added, “Nick’s account seems
accurate and I don’t think I have much to add; he only forgot to mention the
embarrassment of having to cycle through town in broad daylight in drag.”ARCHIVE: 2nd week MT 2005

Security has been tightened
across the University following the attacks by animal rights extremists over
the summer. Visitors to the Radcliffe Camera
(Rad Cam) now have to have their bags checked by members of the security staff
on their way into the library as well as on their way out. The new measure was
introduced last week. A sign near the entrance of the Rad Cam reads, “Bags will
be searched upon entry and exit of the library.”A University spokesperson said, “It
[bag checking] is part of ongoing reviews of security across the University.The University carries out
regular reviews in light of latest advice from the University Martial and the
Police. Security has always been important but it is particularly so right now
in view of the increased threat from animal rights extremism.”The spokesperson emphasised that “The
University of Oxford takes security of its staff and students as well as its
premises seriously.” The Rad Cam fulfils its architect James Gibbs’ intention,
namely that it be “a publick [sic] building seen by all sorts of people who
come to Oxford
from all parts of the world.” The building has become a readily recognisable
symbol of Oxford
both nationally and internationally.One internet site, ukattraction.com,
uses the word “iconic” to describe the Rad Cam. A member of staff from the
Radcliffe Science Library, which is the University’s main science reference
library said, “We’ve only just been informed about the new security measures introduced
at the Rad Cam. I suspect they’re very concerned about security because the Rad
Cam is such a symbol of Oxford
and so would probably be a prime target for animal rights extremists.” The person added, “We [the
Radcliffe Science Library] and other libraries across the University will
probably follow Rad Cam’s lead and look at measures to improve security.”Arielle Goodley, a student,
commented, “I think checking bags at the entrance of Rad Cam is a good idea. It
only takes about two seconds and it makes things safer.” Another student disagreed. “It’s
all a bit of a hassle. I’m a smoker and every time I need a fag I need to go
outside then come back in, so I’ll have to get my bag checked several times on
each visit. It gets annoying after a while.” A spokesperson from the Ashmolean Museum, another part of the University
that is also a major tourist attraction, said, “We do take security seriously
especially given increased threat from animal rights extremists and terrorist
attacks. “We do not currently check bags
and I see no prospect of doing so for every visitor on their way in. We didn’t
do that even in the days of the IRA. We’ll of course constantly keep an eye on
the matter, but we have no plans at the moment of introducing bag-checking.” A spokesperson from the Thames
Valley Police said, “We’d support any organization who wishes to increase their
security for whatever purpose – whether it is in response to increased threat
of terrorist attacks or animal rights extremism. It’s always a good thing to be
more vigilant, more alert and to take security issues more seriously.“We’d back any measures that
would increase the safety of students, members of staff and the public in
general and prevent disruptions and tragedies from happening.”ARCHIVE: 2nd week MT 2005

An anti-welfare rep is to be
elected at Merton after the JCR unanimously passed a motion to institute the
position. A motion was submitted noting that “attendees at Merton bops always
get completely wasted,” and that “these hilarious individuals are often struck
down in their prime by over-zealous welfare reps.” The responsibilites of the new
anti-welfare rep will involve identifying “inebriated persons receiving undue
assistance from the welfare officers” and thwarting “the best efforts of the
welfare officers by supplying alcoholic drinks to the aforementioned individuals
in a responsible manner” and further ensuring “that these characters are lucid
and responsive during the inevitable afterparties they will volunteer to host.”
It is believed that such action will “aid and abet the creation of
unsubstantiated rumour to be disclosed in the Merton News.”Uproar followed the meeting,
however, as senior members of the JCR Committee realised that what had been
passed was a binding standing order amendment, which could possibly contravene
proctors’ orders. JCR President James Lamming said, “Information reached me
after the meeting meaning that what seemed like a harmless comedy motion had
more serious ramifications and safety implications than we first thought.” Ben Holroyd and Zander Khan, the
finalists at Merton who proposed the motion, said they were “leaving a legacy
for the college” and have a “prospective candidate in mind”. They see the
negativity of the JCR Committee as “a bit childish”, making the point that “back
home we survive perfectly well without welfare officers to take us home when we’re
wasted.” Ben Holroyd, last year’s Merton Entz rep, further added “Some of the
best nights I’ve had in Oxford
have been spent cuddling a loo.” One JCR Committee member, who did
not wish to be named, said he had not objected during the meeting as he feared
looking like “a miserable git”.The JCR President stated, “We’re
currently looking into [the motion] and will report back at the JCR meeting
next week.”Tanya Sanyal, Welfare Officer at
St Anne’s, expressed trepidation towards the motion, saying, “As a welfare rep
I feel slightly alarmed that Merton JCR are to instate an anti-welfare rep to
actively oppose the work that welfare does. But as long as it doesn’t seriously
undermine the work of the elected welfare officers, I suppose it’s really just
a joke position.”OUSU V-P Welfare, Aidan Randle-Conde
stated “Welfare Officers across Oxford
do a great deal of good work to improve the quality of life for students.
Creating an anti-welfare officer undermines the whole ethos of the welfare
networks that are in place.” He added that “coercive drinking is unacceptable
and to the detriment of student welfare.”ARCHIVE: 2nd week MT 2005

The President of Botswana’s visit
to the Oxford Union on Friday 14 October was interrupted by 25 protesters from
Survival International, some of whom were Oxford Union members.As President Mogae, an Oxford graduate in
Economics, arrived at the Union buildings, he was greeted by protesters asking
"Why are you persecuting the Bushmen?" The question referred to
people of a tribe, commonly known by westerners as Bushmen, that have been
asked to leave their land by the government of Botswana.Aliya Nanji, an undergraduate at
St Anne’s College who attended the event said, "Halfway through [the
question and answer session], one girl asked about a shooting of Bushmen, then
took off her jumper, along with another girl, and they were wearing t-shirts
saying ’Botswana
police shoot Bushmen’. Then they were asked to leave." She added that
"six or seven people were wearing [the t-shirts] later".Nanji felt that "the
President sounded a little upset towards the end" and accused the
protesters of giving completely one-sided arguments.The organization the protesters
were representing, Survival International, has accused Botswana of
ethnic cleansing and continues to accuse the government of forcing the Bushmen
to leave their lands. Dr Jeff Ramsay, Press Secretary to President Mogae,
stated, “We are used to this, we are always asked about the Barsawa (the native
term for Bushmen). At LSE in 2003 we had a similar incident, and the last time
[the President] came to Oxford.”Dr Ramsay went on to add that
Survival International “is accusing us of forcing [the Barsawa] out”, but he
informed Cherwell that all but 17 of the Bushmen “agreed to compensation
packages and moved out”. Dr Ramsay explained that the shooting the t-shirts
referred to was a “sad incident where rubber bulletswere fired at people trying to
enter Kalahari [a closed off region in Botswana]. One bullet hit a personin the jaw, but he survived and
is fine.”Survival International issued a
press release taking responsibility for the protests and saying the protesters
were “bundled out of the Oxford Union by burly security guards”. Chris Farmer, President of the
Oxford Union, defended the removal of protesters that asked controversialquestions, saying, “In a high
profile event, the Union hands over security matters to Special Branch and the
police…unfortunately we did not have any control over it.” Witnesses of the event say
everything took place in an orderly fashion, and that after the talk was over
the protesters were handing out CDs and leaflets.One Union member said, “The Union
is supposed to be a bastion of free speech; if people aren’t allowed to express
their opinions in a peaceful manner, then what is the point of holding a
debate?”Farmer said the event "was
all very peaceful and calm, and was a real success.” He reasserted the Union’s stance on freedom of speech and freedom of
belief, saying, "Everybody’s allowed to think what they want to
think." He added that the President "specifically picked people that
had come from the group [to ask questions]", showing his own support for
freedom of speech.In an article in The Independent,
the director of Survival International said of the event, “I’ve been a
campaigner since 1972 across the world, including in places like Colombia, not
known for their human rights, and never been manhandled like that before.”Farmer asserted that security
footage would be examined before taking the matter further. President Mogae was the first of
two heads of state addressing Oxford students
this week, the President of the Czech
Republic, Vaclav Klaus
visited the European Affairs Society on Tuesday.ARCHIVE: 2nd week MT 2005

OUSU Council has passed
a motion condemning Coca Cola and resolv­ing to cease commercial relations and
all publicity with the company. It also resolves to lobby the NUS to cease its
contracts with Coca Cola.The
motion, proposed by OUSU President Emma Norris and seconded by Tom Dale, makes
a number of criticisms of Coca Cola’s practices. OUSU policy already states
that the company is "engaged in stealing and polluting farmers’ water
across India,
causing eco­nomic and ecological devastation to thousands of the poorest people
in the world."Allegations
concerning Coca Cola’s conduct in Colombia are also noted in the
motion. The Colombia Solidarity Campaign claims that nine Coca Cola employees
have been killed and many mistreated as a result of a “labour policy based on
terror [which] grants Coca Cola enormous profit increases.”NUS
Services Limited (NUSSL), the commercial wing of the NUS, holds four
multimillion pound contracts with Coca Cola. They provide over five million
litres of Coca Cola produced drinks to student union outlets around the UK. The OUSU
motion resolves to “send a representative to the 2006 NUSSL AGM, and mandate
them to support a complete boycott of the Coca Cola Corporation.” At the 2005
NUSSL AGM a motion proposing to cease some of the contracts was heavily
defeated.In
response to the defeat an emer­gency motion was brought to the NUS conference
in April, resolving to investigate the allegations against Coca Cola. If any
doubts about the company’s practices are found then the NUS “must” use its 25%
share­holding in NUSSL to recommend that contracts with Coca Cola are cut. A
spokeswoman for Coca Cola Great Britain said that the claims were unfounded.In
an article in The Guardian, she said, “We are listening to people’s concerns
and are aware of the mo­tion at the NUS conference. Whilst it is important that
people have the opportunity to discuss these sorts of issues, the specific
allegations aren’t true.”In
addition to lobbying the NUS, the successful OUSU mo­tion resolves “to refuse
publicity to Coca Cola, in our publications, at our events, and in our
building.” OUSU must now refuse any offers of direct commercial relations with
Coca Cola.Oxford students may not have heard the last of the debate on Coca Cola, as the OUSU motion also proposes “to
carry a quarter page ad in The Oxford Student newspaper on at least two
occasions before the end of TT06, supporting the boy­cott call and carrying
salient facts about Coca Cola with appropriate web links.”In
the past year the Coca Cola debate has been an issue in JCRs across the
University. Last term saw the complete ban of Coca Cola products from certain
JCR bars and common rooms, including Wadham, Balliol and St Hilda’s.Alice
Ramsay, Ecology Officer for St Hilda’s JCR, who proposed the ban motion there,
said, “If OUSU is backing the NUS campaign they are showing solidarity with the
colleges who have taken a stance against corporate irresponsibility.” Alternative
cola products sug­gested include Qibla Cola, which donates 10% of its profits
to char­ity and only costs an additional 0.7p. Qibla Cola has since been
withdrawn from bars and common rooms, having gone into receiver­ship last
month.Tom
Dale, who seconded the OUSU motion said “We can’t wait for capitalism to become
responsi­ble: we’re just going to have to get together to force it to do what
we want. The Coca Cola boycott is just one of a number of ways to achieve
this.ARCHIVE: 2nd week MT 2005