Those of lofty stature will be severed, and the haughty ones brought low … And there shall come forth a shoot out. (Isaiah 10:33-11:1) So it was Isaiah who first thought of cup upsets and penalty shoot-outs (at least, I like to think he did). A man of religion putting his stamp on the world of sport – not actually such a rarity. Sport has always born the hallmark of religion, and still does. The Olympics Games started off as a dedication to the Greek gods but was branded a pagan festival once Christianity become the Roman Empire’s official faith. The emperor Theodosius banned the Games in 393. On these shores too, sport and religion have been intertwined as far back as you look. Winner, in his book Those Feet: A Sensual History of English Football, makes the remarkable discovery that Victorian public-school boys were introduced to football to limit the time available for ‘impure’ thoughts. This promotion of ‘clean’ recreation, into which the clergy had a significant input, led to the founding of church teams that evolved into Aston Villa, Everton, Manchester City and a host of other modern-day clubs.But not all religious influence in sport has been for the good. The cities of Glasgow and Belfast have been blighted by sectarian violence for generations, that spreads to – or even emanates from – the football grounds. Your identity is defined by whether you’re a ‘Cath’ or a ‘Prod’ and which of the Glaswegian clubs you support – not that you have a choice, as Maurice Johnston found out. Johnston, having played for the traditionally Catholic club Celtic earlier in his career, moved from the French club Nantes in July 1989 to become one of the first Catholics to play for Rangers, seen as a Protestant club. The striker was branded a traitor in parts of the Celtic heartland, but the case turned out to be something of a watershed for Rangers, who only then started to bring in players irrespective of their affiliation.Religion is thus not an inevitable obstacle. It can be a means by which to dismantle the the problems that religion can provoke. In 2002, tennis players Aisam-Ul-Haq Qureshi, a Muslim from Pakistan, and Amir Hadad, an Israeli Jew, fought off criticism to team up as a doubles pair and reach the third round of Wimbledon. “The best part about sports is that they don’t let politics or religion interfere,” Qureshi told a national newspaper. “Sport is free. Everybody comes together. All the cultures and religions, black or white. And you should just keep it free. Everybody’s invited.” Can sport and religion benefit each other, though? In an assembly in my last year at school, an amateur tennis player and practising Christian came to speak about how his relationship with his creator helped him in his sport. He claimed that sport should be a way of “pleasing” Him by taking the body He gave us to the limits of its ability. I recall that our head of Religious Studies walked out in anger at the speaker’s naivety, and quite rightly so. To think that the Almighty delights in seeing his creatures run 100m in 9.77 seconds is an absurdity, for the purpose of sport is more than that, something more central to the very world we inhabit.The relationship between sport and religion may sometimes have been one of violence and corruption but it is also one of freedom and conciliation. What sport brings is an activity with the potential to act as a leveller, a bridge between faiths and races, an opportunity for rivals to make peace – just as the British and German troops did in the First World War trenches, legend has it, by dropping their guns and kicking a ball around on Christmas Day. George Orwell wasn’t totally right. Sport is not always war minus the shooting; more often, it’s life minus the war.ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005

Controversial Islamic scholar
Tariq Ramadan, who has in the past been accused of anti-Semitism and was banned
from teaching in the US, is about
to begin teaching at Oxford.
Professor Tariq Ramadan is to begin a visiting fellowship at the postgraduate
college St Anthony’s which specialises in International Studies. He marked the
start of his new position by delivering a speech to the Oxford Union on Tuesday
evening. A spokesperson for the College described
Ramadan as “an internationally recognised scholar” and said that St Anthony’s
is “a forum for free academic exchange on the issues of our times and opposes all
manifestations of hate speech and intimidation designed to curb academic
freedoms”.Ramadan was named by Time Magazine
in April 2004 as one of the 100 innovators of the 21st century for
his work to create an Independent European Islam. Mike Whine from the Jewish Community
Security Trust accused Ramadan of speaking moderately in French and English but
delivering more radical messages in Arabic. In the televised debates between himself
and the French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, Professor Ramadan declined to
condemn the Islamic punishment of the stoning of women for crimes such as
adultery and instead resorted to ijtihad, asking leading thinkers to come
forward to a solution to this doctrinal problem.In 2004 the US State department revoked
Professor Ramadan’s work visa at the recommendation of the department of
Homeland Security shortly before he was due to begin teaching Islam, Conflict Resolution
and Peace Building at Indiana’s Notre Dame University, citing a “public
security risk”. Ramadan was recently appointed to
an elite government task force that reports to Tony Blair and the Home
Secretary Charles Clarke in the wake of the London
bombings to help combat the rise of Islamic extremism in Britain.Dr Edie Friedman, director of the
Jewish Council for Racial Equality said that “some members of the Jewish
community have had positive contact” with Tariq Ramadan.  Dr Friedman said that although she has heard “both positive and negative
things about him” she “welcomes his appointment” and “looks forward to working
with him”.Jeremy Seeff and Tikva Blaukopf, co-presidents
of the Oxford University Jewish Society said, “Professor Ramadan has a fine academic
record” and that as long as “any personal religious and political inclinations
he has do not affect his teaching and in any way sour the atmosphere on campus,
JSoc has no objection to Professor Ramadan’s appointment”. Hassan Malik, President of Oxford
University Islamic Society, said that “one may have disagreementswith Professor Ramadan” but that “differences
of opinion are allowed within reason” and that “his appointment should be good
for the Oxford community,
as he has received some bad press and allegations which were totally unfounded”.He added that Professor Ramadan is
“working to create unity amongst different faiths” and that “for this he should be commended”.
Professor Ramadan told Cherwell, “I’m happy
to be here”, and described his work as “important in bridging the gap between
two worlds. It is really interesting for me meeting interesting and challenging
people, asking questions about the future of Islam in Europe
and in Islamic majority countries”.ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005

Oxford 15London Wasps 41The underdog’s audacity lost out to professionalism on Monday as a brave, adventurous Blues side was overpowered by the superior stamina and raw power of London Wasps. Despite the result, this was the Blues’ best performance of the season; in an impressive team effort, winger Jonan Boto provided a man of the match performance by scoring two of “the best tries seen at Iffley Road this season.”The visit of the Premiership champions brought a large crowd to Iffley Road, and the huddled spectators packing its stands were treated to a very high quality game, both teams playing with pace, width and flair. The quality of Oxford’s basic skills and set pieces was a step above previous displays: the line outs were superb, the Blues even stealing a few off the visitors, and the ball handling was almost faultless. This was all the more impressive in view of the difficult conditions, as light, swirling rain built to an all-out rainstorm over the course of the match.Oxford scored all their points during a first half display which contained moments of brilliance. After Ed Thrower had drop-kicked Wasps into an early lead, Boto put the Blues in front with a scintillating try, coming up in support of a Matt Sherman brake in his own 22 and outpacing the cover defence to the tryline. The Blues followed this up with a great time try, driving captain Andy Dalglish over the line. Though Garth Chamberlin pulled one back for Wasps, Boto restored the Blues lead with a try few fans will quickly forget. Sean Fauth turned the ball over in the Blues’ half and Boto stepped past the Wasps’ defence, including wrong-footing skipper Mark Lock, before sprinting to the tryline.Wasps responded to their surprise deficit with ferocity. They shackled the Blues’ pacey backline, keeping it scoreless for the rest of the match despite continuing enterprising play. On attack, they ruthlessly exploited weaknesses in the Oxford line; tries came from Ireland international Jeremy Staunton, Ali McKenzie and Rob Baxter. The Blues still looked like they could strike back as Boto and Fauth combined but Wasps went in at half time 27-15 ahead. After half time, the visitors’ raw power shone through, as Baxter soon completed his hat trick. Oxford had the best of the last ten minutes, with Jon Fennell and Peter Jenkins hitting Wasps hard, but once again their line held firm.The Blues’ performances are certainly improving. They have moved on from their crushing defeat against Leicester three weeks ago, and the likes of Fennell and Boto are emerging as potential match winners. But they have already lost twice as many matches as they have won, a ratio unlikely to improve against upcoming opponents Harlequins, Tonga and Leinster. The must make full use of the few winnable fixtures remaining to build the compusre and match awareness essential to win close games or, for all their promise, they could come unstuck in the Varsity match.ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005

Oxford 37Worcester 26Oxford’s netball team got their season off to the best possible start at Iffley Road last Wednesday. The Blues decisively beat Worcester, likely to be one of their biggest rivals for BUSA league promotion, while the reserve team, the Roos, crushed their opponents. The Blues’ performance was particularly encouraging for the season ahead. The game against Worcester was always going to be tight. The two teams had built up a rivalry in the BUSA Midland’s Conference 1A, the highest league below the Premiership. Last year, both sides were just one win away from promotion, and thus have their sites firmly on going one better this season. With only one team to be promoted, Oxford couldn’t afford to start the season with a home loss. With the usual difficulties of a first match – a brief training period of just a week and having to become familiar with the ten new freshers in the squad – the pressure was on the Blues to perform. They rose to the challenge extremely well. Individual skills suffered from a lack of match practise, particularly goal-shooting, which hovered around a disappointingly low average of 60% accuracy; but the team performance was impressive so early on in the season. In defence, they operated an area defence which created perhaps a dozen turnovers by forcing Worcester into difficult or speculative passes, starving them of possession. Going forward, the Blues were marshalled by the experienced trio of player of the match Sarah Hannibal, star Captain Becky Swarbrick and top scorer Caroline Sherrington; with their team-mates constantly looking for space off the ball, these three were able to create numerous shooting chances. These two qualities won Oxford the match. After the first half had finished at 16-all, the Blues put in a devastating spell with the defence working flat out to prevent Worcester from even attempting to shoot and supplying their own shooters with a flood of scoring opportunities. By the time Worcester had responded, they faced an insurmountable seven point lead. Their resistance was largely broken, and Oxford slowly stretched out their advantage over the remaining twenty minutes to a good margin of victory.In the first half, the Blues had looked anything but comfortable. Hannibal and Swarbrick dominated the midfield but, faced with Worcester’s tall defenders, Sherrington and Goal Shooter Venetia Barrett struggled to convert the chances created for them. In the first quarter, Oxford were largely handed a 10-6 lead through a stream of needless Worcester penalties; however, when they improved their discipline in the second quarter, their more accurate shooting allowed them to equalise the scores by half-time. An away win looked a real possibility until Oxford’s charge after half time.Commenting on the win, Captain Swarbrick attributed the victory to the Blues’ superior work off the ball and desire. She admitted a “half time speech” was needed to inspire the Blues’ decisive charge, but they are looking to use it as a base for securing the promotion that they narrowly missed out on last year.Earlier, the Roos had set the tone by demolishing newly promoted II. While the victory reveals little about how they will cope with tougher opposition, it was impressively clinical and will serve as a confidence-boosting start to the season. Derby II 67-3.ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005

Alex Toogood proved that his four goal debut against Magdalen a fortnight ago was no fluke, netting a first half hat trick before the quarter of an hour mark, against title challengers New last Wednesday. In what was expected to be a tight match, Worcester dominated play in the first third of the game to devastating effect as three well-taken Toogood goals in six minutes took the fresher’s tally to seven in two games. Taking advantage of a fumble from New’s substitute goalkeeper, Josh Bullock’s goal sealed a disastrous half for the visitors. New captain, New were revived in the second period: “Our half time decision to change to a sweeper at the back rather than the flat back four made the game much more evenly balanced.” This was certainly the case as New took advantage of the absence of Toogood and Plaxton (both due to first half injuries) to pull one back with a scrappy goal from substitute James Sutton five minutes from time. Despite restoring pride, however, New never looked like mounting a comeback as Worcester’s defence remained strong and the midfield pairing of Weston and Hobbiss continued to hassle and annoy New.Worcester’s midfield sliced the New defence apart in the first quarter to devastating effect. In the eighth minute Weston’s incisive through-ball split apart the two centre-backs putting Toogood through to open his account. Only a minute later, quick passing in midfield sent a direct ball to Toogood, who sent the keeper the wrong way and finished clinically. The 14th minute brought Toogood’s hat trick as the New College defence was found wanting for pace. However, the first half ended scrappily with two bookings, both for needless challenges. The absence of Toogood and Plaxton was notable in the second half as chances dried up for Worcester. New threatened more and began to challenge in midfield with Darren Wychall hitting the Worcester cross-bar from a cleanly struck volley on 71 minutes. New were rewarded for their persistence in the 85th minute when James Sutton scored after Worcester failed to clear their lines from a corner. this, however, Worcester were predominantly solid in defence during the second half as they had been in the first. Clearly the arrival of talented freshers this year, particularly Toogood, has helped strengthen Worcester’s squad. Did someone say the Blues needed a striker…?Dan Bagshaw, put his team’s poor first half performance down to a lack of concentration at the back: “It was just the first ten minutes where there was a total lack of concentration from our defence. We can’t afford to do that when the opposition have pace up front.”ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005

St Hugh’s 2Queen’s 1They may be the Queen’s college but there has been nothing regal about Queen’s start to their Cuppers campaign. This was the upset of the first round. Although Hugh’s have an established reputation as a top flight club and a side capable of reaching the latter stages of this historic competition, Queen’s bring with them a vast array of Blues talent, apparently superior football ability and, at least before the last two games, a feared reputation as the best side in Oxford. What they did not have, it would seem, was Hugh’s fighting spirit, or their good fortune.For 90% of the game Queen’s looked as if their royal reputation was at least partly justified. After a sluggish start they had begun to move the ball better, finding gaps in the Hugh’s defence and, although never looking as inventive or incisive as their status would suggest, looked to be trampling Hugh’s resolve in a blitz-like example of attritional warfare. But two shock second half goals in an ocean of subordination, two careless moments from a complacent Queen’s defence, created two moments of joy for a Hugh’s side who had endured an afternoon of struggle and apprehension.It appears as though another lengthy cup run could be on the cards for the men in yellow.Hugh’s had reached half time a goal adrift and then it seemed that only one result was likely. Sush Yaliamanychili’s 25th minute strike had provided Queen’s with a deserved lead and, with the half time introduction of the inspirational Kurosh Nikbin, victory and the end of their early season nightmare seemed assured. But it was here that Hugh’s blitz spirit showed through. Their first goal came on 60 minutes as Christos Hajipapas, to the bewilderment of both sets of fans, found himself alone in the area and advancing on the goalkeeper, managing to hold his nerve and lift the ball over the keeper’s sprawled form. It represented Hugh’s first shot on target in the game and seemed both to shock them out of their reverence and turn Queen’s defence into a bundle of nerves. Adam Macanelly terrorised the Queen’s right back, throwing himself into three consecutive challenges while Matt Sale almost gave his side the lead with another one-on-one opportunity. Hugh’s blood was up. After being out-battled and outclassed by Nikbin and treated with imperious disdain by the excellent John Butterfield for the whole match, they could finally sense their opportunity.With 75 minutes gone the battlers overcame the artistes. A long throw caused panic in the area, a goalmouth scramble ensued and the ball ricocheted into the path of Adeep Rawal who turned it in to the empty net from ten yards. It was another goal that came against a tide of Queen’s possession and intense pressure, but the visitors had deservedly suffered for their complacency. To Hugh’s handful of attacks, Queen’s had spawned a host of excellent opportunities. Yalamanchili, Carpenter, Nikbin and Zacariah had all forced their way through the Hugh’s defence but none of them had converted. Theirs had been a dominant but messy performance and they had been punished mercilessly.There was more anguish to come later on for Hugh’s: Nikbin twice went close from outside the box, but they deservedly held out and recorded a memorable cup upset. It was a clinical, professional, if workmanlike performance from the underdogs against which the royal colours of Queen’s had no answer. They will have to fight hard if they want to retain their crown.Despite being lauded universally as pre-season favourites and tipped to extend their dominance of the college football landscape, resounding opening day defeat has been followed by this: a lethargic and supercilious embarrassment against a team they would expect to stroll past and, for the second time in as many seasons, their ignominious exit from Cuppers before their campaign had seriously begun. ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005

Oxford 1Royal Navy 0Blue was the colour as Oxford met the Navy at Iffley Road on Monday. Only the sky, a pale grey pall, failed to turn a matching shade, as swirling rain and a breezy wind joined force to inhibit Oxford’s passing game, though the home side eventually triumphed with a 1-0 win.Just five days earlier, the season opener against Loughborough III had fallen decidedly flat as the game was abandoned after five minutes. If expectation and hope were the predominant emotions for the Blues at the start of the Loughborough match then these were soon replaced with expectation and hope of a very different kind with players crossing their fingers for their injured team mate, James Perkins. As the ball broke outside the area, Perkins stretched for the first real tackle of the game. It seemed an innocuous tussle and play continued as a Loughborough attacker lashed a sumptuous drive which inched the wrong side of the post for a goal kick. But that goal kick was never taken as, immediately, both team benches jumped up and hollered for an ambulance. Perkins had broken his leg in what was a morose ending to a promising match. Rustiness turned to well-oiled, lamb to lion as the Oxford beast was woken from its slumber. Aided by the gale, Simon Jalie curled a well-worked free kick over the bar, and then bulleted a shot against the opposing keeper when put through one-on-one. Routine balls over the top were turned into lethal opportunities as the soddened turf favoured the mental and physical speed of the home attack. One might have thought that the Navy would be adept at watery situations. Yet they were more barnacle than good ship as they just about managed to hold out until the break. But on 47 minutes their defence was breached. A break down the left saw Luther Sullivan slide through a simple cross for the onrushing Vince Vitale, who evaded the all-at-sea defence and slotted into the empty net. A simple goal, almost matched seconds later when the omnipresent Vitale crossed for Joel Lazarus, who thrashed a fierce drive wide. Oxford were looking comfortable, the defence in particular excelling. The wiry James Doree ranged up and down the left flank, Owen Price was superb in the air, and the team was well marshalled at the back by the pairing of Captain Jack Hazzard and Paul Rainford. The five coaches of the mariners decided to make a change, bringing on the aptly named duo of Major and Salt. With the wind in their favour they pushed back the Oxford defensive line, and only a lack of polish on their final ball stopped them from getting back into the game. Referee Taylor turned down what seemed a legitimate penalty as the Navy’s Hirst was felled after a corner. A closer escape was to follow for Oxford as their opponents had a goal ruled out when Navy captain Thomas needlessly nodded in a goalbound shot from an offside position. Oxford clung on for a win that was, on balance, deserved. With their naval foe dispatched and Perkins’ injury partly exorcised, the Blues can look forward to the rest of the season with confidence and relish.After the match, Hazzard said he was “pleased with the result more than the performance.” But, he added, “conditions were tough and I know we can play better. We just needed to get our first win of the season. Hopefully the performances will come off that.” Of Perkins’ injury, Hazzard said it was too early to comment. Cherwell would like to wish him a speedy recovery.After an execrable opening period some observers might have wished that Referee Bruce Taylor would also swiftly end the match against the Royal Navy. The Oxford machine mirrored the rusty leaves falling from the trees. The only highlight, if one can call it that, was a facial injury to a Navy player who returned to the pitch with his face plastered with tape, looking like Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs. But it was Oxford who played like silent lambs until, on 25 minutes, from out of the grey, Matt Rigby bolted a 40-yard drive which cannoned back off the bar.ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005

Pornography is a diverse beast. The umbrella term is used to include anything from X-rated videos to vacantly grinning blondes in The Sun. Whether we choose the loaded term “porn” or the rather literary “erotica” to describe explicit material, it is safe to say men are the main consumers, while women rarely do more than titter over the occasional Levi jeans hunk.Still, the age-old stereotype of pornography perusal is changing. Human-kind has seen many ages of the porn enthusiast, from the gentleman appreciating erotic sketches in his study, to the haggard old man clutching paper bags full of magazines, to Page Three oglers and men who watch women peeing via a webcam.The female fan of erotica has not assumed as many forms, at least not overtly. Common cultural beliefs suggest that women neither have such a demanding libido nor do they seek to satisfy it through visual stimuli, instead requiring factors such as security and love for sensual fulfilment. despite this perpetuation of the tedious stereotype that women just want to be cuddled and men will spurt over anything leggy, statistics suggest that these beliefs are just plain wrong. According to a new study on sexual behaviour, conducted by Gert Martin Hald, a danish psychologist from Århus University, 80% of women aged 18- 30, from a representative sample of 688, had viewed porn, and half of that number did so at least once a month – and this figure only represents the ones who admit to it.Although these numbers fall well short of the corresponding ones for men, it is clear that women are coming out into the open about their appreciation of the erotic potential of images, film, and writing. ‘Pornography’ originally comes from the Greek words meaning “writings about whores”, and if this is taken literally then no wonder pornography is the domain of the male. Few women will swoon over the male-originated fantasy versions of themselves that we see in Playboy: always accommodating and willing to do anything to please their men, the pin-ups in these magazines are interviewed about their wildest sex acts, with anything else about them being ignored or edited out. They are portrayed, for the pleasure of the male reader, as walking, talking, shagging dolls.The men starring in pornographic videos also cater for a male fantasy: short, moustached and aggressive, they sell the dream that even the salivating Sid Sexists who consume this kind of porn can possess a busty nymphomaniac.No wonder, then, that so many women feel alienated by mainstream porn. They cannot relate to ludicrous caricatures, such as the cheerleader desperate to be banged by the whole football team. Worse still, the silicone-enhanced blonde porn commonplace is even more damaging; some women are led to consider it a universal ideal among men, another blow to their already cowering self-esteem. If mainstream porn culture is generally alienating to women, where would we find what the modern day woman is looking at in their boudoirs? The internet has a plethora of ‘alternative’ porn sites, such as BurningAngel.com and SuicideGirls.com where the tattooed, pierced, small-breasted, big-hipped and unusually striking woman is celebrated, as is the punkish, cheeky man.You can also look at BellaVendetta.com, which celebrates every fetish you never realised you had: menstrual art, zombie fetishes, feet – the list is endless. Bella, the brain behind the site, laughingly describes it as “a unique micro niche fetish site that is out to prove that art is everywhere, you just have to know where to look”.Interestingly, one third of the subscribers to BellaVendetta are female. Bella explains: “Some women do it purely because they appreciate the sensuality and beauty of the photos, some do it because they covet what they don’t have.” These sites show women in a number of different forms; all beautiful, but not according to any defining aesthetic principle. They have been praised as trailblazers who not only show a variety of ‘real women’ – SuicideGirls boasts “the most crush-worthy women on the planet” – but are often directed and controlled by women.Contrary to the attack of feminist figures like Andrea dworkin, who claim that all pornography is debasing for thefemale sex, women are setting their own limits. “I don’t believe any authority should tell a woman what is and isn’t degrading to her,” says Bella. Although she agrees that a lot of pornography can be interpreted as demeaning, this need not necessarily be the case: “On the flipside, there is lots of pornography that empowers women, because it’s women making their own choices and expressions about their sexuality.” Having women at the helm is the most obvious step. SuicideGirls was considered to function under the jurisdiction of “Missy Suicide”, a vampy businesswoman, with Sean “Spooky” Suhl as her mysterious sidekick. However, the site has been damaged by recent allegations that SG is not about empowering women at all. Like every other porn site, it is all about money, and like much of the industry, it is about misogyny.Forty out of more than eight hundred of the site’s models walked out as a protest against the treatment of a fellow model, who was removed from the site after complaining about her payment in her online journal, also maintained by SG.Much of the dispute now centres on the fact that although the girls’ access to the site and their online journals have been terminated, the nude pictures of them are still on the site. SG had, prior to this scandal, ensured that a detailed profile and web journal expressed the characters of the models, so that viewers could not view them merely as flesh.Now, however, the expelled models have no personality on the site while their scantily clad images remain. A plethora of accusations followed: that the site sometimes fails to pay the girls, and sends threatening letters to perceived ‘alt-porn’ rivals; that Suhl, as well as being a secret dictator behind the scenes, has also used terms such as “whore” and “ugly” to refer to the models.There are many such testimonials on Gloomdolls.com, a site that claims to set the record straight about the dark side of SG. Ex-model Jennifer Caravella was quoted in Wired News warning that “females who are 18 years old and want to be a SuicideGirl need to understand who they’re representing. It’s certainly not a group of women who are working together for this”. Cynics maintain that original claims about the feminist aspirations of SuicideGirls should have been denounced from the start, since any business that is about money is going to put that first. This begs the question of whether there is any way to remove the money problem from porn in order to make it about power rather than exploitation.BellaVendetta is the only erotic website I found where the models volunteer to do shoots, rather than get paid, and are happy to do so while the project finds its feet. I asked a writer at BV, “Onyx”, if this impacts the nature of the website. She replied, “I strongly feel that BV is truly unique. It is women and men doing what they love, what they feel passionately for and it is their decision.” She added that “the models aren’t jack-off material because they get off in the photo shoots themselves”. Onyx tells me that her experience with the site has given her a feeling of power, something she describes as “truly sexy”. Her involvement with the site, she says, “empowered [her] to take control and write even though [she] was criticized, to explore [her] sexuality and to learn new things.” Unfortunately, just as women are struggling towards a more open-minded, feminist-compatible kind of erotica, George W Bush and the extreme right in the US are declaring a war on porn. The Chinese government has already adopted a similar policy, and so far closed 1800 adult sites. Western governments are following suit. US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has deemed porn to be “a threat to families and children”. He does not make it clear how this is true, as this top-priority initiative is directed not towards paedophilic websites but rather erotica made by adults, starring adults, for the viewing of other adults. BV, with its controversial variety of kinks, will undoubtedly be targeted.A glance at the website reveals many sadomasochistic images of women in bondage, which could easily be labelled as obscene. However, Bella tells me that “maybe some people consider being submissive to be degrading, but many submissive woman are in loving sadomasochistic relationships and treated with the utmost respect”.This progressive view of alternative lifestyles undoubtedly won’t wash with Bush, but although protecting our right to porn is not the easiest protest to stand by, we need to realise that the move towards destruction of erotic culture is a significant and worrying erosion of our freedom of speech.  ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005

At the end of last month six students at the University of Lancaster were found guilty, in a magistrates’ court, of taking part in a peaceful demonstration against companies linked to the arms trade who held a conference on the campus in late 2004. The University decided to press charges of aggravated trespass against their own students.The George Fox Six, as the arrested students have become known, were exercising their right to free speech just as generations of students have done for decades across the country. If the case of the Lancaster students, whose seemingly harmless crime was to hand out leaflets and hold up banners, is to be taken as a precedent, the rights of students throughout Britain to protest could be in jeopardy.This is particularly the case in Oxford where the University owns so much land. One of the Lancaster student protesters commented on his university’s situation: “The University has a duty to allow and even facilitate the expression of views opposing unethical companies and the University’s involvement with them.It is wrong, and in the long term counter-productive, for an academic institution to ignore such concerns, let alone to prosecute those who raise them.” In the wake of a New Labour convention which attempted to set limits on democracy and freedom of speech, and in an age in which the public is banned from protesting within a kilometre of parliament, as students we must ask whether our voice is been taken away from us. And if it is, do we really care? Other universities do seem to protest better than Oxford.While only a small number of Oxford students protested earlier in the year against Reed Elsevier’s connection with the arms trade, the action which took place at Lancaster has galvanised their student body into protest. Perhaps we simply need a few student heroes in Oxford in order to avoid the extinction of student activism.Yet with less than half a per cent of Oxford’s considerable student body turning up to Examination Schools to protest against the introduction of top-up fees, they seem unlikely to emerge. At least those who did protest in 2004 managed to get the University to cancel lectures on the day of the march and the contingent of Oxford students who joined the Stop the War march succeeded in keeping the words ‘Oxford student’ and ‘protest’ in the same sentence in the local press.Yet other universities sent much bigger groups than Oxford. The question to be asked is whether Oxford students still feel that they have the power to make a difference, or even whether they care enough to protest about social issues affecting them. Oxford today is synonymous with animal rather than human rights issues and the student population seems curiously detached from the world around them.Student campaigning does not have to be limited to ‘student issues’, but has traditionally related immediate concerns to wider issues of human rights and international solidarity. This seems to have been forgotten in the present student political climate. Is the age of student protest coming to an end? Have students become dulled into deference? Without doubt, the glory days of student protest in Britain were in the sixties and then again in the eighties.The real beginning could perhaps be dated to 1965 when the birth of the new polytechnics and universities saw student numbers increase to about 300,000. Britain was suddenly overwhelmed with a new wave of students who had voices, and these students wanted universities and governments to listen to them.They were angry, and they were determined to get their concerns addressed and protect their freedom. This period saw the formation of the Radical Student Alliance (RSA) and then an organisation called the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign which organised student protest throughout the country seemingly far more effectively than the more recent Stop the War campaign. University sit-ins were commonplace at universities all over the country. Our parents’ generation looks nostalgically back to these sixties demonstrations and the mark they made. If they were in Grosvenor Square in 1967 they will wax lyrical about the part they played in stopping the Vietnam War.But perhaps they had an advantage: they were helped by a groundswell of student protest across Europe and more importantly across the United States. British students were protesting in the sixties at a time when the rest of the world was also demanding to be listened to. The Vietnam protests coincided with student support for the Civil Rights Movement and protests about freedom of information in many UK universities.The fact that Jack Straw and Charles Clarke were probably marching around at the same time chanting “Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” is pretty disillusioning given their recent role in invading Iraq. But in 1968 students all over the world were protesting and having a real effect on governments. These students certainly weren’t as apathetic as our generation.President Lyndon Johnson was so shocked by the wave of student protests in his country that he told a friend, “I felt that I was been chased on all sides by a giant stampede. I was being forced over the edge by ration blacks, demonstrating students, marching welfare mothers, squawking professors and hysterical reporters.”1968 was the year when the scent of student revolution could be smelt all over the world. Not just the university system but the government itself was rocked in France when students in Paris took to the barricades and were joined by striking workers.In Germany student radicalism spawned the Baader-Meinhof group, the most feared terrorist cell in mainland Europe. In Britain the days of student marching, protesting, demonstrating and campaigning reoccurred in the eighties at Greenham Common with demonstrations, particularly by women, against nuclear warheads in the UK.Later, in 1989, there were huge marches against the poll tax. These were the years in which most of us were born. Perhaps we have some vague childhood memories of chants of “Maggie Maggie Maggie out out out!” and remember that although the poll tax went, the Conservative government certainly did not. Student grants were cut and replaced by student loans.Students were just not important any more. They didn’t even bother to vote. Recently, the National Union of Students and, more specifically, their president, Kat Fletcher, have faced huge criticism for an apparent lack of interest in student activism and for backing down over the issue of top- up fees.The NUS has lost the will to campaign and perhaps to even exist, as was aptly illustrated by the postponement of the annual conference this year. When the conference finally did meet it was cut from four to three days – not a great demonstration of a union bursting with energy and anger on behalf of students.In addition the NUS is currently £700,000 in debt. Debt may have become part of the student experience but for the NUS it reflects a declining membership, ironic when student numbers are rising. Recently Fletcher has joined a government information campaign to promote the policy of top-up fees and has pledged to “build an effective opposition to the student left”.This stance might come as a surprise to many students who see the NUS as a left-wing representational body for students across the country. What other union backs the government in worsening the conditions of its members? Frustrated by these proceedings by the NUS, daniel Randall has founded an alternative platform for student activism called Education Not For Sale. On the subject of Fletcher and the NUS, Randall commented, “Since [the creation of the new group], she has made numerous attacks on democracy and accountability within NUS, slashing funding for National Executive members, reducing the size of annual National Conference and cutting it to less than three days.She and the clique around her, many of them former left-wingers, have done nothing to restore a campaigning link between the NUS structures and the students they are supposed to represent. They have refused to organise a fight to repair the years of damage inflicted by right-wing government policy.” If the NUS executive have become apologists for a government which has inflicted top-up fees on students and cannot organise effective campaigning is it any wonder that students throughout the UK feel frustrated? While it is certain that protest does still exist in Oxford, Oxford students are nevertheless right to feel politically impotent.The government and many leading members of the cabinet who were themselves at the forefront of student politics seem to utterly ignore the concerns of today’s student population. Perhaps we cannot make a difference but at least some Oxford students still try to concern themselves with other things than the bar prices across town. There was for instance an anti-capitalist protest outside the Said Business School in August with a handful of protesters.In July protesters were outside Tesco on Cowley Road on behalf of Polish workers in Ireland. A contingent of Oxford students were in Scotland over the summer for the G8 summit, although once again other universities sent greater numbers. A small number of students protested about animal rights outside Thomas Cook in September while others joined the much larger protests against the University.Last week Oxford CNd were urging students to join the downing Street Peace Camp formed by mothers of soldiers killed in Iraq as a sad sequel to that Stop the War march to which Oxford students contributed only a handfull of students to in 2003. Perhaps Oxford relies on the Oxford Union as its voice of protest. Indeed the Union says on its web pages that it is at the cutting edge of controversy, however it then cites the last time it made a national impact as 1975 – before most of us here were born.Some of the debates held at the Union do certainly seem to stir up controversy, and even in the past month protesting students have had to be removed from an address by President Mogae of Botswana who is accused of persecuting the Bushmen of Botswana. Oxford students do, however, seem to petition more effectively than protest: over 2000 signatures were gathered from students and dons to protest against the decision to go to war with Iraq. Similarly the petition against Margaret Thatcher following her decision to cut academic funding for universities resulted in her being the only post-war Oxford educated Prime Minister not to receive an honourary degree.But these petitions seem to pale into insignificance when compared to the mass protests of the sixties. If you feel it is about time you became a student protester then the opportunities arecertainly waiting for you in the University. The Oxford Student Activist network and the Oxford Action Resource centre on Cowley Road will tell you what you can protest about, where to go and what to do. Forthcoming events include a Campaign Against Climate Change demonstration in London on 3 december.A hundred people have attended the first Oxford planning meeting, and the protest is to include a bicycle ride through London. It will be interesting to see how successful the event is. If the London demonstration and other future protests fail, and the mindsets of students do not change soon then universities, and indeed Britain, will have lost a very potent campaigning political voice.Our apathy means that not only will the issues which students are concerned with continue to be ignored, but that the glory days and direct action of the sixties will recede further into the past.ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005

Hillary Clinton enters the reception area outside her office in Washington where my photographer and I are waiting, suddenly rather nervous. dressed in her trademark dark suit she is expressionless, but there is an air of supreme confidence and importance about her.I instantly get the feeling that she isn’t the kind of person given to taking bullshit from people, particularly not from 19 year old student reporters. Surrounded by a small crowd of advisors, press secretaries, assistants and other associated handlers, she issues a few whispered instructions plainly relating to significant matters of national security, but then calmly brushes them aside while she sizes us both up.For one or two seconds she stares at us with her huge and rather unnerving eyes. I start to stammer something vaguely along the lines of “Good Afternoon” when suddenly her face breaks into a smile. Relieved to see that she appears to be less intimidating than she is sometimes portrayed in the American press, I stand up and shake her hand.She welcomes us and leads us from the reception area into her office, showering us with cordiality and superficial compliments: “Thank you so much for coming down to see us”, “All the Clintons, Bill, Chelsea and myself, just love Oxford, you know.” Still nervous, I sit down opposite Clinton and we begin to talk about politics.Her experience in the field is broad to say the least. While doing some research I was interested to discover that during her campaign for the Senate she had voiced strong support for the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that not one single Senator voted for when it was presented to Congress.So I decide to start by asking her about Kyoto and the general American attitude to climate change. “Well,” she answers, “although the Kyoto Treaty is still a moot point for us, ie. in the Senate, because President Bush won’t present it for ratification, I am deeply concerned by the effects of climate change. Still, since I don’t like wasting my time on futile efforts, I don’t see any point in talking about Kyoto from an American perspective so long as there is a Republican majority in Congress and a Republican in the White House.She continues, What I wish the President had done, if he was not going to support Kyoto, was to create another process. The Senators’ claim as to why they wouldn’t support Kyoto was that it left China, India and other developing countries out. Well, fine! Let’s have a different process, then. The irony today is that China and India are moving ahead to deal with the impact of their contributions to greenhouse gases more vigorously than the United States.”She does drop in a hint of optimism though: “At the time the vote was held, the energy industry in America had a tremendous hold over the political leadership and they didn’t want the treaty ratified. They had enough control and influence to be able to sway a lot of votes.However, that is beginning to change. Some of the more enlightened gas and oil companies are calling for conservation measures and other kinds of action to deal with the long term impact of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”Pausing for a moment, I glance around the room. The Senator’s office looks like a photograph from an interior-design magazine. It’s amazingly well-lit and immaculately neat. Everything seems to be very carefully placed, making it a bit difficult for me to imagine someone drawing up complex pieces of legislation here.Looking over at the corner to my right, I find Clinton’s press secretary sitting quietly at a small table, listening intently to my questions. He seems to be ready to jump in and tell me off if I ask anything unsuitable.Vaulting around the room like a grasshopper is my photographer who is determined to take a number of brilliant pictures of Clinton from various angles during our 20-minute interview, even if that means standing on top of an armchair to take a shot. I decide to move on, and ask her about England and America. “You know,” she says, “the Blair government is doing some things that I wish America would follow in. I think it’s very important for Britain to have an agenda that is an example for the United States because we have such a close relationship. There is such a sense of comradeship between our two countries that it is very helpful for someone like me in the Senate to be able to say, ‘Well look at what Tony Blair is trying to do about energy’. Look at what he’s doing about Kyoto. Look at what he wants to do with debt relief. Look at what he’s willing to do about contributions to alleviate poverty. Still, it’s difficult because this administration is not very willing to give much back to anyone, including our close allies. It’s their way or no way. They don’t want to be inconvenienced by discussions of climate change or development aid, which are not part of their ideological framework. They are more than willing to accept Britain’s help, to use Tony Blair as a spokesman, a more articulate defender of their policies in Iraq than their own President can be. But they’re not going to go the extra step and actually form a partnership on some of these other very important international issues.”Her mention of the difference in the oratorical skills possessed by Bush and the Prime Minister makes me wonder why Blair had so much more difficulty making the case for the war. Her reply is fairly blunt: “You weren’t attacked. We were, and that changes everything. It’s similar to World War II: Churchill didn’t have any trouble convincing the British to fight, but Franklin Roosevelt did; again, until we were attacked. That is the difference in the perspectives of the two countries.” Obviously and understandably, the experience of September 11 changed the way Americans think about the world, but I can’t help thinking that there’s something more to it than this. I ask whether she thinks that America is perhaps an inherently more right-wing state than the rest of the world. “I think there is an element of that,” she replies. “Our politics grow out of different traditions. We had a frontiermentality which put a premium on rugged individualism to settle the west and that’s remained part of our culture. We’re a much younger country, we haven’t been around as long as European countries and we haven’t had the intense pressures that Europe has faced for centuries. There’s a feeling of invulnerability on the part of many Americans. It’s based on experience. But at the moment we’re fighting over what the proper role of government should be in today’s world, and there’s a big philosophical divide over this issue.”That there is “a big philosophical divide” in American politics is hardly breaking news, but Clinton’s assessment of it does appear rather unique. While most politicians and pundits seem to blame the strength of an opposing ideology (from evangelical Christianity to neoconservatism and multiculturalism to secularism, depending on who you ask) for the political wars in the States, Clinton looks at the problem from a historical perspective. Unlike many other left-wing leaders and writers in America and around the world who, rather condescendingly, classify the 62 million people who voted for George W Bush as religious fanatics, ignorant rednecks or jingoistic warhawks, she seems willing to believe that there is a rational reason why many Americans are so conservative compared to the rest of the world.If she does, as current speculation has it, run for President in 2008, this kind of approach to the voters in ‘red states’ will be vital. A column in July’s American political magazine, Washington Monthly, cautioned that Clinton was unelectable because too many Americans have already decided they don’t like her. She’s allegedly seen as being out of touch, pushy and self-righteous. That said, if she is willing to try and understand why people have that impression, there’s no reason why she can’t change their opinions.ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005