Saturday, May 10, 2025
Blog Page 67

Mitski’s The Land is Inhospitable tour review: The artist by herself

0

The original title I had for this article was ‘Retired from Sad, New Business in Camp’. This was weeks before the actual concert itself, where my view was entirely informed by the series of videos posted on the instagram account, @mitskiontour. From the upbeat rendering of I Don’t Smoke, to the dead-bug poise Mitski holds in the second verse of I Bet On Losing Dogs, these excerpts seemed to promise a campy, joyous, pick-apart-and-put-back-together of the bastion songs of my teenage years. 

Performed in the historic Eventim Apollo, the third day of The Land is Inhospitable and So Are We’s UK tour did not fulfill my expectations as a hedonistic, debaucherous upturning of everything that had come before. This is not to say that the concert was conventional or banal, by any means – it was undoubtedly one of my favourite concerts I’ve been to recently. It’s just that I had expected the concert to be far more wild and irreverent, a complete disavowal of the resentment, sadness and anger of past albums in a total stylistic turnaround. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised by the deliberate reimagination of Mitski’s past works, and the artful negotiation of the troubles of her career that came with it. 

There were indeed joyful subversions of the genre, such as the soaring live fiddle that played over the acoustics of Pink in the Night and the slightly jazzy twist to Valentine, Texas replete with tasteful dings of the triangle. Still, these were counterbalanced with the classics preserved in their original form: I Bet on Losing Dogs, First Love/Late Spring, Last Words of a Shooting Star, and Washing Machine Heart, among other well-known pieces, remained true to their album versions. 

Especially given the rampant TikTok proliferation and occasional misinterpretation (and yes, I am an avid supporter of gatekeeping Mitski songs when lyrics are taken and divorced from the broader context of the song) of her works, I found that Mitski’s mix of preservation and reinvention appropriately honoured her fanbase, especially newcomers without an in-depth attachment to the full extent of her discography, while still granting ample room for artistic experimentation. 

Such a balance is particularly commendable given Mitski’s own relationship with music and performance. In a 2021 interview with Rolling Stone’s Angie Martoccio, Mitski admitted that, at the point of her last performance for the Be the Cowboy tour in 2018, she was thinking of it as the last show she would ever perform, before quitting and finding another life. She spoke of the objectification fame brought: “The music industry is this supersaturated version of consumerism. You are the product being consumed, bought, and sold.”

In the contemporary world of concerts, it seems that most artists exist at the extremes in terms of how they respond to this commodification: either they provide a range of personable divulgences about their lives and histories, engineering a familiarity with their audience to feed into the parasociality of relationships, or they maintain a stoic indifference towards adoring fans (thinking specifically of one British band which makes it notoriously difficult for any concert-goers to sing along with them). 

I’m not going so far as to say Mitski has resolved this tension entirely. Without a doubt, it remains difficult for those of us who resonate with her crafted lyricism and plaintive melodies to not feel, or at least yearn for, some sort of deeper connection with her as a person. 

Mitski doesn’t abuse this dynamic. She preserves a professional distance. During the concert, there were three segments in which  she spoke directly to the audience, and in none was she distinctly confessional. In the second break, introducing her band members, Mitski spoke more of the artists around her than of herself, sharing the spotlight in an important way. 

Still, her appreciation for her listeners is undeniable. “All of us,” she says, after introducing the band members, “with all of our lives, are very happy to be here, doing this for you.” At the very end of her concert, she gives a tender farewell to the audience: “I know you won’t believe me when I say this, but I love you – I love you very much.”

This struggle between self-preservation and exposure, between pressure, connection, and integrity is exemplified in the physical arrangement of the performances itself. After the opener, the audience is tantalised by a red curtain draped around an elevated circular platform, which forms a smaller stage on the large set of the hall. Although Mitski enters from stage left, she remains on this central podium thereafter. 

Over the course of the concert, various things arrive and are taken from the platform: chairs are carted off, strobe lights rotate merrily around the borders, mirror shards distend and recede into the ceiling, with the artist farewelling each prop and ornament in its own way. Despite the permeability of this threshold, the artist herself never leaves – she remains there, in a black A-line skirt, marionette-like choreography complementing her songs. 

At times, it feels that the physical performance space makes literal the artist’s entrapment within her role: constrained by the expectations of her audience in performance, as one might feel in love (particularly if one relates to her repertoire), Mitski rebuffs and attempts to escape from these barriers. In Geyser, the artist runs to and is violently pushed back from the borders of the platform by some invisible force. The lyrics paired with this dance transfer across both the domains of romantic and artistic relationships: “I will be the one you need / The way I can’t be without you / I will be the one you need / I just can’t be without you” is a promise and a plea to a lover, but also to fans. 

However, these boundaries in the concert are very much self-imposed. They maintain a purposeful distancing between the performer and the watchers, and demonstrate a close control over the artistic experience of the audience. Everything in the concert is well-chosen and deeply intentional, with each step and pulse finely tuned and timed to the beating of background drums, or the arrival of each new song. 

Only at the very end does Mitski leap off the platform, breaking free from these restraints to offer something of herself: to give her final bows and bid us all goodbye. 

This tour shows the audience a performer dedicated to her art, paying them their due while preserving a sense of independence and separation. It reclaims interpretation of many of her most noted works – where they might have been made trite by overuse, she reinjects resentment, grief and vitality. Still, it demonstrates a deep affinity for the lives and connections of concert-goers to her songs. While I did tear up on multiple occasions, exiting the Eventim did not leave me feeling as empty as concerts tend to do: not pushed to violent extremes of emotions, I felt deeply grounded in my own body and experiences throughout her performance. 


It’s a challenging effect to have in the often consumerist, sensationalised world of music that we live in nowadays. In the end, the brilliance of The Land is Inhospitable tour is that it is an endeavour borne out of sincere love and respect for the audience, the art, and the performer, Mitski herself.

Inside the Oxford wine world: The Bacchus termly dinner

0

Dressing up in black tie on a Tuesday isn’t too alien to an Oxford student. But, even to the Editor of Oxford’s best newspaper, a Bacchus dinner is rather daunting. So is the £80 price tag. At the same time, had I bought the wines by the glass in a wine bar, I’d easily be looking at triple digits. So, how was my experience at the Trinity Term Bacchus Dinner at the Cherwell Boathouse?

The wine list, accompanied by five courses, was as follows: Cedro do Noval (2023), Lions de Suduiraut (2023), Les Griffons de Pichon Baron (2020), Château Pichon Baron (2011), Château Suduiraut Sauternes (2015), Disznókö Tokaji Aszú 5 Puttonyos (2013), and Colheita Tawny Port [Quinta do Noval] (2007).

Although it was a wine-tasting dinner, I had still expected the food to be better than it was. The highlight of the show was the starter, an interesting combination of octopus carpaccio with oranges and chili. The courses thereafter were small and largely unimaginative. Whilst nothing was too offensive, the Cotswold chicken was uninspiring, and the two dessert courses left much to be desired (and to be eaten – the portions were extremely small). The braised lamb neck was, however, well cooked, and the 2011 Château Pichon Baron was the perfect pairing.

The Cherwell Boathouse is a great location, tucked away in the suburbs of North Oxford, providing a peephole to the beautiful Oxfordshire countryside. The dinner took place in the marquee overlooking the eponymous River Cherwell. Whilst heavy rain soaked some, others – having arrived on time – were greeted by a lovely sommelier with the first wine, the apéritif. A harpist reaffirmed the ancient Greek tropes of Bacchus (the society being named after the Roman god of agriculture, wine, and fertility), and the marquee itself was well-ventilated and beautifully lit. 

The wine, provided by the vineyards of AXA Millésimes, was brilliant. CEO Christian Seely presented his wines with a great deal of wit and, importantly, detail. My personal favourites were the 2011 Château Pichon Baron and the 2013 Tokaji. The former is the pinnacle of a sophisticated red; the vineyard’s website describes it as “show[ing] great elegance, intensity and exceptional length on the palate.” The Tokaji, on the other hand, was great fun. A sweeter, more interesting wine, Tokaji is a Hungarian dessert wine; it has strong notes of tropical fruits yet still sits with good weight on the palate. I think I’ll be buying a bottle of this for my parents. If you’re not much into wine yourself, you’ll have likely never tried a Tokaji – it was also my first time. The Oxford Wine Café carries one Tokaji – a slightly drier one, but nonetheless also worth trying.

The Oxford University Wine Society (i.e., Bacchus) is soon to head into its 25th year of existence. There is certainly much more work to be done in making it more accessible to a wider audience – but I was positively impressed by both the committee members and regular Bacchus-goers. Having expected undiplomatic, tweed-sporting public schoolers, I was surprised by the welcoming and self-aware cohort which found itself drinking expensive vintage port on a wet Tuesday evening in May.

To those that teeter on the edge of not wanting to seem too pretentious, yet love a good glass of red, I say: go for it. To Bacchus, I say: work on making yourself more beginner-friendly. You have a great, light-hearted air about yourselves, which isn’t self-evident or necessarily axiomatic for an Oxford society in this field. Whilst the food wasn’t particularly memorable, the wine was excellent, and I certainly had a great evening.

‘There’s a seat at the table for everyone’: In Conversation with Daisy Maskell

0

CW: Spiking. 

Daisy Maskell is, in short, a multimedia superwoman. Her documentaries have aired on BBC and Channel 4, she is the youngest breakfast show host in radio history (just 23 when she got the gig), and she recently featured on the Forbes 30 under 30 list. As if she wasn’t busy enough, Daisy produces her own documentaries too.

Daisy’s entrance into the industry came about through what can only be described as hard graft. She made her own showreel using B&Q wallpaper samples as backgrounds and holding microphones that connected to nothing. Then, she handed a USB stick round to receptionists at media companies. Through this, Daisy got a foot in the door at 4Music leading to a twice a week live presenting slot and “things sort of snowballed from there.” However, Daisy has noticed big changes in the industry since then, noting “I think I was probably the last person through the door at 4Music” and “those sorts of opportunities don’t really exist anymore, at least from a broadcast TV perspective, which is such a shame.” 

On the topic of interview tips and tricks, we get onto Daisy’s interview with Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson, which she cites as the favourite of her career so far. “As I was walking into the hotel to do the interview, my heel broke. […] I hobbled through the Corinthia Hotel lobby up to the room and I thought well, he’s not going to know because I’m going to be sat. Then when he came into the room, I thought well I have to stand up to greet him! He’s a tall guy anyway, so I was already six inches smaller and one of my heels was broken. So that was a really good icebreaker.” This could have felt like a disaster, but Daisy took it in her stride and turned it into an opportunity for connection. In fact, Daisy’s top interview tip is to have a personal anecdote or icebreaker to begin the interview on a note of personal connection. In doing this, you are recognising that the interviewee is just another human. I think I managed to take that advice, in a meta sort of way, using her Dwayne Johnson icebreaker as our icebreaker. 

Daisy praises press junkets like the one with Dwayne Johnson as “a very, very unique experience. The first interview I ever did was a junket, it was with Queer Eye, I remember. It was a really good training ground for me to learn how to do interviews because it’s super, super stressful. It’s more time sensitive as well, because you’re just being pushed in and out, and you only have a small amount of time to capture what you need. Whereas, when I do interviews on the radio we are welcoming someone into our studio, into our space and it’s just a little bit less of a stressful situation.” 

As well as both TV and radio presenting, Daisy works behind the scenes as producer on her documentaries, including the BBC’s Daisy Maskell: Insomnia & Me, and multiple episodes for Channel 4’s Untold series. The latter is aptly named, as Daisy categorises the topics that appeal to her as “anything where I feel as though it has a perspective we haven’t explored or seen yet, so anything with an untold, unheard or unseen angle or perspective is always super interesting.” In reference to her hands on investigative style that led to her getting spiked on camera (under medical supervision) and advertising her virginity for sale online, Daisy said  “I love a stunt as well. If there’s any way that we can wrap a stunt into a film or into the style of investigation, I really enjoy that […] with spiking, for example, we obviously went really radical with it and we did a live spike on camera. I find if there’s a subject area where we can really hammer home a new perspective or dangers, then that really draws me to explore a topic.” 

I ask Daisy about what it means, practically and in an everyday sense, to be a producer. It turns out the role is as diverse as the somewhat nebulous title suggests. It involves “overseeing visually what you want the project to look like […] dealing with the day-to-day technical ways of actually making that shoot happen” including the big questions like “how am I going to execute that? How are you going to film this? What is the style that you’re going for? And what equipment do you actually need to be able to execute that vision? For factual [i.e documentaries], it’s finding contributors. And there’s also a huge duty of care to consider with producing, too”. Additionally, there’s the administrative side of “what filming permit do we need to be able to shoot the things that we need to capture? Sometimes it’s sorting out accommodation and sorting out flights. So there’s so much that goes into it and I think it really depends on the project.”

Despite the demanding nature of the job, Daisy speaks with unwavering enthusiasm and clearly finds the work massively rewarding: “I think that’s always an amazing process. When I think about the films that we’ve made from the ideas that I’ve come up with in my bed at 3am, to then see them air on TV and get the response from viewers. It is a really special experience. You really do see the impact of your work, which I think is what it’s all about really.” She also emphasises the importance of teamwork in making these ideas happen. “I love collaboration. When you have a team of people that you love and you respect, it’s so nice to be able to collaborate. It’s really important to be able to acknowledge that, whilst you have this idea, and you may have this vision going into it… there’s a seat at the table for everyone, especially in factual, everyone has a new and different perspective on any topic that you’re investigating. Which I think makes a better film, as well.”

Of course, being a young woman in male dominated spaces comes with challenges. Issues such as impostor syndrome, self criticism and having your opinion pushed aside by others all factor in. Particularly for people struggling with this earlier in their careers, Daisy says, “it’s really important to never have your worth stripped. […] because being in those situations, it can really, really beat you down. And it can make you second guess yourself.” 

“Oftentimes, [this behaviour is] through insecurity, or the other person is projecting those feelings onto you. It’s nothing to do with you and it’s everything to do with someone else. It’s not that you aren’t worthy. It’s not that you don’t deserve a place at the table. And I think you have to have that mindset to push that feeling of inferiority and that feeling of  imposter syndrome aside, I would say it’s really about believing in yourself.” She also emphasises the importance of having a strong support system to check in with and help you find the strength to persevere. 

Finally, she underlines the importance of flagging up these situations, despite fear of the backlash that is especially prevalent in the media industry. “If you ever go through anything, please, please, please find those people to speak up to. It’s not okay to be in any workplace and feel as though you are being silenced or you aren’t being heard or you’re being undervalued. It’s important that we all work together to be able to create spaces that feel welcoming and are diverse as well. No matter your age, no matter your race, no matter your gender. That is super important.” Ending on a positive note, Daisy remarks “I really do hope in the next ten to fifteen years, we do start to see a massive shift in the way that people are treated in the workplace because we spend so much time at work. So we deserve to be happy and we deserve to be supported by our employers, too. We give so much and we deserve that respect back.”

In terms of career progression, Daisy advises that “it’s always worth checking in with yourself and realising that if there’s an area or role in that industry that you enjoy, or you want to learn more about, you have the opportunity to do so. I don’t think you have to have it all locked in and figured out and be in that position for the rest of your life. I think whatever makes you happy, and makes you feel like you’re growing and brings you fulfilment, it’s always worth exploring.” Daisy certainly doesn’t shy away from new areas and roles, leading to her diverse portfolio of achievements. 

Her advice for those looking to break into the industry given the shifting landscape? “Talk about what you love, showcase your talent on the platforms that you have available to you, because there are people watching and that really feels like a space where people are hiring from now … it’s really exciting to see new people breaking through as well. I love to be able to track the journey of other young people that are rising right now. It’s super, super, super exciting.” 

With Daisy so firmly wired into the pop culture zeitgeist, I would be remiss not to ask for her recommendations. So in the last moments of our interview I ask her recent favourites. Daisy is rewatching Gilmore Girls, is a lifelong diehard Elton John fan, and recommends the content of rising-star comedian Gabby Bryan, particularly “L’Podcast” with co-host Zack Signore- which is indeed hilarious. I can confirm that, additional to her ever-expanding repertoire of achievements, she also has great taste.

Oxford Union Town Hall TT24: Meet the candidates

0

Oxford Union elections for Trinity term 2024 are around the corner and Cherwell has interviewed both presidential candidates to find out more about their plans and ideas. This election follows recent controversy about the inclusivity and diversity in the Union, which involved an open letter, resignations, and all three major Union committees passing motions declaring the Union to be “institutionally racist”. The two candidates running for President, Izzy Horrocks-Taylor and Israr Khan, share their views on this and how they intend to handle the aftermath. Yet, keep in mind as you read: for all the racket and ruckus Union elections provoke, neither of the last two had a say in the final outcome anyway…

Introduce yourself briefly

Izzy: Izzy Horrocks-Taylor, she/her, Balliol, second year, classics

Israr: Israr Khan, he/him, Regent’s Park, DPhil, law

What commitments and experiences do you have outside the Union?

Izzy: I was an avid school debater, participating in Oxford Schools and going to finals of public speaking nationals.

Israr: I’m a law tutor. I have quite a few years of experience in a professional capacity, having run multiple programmes and organised conferences as director of different companies. 

What’s the top reason you’re running for President?

Izzy: Aside from caring about debate, I’m really passionate because I’ve always felt like there’s a lack of female representation on committees and in our term cards, and I really want to try to correct that, such as through handling the membership drive.

Israr: I grew up watching Union debates and they played a significant role in my life, but as I became part of the Union, I see there’s a lot of issues that recently resurfaced with the Union passing motions that it is “institutionally racist.” I think there’s a genuine way to make a change by winning with your entire candidacy where you can then have the power to do something concrete.

What’s one thing you would change or improve about the Union?

Izzy: I’d like to make sure as many perspectives as possible are heard. One thing I’m already doing is reviving the debate magazine to give our members the chance to contribute their thoughts and foster more debate.

Israr: I want to change and reform the rules that can be weaponised against members. I am determined to reform because I’ve not seen any genuine commitment or those who tried to commit have been sidelined.

If you could invite any three speakers to the Union, who would they be?

Izzy: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Michelle Obama, and Taylor Swift.

Israr: Malala, Elon Musk, and Jacinda Ardern.

What’s one thing you like about your opponent?

Izzy: I admire his passion and his care for the society.

Israr: She’s an incredibly kind person and has been on committee for a while.

Following recent discussions surrounding overuse of election tribunals and structural issues, how do you plan to manage your campaign and potential aftermaths?

Izzy: The culture around elections has become very litigious and there is a gross lack of transparency. I think there needs to be an independent review of all disciplinary processes done by a KC completely unaffiliated with any associated societies as well as a serious cultural change. I don’t believe in creating a culture of toxicity purely for the outcome of ambition.

Israr: I’m genuinely scared that even if I win I’d be tribunalled, where the system and the rules would be used against me. I’ve been very careful this whole term, intentionally not breaking any rules, but I still have that fear that things might be fabricated against me. I want it to be a democratic process of fair competition.

Oxford Councillors support OA4P arrested protesters

0

Three Oxford city councillors of the Oxford Community Independents have published a statement in support of Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P). Councillors Edward Mundy, Dr Hosnieh Djafari-Marbini, and Barbara Coyne wrote on X on 23rd May that they support the “peaceful sit-in” and “condemn the appalling response in the strongest possible terms.”

Mundy, Djafari-Marbini and Coyne also called on the Oxford University to “end hostility toward its students, faculty and community members; to call for the release of the arrested students; and to enter into good faith negotiations with Oxford Action for Palestine.” 

Furthermore, the Councillors said that the University administration’s “reliance on violent force to disperse a peaceful protest” will further remove the trust between the University and its students and staff. They added that they “applaud Oxford University students and staff for their courage” regarding what they described as “every-intensifying, soul shattering violence we all continue to witness daily in Gaza and throughout Palestine.”

OA4P told Cherwell that they are “pleased to see the Oxford Community Independent Councillors issue their statement supporting the struggle against settler colonialism, military occupation, and apartheid in Palestine. They join countless members of the Oxford community who are appalled by the University Administration’s disproportionate response to last week’s peaceful student protest, when it showed that it would rather criminalise, silence, and endanger its own students instead of confronting its enabling of israel’s genocide in Gaza.”

Additionally, the Councillors referred to the city of Oxford in their statement. They wrote that the Oxford city council has “unanimously voted for a ceasefire and reaffirmed the rights of everyone in Oxford to use peaceful means such as boycott, divestment and sanction” to end international support for “Israeli oppression of Palestinians and well-documented violations of international law”. 

Late last year multiple Labour Councillors quit the party over Keir Starmer’s comments on the War in the Gaza Strip. According to the Oxford Mail, the Councillors that resigned are Shaista Aziz, Dr Amar Latif, Paula Dunne, Imogen Thomas, Edward Mundy, Jabu Nala-Hartley, Dr Hosnieh Djafari-Marbini, Duncan Hall, Barbara Coyne and Ajaz Rehman. 

The Crown Estate to turn Debenhams building into a science laboratory

0

The former Debenhams building in central Oxford will be turned into a science laboratory. The renovation is part of an investment of around £125 million from The Crown Estate, the British monarchy’s property group, that marks the start of a long-term endeavour with Oxford Science Enterprises and Pioneer Group to contribute up to £1.5 billion in the UK’s science, technology, and innovation sectors. 

The large three-storey building that corners George Street and Magdalen Street closed in 2021 amidst COVID-19 lockdowns, during which Debenhams went into administration. It has since been unused and planning proposals will involve refurbishing the building but not rebuilding it. Upon planning permission, work could begin later this year so that laboratory spaces can open between 2027 and 2028. The refurbishment comes after repeated claims that the shortage of lab space in Oxford “remains high”, with fears that this shortage could cause Oxford rent prices to increase

Oxford has remained at the centre of the UK’s life sciences industry and this new project is set to improve Oxford’s position as a “central nexus for scientific innovation,” according to Pioneer Group’s Executive Director, Richard O’Boyle. Oxford’s network of academic experts in life science and already established laboratory spaces and research systems, position the city as a key location and recipient of investment to enable further research, economic growth, and innovation. The project follows further announcements of investment in the UK’s life sciences industry and expansion schemes. 

Oxford North has been marketed as an “innovation district” with Oxford North Ventures, a development company of St John’s College, and two other firms, developing a £700m space of laboratories and workspaces. The first parts of the district are due to open in 2025. More recently, on 7th April, plans for a new Oxford city centre life sciences hub near the train station were revealed, proposing to offer flexible laboratory and office space alongside new life sciences facilities.

Modern Art Oxford host one-day festival celebrating ‘otherness’

0

On Saturday, 25th May, the Modern Art Oxford (MAO) gallery hosted the Young Women’s Music Project’s (YWMP) one-day festival, ‘No. 80’, that ran from 3pm until late. 

The exhibition’s title came from the race/ethnicity designation of the UK population census, as the label for a checkbox for those who did not identify with any of the other listings. With these origins, ‘No. 80’ was a celebration of the margins and otherness. 

The YWMP website notes that the location of Oxford for this festival is significant, as a “colonially-led city, to make a stand against the stigmatisation of those who have felt powerless in society.”

Headlining the festival was Wild Mix, a queer ensemble of five singers, drummers, and “a kickboxing drum section,” led by Jenny Moore. Other performers included Assia Ghendir, Leo Hermitt, Casual Wednesday, Street Soundsystem, and a range of other experimental, queer performers. One student told Cherwell that throughout the performances and the exhibition more broadly, “there was a real sense of awe, vulnerability, and community – we were all aware that we were sharing something special.”

Various other local organisations, including Cowley Climate Collective, Divine Schism, Hyperstition, Mom Was Right, OCM and QBear, were also involved in the event. Several workshops were available, based around music-making, ecology and environmentalism, or a fusion of these elements – including a ‘Slime Trail Music Box Composition’. 

The festival closely followed YWMP’s guiding principles: to create an “inclusive, supportive space for young women, trans and non-binary people to make music, learn new skills, and express themselves”.

This eclectic, unorthodox expression and exploration of queer and marginalised identities came near the end of MAO’s crowdfunding campaign to £25,000, which had been exceeded by 16% by the evening of Sunday 26th. The gallery is to close for the next four months for ground floor redevelopment.

All three major Union committees pass motions declaring Oxford Union is ‘institutionally racist’

0

The Oxford Union’s Consultative Committee (CC), Standing Committee, and Secretary’s Committee each passed motions on Monday noting that the Union is “institutionally racist” following allegations of Islamophobic comments.

Graduate Officer Sarah Rana resigned following ex-president-elect Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy’s allegation that the Clerk – a colloquial term for Acting Returning Officer – of a Union tribunal panel said: “we’re going remove Ebrahim…. he’s not gonna appoint a hijabi girl as his Chief of Staff.”

Rana, one of three hijabi women on committee and the seconder of the CC motion, wrote in her resignation letter: “I cannot in good conscience symbolically be part of this committee that fails to protect its Arab and Muslims members… I feel unsafe, disillusioned, used, and extremely disturbed.

“In the wake of rising anti-Arab racism, and discrimination against Muslim and Arab students, these actions against Ebrahim are racially motivated and Islamophobic. The Union advocates so fiercely for free speech and openness but the Union’s tribunal is contradicting the institution’s very values.”

Osman-Mowafy and three Oxford Union ex-presidents of colour – Michael Akolade-Ayodeji, Ahmad Nawaz, and Adam Roble – had signed a letter alleging that recent Union proceedings have been “disproportionately targeting individuals from non-traditional backgrounds.” The letter also cites findings in the Azamati Governance Report, which follows the manhandling of a blind Black student in 2019.

In the early morning hours, Osman-Mowafy was disqualified from the role of President-elect in proceedings he alleged were “steeped in nothing but racism, islamophobia and persistent bias.”

In the Standing Committee meeting, the Senior Officers said that upon receiving reports of these allegations being “in some bar or some pub,” they contacted the alleged speaker of the comments who “totally and emphatically refuted the truth of these allegations” and said that instead they heard it. The Senior Officers took no further action because they are not an investigative unit.

A member pointed out that in the two elections she’s voted in, both elected presidents were then removed, to which many members in the room responded with a round of applause. There will be an appeal to the tribunal’s decision, according to the Senior Officers.

In a speech at the motion, an ex-President said that, “speaking directly to the RO World [the Returning Officer, deputies, and assistants]” a certain group has made others of certain backgrounds feel like they are not part of an “in group.” He also expresses concern that people can no longer speak freely – attendees at the meeting could not even name Osman-Mowafy or the Clerk despite consistent references to them. The Standing Committee responded with a round of applause and passed a motion expressing its lack of confidence in the RO.
Cherwell has contacted the Union and the Clerk for comments.

Ex-presidents accuse Oxford Union of ‘targeting diverse representatives’ following Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy’s disqualification from presidency

0

Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy and three Oxford Union ex-presidents of colour – Michael Akolade-Ayodeji, Ahmad Nawaz, and Adam Roble – signed a letter to the Union’s Senior Officers and Trustees alleging that recent Union procedures to remove candidates from their elected positions have been “disproportionately targeting individuals from non-traditional backgrounds.” The letter comes after Osman-Mowafy was disqualified from the role of President-elect in proceedings he alleges were “steeped in nothing but racism, islamophobia and persistent bias.”

The letter cites findings in the Azamati Governance Report, which follows the manhandling of a blind Black student in 2019. It states: “The Union’s disciplinary procedures remain opaque and archaic, filled with latent and actual bias, and remain unaddressed problems… The members keep electing diverse representatives and the institution keeps marginalising them.”

It follows two tribunals, including the convening of a second election tribunal chaired by the wife of a prominent conservative member whom Osman-Mowafy alleges has “frequently made Islamophobic and ethno-nationalist comments.”

In an email to the Senior Officers and Trustees, Osman-Mowafy alleged that the Clerk to the panel, had made “racist and Islamophobic remarks.” The email states: “[the Clerk] had said on Wednesday evening, in the presence of multiple members including an ex-RO: ‘we’re going remove Ebrahim…. he’s not gonna appoint a hijabi girl as his Chief of Staff,’ seemingly referring to the two hijabi girls who ran with me in the last election.”

Osman-Mowafy also alleged that the panel “ridiculed, insulted, and continuously interrupted” him and his representatives as the judges were “handpicked” by the Returning Officer who is “seeking [Osman-Mowafy’s] removal openly.” 

In another letter signed by the aforementioned officers, ex-President Disha Hegde, and eleven other members of the Standing Committee, the officers “express [their] concern about the state of the Union’s disciplinary procedures.”

The letter said that “in recent terms, the Oxford Union has been more litigious than at any other point in its history,” alleging that “the disciplinary procedures and processes have become opaque and compromised.”

The tribunal found Osman-Mowafy not guilty on five of the six charges but ultimately ruled that he had brought an allegation of electoral malpractice against another member that was “manifestly unreasonable” and suspended him from the Union until the end of Michaelmas Term 2024. As a result, Christopher Collins has been elected with a majority of first-preference votes following a recount of the remaining votes, ordered by the tribunal. 

The winner of the previous Union election was also disqualified by a tribunal following the election results. In each of the last three Union elections, winning candidates have either been disqualified by election tribunals or have run unopposed. 

Oxford Union have been contacted for comment.

International events and the phantasm of unity

0

Protest has long been a staple of international events. Whether at the Olympics, or at Eurovision, the platform and publicity of such occasions has been utilised by everyone, from competitors to street protesters, to amplify political messages. There’s a tension, however, between the voices of individuals and the actions of the organisations behind these events – under a façade of political neutrality, the International Olympics Committee and European Broadcasting Union (EBU) only serve to entrench existing global political order, distracting viewers from taking action through the spectacle they provide. 

This is not to say that there is no power in protest at these international events. The Black Power demonstration at the 1968 Olympics, where Tommie Smith and John Carlos both raised a black-gloved fist on the podium of the 200m running event, remains one of the most overt political statements at the Olympics in support of the Civil Rights movement and human rights more broadly. 

The political force of their protest was evident in the strident response of the international community: both Smith and Carlos were eventually expelled from the games and ostracised by the US sporting establishment. As of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games, taking a knee and podium protests have been banned entirely. 

Street protests also gain significant traction around these international events. In Paris, traditional May Day labour marches were combined with strikes for higher pay from a range of public sector workers, from police officers to garbage collectors. Pro-Palestinian marches around Paris also added numbers to this force, in the same way that there have been protests around Malmö Arena, where Eurovision has been held. Thousands of artists across Europe have also signed open letters calling for a boycott of the event by their representative. 

However, the reach of these civilian protests remains limited. David Rosney, a freelance reporter with extensive experience in Eurovision coverage, notes that the calls to boycott Eurovision seem only visible to those “most active in those circles”. Some viewers he’s talked to, he said, have “been unaware of the controversy”. Action from the organisations themselves, it seems, would be far more effective in raising awareness and driving change. 

With Eurovision having just passed, and the Paris Olympics rapidly approaching, questions about the political role – or even duties – of these events seem more pertinent than ever.   

In the same week that the Eurovision finals were held, Israel launched its offensive against Rafah which displaced 800,000 Palestinians, according to the head of the United Nations Agency for Palestinian refugees. At the same time, the artist for Israel qualified for finals, leading to protests branding the competition as “United by Genocide” in a subversion of its slogan “United by Music”. The first use of this slogan in 2022, when the contest was held in the UK on behalf of Ukraine, highlights the types of political messages that might be endorsed by the EBU – calls for unity, peace and reconciliation. 

However, none of these concepts are ideals which exist in a vacuum. If we call for unity, which communities are we calling on to be created? If we call for peace, what conflicts are we indicting? The attempts of the EBU and IOC to maintain an apolitical façade only serve to reinforce dominant political ideas in the Western world.

The banning of Russia from Eurovision in 2022, for example, was justified by the executive supervisor of the EBU, Martin Österdahl, as a decision based on standing up for “the basic and ultimate values of democracy”. Similarly, as part of the international indictment of Apartheid, South Africa was banned from the Olympic Games from 1964-1988. Such moves are political declarations, but they are largely uncontroversial in the Western political world: few countries were unwilling to endorse these bans. 

If we claim to make these bans on the basis of supporting the values of democracy, it seems that such moves are an evaluation of countries’ attitudes towards human rights.

When we look to a broader scope though, this assumption doesn’t hold up: even amidst the US’s most flagrant violations of human rights during the Vietnam War, for one, where the United States Air Force carpet-bombed neighbouring Cambodia in order to eliminate potential Viet Cong troops, they received no sanctions from any international competition. 

Calls to boycott Eurovision in 2019 when it was held in Israel, due to the illegal settlements in West Bank (per an ICJ Advisory Opinion) and the country’s human rights record at the time, also failed to come to fruition. The choice of when action occurs, and why it does, on the part of organisations, thus seems to be extremely selective, and driven by the political consensus amongst major Western powers of the time. 

The origins of Eurovision, Chris West, author of Eurovision! A History of Modern Music Through the World’s Greatest Song Contest, says, lie in the search for a common culture and identity in Europe post-WWII. The Olympics, in a similar way, seeks to bring together the international community in the spirit of friendly, competitive athleticism. Both motives raise the question: who are we willing to consider a part of our community? What actions in our communities do we endorse? What values do we stand for, globally, and how are these commitments revealed, if they are at all?

When we ask how these international events should act in the future, the answer is simple. Organisations like the EBU and IOC, running events which are staples of our cultural entertainment, and thus reflect our cultural values, have an ethical duty to ban countries or competitors which commit flagrant violations of human rights. To remain complacent is at least to withhold approbation, if not to offer approval, towards states and governments engaging in these kinds of transgressions.  

Is it realistic to expect this from them? Likely not.

So it is up to us, as viewers, not to be lulled into complacency by the glamour and spectacle they present: it is up to us to keep boycotting, to keep protesting, and to keep taking action.