Wednesday 18th June 2025
Blog Page 676

Should Murray have been disinvited?

Cherwell Comment
-
0
Should Murray have been disinvited?

Yes: Hannah Healey

The central argument against no-platforming in universities is a clear one: we should allow debate around controversial topics because it inspires resilience, critical thinking and better-formed opinions.

It is possible to agree with this statement while still supporting the disinvitation of Jenni Murray, by recognising how exploitative it is to treat trans rights as a conceptual issue to debate about.

Murray’s belief that trans women are not “real women” in- validates the identities of millions of people. Statistically, trans people are more likely to suffer from poor mental health and attempt suicide, which is undoubtedly contributed to by their stigmatisation and marginalisation within society.

Suggesting that we should allow the expression of opinions that directly contribute to this issue for our own intellectual stimulation is, at best, irresponsible and exploitative. At worst, it is incredibly dangerous. There are so many divisive and controversial issues within feminism that could provide high-quality, interesting debates without questioning the validity of someone’s identity. Murray’s opinion is representative of a bigoted, rapidly disappearing society, and we should not discuss it just for the sake of generating controversy.

Murray was coming to discuss feminism and history – so it is unlikely there would have been time for an extensive discussion of her opinions on trans women. Instead, she would probably have delivered a speech about powerful women in history which would have excluded the impact of trans women, thereby subtly erasing trans rights without acknowledging her transphobia.

The impact of this would be to perpetuate non-intersectional feminism.

No-platforming Murray does not represent the stifling of controversial opinions. Instead, it serves to protect the rights of trans people.

No: Maya Nerissa Thomas

When I arrived in Oxford last year, I couldn’t wait to engage in heated discussions with people whose ideas would force me to evaluate, question and develop my own. After all, Oxford was meant to be a bastion for rigorous discourse – an intellectual microcosm, where all ideological persuasions were freely expressed in the interest of academic exploration.

Soon however, I learnt that even at the world’s best university, the only views one can engage with are those deemed “politically correct” enough by the now omnipresent Social Justice Warriors, whose “holier-than-thou” attitude justifies them silencing their opponents.

As Secretary of the Oxford University History Society, I was disappointed by the threatening tone with which we were ordered to cancel our Jenni Murray speaker event last week. We aimed to interview her about her historical writing and her role on BBC Radio 4’s Women’s Hour, yet were prevented from doing so because a fraction of her views were considered controversial enough to eclipse her entire career. The point of a speaker event, especially one in interview- format, is to provoke discourse. Yet, if today we are only allowed to have discussions with like-minded people, then I am saddened by the fate of academia.

The last few years have seen the internet become an ideological echo-chamber, which makes inviting a wide range of live speakers to Oxford all the more important. If a speaker’s ideas prove unsavoury, what better opportunity to challenge them than through a face-to-face debate?

Disinviting speakers because of their views strikes me as cowardly. The best way to shut down an argument is to have the courage to engage with it, and “no-platforming” suggests that even at Oxford, our generation is too weak to handle this confrontation.

It won’t be long until even those with moderately deviating views feel too afraid to speak out.

Oxford protests Steve Bannon outside Oxford Union

-
0
Oxford protests Steve Bannon outside Oxford Union

Steve Bannon’s visit to the Oxford Union last Friday was met with large protests by groups opposing the Union’s decision to invite the controversial far-right figure.

Several hundred protesters gathered outside the Union, on St Michael’s Street and Cornmarket Street. Some protestors physically blocked entrances to the Union, leading event organisers and police to significantly delay the entry of Union members looking to attend the speaker event.

Protesters, following leaders with megaphones, chanted slogans including: “No Bannon, no KKK, no fascist USA,” and “Solidarity forever, the Union’s always wrong.”

On the other hand, there were groups reportedly making Nazi salutes.

An hour after the event was scheduled to start, Bannon entered the Oxford Union through its back entrance, accompanied by a heavy police escort. Bannon spoke for over an hour, delivering a prepared speech and fielding questions from both Union President Stephen Horvath and Union members present at the event.

The chamber was not filled during Bannon’s talk.

A coalition of student and local groups, including Free Education Oxford and Oxford University Labour Club organized protests against Bannon’s talk, which was announced on last Wednesday. Last Thursday, the event narrowly survived a motion from within the Oxford Union to rescind the invitation.

Protesters and Union members wishing to attend the event gathered outside the Union throughout the afternoon and early evening. At 4:30pm, half a hour after the event was meant to start, a spokesperson for the Union announced to a crowd outside the Union’s Cornmarket Street entrance that there would be no more admittance to the event.

The announcement was met by cheers from the protesters.

Shortly afterwards, police formed a human chain blocking an opposing protesters’ human chain, creating a small space for police vans to enter behind them. Bannon was swiftly escorted inside from one of the vans by police.

Oxford SU President Joe Inwood, who was present at the protest, told Cherwell: “It is clear that the Oxford Union shouldn’t have invited Steve Bannon in the first place. Clearly, what they have tried to do, which is hold the event, has been hugely disruptive to the local community.

“It’s disappointing that the Union have come so far from the mainstream of student thought and student opinions at Oxford.”

A small group, titled “Support Free Discourse at Oxford”, formed a counter-protest, advocating for the right of Bannon to speak.

Counter-protest organizer Maya Thomas told Cherwell: “We believe that his views are vile…

“[But] I think he should be allowed to speak, because if you don’t allow views to be voice in regulated academic environments, that will push them underground and only exacerbate the problem.”

Union members waiting outside the entrance to the event who were planning to attend the talk expressed frustration with the protest. One anonymous student told Cherwell: “We literally just want to get in… they physically blocked us… you literally would have had to tackle twenty people to get in.”

Another complained that the protesters are “a tiny group of people with a loud voice”.

During the talk, Bannon defended his vision of nationalism, claiming that “ethno-nationalism is a dead end for losers; economic nationalism and civic nationalism bind you together, regardless of your race, regardless of your religion, regardless of your ethnicity.”

He answered questions from the Union President Horvath regarding President Trump’s relationship with xenophobic and racist language, and Bannon’s own controversial statement in 2016 to “unchain the dogs” at former-Fox News correspondent, Megyn Kelly.

Union members in attendance also questioned Bannon on a range of subjects, including the United States’ relationship with Islamic countries and his reaction to the student opposition to his attendance at the Oxford Union.

Talaash interview – a fusion of dance, poetry, and identity

Jeevan Ravindran
-
0
Talaash interview – a fusion of dance, poetry, and identity

Life as a British South Asian can be complicated at times. It can also be incredibly beautiful. Sometimes, it can feel like you don’t really know who you are, especially when you have to deal with elements of your identity that might not be so widely accepted, like religion, queerness, your dress sense – the list goes on. That’s certainly been my experience, and it is clear during my conversation with Sparshita Dey and Simran Uppal, the directors of Talaash, that they’ve also dealt with this emotional rollercoaster of self-exploration and discovery.

Talaash means ‘search’ in Hindi and Urdu. “It’s about trying to find ourselves through poetry – as we go through the poems in the play, we get closer to who we are – we find bits of memory and translate that into a journey of self-discovery,” Sparshita says. It’s a play that isn’t trying to tell a story, but instead trying to take the audience on a journey, and to make them feel something. A mix of poetry, dance and music is used to communicate this feeling, with poetry written by Simran and music and dance arranged and choreographed by Sparshita, alongside Raghavi Viswanath and Madhulika Murali.

There are five poems in all – a mix of original poems and some freely worked translations by South Asian female poets such as the Hindu saint Mirabai and the Mughal princess Zeb-un-Nissa. Through these poets, the play also celebrates the fact that despite the sometimes violent religious divides between Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs across South Asia, they all ultimately share a rich tradition. All these poems are deeply personal for Simran, and seeing them put to music and dance is a new experience. “Seeing other people connect with them with a lot of love – especially Zehra, who does most of the spoken word – it’s made me feel like their sibling. It’s like we’re siblings and we’re cooking together.”

The poems cover everything from hugely relatable South Asian tropes, such as the smells of frying pakora and the sounds of chanting, to very specific experiences, such as finding strength and faith in a Hounslow swimming pool. There’s a sense of reclamation to Simran’s work – ‘Ghazal for Gold’ is a poem which celebrates the colour gold and its use in South Asian tradition – in weddings, jewelry, sarees, in the spices used in cooking. But above all, it’s about taking back the word gold and putting an end to the politicization of people of colour: as Simran says, “We are calling ourselves gold. And we are not apologizing.”

“We all found Simran’s poetry really relatable,” Sparshita says. Her musical and dance direction is wrapped entirely around the poetry. Throughout ‘Ghazal for Gold’, the raag (scale) of Sindhu Bhairavi weaves in and out. A raag in Indian classical music is traditionally associated with a time of day and a mood, and Sindhu Bhairavi represents a mood of nostalgia, a prominent theme in the poem, and it is usually played at the crack of dawn, when the sky too is saffron gold – it’s as if the ‘Ghazal for Gold’ is being literally and musically wrapped in gold.

The play is also an assertion of queer identity, and about taking back some of the queerness present in South Asian tradition, which has been particularly repressed in recent years – although the legalization of homosexuality in India in September marks a shift in attitudes towards queer people. The concept of being genderqueer and free from the binary, explored in the poem ‘Ardhanareeshwara’, also isn’t new. 

“It’s about reclaiming spirituality, and recognising that formal religion has pushed queer people like me out. I’m using poetry to take it back for myself in my own way. It’s about listening to the positive and negative voices in our heads, accepting both, and watching those voices transform,” Simran says. Sparshita adds, “We’re all longing to be ourselves, but something is stopping us. And people aren’t binary – we’re sliding scales.”

Dance is used to represent this multifaceted identity – traditional classical dance forms such as Bharatanatyam and Kathak, from the South and North of India respectively, are fused together and contemporary Western dance is thrown into the mix. “We’re using these fusions, because as people, we are fusion – we’re a mix of South Asian and British and we shouldn’t have to choose one or the other – because both sides have shaped who we are, and we’re just searching for ourselves.” The contemporary music in the play reflects this search – a haunting solo of ‘Shallow’ from the film A Star is Born, and Tamil song ‘Naan Yen Piranthen’ (Why Was I Born).

“The way that we directed this was like a jam session for poetry, dance, music,” Sparshita says. “Nobody just went into this play and did what I asked them to do and nothing else. Every single person has put a bit of themselves into this play. It’s not just mine and Simran’s – its everyone’s.”

Simran comments, “Doing this, making this with this community of queer artists, BAME artists, female artists of colour, you have this wonderful feeling of being your own person, and being your own person fully, but also being a part of a community. Being a part of that community – I don’t want to say it’s amazing, or there’s nothing like it, but there really is nothing like it.”

Talaash is at the Michael Pilch Studio from Thursday 15th November to Saturday 17th November.

Union seeks legal advice over financial transparency rules

-
0
Union seeks legal advice over financial transparency rules

The Oxford Union has refused to show members a detailed record of its expenditure including receipts, despite appearing to be mandated to do so by its own rules.

The decision raises concerns about the ability of members to properly scrutinise Union officials. Rule 63(b) ofthe Oxford Union dictates: “All income and expenditure records will be available for inspection by any member by appointment with the President within ten working days.”

Since the 2nd October, Union members affiliated with Cherwell have repeatedly requested a detailed breakdown of the Society’s audited accounts for the 2016-17 financial year, without success. Emails sent to the Bursar’s account sometimes met with no reply for two weeks.

President Stephen Horvath told Cherwell that the rule in question “has not quite kept pace with modern auditing practices.” This is despite receipts being shown to Union members on request as recently as 2011.

The Union now says it has sought legal advice which will support its view that the “all income and expenditure records” of Rule 63(b) means simply the audited accounts – despite Rule 63(a) already allowing members access to these accounts without need for an appointment.

Union officials have also expressed concerns about the implications of new EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) legislation as a reason to deny requests for financial transparency. However, the Union also refused Cherwell’s request last year – before GDPR legislation had come into effect.

In 2017, Cherwell contacted the Financial Director of a major UK law firm for their opinion. They disagreed with the Society’s interpretation that “income and expenditure records” only refers to the audited accounts.

Instead, Rule 63(b) should allow for a detailed breakdown of income and expense claims. They told Cherwell that it would be “very hard to argue” that Rule 63(b) just meant audited accounts, “as if that was the intention there would be no point in adding 63(b) as 63(a) would suffice”. 63(a) allows any member to view the audited accounts without an appointment.

In a statement to Cherwell, Horvath said: “We are awaiting the return of our audited 2017-18 accounts from the auditors, and will then be able to provide further information.

“The Bursar has repeatedly arranged for members to see detailed breakdowns of our income and expenditure. We are awaiting a formal legal opinion from our solicitor on what records we can legally publicise, beyond those records which we have already shown. We expect to receive this opinion by the end of this week.”

This is not the first time the Union has come under fire for appearing to not adhere to its own rules regarding its financial transparency.

The Oxford Student used Rule 63(b) to request access to the full 2008-09 income and expenditure records in 2010, after initially being refused access to the full receipts.

At the time, Simon McIntosh of consultancy firm Grant Thornton said: “Bluntly, records of expenditure do include expenses claims and all that goes with them.”

St Anne’s JCR backs ethical investment

-
0
St Anne’s JCR backs ethical investment

St Anne’s JCR has passed a motion urging the college to invest more ethically, following revelations published in Cherwell last week.

The motion urged St Anne’s to divest from companies on the Carbon Underground 200 list, which comprises the world’s 200 companies with the largest carbon reserves, as well as the British defence contractor BAE Systems. It stated that it is time the college “align its investment with its ethical commitments.”

The motion – which passed with 27 votes for, six against, and one abstention – also called on the college to commit to “reinvesting the funds in ethical assets, according to principles agreed upon in consultation with students and faculty”.

Cherwell has previously reported that, as of mid October, St Anne’s owned shares worth £88,400 in BAE Systems.

BAE has faced criticism over allegations that fighter jets sold by the company have been employed in Saudi airstrikes on Yemeni civilian targets including hospitals, and the company provides nuclear weapons-related services to the US armed forces. A UN report published in August this year reveals that at least 6,660 Yemeni civilians have been killed from March 2015 to August 2018. Most of these casualties were caused by airstrikes conducted by the Saudi-led coalition.

The motion stated that divestment is “an effective means of stigmatising the weapons and fossil fuel industries and encouraging more restrictive legislation in these sectors.”

Proposer of the motion Philomena Wills told Cherwell: “I and the other members of the St Anne’s college divestment campaign are extremely pleased that the student body has made its stance clear on the entirely unethical investment policies of our college.

“We are moving forward quickly to the next stages of the divestment process, with the hope of continued student support.”

In passing the motion, St Anne’s JCR joins a wider divestment movement globally and in Oxford. Lady Margaret Hall and Trinity College JCRs are another two of many student bodies who have passed similar motions asking their colleges to divest, according to figures provided by the Oxford Climate Justice Campaign (OCJC).

When asked about the motion, a St Anne’s spokesperson told Cherwell: “The College is working with the JCR on providing more transparency around its investment policy in order to allay their concerns.”

Spokesperson for OCJC and St Anne’s student Caitlin Prentice told Cherwell: “Divestment is not only the right thing to do ethically, it is financially responsible and feasible.

“Over 60 UK universities, the Republic of Ireland, and the New York City pension fund (189 billion US dollars) have recently divested from fossil fuels. Why not St Anne’s?”

She continued: “It is unethical to continue to invest in fossil fuel companies when we know that fossil fuel use causes climate change.

“The JCR motion is a great step in the right direction for St Anne’s, and I hope that the College works with students to divest the endowment from fossil fuel companies as quickly as possible and re-invest it in more environmentally, socially ethical funds.”

BAE Systems was contacted for comment.

Union prepares for Bannon protests

Eve Webster
-
0
Union prepares for Bannon protests

Hundreds are expected to descend on the Oxford Union today in response to the society’s decision to invite Trump’s former chief-strategist Steve Bannon to speak this afternoon.

Union president Stephen Horvath told committee members that if members feel Bannon is “inadequately challenged” at today’s event, he will resign from his position.

A number of groups, including the Student Union’s Women’s and LGBTQ+ Campaign groups, its Campaign for Racial Awareness and Equality, the Oxford Labour Club, and the Oxford Climate Justice Campaign, have called for students and locals to protest Bannon’s speakership.

The protest, called ‘Oxford Students Oppose Steve Bannon’, criticises the Union for “repeatedly hosted far-right speakers, including Tommy Robinson and Marine Le Pen.”

The protest’s event description on Facebook reads: “Bannon’s talk is members-only and was not announced until just days before, giving Oxford students no opportunity to voice our strong opposition to a man who’s helped orchestrate the current rise of fascism.”

The event’s announcement two days ago has also instigated considerable tension within the Union’s Standing Committee – its governing body – with Union Secretary and presidential candidate Nick Brown proposing an emergency motion to cancel the event.

The motion narrowly failed, with seven votes in opposition and six votes in favour.

In the meeting, a number of committee members criticised both Bannon’s invitation and the Union President’s decision to reveal the invitation to the committee only 48 hours before the event.

Brown called Horvath’s decision to delay the event’s announcement a “clear attempt to seek to prevent protest” after claiming that “hosting this event would be, let’s be clear, hosting a white nationalist”.

Standing Committee member Anisha Faruk told the committee that Bannon’s invitation was to the detriment of Union’s identity as “a bastion of free speech”, saying that “amplifying the speech of some voices hurts the voice of others.”

Union Treasurer-elect Amy Gregg, who seconded Brown’s motion, called the manner in which Horvath disclosed the invitation to the committee as “highly irresponsible, highly inappropriate, and highly unfair”. She lamented the fact that the committee was unable to make a cost/benefit analysis prior to inviting Bannon. She abstained in the vote itself.

Horvath defended his decision to delay the announcement, telling the committee members at the meeting that he wished to minimise “public disruption”, citing the widespread reaction to the Union hosting Marine Le Pen in 2015.

He also insisted that recalling Bannon’s invitation would be “a considerable cost to consider”, and that Committee members were made aware that a “controversial American speaker” had been invited to speak last week.

Committee members also demanded that proper “infrastructure” be put in place at today’s event so that Bannon is adequately challenged, citing the “enormous risk that [Bannon] could go unquestioned”.

Horvath maintained his confidence in the ability of Union members to challenge Bannon.

According to the Union Bursar, a number of students have denounced their membership following the announcement of the event.

Others, including ex-Union President in Trinity Term 1967 Stephen Marks, passionately advocated against the event, saying that it will give controversial speakers such as Bannon a “veneer of credibility”.

Marks, also a Labour Councillor, told the committee that it ought to be ashamed of itself, calling Bannon’s invitation “a gob in the face of the people of this city who have expressed concerns”.

Speaking on behalf of some of his colleagues in Oxford’s Labour Council, he told the Union committee: “We are all amazed and frankly disgusted that the Union has repeated [its] offence of inviting a neo-Nazi.”

Horvath told Cherwell: “I am pleased that the Standing Committee have supported the principle of open dialogue and political neutrality. As was raised in the meeting, we have a tradition of hosting controversial speakers – whether they are politicians of the far-right or of the far-left, or those such as Colonel Gaddafi and Gerry Adams (who were engaged in violent actions against British citizens at the time of their invitations).

“These invitations were defended as part of the educational purpose of the Union, in enabling people to listen to and then critically question opposing views.

“The Secretary, Nick Brown, brought justifications for why he had been honoured to invite Senator Manny Pacquiao – who has said gay people are worse than animals – but believed we should disinvite Steve Bannon on the grounds that he would trigger people. There was a lively debate on the value of our events and the discussion they facilitate.

“Although it is too long to summarise those arguments here, I am sure that members will enjoy reading the draft minutes when the Secretary produces them.

“In addition to the issue of free speech, we also discussed the role the Standing Committee should play in such invitations in the future. There were constructive suggestions from the Treasurer-Elect Amy Gregg and the Librarian Genevieve Athis on this issue, and I look forward to a debate on a motion to change the Rules on this matter.”

Steve Bannon will speak at the Union from 4pm this afternoon.

Jesus College accused of controversial evangelical group ‘cover-up’

Ben van der Merwe
-
1
Jesus College accused of controversial evangelical group ‘cover-up’

CW: This article contains homophobic and Islamophobic language, and makes reference to suicide.

Jesus College allowed a controversial evangelical group to host a conference in its facilities, Cherwell can reveal, with a JCR motion accusing the college of “subsequently covering-up” the event.

A college spokesperson declined to apologise for hosting the conference, and denied accusations of an “intentional” cover-up.

Dozens attended the conference hosted by Christian Concern, whose leader Andrea Williams has called for members to “stand up to [the] militant homosexual lobby,” and told Jamaica to “keep gay sex illegal.” Her views have been condemned by an LGBTQ+ Christian group as “exacerbat[ing] suicidal thoughts among LBGT Christians across the world.”

The group’s ‘Islamic Affairs Advisor’ is Sam Solomon, an Islamophobic activist who has spoken alongside far-right activists Geert Wilders and Pamela Geller, and who co-wrote UKIP leader Gerard Batten’s notorious ‘charter of Muslim understanding’.

The existence of the conference was revealed last week after a leak from within the college. Following the leak, JCR President Athishan Vettivetpillai admitted on Facebook that Christian Concern were accidentally allowed to book college facilities to host a conference in the first week of September.

Following advice that cancelling the event would constitute a breach of contract, the College decided to let the event take place but keep it “under wraps,” as Vettivetpillai put it.

According to Vettivetpillai’s posts, the College asked that he keep the existence of the conference a secret. He said that he complied because these were “the very people I must interact with every day so that anything the JCR wants done, gets approved.”

Responding to complaints about what he described as a “hushing-up”, Jesus’s JCR treasurer wrote on Facebook that “it is important… to have constructive relations” with “senior people in College” and denied a JCR member’s claim that “the JCR’s wishes are granted in return only for its silence on contentious issues,” describing this as a “massive misrepresentation.”

The JCR unanimously adopted a resolution later that week which described the conference and subsequent cover-up as causing “immeasurable hurt”, and demanded that the JCR pressure the college to donate all proceeds from the event to the LGBTQ+ charity, Stonewall.

Jesus College denied the existence of an “intentional” cover-up, but refused to clarify whether Vettivetpillai was requested to keep the conference a secret, instead stating that “the Governing Body and appropriate members of College were informed of the event before it took place and of the steps required to maintain the security of the College during the event.”

Jesus is now the third Oxford college to have hosted Christian Concern in recent years, along with Exeter and Trinity. Both Exeter and Trinity have apologised for hosting the group, and paid the proceeds to relevant charities. Lady Margaret Hall is currently considering whether or not to host the group.

One lecture given at the conference by Peter Saunders compared rates of abortion to deaths in World War Two. Saunders is CEO of the Christian Medical Fellowship, a group which urges Christian GPs to evangelise to their patients, including those seeking abortions, and suggests “focus[ing] on depressed patients”. Apparently referring to the American organisation Planned Parenthood, another event attendee wrote on Facebook that “the judgement for all these wicked people who have pleasure in the blood of innocent babies will be great.”

Students criticised the decision of the College to allow the event to go ahead, with concerns raised that the event could make the college unwelcoming for LGBTQ+ and Muslim students. Exeter College was forced to apologise for hosting Christian Concern in 2012 after members of the group harassed a gay student, delivered an Islamophobic speech, and distributed anti-abortion leaflets in communal areas.

One Christian Concern publication argues that same-sex couples should not be allowed to raise children due to their “high levels of promiscuity.” Another warns that “Islamic finance” is a conspiracy to promote the “Islamisation” of Britain and the implementation of Sharia Law.

One attendee, Adrian Clark, described eating at Jesus College on Facebook as “an unexpected and undeserved privilege”. Mr Clark was arrested last year for a religiously aggravated public order offence for a speech he gave in Bristol, which a police officer present interpreted as likely to “result in violence”. Clark reportedly told Muslim and LGBTQ+ people present that they would “burn in hell” and were “disgusting”. The charges were not upheld.

Some students supported the right for Christian Concern to speak, with one commenting that “freedom of speech must always come before the fear of causing ‘offence’.”

After meeting with the JCR committee on Tuesday, college representatives declined to apologise for hosting the conference, instead telling Cherwell that they “will prepare a formal response to the JCR’s and MCR’s concerns” and consider donating money to relevant charities.

A College representative said: “Jesus College has a strong record in protecting the rights and dignity of all its members, and we continue to champion those values. Jesus College is a place where students, staff and visitors can be free from fear and prejudice and we are determined to maintain this.”

A joint JCR-MCR statement said: “The student attendees expressed serious disappointment that the College had not explicitly communicated the situation to the JCR and MCR.

“We understand a full explanation to students and staff at the College is coming, and that this will explain how vetting protocols have been enhanced in light of this situation. Efforts to improve transparency with commercial bookings at the College are also expected. Options to donate the profits from this booking to relevant educational charities are also being evaluated following a JCR motion to do so; however restrictions under Charity Law have to be considered and we have been informed that further legal analyses will be conducted.”

They added: “Although we are disappointed with the situation and the initial College response, we are encouraged by the discussion today and fully expect the College to show this progress through their actions.”

Students raise safety concerns over ‘extremely frightening’ Park End queue

-
0
Students raise safety concerns over ‘extremely frightening’ Park End queue
Students have criticised the queue for last week’s ABBA-themed club night organised by ATIK, with some calling the experience “extremely frightening”.
One student who queued for the event, which promised on its Facebook page that guests could “dress up and dance the night away”, recalled that a number of people began to experience panic attacks while waiting because of the pressure of the queue.
They told Cherwell: “I’ve been in the standing area at lots of concerts but the queue at Park End was much, much worse than any of them – bouncers were having to push against the metal barriers with all of the weight just to keep the crowd upright, otherwise we would have toppled sideways.
“It was an extremely frightening experience; several people were experiencing panic attacks. The only relief seemed to come when a few people gave up and climbed out of the queue.”
Some party-goers criticised the bouncers managing the queue. One told Cherwell: “One bouncer was being very unhelpful and laughing”.
An anonymous post on Oxfess said: “To the people who helped to stop the bouncer grabbing me when I had my hands up in surrender in Park End last night, a huge thank you.”
However, not all the blame was pinned on the nightclub staff. One student present said: “The staff there appeared to be trying their best, but I think more work needed to be done further back in the queue to prevent it getting so wide.
“The bottleneck when the sprawling queue reached the metal barriers was causing the problem.”
Atik did not respond to Cherwell’s request for comment.

Don’t confuse free speech with hate speech

-
6
Don’t confuse free speech with hate speech

The Oxford Union has long claimed that it is the ‘last bastion of free speech’, but its state today makes a mockery of that very idea. Yesterday, with two days’ notice before the event, it was announced that the Union would be hosting Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s former chief strategist.

Bannon is on record attacking the free press in the United States and whipping up hatred directed towards minority groups. He has not just pandered to but also legitimised the far-right in America, culminating in the election of Donald Trump as president in 2016.

All this begs the question: why invite him? Of late, the Union seems to have relied on shock factor to draw in its audiences. Earlier this term, there was controversy surrounding their decision to invite Alice Weidel, the leader of Germany’s far-right AfD in the Bundestag. Before that they hosted Anthony Scaramucci and Ann Coulter. All of this has been done under the guise of ‘free speech’ and ‘constructive debate’, but in reality such events contribute to neither.

There’s been a growing trend recently of drawing a false causal link between preventing hate speech and limiting free speech. This has got to stop. The marked difference between hate speech (using a platform to attack and oppress minorities) and free speech has long been noted, and it falls on us, as members of a liberal democracy to uphold it. It’s a nonsense to suggest that we’re obliged to platform hate speech but also to listen to it, and expect minorities, sometimes whose very right to exist is being questioned by these speakers, to sit by and listen. There would be no contradiction in a position that refused to platform the far-right and also uphold free speech; the issue of free speech has always been about state coercion, and not voluntary organisations.

It’s not like we don’t know what Steve Bannon thinks. When he comes to the Union, Bannon will repeat the same talking points as ever, denigrating minorities and stirring hatred, and all we’ll have achieved is that we’ll have given a platform from which to spout them. His platform already exists and he’s already used it extensively. We know what he’s going to say and thus far constructive debate has failed to effectively combat him, no matter how ridiculed he has been.

Even if we hold that the value of listening to these people is in challenging them, the format of a Union speech is not conducive to effective argument. If it were possible to defeat the far-right in a one-minute question posed by an undergraduate to a speaker, I reckon our world would have substantially fewer problems today.

Sadly, however, this is not the case. We’ve seen time and time again how we can laugh some of these people out of the chamber, but as soon as that video goes online their supporters will class it as a victory anyway.

Liberal democracy thrives on debate and can only be sustained with the protection of the rights to free speech and free thought. This, however, must be squared with our commitment and responsibility to protect minorities. Allowing people like Bannon to attack them does not come under our commitment to these values, and his views are fundamentally opposed to everything we stand for.

The Union’s bizarre fixation with inviting increasingly shocking speakers has got to end. The decision not just to host Bannon but also to delay announcing his visit until two days beforehand demonstrates a cynical desire to stifle criticism of their actions and also shows how genuinely out of touch the society has become.

People like Steve Bannon thrive on publicity and legitimisation; we should give him neither.

Union Standing Committee vote to continue with Bannon event

Eve Webster
-
1
Union Standing Committee vote to continue with Bannon event

The Standing Committee of the Oxford Union have voted to host the Steve Bannon event tomorrow as normal, after a cagey meeting.

The society’s governing body voted by seven votes to six to continue with the event, and defeat Secretary Nick Brown’s attempt to disinvite the controversial American speaker.

In the meeting, a number of committee members criticised both Bannon’s invitation and Union President Stephan Horvath’s decision to reveal the invitation to the committee 48 hours before the event.

Horvath told committee members that if it is felt that Bannon was “inadequately challenged “at tomorrow’s event he would resign form his position.

Union’s treasurer-elect, Amy Gregg, called the manner in which Horvath disclosed the invitation to the committee as “highly irresponsible”.

Horvath defended this decision to delay the announcement telling the committee members that it was taken to minimise “public disruption”, citing the wide-spread reaction to  the Union hosting Marine Le Pen in 2015.

Others, including ex-Union President in Trinity Term 1967, Stephen Marks, advocated against the event saying that it will give controversial speakers such as Bannon, a “veneer of credibility”.

Marks, also a Labour Councillor, told the committee that it ought to be ashamed of itself, calling Bannon’s invitation “a gob in the face of the people of this city who have expressed concerns”.

Stephen Horvath has been contacted for comment.

1...675676677...2,512Page 676 of 2,512

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley