Wednesday 8th October 2025
Blog Page 749

Review: Avengers: Infinity War

Nancy Epton
-
0
Review: Avengers: Infinity War

Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) donned his iron suit for the first time a whole decade ago, establishing the groundwork for a cinematic universe on a vast scale. After 18 entries that have introduced us to egotistical geniuses, Norse gods, and a group of dysfunctional space travellers, the heroes finally converge in the Russo Brothers’ dramatic showdown. As you might expect from a film that contains 76 characters, it isn’t easy to mention explicit details without giving away any spoilers. So I’ll stay away from the plot and try to asses the film as a whole.

Thanos (Josh Brolin), the movie’s main baddie, is a difficult villain to sell. The large-chinned alien has barely featured in the Marvel cinematic universe outside a few fleeting appearances in post-credits scenes. Nonetheless, the Russo Brothers manage to build up a considerable amount of characterisation within a short space of time, drawing on Thanos’ past history with Gamora (Zoe Saldana). And, unlike most of the Marvel villains that we have seen before, he’s more than a punchbag for the heroes. Thanos is able to overcome the heroes on several occasions and presents a genuine threat to humanity – his explicit aim is to wipe out half the universe.

Thankfully, Infinity War’s darker elements don’t come at the expense of the Marvel series’ characteristic humour. The egotistical exchanges between Tony Stark and Doctor Strange are a joy to behold, as is the usual jovial banter and social misunderstandings between the Guardians. Yet even though the film lasts two and a half hours, the longest running time in the Marvel cinematic universe so far, the sheer number of characters means that there’s still not enough space for sufficient character development. Sure, you could go with the Dunkirk argument that the whole film is based around a conflict so there isn’t any time to waste on such detail, yet Civil War managed to achieve this feat effectively, albeit with a smaller roster of characters.

Beyond the difficulties with establishing strong characterisation, the simple fact that the individual heroes have emerged from films written by other people sometimes presents problems. Many of the characters in Avengers: Infinity War already have well-developed personas – the necessity of bringing all these characters together often means that they do things that don’t quite fit with our general expectations. The narrative sometimes suffers as a result, but Brolin’s performance maintains a constant sense of dread and unease that holds the screenplay together. Though the first half is perhaps slightly over-long, the Russos nonetheless manage an outstanding feat in bringing all these eclectic characters onto the silver screen. As the culmination of a decade of filmmaking, witnessing some of our favourite superheroes finally interact is an unparalleled joy to behold.

In the film’s final minutes, it’s difficult not to think of Deadpool’s sardonic rhetorical observation in the recent sequel trailer. “You’re so dark, are you sure you’re not from the DC universe?” Will the Russos stick with this dark tone in Avengers 4 next year? We’ll have to wait and see. I, for one, think that they should.

Review – The House of Bernarda Alba

Ela Portnoy
-
1
Review – The House of Bernarda Alba

“Many nights I watch Pepe very closely through the window bars and he seems to fade away, as though he were hidden in a cloud of dust like those raised by the flocks.”

Imagine the scene. Stifling midsummer in a pre-WWII Spanish village. The heat is unbearable. Servants clean day and night but no matter how much they scrub, the dirt keeps rising to the surface. Welcome to the House of Bernarda Alba.

The play follows a household of eight women, where Bernarda’s five daughters spend their days embroidering lace that will never make it to a wedding day. The eldest is 39 and the youngest is 20, but all are domineered by their authoritarian mother, who refuses to let them marry anyone who she decides is beneath their rank. In the muggy atmosphere of their wasted lives, the girls are silently united in defiance of their mother… for now.

The dynamics between the sisters were handled with just the sensitivity they called for, and oscillated between intense love and intense hate. There was a tangible chemistry between the actors which added layers of interest. One of the most interesting relationships was the characters’ attitudes towards the one man in the story, who never appears onstage. He is an important character and yet represents of such a void in the lives of these women that this made for some truly heart-wrenching monologues.

The roles that I found most notable were Adela, the youngest daughter, played by Esme Sanders, and La Poncia, the servant, played by Charithra Chandran. These characters were the complete antithesis of the other. The beauty of Esme Sanders’ characterisation lay in the strength of her emotions. In her final monologue, I was on the verge of tears. She made such a striking image looking into the distance, her hands darting over her thighs and playing with her dress. Charithra Chandran’s character was the calm older woman, harnessing her years of experience into an understated wisdom. She used facial expressions and gestures in such a beautifully sparing way, and radiated a rich quality of motherliness and old gossip, which was seriously impressive given her age.

There was an obvious attention to detail in the costumes. Each sister had a slightly different texture of lace and although their dresses were similar, they were different enough to really add something to the characterisations. The contrasts between the layered black mourning clothes and the light white frocks was striking. There was a lovely translucent quality in the fabric of the walls and the lower skirt of Bernarda’s dress, which added to the idea of secrets waiting to rise to the surface. I loved the tiny stool at centre stage, the only piece of furniture available to all of the women.

The yellow lighting and the textures on the stage articulated the stifling atmosphere. There was a violin that would play every so often which created an intense, almost sensual atmosphere that contrasted with the characters’ frustrations beautifully.

My one one piece of criticism to an otherwise brilliant play is that in a couple of moments, I felt that the facial expressions were forced, making the emotions less convincing. But this is something that usually improves throughout a run of a play, as the actors get more comfortable in their characters and the space. Most of the acting was effortless and unforced, and this was done very well both in this and the other play I have seen directed by Isobel Ion. In my opinion, it is the mark of a great director.

 

Blind Date: “She loved my tale of a pair of 12th century French lovers”

Jen Holmes and Joseph Brown
-
0
Blind Date: “She loved my tale of a pair of 12th century French lovers”

Jen Holmes, First Year, Medicine, St Hugh’s

Unfortunately, as per, I underestimated the time it takes to get anywhere from St Hugh’s, so I was a tad late – luckily for me Joe was still waiting. After the awkward introductions we went inside for a friendly chat over a drink in the Bear Inn. While it was a slow start, with us both suffering from a case of first date nerves, once we had our drinks and had got the usual questions over with, the con- versation started flowing. Discussing the usual topics from where we each lived, pets and family chatting was nice and for the most part awkward silence was avoided. Passionate about his subject, Joe excelled in storytelling. He made historical events seem more entertaining than ever, and his historical themed cocktails sounded even more interesting. Time flew and before I knew it my glass was empty: I had to make my excuses and unfortunately return to the library.

First Impressions?

Obviously nervous, but soon opened up.

Quality of the chat?

6/10.

Most awkward moment?

Waiting for the bartender to take our photo at the end of the date.

Kiss or miss?

Sweet but not my type – miss.

Joseph Brown First Year, History, Worcester

We met at the door of the Bear Inn as had been agreed beforehand. After introducing ourselves, we promptly ordered pints of cider and before long the conversation was flowing. We discussed all sorts of topics, mostly fairly normal ones like our hobbies, what our impressions of Oxford life were, our plans for the summer etc. Though we’re on quite different ends of the spectrum when it comes to academic subjects, each of us managed to gauge the other’s interest, particularly as regards our intellectual pursuits – Jen liked my account of the tale of Heloise and Abelard, the most notorious lovers of 12th century France, and arguably of all time. Generally, the conversation went quite naturally – we most certainly didn’t run out of things to discuss – and, overall, we had a very enjoyable and relaxed time chatting, drinking and chilling in the pub.

First impressions?

Struck me as a nice, laid back person.

Quality of the chat?

Very good and light-hearted.

Most awkward moment?

Saying I loved IT after she admitted to a clown phobia.

Kiss or miss?

Miss – but open to meeting again.

University to re-display removed Theresa May portrait

Matthew Roller
-
20
University to re-display removed Theresa May portrait

A portrait of Prime Minister Theresa May has been removed from the walls of the University’s School of Geography and the Environment.

The portrait was put up last week as part of a celebration of the department’s female alumnae.

However, after pressure from students, the portrait was taken down last night.

The University has said that the portrait was taken down because it “was being obscured by posters bearing various messages.” According to the statement, the portrait “will be re-displayed so it can be seen as intended.”

A Twitter account called ‘NotAllGeographers’ had been set up to protest the portrait.

May, who graduated with a second-class degree from St Hugh’s in 1977, was originally one of twelve alumnae to feature prominently as part of the new display, which aimed to “aim to inspire the next generation of women geographers to aim high in their future careers.

The portraits were nominated by current and former members of the department.

https://twitter.com/andrewcdwyer/status/991354147617300481

The School’s Equality and Diversity Officer, Claire Hann, who came up with the idea for the display, said: “The aim is to show that the achievements of the few selected women represent and are linked with the achievements of a much wider group of women geographers.

“We’re keen to celebrate the successes of our women students and staff as much as those of men. It’s been great to reconnect with many of our past students through this project, and we hope it will inspire our current students as they pass by the display each day.”

But ‘NotAllGeographers’ took issue with May’s inclusion.

The group, whose name builds upon a hashtag used during the recent UCU strikes distancing current students from the vice chancellors who also studied geography, told Cherwell: “We are rightly proud of…the celebration of SoGE alumnae.

“However, there was no consultation (at least with students) about the placing of Theresa May as one of the selected twelve larger portraits to celebrate women and Oxford geography (or the selection of photos for the wall).

“Clearly at a time when there are issues with the Windrush scandal and the handling of Brexit [she is] a contentious figure in a department with many EU citizens and decolonial scholars.

“The main, and most basic, issue comes with the celebration of a sitting Prime Minister. Should a department align itself with the power of the day, when there are those who actively challenge it?

“It is unprecedented to celebrate state power in such a way (regardless of one’s political affiliation).

“For many geographers, the famous Doreen Massey being placed below her is also another kick in the teeth.”

The group had planned to circulate a petition demanding the portrait’s removal.

‘NotAllGeographers’ also stuck up card around the portrait, and invited students to share their thoughts.

One student wrote: “School of Geography and (Hostile????) Environment” [sic], while another message said: “Let in every refugee, throw the Tories in the sea.”

In response, a counter-campaign took off, under the moniker #PutThePortraitBack.

The School of Geography and Environment and Theresa May have been contacted for comment.

Oxford standoff ends after shots exchanged

Fred Dimbleby
-
1
Oxford standoff ends after shots exchanged

A standoff between police and a gunman near the Westgate centre has ended peacefully after 17 hours, according to police.

A 24-year-old suspect was arrested at 3am this morning after negotiations with police at the scene.

South Central Ambulance Service said that one person was being treated for non-life threatening injuries.

Thames Valley Police said yesterday they were called to the scene at 1:15 pm yesterday afternoon and that they exchanged fire with an armed man.

Residents, who were evacuated from the street, have gradually been allowed back into their homes. Some police are still at the scene but most of the road closures have now been lifted.

Negotiations between police and the gunman continued yesterday and went into the early hours of the morning.

Heavily armed police were seen at the scene along with sniffer dogs, ambulance services, and fire services. At one point, fire services unrolled a hose onto Paradise Street to use in the standoff.

Earlier in the day, an Ambulance crew carried a stretcher through the cordon, but it was not used afterwards.

As the evening drew on, paramedics were seen carrying large lights through the police cordon.

Residents and onlookers gathered at a local pub on Paradise Street and said that the event had “brought them together”.

One resident told Cherwell: “ I woke up and there was a lot of shouting and dogs were fighting outside. I came outside and there were police cars everywhere – some marked and some unmarked. One up round the castle and round the road here.”

Pembroke College, which is near the scene, warned students to avoid the area.

In an email, seen by Cherwell, the Deputy Home Bursar said: “Due to an ongoing security incident, please be advised to avoid the Westgate Centre and the area around the Castle.”

 

Shots fired near Westgate centre

Fred Dimbleby
-
0
Shots fired near Westgate centre

Police officers have closed off Paradise Square, near the Westgate centre, after a reported firearms incident.

Police officers have cordoned off the street and ambulances are on the scene.

Residents have been evacuated from the street and guests at the Malmaison hotel were apparently told to remain in their room.

Police earlier warned people to stay away from the street.

Local pubgoers said that they heard the shots at about 2.30pm. They said that there were a couple of shots which had followed earlier shots on the scene.

There is no suggestion of this being a terror-related incident.

A local resident told Cherwell: “I woke up at 12:30 and there was a lot of shouting and dogs were fighting outside. I came outside and there were police cars everywhere, some marked and some unmarked, one up round the castle and round the road here.”

An officer confirmed to Cherwell that an operation is in progress.

A shot incident. Somebody was saying it was a hostage situation.

Police were apparently negotiating with a suspect after shots were fired at 1.15pm.

The Oxford Tube and Stagecoach said buses are not stopping on Castle Street.

This is a breaking news story – updates will follow

Colleges must get on board with gender neutral toilets

Daanial Chaudhry
-
2
Colleges must get on board with gender neutral toilets

It is undoubtedly positive that Somerville JCR passed a motion to create gender-neutral toilets – what has been underwhelmingly less positive is the implementation of this motion by the college. The signs, depicting a man and a woman, fail to legitimise those transgender and nonbinary individual and demonstrate a deeply entrenched cisnormative and hetronormative ideology that continues to pervade society.

The lack of understanding amongst college officials about the signage on the gender-neutral toilets illustrates a complete misapprehension of the intentions of the motion, that sought to ‘include the excluded’. Instead, what the new signage has done is reinforce the notion of gender as a binary concept, delegitimising and ostracising those who don’t identify with either gender, and leaving them as excluded as they were before.

Indeed, as a consequence of being detachable, the signs offer the JCR motion little or no legitimacy – it is as though College is caught between seeking to appease the JCR and their fear to support the motion, despite it being democratically supported by its students. It is seemingly afraid that through adopting more permanent signage, it will lose the custom of those who rent rooms in college during the vacation. The college has decided, that between the additional revenue it gains from renting rooms and the needs of its students, it would rather alienate its students. This demonstrates a global consensus that extends beyond the confines of an individual college – that making money is more important than the needs of individuals within a community.

When the JCR motion was proposed there was some concern that the new toilets would make students feel uncomfortable, with the potential for a man and a woman to be in neighbouring cubicles.

This is an issue of socialisation: it is all we had known previously, and as such it appeared to be an issue. In reality, my friend from home who happened to be visiting me as the new gender-neutral toilets were implemented didn’t realise that he was entering the old ‘female’ toilets. And so it will be for the freshers that arrive hereafter. For them, a man and a woman using cubicles beside each other will be the norm.

One hopes that everyone will feel more comfortable discussing traditionally gendered issues, such as periods, increasing our understanding and ability to sympathise with one another. More importantly, it will mean that for those questioning their gender identity, they are more able to determine who they are, without fear of being marginalised as a consequence of socially constructed gendered signage.

Student film shows us a new side of Oxford

Kayla Kim
-
0
Student film shows us a new side of Oxford

On a fateful Tuesday night last week, a friend and I ventured into deepest Cowley to witness the OUFF summer showcase at the Ultimate Picture Palace. After the president of OUFF (Oscar McNab) spoke, promising a drink for whoever asked to meet the filmmakers first, the lights darkened. Two hours later we emerged, ready to inflate our own senses of self-importance by thoroughly criticising some fascinating films.

The most memorable film of the night was undoubtedly Cracked Screen. It was directed by Trim Lamba, a recent Oxford alum, and has received great critical acclaim, picking up several awards.

The entire film was shot on Snapchat, which made it extremely intimate, as if it was playing out on the surface of a smartphone. The acting was so engaging and the format so immersive that the film felt completely real. Lamba’s film highlighted the fact that big budgets and extensive camera crews are not always necessary to create brilliant film. In the case of Cracked Screen, the piece was genuinely engaging, not in spite of its small budget, but because of it.

After the movie’s big turning point everyone in the audience was frozen and silent, and as that film was the last of the night, the silence continued after the credits rolled.

Given the film’s heavy end, I wonder whether it was the most effective film to conclude the night with. It didn’t exactly leave you with warm, fuzzy feelings.

Of course, OUFF was under no obligation to make the audience leave humming show tunes. In fact, none of the films were particularly uplifting, with the trend being towards darker, introspective pieces.

The only particularly humorous film was Wandering Eyes, which started out as a seemingly sinister drama and turned into a romantic farce.

It was often tonally inconsistent, as the audience couldn’t tell whether or not they were supposed to be laughing or concerned throughout. But once the laughing began, it didn’t stop.

Hugh Tappin contributed immensely to the hilarity; somehow, regardless of what he was actually saying, he managed to make all of his lines incredibly funny both in Wandering Eyes and Various Faces. The latter mostly felt like an excuse to film some really gorgeous shots of Oxford at night. The opening shot was one of the more memorable of the entire evening — just 30 seconds of a guy walking towards the camera in and out of streetlamp light. Beautiful, if indulgently long.

Ambiguity reigned in Various Faces, as the main character (Adam Goodbody), who walked about Oxford at night with a gloomy face, encountered a silent girl who disappeared – presumably either dead or an ex, a question viewers may have found themselves asking more than once over the course of the night.

One of the best documentaries of the night, Everyone Listens to Turbo Folk, seemed significant and wide in scope but felt incomplete: there was almost too much to cover.

Director Una O’Sullivan managed to talk to an impressive range of Serbian people from different musical backgrounds, but for a movie with “Turbo Folk” in the title there was surprisingly little turbo folk and a lot of folk, pop, and alternative.

Despite this fact, it was obviously with difficulty that she attempted to entice her subjects into discussing turbo folk. In one memorable scene, she went to a radio station and asked the hosts about it, they were scandalized, responding “We would never play such trash on our station.”

The director was, therefore, not only impressive in her stylistic control, but in the fact that she actually found people willing to discuss turbo folk. As a viewer, it’s very easy to criticise and pick holes in student films. But it is impossible not to be impressed by their success in producing such content on such low budgets in such short time. There is truly so much more to praise from the line up of exciting and inventive films.

The OUFF summer showcase uncovers a whole world of creativity, imagination, and skill that should not be underestimated. It seems that many students at Oxford are not only engaged in the trends throughout film today, but are also more than capable of bringing their own original and aesthetically pleasing little wonders to the screen without the big budgets or huge support that the mainstream industry receives

The Union should not welcome Jordan Peterson

Elliot Gulliver-Needham
-
125
The Union should not welcome Jordan Peterson

Jordan Peterson is a charlatan. Let’s be completely honest about what he represents. Through watching his speeches and reading his book, it becomes clear that everything he says is either incredibly vague, or flat out wrong. While I am in favour of inviting individuals who I disagree with to speak at the Union, I do not think we should be inviting a man to speak who has nothing of worth to say, and who actively harms debate.

The Oxford Union term card helpfully proves my first point here, stating that Peterson became famous for “criticising the Canadian government’s move to enact Bill C-16, which made misgendering a form of hate speech”.

Anyone who bothers to Google “C-16 makes misgendering illegal” can find out that this is a blatant lie. One must consider whether the Union is either incredibly sloppy with their research or is purposely misleading members with harmful falsehoods. Let me make this clear: the very thing that Jordan Peterson became famous for is a lie that the Union is now publishing in their term card. C-16 was a law specifically targeting sustained harassment of trans people. Simply using the wrong pronouns would never be considered a hate crime, unless it was coupled with harassment of a trans individual.

Jordan Peterson’s claim to fame is a lie attacking trans people for wanting fair protection against hate crimes. Peterson has lied about many other issues, from claiming that Google was manipulating search results for the word ‘bikini’ to include fat women (spoiler: they weren’t), to saying “there are far more female physicians than there are male physicians” which is provably false. He also likes to channel his bigotry through false and inflammatory statements like “the idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory.” Not to mention the fact that he says his awakening that socialism was evil came from reading The Road To Wigan Pier, despite Orwell arguing for socialism in that book, not against it. Do we seriously want a liar who can’t even read the books that he said changed his ideology to come and speak at the Union?

While Jordan Peterson lies about an incredible number of things, his statements that aren’t false frankly say nothing of substance. Let’s examine the summary of principles from the end of his book, 12 Rules for Life: “What shall I do to strengthen my spirit? Do not tell lies or do what you despise. What shall I do to ennoble my body? Use it only in the service of my soul. What shall I do with the most difficult of questions? Consider them the gateway to the path of life. What shall I do with the poor man’s plight? Strive through right example to lift his broken heart. What shall I do with when the great crowd beckons? Stand tall and utter my broken truths.”

Now, we can read into these statements whichever way we like. But ultimately, Peterson is doing what many of us have done in our essays – overcomplicating statements in an attempt to make them sound profound. These can literally be summed up by saying: don’t lie, look after yourself, take problems as opportunities, set good examples, and do speeches at the Oxford Union.

Time after time, as you read Peterson’s work and watch his speeches, you realise that he purposely acts as if he’s saying something enlightening when he’s no different to any other self-help guru, repeating the most basic of lessons. When Peterson says “You can’t make rules for the exceptional”, that’s true by definition, not some deep statement on our potential.

His mantra – “Meaning is an expression of the instinct that guides us out into the unknown so that we can conquer it” – is so incredibly ambiguous that I can’t even begin to talk about it. Why should we invite an ‘academic’ to speak when the majority of their work consists of boring self-help nonsense that actually says nothing and helps no one?

When the lies have run out and the statements can’t be made vague enough, Peterson instead defaults to basic ad hominem insults. Comparing trans activists to Mao in his famous Channel 4 interview but being unable to explain how their ideologies are the same, complaining about “crazy women” and “harpies”, and claiming everything he disagrees with “Postmodern Neo-Marxism”. Peterson leans on his background in psychology to throw psychoanalysis at his opponents, not bothering to dismantle their argument, but instead explaining how the insults he spews at them are the real reason they support their beliefs.

This is not someone who contributes to the intellectual debate we want at the Oxford Union. This is someone who hurts the very ideals it stands for. A liar, a name caller, and someone who has nothing of worth to say. As paying Union members, we should be insulted that this man is coming to speak at the great institution.

Labour Club stand by speaker alleged to have made ‘anti-semitic’ comments

Greg Ritchie
-
1
Labour Club stand by speaker alleged to have made ‘anti-semitic’ comments

Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) have stood by their decision to invite a controversial speaker alleged to have made “anti-semitic” comments.

Richard Seymour has previously expressed support for the proscribed terrorist group Hezbollah, while also claiming that the anti-semitism problem within the Labour party was a “witch-hunt”.

Last week, the OULC co-chairs contacted Seymour to clarify his views on Israel, Hezbollah, and anti-semitism within the Labour party. His response was deemed satisfactory for the invitation not to be rescinded.

However, concerns are still being raised by both members of OULC and the national party, with a spokesperson for Labour Against Antisemitism describing the decision to invite Seymour as “alarming”, and OULC members telling Cherwell they felt “scared to speak out” about their concerns.

Last week, after Cherwell revealed some of Richard Seymour’s past comments, OULC resolved to contact Seymour to clarify his views.

In his response, seen by Cherwell, Seymour expresses his regret for several of his comments regarding the nature of anti-semitism; qualifies his “unconditional, but not uncritical” support for Hezbollah as being in the context of the Lebanon War; and says that he has changed his mind since he wrote that “Labour doesn’t have an ‘anti-semitism problem’” and that the allegations form a “witch-hunt”.

Seymour said: “It would be wrong to infer that these [blog] posts attested to broader support for Hezbollah’s overall ideology or its wider regional role. Certainly, at no point did this ‘support’ extend to any antisemitic affiliations or statements on the part of Hezbollah or any of its leaders or members.”

Regarding his claims about a “witch-hunt”, he said: “my first reaction, which was to think of [the allegations of anti-semitism within the party] mainly as just another way to attack the leadership, is one I can no longer cleave to.”

Co-chairs of OULC, Anisha Faruk and Ray Williams, told Cherwell: “In light of Richard Seymour’s positive clarifications, which we have passed onto Cherwell in full, and having met with Oxford JSoc, we believe that Seymour’s address can go ahead without infringing on our absolute commitment to making our members feel safe and opposing anti-semitism.”

President of Oxford University Jewish Society (JSoc), Jacob Greenhouse, told Cherwell: “I am happy with the response, I do not know what he will say on the day but from the email it is clear that he is rather sorry about the anti-semitic comments we believe him to have raised and does not believe those views anymore.”

However, he stressed that he has asked OULC to ensure that Seymour is challenged on his views at the event itself.

A spokesperson for Labour Against Antisemitism, Euan Philipps, told Cherwell: “It is alarming that, given the current anti-semitism crisis in the Labour Party and the OULC’s own problematic recent history, that they did not carry out appropriate background checks before booking this speaker.

“Richard Seymour has a track record of making controversial – and occasionally offensive – comments that tread a fine line between sensationalism and antisemitism. His recent attempts to minimise the issue of anti-Jewish discrimination in the Labour Party are a case in point.

“We hope that every effort will be made to provide a counter-argument to Mr Seymour’s position and that more care will be taken by the OULC in future.”

“Jewish students feel uncomfortable being themselves and expressing their views… I’m an OULC member, and I feel scared…

Posted by Labour Against Antisemitism on Monday, May 7, 2018

An OULC member told Cherwell: “OULC’s approach to anti-Semitism and its Jewish members is essentially the same as its party overlords. Antisemitism: not an issue worth elevating to the same level as other forms of discrimination, followed by intense suspicion of anyone who raises issues.

“How high is the arrogance of these people, who think they can dismiss accusations of antisemitism as essentially insignificant? Who are these people who think they don’t need to take extra care to ensure their speakers don’t purport the same prejudice as the leadership of their party?

“Jewish students feel uncomfortable being themselves and expressing their views… I’m an OULC member, and I feel scared to speak out against this.

“I absolutely condemn the invitation to this speaker: what were they thinking? But it is, of course, part of a deep problem, which no statement in the quiet days of the vac can properly address.”

In March, OULC released a statement slamming the Labour Party’s “consistently inadequate” responses to anti-semitism.

It went on to say: “Our club has tried to learn from its mistakes and so must our party. We will continue to do all that we can to make sure that the Club remains a friendly and safe environment.”

In response to the OULC member’s statement, Faruk and Williams told Cherwell: “We are saddened that an OULC member feels that they cannot openly bring up concerns they have within the club. Having learnt this, we will set up an anonymous complaints procedure so that future concerns can be voiced and will publicise our current disciplinary procedure much more extensively.”

They added that they did not take the decision over whether to rescind Seymour’s invitation “lightly”, and it came only “after proper consultation with Oxford JSoc who support our desire to scrutinise unacceptable comments made by Seymour when he comes to speak.”

OULC has faced scrutiny for their internal problems with anti-semitism in the past. In 2016, co-chair Alex Chalmers resigned in protest of what he perceived to be a large portion of club members having “some kind of problem with Jews”.

After a year-long investigation, the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the party voted to clear the two student members under investigation for alleged anti-semitic behaviour – a decision Oxford JSoc labelled “utterly shameful”.

Seymour will speak at the launch of Look Left, the Labour Club’s termly magazine, on Tuesday evening.

1...748749750...2,524Page 749 of 2,524

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 Jamie Ashley