Saturday 2nd May 2026
Blog Page 791

Dichotomous Lives: The Lives of Diaspora Kids

Yinni Hu
-
1
Dichotomous Lives: The Lives of Diaspora Kids

If there is one thing I have learnt from churning out philosophy and politics essays for almost a year, it is that there are two sides to everything, even when we only want to acknowledge one of them. The cross-cultural lives led by second generation immigrants and other multi-cultural kids are no exception. On the one side, we’re told that we have the best of both worlds: People envy us for being bilingual, for getting to eat exotic food at home, for being able to celebrate foreign holidays. What is not nearly as often addressed however, is the other side of the coin. The somewhat less enviable truth that in a sense, we’re neither fish nor fowl: That many of us spend years trying to puzzle the bits and pieces of our mixed cultural heritage into one coherent identity.

In the world today, there are at least as many bilingual children as there are monolingual ones. One in every four children born in England or Wales in 2014 had mothers that were themselves born outside of the UK. Wherever we look, the rise of globalisation has brought with it an ever-growing number of cross-culture kids of all kinds and yet, it is rarely acknowledged that many of these children grow up with the feeling of not belonging in the very country they were born and raised in. If this does not call for change I don’t know what does, and I want to share my own experience of a dichotomous life because fostering understanding is the first step towards encouraging change. While I don’t have the answers for how to bring it about, I hope to do my share by shedding some light over what it might be like to live a dichotomous life today’s society.

Born and raised in Norway, the biggest difference between me and my Chinese born parents has always been our sense of belonging – or rather, their sense of belonging and my ack thereof. We travel to China every year and once the plane lands in Beijing Capital Airport, my parents are home. They might have lived in Norway for 40 years, but their home will always be on Chinese soil. The experience is different for someone like me. I might look and sound just as Chinese as any other person seen on the busy streets of Beijing, but in the eyes of natives I am nothing but a “banana person”. Someone with yellow skin but white insides. They are always pleasantly surprised when I turn out to be a fluent Chinese speaker or admit liking Chinese food because it’s unexpected. They assume that I primarily belong in the country and culture I grew up in and that anything Chinese that remains is just extra bonus – me getting the best of both worlds if you like. I’ve long lost count of how many times I wished it was that simple.

Parts of a different culture are not something you can simply fuse with another coherent identity like some add-on upgrade. If you win some you lose some, and while I wouldn’t trade my Chinese heritage for the world, feeling like I fully belong in Norway at the same time has been impossible. Because it’s not easy to identify entirely as Norwegian when you grow up with other children squinting their eyes at you because they are curious as to “how you see the world”. It’s not easy to develop a genuine feeling of belonging if the lady in the grocery store instinctively talks to you in heavily accented English instead of in your common mother tongue. And it sure isn’t easy to feel completely at home when you’re in a park two quarters from your house and a jogger slows down to tell you how happy he is to see that his local park has become more popular with tourists.

I came to realise that belonging is a two-way street – you cannot identify with someone who doesn’t accept you as one of their own, and it seems like neither the Chinese nor the Norwegians were entirely willing to do that when faced with a hybrid like me who appears to be neither fish nor fowl.

It used to make me angry and bitter and I thought the people around me prejudiced and insensitive for ignoring and mocking the efforts I had made to fit in. It was only recently that I realised my feelings were unwarranted and misdirected, and that no individual was at fault for me being unable to reconcile the different aspects of my cultural identity. I was hit by the realisation that the lady at the grocery store and the talkative jogger and the vast majority of the people I was blaming were not being consciously racist or microaggressive, but simply reflected beliefs and habits that had been entrenched in society for centuries.

For as long as history has been dominated by nation states, our sense of belonging has been closely connected to our cultural and national identity. It is therefore no wonder that as globalisation brings with it increasingly complex identities, the question of belonging becomes more problematic. While I can only speak from my own experience and observations, it seems like society has not yet learnt how to properly accommodate for the existence of cross-culture children. The sense that you need to feel British in order to belong in Britain is still ever so strongly imbedded in social norms and conventions, and once we realise that, it becomes clear that this situation cannot be improved through anger, frustration and the blind assignment of blame. What we need is to draw attention to this relatively rarely addressed global phenomenon and to aim for a wider and better understanding of how it affects people.

And thus, we have come full circle. The reason I emphasised the importance of fostering understanding at the beginning of this article is because I believe that is the only way to change society from within. I no longer, like I once did, look for a way in which I can become Norwegian enough to be accepted. Rather, I now wish for a world in which I can feel at home in Norway without feeling 100% Norwegian. I wish we could make the first steps towards a society in which people can belong without being 100% anything. Where no cross-culture kid feels the need to forcefully reconcile the different parts of what will likely always be a dichotomous identity and a dichotomous life, because they know that they have a place where they belong regardless.

 

Total denuclearisation is a complete fantasy

Lee Chin Wee
-
1
Total denuclearisation is a complete fantasy

Putting aside the crass posturing surrounding the – as yet unconfirmed – diplomatic summit between North Korea and the United States, it’s important to ask: what constitutes ‘Mission Success’ for the international community when it comes to North Korea?
‘Mission Success’ is not North Korea’s willingness to engage in diplomatic summits and peace negotiations with international actors. That would be a conflation of the means of diplomatic success with the ends of said diplomacy.

The sustained failure of the six-party talks is one such example – North Korea has returned to the negotiating table intermittently since 2003, yet no concrete steps towards de-nuclearisation have occurred. Instead, it appears that North Korea’s nuclear programme has gone from strength to strength. Last year, North Korea successfully tested its longest ever flight of a ballistic missile. The missile travelled 3,700 miles and passed over Japan before landing in the Pacific.

North Korea is either close to achieving, or has achieved, the ability to threaten the United States with an intercontinental ballistic missile. There remain doubts over whether it has the technology to miniaturise a nuclear warhead, but experts – including Ian Williams, an associate director at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies – believe this is “just a matter of time”.

North Korea sees nuclear weapons as a guarantee of regime survival. It will not countenance de-nuclearisation even if the United States signs a non-aggression treaty. What else explains North Korea’s response when John Bolton, the US national security adviser, referred to Libya as a model for North Korean nuclear disarmament? Pyongyang’s reply was immediate: “(The world) knows too well that our country is neither Libya nor Iraq, which met miserable fates”.

The fates of Muammar Gaddafi, who gave up his nuclear weapons in a 2003 deal, and Saddam Hussein, who did not possess nuclear weapons during Operation Iraqi Freedom,
are plain to see. This is the main reason why the six-party talks failed miserably – North Korea would not budge an inch when it came to de-nuclearisation.

What about the recent inter-Korean summit, where Kim pledged to work towards a “nuclear-free Korean peninsula” and a formal end to the Korean War? We’ve been here before.

Eighteen years ago, South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-il signed declarations about ending the Korean War and uniting the two countries. Kim Jong-il even agreed to create a joint South Korean/ North Korean industrial park in Kaesong, and to reunify families divided by the demilitarised zone (some suspect that North Korea used this particular scheme to smuggle spies into South Korea). Little has come of Kim Dae-jung’s “Sunshine Policy”. North Korea has not stopped its nuclear programme and continues to enslave political opponents.

Yes, negotiations are good. But Kim Jong-un is no liberal peace-maker. Negotiations are a necessary but insufficient condition for any substantial progress to be made He’s acting out of a decades-old playbook which mixes provocation with peace offerings meant to convince the international community to relax sanctions and legitimise his dictatorial regime.
It would be a mistake to treat the North Korea/United States summit as a negotiation over de-nuclearisation. President Trump and John Bolton might fantasise about stripping Kim of his nuclear arsenal and arm-twisting Pyongyang into a peace deal, but this is not happening. Kim, surely, views American promises as worth less than the paper they are written on – President Trump’s sudden reversal of the Obama-era nuclear treaty with Iran is one such example.

Any negotiation, therefore, requires American willingness to broach compromise. This means allowing North Korea to keep its nuclear weapons in return for Pyongyang’s own set of compromises. There are no two ways about it. Short of a military intervention which would entail incalculable human suffering, Pyongyong will not give up the one bargaining chip it views as essential to regime survival. In exchange, we must force North Korea to halt any future development and production of nuclear weapons. We can enforce this with regular IAEA and UN inspections, with clear rewards for sustained adherence to the deal (and, conversely, punishments if North Korea were to halt inspections or show a disregard for the deal).

These ‘rewards’ might include a gradual relaxation of sanctions, or American investment in light-water reactors. At the same time, there are some red lines that the United States cannot accede to – withdrawing troops from South Korea, for example, might lead to South Korean nuclearisation, due to a perception of profound insecurity. Instead of any genuine progress, however, I expect to see more posturing on the part of President Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un.

If this summit does take place, Trump will brand it as a ‘historic’ (‘the BEST’) meeting, deserving of a Nobel Prize. Kim will use it as propaganda and proof that North Korea’s nuclear status gives it a seat at the table of equals.

Blind Date: “Honestly, we couldn’t really have been more different”

Cherwell Life
-
0
Blind Date: “Honestly, we couldn’t really have been more different”

Milly Lee, Second Year, French, LMH

We met at the King’s Arms for an early evening drink. We chatted about some things we had in common: both Arsenal fans, both go to Pure Gym (me at 6am, him at 11pm). While the conversation flowed relatively easily, I felt this was more out of my fear of silence and awful habit of filling any quiet moments with inane questions. In all honesty, we couldn’t really have been more different. He regaled me with tales of going out clubbing five times a week; I don’t think I’ve ever managed five times a term. I felt second-hand stress at just the mention of his incredibly last minute essay writing, and may have pretended my deadline was two days earlier than it actually was so as not to seem so painfully square. He seemed like a nice enough guy, we just weren’t particularly compatible.

First impressions?

I couldn’t hear his name, so awkwardly had to ask him to repeat it.

Quality of the chat?

Asked me the same question twice. This happened a couple of times.

Most awkward moment?

Asking to have our photo taken.

Kiss or miss?

Miss.

Akhil Palani, Second Year, Law, Worcester

I had a pretty good time. There was a bit of nervousness at first but Milly was really easy to talk to, we grabbed a couple of drinks and had a chat about stuff like how she feels about going on her year abroad next year. I was delighted to discover that she was also an Arsenal fan and we chatted about Arsène Wenger’s legacy for a while. Milly was a great listener and seemed willing to put up with my chat, which quickly helped us to relax and settle into a fun conversation. Even though we didn’t really share the same interests, Milly was easy to talk to and we never really had any issues finding things to talk about. The topics we covered were broad and varied, but I didn’t feel any sparks flying. Considering how I felt before the blind date, I’m really happy that it turned out to be a chill chat with a fun person.

First impressions?

She didn’t seem very nervous and was very polite.

Quality of the chat?

8/10

Most awkward moment?

I didn’t really feel awkward at any point on the date.

Kiss or miss?

Sadly a miss.

Union under fire for hosting anti-LGBTQ+ speakers either side of Oxford Pride

Cherwell News
-
0
Union under fire for hosting anti-LGBTQ+ speakers either side of Oxford Pride

Angered students confronted the Russian ambassador to the UK on Tuesday, as the Oxford Union faced criticism for hosting both “a stooge of the homophobic Putin regime” as well as “an abhorrent transphobe” either side of Oxford Pride.

On Tuesday, Alexander Yakovenko was forced to defend Russia’s record on LGBTQ+ rights, as students questioned him on the Russian state’s reported torture of gay men in Chechnya.

The ambassador provoked widespread criticism when he denied there was an issue, claiming: “It’s difficult to say if there are any gay people in Chechnya”.

Meanwhile, Germaine Greer – who has previously said transgender women “can’t be women”, and who provoked protests the when she spoke in Oxford in 2015 – will speak at the society next week.

A Union spokesperson told Cherwell that it was “unfortunate that many have found the invitation of the Russian Ambassador ‘hugely insensitive'”.

During his speech, Russian ambassador Yakovenko spoke of his national pride, showing a four minute film displaying some of the highlights of the country – complete with orchestral soundtrack and English voiceover – and ending with a Russia-themed quiz. Russia goodie bags were awarded to the winners, and to Union president Gui Cavalcanti.

However, when the question and answer session began, he was confronted by several members over Russia’s treatment of LGBTQ+ communities in Chechnya, where authorities have reportedly round up and tortured more than 100 gay men. The Kremlin has denied the allegations.

Keir Mather, a History and Politics student at Wadham, said: “Ambassador, I’m a gay man. And if I lived in Chechnya over the last year I would have run the risk of being imprisoned, and tortured, and possibly killed by either my family or the state.

“On behalf of all the LGBT Chechnyan people who will not have an opportunity to ask a question because they’re voiceless, I’d like ask you why nobody who’s perpetrated these crimes or has condoned them has been brought to justice, or faced any sort of criminal action, and also I’d like to ask you when the LGBTQ+ community in Russian will have their rights not only has citizens but as human beings.”

His speech was met with an extended round of applause.

The ambassador replied: “That is exactly what we’ve discussed with Elton John. He had a conversation with President Putin about this before. And later on, there were a lot of publications in Britain about the gay rights, and all this. By the way I have a lot of friends who are gays [sic]. I have no problem with that.”

He added: “If you live in Russia and you are gay, or in the so-called minority communities, you have all the rights the same as the others.”

Another student asked Yakovenko if he agreed with claims made by Chechnya’s leader that the region does not have any gay people.

“Well, I don’t know,” Yakovenko said. “It’s difficult to say if there are any gay people in Chechnya.”

He added: “Probably the numbers of gays, [sic] they are not as high as in Europe. That’s why it’s a different issue”, before claiming nobody had complained about the treatment of gay minorities.

The Union president, Gui Cavalcanti, asked him if people were too afraid to speak out.

“No, no, no. Nobody’s afraid. We have so many gays [sic] for example if you go to Moscow. You have the gay sport, it’s just a normal way of life.

“It’s not something that’s a real problem in my country.”

After the event, Mather wrote on Facebook: “Just had the chance to take the Russian Ambassador to the UK to task over the purge of gay people in Chechnya, asking him why no one who perpetrated or condoned these actions has been held responsible and when the LGBT+ community in Russia will have equal rights as citizens and human beings.

“His response was beyond appalling. I’m still sat in the chamber and am fucking shook.”

He added: “The lies, obfuscation, and complete lack of moral dignity displayed here tonight is appalling, but not surprising. The fact he’s been hosted during the same week as Oxford Pride is ridiculous.”

Mather told Cherwell: “Ambassador Yakavenko’s visit to the Union was a farce. Instead of holding him and the government he represents to account, there were propaganda videos, quizzes, and goodie-bags. The Union justifies inviting controversial speakers like Ambassador Yakavenko by claiming that once there they will face scrutiny.

“The events that took place showed they had little desire to hold Ambassador Yakavenko or the government he represents to account for their abhorrent human rights abuses.”

“The Union’s decision to host the representative of one of the most repressive and homophobic states in the world on the same week as Oxford Pride is hugely insensitive.

“To make matters worse, they are hosting Germaine Greer the week after Pride, an individual who has made dehumanising and downright dangerous comments about transgender women, and their rights as human beings.

“If the Union prioritised making its events welcoming to LGBT+ members, they could have used the time either side of Pride week as an opportunity to have positive and meaningful discussions about LGBT+ issues, with LGBT+ people. Instead, they have chosen to invite a stooge of the homophobic Putin regime, and an abhorrent transphobe, putting headlines and hype above LGBT+ members.”

A Union spokesperson told Cherwell: “Regarding the timings and dates for our speaker events, we are usually restricted by our guest speakers’ availability in trying to find a mutually suitable date, given their incredibly busy schedule. It is unfortunate that many have found the invitation of the Russian Ambassador ‘hugely insensitive’.

“The Oxford Union did not extend an invitation to Germaine Greer. To clarify, Greer is participating in a televised event with the Al Jazeera Media Network, on their program ‘Head to Head with Mehdi Hasan’. This is a private hire, ticketed event which is open to all students, not just Union members. We are helping in the publicity of the event, as well as Dambisa Moyo’s on the 12th June, as it falls during term time.”

Our JCRs are essential to creating a democratic student environment

El Blackwood
-
0
Our JCRs are essential to creating a democratic student environment

To say that JCRs are “irrelevant” is to underestimate the ability of students to support and represent each other within the JCR framework.

There are points to be made about the efficiency and failures of JCR committees. But it is fundamentally important to have a body that can work with (and sometimes against) the senior management to curate a student environment which is perceived to be fair, enjoyable and, most of all, reflective of what is important to the JCR members themselves.

An irrelevant JCR would be one that had no real impact on the lives of the people which it represents. Across the University, this is simply not the case. To use my own college as an example, this year we’ve got rid of 9th week exam rent for freshers and finalists, successfully argued for a college-wide access survey, and are taking action on the findings. We’ve continued to champion our new suspended students policy and succeeded in pushing for a new flag pole to be built in order to fly the Pride flag above our main entrance.

These efforts have real effects. Such efforts are decreasing the financial pressure of being at University, increasing the rights of suspended students to visit, and are doing more to publicly symbolise Peter’s pride in the LGBTQ+ community.

But none of these examples touch upon the endless support that our welfare team gives, nor the cross-college co-ordination efforts to improve the University, particularly from people who have Liberation roles on the committee.

If we are to think about possible “irrelevance”, we also have to consider absence. Without JCRs, what would happen to welfare? Who would push back against new policies they didn’t think were fair? What better method would we have of enacting change that wasn’t sporadic and most likely unsustainable?

I count myself lucky to be JCR President of a college like St Peter’s, where we have a student body that is progressive and involved, and, crucially, a receptive SCR.

However, even in a college like ours, a lack of student representation on the various committees and governing body would only lower the standard of student living and ultimately make our colleges less democratic.

To say that JCRs are irrelevant is to ignore the tangible effects and positive changes that those involved fight so hard for.

PakSoc screening controversy attacked in parliament

Isabel Morris
-
4
PakSoc screening controversy attacked in parliament

Siobhain McDonagh MP has condemned the Oxford Pakistan Society’s reluctance to co-host a documentary screening, calling their actions a “scourge of extremism” in a parliamentary debate last week.

The House of Commons Select Committee was debating the motion, “That this House notes with concern the rising tide of persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan, Algeria and other countries around the world; …[and] calls on the Government to make representations to the Governments of Pakistan and Algeria on the persecution of Ahmadis…”

McDonagh, the Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden, said in Parliament: “We return a final time to the case of Nobel prize winner Professor Abdus Salam.

“Earlier this month, Oxford University hosted the first UK screening of a film about him, but the university’s Pakistan society has been accused of discrimination due to its reluctance to get involved based on Professor Salam’s Ahmadi faith, forcing an apology after an extremely successful event.

“Such a scourge of extremism is a stain on the freedom of religion that we rightly and proudly celebrate in the UK.”

In response to McDonagh’s comments, Oxford Pakistan Society told Cherwell: “We respect the religious freedom of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. We apologised for any miscommunication and delay in our response. We realise the huge amount of work needed to highlight the plight of minorities within our community.

“We reject the suggestion that the Pakistan Society was discriminatory. As documented, any reluctance was based on the controversial nature of the event and not out of any desire not to recognise the incommensurate achievements of Abdus Salam.”

Oxford University Ahmadiyya Muslim Student Association President, Noman Chaudhry, told Cherwell: “Oxford University Pakistan Society’s reluctance to be involved with the screening event is specifically highlighted by MP Siobhain McDonagh as an act complicit to these prejudices, and one of many examples of discriminatory behaviours prevalent within the UK Muslim community.

“We are humbled that our cause has reached Parliament, and that such aggressions against the Ahmadiyya Community are recognised as being in direct conflict with the values and principles championed by our nation.

“These are values and principles that we believe must also be maintained and upheld by those in positions of leadership amongst the student societies of UK universities, as a matter of duty and responsibility.”

During the debate, Glasgow SNP MP Patrick Grady added: “We have heard from Members on both sides of the Chamber about other incidents of intolerance and bigotry towards the Ahmadi community throughout the United Kingdom. We have also heard about the issues at Oxford University this month, and all that is a matter of great concern.

“We are deeply disappointed that the Pakistani Government continue to condone and oversee the conduct of religiously motivated attacks. We call on the Foreign Secretary and Foreign Office Ministers to press the Pakistani Government to take action against religious persecution.”

Oxford must change its essay obsession

Joe Baverstock-Poppy
-
0
Oxford must change its essay obsession

By this point, everyone reading this should be familiar with how working at Oxford goes. I will spare you all the details of mine or your work schedules, for fear of sounding cliched. Often it is easy to forget that this is not the norm. Most universities do not set work on a weekly, or even fortnightly basis, but Oxford decides to.

While the University claims this produces a higher standard of student and I’m sure it does in some ways, when one really thinks about it this weekly workload is simply unhealthy, unhelpful, with worrying implications for professional culture in Britain.

First, is the fundamental fact that students have no time. Time is swallowed away by endless demands for more reading, more essays, and more late nights. This paucity of time is evident in the shallow extra-curricular lives most students lead today. Magdalen Ball was cancelled due to a lack of volunteers, a sign of overworked students with no energy to do anything else.

Hollowed out by their degree, students find that all they do is their work, with nihilistic, unconstructive clubbing to compliment. This is the age where we need to be finding a purpose, pursuing our own goals. Oxford bans such self-discovery – for an institution that claims to promote independence and self-learning, it leaves no space for it

When one’s life is one’s degree, this is a dangerous position to be in. Exhaustion, illness, social crises are allowed to creep in and once taken hold can interrupt such a degree. Students often find themselves left with nothing. It is no wonder Oxford spends more on mental health than any other university – a fact it shamefully holds up with pride, who euphemistically say they “lead the development”.

The damage that Oxford’s weekly work schedule has on student life is evident to anyone who has lived it and seen others live through it.

Having to produce written work, or answer sheets on a weekly basis does not allow for long term memory commitment but instead a perpetual cram, rushing information into one’s head on a daily basis. Once collections swing around after the vac you will wonder if you wrote those essays at all. The perpetual cram of the weekly schedule leaves no long-term memory.

Often, Oxford education does not seem like a process of learning or improvement but rather a constant test. Meeting all deadlines does not represent improved knowledge but simply a better work ethic. This fact shows Oxford to be no more than a cynical £9250 test, a way of signalling how smart we are, rather than becoming smarter as a result.

We have to ask what implications such a style of learning has upon the culture of work at large. The methods we learn at university will come to be the methods we use in the workplace.

Whether you like it or not, the alumni of Oxford come to dominate the most important workplaces in our society. By implication that means the work methods we learn in Oxford comes to be the work methods that dominate the workplace.

Making decisions and drawing conclusions from the bare minimum of information, cramming, and blagging are methods we come to learn to survive Oxford’s weekly grind. Such behaviour in the workplace leads to disaster.

In the public sector, we can all see the Oxford blag in Boris Johnson’s inflammatory bluster. In the private sector Oxford’s culture, less visibly, detriments. The value of short term results over long term stability is present in the irresponsible behaviour of corporations. The 2009 World Recession is no doubt the result of hasty conclusions and rushed action.

As a leader in education, Oxford has a responsibility to establish a culture of responsibility in its graduates. By setting unrealistic work expectations it is doing exactly the opposite. Oxford needs to change. By overworking its students, Oxford damages its students, society at large, and even its ability to educate. The weekly essay deadline, the weekly answer sheet, undermines everything.

While Oxford could reduce how many essays it sets, there is undoubtedly a value in the high standards it places upon its students in how much it expects us to learn.

The bigger problem seems to be the ridiculous time frames in which Oxford expects us to learn its content. 8 weeks is no time at all, a measly sixth of a year. Term lengths should be extended. We’ve all heard the colleges protestations that they need money from conferences and visiting students but we have all also seem the lavish sums of money in their possession.

If the University truly believes against the commodification of education, it should be willing to sacrifice some sources of revenue for the benefit of its educational experience, its student’s health, and society at large.

Ice cream van escapes ban after University complaint

Jeremiah O'Mahony
-
0
Ice cream van escapes ban after University complaint

Two ice cream van owners were let off with a final warning during their hearings at City Hall on Wednesday.

Michael Hall and Shakeel Iqbal were summoned to Town Hall after several infractions of the City Council’s conditions on trading consent. Hall had been previously been reported by the University.

Oxford University made two complaints about Hall’s van to the Council. The University said the van was parked on double yellow lines in Rose Lane near the Botanic Garden. Rose Lane is not one of Hall’s permitted locations under his consent.

Both times, the van was allegedly obstructing the footpath and road. The University said that the van was there for hours, while Hall’s consent only allows him to park in one place for twenty minutes.

The Council confirmed to the Oxford Mail that Hall had received a ticket for parking in that location.

A report for the meeting read: “If a consent holder fails to comply with any of the conditions attached to a street trading consent, the consent may be suspended for an indefinite period or revoked. The consent holder may also be prosecuted.”

In their separate meetings, Councillor Mary Clarkson told Hall and Iqbal that despite their infractions, they will be let off with a final warning.

“It is not in anyone’s interest to take your license away,” Clarkson told Iqbal. The ice cream men will be allowed to trade as before.

“Provided it is strictly in terms of your consent,” Clarkson said to Iqbal.

Iqbal told Cherwell that he was fined several times for selling on Parks Road near the University Parks. His customers were usually people on outings in the parks.

He expressed confusion as to where students were supposed to go for ice cream after a day in the park if not to his ice cream van.

He had previously received a ticket for selling on Parks Road, and was reported by a member of the public.

Iqbal told Cherwell that he was he was gladdened by the verdict, and that students will be able to find him in his usual, permitted, spots.

The University has not responded to Cherwell’s request for comment.

Oxford groups show solidarity with Jewish community after latest attack

Amelia Stewart
-
1
Oxford groups show solidarity with Jewish community after latest attack

The Oxford Labour Muslim Network (OLMN) has condemned last week’s two “racist attacks” against Oxford’s Chabad Jewish Centre, “in the strongest possible terms.”

OLMN posted a scathing condemnation of the onslaughts on their Facebook page after the Oxford Jewish Student Centre suffered the second anti-Semitic attack on their premises in one week.

The post read: “An attack on one is an attack on all.”

The emergency services were called to the Chabad Jewish Centre after an unknown white substance was thrown over the bins last Wednesday, and another anti-Semitic note was found on the vehicle gate on 23rd May, the Jewish holiday of Shauvot.

The police cordoned off the street in fear of a chemical attack before they discovered the substance to be talcum powder.

The 24th May attack follows one four days earlier, when two offenders left anti-Semitic notes outside the Chabad Centre on Cowley Road before setting fire to the building at around 4am on 19th May. The fire burned out within a few minutes without causing any injuries or major damage to the property.

The police have not connected the two attacks.

OLMN said in their post: “There has been a surge of hate crime in Britain since Brexit, and in Europe since the Great Recession. In Europe, forces representing virulent anti-semitism and Islamophobia are marching hand-in-hand. Racists and fascists in this country are attacking synagogues and mosques in increasing number.

“The only way we oppose this is through unity and solidarity.”

The post commended Councillor Tom Hayes, whose St Clement’s ward includes the centre, for his “strong condemnation” of the attacks.

OMLN’s post concluded: “We call on the Oxford & District Labour Party to express a commitment to defend all of Oxford’s communities, and to begin urgent work on anti-racist organising.”

A spokesperson for OMLN told Cherwell: “A horrific racist anti-Semitic attack in our city must not pass without condemnation. Fascist and racist ideology and attacks affect the daily lives of Muslim, Jews and others on a daily basis across Europe.

“We in the OLMN felt it vital to make a public declaration of support and call to action. Progress will only be made through our collective voices and actions.

The spokesperson added: “We must not be complacent and we must also ensure that we as a society understand staying silent is not an option. We are devastated that this attack has taken place in our city and we will continue to stand in open solidarity with all communities.”

In response to the attacks, co-director of Chabad of Oxford, Rabbi Eli Brackman, told Cherwell: “[Some] trickle down anti-Semitism […] may have fostered an environment that lingers today whereby elements of society feel it may be legitimate to go ahead and attack a Jewish centre as happened last weekend.

“A number of events have taken place to create a better understanding of what is acceptable and what is cloaked anti-Semitism and much confidence and trust has been restored.”

He maintained that “Jewish life at Oxford is vibrant and growing” and that “we have come a long way since the events of 2016 that shook the university Jewish student community.”

He called for “the urgent and complete implementation of the Chakrabarti report” in order to “to eradicate anti-Semitism and other forms of racism and hate from political discourse in the UK, student or otherwise.”

President of the University’s Jewish Society, Jacob Greenhouse, told Cherwell: “The anti-semitic incident which occurred last week shows that antisemitism still exists in the United Kingdom and we are relieved that nobody was hurt.

“The community remains ever vigilant.”

The Chabad of Oxford is the more religious of the two Jewish centres connected to the University. It offers students kosher food, prayer services and religious ceremonies, as well as hosting a guest lecturers.

1,000 out of the 12,000 students in Oxford are Jewish, and membership of Chabad of Oxford is over 500.

On their website, they say that they are mainly “dedicated to providing exciting and stimulating programs for Jewish students studying at Oxford and Brookes University, whatever their affiliation, so as to strengthen their attachment to their Jewish roots.”

An Jewish student at the University told Cherwell: “Whatever your stance on the recent actions of Israel’s government, the UK Jewish community should not suffer.

“Anti-semitism is not taken as seriously as other forms of discrimination in a left-wing institution.”

MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, Layla Moran, offered her solidarity to the Jewish community: “It is shocking and deeply distressing to hear reports of an attack on the Oxford Jewish Centre.

“I wholly condemn this attack; we cannot tolerate anti-Semitism of any kind in Oxford.”

Oxford city councillor for St Clement’s, Tom Hayes, said: “Oxford Chabad is a hub of Jewish life in the city and the people of St Clement’s are proud that the student centre has made its home here.

“We deplore every act of anti-Semitism and stand with our Jewish community.”

The investigating officer, Detective Sergeant George Atkinson, said: “Hate crimes are serious offences and something we will not tolerate in the Thames Valley.

“We are conducting a thorough investigation and have several lines of enquiry.”

Anyone with information is urged to contact the Police on 101.

Redemption for the Fallen Women

Catherine Cibulskis
-
0
Redemption for the Fallen Women

The Magdalene Sisters – a film by Peter Mullan – follows the story of four fictional women who writhe against the fate of 30,000 real Irish women who were punished for their sexuality between the 18th and the late 20th century in The Magdalene Laundries, or Asylums, as they were often called. These institutions were sponsored and maintained by branches of the Catholic Church and known to, if not supported by, the state for over 200 years. The poignancy of the story has only been intensified by the recent events in the Republic of Ireland. Repelling the 8th is a momentous occasion for this country which has long struggled with its checkered past regarding women’s’ rights. Films such as The Magdalene Sisters celebrate the women for whom this shift of opinion came too late. 

Laundries, like those seen in this film, were originally designed for ‘fallen women’ who were forcibly imprisoned, maltreated and made to pay a life’s sentence of hard labour to wash away their supposed sins. The facilities were self-supporting, exploiting the unpaid and often mistreated women, whose hands would scrub and press and bleed to fund the laundry.  By the late 19th century, women were incarcerated for erotic behaviour, for being seduced or for having children out of wedlock, as is the case with Mullan’s characters. Margaret (Anne-Marie Duff) reveals to her family that a boy raped her at a wedding; she is seen as the criminal, not the victim. Rose (Dorothy Duffy) has given birth to an ‘illegitimate’ child which shames her silent, immovable parents. Bernadette (Nora-Jane Noone)’s only crime is her flirtatious nature; she is seen as morally corrupt, a danger to herself and others in her orphanage. Elements of the film may be sensationalized but the portrait of injustice it paints is very real and undeniably accurate. 

Mullan’s film is raw, harrowing and at times blackly comic. Father Fitzroy, one of the men entrusted with the spiritual care of the laundry, is seen sexually abusing one of its most vulnerable captives, Crispina. As he delivers a special annual service, Father Fitzroy is overcome by a need to scratch and scrape at his skin and strip in front of the congregation. Margaret has seen fit to punish him for his abuse of power, laying nettles in his vestments to make him feel how they have been humiliated day after day. Yet, the scene turns from comical to sinister when Crispina cannot stop repeating the refrain ‘you are not a man of God’. Her cry echoes again and again to an uncomfortable pitch, reverberating words which remind us of the painful reality of what can happen when those in power misuse that power to subdue others.

After this incident, Crispina is dragged from the laundry and locked away in a mental asylum. Her real name, Harriet, was stripped from her by the Sisters, like her dignity and eventually, her sanity. Mullan’s jarring image of the slow, degrading decline of Crispina becomes a haunting symbol of the brutalisation of female sexuality, of how real women suffered and still suffer today. Yet, while three of Mullan’s protagonists escape the drudgery and violence of the laundry in the film, this was not the case for thousands of women across Ireland and other parts of the world. The last Magdalene asylum, we are told at the end of the film, did not close until 1996.

On Saturday 26th May 2018, Ireland voted to repeal the 8th, an amendment which made it illegal for any woman to have an abortion. It has taken to this day for Irish women to be granted autonomy over their own bodies and many women, like Mullan’s characters, have felt imprisoned, waiting indefinitely, working tirelessly for something to change. A few days ago, something finally did. 

In the UK, women were first given the vote 100 years ago, and yet our sexuality is still assaulted, threatened by individuals, organisations, and industries. This year has seen women across the world standing up once again to say ‘No Means No’, to say ‘MeToo’, to repeal the 8th. Like Crispina, our voices resound, shouting for equal pay, for equal opportunity, clamouring against the kinds of abuse exposed by The Magdalene Sisters.

1...790791792...2,582Page 791 of 2,582

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