Thursday 9th July 2026
Blog Page 1140

NUS motion against gay men’s rep

Sophie Jordan
-
0
NUS motion against gay men’s rep

Recent NUS conference agenda motions have called for LGBTQ+ societies to drop their position of a gay men’s rep, stating that “gay men do not face oppression as gay men within the LGBTQ+ community”.

The motivation behind encouraging LGBTQ+ societies to drop their gay men’s rep positions is a response to “misogny, transphobia, racism and bophobia [that] are often present in LGBTQ+ societies,” which is “unfortunately made more likely to occur when the society is dominated by white cis[gender] gay men,” the motion alleges.

Oxford’s LGBTQ+ Soc told Cherwell they supported the motion, saying, “Although we have a male welfare rep, as queer men suffer bigotry in wider society, and they need support, there is no problem within Oxford LGBTQ+ spaces for gay male representation. This is evidenced by our current committee being the first ever to have a woman president.

“We would also like to point out that our male welfare rep is not a ‘gay male welfare rep’ – the role encompasses bi, asexual and trans men as well as cis gay men. Therefore we do not see the NUS motion as a criticism to our society.”

Some students expressed concern that the motion would damage the balance within the LGBTQ+ community and the welfare of gay men. Jack Schofield, a second year Christ Church student, told Cherwell, “While I don’t deny that gay men are in many ways a comparatively privileged group within the LGBTQ community, for the NUS to advocate the abolition of gay men’s reps seems like an attack and a grave misunderstanding of the serious and multifaceted issues gay men face.

“Such a rep’s role is in any case largely a welfare role, so it is ridiculous and offensive that they should wish to deny gay men an optimal point of contact for advice for problems which affect them specifically as gay men, and I do not believe the NUS is acting in the best interests of its students at all in this regard.”

Bearing the title “Defending Safe(r) spaces and No Platforming”, motions 408 and 408a, submitted by “individuals”, also note the variety of existing definitions of “safe(r) spaces”. While the motion states that a “strength” of the term “safe space” is that it means different things to different communities and invdividuals”, it also states that these spaces are “essential to liberation” and that when “debated for academic ends” they undermine the concept, one that is “vital to the active participation of many students on campus.”

Responding to the NUS’ statement, Harry Samuels, NUS delegate for Oxford, told Cherwell, “I am highly disappointed by the passage of this motion which serves to further this false idea that LGBTQ societies are solely engines for liberation politics rather than social spaces as well. This motion’s passage gives the implication that gay men face no intolerance, or that the intolerance they face is somehow lesser, a pernicious but sadly continuing belief in certain circles.

“The existence of these reps is vital for representation and for gay men who may need someone to turn to for sexual and sexual health advice, or for welfare advice, and Oh Well, Alright Then condemns this motion in the strongest terms as an example of the privileged and ignorant activism of certain circles within the NUS which we stood for election to prevent.”

Adam Farrow, a graduate student at the University of Durham who first tweeted about the motion, told Cherwell, “This is a ludicrous statement. First, it presumes that the only purpose of gay men reps in LGBTQ+ societies is to further a political agenda, which is false.

“Many gay men are able to truly be themselves for the first time at university. This adjustment can be difficult for many, and so they seek the comfort of a representative who they know understands the position they are in. Second, the fact that the NUS no longer consider gay men oppressed enough to deserve representation seems to be nothing more than what the NUS usually refer to as ‘victim blaming’. Because gay men aren’t apparently oppressed as much as other LGBTQ+ groups, they should not receive ANY representation.”

Farrow highlights that “safe spaces are something the NUS fervently defend. According to motion 408, it is because ‘when [safe spaces] are debated for academic ends, a concept that is vital to the active participation of many students on campus is undermined’.

“This is categorically incorrect. It is not dangerous to discuss the idea of safe spaces in academic environments. It is dangerous to stifle debate about any issue, and particularly ones such as safe spaces and no-platforming. It’s offensive that the NUS think so little of the students that they represent that they want Student Unions to no-platform individuals on ‘ideological grounds’.”

How to have a good day at the Boat Race

Simran Uppal
-
0
How to have a good day at the Boat Race

If you’ve ever lived in the heartland of riverside pubs and middle class families thirsty for Oxbridge that is West London, you’ll know that trying to get anywhere on Boat Race day is a bit of a struggle, especially via public transport. Throw in Network Rail’s decision to close the exact four train stations that would be of any use (Putney, Barnes, Barnes Bridge, Chiswick) for engineering works, then, and it looks like a recipe for utter chaos.

There will naturally be rail replacement bus services to supplement the normal intricate network, but these buses will be especially sweaty, busy and horrible, and the traffic extraordinarily bad. What this leaves, realistically, is the Tube, which does cover the Boat Race area fairly well, and patches of rail and Overground services, the obvious substitutes being Putney Bridge, East Putney, Hammersmith and Mortlake. Whether you’re just popping down to the river to see some home friends or trekking into the city from one of those mysterious lands outside of the M25, however, there’s a whole plethora of more cunning ways to beat the crush.

The Boat Race is, of course, only very slightly about rowing, and considerably more about a) a nice day out and walk with good atmosphere or b) a cheerful sunny afternoon at a river pub (with a bit of cheering thrown in at some point). The best spot for the races and for atmosphere is, frankly, at the races’ midpoint Hammersmith Bridge, with wide views over the river in both directions and, crucially, a quite incredibly high density of riverside drinking spots.

Nonetheless, the starting point at Putney Bridge benefits from the lovely open feel to the bridge itself and the wide variety of restaurants just down the high street. Chiswick Bridge and the excitement of the finishing line also benefit from picturesque stretches of river-path, so long as you don’t mind overhearing gossip about Bartholomew and Perdita and their newfound love for almond milk.

If your plan is to get a spot at a pub, then there’s simply no choice but to get there early. Early early, even earlier than you would expect for this sort of busy day; everything will be moving even more slowly and everyone will have thought of the same thing. Camping out overnight might be excessive, but an outside spot on a sunny afternoon (as we must pray it will be) is hard enough to secure on a normal day. An outdoor or balcony table at one of those Hammersmith pubs is exactly what you want, but don’t be afraid to just grab a drink and stand. The Old Ship has a secluded garden feel (despite being right by the A4), The Dove is best for food and perhaps a little more grown-up, The Rutland is larger than you think but a little personality-less and The Blue Anchor… well, The Blue Anchor is what dreams are made of. Consider also The Ship in Mortlake (a little out of the way but a strong local choice) or the rather more refined Star and Garter in Putney.

If you’re used to Oxford (or cheaper) prices, be ready to pay through your teeth, and don’t expect much change from a fiver for your pint. Save money by spending a little time at one of the nearby Wetherspoons, or pop down to The Chancellor for a few drinks before or after: this cosy little pub in the centre of Boat Race territory offers extremely good value (four Jägerbombs for ten pounds, if I remember rightly) for anyone with a high tolerance for some suspiciously youthful-looking drinkers and a general air of dinginess.

If you’re in it for a stroll or a more family-friendly Boat Race experience, totally avoid the crowds by hopping off your train a little out of the way and enjoy a riverside walk into Chiswick and further from Gunnersbury or Kew Bridge station. Trying to get a good spot right at the front of the crowded bridges is going to be especially stressful thanks to these transport closures, so take it easy. You could even finish off the day by walking right down to Richmond with all its rail and Tube connections, or even heading into the centre of town; the south side of the river has a long, uninterrupted towpath that stretches lazily and beautifully from deep past Teddington into central-west. All of these pleasant suburbs have good and frequent transport links into the centre and no lack of good restaurants – you might call them idyllic or you might call them stifling, but that’s West London for you.

Barefoot Café: Let Them Eat Cake

Mabel Whitchurch
-
0
Barefoot Café: Let Them Eat Cake

Nestled between bike shops and rows of terraced houses on Walton Street in Jericho, Barefoot Café doesn’t immediately catch your eye. Set back from the pavement and often hidden by a row of cars, the unassuming exterior gives little away. Take a look through the full-length glass windows though, and there it is. The best cake café in Oxford.

As soon as you walk through the door, you’re greeted by an enormous collection of cakes, overflowing from the sturdy counter onto high wooden crates. The sheer amount and variety of cakes is always impressive; from three-tiered sponges (often the size of small houses) and huge cupcakes to brownies, traybakes and flapjacks; from freshly baked bread and mini meringues to fruit loaves, flourless cakes and fresh croissants.

It’s widely acknowledged that quality always comes before quantity. But these cakes taste incredible too. Not only are they imaginative, but they’re also well baked – not a soggy bottom or dry sponge in sight. Their originality is refreshing; recent arrays have included a Kiwi, Courgette, Lime and Mascarpone cake, a Banana Caramel loaf, Barefoot Kisses (bite size meringues which melt in your mouth) and a Black Forest cake with Fresh Cream Ganache, Kirsch Soaked Cherries and Vanilla Cream Cheese Frosting. Unsurprisingly, they’re not cheap, but they’re not unreasonable for Jericho either, with prices ranging from £2.50-3.50.

The café itself is pretty, combining large wooden surfaces with little antique chairs. It’s small, with a couple of tables for two by the counter and a space beyond with a few more tables. Fresh flowers lie scattered around, the cakes come served on tiny decorated plates, and the prices of the coffee (locally sourced) are written in white on a gold-gilded mirror; the surroundings show off the innovative character found in the cakes too.

Barefoot bears the motto “let them eat cake”, and when I sat eating my extremely satisfying Spiced Orange and Carrot cake in a post-mods haze, I thought that if this was the kind of cake Marie Antionette was flippantly referring to, I’d really have no objection at all.

Students march to protest Donald Trump

Zach Klamann
-
0
Students march to protest Donald Trump

Oxford students have organised a march protesting Donald Trump’s candidacy for President of the United States.

The event hopes to “let the world know our thoughts on Donald Trump, in a *peaceful* but *vocal* way”, calling him “an influential individual that is using his platform to inculcate bigotry, xenophobia, and violence”, according to the march’s Facebook page.

Already, there is a split on whether this event is a good idea, with some students commenting that they would definitely attend and supported the march. One commenter, however, finds it offensive for British students to attempt to affect an American election.

“This is a terrible idea”, St. Hilda’s Biological Scientist David Pearson wrote. “Who are we to tell citizens of another democratic state who they should vote for, or to pass judgement on their politicians? No matter how bigoted we might think Donald Trump is, he has every right to say what he thinks, that is democracy.”

This event follows some vocal criticism from all levels of British society, culminating in a debate in the House of Commons on whether to ban Donald Trump from entering the United Kingdom, a motion which ultimately failed.

The march will take place on May 1 at noon, and several hundred students have already expressed interest in attending.

"I’m as fucked off as you are"

Daniel Curtis
-
0
"I’m as fucked off as you are"

“Don’t get any big ideas / They’re not gonna happen.”

It was always going to end in tears. Under 10,000 tickets in total released for Radiohead’s three London shows. An internet scrum of gargantuan proportions. Touted tickets selling for £1,000 online twenty minutes after sales began at 9am, and thousands of fans staring at a queue, waiting for tickets which were no-longer available. Radiohead’s Thom Yorke put it best on Twitter hours later: “I’m as fucked off as you are. And am only human”.

If the latter sentence was a cheeky jibe at the Ticketmaster security system which repeatedly worked hard to ensure that ticket buyers were not robots and were, in fact, just slightly bleary eyed, pissed off music fans, the former was certainly directed at the vitriolic tirade of abuse received in the wake of the ticketing disaster, and at the hefty £65 price tag.

Regardless of whether one was able to get into the position to pay it or not, that price is a massive issue. It goes without saying that music, increasingly an art-less industry, is now so financially unviable that it is only through extortionate live fees that artists that make profit from their musical endeavours. Indeed, Adele tickets can escalate to £100 – Radiohead, as an independent band, are increasingly reliant on such incomes to fund their albums and tours. This pricing strategy may be cynical, but at least it is understandable.

Less forgivable are the technological glitches which hampered both the Ticketmaster and Roundhouse sites. Like many, this writer attempted to buy tickets, only to face a Ticketmaster site which, at 9am on the dot, failed to recognise the tickets’ existence, while the Roundhouse site’s queue position would jump from the low hundreds to the high thousands without cause. Meanwhile, the venue’s own phone lines were down. To remedy this, there is always the possibility to go all-physical once more: to sell directly from the venue, thus crushing ticket-buying bots and ensuring that queues actually work fairly, free from glitches. However, this would be punitive for those who live far away from the venues – the interest in Radiohead’s Roundhouse shows were, and remain, worldwide. Thus to punish non-local fans would be heinous, and is clearly not the solution.

What then? Buying directly from the venue website doesn’t work, as most simply aren’t robust enough to handle the huge internet traffic which some bands generate. Perhaps a better solution would be to stagger sales – to make sure that batches are released incrementally, allowing people multiple chances. Moreover, maybe there should be a lottery system, allowing tickets to be parcelled out fairly among number holders.

However, whatever the solution, Radiohead, no matter how “fucked off” they might be, only have themselves to blame: when one of the biggest bands in the world decides to be obtuse and play for only a handful of fans, it will never end well. As it turns out, trying the best you can, as Radiohead recommend in ‘Optimistic’, is not, actually, good enough.

Oxford fourth for student experience

Nathan Chan
-
0
Oxford fourth for student experience

The University of Oxford has risen to fourth of 117 universities in the newly released rankings of 2016 Times Higher Education Student Experience Survey, up one place from fifth last year.

Loughborough University tops this year’s survey, rising from second last year. New entrant Harper Adams University and the University of Sheffield take second and third places, respectively, with Sheffield retaining the same position as last year. Last year’s table topper University of Bath has dropped to fifth, while Cambridge has dropped five places to ninth.

The survey is entirely student-based. Over 15,000 undergraduates at 117 institutions took the survey, ranking their universities in 21 student-suggested attributes. These attributes range from quality of tuition and course structure to social experience, communal atmosphere and quality of facilities. 

Oxford has come first, or joint first, in several individual measures, namely “High quality staff/lectures”, “Helpful/interested staff”, “Good community atmosphere” and “Personal requirements catered for”. 

Some students believe that Oxford’s performance in the survey does it justice. A second-year Oriel undergraduate remarked that “there is something for everyone” in Oxford and that Oxford has “a good community atmosphere” and “amazing” tutors. 

Some others, however, think otherwise and feel that Oxford’s rather high ranking is not reflective of their experiences at Oxford. 

“Half of my tutors do not prepare for our tutorial[s] at all. Work is not marked and [those tutors] are clearly not familiar with the problem sheets [they give us]”, complained a second-year Christ Church Mathematics undergraduate. He also notably singled out the Iffley Sports Complex as being a “disappointing” facility with “poor ventilation and crowdedness”

“I’ve found Oxford to be extremely satisfying in terms of intellectual growth, but not as satisfying in terms of feeling as a part of the university”, said a Wycliffe Hall postgraduate. He attributed the lack of a sense of community to the “decentralized system of having separate colleges with their respective traditions”

A Magdalen postgraduate told Cherwell that while it is good to see that Oxford is perceived in the survey as having provided “a rich and nourishing student experience”, issues that cause some students to have “largely negative and even painful experiences of their times here” should not be overlooked.

The Media and Information Office of Oxford has declined to comment on Oxford’s performance, with its spokesperson telling Cherwell that the Office is “not in the habit of commenting on league tables, mainly because there are just so many of them.”

OUSU President Becky Howe and the Oxford branch of Student Minds, a prominent student mental health charity, were also unavailable for comment.

Vincent’s Club ends gender exclusivity

Daniel Kodsi
-
0
Vincent’s Club ends gender exclusivity

Vincent’s Club (or “Vinnie’s”) voted last Wednesday to finally allow admission of female members of the Oxford Blues sporting community as full members.

Previously, non-members had to be invited to use the clubhouse, though members of Atalanta’s Club – an equivalent society to Vincent’s for female Blues – nonetheless had access to the club’s facilities.

Ayowande McCunn, Vincent’s president, said, “On 9 March 2016 the resident members of Vincent’s Club completed a vote that removed the word ‘male’ from the Constitution of the Club. The effect of the change in the rules is that women are now eligible to be elected to membership of Vincent’s Club. A 2/3 majority was required for the resolution to pass and 85 per cent of resident members voted in favour of the change.

“The process leading to the change began in Michaelmas Term 2015 and involved a consultation of members during Hilary Term.”

The decision to allow for female membership comes only a year after the club rejected the same change. Though a majority at the time wished to strike the word “male” from the constitution, they did not constitute the two-thirds majority required for a constitutional change.

The new vote has proven more popular than last year’s, although some think it still comes too late.

Juliet Flamank, a first year athlete at Balliol, told Cherwell, “I think that it’s sadly too common that clubs such as these started off a male only clubs. Although it’s great for future generations that women are now allowed to be members, it’s a shame and rather ridiculous that its taken it this long.

“As a woman in sport I feel that my sporting achievements should be equally celebrated and I should have the ability to participate in all the ways that men in sport do. Vinnie’s says it stands for sporting excellence – well for a club more than 150 years old, I can’t believe that only now have they realised that women’s sporting excellence is also recognisable. It’s great this change has finally happened and I hope it encourages others like it.

“It’s just very late to the game.”

Eden Bailey, OUSU’s VP for Access and Academic Affairs-elect, expressed the same sentiment more succinctly.

“It is 2016,” she said.

Grumbling gets access nowhere

Archive
-
0
Grumbling gets access nowhere

The fact that state school students form the majority of Oxford’s undergraduate population often requires re-assertion. It can seem otherwise on two accounts. Firstly, there is a small but conspicuous web of people who know people who know people. For the former pupils of certain independent schools in the South East now at Oxford, it is indeed a small world. Secondly, there can be a tendency among former state school pupils to engage in competitive exaggeration about their school background. If you were one of the first or the very first in your situation to go to Oxford, the contrast between home and university will naturally be greater. Thus it can be tempting to see oneself as a lone warrior held up by one’s own bootstraps above a port-drenched tide of old boys. Tempting but false. During my first few weeks in Oxford, I was struck by how little people brought up their home backgrounds – except, perhaps, to boast of how humble they were. Even those who could be said to have been “born into” it were just as taken aback by this University as those who had come up against all expectations. Two and a half years on, I know many people well without knowing what their schools were like.

That network of ex-public school boys is still there, however. It exists as those blitzed but benign groups sloshing around outside the King’s Arms at one in the morning just as it exists as those who have a little more ease than most at finding an internship. We may all be on the same ship, but the ease with which we embarked is often reflected in our destination and, to an extent, with whom we played shuffleboard during the voyage. Problematic as this may be and symptomatic of how far we in Britain and at Oxford have yet to travel towards true social mobility, I have never felt systematically edged out by this network because I did not attend it members’ schools or know their friends. Oxford’s supposedly predominant cabal of mythical Montys sneering at the common folk over champagne flutes is as fictional as Sam Claflin’s prole-bludgeoning psychopath in The Riot Club.

Contrast this with the press’ depiction of Oxford. In the pages of (let’s name names) The Guardian Oxford is barely recognisable. Going by the articles in their website’s Oxbridge and Elitism section, the layman would be forgiven for thinking Oxford is a university where ninety per cent of the students went to public schools and the less well off are alienated, where white tie-clad future ministers engage publicly and prominently in Heliogabalus-like debauchery. In the eyes of more right wing media, Oxford writhes under the thumb of a privileged loony left junta and its thought police. Neither picture flatters us, neither is true. Moves to address problems of inclusivity within Oxford are often summarily repurposed by the media as fuel for these nefarious fires.

Oxford is still ailed by an unrepresentatively low number of students from state school, BME, and working to lower-middle class backgrounds and by the resultant issues of inclusivity. These problems are rooted in larger failings of British society of which Oxford is both a microcosm and a perpetuator. While there is no panacea, there are many worthwhile efforts. Full time University and college staff as well as hundreds of student volunteers are engaged in widening access by visiting schools, showing groups around Oxford, and helping Oxbridge applicants at their old schools. It is a Herculean labour; but for all those inspired to try for Oxford because of a school talk, a visit, or the UNIQ Summer School, that work is worthwhile. But that task is in no way helped by the media portrayal of Oxford: that is a greater problem for state school pupils than the mythical Montys themselves. The perpetuation of such ideas only serves to make many potential Oxford students believe that this University is “not for them” and thus to undermine that access work. Oxford has a problem with access and inclusivity. It cannot be cured by tutting at it and complaining about it; it can be cured by constructive efforts to challenge these falsehoods and show people who would otherwise be reluctant to apply that Oxford is indeed for them.

This article was written in response to Jack Morrison’s “Is Oxford still a posh boys’ club?” (March 10th 2016)

Saïd blacklisted by Barclays bank

Archive
-
0
Saïd blacklisted by Barclays bank

The Saïd Foundation, the charity which has supported the Saïd Business School, has been blacklisted by Barclays Bank and has been barred from becoming a future client, along with its founding benefactor Wafic Saïd.

The Business School’s website explains that “Mr Saïd, through the Saïd Business School Foundation, remains a generous supporter of the School, having donated £70 million to date.”

According to an article in The Times, the Saïd Foundation have been using Barclays for over 20 years, and were told in December about the bank’s decision to blacklist the charity, with no possibility of an appeal.

The same ultimatum was passed on to Mr. Saïd and his family. William Heard, a spokesman for the businessman stated that “Mr Saïd was not being singled out but was part of ‘a wholesale cull’ of Barclays clients born in countries the bank now regards as high-risk.”

He added, “Mr Saïd was extremely disappointed that … he is being treated in this irrational and irresponsible manner.”

Oxford University and the Business School have been quick to allay fears regarding the School’s financial security following the blacklisting of the Saïd Foundation.

In an email sent to Oxford University’s Economics & Management students today a spokeswoman for the Saïd Business School stated, “There are no implications for the running of the school,” adding that “much of the article [published in The Times today] is speculative.” The Saïd Business School reinforced their ties with the Saïd Foundation, writing “we look forward to continuing our relationship.”

A spokesman for the University told Cherwell, “The operation of the Saïd Business School is entirely secure. The School is an academic department of the University of Oxford and its funding is derived from numerous sources which include research funding and student fees.

“The Saïd Foundation now provides charitable grants to support a range of initiatives to advance the School’s strategic objectives, including scholarships for students, awards for innovation in teaching, key School events and new approaches to career support for students. We are grateful to the Foundation for its support and we look forward to this continuing.”

The Saïd Foundation have been contacted for comment.

A troubling relationship: the UK and Saudi Arabia

Archive
-
0
A troubling relationship: the UK and Saudi Arabia

Over the last year strong claims have repeatedly been made that Saudi Arabia, the UK’s longstanding friend and ally, are guilty of committing war crimes in Yemen. This represents only one of the most recent manifestations of human rights abuses committed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which are as ongoing as the UK’s continued friendship.

Since 2015 the Saudi Arabians have been leading a coalition of forces in Yemen aimed at defeating Houthis rebels, who it claims are being supported by neighbouring Iran. There have been approximately 6,000 deaths since the conflict began, and little recent territorial progress. This aside, it appears that the Saudi-led coalition has been paying scant attention to international human rights laws. A leaked UN report recently revealed that 2,682 civilians have been killed in air strikes, and that banned cluster munitions have been used by the coalition. According to the report there have been 119 strikes that have breached international law directly, with attacks being carried out on health facilities, schools, refugee camps, and most recently, a wedding party.

Given this, it may seem ludicrous to suggest that a large portion of the weapons used to perpetrate these crimes have been bought from the UK. However, since David Cameron took office in 2010 the government has licensed the sale of 6.7 billion pounds worth of arms, 2.8 billion pounds worth of which were sold since the conflict in Yemen began. Various organisations are beginning to question how and why the government has made itself complicit in Saudi Arabian crimes: a cross party commission has been set up to look into potential breaches of conduct, but the government also faces several internal investigations and a high court case. One such investigation comes from its own Department of International Development (DFID) who run an aid programme in Yemen, an area ironically now under attack from a military using UK weaponry.

The Chairman of the cross party commission looking into the issue said of the pending investigation, “The defence and security industry is one of the UK’s most important exporters. However, it is vital that its financial success does not come at the cost to the nation’s strategic interests.” This polished line reveals the selfish concerns the government are trying to balance, between financial reward and reputation. Trade with Saudi Arabia brings in money, but trade with them also looks embarrassing because of their status as an autocratic dictatorship ruling over a society built on oppression, inequality and one of the most barbaric penal systems in the world.

In a recent parliamentary debate on UK Saudi Arabian relations Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood began his speech with a lengthy articulation of the benefits to the UK the relationship brought, followed by an elucidation of the “deep, longstanding history of friendship and co-operation” between the two nations. According to Ellwood, it would appear that the lengthy amount of time Britain has been friends with a nation in which people are beheaded and crucified, helps explain and excuse this relationship, rather than making it all the more questionable. He goes on to say that “some 25,000 Britons are proud to call the kingdom their home”. If this is true, it’s a sad indictment of these individuals that they are proud of a country which deprives its female population of even the right to drive and systematically discriminates against its Shi’a minority.

Available on the UK government website is a document entitled: ‘Doing Business in Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia Trade and Export guide’. In it the country’s large economy and vast oil reserves are eulogised before it is proudly proclaimed that the UK managed to export 7 billion pounds worth of goods there in 2014 alone. It is only upon reaching Section 9: ‘Business behaviour’ that some of the less savoury features of Saudi Arabian society are mentioned, including the fact that ‘homosexual behaviour and adultery are illegal and carry the death penalty.’ It doesn’t, however, mention the 370,000 foreign migrants deported in the last five months of 2015, or the 18,000 placed in detention in order to free up jobs for Saudi nationals, and maybe help create the business openings they so enthusiastically recommend. In fact, revelations by Wikileaks indicate that it was the UK that assisted Saudi Arabia’s successful candidacy for the UN human rights council in 2013, making a mockery of the government’s list of countries of considerable human rights concern, in which Saudi Arabia places highly.

It may seem that the last thing a country which fundamentally opposes the death penalty would want to do is make a judicial deal with a nation that put to death 158 people in 2015, and that executed 47 individuals on a single day at the start of January 2016. Yet only last year plans were made for the British Ministry of Justice to provide 5.9 million pounds worth of prison services to Saudi Arabia. The Justice Secretary Michael Gove, who has in the past gone as far as to court with the idea of a return of capital punishment, ardently opposed the deal. However, Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond apparently accused Gove of being naïve in his opposition, of not putting British interests first. The deal was eventually scrapped, apparently because the branch of the Ministry of Justice which provided some of the planned services no longer existed. No appeal was made to the mistake the government might have made in offering its services to the same prison system currently in the process of administering one thousand lashes to Raif Badawi, a liberal blogger who criticised the country’s clerics, fifty of which have already left him in bad health.  This deal was being negotiated in the knowledge that in 2012 the Saudi Arabian authorities had arrested three juveniles, Dawoud al-Marhoon, Ali al-Nimr and Abdullah al-Zaher, for taking part in pro-democracy protests. All now face a death sentence that has been upheld by both the appeals court and the Supreme Court. It is thought that al-Marhoon was arrested without a warrant and then tortured to produce the confession that was then used to convict him. Al-Nimr is facing crucifixion as punishment for his attendance.

These kinds of questionable associations do not wholly characterise the British government: this is the murkiest end of the foreign policy spectrum. But it is important to be aware of the extremes, to keep in mind the capability to overlook and ignore the value of human life in favour of protecting vested interests. These arms deals and potential prison contracts highlight a degree of national hypocrisy: on one level a supposed bastion of the protection of human rights, on another supplying the means through which those rights are violated abroad.

1...1,1391,1401,141...2,599Page 1,140 of 2,599

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