Skip to main content

Day: 5 March 2015

Exec Elections Hustings Live

We’re live at the Students’ Union, covering this year’s unofficial hustings run by: Fossil Free University of Manchester, Free Education MCR, UoM Living Wage Campaign, The Riveters – UMSU Women’s Rights Collective, and Save Our NHS Manchester.

We will be starting with the Activities and Development Officer candidates at 5pm, followed by Campaigns and Citizenship Officer candidates at 5:30pm, Community Officer candidates at 6pm, Diversity Officer at 6:30pm, Education Officer at 7pm, General Secretary at 7:30pm, Wellbeing at 8pm, and finally Women’s Officers candidates will be at 8.30pm.

Liveblogging this event this evening are Marcus Johns, and Charlie Spargo.

80 per cent of UK Universities restrict free speech

The Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR) is the UK’s first university rankings for free speech. The survey was launched by Spiked, a UK-based online magazine. They have surveyed all British universities, examining the policies and actions of universities and Students’ Unions.

The project has grown out of Spiked’s student-run free speech campaign ‘Down with Campus Censorship!’ which launched in March 2014.

FSUR questioned whether students are free to speak their minds on campus. The have ranked them in a traffic-light system, with red meaning the university or Students’ Union has actively censored speech and expression, amber meaning they have chilled speech and expression through excessive regulation, and green meaning they have not restricted or regulated speech and expression.

The survey revealed that when ranked individually, Students’ Unions far more restrictive than universities. 9.5 per cent of universities gained a red ranking compared to 51 per cent of Students’ Unions.

The most popular bans were of The Sun, in protest of the existence of page 3, and Robin Thicke’s song ‘Blurred Lines’.

The most censorious policies were found to be Bullying and Harassment policies, censorious external speaker policies, the No Platform policy and Safe Space policies. Spiked noted, however, that holding one of these policies did not constitute an immediate offence—they are each assessed on the basis of their content.

The universities who came first in free speech rankings, being classed as the most open universities, included Trinity St. David, Buckingham, Liverpool Hope, and Southampton Solent.

At the bottom of the class, the most restrictive universities included Essex, Bath Spa, Northampton, Portsmouth, and UWE.

Overall, the University of Manchester received an amber ranking. The university itself received a green ranking, meaning it places no limits as an institution on speech and expression. However the Students’ Union received an amber ranking, as it restricts societies from promoting extremist causes as part of its Safe Space policy.

The policy states that societies must ensure they, or an invited speaker do not ‘promote or recruit ideologies or groups’ and refrain from using ‘discriminatory language’.

The Students’ Union also passed a notion to boycott The Sun back in 2013, coming on the heels of the ‘No More Page 3’ campaign.

The Students’ Union also made the decision to ban the controversial Charlie Hebdo cartoon from this year’s Refreshers’ Fair, as reported in The Mancunion.

Charlotte Cook, General Secretary of the Students’ Union spoke to The Mancunion about this ranking:

“The challenges as an organisation, representing such a diverse membership, is balancing the freedom of speech and the freedom to be in a space free from offence. We believe as an organisation that we should protect our members from oppression, bigotry, racism, sexism and homophobia and sometimes that means making decisions on what people are and are not allowed to say.

“Our role is to facilitate debates within the scope of our members beliefs—as the Safe Space policy was voted for by our members—while at the same time allowing there to be debate about issues themselves.

“We do not have an equal and inclusive society, but that is what we seek to establish within our Union and the Safe Space policy is designed to ensure that our diverse student community can feel comfortable in their Union. It is not designed to restrict, critique or prohibit challenge but to accommodate this in a respectful way; we facilitate many controversial discussions and activities every week.

“Respect and tolerance are key to a thriving educational environment and to achieve this people need to feel at ease to participate. In this policy we acknowledge that their contributions are valued, enriching, that they have the right to be heard and that we will protect their right to be heard.”

After the success of the FSUR and to celebrate ‘Down with Campus Censorships’ first birthday, Spiked is going to be touring UK universities to spread the fight for free speech.

There will debates held in Oxford, Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Manchester and more to be announced.

For more information on the debates and to read to student reporting on campus free-speech issues visit:
www.spiked-online.com/dwcc

Unveiling the veil: Oppression or liberation?

A veil can portray a number of different acts; from an expression of religious identity, to a bride wearing traditional clothing on her wedding day.  With regard to the religious aspect, within western society, the majority view the veil as a religiously oppressive signifier which upholds the patriarchal separations within Islam and Islamic societies.

Strange considering similar assertions would not be drawn when observing a Nun pass by…  Someone who is also expressing their religious identity but somehow, luckily for the Nun, there is a western ‘acceptance’ to this more familiar religion…

Edward Said, the Palestinian scholar responsible for the academic critique known as Orientalism, would possibly acclaim this idiosyncrasy to the western view of Oriental behaviour as strange, in opposition to our own ‘rational, enlightened manner’. Considering the apparent ‘multicultural’ society we claim to live in, such habits and understandings one would assume, should have been taught and understood outside this frame of ‘western’ thinking.

As a Jew, growing up in a left wing and secular family, largely juxtaposed by the orthodox synagogue that I attended from a young age, I have always found the separation between genders in religion baffling. Consequently finding myself moving away from this section of my religion toward a fully egalitarian community (Masorti Judaism). When nurturing my thoughts on a Muslim woman’s veil, my somewhat ignorant reaction, has always been to view it as another tool used by the dominant male to control and ‘oppress’ women, both religiously and socially.

But why?… Considering that I know very little about the practices of Islam, it seems unfair that I base my judgements through the eyes of a western society that assumes moral superiority.  This led me to delve deeper, finding myself even more concerned and fearful with the knowledge uncovered.

Having carried out research, it seems strange that nowhere in the Quran does it explicitly state a Muslim women should cover up her face, with the relevant reference stating that she should cover her ‘breasts’ with a veil.

Additionally, the notion of a veil within Islam seems to have stemmed from a rather nonchalant act performed by the Prophet. Indeed, when Muhammad lusted for one of his wives whilst in company, he would drop a veil to symbolise the separation of the public and the private, expressing desire for his company to leave.

Certainly, within the society he lived in, Muhammad was huge strides in front of his peers with regards to feminist thinking.  It therefore seems that there has been a refusing to continue Muhammad’s progressive nature and through time, inherently patriarchal Islamic societies have forced the veil upon women, manipulating its origins with claims that it provides safety from the male gaze… ect.

During a seminar I attended this week I was struck by some of the adjectives used by the women who wore Hijab’s (head scarf). Words such as modesty, protection, liberation, and safety. Whilst asserting my somewhat western and egalitarian ‘moral superiority’ upon a class of largely veiled women, I stated my struggle to comprehend and accept gender specific religious practice as ‘liberating’. I received a captivating response.

A chorus of voices gathered claiming a feeling of protection and safety whilst veiled, something that perhaps did not seem possible without them… ‘WHAT’?! I was in a state of shock… These were not women living in oppressive Middle Eastern Islamic countries, but women living in the UK, a country with a society that assumes a level of gender equality and safety. It is a country which on the surface claims to have tackled large obstacles on the road to eliminating patriarchy.

One girl shared an example of the treatment she received before she started wearing a Hijab, and the increased respect she received whilst wearing one, claiming that some men indeed found it ‘attractive’. I did not quite know how to react to this; however, a sudden realisation dawned upon me.

It was perhaps not the ‘oppressive and patriarchal’ nature of Islam itself that these girls were liberating themselves from, but the misogynistic, non-egalitarian societies and circles that they found themselves surrounded by.  I must say, I found this thought very upsetting. The depressing notion that someone would need to change their appearance in order to feel liberated, feel safe… feel protected.

Though I understand the positives that religious expression can bring to an individual, providing a feeling of fulfilment, pride and unity, I cannot escape my western, egalitarian mind-set which fails to accept gender specific and separated traditions as ‘liberating’, on the contrary, finding them as a means of sustaining patriarchal dominance.

Pride’s predicament – is it ‘out’ for the count?

For many, LGBT+ and otherwise, Pride is often a wonderful, rainbow-infused blur. It injects extra equality, open-mindedness, and (best of all) glitter into our lives. Seems obvious, but it’s a golden opportunity to circle back to why exactly we are so damn proud of our (often marginalised) identities in the first place. However, like every other day, the bright lights of Pride do, of course, eventually fade.

This wouldn’t be an issue if there were extensive networks of support available, as and when needed. Fantastic strides forward have been made by the likes of Manchester’s own LGB Foundation’s fund—and awareness—raising efforts. But one invaluable support network in one reasonably-sized city does not equality make. Frankly, it’s the endemic lack of support, outside the likes of the Foundation, which leaves Pride looking a little hollow. Its own one day a year is easily overshadowed by the tide of oppression it limply tries to stand against.

In the same sobering vein, Stonewall’s 2012 The School Report found that 55 per cent of LGBT children and teens had experienced direct homophobic bullying. Pair this with a staggering 96 per cent exposed to homophobic language, such as “dyke” or “poof,” and there is obviously still a long way to go. Pride has a definite place, and, I would argue, it shines brightest in the sustained, everyday acts of authenticity that lead others, especially young people, by an open and energetic example.

What is happening at the moment, in contrast, is a serious case of a flash-in-the-pan attitude. Throw enough fireworks and rainbows (however fabulous) at people, and they will, apparently, be blinded enough to forget about the rest of the year. Having a full life, fair enough, but when that life includes throwaway oppression and a widespread, blatant disregard for key parts of LGBT+ identity, the oddity of Pride, strewn somewhere in the midst of summer, just doesn’t cut it on its own.

Pride could, clearly, use an assist. The Minister for Education Nicky Morgan’s announcement of £2 million to help schools combat homophobic bullying in October 2014 seemed, therefore, to be good news—wonderful, even—except that throwing short-term investment at a systemic and potentially life-altering problem will not make it vanish into thin air. It’s true, however, that monetary support is a great step in the right direction, especially in an area as crucial as educating young people about the damage bullying can cause. But if this isn’t sustained, Pride will remain the fantastic introduction to the LGBT+ community that many will never have; it will come too late to repair the damage done, and too late to undo the emotional wounds inflicted.

Equally well-intentioned, but next to useless in the long run, is the plan to open a school for only LGBT pupils. What seems an innovative solution will not (surprise, surprise) magically eradicate bullying. The commendable drive to celebrate diversity and the enduring need for community, embodied in Pride are therefore left somewhat dampened and one-sided. All bark and no bite, Manchester, therefore, even with its Queer as Folk pedigree, is part and parcel of this oppression. What seems an almost utopian expression of each slice of queerness on Pride day, quickly comes across as niche, risqué, or otherwise outlandish on any other.

What’s more, without a strong backdrop of support, measures like opening an exclusive school for LGBT kids serve to do exactly that: exclude people who may well have otherwise become allies and, you know, decent human beings. It’s exactly this ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality that Pride is standing against. Yet now, instead of acting as a point of unity, Pride remains a gesture towards a future where visibility for all is the norm. But it’s one that many have not, and will not, be able to enjoy, because that fuzzy feeling of belonging does not yet translate into everyday life.

Pride is supposed to break down these barriers, and offer a bright, accessible beacon for the uninitiated. But, instead, as with the planned LGBT-exclusive school, the likes of Pride and Canal Street only serve to increasingly ghettoise LGBT people. Having a safe space, a ‘hub’ for open expression is a brilliant, inclusive idea. But this freedom of expression belongs also beyond the confines of a particular festival, school, or area. And that won’t happen while the support does not exist outside of it, however attractive and well-intentioned the ideas might be.

However, bashing and blaming Pride itself for these problems would only be a symptom of the oppression highlighted here. And guess what? Any LGBT person turning in on themselves—through no fault of their own—only serves to unceremoniously shake the sparkle out of an environment that desperately needs it. Because, let’s face it, glitter is vibrancy and life. And Pride has a hell of a lot of it. But that needs to be shared around more equally because, however you identify, who would want to live in a world without it?

The limited opportunities of diverse sexuality

Name somebody famous who is not heterosexual. Now name somebody of influence that is not heterosexual. Now try and name somebody with a direct political agency who is not heterosexual. Now directly name a politician who is not heterosexual.

The prominence of LGBT figures in positions of direct power is surprisingly sparse. While LGBT is by no means an exhaustive categorisation of sexuality, the diversity of sexuality within the public positions of power is shockingly narrow. This isn’t true of all sectors, however. Look towards the arts and the diversity of sexual orientation becomes far more wide ranging.

There is an interesting parallel between the manifestation of acceptance towards sexuality and the emergence of race acceptance in early 20th century America. Without access to direct political agency the exposition of black legitimacy manifested itself through cultural output. This was perhaps most visible in the Harlem Renaissance. We would probably now consider this to be a sad state of affairs, yet we may be forcing the LGBT community to express their legitimacy through exactly the same outlets.

There are just three MPs currently holding office in the United Kingdom who do not identify as heterosexual. Relative to the effect that the LGBT community has on our society this is miniscule. Despite this, the contribution to culture by individuals of diverse sexuality is huge. Attempt to name a collection of sexually diverse singers or sexually diverse actors and the task is a whole lot easier.

It would seem that, like historical attitudes to race, we are societally comfortable to sit and observe those who identify with non-traditional sexuality. For them to entertain us is fine. We, however, appear to still be deeply uncomfortable assimilating them into positions of real influence. The spectrum of sexuality is on the surface becoming more accepted; its repercussions however aren’t permeating all areas of society.

This landscape looks much like that faced by newly liberated African Americans in the US. Duke Ellington’s famous line, “when you go backstage there’ll be a line of these [white] people out there getting your black autograph”, seems to be likewise true of our increased awareness of alternative sexuality. It is unable to manifest through anyone with direct political agency and so it is expressed by the Sam Smiths, Ellen Pages, Tom Daleys and countless other outwardly LGBT celebrities.

Like white America’s difficulty in accepting the idea of equal rights for black people, the idea cannot be destroyed by a political policy. A look towards the rise of violence illuminates where that gets us. Perhaps this is why the field of entertainment proves so fruitful for effecting change in the acceptance of wide ranging sexuality. The issue of non-acceptance is not one that can be bulldozed into submission. Perhaps that is why the subtlety of allowing society to become comfortable with differing aspects of sexuality through the seemingly harmless front of a pop star has proven so fruitful.

Boy George, for example, wasn’t going to be able to directly force anybody to acknowledge that the homosexual community was not solely responsible for AIDS. ‘80s crowds then, even those who felt AIDS was a homosexual disease, saw no danger in nodding along to Culture Club’s records. While this may seem like nothing, outlets like this are responsible for making us more culturally comfortable with alternate sexuality. Making people comfortable and developing their understanding is a far more persuasive method than forcing them to accept your difference.

This is wrong, it is. We shouldn’t need cultural icons to tell us that there is no difference between a member of the LGBT community and the heterosexual majority. It is not right that thousands of people were labelled ‘queer’, or an array of differing slurs, while the slow burning process of recognition took place. However, shifting a person’s idea of a moral standard takes time.

Perhaps this accounts for the success of an artist like Ray Charles in the segregated south while black politicians struggled to get into office. Likewise, it perhaps accounts for why we seem comfortable with buying Sam Smith’s records while the concept of a gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or intersex person directly shaping our world makes us squirm slightly more.

The case of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie allowing their biologically sexed girl Shiloh to be known as John will perhaps be rebuked by some. It’s true, it is easier to allow your child these freedoms when you are rich beyond anyone’s wildest dreams and the child’s mother and father are world famous movie stars. While this is true, famous people do, rightly or wrongly, have an impact on social understanding. Like Boy George softening the harsh unfamiliarity of homosexuality, cases like this can only serve to soften the blow of gender experimentation.

In that sense the fame of the couple comes with it a great responsibility which they appear to be managing extremely competently. Many people flock behind the famous as if they were their shepherds. Imagine, therefore, the repercussions on their followers’ attitudes to gender experimentation had they forced John out of a suit and into a dress that he felt would be inappropriate to his gender.

So while the assimilation of alternative sexuality and misappropriated gender categories into the public consciousness continues to improve, we still have the issue of lacking political prominence.

We supposedly live in a secular society. However, when former Tory MP James Arbuthnot is forced to wait until stepping down from the next election to ‘come out’ as an atheist, this seems unlikely. This evidences what a long way we have to go before we have true equality of belief in politics. It becomes more shocking, however, when he compares maintaining the pretence of faith to avoid career suicide to “keeping quiet about being gay”.

That is by no means a swipe at Arbuthnot. It is a full blooded uppercut towards the attitudes still clearly prevalent in British politics in general. If such backwards views on religious conviction are allowed to stand then Westminster seems a long way behind the rest of the UK in terms of keeping up with the times. Atheism is accepted by most in modern British society. By this standard, equality towards sexuality is a long, long way off.

In the face of resistance, the LGBT community has proven itself to be unflappable before and it will do so again. True equality at times feels a long way off, but diversity is rearing its head elsewhere and will eventually be something invisible in its normality. It’s just like race; it’s just another wall to chip away.

How do we solve a problem like radicalisation?

In order to keep us safe from the ever-looming threat of terror in the UK, our government has channelled its ignorance and hypocrisy into the counter-terrorism strategies of ‘Prevent’, which has gained much response and discussion.

‘Prevent’ is stigmatising the Muslim youth of Britain as potential threats to the country, and patronising everyone with its wilful ignorance of history and denial of the current state of affairs. Done in the name of “protecting the UK against terrorism,” Prevent is a response to the fundamentalist ideology of organisations such as Al Qaeda and IS, hoping to prevent young British Muslims from catching the next plane to Turkey.

However, there is a greater problem, a worm in the heart of the attitude towards Islam in Britain.

In a much-repeated Chomsky quote, we find the foundation that this article is built upon: “Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s really an easy way: Stop participating in it.” Britain’s interference in the Middle East is well recorded in history, and is continued through its current foreign policy.

The ravaged state in which our military left Iraq, combined with the collapse of civil order in Syria, created the perfect opportunity for the most fearsome and merciless militia to seize control, and pillage the Levant, in the name of their warped concept of an Islamic Caliphate.

It is very clear that we are still at war, and whether it is with the spectre of terrorism or over national interests doesn’t excuse the fact that when a country is at war, it is only logical for it to expect attacks on its home soil. Why do we feel so outraged and victimised by retaliatory offences?

Britain has no problem attacking them on their territory. It is happy to support oppressive regimes that suit its interests, invade a country under false pretences, and bomb towns and villages, leading to high civilian casualties. These are all heinous acts of terror, resulting in much wider death and destabilisation than the four terror attacks committed by radical Islamist terrorists in Britain since 2005.

Britain has got off pretty lightly.

How can we blame the Muslim youth, or those more susceptible to influence or exploitation, for their anger and disillusionment, or for joining an organisation which claims to value and empower them? The reassuring thing to remember is that, funnily enough, those Muslims who choose to join the IS ranks are a tiny minority, as most people have a strong aversion to ethnic cleansing and living in oppressive and intolerant societies.

But the consensus amongst our government and mainstream media appears to be that Islam is the problem; they are unwilling to acknowledge that statistically Muslims are the most common victims of terror attacks across the globe. Only days after the Chapel Hill murders of three American Muslims, The Telegraph held an online poll asking its readers if they were ‘concerned’ about the growing number of Muslims in Britain.

We need to reassess, and realise that our modes of thinking are arrogant and inherently misguided.