Author Archives:

BULS AGM 2013 results

by bulsonline

Yes, it’s that time of year again where BULS has chosen it’s new committee to lead the society for the following year. The committee-elect stands as follows:

Chair-elect: Alex Swanson

Vice-Chair-elect: Ellis Stacey

Secretary-elect: Joe Armer

Treasurer-elect: Jas Kandola

Campus Campaigns co-ordinator-elect: Mike Grocott

Social Secretary-elect: Stephen Bowcott

Publicity Officer-elect: Rob Parkinson

Local Campaigns co-ordinator-elect: Tarquin Pritchard

Congratulations to the new committee-elect and comiserations to anyone who was unsuccessful.

Smith-Paxo

by bulsonline

It was a case of life imitating art as Junior Treasury Minister Chloe Smith did her best ‘startled and luckless MP off The Thick of It’ impression to a less-than-impressed Jeremy Paxman and an even less impressed viewing audience.

Regardless of your view on the government’s austerity drive, it is easy to sympathise with the young Ms. Smith, an MP since 2009, she was only 15 when Michael Howard took his mauling from Paxman over the whole ‘did you threaten to overrule him?’ saga. Smith’s boss George Osborne was otherwise engaged, and so it fell to Smith to defend the government’s latest instalment of ‘omnishambles’ over the u-turn on the plans to increase fuel duty.

And so it began: ‘When was this decision taken?’ demanded Paxman, on no less than seven occasions. ‘I can’t tell you the ins and outs’ came the response from the obviously rattled Smith, before adding that she was not going to provide ‘a running commentary’. The need for a running commentary there was none; Paul Mason’s introduction had listed the recent u-turns for those less well versed in the burning issues of pasties, caravans and charity boxes. Mason’s piece to camera even included the dreaded ‘i’ word: ‘incompetent’. Shades of the Charge of the Light Brigade therefore, as Osborne’s miscommunication and responsibility shirking left Smith to bear the brunt of Paxo’s wrath.

Back to the interview, and there appeared no end to the onslaught: ‘Is it hard for you to defend a policy you don’t agree with?’ ‘Nice question’ she snapped back, before offering the profound Aristotle-esque analysis that ‘I don’t think many things are certain in this world’. The gravitas of this statement was undermined slightly however by the spluttering and large gulp of water that followed immediately after. It was clear that Paxman could scent blood: ‘Which department has underspent?’ he enquired on five occasions, to be told that ‘they fall across and in different ways’ (yeah, me neither). That was the final straw, and, risking an enquiry from the League Against Cruel Sports into his conduct against the flailing Minister, Paxman bellowed ‘Is this some kind of joke?’ Not even Howard had had it this rough. Smith was clock-watching by now, counting the seconds until she could return to the relative tranquillity of the Treasury Office. The ‘i’ word raised its ugly head once more; ‘Do you ever think you’re incompetent?’ Smith muttered something about ‘the best interests of her constituents’, and that was that. Phew.

By Dan Harrison, Former BULS Chair

I opposed Equal Marriage no longer

by bulsonline

Among the two years of Coalition government that Britain has been subjected to there has been little to smile about. There is no need to list the ‘omnishambles’ here, even those who have better things to do with their time than check the tweetings of the political geekery are well versed in just how inept and backward this government’s policies are. Then, all of a sudden, there appeared a ray of hope, a reason to celebrate, perhaps this Cameron fella ain’t so bad after all – he wants to introduce Equal Marriage.

I read with despair the comments of those supportive of Equal Marriage and I wanted to shout: ‘Can you not see the mind-forged manacles of institutionalism that Marriage (in any form) brings?!’. The Gay Liberation Front, nurtured on the campus at LSE in the early 70s was very clear in its view, condemning on page 2 in The Gay Manifesto the ‘archaic and irrational teaching [that] support the family and marriage as the only permitted conditions for sex.’ The Gay Liberation Front’s key theme was anti-assimilation. Gay people were equal, sure, but they were different as well, and as such should play no role in conforming to the ‘archaic’ institutions and cultural practises that made up Britain’s history. It was this direct, ‘in-yer-face’ attitude which makes the GLF so important to Gay history in Britain. The concept of Marriage could play no part in their ‘aim at the abolition of the family.’ (p.9)

I for one oppose marriage. I agree with the GLF when they stated that ‘we will not be freed so long as each succeeding generation is brought up in the same old sexist way in the patriarchal family.’ It would have been hypocritical of me, I believed, to oppose marriage, but be in favour of Equal Marriage.

I then looked to see who also opposed Equal Marriage. I could find nobody that shared my opinion on the fundamentally unjust nature of marriage. Instead it was a collection of knee-jerk Tory MPs (the dusty and offensive Peter Bones of this world) and irrelevant Church Minsters, whose quest to preserve ‘traditional family values’ was little more than thinly veiled homophobia and ignorance. These people seem to advocate human rights, as long as this doesn’t stretch to sexuality equality. And I was not prepared to enter this unholy coalition.

It then dawned on me that my argument was flawed. Basically, I was being an academic elitist, pontificating from the comforts of a university on how ‘blinkered’ everyone was apart from me. (I once heard this described as ‘intellectual masturbation’).

So if gay couples wish to show their love to one another and society at large by entering the traditional institution of marriage then there is absolutely no argument, certainly morally, why this shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Sign me up as a convert. Just don’t expect any Queer Radicals to be heading up the aisle any time soon.

By Dan Harrison, former BULS Chair

Le Changement, C’est Maintentant

by bulsonline

Change, it’s now. The campaign slogan for the new French President will be felt across Europe, and most heavily in Berlin and London. It remains to be seen exactly how the new French President changes Europe, but one thing’s for sure; it’s going to change. Cameron has once again been proven to be behind the curve. After national and local elections in France, Britain, Greece and Germany, people are telling their leaders that they must change tact and get the economies in Europe moving once more.

The election of Francois Hollande will certainly shift the debate in Europe, with how to get growth into our continent now being the primary focus. In his victory speech , the new French President spoke of breaking with austerity, of making a better world for the next generation and how the young will be at the centre of his presidency. Listening to his priorities, it felt in stark contrast with the current situation we are in on this side of the Channel and indeed in many countries throughout Europe.

Throughout his campaign, Hollande also spoke of wanting to unite people, of a dislike of divisiveness. This also tells us something about how President Hollande will lead Europe, on a night when neo-Nazi’s made gains in Greece. Attitudes towards immigration within the EU and the divisiveness they have created have for too long gone unchecked and have only got worse during these times of economic crisis. It’s not just growth that Europe needs, it’s inclusion, unity and, in that most French of words, fraternity.

Cameron, watch out. Change is here.

By Hannah Johnson, BULS Member

 

BULS Supports a YES Vote in the Guild Referendum 2011

by bulsonline

On Wednesday 9nd March at an open meeting, BULS held a vote as to whether we as a society should support both the UCU in any future strike action and also the two Guild Council motions relating to the issue (8a & 8b) that went to Guild Council on Tuesday 15th March 2011.

A unanimus result in favour of YES was reached and for that reason BULS fully supports the YES campaign in the Guild of Students Referendum that is currently taking place regarding the Guild’s postion and future strike action by the UCU.

We are fully aware that this is a very late declaration but this is largely down to being unaware that we as a society of the Guild of Students were able to openly support a side (which is different to usual Guild election rules).

If you havent voted yet in the referendum, we urge you to vote YES to both questions to ensure that the union movement at this University is cemented by the Guild standing side by side with our lecturers and other teaching staff in their grieviences with the University of Birmingham. The case of the UCU members can only be strengthened by assistance and support from the Guild and this will only happen with a YES vote! Finally a vote for YES is just as much in the interests of students as it is for UCU members. We need well paid and well respected professionals teaching us and helping us through our degree studies. If we have a disgruntled workforce at Birmingham, there is the possibility that teaching standards will drop. And in turn, OUR overall learning experience may suffer in the long run.

For more information on the YES campaign, please visit: http://goo.gl/i30YF

And in the interest of fairness, more information on the NO campaign can be found here: http://goo.gl/bbzsL

Voting is done at my.bham and closes at 4pm today! And remember BULS says YES in the Guild Referendum 2011!

From the BULS Committee

In response to Joe Jervis’ article in Redbrick: ‘After the campaign, the friction within’

by bulsonline

As Chair of Birmingham University Labour Students (BULS), I was disappointed to read Joe Jervis’ biased and misinformed article on the ‘lackadaisical’ efforts of BULS during the recent Guild Elections campaign.

As I am sure Joe is aware, Guild regulation rules that there cannot be any BULS candidates for Guild positions, only candidates who also happen to be members of BULS. This therefore means that it is impossible for BULS to have in any way ‘failed’ to win the election.

It is also true that many BULS members, including myself, were out in force during the Guild campaign, spending many an hour knocking on doors in Selly Oak and the Vale. BULS members campaigned for many candidates, including those with other political persuasions, and were not blinkered by party politics.

Whilst it was a disappointing night for BULS, this was not a reflection of the hard work and commitment many members put into the campaign.

I wish the new Guild Officer team the very best, and whilst I struggle to understand Mark Harrop’s decision to vote Tory based on ‘foreign policy and environmental issues’, I sincerely hope that he follows on in the good work Dora Meredith has done for students at this University.

By Daniel Harrison, BULS Chair

Guild Council 16/3/11 Support HET Motion

by bulsonline

Why this BULS member will be supporting the Holocaust Educational Trust motion to Guild Council – A response to Max Ramsey’s blog.

I empathise with the difficult task faced by anti semitism activists on campus. They are fighting a kind of discrimination that is at first hard to recognise unless you experience it and harder still to teach others to recognise.

 It’s manifestations are numerous, coloured by thousands of years of oppression. Whether this is the overtly offensive comparison of Israel to the Nazi’s designed to invoke the pain of memories only as old as some people’s grandmothers. Or the much older still references to stingy money lenders, a product of Christians not being allowed to lend to each other with interest, or even simply the old standards of being hairy and big nosed. Recognition of antisemitism and understanding of antisemitism often rests on good historical education. Recognition of the racism involved rests on recognising a semitic race apart from others when their numbers are so few in the UK.

I empathise with the task of these activists but it’s not to say that I will ever truly know their experience of antisemitism. I am a firm believer that we cannot know other’s true experience of their own oppression.

You may or may not know what it feels like to be a 23 year old lesbian in Britain today, you can learn a lot about it, but you either experience it or you don’t.

From the moment I leave my house in the morning to the moment I return my experience of life is coloured in many thousands of ways by this identity. Some of these the non-lesbian reader will be able to recognise, more of these people who suffer similar discrimination might recognise (such as black or disabled people), more I will recognise, but still there will be decisions about my character made by others, jobs I won’t apply for or bars I wait just that little bit longer to be served in, things that I won’t even notice. All things that impact on me simply because I’m a lesbian.

Discrimination is a hard thing to pin down for yourself let alone trying to educate others to recognise it.

As an activist on campus then you have some difficult choices to make. There are types of discrimination that better education has led to better recognition of, however homophobia and anti semitism are two categories of discrimination that we are far behind on. Most people today could point to a limp wristed gesture at a gay man as homophobia, however they may struggle to pinpoint the problem with straight women saying they don’t mind lesbians as long as they don’t fancy them.

Similarly most people can understand the antisemitism in stereotypes about big noses, but many fail to see the latent antisemitism in referring to Jewish activists as secretive, sneaky Zionist lobbyists.

The delicate choice is what particular piece of discrimination do I choose to target first.

How much is too much to soon? What will blow up in my face? If I raise this particular issue will the retaliative discrimination be too much for me personally? Will my actions backfire on my already too reticent community? Will I cope? Is it worth it anyway?

But you have to be brave.

Max’s question about why we should pay for one type of education over another is misplaced. When chair of the LGBTQ I had many an argument with various guild officers about getting funding for various kinds of training for LGBTQ activists. On one occasion I spent 3 hours arguing for a one day course that literally cost £10. The prevailing argument against my efforts was what would they do if BEMA, women’s, disabled, international, home etc…students came along and asked for the same. But they weren’t asking and no one was giving. This is because the guild has no proactive plan for furthering equality and diversity on campus. We can therefore in the very least actually react when discrimination presents itself and we have an opportunity to act.

 I had a conversation with a guild officer recently about how I never go to Fab’n'Fresh (the guild’s club night) apart from for results nights. I calmly explained to a shocked officer how every time I go I am aggressively verbally abused by people only too keen to get up in my personal space and point out to me I am a lesbian. This happens every time I go without fail. This is something I have told guild officers many times over the years and every time they tell me it’s a disgrace. And every time they do nothing.

This week I am at NUS Women’s Conference as our LGBT rep paid for by money raised by the Women’s Association’s doughnut sale. My varying experiences of hate because of gender and because of my sexuality apparently aren’t even worth £50 of the Guild’s money.

The motion in question asks for a lot of funding, but frankly it’s needed. Last year alone 639 incidents of antisemitism were recorded by the Community Security Trust, which when you consider the British Jewish community is estimated to be a population of no more than 350 000 and just how much hate crime is never reported, is a considerable amount. Come to think of it, I have never reported a hate crime against myself to any official recording body. The most important thing to note here though is that antisemitism is on the rise, both 2009 and 2010 were record highs since the records of the CST began in 1984.

This is not a kind of discrimination that is quietly stagnating whilst we do nothing about it, it is getting bigger and it is coming to campus.

The Holocaust Education Trust provides numerous and different approaches in it’s educational programmes. It possesses masses of resources on contemporary genocide not just the Holocaust. It plays an integral role in areas of the UK affected by racial tension seeking to educate against all kinds of racial hatred not just antisemitism.

I think also the point about paying particular attention to the Holocaust on occasion is not due to it’s proximity to the UK as Max suggested, but because there is simply no comparable example of genocide on that scale, because it was mechanised and systematic and because it was the defining and damning event of the last century.

We spend more time scrutinising every possible opportunity for progress in finding equality on campus till we end up doing nothing at all.

We stop numerous initiatives by individuals and groups in favour of a better, more multilateral, more equitable option that nobody ever offers instead. Equality will not be achieved by all, in equal measures, at the same time. This is a nice idea in theory but it is fantasy none the less.

The proposers of this motion are giving us a chance to put our money where our mouth is and be proactive, if we choose to wait for the ‘better’ proposal or for when we all think it’s ‘worth’ the expenditure, we will be waiting for something degrading, disgusting and downright dangerous to happen on campus before we do anything. That is shameful.

If you want to be part of a Guild that takes real action on equality support this motion at Guild Council.

By Emma O’Dwyer – BULS Member