The Lion - Issue 4 Volume 3

The Volume 3 Issue 4 25th Februrary 2013 theheythroplion.co.uk

Lion

It’s student survey time at Heythrop!

National Student Survey (for final year undergraduate students)

Heythrop Student Survey (for all other students)

Check your email for the link to your survey and tell us about the Heythrop experience

Both surveys close on 30th April 2013

Find out more inside‌ 53631_HEYTHROP_LionNewspaper.indd 1

11/02/2013 17:01

Your feedback so far In the past, student feedback offered in surveys such as the NSS and Heythrop Student Survey, and in meetings such as the Staff Student Liaison Committee has greatly helped our work to improve the Heythrop student experience:

you SAId We want more student support •

Since 2010 we’ve established an on-site counselling service offering 8 hours a week, free to all students

•

The college counsellor has for the last two years also run workshops on dealing with exam stress

•

Mental health and disability awareness has been a feature of Staff Development training recently, with all staff having attended a session on Student Mental Health in the past year

Drinks and snacks should be available at all times •

We’ve installed vending machines on campus

We want a bigger say in what goes on •

The HSU now has a second sabbatical officer

•

There’s student representation on all key College committees including: o

Academic Board

o

Learning, Teaching and Assessment Committee

o

Research Committee

o

Departmental Boards

o

International Programmes Committee

o

Undergraduate Student Staff Liaison Committee (joint Heythrop and Heythrop Students’ Union Chairs)

o

Library Committee

o

Estates Committee

o

Finance and General Purposes Committee

o

Governing Body

And we’re working on more improvements Employability:

Social Life

• The Enrichment Programme has been introduced to offer opportunities to gain additional skills and experience such as: • Languages • Inter-faith work • Volunteering

• The HSU have established links with Imperial College so you can become an Associate member and use their bar and facilities.

Find out more about these issues and other feedback at

www.heythrop.ac.uk/suggestionbox 53631_HEYTHROP_LionNewspaper.indd 2

11/02/2013 17:01

Feastival!

The next big event set up by Lokahi and Heythrop

4

Intolerance and Abuse

6

Christianity under pressure

The Volume 3 Issue 4 11th March 2013 theheythroplion.co.uk

Polanski

The life and work of a man through film

11

Lion

Heythrop Looks Forward!

(To Some Much-Needed Cash) College Seeks Donations to Help Bolster Heythrop’s Financial Situation Sam English News Editor ‘The Lion’ can reveal that Heythrop College has made an unprecedented move and is now searching for private investment to help bolster the College’s financial position.

With the 400th anniversary upon the Governors and great change in the University funding system there has been much talk about the direction the College would take this year. One staff member noted “In times of change Colleges have to adapt or die. We can no longer rely on Jesuit funding alone to keep us established as a top place to study.”

A member of the marketing team remarked “we’re ten years behind other Universities when it comes to matters like these and need to catch up quickly.”

College themselves have not hidden

their desire to maximise the college’s earning potential, on the 17th of December Kim Downing circulated an email offering current students the opportunity to work for college as ‘Alumni Development’ officers. Emphasis was placed upon College’s need to “engage more with the Alumni” and their importance for securing the “continued success of the College.”

When asked by ‘The Lion’ what they think of College raising money from private donors a group of first year students said that they “see nothing wrong with raising money this way, we are way more than a ‘chalk and talk’ subject and can’t survive on a meagre amount of government funding.” Another noted “I’m not sure I like the idea of going to rich men and women for money as I worry about how much influence these donors will have over for deci-

sions that massively influence Students for example, entrance grades could be contentious.”

‘The Lion’ can confirm that there are no plans to allow private investors to negatively affect the student experience within College. One staff member noted “we need to develop and this is an obvious move

forwards, private funding doesn’t come from unfeeling, wealthy individuals who want to wreck college.

Rather, it comes from people who may have attended Heythrop or not, but either way they care deeply about this place.”

One student said “the process should be transparent, in my opin-

ion, and prospective applicants/ students should be able to see who has donated to the college. So long as we don’t end up doing what New Hall College did, and it’s monitored carefully, given the financially difficult position of the college, I wouldn’t say I objected too vehemently”.

RAG Week Raises £700 - Before Expenditure Halves It Sam English News Editor ‘The Lion’ can reveal that the HSU’s annual RAG week raised £700 before expenditure this year, a significantly larger sum than raised in the last few years.

Despite this, the amount finally handed on to the charities may be as little as £300 once the rent for venues is paid, and the union foot the bill they were sent by BLAGclub following the much discussed vandalism of the male restroom. One first year student said of the matter “It was a real shame that someone did that, but the Union handled it well. I don’t know them personally

but they all seem competent, that night they just got everyone out before any trouble could start.”

Concerns over where their money is going have been raised by students after it was revealed that in fact no charities had been chosen to receive the money the week after RAG week itself. Others have questioned the way the money was raised, a second year student commented to the ‘The Lion’ “I really appreciate the events and all the work the union did but it comes to nothing if you don’t know where your money is going. I had a donation box shaken at me numerous times and whenever I asked the girl where the money was going I was told ‘charity’ as if

that was a sufficient answer. If noone voted for a charity then the union is stuck I appreciate that but the truth [that none had been selected] would have been nice.”

One first year student said to ‘The Lion’ “It isn’t really about the figure raised, after all we are a tiny college and only some of the Halls people seem to be present at most events, some of which have been great, but this week has just been shocking.

The obstacle course sounded great and I had high hopes, until I saw it was some chairs on the floor and a few people sticking their legs out. I didn’t stay.” Another added “I got the impression the week was just chaotically thrown together, after

really enjoyable but diverse events like the Christmas ball, night out in Notting Hill and the sex quiz I expected a fairly quirky week with some good events. Instead I was offered a raffle, which I never heard about again. Everything just seemed to tail off.”

Peter Mackay the HSU sports and societies officer believes “Criticism of the Union is always harsh, and that’s right, but RAG week was a success.”

A third year student commented “Since starting I’ve kept my eye on the Unions scene as it’s good to see what they’re doing, I felt this Union had done so much more than the other Unions in my time here

which was great, the Christmas Ball for example was top this year, perfect mix of the Dixie Queen and last year’s party boat, and this RAG’s open mic had a great atmosphere.”

Of RAG week one Union member said “This week hasn’t been perfect but what RAG ever has been? I’m proud to say I’ve been on a Union that has seized the chance to organise great events and raise money.

That’s all we aimed to do and we managed it.”

‘The Lion’ can further reveal that there will be an online voting system to decide where the money given shall be donated.

2

MONDAY 11TH MARCH | THE LION

NEWS Write for us!

Make your voice heard!

f facebook.com/theheythroplion t twitter.com/theheythroplion Y youtube.com/theheythroplion : flickr.com/theheythroplion

theheythroplion.co.uk

“I’m late!

We’re late!

Thank God we never set a definite release date.”

PLEASE RECYCLE YOUR LION AT ONE OF THE MANY RECYCLE BINS AROUND COLLEGE

The

MEET THE LION EDITORIAL TEAM Editor-in-Chief Gala Jackson-Coombs gala@theheythroplion.co.uk

Features Editor Zahra Al-Kateb features@theheythroplion.co.uk

Senior Editor Joshua Ferguson josh@theheythroplion.co.uk

Comment Editor Faye West comment@theheythroplion.co.uk

Senior Editor JT White jt@theheythroplion.co.uk

Culture Editor Daniel Tripp culture@theheythroplion.co.uk

News Editor Samuel English news@theheythroplion.co.uk

Societies Editor Rory Phillips societies@theheythroplion.co.uk

The Lion is the independent student newspaper of Heythrop College, University of London. We distribute at least 1000 free copies during term time around campus and to popular student venues in and around Kensington.

Editorial Team

NEXT DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSIONS

11.03.13

Please send your submissions to: submit@theheythroplion.co.uk The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Editors or of the Heythrop Students’ Union. Every effort has been made to contact the holders of copyright for any material used in this issue, and to ensure the accuracy of this fortnight’s stories.

Founded by Alex Hackett and Gala Jackson-Coombs The Lion is published by HackJack Ltd. and printed by Mortons Print Ltd. All Copyright is the exclusive property of HackJack Ltd. No part of this publication is to be reproduced, stored on a retrieval system or submitted in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the publisher.

3

MONDAY 11TH MARCH | THE LION

EDITED BY: SAM “NEWS” ENGLISH

HAVE YOUR SAY!

Daniel Tripp Culture Editor On the 5th of February Heythrop Collage held a Have Your Say Event, an event to allow students to come and ask questions to the administrative and academic staff of Heythrop Collage. The event was largly a success, but was over shadowed by a question by Eleanor MacIntyre regarding a statement by the collage mass-produced on posters around collage that the student support department had been expanded. In a response Dominic McLoughlin claimed that they had, ‘Made a mistake’ in regards the wording of the posters, and the posters in general where reaching back as far as 2012 for their reported changes. He also mentioned how Daisy had been taken on and how there was a consultant psychiatrist that they could contact at any time. Principal Michael Holman SJ also commented that student support was a hugely important area, and talked in passing of increasing the amount of support available. Further questions were asked, including whether written feedback given for essays was itself assessed by anyone. To this the answer was no. There was also some

debate as to whether the information used to create these posters was freely available to students.

After some discourse it emerged that the information, in terms of minutes of committee meeting minutes, was available on the Heythrop Website. A big concern was forwarded by male welfare officer, Andy Coghill, who raised the issue of the children who use the sports court throughout the day, making it difficult to concentrate in lectures. The response was that the income brought in by the schools that hire the court is very beneficial to the College. Furthermore the arrangement precedes Heythrop moving into the current College buildings. On the plus side, however, exams will no longer be held in rooms near the courts, instead being moved to quieter parts of the college – including the possibility of the areas used by Fordham.

Ashley Doolan, President of the Heythrop Students Union, also put forward the point, again referring back to student support issues, that Heythrop college only has one permanent support staff member, Dominic McLoughlin, and that he is male. He asked whether it might make more sense to have a permanent female staff member as well, as some female students, and in

fact some male, might prefer to talk a woman, rather than a man.

This was received well, and assurances were made that it would be looked into in the future.

There were also some concerns regarding part-time students, and the f a c t

that due them having only one lecture a week, it is very difficult for them to blend with their peers.

Furthermore, many events take place at times that part-time students have great difficulty in attending. This was also addressed, and events – including an upcoming event by the Lokahi Foundation – in the future would be more considerate of part-time and postgraduate students.

Mental Health Awareness Week Eleanor MacIntyre Head of Heythrop WI Heythrop’s first Mental Health Awareness Week took place from 18th - 22nd February. HSU Welfare Officers Kate Tingle and Andy Coghill, alongside the college’s student support manager Dominic McLoughlin, put on a number of events throughout the week to raise awareness of issues surrounding mental health - focussing particularly on the issues of stress, depression, and suicide prevention. The week began on Monday 18th February with a ‘Lunch&Learn’ talk given by Kate Tingle on the subject of ‘Hysterical Women’: a history of women and mental health, and was followed up on Tuesday and Wednesday respectively with a short lunchtime talk by local GP Dr Carla Saour about depression and anxiety, and a Samaritans workshop on suicide and the importance of talking and listening in aiding mental wellbeing. Thursday saw two fundraising events take place in college - a Tea & Cake social event hosted by Heythrop W.I. followed by one of Heythrop’s regular Open Mic Nights. Both events were raising money for three well-known mental health charities - Mind, Rethink Mental Illness, and B-eat (an eating disorders charity). The amount raised at the Open Mic Night is

as-yet unknown, however, the Tea & Cake event has raised over £85 for the charities. Fundraising continued on Friday at the opening perfomance of ‘An Unwelcome Guest’ - a play written by thirdyear Alex Griffin and staged by HeADS which focusses on themes relating to insanity and alcoholism.

Caitlin Hickey, HSU events team, described the week as “a roaring success”. She writes: “I think Kate and Andy did a great job putting on events that were relevant to many of the students at Heythrop, drawing in a diverse range of people, either effected by some of the issues raised, or simply wanting to know more about them. All issues were handled delicately and I hope this week has been a great help to many of our students”. The welfare team will be continuing the campaign to raise awareness of mental healthrelated issues in college through a themed film night in March and a trip to see Hamlet at the Rose Theatre on the 26th February. Students will also be able to view the fruit of the week’s ‘Heythrop Voices’ project - a week-long project encouraging students of the college who have had experience of mental health problems to anonymously share their stories and advice for better mental wellbeing. This will be displayed in the basement throughout the month of March.

4

MONDAY 11TH MARCH | THE LION

HEYTHROP “FEASTIVAL” Joe Walsh Lokahi Foundation DJoeanielDa

In less than three weeks student societies, diversity management students and the HSU will be holding a ‘Feastival’, in collaboration with the Lokahi Foundation, which will celebrate the diverse and unique nature of Heythrop College. The event will be an active celebration of the diversity prevalent among the student body and the faculty at Heythrop, and the unique manner in which integration occurs between these diversities to promote the sharing of interests and dialogue. Volunteers from across the student body are involved in the organisation of this event, which will include activities from a range of societies which are run at Heythrop, including, but not limited to at least 8 societies. This event will be unique, since it will be the only other time in the annual college calendar other than Fresher’s Week that societies interact and students, both undergraduate and postgraduate, come together to

get involved in a range of activities that truly aims to reflect the nature of what it means to be a student at Heythrop College.

The Lokahi Foundation is interested in hearing from heads of societies, members of the student body or the faculty who would be keen to help out in any way towards the preparation, promotion or the actual running (or all three!) of the event. The hope is to involve as many members of the Heythrop community in the event as possible, from first year undergrads to PhD students. We aim to involve all aspects of Heythrop life in this celebration, so any assistance you can give us would be greatly appreciated.

If there are any of you who would like to be involved with any part of the event, or would like more information about the event itself, then please drop an email to Joe Walsh at jw@lokahi.org.uk or call 0207 795 4189.

We’re looking forward to seeing how you want to celebrate being a Heythropian.

The Lokahi Foundation is a social impact charity that envisages a more dynamic and robust society that embraces religious and cultural diversity with respect and understanding. Our research probes the foundations of society’s beliefs and values.

These findings are brought to bear on our projects which serve communities that are experiencing real problems resulting from misunderstanding or intolerance. We hope that within these communities our work achieves creative harmony from diversity - which is what the Hawaiian word ‘lokahi’ means.

ALL POWER TO THE ROD. JoJos

Josh ‘JT’ White Senior Editor You may have heard that in the spirit of student politics an ‘inanimate carbon rod’ has been nominated as a candidate for the President of the NUS. Finally, the NUS has found an appropriate candidate to make good on the legacy of Aaron Porter. When Porter stepped down in the midst of the fallout from the student demonstrations his seat at the NUS was kept warm by Liam Burns, who secured his re-election in 2012. Yet the last national demonstration held by the NUS failed to match the numbers achieved in 2010.

The march climaxed with students lobbing eggs at the NUS President.

The education reforms implemented by the Coalition remain of high priority on student concerns, with the infamous betrayal fees of £9,000 now enforced. Believe it or not, these issues are far from a distant memory of the past. And still, the legitimate question of whether or not austerity should have been undertaken can’t even be raised in Parliament.

Not that we can even expect this question to be addressed by pseudo-institutions like the NUS. If it could influence public policy radically, then it would’ve never emerged in the first place. The Union itself seems to function as a spring-board mechanism for those looking to land in snug jobs in journalism and the Labour Party (see Jack Straw, see David Aar-

onovitch, see Phil Woolas, Stephen Twigg and Trevor Phillips). It’s a ladder to be climbed in other words. It should be no surprise then that Aaron Porter was a contributor to What next for Labour? on higher education policy; he also writes for Left Foot Forward. At the NUS Aaron Porter staked out a position as an advocate of the graduate tax dressed as the progressive alternative to fees. Behind closed doors Mr Porter thought it apt to argue for market rates of interest on student loans, cuts of 61% and 48% to grants and teaching budgets. Since leaving office Porter has become an ‘education consultant’ to universities charging £8,500 per 10 day course.

Since Labour has proven itself unable to conjure up a properly oppositional stance to austerity, preferring to cautiously stick with austerity lite, it’s unlikely that we will see any shift from the incumbent administration on these ‘reforms’. Unfortunately, this will be the case no matter which Miliband is leader. By comparison the NUS has long stood as the self-aware institution of student centrism. This became apparent in the aftermath of the national demonstration in 2010 which climaxed with the vandalism of Millbank. Aaron Porter appeared on Newsnight next to ULU President Clare Solomon and opposite Liberal hypocrite Simon Hughes. Student politics was once more ensnared in an oscillation between a self-satisfied moderatism and an ultra-leftist radicalism.

The NUS criticised the violence as

the actions of an extremist minority that had poisoned the student movement. Meanwhile ULU defended the events at Millbank on the grounds it was an expression of legitimate grievances and concerns.

It’s a tension between those in comfortable resistance and the smugly passive. Then Porter caved to pressure to resign and Solomon was booted out by a deus ex machina from the Right. Around the same time the mass-demonstrations by students had, for the most part, slowed to a stop. That’s not to be interpreted as the victory of the student Right against the student Left, or even as the end result of infighting among student leftists.

The tuition fees were passed into law and the impetus for large-scale activism was expunged by tidal waves of apathy and despair. The movement never had any central leadership, only vocal spokespeople. By the time of defeat it could no longer more forward as a hydraheaded beast wracked by disputes over ends and means. Its anarchic constitution fell flat against the stone walls of the Establishment.

The lack of unity couldn’t withstand an overwhelming sense of defeat once the fees were passed into law. And so, the movement without a centre faded away. The MPs were whittled down to little more than 20 votes in the end, a slight defeat.

Long dead seem the days when the students could light the march to set the Establishment ablaze. This is what we felt for ’68 and what

we’ll feal for ’10 in decades to come.

Yet our 2010 was bigger than the protests of 1968, at least in Britain.

The Continentals have always been better than us at this sort of thing.

The reaction to the violence of the protests was quintessentially English in its outrage at the disruption.

On May ’68 in Paris, Roger Scruton reflected “I suddenly realized I was on the other side. What I saw was an unruly mob of self-indulgent middle-class hooligans... That’s when I became a conservative. I

knew I wanted to conserve things rather than pull them down.” As for NUS it is the only institution to succeed in being more pointless than ULU. The Union could do far more damage with a tool in charge than an actual tool. At the best of times student politics, when it is deserving of the designation ‘political’, may converge with national politics. The rest of the time it serves as a wearisome spectacle that brings the observer to utter disillusionment.

Sam Gaus- Democracy and Communications Officer at UCLU

Flickr.com/ Nina J. G.

5

MONDAY 11TH MARCH | THE LION

“COMMENT.” Edited by Faye West | comment@theheythroplion.co.uk

The Islamophobic Muslim Ben Mercer Comment Correspondent “Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)! They said: “If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!” He said: “I do detest your doings:” “O my Lord! deliver me and my family from such things as they do!” So We delivered him and his family,- all Except an old woman who lingered behind. But the rest We destroyed utterly. We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not)! Verily in this is a Sign: but most of them do not believe. And verily thy Lord is He, the Exalted in Might, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 26:165-175) Those unable to attend the talk on Islam and homosexuality will no doubt be relieved to hear that they missed nothing of any value. As it transpired, those of us in attendance were treated to something very different. The entire event was a misnomer. In reality, it was little more than a demonstration.

How do you talk about homosexuality, and your relationship with it as a Muslim, without mentioning Islam? Ask Rose Neelam.

It is important to stress, lest I be accused of missing the point, or else of “being a dick”, that I place a great deal of value on occupations that seek to work with and to help vulnerable children. One must at least admire the efforts of philanthropists, and in this regard, I hold little if not praise for the work Ms Neelam has devoted her life to, and the causes she has fought for.

However, this was not meant to be a talk on the occupation of one Muslim woman. This was (at any rate, I was lead to believe it was) to be a talk on the thorny, difficult, and alas all too relevant issue of the relationship between Islam and homosexuality. And I attended in anticipation. Here was a chance to learn more about an often criticized, yet too little understood religion, and its attitude toward a group that has born much of the brunt of the obsession with sex that has so preoccupied organized religion.

Furthermore, I found myself looking forward to the prospect of presenting a challenge to our speaker; that the texts and scriptures around which her religion has been built make it very difficult

for one who claims to follow Islam to adopt the lenient, conciliatory, even favourable view of homosexuality with which I was sure we would be presented.

We did not receive the advertised talk, and the opportunity to question and engage in a debate was strangled at birth by the obstructive, patronizing and downright offensive implementation of a “safe zone.”

Briefly, on the latter point: vetting questions is a tried, tested and proven method of killing debate.

I’m conscious of not offending the sensibilities of the reader by pointing out the patently obvious, but the “safe zone” is intended to ensure that nobody is offended by anything. In effect, this grants the freedom of the speaker to do as he/ she pleases, without fear of horrific consequences, amongst which number criticism and contradiction. It is almost beneath contempt even when the organizers expect a hostile audience, but to implement it to protect a speaker in Heythrop’s Loyola Hall?! I did not submit a question. It was clear to me, and I’m sure many others, that with no facility to probe inadequate answers, this format would not allow for proper questioning.

These fears were confirmed. The theme of the evening continued into the question and answer session. That theme was: avoiding talk of Islam.

I think Ms Neelam’s argument for proceeding as she did can be fairly summarised as follows- That we should not get entangled in the Islamic theology, that we should move away from “validating” (to use the speaker’s own words) people, that we should not get so “blinded by religion and culture and gender...”

But for what reason was the talk entitled “Islam and Homosexuality” if the speaker’s intent was to not talk about Islam? True, in not talking about religion, you reduce the risk of talking in terms of “validating” people, as that is what religion does, but then this is not a talk about Islam and homosexuality, and should not have been advertised as such.

Nor should the email sent to inform people of this event have promised a discussion on such topics as “The Gay Muslim Revolution”(I don’t recall this being raised at any point, and still do not know what it means. In any case, it might have been more pertinent to discuss the plight of homosexuals following Iran’s Islamic revolution). It certainly should not have included “How the Quran addresses LGBT

Flickr.com - Thomas Marthinsen

people and same sex relationships”, when this was a point specifically mentioned as something to be avoided.

I invite you to cast your eyes back to the quotation from the story of Lut (you might know it better as the parable of Sodom and Gomorrah). Here you see but one example of the problem Ms Neelam was perhaps trying to avoid. The story of Lut was the sole attempt she made to address the issue of scripture - and it must be said, made with no small degree of reluctance - and she offered an insight into her modern interpretation of the text, and the interpretation of some modern scholars. That interpretation, as I understand it, is that Lut was not talking about homosexual acts as being the deviation from the rule for which the punishment was mass destruction, but rather, that he was talking about “something else”, again, to use Ms Neelam’s own words. Just “something else” that was offensive, and that warranted destruction by brimstone.

It must be said, though, that it is difficult to find a translation of the story (I looked on the internet for just 5 minutes, and compiled a list of translations...) that does not contain a phrase pointing towards homosexual acts between men as being, if not the only affront to Allah, then at least amongst the acts that were deemed worthy of such extreme punishment.

And it is not the only passage of the Quran that has traditionally been interpreted as being condemning of homosexual acts. (Claiming that Islam has no problem with homosexuality, just its acts, is a laughable attempt at a defence that is not worthy or in need of deconstructing here.) There are further references made in the Hadith, and the homophobic position is adopted by the majority of Islamic scholars.

How then can you be a homosexual Muslim, and claim that this is perfectly acceptable according to Islam? It would appear that you cannot, so it is no wonder that Ms Neelam was reluctant to talk about the subject on which she was invited to.

Perhaps my choice of title for this article is a little unfair. The definition of phobia is an “extreme or irrational fear of” something, and I’m sure Ms Neelam is not, in reality, terrified of her religion.

However, it is clear that she, as a homosexual Muslim woman, faces a quandary resulting from a dichotomy; her faith as a Muslim and the Islamic faith are isolated from each other and put into direct confrontation by the requirements of her personal existence, and the requirements of your existence that are demanded by traditional Islam.

Her faith may well be peaceful.

Her faith may well be tolerant. If you are reading this, and you are a Muslim, then I fully expect (and certainly hope) that you hold views that differ from the text and teachings of the Quran, the Hadith, and your scholars. But you must then recognise that you have difficulties with Islam.

On the other hand, Osama bin Laden; the Ayatollah and mullahs of Iran, (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once claimed, on a campus in Colorado, that Iran did not have this “phenomenon” that is homosexuality. Perhaps because the authorities have been known to hang men convicted of committing homosexual acts from cranes); the death squads and lynch mobs enforcing Pakistan’s absurd blasphemy laws; brainwashed youths at Taliban training camps and radical clerics from East London to the Middle East - these are “fundamentalists”, but the problematic Ms Neelam, and those like her, must acknowl-

edge is that these people are proselytising and acting upon an often accurate and very convincing interpretation of texts which, after all, were written well over a thousand years ago.

I’m all for modernizing our interpretations of Islamic texts, but you have to acknowledge that A) this lends significant weight to the argument that religion is merely man made, B) that it is then, by your own arguments, devalued, and C) that whatever your particular preference for Islamic texts, you are changing a great deal and completely ignoring a whole lot more.

It is no longer really Islam, just as Mormonism isn’t really Christianity. You cannot then claim that “Islam” is tolerant of homosexuality, when the appalling list I have submitted demonstrates that it is not. The most you can claim is that your diluted, distorted, bastardisation of Islam is tolerant.

I welcome discussion and debate on this subject. I freely and happily admit that my knowledge of Islam is lacking. I should have very much liked to spend two hours of my time at a talk that addressed some of the misgivings I have raised in this article, and perhaps, had the talk been as advertised, those misgivings may have been dealt with.

As it is, they have not.

Ms Neelam was invited to speak about Islam and homosexuality, and attempted to put across the notion that Islam was not as intolerant toward homosexuals as it is commonly perceived to be.

Implicit (and only implicit) in her talk was that we should think more highly of Islam, because she is a Muslim lesbian. I submit that the existence of Muslim lesbians is not an argument supporting the thesis that Islam is tolerant of homosexuality.

6

MONDAY 11TH MARCH | THE LION

COMMENT

Christianity: The Untold Story Alice Heans Postgraduate

In 130 of the 190 countries around the world Christians are persecuted for their faith. It’s a shocking fact that rarely makes the headlines in this country however for the Christians living in these countries the threat of being beaten, imprisoned or killed for the practice of their faith is a daily reality. This Christmas Eve in northern Nigeria Boko Harum, an extremist Islamist group that has even been known to target fellow Muslims it sees as pro-Western, killed 12 worshippers, including the pastor, and set fire to the Church. Unfortunately this is by no means an isolated attack by Boko Harum. On Christmas Day 2011, 44 people were killed and 80 others injured when the extremists targeted massgoers at St Theresa’s Catholic Church in Madalla, Nigeria.

In some countries religious intolerance is built into the national law. In September of last year the case of the young girl Rishma, who

was accused of burning pages of the Quran, drew attention to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Under 295B and 295C of the Penal Code dishonouring the prophet is a crime punishable by death and disrespect to the Quran receives a life sentence; it is under this law that the 45 year old mother Asia Bibi became the first woman to be sentenced. The case arose when some Muslim women reputedly refused to drink some water that Asia had collected, saying that it was “unclean”. An argument followed, in which the women said that Asia dishonoured the prophet. For her crime Asia has been sentenced to hang and is still in prison today awaiting her sentence. Her family live in hiding, fearing that extremists will target them in the way they did the cabinet minister Shahbaz Bhatti. Bhatti, 42 year old Catholic, was shot dead in March 2011 for his campaign for religious freedom. A fierce critic of the blasphemy law that sentenced Asia, Bhatti was well aware of the price he would pay for his outspokenness.

In a video interview he stated, “I

am leading this campaign against Shari’a law and for the abolition of the blasphemy law. I am speaking up for the oppressed and marginalised and persecuted Christians and other minorities. I want to share that I believe in Jesus Christ who has given his own life for us. I know the meaning of [the] cross and I am ready to die for this cause. I am living for my suffering people and I will die to defend their rights.”

Asia’s and Bhatti’s cases have been highlighted in the national media however thousands of Christians in around the world are suffering without representation. There are hundreds of stories that are ignored by the media. Given that the Frankfurt-based International Society for Human Rights, a secular body, has estimated that 80 per cent of acts of religious intolerance are directed against Christians this is a puzzling fact that raises questions about the bias of some news groups and a creeping intolerance towards religious groups in our own country. http://www.flickr.com/photos/praccus/8371480042/sizes/o/in/photostream/

THE TURNING TIDE AGAINST MALE CIRCUMCISION Zak Phoenix 2nd year undergraduate DanielDa

In the previous edition of The Lion, Samuel English wrote about the horrific statistics regarding Female Genital Mutilation and rightly argued that such a thing should never happen. While truly horrific, thankfully, FGM is relatively rare in the world. FGM is hardly found to occur in Western countries except by minorities who bring the practice with them from their own cultures. No intelligent, civilised person would agree that female circumcision is a healthy practice, physically or psychologically.

However, there is another form of genital mutilation that is not so widely abhorred, and this needs to change. Male circumcision is just as wrong and yet is extremely widespread, common, and culturally acceptable in many countries around the world, ours included.

I believe this needs to change and that we need to call it for what it really is: the unnecessary genital mutilation of young males.

For starters, male circumcision is not referred to as genital mutilation and many would reject this label. However I believe this is a form of euphemising what is really going on, just as how FGM is made less horrific by calling it “female circumcision”. We need to begin to realise that male circumcision does not usually occur for purely medical purposes (a valid reason which accounts for a small amount of cases) but rather for religious,

aesthetic, or so-called “hygiene” purposes. Also, some evidence suggests that while circumcision reduces HIV transmission rates somewhat, it hasn’t been proven to reduce or prevent other sexually transmitted infections.

Regardless, circumcision does not and should not act as a replacement for proper sexual health awareness and protection. Furthermore, the so-called “hygiene” argument is irrational nonsense, as any uncircumcised male will tell you he knows fully well how to clean his own body without any problems.

While I accept the rare medical necessity of male circumcision only if this has been an impartial diagnosis made by a medical professional, I believe all other reasons are invalid and constitute nothing less than a deeply unethical act of mutilation upon the genitals of an unconsenting minor.

Anatomically speaking, the foreskin is a natural part of the male body and provides several vital functions for the penis. It protects the sensitivity of the head, stops the skin from becoming hardened and desensitised and has an important function in sexual activity. The process that turns skin into hardened nails on your fingers and toes is called keratinisation and this same process occurs on the head of the penis if not kept covered with a foreskin, resulting in permanent desensitisation of the skin in order to be able to handle the constant friction against clothing. I want you to read that sentence again so

that it sinks in just how unnatural having an unprotected glans is due to being circumcised, to the point whereby the body attempts to overcompensate with a defensive mechanism. Further, in the act of circumcision, vital nerves are irreparably severed which damage sensitivity to the penis and result in reduced sexual pleasure compared to an intact penis; I suspect this is likely the intended outcome for religiously-derived circumcision in the first place, which is a shameful and deplorable reason to damage the genitals of any living being, male or female.

While circumcision’s historical origins are unclear, this is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

Today it is mostly practised as as a religious ritual, used to demarcate men as belonging to a particular tribe or faith. Sometimes it is just the “done thing” due to cultural precedence, or sometimes simply because the boy’s father is circumcised and there is some irrational belief that the son’s penis needs to look like his father’s. None of these reasons override the integrity of the boy’s own body and his right to keep his genitals intact, unless he decides otherwise as a mature adult of legal age.

This is the crux of the issue - most male circumcision is nothing other than inflicting unexamined beliefs or religious ideology upon the genitals of a newborn baby or young child with an act that is unnatural, permanently damaging and most importantly, done without con-

sent. If a grown man decides that he would rather have a circumcised penis for any reason whatsoever, that is his right, but it is not the right of adults to make permanent decisions of this kind about the genitals of other people, let alone extremely young people. Anyway, even from a religious perspective circumcision makes no logical sense: if God made and designed the human body, why would He have made a vital, functioning part and then want it to be cut off right after being born?

Many circumcised men feel a sense of loss or anger at feeling “less complete” than they might have been with their foreskin, not to mention the problems that often occur with sexual functioning and sensitivity.

Online forums discussing circumcision and foreskin restoration are becoming more popular, with men focusing on natural methods of restoring the foreskin by growing extra skin with weights and constant tension until there is enough to cover the head as it should be.

This can help reverse some of the keratinisation and bring back some sensitivity, but takes years of hard work to achieve and it doesn’t bring back the sensitivity from the vital nerves that were severed in the original cutting. All of this is damage control and doesn’t mitigate the fact that the circumcision should never have occurred in the first place.

Thankfully, the tide appears to be turning, slowly but surely. The comments section of a recent online Guardian article about male

circumcision shows that many more people in the UK are beginning to hold views similar to mine.

Even further, Germany recently banned circumcision for nonmedical reasons, and rightly so, although this unfortunately has been rescinded due to severe protesting by the country’s Jewish and Muslim populations. I believe more countries need to follow through on such a law and stand up for all males everywhere, regardless of age, asserting firmly that circumcision without mature consent does not match up with our beliefs in the rights of human beings to bodily integrity, free from molestation by others, sexual, surgical or otherwise.

Disagree with an article in the Lion?

Great!

Write a rebuttal and have it featured in the next issue of the paper.

Disagree with your own article? Don’t like the way it was edited you say?

Moving on swiftly you say?

Great!

7

MONDAY 11TH MARCH | THE LION

COMMENT

LOOK THY BEST! Chris Clarke 2nd year undergraduate The neglected, overgrown front garden; all buddleia and rotting 1980s white goods...

The garden’s owner condemned by neighbourly mutterings...

This is not merely a matter of taste as the mutterings aimed at ‘her with the gnomes’ are; this is moral condemnation.

As it is with gardens; so it is with our selves? Are we morally dutybound to look our best? More to the point; should we and do we morally judge those who do not adhere to our collective understanding of beautiful?

I would like to make it absolutely clear that I am not talking about matters of taste in clothing, hairstyles or body ornament. A vajazzle does not carry moral weight.

Suggestions that one should ‘dress properly’ are utterly subjective when used in our culture given the variety of diverse tastes and fashions at play. We do make moral judgements based on fashion but the fact we do so is uninteresting and unsurprising. What I would like to question is our moral commitment to our own body; not in terms of health (i.e. are we doing ourselves and society a disservice

by eating too much) but in aesthetic terms.

But is bodily beauty not as subjective as the vagaries of taste? No, it isn’t.

Within Western society and culture; including ‘sub-culture’- which is, in fact, now synonymous with ‘culture’ we operate with very well defined ideas of beauty. The existence of a community of fat fetishists does not make morbidly obese people more physically attractive to the majority. It does not disrupt the norm. In general we praise a ‘healthy’ physique, neither too fat nor too thin; a clear complexion and average or smaller than average noses and ears. While there may be debate over the relative attractiveness of Keira Knightly and Jennifer Lopez both are, by our standards, more attractive than Susan Boyle.

Notice that this standard is limited, temporally and geographically.

Different social forces over time have impacted what is considered beautiful. For much of European history how close a woman looked to traditional representations of the Virgin Mary determined her beauty. Different standards are also in play across the globe, particularly in insular and hence racially monotone tribal communities.

But we can’t change our bodies!

Yes, we can.

With chemicals, surgery, lifestyle changes or a combination of the three. We live in an age and society where genetically determined physical features can be easily ‘treated’ with minimum risk to health. The pathologically fat can take diet suppression pills, acquire a gastric band or adopt an extreme diet. While plastic surgery disasters make for excellent tabloid, gossip mag and Living TV fodder, they are rare. Most cosmetic surgery is successful in its stated aims. Yet there is a moral difficulty; an already attractive celebrity who chooses to have surgery is criticised for ‘setting a bad example’; an Afro-Caribbean woman who uses skin whitening cream is a ‘race-traitor’. This criticism is absurdly hypocritical; even if we don’t subject ourselves to invasive surgery we all make some effort to look or at least smell prettier. Even a blokey bloke who would laugh off the idea of moisturiser still uses deodorant.

So should we do more? We are generally more aware than anyone of our physical imperfections and often have the means to improve on them; surgery can be prohibitively expensive but many can still afford it and there are cheaper options. If someone has excessively large ears

and the money to fix them should they be condemned the same as the owner of the scruffy garden? Both seem guilty of wilfully diverging from a widely accepted aesthetic norm. Maybe therein lies a distinction- an aesthetic norm- not a moral norm?

Whether we should make moral judgements based on aesthetic properties is a moot point; we do make such judgements, certainly in cases not involving other people’s bodies. The aesthetic shock at the unkempt garden becomes moral disgust at the garden’s owner.

We assume negative moral traits such as laziness or a lack of community spirit. Why then should the aesthetic shock at the very ugly face not become moral disgust at the face’s owner (assuming they are able to do something about it, which usually they are)? As a noncognitivist I believe moral judgements to essentially be emotional expressions in response to certain triggers. It is our distaste of killing that leads us to state ‘killing is wrong’; when I say ‘killing is wrong’ I am saying ‘killing promotes a certain feeling ‘X’ within me (which I associate with moral badness)’. It seems, however, that feeling distaste with someone’s physical appearance does not lead one to make a moral-sounding

claim. We may pity or mock them depending on the social suitability of each option but we do not morally condemn. There seems to be s deep-rooted humanistic sensibility that reminds us ‘they can’t help it’.

The converse is also true; praise for the beautiful stops short of the moral. In fact the idea of the beautiful person who is also a complete knobhead is popular; one suspects this is because it is comforting to the un-beautiful.

It was not always so; when Dante exalts Beatrice’s beauty he does so in moral terms. The religious aspect of courtly love is the main reason for this; that which is beautiful is divine. It is also not always the case now; those we passionately love are praised for both beauty and goodness. We must convince ourselves and others that we have chosen our love correctly.

What then to conclude? We don’t make moral judgements based on people’s fundamental physical appearance. We are able to separate the aesthetic norm from the moral norm when we are talking about people (though of course; not in their style choices). We may choose to avoid ugly people and joke endlessly about them but we will not make a moral link. We are simply; too nice.

FROM HENRY VIII TO WILLS AND KATE: HATING ON THE MONARCHY Ben Mercer Comment Correspondent The history of the English and British monarchy is long and rich, and the power it exercised in its peak was impressive to say the least. But it goes without saying that it is not an age we should aspire to return to, nor an aspect of the history of our society that we should always be particularly proud of, and reflection on this aspect of our past raises questions about our future.

What, exactly, is the point in the monarchy now?

The Queen seems to represent the last vestiges of worth in the system.

Stoicism (she stood throughout the jubilee pageant, don’tcha know), commitment, restraint, dignity and stability; a collection that, in popular perception at least, goes beyond the extensively stage managed regality one would reasonably expect of someone in her lofty position.

Her resignation, from the throne or from life (whichever comes first), which cannot be far off, poses problems. Parliament has attempted to tackle one, the issue of succession, with fast tracked changes to the constitution.

Announced on the same day as the news of the Duchess of Cambridge’s pregnancy, and reportedly to the displeasure of the Prince of Wales, it aims, rightly, to put an

end to male primacy in the order of succession. Great. Even the monarchy is more progressive than the Church of England. But is there any point fishing the fly out of the lotion when the lotion itself is toxic?

The crux of the matter is that, in the 21st century, in a country that espouses secularism, equality for all, democracy, and all that fun stuff, the very concept of a hereditary monarchy should be alien to us. It should be seen as an anachronism.

Further, the free press and the cult of personality that has always existed in this country, and which has always been concentrated on the royal family in particular, should have exposed the “human” flaws in the system, of which Charles and Diana, both together and in isolation, are prime examples. And these damages should, in an age where the monarchy cannot claim special dispensation by divine providence, have been far more telling, more lasting, perhaps even more final than they have transpired to be.

If tradition and procedure has its way, our next king will be an idealist. A bit of idealism can be a good thing, but Charles is an outspoken idealist. And for a British monarch, this is not acceptable. Moreover, his idealism has been known to manifest itself behind the inherently stupid; homeopathy being one such example.

His public profile is not that of a British monarch. He reminds me of my granddad. Kind of lovable, in an old person kind of way, but I don’t want him as my king!

Nor do I think the role would suit Charles. Far better he stay in his current position, if he is to have a role at all; one where he is able to continue his philanthropic work, and educate people in the correct way to talk to their vegetables. But if arrangements are made to skip a generation, as is reportedly being considered, what does that say about the already dodgy premise that is a hereditary monarchy?

Interestingly, the recent changes to the laws of succession would allow the monarch to marry a Catholic, but not to be one him/herself.

Combine this with the traditional Catholic pledge to ensure that their children are brought up in the Catholic church, and in the world of the hereditary monarchy, you potentially reach a dead end.

Of the darling generation: Kate seems to be being built up by the real regents in our relationship with our monarchy - the barbaric, soap-obsessed elements of the British public - to the mantle dramatically vacated by Diana not so long ago, and her best hope must be to stave off those malevolent, sadistic forces until age and gravity combine to make her less ap-

pealing to the hungry public eye.

Should she fail in that task, she will undoubtedly be sacrificed for the harvest.

There are “legitimate” theological concerns with regards to changing the rights of succession. What exactly is the monarchy if we lowly mortals have a mandate to change it at our whim? Granted, the same line of reasoning can be used (and I have used it) to argue against gay and women bishops; but that’s what you get with religion. God isn’t playing God, he’s clearly out of touch, hasn’t got around to changing the rights of succession himself yet, and there tends to be a compulsion from those who claim to do his business to step in and bring the system into line with public opinion and conscience.

But consider the hypocrisy here.

Recently, four Christians took cases before the European Court of Human Rights. Two claimed that their God-given right to archaic intolerance has been subjugated by the secular conspiracy to allow homosexuals to fill the cracks of society with sin. The remaining two claimed that their right to adorn themselves with trinkets portraying the death of a first century Palestinian mystic whilst at work had been trodden on. Each of these cases invoked the right to the freedom of expression and religion; two things that can only exist under

secular governance. Meanwhile, no one bats an eyelid at the fact that our monarch and nominal head of state and armed forces is also the head of a declining and increasingly marginalized state church.

The defender of the faith, the faith that does not allow, or that does not want to allow, those very same freedoms to other members of the state.

It seems unlikely that the abolishment of the monarchy will be on the agenda in the foreseeable future. It is still far too popular. But I can find no convincing argument which suggests that the ideals that our monarchy represents; the ideals on which it was founded; the ideals which inform its structure; the role it plays within our society, and the role it will play in our society in any way stand up to rational, reasoned scrutiny. Its longevity, its security, and the long life it likely has ahead of it owes itself not to the intrinsic (and certainly not to the God-given) legitimacy of the institution, but to our almost perverse fascination with this particular ilk of celebrity.

Fascination with celebrity is not, in my mind, sufficient to justify the continued existence of the monarchy.

Vive la révolution!

8

MONDAY 11TH MARCH | THE LION

COMMENT: Edited by Faye “Comment” West

A Mission of Peace Karl

Karl Pavia MA Canon Law I welcome this opportunity to discuss with you some aspects about our mission (as youngsters) for peace between all religions in the world. We must gather together in profound respect to each other.

We are reminded that because it is our same human dignity which gives rise to the human rights, they held equally for every man and woman, irrespective for his or her religious, social or ethnic group. Religious freedom is, of course, a fundamental human right. In this regard, I must argue to note that the right of religious freedom extends beyond the question of worship and includes the right, especially of minorities, to fair access to the employment market and other spheres of civic life.

Religion is expressed in thought, action and social forms. The path is a way of life, a praxis designed to restore wholeness and ultimate meaning to human existence by involvement with the source of life, the sacred. In today’s’ world we need to emphasis more on the importance of the religious dimensions in intercultural dialogue.

One must always keep in mind that no particular religion is ever really only one type of dimension, but is rather a complex whole. These dimensions will help us more in our dialogue between religions, but most important between Christians and Muslims. We can begin with the belief that the One God is the infinite source of justice and mercy since in Him both religions exist in perfect unity. I hope as a youth, that we find peace between all religions, that the followers of God continue to keep their gaze fixed on his perfect goodness. We must always keep telling that we must never lose sight of the way it is reflected in the faces of others.

Nothing, it seems, escapes the media’s attention. But rarely if ever do we see anything on a matter that is crucial. Little we do notice the suffering that people endure for their religious faith.

Among the most contentious areas

of religious freedom are the right of an individual to change or abandon his or her own religion, and the right to evangelize individuals seeking to convince others to make such a change. Due to many historical facts, the relationship in this matter, between Muslims and Christians is often marked by misunderstanding. Our generation, must recognized as worshippers of God faithful to prayer, eager to uphold and live by the Almighty’s decrees, merciful and compassionate, bearing witness to all that is time and good, and ever mindful of the common origin and dignity of all human persons, who remain at the apex of God’s creative design for the world. We are living in an era that is tolerant for many things, but little did it know that it does not tolerate any type of religion. This is happening because of Modernity. No one would stop Modernity! So we need to dialogue with society to see what the world needs.

Friends, I am writing here simply with one intention, a hope: to write and argue for the precious gift of unity and peace, between all religions. I think that we are in a time that teaches that every religion is important, in every culture. One may ask, “Why do Europeans allow Muslims in Europe and the Islamic countries don’t allow Christians?”

We must tackle both the Islamophobia and Christophobia. To all readers, I wish to say that the particular contribution of religions to the quest for peace lies primarily in the wholehearted, untied search for the Absolute. Political leaders must therefore be mindful that any division or tension, any tendency to introversion or suspicion among believers or between the different communities, can easily lead to a contradiction which observes the Oneness of God. As political leaders and citizens in this globalized world we must not give in to the temptation to passivity. The dignity of every human person must always be in our perspective and we must always protect every believer irrespective of his religious belief.

The individual is never fully expressed through his or her own

http://www.flickr.com/photos/attawayjl

culture, but transcends it in the content search for something beyond. Dear friends, from this perspective, we see the possibility of a unity which is not dependent upon uniformity. While the differences we explore in interreligious dialogue may at times appear as barriers, they need not eliminate the common sense of awe and re-

spect for the universal, for the absolute and for truth, which impel religious peoples to converse with one another in the first place. Our differences provide a wonderful opportunity for people of different religions to live together in profound respect, esteem and appreciation, encouraging one another in the ways of God. This is our mis-

There’s free space here!

Why don’t you fill it?

Write us an article today!

sion as youths, and I am so eager to work for peace in all cultures to see a more peaceful world, even in the religion perspective. As youths we have a tough mission in front of us: A mission of peace.

9

MONDAY 11TH MARCH | THE LION

COMMENT

The Great Debate Debate Drives Society

YES

Rory Phillips Sports and Societies Editor Most ethical theories are, at some level, based upon some ‘ideal moral agent’. This is especially evident when one considers what an agent who subscribes to ethical theory A or B would do. Now, one may, even before the discussion about what an ideal moral agent would do, question whether any concept of an ideal moral agent is conducive to a discussion that is helpful. After all, even if it is helpful to frame discussions of normativity by conceptualising an ideal moral agent, it is also a facet of all ethical theories that accepts that there are very few agents that even come close to being anything like this ideal.

Now, it seems clear to me that talks of ideals have a lot of value and much to add to normative discussions – indeed, some theories are based entirely on the principle, for example Adam Smith’s ‘Impartial spectator’ theory. This means that I also think there are some things that are wrong even if lots of people do them. I have always found the idea that the moral status of actions could depend upon whether a majority partake of those actions or not, as a piece of reasoning rather unsatisfactory.

Imagine: “Why did you lie on your CV?” “Many people do it, I didn’t think it was a big deal.” This may seem a rather mundane example and one that many may think expresses a mere social norm rather than anything expressly moral.

However, it could be boiled down to the principle that if there is a certain amount of people that do something, then it becomes the case that that something, if it were wrong before, is no longer wrong.

This creates two problems, the first of which I shall explain via a reductio ad absurdum argument.

Murder is wrong – most people agree that this is true, or at least pragmatic. What if most people didn’t? Would it then be the case that it’s not wrong, because most people don’t think it is? This seems a rather odd position to hold, but it follows from the moral principle. If we take the moral language out of the principle then we may even have a further example which is even stranger. Suppose most people decided that green was no longer a colour. Would it then become the case that green was no longer a colour? The relegation of truth to mere consensus seems too much here, but it is founded upon the same principle that the earlier example concerning murder is based upon.

SHOULD ETHICS BE IDEALISTIC? The second problem I have with this is a version of what is often called the Sorities paradox. This is, in its most basic formulation, the question of when, for example, there are enough bits of hay to constitute calling it a bale of hay, and then conversely, how many bits of hay do we take away from the bale in order for it not to be a bale anymore? The position whereby ethical theories should focus on principles founded in pragmatism and social convention needs to tackle this paradox, because if it is the case that after a certain amount of people believe a given proposition then that given proposition becomes true, what is the number at which the boundary is crossed?

This is a very difficult problem to overcome, and one that becomes even more difficult if we accept what is known as Epistemicism,

“I have always found the idea that the moral status of actions could depend upon whether a majority partake of those actions or not, as a piece of reasoning rather unsatisfactory” which is the solution to the Sorities paradox that holds that not only is there a definite mark at which moral actions become immoral due to a definite number of people, but that this definite number is knowable.

By way of conclusion, then, the position that moral philosophy should abandon all talk of ideals, whether in agents or acts, and focus instead upon what is more within peoples power, is founded upon some shaky reasoning.

Up for some Debate?

Contact the Lion with your suggestions for a topic! Know someone with questionable views?

Of course you do, its Heythrop!

Have a debate with them and show them what for through the power of prose!

NO

Faye West Comment Editor Ethics and idealism, it’s time we recognise that they are practically separate When one starts a sentence with “Idealistically...”, I assume either a criticism or an admission of imperfection is about to be expressed. However, I do not expect the sentence to lead on to completely tearing apart what is being commented on. I assume what is being expressed is acceptance of the concept, and that it’ll do. Because it will do, it’s not completely right, but that doesn’t make it completely wrong.

What I am proposing here is the exact opposite to almost all ethical theories of right and wrong. Things are right or wrong. Even in moral relativism, a set of circumstances permit things to be right and wrong accordingly with hindsight. But is this real? Is this what we live every day? I hesitate to use the phrase “50 shades of grey” these days, but is this how we live our lives?

When I study ethics as part of my course, the whole room elevates into an idealistic haze where we sit and ponder problems and the most righteous course of action.

However, after lecture, I’ll happily saunter down to McDonald’s and use my Heythrop card, which is not a National Student’s Card to redeem a free ice cream. This is wrong, this is fraudulent and this is stealing. I would not, however, walk into a shop and just take something, because that is wrong and fraudulent and stealing. Even though I have defined them both as the same thing, they’re just not.

I propose we need a fundamental paradigm shift into what is practical and what people do. This is going to make things very very hard. I would still like the law to apply, perpetuation of moral right and wrong is a good thing, even if it does lead to unfortunate holes where good people are punished. But there are also systems for that. What I suggest is for ethics to be more relaxed and accessible. The more we pull ourselves into the haze of idealism when it suits us just makes us fall further when struggling to navigate the pitfalls and shortcuts of real life. How many people lie on their CV? I don’t actually have one but would hope I have enough content not to, as I am not comfortable with the idea of doing so. But I understand I am an ethics student and, if someone else were to lie on their CV, it would be so they can get a job to pay for their house so that they can live their life. Not a

gesture of malevolence engineered to aggravate the minds of the ethically idealistic. We need to bring ethics back together with life. The idealism behind it is wonderful for motivating us all to do better so we can make the world better.

I am not asking for more crime or immorality, but some flexibility in what to bother condemning.

As I said, this is a lengthy and oh so vague process, but we all seem to be able to muddle along when we’re not thinking too hard about our actions. I think it should be the aim of everyone to be as considerate as they can, but we all know when we’re wrapped up in something, the thoughts of other people just don’t occur to us. I accept this. People can be encouraged to work on things without being told everything they are doing wrong.

Most probably I am arguing for a system that is already in place.

That we all do our best when we think about it and rarely intend to do harm. And, most of us, once we have done something intentionally bad, feel really guilty. Those who don’t aren’t functioning people. Whose mother has told them at some point or other to pretend they are younger for a discount?

Mine has, does this make her a non- ideal mother? I just think it makes her sensible. And I have no problems about chronically lying about my age. Well. Not yet.

The phrase “50 shades of grey” these days, but is this how we live our lives? When I study ethics as part of my course, the whole room elevates into an idealistic haze where we sit and ponder problems and the most righteous course of action. However, after lecture, I’ll happily saunter down to McDonald’s and use my Heythrop card, which is not a National Student’s Card to redeem a free ice cream. do. Because it will do, it’s not completely right, but that doesn’t make it completely wrong.

What I am proposing here is the exact opposite to almost all ethical theories of right and wrong.

Things are right or wrong. Even in moral relativism, a set of circumstances permit things to be right and wrong accordingly with hindsight. But is this real? Is this what we live every day? I hesitate to use all do our best when we think about it and rarely intend to do harm.

And, most of us, once we have done something intentionally bad, feel really guilty. Those who don’t aren’t functioning people. Whose mother has told them at some point or other to pretend they are younger for a discount? Mine has, does this make her a non- ideal mother? I just think it makes her sensible. And I have no problems a

f real life. How many people lie on their CV? I don’t actually have one but would hope I have enough content not to, as I am not comfortable with the idea of doing so. But I understand I am an ethics student and, if someone else were to lie on their CV, it would be so they can get a job to pay for their house so that they can live their life. Not a gesture of malevolence engineered to aggravate th This is wrong, this is fraudulent and this is stealing. I would not, however, walk into a shop and just take something, because that is wrong and fraudulent and stealing. Even though I have defined them both as the same thing, they’re just not.

I propose we need a fundamental paradigm shift into what is practical and what people do.

This is going to make things very very hard. I would still like t e minds of the ethically idealistic. We need to bring ethics back together with life. The idealism behind it is wonderful for motivating us all to do better so we can make the world better. I am not asking for more crime or immorality, but some flexibility in what to bother condemning. As I said, this is a lengthy and oh so vague proc-

“When one starts a sentence with “Idealistically...”, I assume either a criticism or an admission of imperfection is about to be expressed.” ess, but we all seem to be able to muddle along when we’re not t he law to apply, perpetuation of moral right and wrong is a good thing, even if it does lead to unfortunate holes where good people are punished. But there are also systems for that. What I suggest is for ethics to be more relaxed and accessible. The more we pull ourselves into the haze of idealism when it suits us just makes us fall further when struggling to navigate the pitfalls and shortcuts o hinking too hard about our actions. I think it should be the aim of everyone to be as considerate as they can, but we all know when we’re wrapped up in something, the thoughts of other people just don’t occur to us. I accept this. People can be encouraged to work on things without being told everything they are doing wrong.

Most probably I am arguing for a system that is already in place. That we bout chronically lying about my age.

Well.

Not yet.

10

MONDAY 11TH MARCH | THE LION

COMMENT Israel vs The Bedouin in the Negev:

How Darwin was Pretty Much Right. Again.

Ben Mercer Comment Corrispondent Social Darwinism has a bad reputation. The term is used almost exclusively in the pejorative due to its association with a succession of radical social policies that reached the peak of their prominence in the mid 20th century.

I would argue that its use as such (specious, when employed by those less thoughtful among the leftist idealists) deprives us of a fascinating topic for debate. One which it would be a shame to pass over out of fear of the easily stoked sensitivities of others, particularly those who fail to distinguish between a theory that attempts to explain how the world works, and its derivative philosophies and ideologies that attempt to explain how the world should work.

Of course there is a danger in accepting the former as viable that the latter will duly follow. I don’t intend to deny that risk. Rather, I would argue that the emergence of such thoughts and inclinations serves to reaffirm the existence of the former. What is life and progress if not a struggle, and it is only natural that “Social” Darwinism (the prefix being a human construction that is, at least in part, conscious in nature) should see a human conflict, and a conflict over perceived social superiority.

But Social Darwinism does not necessarily entail the kind of persecution against race, religion (here the Jews are particularly unfortunate; they fit both criteria) and colour that has blighted every continent on numerous occasions throughout history.

If we assume that it is correct to award Thomas Malthus the title of “Social Darwinist” then here we have a prime example of an academic postulation, related to the theory, that is unaffected by the type of prejudices with which it has become associated. Malthus goes to great pains, in a preamble to his well known “Essay on the Principle of Population” to ensure that no accusation of racial or social bias can be levelled against him for the claims he goes on to make.

My own tawdry contribution to the debate comes as a reflection on a developing issue in the Middle East. “Which one?” you may ask.

Well, if you’re sitting comfortably...

On the odd occasion in these last few days (or is it weeks, or months, or even years?) that the BBC has aired something other than snooker, worthwhile bits of programming have been available from our national broadcaster. One such case, a story carried on BBC news during the early hours, focussed on

an intriguing situation in Israel’s Negev desert.

The desert makes up as much as 60% of Israel’s land mass. David Ben Gurion viewed it as key to the survival, development and prosperity of the Jewish state; he settled there himself, following his retirement from politics, and devoted much of his time to pursuing, and striving to convince people of his vision. Years later, and little has changed. His vision is, as yet, unfulfilled, and this lack of change is fuelling a growing conflict. It is appropriate that Malthus gets a mention in this article, as the problem has a great deal to do with population. It is also closely tied in with the quandary of the two-state solution, and related paranoia.

Israel, so keen for its citizens to settle where, by international law, they are probably not allowed, has done too little to encourage a sufficient number of them to live in the Negev to ensure its security. That is according to a growing number of political groups, of which the most vocal are right wing Zionist movements such as Jewish Home. The region is “threatened” by the population of nomadic Bedouin Arabs, which is small, but growing rapidly, and which already outnumbers Jewish population in the region.

That such fears are being propagated now is due in no small part to the impending elections in Israel (at the time of printing, these have long since come and gone), where the issue of identity is running a close second to security as the focal point of political campaigning.

Those whose exposure to Israeli politics and current affairs is minimal would do well to peruse the website for Haaretz, one of Israel’s leading newspapers; some of the articles make for interesting reading.

Key in this election is the idea of “Jewishness”, and so it is not surprising that the prospect of the majority of land in the Jewish state having a majority Arab population is ruffling some feathers.

The disparity in numbers would not be a problem were it not for two very deep-set facets of Israeli mentality. First, that Israel must be a Jewish state, and second, that the implication of equal rights for Arabs in a democratic state would render the former unviable. Hence a two-state solution. Israel recognises that it cannot end up an “apartheid state” (Mahmoud Abbas makes no comment on the difficulties in setting up a single state for a group as diverse as his “Palestinians”, incidentally) where the Jewish minority rule an Arab majority, and so a one state solution is

not compatible with the notion of a Jewish state. Whoever put into circulation the contemptibly ignorant phrase “a land without people for a people without land” certainly has a lot to answer for.

Back to the Bedouin; these are a nomadic people, whose way of life has changed very little in several centuries. This despite living within the borders of a state that has seen such rapid development, growth and modernization; and despite that state’s increasing efforts to bring the Bedouin into the 21st century. Not all, but many Bedouin resent being rounded up and placed into towns and villages built especially to accommodate them. It is perhaps easier to relate to this resentment when you consider that a not insignificant number have had their original homes demolished. There is a simmering unrest between the Bedouin and the Jewish population of the Negev; the former believe they are being expected to “fit in” to a state that does not give them equal treatment to the latter, some of whom must view the Bedouin as a similar problem to that posed by gypsies and “travellers” in this country, or something worse.

This, on my original point, is Social Darwinism in action, but with one note of temperance, as observed by Darwin himself (who, it should be noted, was not responsible for, or a proponent of the application of his theory of natural selection to sociological and political fields); that of sympathy.

Writing in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex:

“Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”

Sympathy is key. It is the most effective buffer against racist and fascist applications of Social Darwinism. It is also, in the modern day, closely intertwined with politics.

Consider for a moment the colonization of the Americas. History teaches us of the horrific treatment suffered by the native Americans at the hands of the colonists, and yet, the establishment of the thirteen colonies, and then the United States, led to a golden age for mankind’s material and intellectual progression. Had media been then what it is today, and had it covered the various massacres and incidents of exploitation committed against the native population - had

the coverage been of the kind that, say, was seen in the Vietnam war - how drastically might the development of the United States been affected?

Today, media-elicited sympathy does a great deal to keep in check the aspirations of the dominant society in any given region. Activists for the Palestinian cause would no doubt be quick to point out that it doesn’t do enough, and similar arguments have been made by Israeli and Zionist apologists about the threat posed by the surrounding Arab states, but it has a significant effect.

Zionist aspirations may be to ride roughshod over the lives and rights of the Bedouin for the good of the Jewish state. The Jewish state undoubtedly offers a great deal more to the world economically than the nomadic Bedouin or the squabbling Palestinians, and in terms of scientific knowledge and specialist expertise it is a global frontrunner.

There is considerable pressure on the political establishment in Tel Aviv to further push the expansion of the state, at the expense of what is tacitly understood to be an “inferior” or “less important” social group. This is Social Darwinism; this is the ambitions of the dominant social power being asserted at the expense of the “little guy”. But they cannot and will not rid themselves of the problem in one fell swoop, no matter the temptations they may have to the contrary. This is the effects of sympathy, both at home and abroad, and it suggests that Darwin, reflecting on the work of his contemporaries, was right.

flickr.com Bonnetmaker

11

MONDAY 11TH MARCH | THE LION

DANIEL“Culture” TripP Literature: Unaccustomed Earth by Jhumpa Lahiri Nazia Begum 2nd year Study of Religions Jhumpa Lahiri, winner of the Pulitzer Prize with her book The Interpreter of Maladies, continues to have one of modern fiction’s most prevailing voices through her book Unaccustomed Earth.

I will admit I was a sceptical reader of short stories for fear of the lack of plot development and gaining a substandard emotional journey of the characters which one is usually accustomed to (no pun intended) in the average short story. I can safely say this book defied many of my prejudices and was a breathtaking read.

The stories concern the assimilation of Bengali characters into American society. The parents feel apprehension between the culture they’ve left behind (though to which they continually revisit) and

the adopted homeland where they generally feel at least a tad foreign.

Their children, who are commonly the protagonists of these stories, are typically more Americanised, implementing a value system that would scandalise their parents, who are by and large blissfully unaware of the college lives their sons and daughters lead. Ambition and accomplishment are givens in these families, where it’s tacit that nothing less than attending the best schools and entering an honoured profession (medicine, law and academia) are the norm.

The impressive title story presents something of a role reversal, as a Bengali daughter and her American husband must come to terms with the secrets harboured by her father. The story expresses as much about love, loss and the family ties that stretch across continents and generations, through what it doesn’t say or what is left

unaddressed by the characters.

Even “Only Goodness,” (a personal favourite) the most heavy-handed piece in the collection which concerns a character’s guilt over her brother’s alcoholism, piques the readers interest until the last page.

Some of Lahiri’s characters break the rules to what is expected of them; others find themselves returning gratefully to familiar, prescribed terrain, particularly in the sphere of marriage. These are contemporary tales that take many modern realities into account, including the increasingly multi-ethnic character of life in the U.S. and the dilemmas first-generation children of immigrants face. Although they initially seem to defy their parents culture, they often gravitate back to their Bengali roots paving way for a more realistic and in depth screening of character development. Thus the journey these characters face where they start off

wanting different things from their parents but change the nature of their course, inextricably encourages a bout of inner struggles and conflicting ideologies.

Lahiri’s stories appeal because she entwines the experiences of these generally educated, ambitious, and upwardly mobile Bengalis with familiar and often successful symbols of the “American dream.”

Lahiri shows a gift for storytelling and conjures a variety of scenarios and outcomes. Her characters’ dialogue is credible, as are their aspirations. Every so often she delves into those concealed places we all have, regardless of nationality and upbringing, which define our most compartmentalized selves.

Lahiri has created a world that not only exemplifies the specific variations of the Bengali expatriate and first-generation experience in the U.S. but also shows the difficult

allegiances and choices many of their counterparts from other backgrounds also have to make.

These collections of stories have without a doubt echoed a whole range of emotions I have felt but unable to articulate out loud. Coming from both a Bengali and British background much like the author herself, Lahiri has perfectly expressed my personal feelings of guilt, virtue, love, loss, disparity and most importantly the inner conflicts and struggles I have faced.

The extent of which I could not comprehend until now.

Thank you Lahiri for understanding me better than I understood myself. Thank you for giving someone like me a voice.

Film: Roman Polanski - A Life Viewed Through Cinema Sartaj Singh Film Reviwer

Holocaust Survivor, victim of random crime, morally deprived, filmmaking genius, these are just some of the things that spring to mind when thinking about Roman Polanski. Debate over him will rear its head again because in January there is a season dedicated to his films at the BFI Southbank, complete with new prints of Chinatown and Repulsion.

If we are to look at his films first and his personal life second we would see a man who uses the art of movie making to tell his life on film. For example if we look at two very contrasting pictures one can make the logical assumption that they have thematic similarities particularly in their portrayal of the protagonists. The two films I speak of are Rosemary’s Baby (1968) and Chinatown (1972) respectively.

Here we find two people who are absolutely at the mercy of higher powers. Whether it’s actual Satanic power as Rosemary comes to learn at the end of her plight or corruption through one man and its town as Jake Gittes comes to know in the shocking and tragic ending to Chinatown. These two characters almost feel like an avatar for Polanski. It his way of expressing that during Nazi occupied Poland, one did feel absolutely helpless at the power and force that had swept the country.

But at the same time throughout his films Polanski posits that concepts such as pure evil and isolation can exist on an everyday level

and to this end there is this almost paranoid sense to his movies.

However at the same time the way he directs, we accept these concepts no matter how silly they may seem to us on an intuitive level.

A very good example of this is the beginning of his adaptation of Macbeth (1971) where we see the three witches for the first time. In typical adaptations dating back to its inception, the Witches have always been portrayed as quite metaphysical to near outlandish levels in some adaptations. However here Polanski presents them as three quite old women who just sound crazy and feel just as real as the environment they inhabit which is a washed up and dirty beach.

Macbeth can arguably be called Roman Polanski’s most personal film; the violence shockingly reflects a real life tragedy that he experienced- the death of his wife Sharon Tate at the hands of the Manson family. An example of this is the murder of King Duncan at the hands of Macbeth. In the play it takes place offstage, with Macbeth describing it along with his feelings afterwards. Whereas in the movie we see the murder in a very lingering manner that gives the impression we are seeing a real murder before our eyes and not just a scene within the context of a movie.

In addition, the film aside from adhering to the thematic elements of the original play, he also adds a rather cynical and terrifying ending not found in the original source. This being the hero of the movie who eventually overthrows Macbeth goes to the witches, suggesting that the cycle of ambition

and violence within man is never ending. As for choosing what my favourite as well what I class to be Polanski best movie I would go for Repulsion (1962) and Rosemary`s Baby respectively.

Repulsion is such a simple film but over its one hundred plus running time it achieves so much. First of all the black and white photography combined with the atmosphere that Polanski creates is unfound in many modern day films. In addition, I think in some way it was an interesting pre-cursor to the slasher genre that would emerge in the 80s, particularly with its fresh faced female protagonist played

by Catherine Deneuve in a great central performance.

As for Rosemary Baby`s perhaps the most genius thing about it is how multiply layered it feels.

It starts out as a simple movie about a couple settling into their new apartment then the wife dealing with pregnancy. While at the same time you have a sense of supernatural which is so greatly weaved within the picture. However by the end it never feels odd and still retains this great reality to it. This something very few horror movies have these days.

The film critic AO Scott summed up the movie so well in this one phrase- “Evil is always lurking in the shadows but also shows itself in friendly smiles and neighbourly gestures”.

flickr.com Profound Whatever

12

MONDAY 11TH MARCH MARCH | THE LION

Culture Video Games: Tomb Raider Preview Alex Bullock Culture Correspondant DanielDa

Square Enix need Tomb Raider, the latest in a line of re-imaginings by veteran developer Crystal Dynamics, to be a success.

Profits have plummeted, and their last major release – Hitman: Absolution – was dogged

by PR problems and some disappointing reviews. A no-holdsbarred, open environment ‘survival action’ game, as they have termed it, has the challenge of bringing back fans of the old game while expanding an already enormous audience.

I have none of the same problems. I played two Tomb Raider games on the PS1, and found them relatively enjoyable. I’m not a Square employee or a paid and pressured hack. I also haven’t played enough of the game to make a definitive judgement. But I have seen enough to worry.

Attending a presentation and Q&A at Bafta’s swanky Picadilly theatre, there was a lot to love. Studio and creative directors Darrell Gallagher and Noel Hughes spun an enthralling story of the development process across the last six years. This was a game that didn’t start out as a reboot at all, but a direct sequel to their previous effort, Tomb Raider: Underworld.

Codename ‘Ascension’ lingered in early pre-production footage, with various monsters having their limbs pinned by arrows or blown off, acrobatic combat and climbing mechanics, and a tantalising horse-riding animation. At one point, Lara escorts a child across canyons, vaulting, sliding and grappling with ease.

Battles were strafing, targetlocked affairs with the zip of a Devil May Cry. The epiphany which saw that project scrapped was not within games, but from movies. The

idea of a reboot had drifted around, but as Tomb Raider was being conceptualised, films like The Dark Knight and Casino Royale were showing what you could achieve with a classic IP. Reboots were the flavour of the year, and Crystal saw an opportunity. Concept artists in tow, they set about crafting a different vision entirely.

A video of Aron Ralston, the canyoneer immortalised in Danny Boyle’s 127 Hours, was circulated internally, and the story of the Andes flight disaster, where a group of rugby players turned to cannibalism to survive, was discussed at length. Previous games “hadn’t delivered on the sense of journey,” said Hughes. “We wanted a more human version of a hero, rather than a superhero.”

With the motto and tagline “A survivor is born” came the central axis for the entire development process. This culminated in three central pillars of gameplay – ‘dynamic traversal, desperate combat, and smart Lara’.

They aimed to dedicate a third of the game to each, but have them blending constantly. The environment would be treacherous and hostile, an “active ecosystem.” Combat would be tactical, “back against the wall” stuff. Physics puzzles would take advantage of current hardware and the scale of the game to provide a unique and roundly challenging experience.

It’s certainly a pretty game, even on Xbox. Set in the reallife Dragon’s Triangle, off the coast of Japan, it is both opulent and ravenous. Levels are fairly linear, but the terrain is such that without the controversial map, you can lose your way. It is “Lara vs the ecosystem” as much as vs the enemies that prowl the island. Where it might have lacked character, the location provides some unique

thrills. Ancient Japanese ruins and some more modern architecture mark it out from the more pedestrian ‘Indy’-fare of Uncharted. Weather and wildlife culminate with the biggest ever Tomb Raider landscapes to “retain the sense of vast beauty and history” for which it is so well known.

To drive home how much they have altered the traditional formula, we saw a trailer made for Square Enix, to mark the end of pre-production – the only people outside the company who will ever see it, so they hope.

Lara’s appearance was not finalised, monsters were prominent, movement was not as smooth, all expected. But the voice over provided the central motif. “Pretty little rich girl with the big guns. I bleed. I suffer. I make mistakes.”

“You think you know me?” I thought I did.

For all they said about it not being a game of action-packed corridors to cutscenes, for all the reassurance about the open-world nature and opt-in overlays simply opening the game up to new players, play-

ing the demo gave me a different impression. I played an earlier version to completion at last year’s London MCM and had the same problems. This one, moving from the exploration of a sun priestesses’ tomb (a ripple of recognition surfed the room with ‘Amaterasu’) and through the familiar hunting scene, culminated in Lara’s capture, and first ever human kill.

These were some of the most emotionally arresting scenes in the game, demonstrating Lara’s wonder at mythology and history; events, said Hughes and lead writer Rhianna Pratchett, which “challenge Lara’s understanding of pure science. There are things in this universe which cannot be explained.”

All of which would be very interesting if I’d seen it. What I actually played was a series of quicktime events and camera pans through linear cave paths and along woodland tracks, quicktime events which often simply prepared you for more quicktime events, like a learning curve for button mashing.

And cutscenes. Incredibly long

and frequent cutscenes, to the point where it became a guessing game as to when I’d get to play next. It plays like Lost, a plodding series of staggered discoveries, fight scenes and rendezvous’ with ship survivors. It looks beautiful, and the story seems tremendously interesting, but it barely felt like a game at all.

A lot of what the guys from Crystal said was promising, and I won’t write it off yet. There are things in the game, places to explore, which it won’t tell you exist. Story and game progression and often mirrored, so that an injury changes your approach to navigation or combat.

The story rings more of Far Cry than traditional Croft, with internal conflict and dark, knifeedge run-ins with the Russian occupants. Combat is solid, to the extent that, especially looking at what they managed with Guardians, the multiplayer could emulate Mass Effect 3′s surprise success.

Tomb Raider is a game that should excite me. It doesn’t yet.

Video Games: Tripp’s Top Tips Daniel Tripp Culture Correspondant DanielDa

All of these games are avialable on steam for under a tenner. Go out and play them!

FTL: Faster Than Light is a great title that encapsulates what was great about arcade video games. The basic graphic style and relatively simple objective – get through eight galaxies fighting off the evil ‘Rebels’ and space pirates in your own space ship – betrays and incredibly deep game with a huge number of different ran-

dom encounters. Permanent death had my rage quitting like a cod fan boy , but I’ve been back again and again to try and win the damn game. The game retails for about £6.99 on steam and is definitely worth that amount, but as with Steam if you’re willing to wait until the sale this is the sort of title that normally goes down a few quid.

Also the soundtrack is very relaxing after your ship has been blown up for the seventh time.

Bastion: Bastion is another game that you can get for a very

low retail price, but is equal in quality to many £40 titles that you find in Game. Or Tesco.

Or wherever people but physical games from these days. The game is an action rpg with the emphasis on the action, as you progress through a level it is built underneath your feet, encouraging you to wonder aimlessly around the place revealing all there is to see. The best part, however, is an adaptive commentary given by a man with an undeniably sexy voice that adapts to your actions in

ways that just about stops it from being gimmicky and actually develops itself into a great storytelling aid that doesn’t distract from game play. No stopping for twenty minutes to for question answer speeches from npcs here. Which is a good thing after playing any Bethesda title for long enough.

Closure: Now I’m not actually sure how much Closure is meant to cost as a got it the Humble Bundle, a great service that allows you to pay any amount for a selection of great games. Clo-

sure has one main game play aspect that dictates the entire game – only thing illuminated by light exist. This really messes with your head for the beginning of the game, but you soon get the hang of it – right until the game decides you’re getting too cocky and throws in some new way of messing with you.

Its pretty impressive that by just keeping to one mechanic a game can keep you interested and keep on coming up with new ways to mess with your head.

11

MONDAY 11TH MARCH | THE LION

Culture Art: Exhibition Roundup John Woodhouse 2nd Year Postgraduate At the Royal Academy there is a free exhibition of Constable, Gainsborough, Turner and the Making of the Landscape. The first major exhibition of the work of Mariko Mori in London for 14 years is at Burlington Gardens and it is called Rebirth. A major exhibition Manet: Portraying Life opens at the Academy on January 26th and is sure to be worth a visit.

At Tate Modern A Bigger Splash: Painting after Performance begins with David Hockney’s iconic painting and a short film.

The problem with performance

art is that you want to see a performance! Looking at a film or just seeing the aftermath is not quite the same. Student ticket £8.50. A major retrospective of Roy Lichtenstein the pop artist opens there on February 21st.

If you are visiting Tate Modern (nearest underground is Southwark and easily walkable from Waterloo or St Paul’s cathedral) do not miss The Tanks – all free.

At Tate Britain Schwitters in Britain is the first major exhibitionto examine the work of the late Kurt Schwitters, one of the most important artists of European modernism. Students £9.50 and opening 30 January.

If you have not been to this gal-

lery which is free for a while, changes are afoot! Looking at the view opens on 12 February.

At the Queen’s gallery, Buckingham Palace, The Northern Renaissance: Durer to Holbein has been highly recommended.

Student ticket £8.50 or you can get a combined ticket with the Royal Mews. Advance booking recommended. The exhibition is on until April 14.

The National Portrait Gallery is always a free treasure trove of interest and you can see the controversial first portrait of the Duchess of Cambridge. There are currently exhibitions about American poets and presidents.

Next door is the wonderful free

National Gallery in Trafalgar Square. Barocci: Brilliance and Grace opens February 27th. In June there will be an exhibition of Vermeer: Music and Love.

The British Library at St Pancras has a major exhibition until 2 April: Mughal India: Art, Culture and Empire. Students only £5 and advance booking recommended.

People have been flocking to the Hollywood costume exhibition at the Victoria and Albert museum. Light from the East: New photography looks to be worth a visit and while there do not miss the superb mediaeval and Renaissance galleries – the finest in the world and free!

The Courtauld Gallery at Somerset House, The Strand is free for students (with a student card) and Becoming Picasso Paris 1901 opens on 14 February The Gallery has a superb collection of Impressionist paintings.

A No. 9 bus will take nearly all the way there! www.roh.org.uk/cinema has details of performances showing in local cinemas which are relays from the Royal Opera House.

Wed 20 Feb :Eugene Onegin Thurs 28 March: Alice’s adventures in Wonderland

Wikipedia Creative Commons

IF YOU HAVE A PASSION FOR FILM, LITERATURE, THEATRE, MUSIC, OPERA, PHOTOGRAPHY, FOOD, SHAMPOO, ANYTHING AT ALL, LET US KNOW! WE’D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR OPINIONS! CONTACT DAN TRIPP at culture@theheythroplion.co.uk

14

Societies Sports and

MONDAY 11TH MARCH | THE LION

Edited by Rory “Sports and Societies” Phillips

societies@theheythroplion.co.uk

Schola Cantorum Joey Draycott Head of Schola Cantorum

We had a great start to the year having been invited to sing at Westminster Cathedral Hall for the start of a series of lectures, the first of which was given by Archbishop Vincent Nichols on the theme of faith. Seven new singers have joined this year making a good number, however if there are any budding tenors about please make yourself known.

The Advent and Christmas season is the busiest time of the year for singers with carols galore and a wealth of beautiful musical settings to sing. We were asked back to St Mary’s in Kingston for a carol concert which was tremendous fun, with choral pieces sung by the choir and a selection of solo pieces, finishing with a medley of

Christmas songs arranged by Justin Harmer. This started off with a string of appearances in Michaelmas term; with carols aboard the M. V. Erasmus for the Ball on Monday. Not without its slight last minute hiccough, the solution for which due thanks must go to the talented spontaneous sopranos, who manifested themselves at my realising I didn’t have any of the regulars. Bravo!

At the College’s request we provided a little interlude of entertainment this year at the Town Hall for the College’s Graduation Ceremony. A short little program of Bach’s O little one Sweet and Tallis’ If ye love me was sufficient. Being given our very own Green Room (and it was indeed a green room) backstage at Kensington Town Hall, and our share of bubbly and canapé, it was a treat.

The focus of the choir’s work is the end of term’s Vespers celebration,

Heythrop V RVC 2nds Matt Holland Events Officer Two goals and a man of the match display from debutant Daniel Rodger helped Heythrop 1st XI to a convincing 4-1 victory on Wednesday 30th of January against Royal Veterinary College 2nd. An own goal and a strike from substitute David Roberts separated Rodger’s efforts, with RVC only able to add a consolation goal after half-time.

The poor quality of the pitch led to a scrappy midfield battle, with neither team able to technically dominate. Despite this, Matt Holland and Francisco Mota tenacious attitudes in the centre of midfield limited RVC’s forward opportunities to almost nothing throughout the encounter, with Rahul Prashar and Jaime Tapia comfortably able to cope with any forays close to the Heythrop goal. This hard work eventually paid dividends midway through the first half, when a free kick down the left channel from Rodger caught the wind, catching the RVC ‘keeper off guard and looping into the top corner. As the game continued to follow a similar pattern, a second goal for Heythrop was inevitable, and a corner into

offering an opportunity to sing some beautiful settings in their liturgical context from the wealth of the choral tradition. Presided by Fr Michael Holman and with various readings read by the congregation, it made for a fitting celebration with which to end the term. This was followed by Carols in Milleret House and our annual gig at The Churchill Arms singing carols round the fire for the locals.

I look forward to the coming year: The Chaplaincy will keep you informed of the liturgical diary and the college Vespers service this term.

There are also things to look forward to outside of College! We are to join with the choir at St Margaret’s, Lee, for a Lenten Evensong service at the end of February and planning ahead for our summer concert which will explore music from the northern European renaissance period.

Donkey Club Graham Abbott Donkey Club Back on the 11th of December Heythrop’s Donkey Club made its way over to Bloomsbury for a special Christmas event: a beer tasting session in the cellar of the Adnams store. Classically at the end of the year, the Donkey Club would be invited over to the house of our founder, Roy Dorey (whom I’m sure many of you out there will remember fondly) for a Christmas meal and naturally, a few bottled ales. So it seemed only fitting to go to town on an event to celebrate the festive season.

Despite the absence and tardiness of certain society members who hit the sauce a little too hard on the HSU’s boat party the night before, we got right to it. We discovered the idiosyncrasies of beers such as their fruity Christmas beer Shingle Shells, Explorer, Spindrift, Ghost Ship and Broadside, which is the signature product of Adnams;

looking at how the difference in use of hops and malt makes them distinct.

The final beer of our stay at Adnams was a celebratory beer called Sole Bay. Crafted for the 350th anniversary of the brewery in 2010; it comes in a wine bottle with a cork (because a celebration isn’t complete without the popping of a cork) and has a notable hint of lavender, designed to mimic champagne.

We rounded out the night with a few pints at the Bree Louise up in Euston, a classic Donkey Club pub with the glorious sight of a dozen barrels behind the bar, each having a different little-known ale to sample.

Beer of the night: Adnams Innovation – A very lively (6.7%) IPA that was well received by all for its excellent balance between its bitterness and fruitiness; brewed using a blend of hops from England, America and Slovenia. And it’s not just us that were impressed, it won 1st prize at the World Beer Awards in 2008.

the RVC penalty area was bundled home by a back tracking defender under pressure from several Heythrop attackers, giving the home side a deserved 2-0 advantage at the break. Heythrop continued to control the match after the break, but showed signs of complacency in letting RVC attack with more purpose early on, resulting in a deep cross being dispatched by the oncoming striker. Being pegged back seemed to focus Heythrop however, and responded within 10 minutes, when Roberts struck home with his first touch after having come on from the bench after a ricochet fortuitously presented the ball to Roberts’ left foot. This third goal appeared to deflate the visitors, and Heythrop could have added further to their total by exploiting the wings, but failed to take advantage of some promising forward positions. The result was given a more realistic look 10 minutes from the end, as Rodgers stormed past a couple of challenges and comfortably lifted the ball over the oncoming goalkeeper to round off a very impressive debut, and lift Heythrop to third place in the LUSL League table.

ATTENTION SOCIETY MEMBERS! WE WANT YOUR ARTICLES, REPORTS, AND ANYTHING ELSE - SEND THEM TO societies@theheythroplion.co.uk

15

MONDAY 11TH MARCH | THE LION

SCHOLASTICISM Peter O’Neil President of Philosophy Society The scholastic period has a reputation for being boring, stupid, repetitive and obsessed with consensus. As an avid mediaevalist, I feel it an obligation to throw out a few fun facts about the middle ages as a taster for those who might otherwise be more tempted to read only famous and popular contemporary philosophers and theologians, like Arnauld or Thomas Hill Green. I hope these short introductions illustrate that back in the good old days, professors were just as petty, arrogant, obstinate and downright peculiar as they are today.

Peter Abelard (1079-1142), was famous not only as a Philosopher, but also as a poet and musician.

He was the first major Philosopher to regard the universals as merely words, a theory called nominalism.

Abelard, somewhat a scoundrel with the ladies, became romantically involved with one of his pupils, Heloise, and was castrated by her uncle Fulbert. Fulbert then forced Heloise to become a nun, and Abelard retired to a monastery. Their illegitimate child was ‘blessed’ with the name Astrolabe.

Caeser Cremonini (1550-1631), professor of Philosophy at Padua where his rival Galileo also taught.

A keen Aristotelian, Cremonini famously refused to look through a telescope, because he believed the moon ‘could only be a perfect sphere’, as this is what all heavenly bodies are. Cremonini also noticed an obvious and critical flaw in heliocentricism, he noted that the Earth couldn’t move around the sun, because the definition of the Earth is‘that which does not move’.

Like Galileo he was also called by the inquisition, in his case for Atheism. Cremonini, aware that he was an exceptional philosopher and beyond reproach as an intellectual simply refused to turn up, and as Padua was outside of the inquisitions jurisdiction, nothing happened. He was he deeply resented

by Galileo, who named his character ‘Simplicito’ after Cremonini.

It did not help that Cremonini received twice Galileo’s salary.

Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253), was Bishop of Lincoln, as well as a lecturer in science, Philosophy and Theology. Grosseteste is famous as a forerunner in scientific method for his use of hypothesis, verification and falsification in regards to creating scientific theories, although he was not consistent in applying this principle. Eerily, Grosseteste argues in De Luce that the universe was created by God as a singularity of light, which then exploded in all directions. This sounds temptingly similar to the Big Bang Theory, proposed by Fr. Georges Lemaitre SJ in 1927, but we should not leap to conclusions.

Count Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494), was the ultimate

Renaissance man. At the age of twenty three, Pico had written a colossal tome containing 900 thesis’s, ranging from magic to philosophy, and an accompanying text, the Oration on the Dignity of Man, which has been nicknamed the ‘Manifesto of the Renaissance.’

A wealthy man, Pico offered to pay for every philosopher and theologian in Europe to come and debate with him, in Rome, with the Pope as judge. The Pope, naturally, was not pleased and put a stop to this ‘great debate’. Pico never recovered from this, was poisoned soon after and died at the early age of thirty-one.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), was a Dominican and Regent Master in Theology at Paris. Despite being successfully condemned for heresy in 1277, and his works being declared against ex cathedera, Thomas has gone on to be the most influential and highly regarded Scholastic, and Doctor of the Church. His most famous work, a beginners introduction to theology, the summa theologicae, was not written by him, but by Reginald of Piperno, whilst Thomas dictated, as was the norm in his day. His famous ‘five ways’ occupy less than 1/2000 of the work, and are often taken out of context – for example,

SPORTS & SOCIETIES they are often mistaken for arguments for God’s existence by those unfamiliar with Scholastic methodology. Thomas was a large and quiet man by nature, and was known as the ‘dumb ox’ whilst a student.

He is more favourably nicknamed ‘the angelic doctor’. Whilst he is famous for saying when near death ‘Reginald, I cannot [continue], all that I have written seems like straw to me’, his last words were, in fact a commentary on the Song of Solomon.

Henry of Ghent (1217-1293), was Regent Master of Theology at Paris. Henry disliked the Aristotelian philosophy of many of his contemporaries, and was suspicious of the new mendicant religious orders, the Dominicans and Franciscans.

Henry was part of a commission which in 1277 successfully condemned Aristotelian philosophy, including some of Thomas Aquinas teachings, for heresy. This marked the end of the fifty years of Aristotelian Scholasticism (1227-1277).

Nevertheless, the Scholastics never fully threw off their reputation for Aristotelianism, despite its dominance lasting for less than 10% of the Scholastic period.

John Duns Scotus (1266-1308), was a Franciscan lecturer in Philosophy and Theology at both

Oxford and Paris. Famous for his subtle distinctions, he received the nickname of ‘the subtle doctor’, however this subtlety was later to be seen as sophistry and his works were mostly destroyed at Oxford.

Because his complex thought came to be seen as stupid and obstinate, the conical hat (which he was fond of wearing) came to be called the Duns hat – which is the origin of the modern dunce hat. Scotus is most famous for his defence of Mary’s immaculate conception, which not only contradicts Thomas Aquinas, but is also one of only seven infallible decelerations by a Pope in the entire history of the Catholic Church. This is called the ‘Franciscan victory’. Unsurprisingly, the equally obscure Martin Heidegger wrote his dissertation on Scotus, and his successor Thomas of Erfurt.

William of Ockham (1288-1348), never graduated from university.

He also never shook off his nickname as the ‘worthy beginner’.

Although famous for ‘Ockham’s Razor’ he in fact neither created the principle, nor ever used it. The principle in its famous form comes from his predecessor Duns Scotus, who attributed it to Aristotle. Even more strangely, Ockham is known for arguing that it is not simpler

for there to be one God. Practically communist, Ockham denounced private property, called the Pope a heretic, and fearing execution spent the last twenty years of his life in self imposed exile in the Holy Roman Empire.

Fortunately, such nonsense has forever been put to rest by more sensible and critical recent thinkers, such as Malebranche (16381715). Malebranche, a rationalist Philosopher, corrected all these obvious errors, and pointed out that God is responsible for all our ideas, is necessary for any interaction between mind and body and is the only possible explanation of every problem in philosophy that ever has happened, ever will happen, or might happen. No doubt Malebranche would have gone on to solve all other problems in philosophy systematically, if it wasn’t for his unfortunately early death at the young age of seventy seven.

If any of these ideas interested, confused or disgusted you, please come along to some of our Philosophy Society events, where we discuss all and every area and school of philosophy. Join us on Facebook or send me an angry email at philosophy@heythrop.su

Wikipedia Creative Commons

The heyThrop STudenT Survey The National Student Survey (NSS) is only available for final year undergraduate students but here at Heythrop, we’re eager to hear from ALL students about what matters to you, what should improve and what works well at Heythrop. All students, other than those eligible for the National Student Survey, will therefore be invited to participate in the Heythrop Student Survey. This survey mirrors the NSS and runs at the same time.

Check your Heythrop email for a link to the survey Survey closes: 30th April 2013 All students completing the surveys will be eligible to claim a £2.50 Dining room credit and can opt to be entered into a prize draw to win an HSU Summer Ball ticket or a £50 Amazon voucher (5 of each prize in total).

53631_HEYTHROP_LionNewspaper.indd 3

11/02/2013 17:01

K

A E

Designed by Harry Butters, University of Huddersfield. NUS Promotional Poster Competition Winner

P U

P S

Scan here to take part in the survey

Do you want your opinions on your student* experience to be heard?

Take part in the National Student Survey It’s quick to complete and you’ll be helping prospective students make the right choices of where and what to study

*You are eligible for the NSS if you are a final year undergraduate or are on a flexible part-time programme. If your final year cannot be easily predicted, you will be surveyed during your fourth year of study. If you were due to be in your final year in 2013, but have withdrawn or are repeating your penultimate year, you are also eligible to take part.

www.thestudentsurvey.com 53631_HEYTHROP_LionNewspaper.indd 4

A3_NSS_poster_Master_FINAL.indd 1

11/02/2013 17:01

26/11/2012 13:00