Letters to the Editors
I ye Blackbeard, as the political officer of the Jolly Roger Gang, send you the following cominique from our military wing.
The Jolly Roger gang admits full responsibility for the attack on LMH of Sunday 26th May, The salting of LMH Hockey pitch and the planting of our flag were carried out without aid from the LMH community and as such, reprisals against the native graduate population would be contrary to international law. We demand the following;
To be in addition to the customary release of all political prisoners held by LMH.
That the JCR President of that aforementioned college, write an open letter to your newspaper admitting the following;
That LMH is in fact a very silly college that no one has ever heard of filled with some very silly undergraduates.
That Hippos are way cooler than crocodiles
That thou shalt not steal is in fact one of the Ten Commandments.
That no one ever thought of making a movie, entitled 'The Undergraduate'.
This is our price for a ceasefire, and until we read such a letter in one of your quality newspapers, malum graduatorum will continue.
x
Ma'ams,
I regret to inform you about a serious breach of your duty as editors of this fine student publication. I am referring to of course the coverage of the new Star Wars film which your reporter branded "hollow", "woeful" and "utterly abysmal". I couldn't agree with his sentiments more, however under the Terrorism Act of 2000, the incitement to religious hatred is a criminal offence. The recent census has just confirmed that 'Jedi' is an official religion, and your subjection of the spiritual leader of this religion, Yoda, to charges that he is a 'disfigurement and embarrassment' I believe makes your paper liable to criminal proceedings.
I (and my expert legal team) will of course forget all about this small oversight on your behalf if this letter is deemed the 'best letter' and I receive a pair of free cinema tickets,
Michael Girling, Teddy Hall
[You are welcome - Eds]
Dear Editors,
It is with great dismay that I read your editorial 'Life & Death' (23 May), which is a shameless example of you towing OUSU's policies. It would seem to me that OUSU's official "promoting choice" stance (being neutral on the issue of abortion) is entirely right and proper given that it is there to represent the interests of all students. By "promoting choice" it might be expected that OUSU would publicise a wide spectrum of groups which cater for student needs, by giving an impartial description of each and thereby allowing the student to decide which to go to for advice. But no! OUSU have decided that by "pro-choice", they actually mean it is okay for broadly pro-abortion groups such as Marie Stopes and Brook to be advertised in their literature and website, but not okay to include details of broadly pro-life groups such as Life. And the reason for this? Because Life is, apparently, 'directive' when they talk about the dangers and alternatives to abortion.
Not only is this extremely patronising to the intelligence of students, but it also makes a complete mockery of OUSU's "pro-choice"stance by claiming to be in favour of choice whilst concomitantly refusing students access to a full choice.
Peter Casey, Merton
Dear Editors,
Jenny Allott's feature on OUSU's ban on Life advertising has struck me by its exaggerated predictions. While few Oxford students facing pregnancy might decide to consult Life for advice, it is inaccurate to state "the helpline provided by Life is unlikely to be a first port of call for any student." Any pregnant pro-life student would be likely to consult Life, for pro-life women facing unplanned pregnancy feel anguish too. Those women students uncertain of their choice have the right, in a pluralistic democracy, to be fully informed of the existence of all useful sources of support, wherever they stand on the pro-life/pro-choice spectrum. If a student consults Life, she will be aware of its standpoint from its name. The OUSU ban on Life advertising suggests female students in Oxford need protecting from what they can deduce for themselves, or that they are too stupid to work out Life's views from its name. Bias in your paper and OUSU's pro-abortion stance represent a paternalism - a 'directive' attitude which is sharply at odds with the nominal 'choice' OUSU and the OxStu try to promote.
Elizabeth Stubbins, Exeter
Dear Editors,
Henry Lobb's defence of the monarchy is bizarre (23 May). In bringing up 18th century events to justify his 21st century prejudices about France and the French, he cannot deflect us from the truth.
Monarchy and the inherent privilege that it encompasses, is a relic, is divisive and has no part in the continuing evolution of true democracy in the 21st century.
Alexander Clark, Somerville
Ms Benton and Mr Smith's letter complaining about the "tacky" and "racist" nature of the Letter from America column merely serves to propagate the stereotype of Americans as humourless. But perhaps they fail to see the irony.
Shreena Kotecha, St. Hilda's
Letters may be edited. Please keep length to a minimum. The author of the best letter will receive a pair of free tickets to see the film of their choice at the Phoenix.
6th Jun 2002