Meeting commenced: 8.50pm

No Committee Reports

Motions:

1. Generator and Gazebo/Party Tent Motion

This JCR notes that:

1) the entz ban hits us after 4th week.
2) there are 8 weeks in a term.
3) this means we have 4 weeks lacking entz in college.
4) the weather in Oxford during term time tends to peak in the last 4 weeks of Trinity.
5) we have no means of generating electricity outside.
6) if it drizzles (as it tends to do in England) we have nowhere to find shelter (except under trees) if we're outdoors.
7) the JCR President has held discussions with the Deans' ensuring that college will allow outdoor events after the entz ban.

This JCR believes that:

1) we should have the ability to have outdoor parties and barbeques with music and shelter and lights.
2) that we have made considerable changes to out expenditure over the last year to ensure that we have enough money to buy things the JCR can use and enjoy for many years.
3) that a generator and gazebo/party tent (depending upon the size of the chosen shelter, the title seems to change, a party tent generally being larger than a gazebo) would be excellent additions to the JCR facilities, and would enable entz teams to hold a number of events outdoors.
4) because of the costs of running a generator and the safety implications, we should ensure that the facility is not abused and so impose strict guidlines as to its use, with restrictions on how many times it can be used and who is entitled to operate it.

This JCR resolves to:

1) mandate the JCR President, Food and Facilities Officer and Entz Team to conduct the relevant research get the best possible deal on a good quality generator and gazebo appropriate for the needs of the JCR.
2) grant them the right to spend up to £1300 on said facilities.

Proposed by Varun Chandra
Seconded by Chris North

Amendment: Since we do not have quorum we will ask for £1000 in this motion and get the rest through future GMs.

Proposition:

It costs £800 to hire a generator for a weekend. We would use it lots and so justify the expenditure, and have safety guidelines to ensure that it is not misused. College have already agreed to store the fuel for us.

SFQs:

• Do you need special training to use the generator?

  • No, it’s very basic – you just need to add fuel and turn it on.

• What would it be used for? Music? Lights?

  • It will generate enough power for music and perhaps lights/amps etc. It produces 4600 Watts, and only produces about 70 decibels of sound if we get a sound shield too – a reasonable amount.

• Have we considered security, since generators often get stolen?

  • It will be covered by College insurance and kept in the same place as their expensive kit.

• How much will it cost with extras like sound shields and adaptors?

  • It will all be within £1300. The generator itself is £800.

• Will college have any problems with us having outdoor events?

  • We can’t have anything within college, but Bat Willow or Holywell Ford is fine as long as we finish by midnight.

• Will the tent be up only when there are events or all the time?

  • It would get pretty nasty if left up all the time, and we are not allowed to put up semi-permanent structures, so it would be used just to protect equipment during events.

• Could we rent the tent to JCR members when not in use for events?

  • Perhaps.

• How much does fuel cost and how regularly will we need to buy it?

  • Hopefully it will be free if Varun asks the Home Bursar nicely.

• Who will carry the equipment back after events?

  • Entz Reps or the person in charge of the event.

• How big a tent?

  • 7.5 x 3.5 metres – enough for all of the kit and some people.

• How much would it cost for a bigger one? What if it rains?

  • The area in Bat Willow Meadow is not that big, and this is about the limit for the tent size.

No opposition – motion passes nem con.

2. Anti-Semitism at the NUS motion

This JCR Notes:

1) That a comment was made in a SOAS Student Union meeting saying that burning down a synagogue is a rational act.
2) That NUS, when asked, refused to condemn that statement, saying it had "every faith" in the SOAS Student Union to deal with the matter, despite previous complaints to NUS about this Union's attitude towards its Jewish students.
3) That over five months ago serious complaints were lodged about anti-Semitic comments made by a NUS member in a public meeting.
4) That a leaflet claiming that Jews were adherents to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", a notorious and particularly offensive anti-Semitic forgery, was circulated widely at the NUS Conference 2005.
5) That NUS leadership remained inactive for two days and allowed this leaflet to be distributed, and that it continued to be distributed even after it was belatedly banned.
6) That this is in obvious contrast to the speed with which NUS normally acts to suspend potentially racist or homophobic pamphlets (by comparison, an Alliance for Workers' Liberty pamphlet was banned for being Islamophobic within two hours of its appearance).
7) That there has not been any form of official response to the above complaints.

JCR Further Notes:

8) The resignation of Luciana Berger (NUS NEC member, co-Convener of the Anti-Racism/Anti-Fascism Campaign) because she "cannot and will not be part of a National Executive Committee while some of its members continue to turn a blind eye to Jewish student suffering."
9) That, alongside Ms Berger, her Jewish colleagues, Mitch Simmons (NUS NEC member, co-convener Ethical and Environmental campaign) and Jonny Warren (Conference Steering), also resigned.
10) That neither Kat Fletcher, NUS president and president-elect, nor James Lloyd, NUS National Secretary, made no attempt to provide an explanation for what had happened.

JCR Believes:
               
1) That contempt, hatred and discrimination on the basis of gender, creed, race, ethnicity, nationality, or sexuality has no place in our student union or our national union.
2) That anti-Semitism is as intolerable as any other form of hatred.
3) That NUS lack of interest in dealing with these incidents seems to betray an attitude of indifference towards anti-Semitism, and is in stark opposition to their policy of giving racism no platform. 
4) That JCR cannot be associated with a body which treats anti-Semitism as a lesser form of racism.

JCR Resolves:

1) To write to Kat Fletcher, NUS President, demanding a satisfactory explanation for the above described events, and enclosing this motion.
2) To copy the letter to all other members of the NUS NEC.
3) To write to James Lloyd, the National Secretary of NUS calling for an extraordinary national conference before November 2005 to discuss racism and anti-Semitism in the student movement, and what went wrong on this occasion, and to encourage other Constituent Member Unions to do the same.
4) To consider JCR's long-term position vis-à-vis NUS should the response continue to be unsatisfactory.
5) To demonstrate our support of and solidarity with Jewish members of the NUS by copying any related letters of complaint and the formal request for a conference to Union of Jewish Students.

Addendum: The proposition understand that the JCR has voted to disaffiliate from the NUS from next year, but since the JCR is still affiliated for the year, the sentiment behind the motion still applies.

Proposed by: Gabrielle Jaffe
Seconded by: Hussein Omar

Proposition:

• Self-explanatory motion.

SFQs:

• What was the context in which these actions took place?

  • It was the title of a talk given to a room of about 20 people. It is one of many such incidents, effectively endorsed by the NUS.

• What is SOAS?

  • The School of Oriental and African Studies, part of the University of London.

• Do they know who was behind it?

  • A group with a stall at the NUS fair. That’s not the issue, but the fact that it was allowed at all.

• What is NUS policy on who can speak at these functions?

  • Not entirely sure, but in the past they have cracked down immediately after complaints.

• Were those responsible personally affiliated with the NUS or just there?

  • Don’t know.

Debate:

• Opposition speech – it is a bit of an overreaction to something we don’t know the details of. The problem is that they did not stop it in time, and we do not know the formalities required to do so.

• The wording of this motion at the end is ambiguous.

• We are asking for an explanation for the NUS’s conduct, and are entitled to do so. We are not making any ridiculous claims, but showing solidarity with victims of racism.

• NUS is very complex. Normally the procedure would be to have an emergency executive meeting. We don’t know if they did this time, but the final outcome was not the same as in similar past cases.

• We know something went wrong, since they didn’t act quickly enough or indeed at all. We just want to know why.

• The real problem was the distribution of anti-Semitic leaflets, not the provocative talk title. We should therefore drop the latter from the motion, since it brings up issues of freedom of speech.

• The issue is that there would be a greater outcry if a different minority were targeted. Those responsible were effectively inciting those present to racial hatred.

• Similar talk titles have been aimed at eg Muslims in the past without there being this reaction from us or others.

• But there should have been the same reaction.

• The motion is too specific – should question any future similar incident.

• The motion already targets this incident and racism as a whole.

• It is clear that we don’t really know what happened and all this motion involves is finding out. We should not be debating the specifics of it now.

Summary in proposition: This is a clear instance of racism with insufficient corrective action. By asking for an explanation we may shed light on other racist incidents.

Summary in opposition: The NUS hasn’t really done anything wrong. They did react, so there is no need to ask for an explanation. This will just increase NUS bureaucracy.

Vote on motion:

• For: 29

• Against: 1

• Abstentions: 5

Motion passes

3. JCR Idols Motion

This JCR notes that

1)      Magdalen is a college full of inspired people.

2)      Often we draw our inspiration from other JCR members.

3)      We are also inspired by lots of people who have achieved great things in their life despite the fact they were never JCR members.

4)      We don’t have enough photos on the walls of the JCR.

This JCR believes that

1)      With its rowing memorabilia, the bar is an incredibly inspirational place.

2)      It would be nice if the JCR could be equally inspirational.

3)      One of the ways to make the JCR more inspirational would be to put up some pictures of the people who inspire us.

4)      It would be nice to feel some solidarity with these people.

This JCR resolves to

1)      Mandate the JCR Vice President Ed Young, an idol in his own right, to collect suggestions for possible JCR idols and to make a shortlist for the next GM.

2)      Hold a vote at the next GM to decide which lucky people should become JCR idols for the next year.

3)      Mandate the JCR Art Rep Nathalie Guinamard to find and frame photos of these idols

4)      Mandate the JCR President Varun Chandra to write to these idols on headed note paper inviting them to become honorary members of our JCR and inviting them to attend a meal held in their honour at the Kashi.

5)      Mandate Ed Young to change the constitution so that new JCR idols are elected each Trinity Term.

Proposed: Chris North

Seconded: Varun Chandra

Proposition:

• Rowing’s actually overrated – that bit of the motion was a lie. We have lovely JCR rooms now, but there is lots of empty wall space. We should find photos of people we like to be honorary JCR members – anyone we like. Just a bit of fun.

SFQs:

• Who’s on the wall now?

  • Oliver Reed – Barney Rowe proposed a similar motion once.

• Could we have their picture at the Kashi with us if they refused to come?

  • They should be considered outcasts if they refuse.

• What’s the procedure if they refuse?

  • We should have a heroes board and a villains board.

• Can they be existing JCR members?

  • That’s not really the point of the idea.

• Can we put up the letters we get from those who refuse?

  • Framing’s expensive…

Debate:

• Proposed Amendment:

  • There should be a veto on rowers amongst the JCR Idols.

  • Amendment rejected.

  • Vote:

    • For – 13

    • Against – 8

    • Abstentions – 6

  • Amendment passes.

• Will Brown is already a legend. However, we could still make him a JCR Idol too.

• Will unauthorised photos put up in the dead of night be taken down?

• They won’t be official idols.

• Idols should be suggested to Ed Young, and at next GM the person proposing them can give a short speech on why their nominee should be an idol. We can pick the top 4, say, on the basis of a vote.

• We can’t rename the JCR rooms.

• Where on the wall will the pictures go, and in what sort of frames?

• They should be like the ones in Hall. Or pin-up style bits of A4. We can have 4 simple frames next to the chocolate machine.

• The idols will be changed/maintained every year.

• There can be a potential Idol No Confidence Vote if they go downhill over the course of the year.

• There will be a first-come-first-serve sign up to decide which JCR members get to go to dinner with anyone who accepts the offer.

• We will aim to get signed photos from them.

• It would be too much work to ask the Art Rep to do stained glass windows of the idols.

• There can be an award ceremony in the Bar before the dinner so that everyone can see their new idol.

Vote:

• For – Everyone

• Against – No-one

• Abstentions – Don’t know.

Motion passes

Meeting closed: 9.45pm