26 Feb 2014 | Academic Freedom, Comment, Guest Post, Religion and Culture, United Kingdom
Robin Thicke’s Blurred Lines song has been banned in at least 20 student unions after it was released in March 2013. (Image: George Weinstein/Demotix)
I consider myself to be privileged to have the job that I have-I am a university lecturer who teaches Popular Music Culture to undergraduates and post-graduates. This is a subject that is popular among students because the majority of them like music and have an opinion on it. What I love most about my job is the range of interesting conversations my students and I have around popular music and its impact on culture, politics and society.
Music is ubiquitous and it touches people of all cultures, classes and creeds in a multitude of ways. What comes out of the discussions I have highlights both the joy and the anger it can evoke. Some of those discussions can bring forward some sensitive, awkward and challenging opinions and issues but what they do succeed in doing is highlighting issues that we as adults can explore, discuss, argue, rationalise and at time agree to differ on-but in a mature and accepting way, appreciating that we are all different.
So during my lecture on popular music and gender back in November 2013 I opened up a discussion around Robin Thicke’s summer release “Blurred Lines”. I feel no real need to go into any great detail about the fastest selling digital song in history and biggest single hit of 2013. Why? Because the controversy surrounding this song, such as misogynistic positioning with “rapey” lyrics that excuse rape and promote non-consensual sex and, among many other accusations, the promotion of “lad culture”, is abundant on the internet.
My students’ views on this song, and accompanying video mixed with both females and males defending the song and Thicke’s counter argument of it – promoting feminism, it being tongue in cheek and a disposable pop song – to those who, again both male and female, just wanted to castrate him for putting women’s rights and equality back into the dark ages.
Now the scene in the lecture theatre had been set I wanted to garner from them views on what I considered to be equally, if not more important – the issue that over 20 university student unions in the UK had banned the song from being played in their student union bars and union promoted events. This includes the prevention of in-house and visiting DJs playing it on student union premises and ,in some cases, the song not being aired on student union radio and TV stations’ playlists. In their defence the majority of these universities decided to ban after complaints from some of their students, but I am yet to determine whether all these universities reached this decision after an open and democratic process of consensus through voting or otherwise.
What I did find interesting among the many statements from presidents and vice-presidents of the student unions was one given to the New Musical Express, in November 2013, by Kirsty Haigh, the vice president of Edinburgh University Student Association.
The decision to ban ‘Blurred Lines’ from our venues has been taken as it promotes an unhealthy attitude towards sex and consent. EUSA has a policy on zero tolerance towards sexual harassment, a policy to end lad culture on campus and a safe space policy-all of which this song violates”.
However what Haigh does not go on to explain is exactly how this song does that. I am also intrigued by the comment about a policy to end ”lad culture” as Haigh does not allude to a clearly defined set of parameters specifying what counts as ”lad culture/banter”. One might ask if identifying a specific gender (lad) is this not targeting and discriminating against that gender?
I am struggling to find what constitutes ”lad culture” as opinions differ, however the National Union of Students’ That’s What She Said report published in March 2013 defines it as: “a group or ‘pack’ mentality residing in activities such as sport and heavy alcohol consumption and ‘banter’ which was often sexist, misogynistic, or homophobic”. But does lad culture equate to sexual harassment-is there a connection or is this creating guilt by association? Some critics claim that ”lad culture” was a postmodern transformation of masculinity, an ironic response to ”girl power” that had developed during the noughties.
Allie Renison’s article Blurred lines: Why can’t women dance provocatively and still be empowered?, published in The Telegraph in July 2013, states that “Teenage girls and grown women spend countless hours confiding in each other about the finer details of physical intimacy, and I can safely say that even without a sex-obsessed pop culture this would still be the case.”
This has to some degree been confirmed by one of my students who is a member of the university girls’ hockey team and girls’ football team. She says that they go out as a group, taking part in activities such as sport and heavy alcohol consumption and banter which is often sexist and misandry and involves intimate commentary on the male anatomy and men’s sexual prowess.
So would that then constitute “ladette” culture or “girl power” culture? Do EUSA have a policy to end ladette culture on their campus?
But this isn’t really the core issue here; the issue is around censorship on campus, what constitutes a fair and balanced approach to these issues and where you draw the lines. Thirty years ago student unions were complaining about, and rallying against, censorship-now they are the ones doing the censoring. So where does this leave the issue of censorship?
Starting with music, has Blurred Lines been singled out or do those twenty university student unions have a clear policy on banning songs that might include Prodigy’s Smack My Bitch Up, Jimi Hendrix’s Hey Joe (condoning the shooting of women who cheat on their men), Robert Palmer’s Addicted To Love (the lyrics could be seen to suggest date rape), Rolling Stones’ Under My Thumb, or Britney Spear’s Hit Me Baby One More Time? The list could go on and on, including songs that incite violence, racism or revolution. Do student unions around the country have concise and definitive lists of songs that should be banned or censored or is it a matter for a small group of elected people? And when you leave a group of people to act as moral arbiters then how do you control their decision making power?
Did we not collectively settle this matter in the 90s? Didn’t we conclude that outrage over pop music is a music marketer’s dream and inevitably increases sales for the artist? Aren’t popular music lyrics supposed to be challenging, full of danger and ambiguity? And do we only stop at popular music?
It could be argued that Mozart’s Don Giovanni revels in the actions of a rapist as does Britten’s Rape of Lucretia, and what of literature, do we ban Nabokov’s Lolita, Oscar Wilde’s Salome? Shouldn’t student unions be picketing concert halls, storming the libraries and art collections of universities and start demanding the removal of offensive material or at worst the burning of books and paintings in homage to a misguided Ray Bradbury envisioned cultural pogrom? If you are going to start banning or censoring cultural artefacts then please at least have some sort of consistency otherwise you leave yourself open to criticism.
So is this censorship? I would argue it is. If policy prevents a visiting DJ from playing a particular song at a student union bar, because some people do not approve of it, then that is censorship. I myself do not disagree with the criticism of the lyrical content of Blurred Lines, or condone them, though one could argue about their potential polysemic interpretation. What this highlights is perhaps an inconsistency in the processes of censorship by the student union.
Working in a university, I strongly believe that one of the core purposes of the academy is to create a space to allow young adults, on their journey of personal development, to explore their own opinions and prejudices, while considering those of others. A space where they can hear a multitude of views and draw their own conclusions from them; engage in constructive debate, work these issues through. Universities, of all places, should foster a culture of free speech and free expression wherever reasonably expected. Yes, there are always going to be challenges to what is appropriate and acceptable, whatever those challenges are the banning or censoring of material always has to be done within the law. That is how we develop as individuals and a society.
This article was published on February 26, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
25 Feb 2014 | Awards, News and features
Rommy Mom is Nigeria’s David fighting the Goliath of a dysfunctional government. Mom, president of Lawyers Alert leads the campaign for human rights in Benue despite severe intimidation and threats for his life. Mom has not allowed circumstance to stagnate his vision for vocal and expressive liberation. In an interview with Index, the Index Awards nominee talked about his work in Nigeria and what motivates him to keep battling censorship inn his home country.
In mid-2012, floods led to casualties and loss of homes and livelihoods across Nigeria, with the Benue State one of the worst hit. Though some 500 million Nigerian naira of federal money were allegedly allocated to the people of Benue, the victims did not receive it. This prompted Mom to make use of Freedom of Information legislation to take Benue State Emergency Agency, the authority in charge of disbursing funds, to court.
He was subsequently attacked on a radio show by state governor Gabriel Torwua Suswam, and received phone calls from people close to the governor advising him to leave Benue or risk his life. According to local NGO Media Rights Agenda (MRA), “Benue state has a politically tense environment, so such a statement from a leader is an invitation for an attack on Rommy Mom.” The threats have gone uninvestigated, making it too risky for him to return home.
“Since the threat to my life, I have been forced to carry out my work from outside of Benue. This has not been easy, but it is part of the sacrifices and challenges of making accountability and transparency a currency in governance. The Freedom of Information Act is a critical starting point”, said Mom.
Mom has been nominated in the advocacy category for the Index Freedom of Expression Awards.
This article was published on 25 February 2014 at indexoncensorship.org.
25 Feb 2014 | Digital Freedom, News and features, United Nations
(Image: Mahmoud Illean/Demotix)
There should be a special United Nations mandate for protecting the right to privacy, says the Frank La Rue, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression. “I believe that privacy is such a clear and distinct right…that it would merit to have a rapporteur on its own.”
While he pointed out there is some opposition to creating new mandates on economic grounds, he said: “In general If you would ask me, I would say yes, this right deserves a [UN] mandate.” He also called for a coordinated effort from the UN human rights system to deal with the issue of privacy.
The comments came during an expert seminar in Geneva Monday on “The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age” in the aftermath of the mass surveillance revelations.
La Rue said that the right to privacy has not been given enough attention in the past, calling it equal, interrelated and interdependent to other human rights. In particular, he spoke of its connection to freedom of expression and how having or not having privacy can affect freedom of expression.
“Privacy and freedom of expression are not only linked, but are also facilitators of citizen participation, the right to free press, exercise of free opinion, and the possibility of gathering individuals, exercising the right to free association and to be able to criticise public policies.”
He also warned against trying to protect national security at the expense of democracy and human rights, saying: “If we pitch one against the other…I think we’ll end up losing both.”
This echoes the sentiments of his report released in June 2013, which concluded that: “States cannot ensure that individuals are able to freely seek and receive information or express themselves without respecting, protecting and promoting their right to privacy.”
This article was posted on 25 February 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
25 Feb 2014 | News and features, Politics and Society, South Africa
Photo illustration: Shutterstock
In what seems like a purge, South Africa’s Independent News and Media (INM) group is shedding many of its foremost journalists and commentators. Simultaneously, the company’s newspapers have stepped up coverage of the personal ruminations of its new chairperson, Dr Iqbal Survé.
The current turmoil started with the summary dismissal of respected Cape Times editor Alide Dasnois on 6 Dec last year. It coincided with the publication on that date of a lead article on page one on corruption in which Survé’s company Sekunjalo Holdings was implicated. The Cape Times is part of the INM stable which includes 18 daily and weekend titles.
Dasnois was at first threatened with a lawsuit in a letter from Survé’s lawyers. Dismissal followed, for which the reasons changed over time. One “reason” is the use of a wraparound around the 6 Dec edition to commemorate South African icon Nelson Mandela’s death. The conflict escalated to the op-ed and letters pages. The paper’s op-ed editor, Tony Weaver, on Dec 13 justified the wraparound as forced by limited time. It still contained the latest news and reflections.
Aneez Salie, appointed as Cape Times deputy editor after Dasnois was fired, opposed Weaver’s assertions, saying “we could’ve and should’ve changed page one”. He ended with a declaration of “no surrender”.
Salie’s intervention was met with a counter-position from assistant editor Janet Heard, arguing that the debate about the wraparound is a distraction from the real reason for Dasnois’ dismissal, which is the page one article on Sekunjalo’s implication in corruption.
In response to Heard’s article, newly appointed group executive editor Karima Brown and group op-ed editor Vukani Mde threw down the gauntlet, sparking the current spate of dismissals and departures from the company. By that time, long-standing group executive editor Chris Whitfield had decided to take early retirement.
Mde and Brown’s article cast the questioning of Dasnois’s dismissal as being part of “skewed patterns of power (economic, political, and discursive) in South Africa 20 years into democracy. A small but very privileged and racially definable minority still controls the tools of public discourse… This group has resisted and fought against transformation of the media, be it in ownership, management, or in newsrooms. They’ve grown adept at paying lip service to the goals of transformation and media diversity, but in truth remain against them, as their joint and individual actions demonstrate… Survé… wears his ANC [ruling party] heart on his sleeve… Anyone who cannot bring themselves to accept [INM’s] new owner or its direction under him, must as a matter of principle leave”.
An unedited version of the article apparently appeared in the Cape Argus with claims that prompted both Weaver and Heard to lodge grievances with the company’s human resources department.
The first head to roll was that of labour specialist Terry Bell. His column of 18 years’ standing was “suspended”. Bell is respected as a leftist analyst of trade union matters. His column was canned a few days after he penned the following:
Transformation of the media in South Africa is essential… [It] is not merely a matter of ownership, but of control of subject matter and the manner in which it is reported. This, obviously, has a bearing on ownership, because those who own often try — and all too often succeed — in manipulating media output… [T]ransformation has to do with training and professionalism and little, if anything, to do with the pigmentation of the practitioners, let alone the owners.”
In response to a call from the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) to reinstate Bell, group editor Brown responded that the newspapers will “not take instruction from Cosatu”. Cosatu is the largest trade union federation in the country and is aligned to the ruling African National Congress. Weaver and Bell have since been the target of further disinformation, rebutted by Weaver.
Shortly afterwards, Business Report Cape bureau chief Donwald Pressly was suspended for putting his name forward for the parliamentary lists of the Democratic Alliance, the official opposition party. Next followed the resignation of Business Report editor-at-large Ann Crotty, an award-winning writer on issues such as executive pay, citing the following reason:
The decision was the result of a troubling sequence of events. While I acknowledge the rights of owners, I think the balance between the rights of the owners, the rights of readers and the rights of journalists has slipped out of kilter at the Independent Group. If you look at what [has] been happening at Independent, there is a sense that we – the journalists – might be too concerned with the views of the Chairman. My decision to leave is largely motivated by the fact that we shouldn’t be writing for the Chairman and the owners. We should be writing for our current readers as well as readers we hope to attract.”
Indeed, a marked surge in articles on Survé can be noted as the newspapers shed more and more senior journalists. An interview published on 23 Jan featured his “Davos agenda” during his attendance of the World Economic Forum. Headlined “building a media legacy”, another Q&A with Survé conducted by Cape Times editor Gasant Abarder was published on 31 Jan. This was followed by another interview on 13 Feb, headlined “The man who wants to change the world”. The latter contained insights such as: “Every day he affords himself a few minutes of meditation – early in the morning and late in the evening. He then asks himself the following: ‘What good will I do today?’ and then in the evening: ‘What could I have done differently?’”
In another article, published 17 Feb, Survé ruminated on “what I got out of Davos”.
Some would argue that the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos is no more than a cosy club for the elite… But Davos is so much more than that. Two weeks after my return from this annual event, I find myself returning constantly to the conversations, the engagements and the sharing of thinking. I do this as I return to the day-to-day business of my life and find that I am richer for that week…”
Both Bell and Crotty are known as stringent critics of the annual Davos get-together of capitalists. Meanwhile, the use of the Independent papers to attack Sekunjalo’s competitors has continued.
The exodus continues with the resignation of Moshoeshoe Monare as editor of the Sunday Independent. Shortly after Dasnois’ sacking, he wrote a column asserting:
Editorial independence to me means that the decision regarding the content of The Sunday Independent – whether wrong or right – lies with me. It means my bosses trust that I will exercise my duties without any interference. It means Dr Survé and his companies – including Independent Newspapers – will also be subjected to our editorial scrutiny.”
This article was published on 25 February 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
