Background

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who calls himself Tommy Robinson, is due to speak at the Oxford Union at 8:30pm this evening at a debate on the motion “This House believes the West is right to be suspicious of Islam”. The event has drawn condemnation from University societies, local politicians, and local faith leaders.

The debate comes days after Yaxley-Lennon was detained at Heathrow Airport on Saturday evening under the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, following his return to the UK from Russia. His phones were seized, but no further action has been announced by the Metropolitan Police.

Thames Valley Police (TVP) has confirmed a significant policing operation across Oxford city centre from 3:30pm today. St Michael’s Street, where the Oxford Union is located, has been closed to vehicles and pedestrians since 4pm, and will remain shut until 11pm. Despite earlier statements, it has been confirmed that no other roads will be closed.

Businesses in the city centre have also been closing early: The White Rabbit pub announced in advance it would shut from 3:30pm, citing safety concerns and solidarity with other independent businesses. The Handlebar Kitchen on St Michael’s Street closed at 3pm – their pavement licence was revoked for the day. Activate Learning, which runs further education colleges in the area, has also written to parents and carers advising students to avoid large gatherings and allow extra time for journeys through the city centre.

In a statement, Oxford City Council Leader Susan Brown has raised the question of the cost of the large-scale security operation. She wrote that the Oxford Union “must meet the full costs of staging their event, rather than leaving Oxford’s taxpayers to pick up the bill”. The Oxford Green Party has also issued a statement, demanding that the Oxford Union “cover the entire cost of the security operation it is requiring” and that “compensation be paid by the society to local businesses forced to board up their windows and close”. Cherwell has previously reported that the Oxford Union is just years away from insolvency.

The Oxford University Islamic Society issued a formal statement warning that the invitation posed a direct threat to Muslim students’ safety, arguing that “extending a platform to individuals whose reputations are built upon targeting minority communities is not without consequence”. A group of Oxfordshire Liberal Democrat politicians, including MP for Oxford West and Abingdon Layla Moran, have also called on the Union to reflect on whether proceeding “was consistent with “the values of respect, inclusion, and community cohesion that Oxfordshire strives to uphold”.

Individual colleges at the University of Oxford have announced that they will remain closed to the public this afternoon, and have reached out to remind their students to take the requisite precautions. Wadham College, for example, urged students to “please act responsibly, stay safe and vigilant and take the disruption into account when planning your afternoon and evening”. 

The debate is due to feature Laurence Fox and Jonathon Sacerdoti (alongside Yaxley-Lennon) on the proposition, and Jacob Rees-Mogg, Abdullah Al-Andalusi, and Michael Doward on the opposition. 

Defending her decision to invite Yaxley-Lennon in an article in The Telegraph, Elrayess wrote: “For more than 200 years, the Oxford Union has existed to host debates – not to platform views uncritically, but to subject them to the most rigorous scrutiny. You do not invite a speaker to endorse them: you invite them so that their ideas can be examined, and their claims tested.” 

A spokesperson for the Oxford Union previously told Cherwell that the Union gives “members the opportunity to challenge…a broad range of speakers” and “only host[s] speakers who agree to be challenged”. 

The University of Oxford has shared a reminder that “welfare services are available to support all students”.

Updates at 5:15pm:

A white van was seen entering the Union from New Inn Hall Road, prior to the arrival of any protesters. 

Updates at 5:45pm:

Despite intense police presence, around 60 people started to gather on St Michael’s Street, as growing crowds surrounded the entrance to the Oxford Union around Cornmarket Street. Organisers from Oxford Stand Up to Racism were seen handing out leaflets and signs to passersby.

A spokesperson for Oxford Stand Up to Racism told Cherwell: “I expect a lot of people to come out for this protest, and we’re going to take back the streets for unity and for the safety of all our people.

“Tommy Robinson is not here for political debate, and it’s wrong to legitimise his views that he’ll be espousing as political ideas. By the strength of our numbers, we can prevent this horrible debate, which is a televised pantomime to whip up racism.”

Protesters carrying placards continued to arrive, with chants amplified through megaphones including: “This isn’t debate, you’re spreading hate”, and “Nazi scum, off our streets!”. Thames Valley Police remained at the scene and prevented people from entering the area. 

At the junction of New Inn Hall Road and St Michael’s Street, another group of anti-fascists assembled, in a demonstration organised by Oxford Resists in collaboration with societies including Oxford Action for Palestine, Oxford Students Palestine Solidarity, and Oxford DIY Pride. The majority of these protesters appeared to be students.

A first-year Oxford student, when asked about their reasons for attending the protest, told Cherwell: “One of my friends expressed concern for their safety, off the back of Tommy Robinson speaking at the Union, and all the demonstrations, particularly the far right demonstrations, I know she can’t even come today at all, and I’m in a position to be here safely. 

“With exams going on and with such a busy time [in Oxford], the presence of Tommy Robinson and his supporters in Oxford has really scared some people.”

A member of Oxford Students Palestine Solidarity told Cherwell: “We’re here to fight against fascism, and we’re here to fight for our Muslim brothers and sisters. The entire idea of this debate is to oppress the Muslims in this city and everywhere… this is extremely dangerous for Muslims across Oxford and across the world.”

Updates at 6:15pm:

Numerous protesters attempted to push past the barricades blocking access to St Michael’s Street, and were met by security forces preventing entry. This altercation formed a focal point of the protest, and continued throughout the evening.

On nearby George Street, one man was seen by onlookers to have climbed the scaffolding of a building, in what appeared to be an attempt to get closer to the Union itself.

At this point, the number of anti-racist protesters seemed to outnumber pro-Robinson protesters around five to one, with repeated cries of “Oxford is anti-fascist” emerging from the crowds. Representatives from multiple different groups could be seen joining Stand Up to Racism, including Oxford Green Party, the National Education Union, and Oxfordshire NASUWT. 

A second year student among the anti-fascist protesters told Cherwell: “I’m here at this protest, along with 700 other people, proud anti-racist, anti-fascists, to show the Oxford Union that they cannot divide our city, they cannot divide our university, they cannot divide our community by platform of hate. Free speech is different to hateful language.”

Meanwhile, a small group of Communist activists gathered with flags outside the Weston Library, slightly removed from the chaotic action on Cornmarket Street.

In Bonn Square, a group of counter-protesters began to assemble, including the Oxfordshire Patriots. Within a short time, they started to move towards both New Inn Hall Street and Cornmarket Street. 

Speaking to Cherwell, Aiden Noble, head of the Oxfordshire Patriots, said his group had attended the protest to support the Oxford Union’s decision to host Tommy Robinson. Noble told Cherwell: “Just because Tommy’s got his views, we shouldn’t be silencing him, we should be allowing him to speak what he wants to speak, whether it’s right or wrong, or somewhere in the middle.

“Sometimes I listen to him and I think ‘You’re an idiot, mate’, do you know what I mean? But a lot of the things he’s been saying recently, people are seeing it.”

Updates at 6:45pm:

Increasing numbers of demonstrators bearing Union Jack flags continued to arrive on New Inn Hall Street. Police established a large cordon separating the protesting groups, with officers maintaining a visible presence as crowds grew on both sides.

Confrontations between protesters started to arise on New Inn Hall Street as police tried to stop demonstrators’ attempts to get closer to St Michael’s Street. As this took place, Aiden Noble was seen shouting for his fellow protestors to pull back.

Shortly after this, balloted members of the Oxford Union also arrived on New Inn Hall Street, but were unable to get to the entrance of the event on account of the amount of overcrowding.

Soon after, a large police wall formed on Cornmarket Street in an attempt to separate the opposing protest groups. While this operation took place, police presence on the corner of Market Street continued to increase, as two more lines of police arrived to shut down rising confrontations between the opposing groups of protesters.

Updates at 7:45pm:

As the entrance on St Michael’s Street continued to be blocked, a human wall began to form around the entrance to Plush nightclub, as some attempted to enter the Union from this direction. More police subsequently arrived at the scene, as the police cordon on Cornmarket remained unbroken despite the mounting pressures from demonstrators.

By this point, anti-fascist numbers appeared to have increased to around 500, still significantly outnumbering their pro-Robinson counterparts.

Tensions persisted at the barrier blocking the end of St Michael’s Street, where sporadic confrontations continued as still the police prevented the public from entering. At this point, it remained largely unclear how many people had made it inside the chamber for the debate itself, beginning at 8:30pm.

At approximately 8:32pm, an anonymous Union committee member confirmed to Cherwell that the debate was still going ahead as planned.

Very shortly afterwards, another anonymous committee member told Cherwell that there were “believed to be around 20–30 people in the building in total”, with only “single digits” having made it through the blockades. The source added that this included junior officers who were “being prevented from entering”. 

A former Junior Officer in the Union, when talking to Cherwell, condemned the conduct of the Union Committee throughout the lead-up to the event: “The concerns of members have been completely ignored. The concerns of minority communities have been ignored. The safety of members has been ignored. Despite pleas from the council, the police, faith leaders, it was all ignored by a group of people who, I think pushed this debate for more ideological purposes… I say that not only is the event a disgrace, but the conduct of the current leadership of the Union is disgraceful.”

Shermar Pryce, formerly Chief Advisor to the President who resigned following the invitation to Yaxley-Lennon, spoke to Cherwell about his disappointment with Elrayess: “I think she should genuinely not only be embarrassed, but she should be apologetic to the students of Oxford, the local authorities, and the Oxford Union itself, and all of its members.”

Update at 9pm:

Footage from inside the Union seen by Cherwell revealed that the chamber was largely empty, as members waited for the debate to begin. Individuals who had successfully ballotted, including Union officers, continued to be unable to enter. The Union Treasurer, Milo Donovan, supposed to preside over the debate, was similarly unable to enter.

A former Union Committee member told Cherwell that the mishandling of the situation by the Union is “a very bad look, not just for the Union, but for the city itself, to think that this is the image that we’re putting out there for our city, for our university, for our community.”

In a reply on X to Jacob Rees-Mogg’s appeal to allow people into the Union, Thames Valley Police said: “The decision to suspend entry to the event was taken by the event organisers, not the police.”

Yaxley-Lennon posted a picture of protestors on X, with the caption: “When these lot want me to be quiet. I know I must keep speaking. Louder. Whatever the cost.”

Update at 9:50pm:

The debate finally started, although nearly an hour and a half later than the expected 8:30pm slot. The slightly quieter sound of protest could still be heard from the chamber.

In a recording heard by Cherwell, Yaxley-Lennon argued that Islam lacks “common ground” with other religions in his speech. He cited the death penalty for homosexuality in some countries as his primary example of this, claiming that “four of the five major schools of Islamic law think [homosexuality] should be punished by death.” 

Updates at 11.10pm:

Cherwell understands that the final opposition speaker, Laila Nasher, a student, was unable to enter the Union building. Arwa Elrayess stepped in to speak in her place. An anonymous source in the Union told Cherwell that Elrayess pushed against Yaxley-Lennon, accusing him of redirecting anger towards Muslims and minorities.

Update at 1:10am:

The last guests were seen leaving the Union, as St Michael’s Street was reopened to the public and police dispersed. 

The results of the debate, posted on the Oxford Union Instagram, show a victory for the opposition, with 33 votes, from members voting with membership cards and 30 votes for the proposition.

Reporting by Beatrix Arnold, Mercedes Haas, Ned Remington, and Hattie Simpson.

The Aurora Orchestra, who are playing at Oxford’s Schwarzman Centre on the 19^th June, are best known for performing their orchestral repertoire from memory. For anyone who’s familiar with classical concerts, this is a huge departure from the norm – orchestral players usually sit demurely in their seats, eyes flitting between their scores and the conductor. It is especially remarkable considering the difficulty of their repertoire, which consists of pieces such as Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring and Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 5. But, as Jane Mitchell, their principal flautist and artistic director, tells me, performing by heart actually affords a kind of security: “ninety people with that much knowledge in their heads is actually safer than ninety pieces of paper that might fall off the music stand.” 

Learning the pieces by heart allows for a more instinctual, bodily knowledge of the music, “an intensity and an energy and this kind of ownership that the players feel… we know where the piece is coming from and where it’s going.” As an audience member once remarked, it is as if “there are no bar lines.” Their immersive performance style, where players can move around the stage, allows for relationships between players to be forged that might not have formed in a traditional orchestra setting: “one of the only jobs where you literally sit in the same chair for twenty years next to one person.” 

Another way that Aurora departs from the norms of orchestral performance is in their collaborations with actors, using the medium of ‘Orchestral Theatre’ to tell stories about composers. Jane writes the scripts for these performances. She is conscious of the fact that Aurora are, in a way, “paying homage to the canon, and it’s all of those men who’ve been made statues of”. Music history is often constructed as a narrative following the lives and works of a series of ‘great men’. Nevertheless, Aurora has “a real desire to tell their stories in a new way which brings in other voices”, not being afraid to “look at sides of [the composers] that are a bit ridiculous.” Jane suggests that their presentation in fact brings the audience “closer to the composer” by emphasising the more human elements of them, like the grumpy and irrational side of Beethoven.

These ways in which the Aurora Orchestra tries to present classical music differently are part of their more general ethos: that classical music is for everyone. As Jane describes, the orchestra has come up against many practical barriers in doing this: most obviously, it can be really hard to draw in audiences when many people see classical music as being cordoned off for a cultural elite. Jane has also made huge efforts to introduce classical music into educational settings, which can also be made difficult by material barriers at every level – Jane tells me how even when Aurora has offered free tickets to a school, many can’t pay for the bus to get to the concert.

So why is it so important for music to have a role in education? As Jane says, music “can be everything” – it “can be about words, and writing, and counting,” and on a more fundamental level, it is about “understanding what being human is”. This is becoming increasingly more important amid “well-founded fears about effects of screen time” on young children. As such, Aurora play interactive concerts that are specifically aimed at introducing children to classical music, such as Mahler and the Mountain Adventure, and Beethoven and the Dinosaurs. Jane has also developed a free programme called Aurora Classroom, aiming to break down further barriers by adapting the ideas explored in their concerts to a classroom setting. 

The Aurora Orchestra have made waves within classical music by presenting a familiar repertoire in a completely new way – more human, more mobile, more dramatic. They will be performing Mozart’s Jupiter Symphony by heart at 7pm on Friday the 19^th June at the Sohmen Concert Hall at the Schwarzman Centre for Humanities. Last tickets can be found on the Schwarzman Centre website, with discounts for students. The orchestra will also be doing a free pop-up performance in the Atrium of the Schwarzman at 4:45 pm on the same day, which is worth coming along to if you don’t fancy paying for a ticket (and useful to be aware of if you’re going to be there revising). 

As billions around the world gear up for the beautiful game to touch down in not one, but three cultural superpowers, there has been an overriding sense of disgruntlement with North America’s vision of the world’s festival. Restlessness with the tournament, hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, has grown steadily since the unveiling of its logo nearly three years ago; far from an empty icon, its design reveals an insight into the growing commercialisation tearing fans away from the game they love. 

Beset by organisational and political problems, the upcoming FIFA World Cup is not only the most ambitious in the institution’s history but also the most marketed. In fact, this World Cup goes where none other has before in the realm of marketing. From Clarkson’s Farm to Coca-Cola, Lego to Lays, there is seemingly no product to which the World Cup treatment has not been extended. Key to this effort is the marketing power invested in the World Cup logo. 

It is difficult to overstate the importance of the World Cup logo for setting the tone of the quadrennial tournament. From the very first World Cup logo at the 1954 Swiss tournament, a stylised ball-like icon incorporating a red Swiss flag turned football pitch in its centre, the World Cup logo has been utilised as a chance to paint a picture of national pride and culture. Through the years, each host has taken up this chance with fresh ideas and new perspectives.

There have been both remarkable successes and notable failures in the history of World Cup logo designs. Mexico’s 1970 World Cup saw what many regard as one of the finest sports logos ever created, its distinctive MEXICO 70 wordmark drawing inspiration from Lance Wyman’s typography for the 1968 Olympic Games. By contrast, England’s 1966 logo lacked both the inspiration and commendation expected for a tournament which brought such iconic moments. Yet, despite their varying levels of success, each of these attempts shared a common goal: they are designed not only to articulate a host nation’s identity but also to communicate its place within an international community brought together by football.

This is what the World Cup is about: drawing football into a global conversation of hope and joy. The World Cup logo is a visual cue for this, stating the organiser’s ambitions for the tournament. The logo for South Africa 2010, for example, was designed around the idea of unity, using sweeping colours that combine to form the African continent while converging on the football. These logos signify cultural moments, and being a part of a cultural moment is what fans seek. It is precisely this sense of shared significance that many fans seem to find absent from the approaching tournament.

The World Cup is not only about culture, it is also a political beast of sizable proportions. In its worst forms, football has proved an effective way of bolstering support for authoritarian regimes and blinding the world to corruption and coercion. The World Cup itself is no stranger to political interference. Whether used to strengthen and unite Fascist Italy in 1934 or ran by a brutish authoritarian regime, the tournament has long struggled to keep a clean face to cover its dark underbelly. 

As the symbolic face of the tournament, the World Cup logo has often served as a façade to cover up cultural and political tensions. Decided upon by design committees, consultancy firms, and so-called ‘brand teams’, the World Cup logo is a powerful marketing device aimed at suspending the material, political, and social reality of the tournament, promoting the image of a world unified by the spirit of the game. However, at this year’s 23rd edition of the FIFA World Cup the curtains have been well-and-truly drawn back. 

Rather than projecting an image of a tournament defined by sporting merit and excitement, this World Cup’s logo serves as perhaps the most striking testament to its underlying commercial character. Since Sepp Blatter’s 17-year stint as FIFA president, beset with allegations of corruption, fans have felt a growing rot within the game as commercial interests begin to outweigh sporting spirit. The selection of the USA as primary hosts, the foils of dynamic ticket pricing, and the expansion of the tournament to 48 teams, have all contributed to the sense that this World Cup is a pinnacle of the game’s demise. This year’s logo does little to hide this. Its sterile numerical design and photo-realistic representation of the FIFA World Cup trophy bear greater resemblance to Apple campaigns than to tournament logos of old. 

While FIFA has adapted this design for the individual host cities, it seems more like a brand template than a thoughtful representation of sport or culture. The brainchild of a Toronto-based creative agency, the logo does little to acknowledge football fan culture, instead becoming just another feature of America’s corporate “logorama”. If the World Cup logo aims to summarise the tone of the games, symbolising the tournament’s message to the world, then this is a message of meaningless corporate greed and soulless commodities. The World Cup logo has been rendered plain and marketable, suiting a tournament that now holds those values at its core. 

And yet, this format is here to stay. ‘Johnny’ Infantino, as he is warmly referred to by President Trump, promises that all future tournaments will continue to use this numerical design to provide brand consistency, no matter the extent of fan outcries. Whatever excuse or justification one makes for such a decision, it always comes back to the same logic: business. For fans around the world, World Cups are not remembered for their revenue or marketability, but because of the cultural moment they created. It seems that for Mr. Infantino and motley mob, this is of little importance. FIFA is very much at risk of tearing out the game’s soul in order to grow its brand; once that soul is gone, one must ask what there remains to sell.