Most votes for Condemn and Remove but 'Blurred Lines' still avoids ban

Photo Credit: Robin Thicke via Madame Noire

·         Condemn and Remove – 286

·         No Change – 263

·         No Ban and Condemn – 202

‘Blurred Lines’ will not be banned at Exeter despite students voting in favour of the Condemn and Remove option, in this week’s referendum.

38.1 per cent voted for the motion, with No Action winning 35 per cent of the vote. No Ban and Condemn came third, taking 26. 9 per cent, in a vote which had only 752 participants.

It means that the Guild will now condemn and not ban the song, despite that option coming last.

In a break with previous referendums, First Past the Post was not employed to decide the outcome. Even though the option to ban the song won the most votes, it did not win an absolute majority, meaning the ban was not imposed.

However, with the combination of the two ‘condemn’ options winning a huge majority, it has been decided that the song will be condemned.

Robin Thicke’s song has provoked huge controversy on campus and around the country, thanks to an explicit video and seemingly sexist lyrics which appear to refer to rape. The summer hit has already been banned at various universities, including Kingston, Edinburgh, Derby, West Scotland and Leeds, and after an anonymous student suggested a motion, the Students’ Guild decided to hold a referendum at Exeter.

It follows a similar event last term which saw The Sun’s page three put under scrutiny. Though that vote had a far larger turnout, it too came out in favour of no ban and bucked the trend set by other universities.

This vote had three options, a change which split the ‘condemn’ vote in the eyes of some.

The ‘Condemn and Remove’ lobby argued that the song upholds and accepts ‘rape culture,’ arguing that it encourages the use of rape in everyday language. Campaigners suggested that lyrics such as ‘I hate these blurred lines’ and ‘I know you want it’ refer to the acceptance of rape, which could be considered offensive by the thousands of women who suffer sexual abuse every year.

Their angle will sit well with campaigners on a national level, who have criticised the song’s potential as a ‘trigger’ for rape victims. The women’s officers from the National Union of Students said: “We consider “Blurred Lines” to be deeply offensive and dangerous.  The idea that consent is a ‘blurry’ concept is outrageous. It reinforces the shameful way sexual assault is often represented in the media and wider popular culture.” The group also said “we want to see a society that recognises “no means no,” that doesn’t engage in victim blaming and doesn’t think that rape is a “blurry” concept.”

Organisers of the ‘no ban and condemn’ case agreed that the song contains negative and sexist qualities, but felt it should not be banned. The campaign was also concerned with censorship, saying that students should have the freedom to listen to the song if they wished. Their case stated “this song alone cannot be made a scapegoat for the entire music industry or our attitudes towards women in society as a whole.”

Meanwhile students in favour of ‘No change,’ who didn’t manage to muster a widespread campaign, felt that the song should not be banned or condemned by a Guild statement.

Hannah Barton, the Students’ Guild President, said: “A key purpose of the Students’ Guild is to support students to campaign on the issues close to their heart and it has been fantastic to see the student voice in action, with 488 students voting to condemn the song. Regardless of the outcome I think this campaign has raised awareness of an ongoing issue and, if students will now think more about issues ranging from rape culture to everyday sexism and ways to combat this, that is a very positive thing.”

But whilst the Guild will now make a statement condemning the song, it will continue to be played through University outlets around campus.

More coverage will follow in Tuesday’s edition of the paper.

Harrison Jones, Online News Editor

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

'Blurred Lines' student vote begins

Photo Credit: Robin Thicke via Madame Noire

The vote deciding whether Robin Thicke’s summer hit ‘Blurred Lines’ will be banned around campus has started today.

The lyrics, which can easily be perceived as sexist, explicit nature of the video and apparent references to rape, have caused significant controversy since its release earlier this year. After a complaint from an anonymous source, The Students’ Guild launched a vote to allow students to have their say.

It was reported in the latest print edition of Exeposé that the format of the vote was to change. In previous votes such as the campaign to ban The Sun, students could vote Yes or No. However, the ‘Blurred Lines’ referendum will give students the chance to select one of three options.

The ‘Condemn and Remove‘ case strongly believes that the song upholds and accepts ‘rape culture’, arguing that it encourages the use of rape in everyday language. It argues that lyrics such as ‘I hate these blurred lines’ and ‘you know you want it’ refer to the acceptance of rape, which could be considered offensive towards the thousands of women who suffer sexual abuse every year.

Alternatively, students have the option to vote for the ‘No ban and Condemn’ case, which firmly agrees that the song contains negative and sexist qualities, but does not believe that the song should be banned. This campaign is also concerned with the issues of censorship, saying that students should be able to listen and enjoy the song if they want to. The case states “this song alone cannot be made a scapegoat for the entire music industry or our attitudes towards women in society as a whole.”

Finally students can vote for ‘No change’, for those who feel that the song should not be banned and do not wish the Guild to make a statement condemning the lyrics.

The women’s officers from the National Union of Students said: “We consider “Blurred Lines” to be deeply offensive and dangerous.  The idea that consent is a ‘blurry’ concept is outrageous. It reinforces the shameful way sexual assault is often represented in the media and wider popular culture.” The group also said “we want to see a society that recognizes “no means no,” that doesn’t engage in victim blaming and doesn’t think that rape is a “blurry” concept.”

President of the Students’ Guild, Hannah Barton said: “I believe anything we can do to reduce sexism and sexual violence is paramount especially if concerns are raised by students. We are a student-led organisation here to represent student views.”

The song has been banned by other student unions, including Kingston, Edinburgh, Derby, West Scotland and Leeds; but Exeter has a history of voting differently to other student unions, with many expecting the split ‘condemn’ options to mean the song is not banned.

The vote has been open since 9am this morning and finishes at 4pm on Friday. Students can vote via the Guild website here and read Exeposé coverage throughout the week.

Rachel Gelormini, News Team

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

Adjusting attitudes regarding rape

Image credit to marsmet523

Features Editor Imogen Watson shares and explores her view of the apparent troubling culture surrounding rape and rape victims.

“I’m going to get in trouble for something I should be getting thanked for taking care of you.”

“It’s on YouTube. I’m not stupid. Stop texting me.”

A sixteen-year-old girl was the victim of rape, and above are two of the text messages between victim and culprit.

I speak specifically of the case in Steubenville, Ohio, which took place in August 2012, and for which two male juveniles – a sixteen- and seventeen-year-old – were prosecuted in March but, unfortunately, rape, and underage rape, is not as uncommon as it should be. We live in a rape culture.

Neither, does it appear, are the attitudes which went with this case. From the perpetrators themselves to the news broadcasters reporting it, the world seemed to have gone mad. An underage girl had been violated in such an appalling manner when she ought to have been looked after in that vulnerable state and coverage seemed more bothered about the boys convicted than the struggles the victim would have endured and would be yet to endure.

Because the case was so reliant on text messages and social media not only when it came to taking place, but also in prosecution, the evidence of the disrespect from Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond for women and the lack of knowledge or care for their actions is evident. They are not alone. Their friends and peers are equally unaware (in court, the party’s host Evan Westlake says “I didn’t know exactly what rape was,” when asked why he did not stop the digital penetration of the girl) and equally unbothered. Mays says in a text message, “I shoulda raped her since everyone thinks I did,” and he and other high school students – apparently friends of Mays – repeatedly refer to the girl in her inebriated state as “a dead body” rather than a living human being. Many adults could not be trusted either, with the football coach apparently became aware of the situation and “was joking about it”, according to the text messages.

One of the USA’s Big Three cable news channels, CNN, amongst others, did little better in their portrayal of the case, focussing on the end of the rapists’ future football careers rather than the girl’s future in getting over a rape. Referring to Richmond and Mays, CNN reporter Poppy Harlow spoke of “These two young men who had such promising futures — star football players, very good students”, who “literally watched as they believed their life fell apart.” Few seemed to think of, or be willing to report on, the effect on the victim’s life.

It is a taboo subject in mainstream media: the feelings of the victim. Yet if the media were brave enough – as in so many other situations like war, politics – they could use their influence to change these attitudes. Because rape is sufficient for anyone to have to deal with, but this time, and I suspect it is not a unique case, it was a rape about which she had to discover through text messages, pictures and video footage shared between supposed friends and much of the school, and one for which she was name-called and received death threats.

Regardless of anybody’s state of sobriety, and there is little condoning a culture which encourages teenagers to get blind drunk, these kinds of acts must be automatically considered a no-go area. Our culture still is one where football means more than human decency (as long as you delete the evidence, you won’t get caught for your wrongdoings), where people are taught not to get raped rather than not to rape, and where we encourage those on the receiving end of rape to not come forward or face a barrage of disbelief and accusations. Moreover, it still neglects to teach people what actually constitutes rape – as seen in this case – and that taking photos and videos in the first place, let alone sharing them is a vile manner in which to behave. All in all, the end result is a huge lack of respect for both women and for each other more widely in society.

And where exactly does that leave us?

Imogen Watson, Features Editor

Rape, sexual assault, misogyny: a weak legal system or the wrong values in society

Photo credits to Ell Brown

Last week it was announced that Clive Sharp, who murdered Irish vet Catherine Gowing, has already been jailed twice for rape and sexual assaults. His string of previous sexual offences, encapsulating a dark and twisted life, first began when he was only sixteen. Sharp allegedly held sexual fantasies regarding gagging, raping and murdering women, which he eventually did to the tragic Catherine Gowing, his girlfriend’s flatmate.

Today, Mr Justice Griffith Williams jailed him for life and decreed that he serve a minimum of 37 years in prison as punishment for his horrific crimes. The judge described this murder as ‘a horrific, cold hearted murder, carried out to gratify your perverted sexual desires’.

It emerged that Sharp, having raped and then murdered Gowing, cut up her body before disposing it in several places along the River Dee. Several hours before this despicable crime, he had actually tied another woman to a bed and left her there after she refused to gratify his desires. In 1994 Sharp choked and assaulted another woman, before being jailed for eight years for false imprisonment and wounding two years later.

As someone who studied Law for two years, I’ve had my fair share of disgusting cases involving sexual violence, murder, and dismemberment – and yet cases like these continue to shock not only me, but the general public as well.

What does this say about our legal system, when someone like Sharp, who was clearly not only a sexual predator but someone unspeakably dangerous to women (and possibly even men, one might add, if they got on his bad side), is jailed only for a short time before being released again to further threaten helpless citizens? Someone whose first offence occurred at the age that most teenagers are studying for their GCSEs, someone who has had a history of violence towards women practically his whole life?

I’m not saying that capital punishment is correct; four or five hundred years ago, Sharp would probably almost certainly have been hanged, drawn and quartered, or killed in some other way, and many people might argue that this would only serve him right. But in our democratic society, where we look askance at the death penalty, the best our courts can do is hand out a mandatory life sentence for crimes as sickening as these and, in most cases, let the offender out early, to further threaten innocents.

Catherine Gowing will never be brought back – Sharp saw to that. And yet, I honestly feel that whenever I read the paper, or go onto the Telegraph or BBC or whatever website, all I see is harrowing pictures of smiling women – occasionally men – who have been raped, tortured and/or murdered in the most disgusting and unimaginable ways possible. I sound very naive in asking just why do things like this happen and why can’t people respect one another in a peaceful world, but it does beg the question – why do people commit atrocities like this? Does our weak legal system encourage such abominations, or is there something clearly wrong with our society, where predators like this dwell amongst others?

Sexual violence and murder, of course, is nothing new – in my research of Queen Katherine Howard, the supposedly notorious fifth queen consort of Henry VIII who many believe was a bit too free with her favours before losing her head aged eighteen, I’ve uncovered some evidence which actually suggests that this supposed ‘tart’ suffered what we would classify as sexual violence stimulated by aggressive male behaviour from aged at least thirteen or fourteen. It’s not something related solely to females, I’m not suggesting that. But does the British legal system mean that murderers and rapists commit their crimes without fear of the legal consequences? With defences such as loss of control (which includes the so-called ‘anger trigger’), diminished responsibility and even intoxication, many murderers can use these to play down their offences, even though they’ve raped and/or killed someone who is never coming back.

I’m certainly not the first to suggest the legal system may need reforming. And there is clearly an issue with values held in society – but perhaps this is an unfair comment to make when the vast majority of us are appalled by such offences. But surely something must happen in order to prevent innocent people like Catherine Gowing losing their lives so unfairly and brutally.

Conor Byrne

Police drop alleged Sidwell Street rape case

The two men arrested on suspicion of a rape incident last year have been released by the police, with no further action to be taken against either man.

Photo credits to freefotouk

An investigation into the incident was launched after the woman reported details of an attack to detectives from the Devon and Cornwall Police force.

Police said the suspected attack happened in the early hours of the morning of Tuesday, 25 September in a path between Sidwell Street and King William Street, near St Sidwell’s Church. The area was cordoned off following the alleged attack, allowing police officers to take part in a detailed search for forensic evidence to be used in the investigation.

The alleged victim, a woman in her mid to late 20s, was on her way back from a night out in the city. Two men, both aged 23, were arrested by the police in connection with the incident.

A spokeswoman for Devon and Cornwall Police said that the decision had been made by the Crown Prosecution Service to not proceed with the case.

According to This is Exeter, she said: “The two arrested men have been released with no further action. A file was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service and they made a decision not to prosecute.”

By Will Binks

This is abuse

 

Photo credits to ImageMD

Looking at the BBC’s timeline of recent reviews, resignations and investigations, I find myself forgetting how all of this began in the first place.

When the reports of Jimmy Savile’s shocking crimes began to unfold, there was a mere handful of alleged victims of his sexual abuse. This number rapidly rose to dozens and we are now talking hundreds of possible victims- and this accounts only for those who have been able to speak out about their ordeal. However, given the focus of today’s media, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear if people didn’t know what events actually led up to the crisis that the BBC seems to be having.

Before I criticise a programme as longstanding as Panorama, I will admit that I admire the BBC’s apparent readiness to admit to its own errors, but as I watched the special on Jimmy Savile a few weeks ago, I was disappointed by what they had to offer.  The focus had shifted away from the victims entirely and onto the BBC and its downfalls, and how on earth it was going to regain the lost trust of its followers. But this was only the beginning of it. People are now talking about celebrity and gay “witch-hunts” and directors at the corporation seem to be dropping like flies over the scandals faster than the newest one can surface.

What about the victims? When the BBC interviewed people out on the streets, the public often referred to the scandal as “the whole Jimmy Savile thing”. This, in addition to widespread allegations against public figures has done victims of sexual assault no favours. I personally believe that if the media is not careful with this delicate subject, it could single-handedly ruin the credibility of any rape or sexual abuse victim, or indeed sentence them to silence.

Speaking to my grandmother and her friends recently, they talked about sexual abuse as if it were something new to this world. “In our day, that’s what a girl was for, we just pulled ourselves together and got on with it”, said one of them. I don’t doubt that this was the voice of an era full of taboos as another piped up and said “I didn’t know what a homosexual was until I was 35”.

People need to wake up and realise that we now live in an era where sexual assault is no longer a matter to be covered up. Regardless of generational gaps in opinion, sexual assault is a heinous crime and victims deserve a voice, support and solidarity.

There has been a distinct lack of support surrounding the issue, and news articles related to it rarely lead the reader to a support network, a crisis line or advice pages.

If you, or anyone you know has been affected by crimes of sexual assault, there is hope. There are a number of online resources (see below) that can help you to understand what has happened, how you can get support, and most importantly: you are not alone.

Just a few examples of the help that is available:

Project Unbreakable (video link); This is Abuse; Help after rape- NHS; Rape Crisis

Kate Townend