Jim Naughtie Talk - Cancelled
Posted by Matt Clifford on February 13th, 2007
We are extremely sorry and disappointed to announce that Jim Naughtie has had to cancel his appearance at Clare Politics on Thursday at short notice. Jim asked that we passed on his personal apologies. We are now looking to rebook Jim to come to talk to us in the near future.
Filed under: clareification, clarepoliticsnews on February 13th, 2007
I have to admit that I’m secretly pleased at this – I’m a complete Today fangirl and my sister’s coming to visit on Thursday, so I couldn’t go. But hopefully now I can when he reschedules! Yay!
I’m sorry guys but i must be living in a parallel universe.
“the debate itself is relatively uninteresting”
Are you kidding? I am sitting here in Sydney and the local newspapers are talking about Clare College.
As an ex-student myself (i was at Christ’s) i cannot believe how a Clare blog isn’t full of articles and comments about this issue (both for and against?). What the hell is the matter with you guys? Too worried about your studies? Or too scared to talk?
Someone say something.
Anyway, i’m a writer and reporter and i’ll pay good $$ to get some inside track on what the hell is happening. Who wrote the article? Where is he now? Why did he have to go into hiding? Was he directly threatened? Can you send me a copy of Clareification? What do the students think of this?
Talk!!
If you have information, email me or a drop a comment on my blog.
I concur with Pommygranate. Dig the dirt!
I agree with the above comment. It’s like living in the Soviet Union. Why are Clare students so shit scared of talking openly about the cartoon controversy? Have senior people in college put the fear of God (or should that be Allah?) into you?
Students used to be passionate in defence of freedom of speech and the right to explore new ideas without fear. Perhaps this generation thinks it’s being “responsible” by bowing down to reactionary forces that threaten violence. Very sad.
Maybe nobody’s reading this blog.
Oh yes we are!
I would like to know a little bit more about the background to the case. But, hey, this is your blog. Write about what you want.
Are you officially censored? Thats academic freedom for you in 2007. May be a case of self-censorship. I don’t blame you as such, just wish it wasn’t this way….
“Our goal is to bring the leading figures from the world of politics and current affairs to
Clare for discussion of the burning issues of the day.”
I’m sure Matt’s going to apply to this officially later, but I just wanted to put my view across - certainly, it’s an important issue. But the actual topic has been debated to death already.
However, the far more important point is that some of us have no affiliation with Clare College and think it’s a matter for them and their students, who know more about the whole situation, to deal with if they want to. If someone wants to post about it, I’ll comment. But I don’t think it makes sense for me personally to write a post on it.
Liz, Matt and others
It would just be very interesting to hear the story from the perspective of students at Clare College.
Well, it’s hardly like living in the USSR, but it’s frustrating at such reluctance to talk about the issue. LizDavies is perfectly right that it’s for the blog authors to decide on topics, and best left to current Clare students. However, this blog advertizes itself as being based at Clare and other sources, both inside the institution and beyond in the Outside World (TM) have demonstrated a fixed opinion on the subject. If we are to be circumspect about our remarks concerning an ongoing Board of Discipline, as we should, so should they.
The fact is that not talking about it is allowing comments such as Billy’s to appear. On the subject of the original Danish cartoons, I had reservations about the deeper opinions of Jyllands Posten but supported their original publication; when the unholy row broke loose, I was opposed to subsequent republication on the grounds that discretion was in order. If the current story has abused Muslims, as opposed to their religion - deliberately to inadvertantly - I will criticize it.
I understand that the issue of Crucifixion also published similarly ’satirical’ pieces against homosexuals and Christians, as well as making light of paedophilia. Yet these do not seem to be being cited as causing the most offence. So what we seem to have, in the absense of a willingness to even recognize the subject as interesting students, is representatives from one group immediately constructing a narrative of victimhood.
LizDavies, when you say the “actual topic has been debated to death”, d’you mean the case in hand or the wider issue of publishing critiques or satire of certain religions? If the former, it palpably hasn’t; if the latter, the strange silence we see here and elsewhere makes doing so very difficult.