The Oxford Union Society, perhaps an entity I have mentioned, is an interesting institution. It is essentially Oxford students, youths really, interacting with the most world-affecting issues, bringing in foremost experts to share their view and respond to whatever questions we in the crowd may fancy asking. At times it does seem that we have yet to grow into daddy’s suit coat, but I have heard some incisive perspectives from these future movers and shakers.
The debates are set on motions, which are structured as “This House Would…” The first debate I attended was set on “This House Would Abolish the Monarchy.”
Uff da.
It was great being seated in a crowd of British students in the presence of brilliant men and women that stood on both sides of the issue. I certainly anticipated something different than what followed.
The evening was characterized by outbursts from the audience (not entirely uncommon in the parliamentary-style debates of the Union) both serious and sarcastic. Unfortunately, so too were the speakers. This was at times quite humorous—their wit is something to be noted—and at other times quite frustrating. I went for a debate, but at times felt at a show. It was certainly more serious at times, but was likely able to be taken so lightly by so many because everyone in the room recognized that the monarchy will not be abolished in our lifetime.
The first speaker from the opposition spoke, one Count Nikolai Tolstoy (indeed a distant cousin of Leo—yet the resemblance was quite something). He had the best, most legitimate speech on the schedule. (There was one speech that I would felt was more appealing. A visiting American student gave it when the floor was opened to the audience. The student and pointed out that duties of the President as figurehead often get in the way of the duties of the President as political leader. In this, the student suggested that the monarchical figurehead was important insomuch as it allowed the political leader to remain just that.) The final speaker for the opposition was actually an American. An outspoken man from L.A., he made me embarrassed to be an American in the room. He began his speech by praising the States as the most successful and powerful republic that has ever existed, and then he went on about how the States tell England what to do (citing, of course, Bush Jr’s directing Blair to go to war). Eventually, I don’t recall when, he got to the monarchy as the best the UK will do, but he was sure to conclude with further extolment of the States. I certainly hope he was intending sarcasm. However, it is unfortunately easy to believe that he was indeed that arrogant.
After the debate concluded, the audience shuffles out of the chamber through either the “noes” door or the “ayes” door in relation to their perspective on the motion. Both doors have someone tallying the votes.
I went to another debate a week later: This House Believes that Marriage is an Outdated Institution. Before this debate took off, they announced the results of the monarchy debate: the opposition definitively won, the monarchy abides!
The marriage debate was quite interesting. It seemed that the opposition won, based on a guess of the ratio of “noes” to “ayes.” Apparently the house does not believe that marriage is misogynistic and fake (per the proposition), but rather a healthy testament of love and a beneficial environment in which to raise children (per the opposition).
The next night I went to a lecture given by Zakir Naik. Dr. Naik was banned from the UK for “preaching hate.” This conclusion was drawn from media’s misrepresentation of his lectures. The UK revoked his visa after the media slandered him, though he had been traveling here semi-frequently for some 20 years. He condemned terrorism and encouraged his millions of viewers to refuse the media representation of Islam, namely what jihad means. He described its meaning as a “great struggle” rather than a holy war as many would define it. He was most interested in reconciling relations among especially the Abrahamic religions, and in promoting the freedom of speech in light of his proclaimed real agenda, peace.
The week was full of controversy and progression of conservatism.
No comments:
Post a Comment