Subs of the Day and Islamophobia

In Britain we have a great tradition of racism and xenophobia which many of us are keen to keep alive and well to this day. A subtle, or not so subtle, way that this manifests in the twenty-first century is through objecting to certain aspects of people's religious beliefs, as opposed to something as old-school and obvious as the colour of their skin.

Particularly when it comes to Islam, white people are particularly keen of a certain word: barbaric. The use of the death penalty in any Islamic country is "barbaric", in China and North Korea it's because they have totalitarian regimes, and the fact that it's maintained in the law and practice of 40 countries including the USA and Japan is largely ignored. Islam is framed as uniquely sexist, uniquely opposed to the rights of gay people, uniquely intolerant, aggressive and savage.

Some of this sentiment comes from people who regard the UK as a 'Christian country'. Some of it comes from people with a more secular or atheist view. They see modern Christianity as a suitably watered-down form of religion, but when it comes to Islam, they see a threat. This is fuelled by a hostile media, happy to print stories about "Muslim grooming gangs", or suggest that councils are spending money on "Muslim only toilets". Objecting to a religion becomes more palatable than objecting to a race. We convince ourselves that we don't dislike these people for the colour of their skin, and we don't hate them just because of their religion, but we do actually disagree with this one specific thing in their religion, so they should probably change that if they want to integrate properly into society.

Thus, halal meat. For meat to be halal the animal is hung upside down and its throat cut. "In the name of God" is said. It doesn't even have to be killed by a Muslim. Kosher meat slaughtered by a Jew is also halal, and an animal killed in the same way by a Christian (as long as it isn't one forbidden by Islamic law) would also be halal.

There is some controversy about how humane a method this is. Some activists argue that an animal killed in this way could take up to two minutes to die, and thus will experience pain. But how much pain is an acceptable amount for an animal to experience when it is slaughtered? And how pain-free are secular methods of slaughter? Reactionaries describe halal slaughter as "barbaric", yet I'm yet to meet one who knows the first thing about how slaughter is carried out on an industrial scale in a secular abattoir. If you're still under any illusions, just Google the phrase "secret filming of animal abuse in slaughterhouses".

Any person who eats meat is complicit in some form of animal suffering. Even if you eat a diet of only organic free-range meat, you have no idea how much pain the animal on your plate went through when it was killed. And if you're happy to eat battery-farmed animals then what makes you think that the final two minutes an animal is alive is what should count when deciding how ethical your dinner is? Unless you rear your own livestock from scratch and slaughter it yourself, you are in no place to judge. Apart from if you're a vegan, in which case we're all as bad bad each other.

Recently it transpired that some Subway restaurants now only serve halal meat. This is not new: some branches have been halal since 2007. The beef, chicken and turkey on offer are all halal, and they don't serve any pork products in the establishment.

This isn't about enforcing religious laws on all their customers but simply that for an establishment to advertise as halal they need to be able to ensure that all their products will definitely be halal.  To avoid the risk of a careless staff member using a knife that's touched a bit of pork when they're making a supposedly halal sandwich, the easiest option is just not to sell any pork products in the branch.

Subway, as a giant American chain, can presumably care about one thing over everything else: profit. The UK's first Subway opened in 1996, and there are now 1423, of which less than 200 are halal. By opening halal stores, it means they can welcome the custom (and money) of Muslim customers who observe a halal diet. Of course this means they miss out on the custom of those who refuse to a sandwich unless it contains bacon, but it's a simple economic decision.

If you have a sincere moral objection to halal meat, then I can only assume you feel the same way about the more troubling aspects of the meat industry in general. If you're still unconvinced, Google for "Kentucky Fried Cruelty" and watch a video of some chickens being boiled alive.

If you feel uneasy about the lack of pork in your sandwich, then you need to ask yourself why. None of the franchises have changed overnight - all the halal ones were opened as halal. And this isn't even a much-loved traditional English chain - they only opened their 50th store in 2001. Have you ever had a kebab? Probably halal. Some branches of Nando's and KFC are halal as well.

Welcome to capitalism. These companies are responding to consumer demand - they decide what they want to sell and you decide whether or not you want to buy it. If you're really bothered by all this then I doubt Subway cares. They probably factored in "reactionary idiots" as part of a cost-benefit analysis when they first launched halal franchises.So feel free to boycott Subway if you must: there are plenty of other sandwich places to choose from.

But be aware that if you're doing this it's probably because you're a stupid racist. Oh and by the way, all fish counts as halal so you'll need to boycott that too.

On why you can shove that flag up your arse for all I care

It was just over four years ago that I was first applying to Oxford University and believe it or not I didn't believe that it was a deeply homophobic place where I could expect to regularly experience harassment and discrimination by virtue of my sexual orientation. This is despite the fact that just a few years ago barely any Oxford Colleges decided to fly a rainbow flag for a few days in February.

Of course this has now all changed. Colleges all over Oxford have hoisted the rainbow banner up the flagpole, and the ones that have refused are being lobbied by well-meaning students or hit by waves of protest. Brasenose College said they wouldn't fly the flag, so the students bought a total of fifty flags and scattered them across the college in various locations. The same happened at Exeter College last year, where there was a "massive campaign" to get the flag flying. Eventually the students won, although their plans to fly the flag this year were nearly scuppered when nobody could find which cupboard the flag had been put in. Luckily, just in the nick of time, someone was able to lend one.

And what a difference it has made. Now for a few days in February we cannot go about our business without being confronted by the hideous technicolour of 1970s San Franciscan design several times a day. The narrative being spun is that the flag is symbolic of each college's commitment to accepting people regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, that it shows Oxford is welcoming, that it "sends a message", and in one particularly garbled interview I watched on the website of a student newspaper, that Oxford colleges flying the flag is particularly important this year because of the Winter Olympics in Russia.

Of course Oxford is not alone in this. Earlier in the month Google unveiled a rainbow-coloured logo on their homepage, which was hailed as their "most political yet", and The Guardian's website had the letter g filled in with a rainbow as well. Various people on the internet put a rainbow in place of their usual photo across various social media platforms.

Why do I find this all such a waste of time?

Activism about how to decorate a flagpole has usurped any other form of organising. Having every single college in Oxford is now a top priority for the university's LGBTQ society, various college reps, and seemingly the wider community. And of course for straight people it is is important to be seen to love the gays nowadays, so they are all strongly in favour.

Actions speak louder than rainbow flags.

Pretty much all the various parts of Oxford University go above and beyond the basic legal framework of rights set out in the 2010 Equality Act, they have various systems in place to ensure that LGBTQ people are not discriminated against and there are student representatives, welfare staff and hotlines you can speak to if you are having any problems or think you are being treated unfairly. Because I can't think of a better methaphor right now, let's think of this as a cake.

Beyond that, the icing on the cake might be how fully integrated you can be in the wider student body, how free you feel you can be to express yourself regardless of your sexuality or gender and to know that this will not make you some sort of weirdo outcast who never gets invited to parties.

Now I can only speak from my own experience, but if I had to make a guess I would say that for most of the students at Oxford the cake is pretty well iced, and maybe even has a layer of jam in the middle. 

The idea that we need a rainbow flag to demonstrate this seems utterly illogical. And were Oxford to be a place that was actually virulently homophobic, it would achieve nothing. Were someone to waltz in to my old secondary school and demand that they hang a rainbow flag up it would be the equivalent of saying 'sod the cake, but here's some food colouring'.

I don't mean to sound like I think LGBTQ-related discrimination at Oxford never happens and that there's no room for progress, because of course there is. But maybe if there are concrete ways in which we could be improving people's lives we should be focusing on those instead of worrying about a rainbow flag,

Students at Oxford (myself included) are among the most privileged people in the country. If not by birth, just by virtue of being at Oxford. And let's not kid ourselves that birth has nothing to do with it when more than half of the annual intake were privately educated and despite Oxford's "commitment to access" and spending millions of pounds every year the percentage of students from state schools has wobbled along in the mid-forties for more than twenty years. And even with the same A-level results, private school kids are 8% more likely to receive an offer.

On the one hand it's great if in this atmosphere of elitism and snobbery that we don't also discriminate by sexual orientation, but what about the ways we do?

There's evidence to suggest the interview process at Oxford is institutionally racist and favours applicants from certain ethnic backgrounds over others. And your options are also pretty limited if you have a disability - many (if not most) Oxford colleges are unable to provide accommodation that's accessible to wheelchair users. I think we can all agree that racism and ableism are both bad, but I'm loath to suggest that the solution to these problems is collective organising about hanging a flag up once a year.

Two years ago in an anonymous online survey an Oxford student compared the rainbow flag to a swastika. Aside from how offensive this obviously is if we think of the rainbow flag in its original political context then there is a parallel:  the swastika on symbolises Nazism, whereas the rainbow flag symbolised liberation and pride marches in the face of oppression.

But an Oxford college's decision to display the flag nowadays packs as much meaning as if they chose to fly a flag which symbolises their commitment to not employing children as chimneysweeps.

The rainbow flag can mean whatever you want it to. It doesn't have a specific meaning. It is meaningless.

It is pointless, it is futile, and most of all, it is really really really ugly. 

It is a brash hideous mess of colours. There is a reason why when you get dressed in the morning you do not wear as many clashing shades as possible. There is a reason why most countries' flags do not contain more than three colours. Maybe if it was just pink or something I wouldn't care as much, but it's such an embarrassment to be associated with.

The thought that straight people might think this aesthetic atrocity is something I identify with is enough to make me almost wish I was straight. It is an abomination. I suppose a hundred years ago homosexuality was illegal and I might have lived my life in fear of going to prison, but at least I wouldn't have to look at that awful fucking flag.

On A Fallen Ceiling

My housemate woke up to discover a massive chunk of her ceiling had fallen in, filling the room with white dust and setting off the fire alarm. While the room is being repaired she's been moved to another room in the house.

Her room faces onto the road and has a big bay window, which the curtains have been removed from. This means every time I come into the house I'm greeted by the view of the work happening in her room like a continually-updated art installation which reminds me of this piece by Tracey Emin:

It’s Not the Way I want to Die (2005)

This huge work recreates the roller-coaster at Margate's 'Dreamland' fairground. The fairground was a central part of Emin's youth: it was exciting, seedy and sexually charged. 

In an interview with The Observer Emin, 42, recounted "When I was 16 I used to let boys finger me on that roller-coaster. It was a rickety old wooden antique, and it took ages to to reach the top. I could always reach orgasm on the downhill sections."

"Once I tried wanking a boy off on it, but cos we were going seventy miles an hour or something it was too cold for him to stay hard. And he was so shit-scared of heights he almost threw up. I sucked him off under the pier after though."