Trenton Oldfield,
a 37 year old Australian activist, will appeal against the Home Office ruling
that he must leave the UK. The protester entered the Thames in April 2012 to disrupt
the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race in a demonstration against elitism and
government cuts. He was recently ordered to leave the country after being given a six-month jail sentence. As a supporter of the Dark Blues,
I was quite annoyed when the race was disrupted while Oxford commanded a
slender lead. After the re-start a stroke of misfortune saw an Oxford rower break
his oar, leaving Cambridge to claim a comfortable victory. But I did not call
for Oldfield’s banishment from this land (at least not seriously!) for his
disruption of our sacrosanct tradition.
Oldfield
has lived in the UK for over ten years and has a British wife who is expecting
a child this week. He has had his application for a spousal visa refused. Oldfield
holds a tier one visa as a highly skilled migrant, and his protest was peaceful;
the judge in his trail said herself that Oldfield had also made a positive contribution
to life in this country. The Home Office, on the other hand, claimed that his presence
in the UK was not ‘conducive to the public good’.
Oldfield
has been quoted by the Guardian as
saying that the decision to expel him from the country was ‘vindictive’, ‘political’,
and ‘an overreaction’. His MP, Rushanara Ali of Bethnal Green and Bow in east
London, remarked: 'I don't condone what he did, but it seems disproportionate to say that someone whose offence was to disrupt the Oxford v Cambridge Boat Race is a threat to our security, whose presence is not conducive to the public good'. Oldfield's appeal will cite article 8 of the European convention of human rights, which guarantees the right to family life.
There are many newspapers and journalists who love having a bash at Oxford and Cambridge, and there are plenty of people who - especially in the wake of Edward Snowden's revelations about internet and phone surveillance in the USA - paint an Orwellian picture of the invasion of privacy and the repression of the individual voice against the status quo. But in this case the treatment of Oldfield does seem to further fuel the fire which provoked his anti-elitism protest in the first instance. The initial public order offence that Oldfield faced was increased to public nuisance, and Met commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe subsequently claimed that a charge which could result in a custodial sentence was being considered. Having been sentenced to six months in jail and now refused a visa, Oldfield is no longer being treated as a protester but as a criminal. Should a man who disrupted a sporting event in a way that caused no physical or material damage be dealt with in such a severe manner?
Comparison with another high profile disruption of a sporting event throws the merciless handling of Oldfield's case into sharp relief. Ashley Gill-Webb, the man who threw a plastic beer bottle onto the track at the start of the 100m final at the London 2012 Olympics in the hope of distracting Usain Bolt, was given an eight-week community order and subjected to a 19:00 to 07:00 curfew. Having nearly caused a false start and ruined the race for many spectators in the stands, his punishment was far less ruthless (and much more suitable) than Oldfield's. Prosecutor Helen Shaw highlighted the high profile status of the event, and the fact that some had paid up to £4,000 for a ticket to watch Bolt defend his Olympic crown against Jamaican rival Yohan Blake. District Judge William Ashworth founds Gill-Webb's behavior 'serious' enough to deserve punishment, but felt he was unlikely to offend again.
Gill-Webb ultimately failed to disrupt the start of the race whereas Oldfield clearly succeeded, but does this really matter? Both intended to disrupt a sporting event in a non-violent manner driven by personal motives, which surely places their cases in the same bracket when it comes to severity of punishment. Making such an example of Trenton Oldfield does nothing to convince the population that the UK is moving towards equality, and adds weight to cynical suggestions that treatment before the law is not quite uniform. Oldfield's wife left a tantalizing question up in the air: would her husband have been so harshly treated had he disrupted any other event?
Perhaps more powerful comparisons will soon be made between Oldfield's case and the thousands of truly dangerous criminals who are allowed to remain in this country having served their sentences, as they were savvy (or lucky) enough not to dare disrupt that bastion of British 'greatness': the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race.
I disagree with the comparison between Oldfield and Gill-Webb. Oldfield's offence was far more egregious than Gill-Webb's; Oldfield actively sought to disrupt and cause a public disturbance, whilst Gill-Webb was unthinking and threw a bottle "for a laugh". The motivations of the two acts are completely different, which is frequently and indeed ought to be taken into account.
ReplyDeleteConsider a murder trial. A defendant who lost control of his- or herself in the heat of the moment and lashed out is almost always the recipient of a lighter sentence than the defendant who schemed and plotted to kill another human being. You cannot separate the motivation of the act from the consequences when judging the perpetrator. For these reasons, I hold strongly that Oldfield deserved a harsh punishment.
The issue over Oldfield's visa is also less contentious than presented. The fact is, he is a migrant. The UK is traditionally lax in allowing immigration, welcoming most people from across the world. But these people have to be aware of where they are going, and what they are emigrating to.
The state of the UK is the state of the UK, and Oldfield was a fool to think that he would be welcome to remain in the country after taking illegal action on such a high-profile stage. If it's acceptable for Australia to decide not to all an immigrant purely because they aren't bringing enough to the country, it's outrageous to assert that the UK can't reject an immigrant because they are breaking the law.
Thank you for your comment; we don’t get many on here!
ReplyDeleteFirstly, considering your point that Oldfield was far more egregious, I think that causing a disturbance in a bid to spark political debate (according to Oldfield, ‘elitism’ was looked up 500,000 through Google on the day of his protest) is far less of a danger to society than seeking to cause disruption and disturbance for no reason other than to cause disruption and disturbance in the heat of the moment. You are right that in a murder trial calculated killing is almost always punished more severely, but let us not forget that we are dealing with protests that caused no physical or material damage, and that Oldfield caused a 25 minute disturbance and the re-start of a rowing race, while Gill-Webb threw a plastic bottle onto a race track. Thinking about political questions and calculated action is in general far better than acting first and thinking later, and although the comparison between Oldfield and Gill-Webb is not water-tight, the cases do bear important similarities, and perhaps murder is not the best use of comparison either. Oldfield’s punishment should, I believe, have been harsher than Gill-Webb’s, but in a way that reflected the fact that he calculated his action rather than becoming lost in the heat of the moment. The huge degree of separation between the two punishments gives no such reflection.
Concerning your second argument, I agree that Oldfield’s status as a migrant should not be avoided and is clearly important, but dividing the people of the world into nationalities to such an extent becomes unhelpful. The rejection from this country that you suggest is suitable would be better utilised against real criminals who use violence and are actually a threat to society, whether they are British-born or otherwise. Tolerating the stupid but harmless protesters and throwing out the real criminals would surely make the UK a safer place to live. If we are to be so amazingly stricter towards people who entered this nation state from another nation state for no reason other than their migrant status, treatment before the law would be in a sorry state indeed.
As for your point about the high-profile stage of Oldfield’s protest contributing to his unforgiving punishment, perhaps he should have instead protested at the 100m Olympic final in order to avoid the intense media coverage and limelight of the Boat Race – I jest of course!
I’m sure this will not be the end of the issue, and I’m very interested to see how this plays out. Thanks once again for the comment!