Is Trenton Oldfield Our Pussy Riot?
Attack the elite and they won't take it lying down, writes Caroline Criado-Perez.
By Caroline Criado-Perez Published 21 October 2012 11:52
On 17th August 2012, Pussy Riot, a feminist punk collective based in Moscow were jailed for two years for “hooliganism”. And around the world governments were rightly swift to condemn the ruling as bearing no resemblance to justice. The UK media gave us rolling coverage of the events. It was big news and Britain basked in the safety of an outrage that didn’t affect us.
In the run-up to the trial, Britain’s very own, self-proclaimed freedom-fighter and iconoclast Brendan O’Neill, wondered what a UK Pussy Riot could “bravely mock”? He theorised that the only orthodoxies that are truly “dangerous” to mock in modern Britain are institutions such as the NHS, or concepts such as “multiculturalism”, or perhaps most bravely of all, “victim culture” – I guess Brendan has never seen Sarah Silverman’s set on why rape jokes are about as safe as you can get.
Irrespective of the fact that O’Neill makes a living out of “bravely” standing as a one-man army against these over-bearing ideologies and yet still, inexplicably, remains free, our courts have now provided an antidote to his theorising. Because yesterday, without the blanket media coverage and fanfare that accompanied the Pussy Riot sentencing, a man called Trenton Oldfield was jailed for six months.
His crime? Disrupting the Oxford-Cambridge boat-race as a part of a protest against elitism. Or, to use Judge Anne Molyneux’s terminology, his crime was “prejudice”. And as Molyneux says,
No good ever comes of prejudice. Every individual and group in society is entitled to respect. It is a necessary part of a liberal and tolerant society that no one should be targeted because of a characteristic to which another takes issue. Prejudice in any form is wrong.
And indeed it is. But don’t these fine words in defence of a put-upon elite sound a little familiar to you? They should. But if they don’t, here’s a little re-cap:
In a modern society relations between various nationalities and between religious denominations must be based on mutual respect and equality and idea that one political movement can be superior to another gives root to perspective hatred between various opinions.
These are the words with which Judge Syrova sentenced Pussy Riot to two years in a penal colony. They are the words which were so complacently mocked and derided by the world’s media. They are the words upon which the twitterati offloaded an abundance of WTF. And they are words which now make our judiciary sound like an authoritarian echo-chamber – and make our complacency look very shaky indeed.
Trenton Oldfield without a doubt comes across as pompous, self-satisfied and lacking in any tangible aims. His protest was childish, ineffective and bizarrely targeted. It deserved little more than the smirk he supposedly awarded Judge Molyneux yesterday.
But in the wake of Molyneux’s judgment, Oldfield’s pronouncements about elitism start to look far more credible. The boat race starts to look like far from a soft target. And O’Neill’s choice of orthodoxies start to look wildly off base. Indeed, when it comes to “victim-culture” it seems that if you must commit a crime, you’re still far better off actually physically attacking someone who lacks institutional power, say like a girlfriend, than of committing the heinous offence of interrupting a jolly day out at the races.
Not so much of a “modern British orthodoxy” after all then Brendan.
This post was originally published at Week Woman.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















6 comments
We all now what the new orthodoxies are, but even in this article they are a taboo subject. Forty years ago when the Establishment was very much on the right foot and far less 'liberal', we were all urged to challenge orthodoxy and to a certain extent that attitude led to positive developments: greater freedom for homosexuals of both genders, the disabled no longer being shoved into a corner where they can be safely ignored and a more open attitude to the evil of paedophilia. In fact, what was then an unorthodox position is now orthodox. But there have been casualties, too, in the rather self-congratulatory drive to 'liberalise': we are free to think as we please just as long as what we think is along party lines. Thus a Christian couple who sincerely and honestly think that homosexual and premarital sex are wrong are at best derided and hounded for their conviction. I might think they are wrong and so might you, but if we are to cherish and respect freedom of thought and speech, we must allow everyone that right, or else our principle is just vacuous nonsense. Then there are those on the far right: you and I might both agree that they are morons with nary an IQ between them, but again if our principles are to mean anything, we are obliged to take the rough with the smoot. Or what about the hate campaigns of some Muslims against gays and Jews. In practice they are granted far more slack. In reality we dare not tackle them, as we tackle Christians (whose disapproval of homosexuality takes a far less lethal form), because of our cock-eyed attitude to 'ethnic minorities' and because we worry about a tiny minority in their number who are quite prepared to kill and maim to prove a point. At heart there is a huge hypocrisy in modern Britain: we pretend we have become 'more caring' and 'more aware' when we are anything but. A good example might be the Liverool Care Pathway which at the end of the day is more or less officially sanctioned murder in the name of 'caring' and doing 'what's in the best interest of the patient'.
Surely the blasphemy-proof, sacred cow of Britian is Islam?
Would the makers of Innocence of Muslims have remained free if they'd done it in this country? The answer is no.
Would the left-wing media have come out in support of them as they have done with Pussy Riot? Again the answer is, no.
Is that because the Russian Orthodox church and Putin are state institutions whereas Egyptian Islam is not? Again the answer is, no.
"Surely the blasphemy-proof, sacred cow of Britian is Islam?"
Have you tried reading the Sun, Daily Mail, Express, Telegraph or Times at any point in the last five years? And while I have a lot of problems with the New Statesman's line, failing to defend idiot bigots' right to free speech is not one of them. Google "new statesman Innocence of muslims", and a very pointed article comes up highlighting the obscure case of a guy who got arrested after playing it in Egypt.
That took me a grand total of 30 seconds to find, Pavlova.
"Surely the blasphemy-proof, sacred cow of Britian is Islam?"
Have you tried reading the Sun, Daily Mail, Express, Telegraph or Times at any point in the last five years? And while I have a lot of problems with the New Statesman's line, failing to defend idiot bigots' right to free speech is not one of them. From a single Google search, here is a very pointed article supporting not just the right of Innocence of Muslims to be played, but the obscure case of a guy who got arrested after playing it in Egypt.
/blogs/voices/2012/09/egyptian-atheists-and-innocence-muslims
That took me a grand total of 30 seconds to find, Pavlova.
It's not dire at all Caroline...what's dire is that ordinary folk have been lulled into a false sense of freedom and democracy, when we actually have quite an authoritarian way of life...we don't judge sentences in this country by the apparent and entirely subjective view of someones smugness or douche-bagginess, but by the severity of their crime and it's intent.
This was a wholly disproportianate sentence that should be appealed and quashed, and this judge should be ridiculed to Mars and back!
Haha, this is dire, even by NS' standards.