Asking an artist to be apolitical is like asking a frog not to croak 

    Jacqueline Maley

 

It is an unwelcome indicator of the horror of the Israel/Hamas conflict that it has rippled out to the most unlikely corners of the Antipodes. For example: symphony orchestras are not commonly regarded as hotbeds of activism and political controversy. But in recent weeks, the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra has been shaken by the extremely damaging fallout from a piano performance which touched on the horrendous death toll in Gaza. How is that even possible? In August, the MSO pianist Jayson Gillham gave a recital to a small audience, during which he played a piece called Witness by composer Connor D’Netto. Gillham prefaced the piece with a speech dedicating it to journalists killed in Gaza. He said some of those deaths had been ‘‘targeted assassinations’’, a war crime allegation vehemently rejected by Israel. He also said: ‘‘In addition to the role of journalists who bear witness, the word ‘witness’ in Arabic is ‘shahid’, which also means ‘martyr’.’’ Complaints flew in. Under the direction of (now former) managing director Sophie Galaise, the MSO wrote to attendees saying Gillham’s comments were not authorised, and apologising for offence caused. Gillham was removed from a concert the next week, then the MSO said that was a mistake, and then it cancelled the concert entirely. The MSO was bombarded with hatred from pro-Palestine ‘‘keyboard warriors’’. The board sacked Galaise. All parties to the dispute – the MSO, Galaise, Gillham – have lawyered up. Last week Galaise told The Australian that concerts should be ‘‘safe havens’’, free from political protest. The former MD, who clearly feels very hard done by, is the latest exemplar of what is becoming a hard rule: any attempted clean-up from Gaza/ Israel controversies only magnifies tensions and increases the likelihood you will lose your job. For reference, see the ABC’s sacking of broadcaster Antoinette Lattouf, and the Sydney Theatre Company’s handling of actors who appeared at a curtain call for The Seagull last year, wearing keffiyehs in solidarity with Palestinian people. I don’t pretend to know how Galaise should have handled the incident, although as a journalist, I’ll always lean heavily towards defending freedom of speech. Some patrons were offended but no one was endangered, or anything close to it. Friends of mine involved in less well-funded arts organisations and charities have had a diabolical time balancing the passionate views of staff, and their right to express those views, with the very real fear and upset of many Jewish patrons and donors. There seems no right way.

The conflict between the freedom of pro-Palestine people to protest Israel’s deadly campaign on Gaza, and the rights of Jewish Australians to live free from antisemitism, is playing out everywhere. In newsrooms, on boards, in charities and particularly, it seems, in the arts.

But the idea that artists should separate their views from their work seems profoundly bonkers to me – it’s not so much a moral question as a definitional one. Galaise said last week the MSO should be ‘‘neutral’’ – but it took a ‘‘Yes’’ position on the Voice, and on same-sex marriage. Asking artists to be apolitical is like asking a frog not to croak or a bird not to tweet.

Artists have always made great works inspired by the horrors of war: Shakespeare’s Richard III, Picasso’s Guernica, the heartbreaking poetry of Siegfried Sassoon, Peter Weir’s Gallipoli, Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now, Pat Barker’s Regeneration Trilogy, Virginia Woolf’s Mrs Dalloway ... I could go on, and on.

To me, what is new about these Israel/Gaza cultural conflicts is how completely left and right have swapped sides from their usual positions.

The concept of ‘‘psychological safety’’ and ‘‘safe spaces’’ have for years been pilloried by the right as identity-politics garbage, the indulgence of a snowflake generation constantly ‘‘triggered’’ because they have zero resilience. Who believe their individual, subjective feelings should override the freedoms of others. But this is precisely the sort of reasoning now deployed by people offended by pro-Palestine pronouncements. According to The Australian, one patron who complained after the Gillham recital said s/he was ‘‘angry and traumatised’’ by his remarks; another described the words as ‘‘an attack on ... patrons’’.

Once upon a time, former Coalition attorney-general George Brandis infamously declared ‘‘people do have a right to be bigots’’ in his defence of free speech. You’d be hard-pressed to find a conservative who’d claim that now on behalf of pro-Palestinian activists.

Meanwhile, many on the left have decried freedom of speech as the coverall excuse for bigotry, and have accused adversaries of ‘‘platforming’’ bigots, a sin which has become akin to bigotry itself, in some quarters. But when it comes to Palestine, they’re all for freedom of expression, even when it veers close to antisemitism, or launches right into it.

Another example of this selfinterested side-switching: the so-called ‘‘woke’’ left has traditionally held that an offensive person’s intention, or motive, has little relevance against the harm caused. Now that logic is being (quite reasonably) used against pro-Palestinian activists – it doesn’t matter if you reject accusations of antisemitism, or genuinely believe that you are not antisemitic. What matters is the effect of your words on the minority group in question – and who are suffering from a global wave of revived antisemitism.

The Gaza/Israel culture wars have played out most notably on university campuses. In the US, protesters have been dispersed forcefully by the military. Some conservatives have demanded Australian student protesters be treated similarly – broken up by whatever means necessary.

In 2019, the Morrison government – alarmed by student protests aimed at shutting down campus speaking tours by controversial people like men’s rights activist Bettina Arndt – instituted a review into free speech on campuses. Its results were legislated by the Morrison government in 2020.

Many of the voices who so strongly asserted the importance of freedom of expression then are silent now. And some of the people who once emphasised the damage done by offensive speech are now pretty loosely spoken themselves.

I judge no one for their moral inconsistencies. To be a hypocrite is to be human, and that is the one blessed thing we all have in common.

Jacqueline Maley is a regular SMH columnist.

SMH 08/09/2024

 

ON THIS SITE WE TRY HARD TO BE ACCURATELY CARTOONING WHILE REMAINING HUMAN AND BE LESS HYPOCRITICAL.... BUT WE CAN FALTER... IN GENERAL WE HAVE TO FIGHT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA THAT TENDS TO KISS THE ESTABLISHMENT'S BUTT. WE RARELY DO. GL. POLITICALLY CARTOONING SINCE 1951.

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

Protesters are marching through Melbourne's CBD, in a second day of demonstrations in opposition to the biennial Land Forces International Land Defence Exposition.

The three-day event attracts hundreds of defence and weapons companies from around the world and serves as a trade expo for the defence industry.

Police on Thursday extended an exclusion zone outside the expo, placing water-filled bollards on the northern section of the Spencer St bridge which connects to the CBD.

Blocked off from the venue, protesters instead marched down Flinders St in the CBD, chanting and holding signs calling for an embargo on arms exports.

Security remained tight around the Land Forces expo, as police checkpoints checked the identification and bags of attendees. 

Several attendees said they were disgusted by the behaviour of protesters yesterday.

“It’s appalling – they should be charged for what they have done,” one woman said.

Another attendee said: “I thought the violence was absolutely disgusting yesterday. The police are here to protect people and 24 of them got hurt.”

One protester, whose bag was being searched by police, said he felt his right to protest was being attacked.

Another said: "The real weapons are on the police and in the convention centre and we do not want them in this country or anywhere in the world."

Dozens arrested after violent clashes on Wednesday

It comes after a fiery day of protests outside the MCEC on Wednesday, with more than 1,000 protesters lighting fires near the venue, blocking traffic and clashing with police.

A large cohort of those in attendance at the protest were pro-Palestinian and anti-war groups, carrying signs calling for an end to armed conflict in Gaza.

Police arrested 42 protesters for various offences on Wednesday, including assault, arson and blocking roadways.

Police said 27 officers, from Victoria and interstate, required medical treatment following the protest.

The behaviour of protesters was criticised by both the Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton and Premier Jacinta Allan, who said some protesters had acted "in a disgraceful way".

"What we saw yesterday was a small number of people not coming with the intent to peacefully protest," Ms Allan said.

"When you come to protest carrying rocks, carrying bottles and balloons filled with urine ... your motives are exposed."

Police deployed non-lethal ammunition and OC spray during clashes with demonstrators, prompting calls from legal groups and the Victorian Greens for scrutiny on police powers during protests.

Speaking to ABC Radio Melbourne, Secretary of the Police Association of Victoria Wayne Gatt said he would not oppose an independent inquiry. 

"We’re used to being accountable. I'm used to independent agencies looking into police ... they aren't going to find anything I am not comfortable with," he said. 

He said police officers he had spoke with were "shocked by the level of violence that confronted them" and he backed their response.  

"[Officers] have basic means to keep themselves and others in the community safe to defend themselves from violent actions," Mr Gatt said. 

"They're not going to stand there and be punching bags … ordinary Australian's wouldn't expect them to do that." 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-12/melbourne-land-forces-protest-wrap-day-2/104340858

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

The promoters behind the Land Forces weapons expo are registered as a charity. This charity, AMDA, pays no tax but does pay high salaries and just tripled its income to $35m. Michael West reports. 

It was rubber bullets and tear gas for peace protestors but special police mollycoddling and a Victorian Government sponsorship for the merchants of death.

What do we know about the promoters of the Land Forces weapons fair which the Victorian government so avidly protected from anti-war protestors this week with a $15m police presence, stun grenades, pepper spray and batons?

We know from regulatory filings the promoter behind Land Forces is a charity called AMDA Foundation. We know from AMDA’s financial disclosures that this charity is highly profitable. Its income shot up from $13m in 2022 to $34.6m last year.

That was for the year to June; at which point it was sitting on a financial investment portfolio of $43m in cash, stocks and bonds. AMDA even gets government grants – grant revenue is booked at $6.6m over the past 2 years. The principal sponsor for Land Forces expo this year was none other than the Victorian Government, which went to extraordinary lengths to protect and promote its investment.

The mainstream media was bizarrely strident in its anti-protest coverage, running the story (not disavowed by the government and Victoria Police) that protestors sprayed police with acid. That was later downgraded to ‘irritants’ and ‘low-level acid’ bringing speculation it might have been orange juice (citric acid) or maybe the chemicals in the bubble liquid from the bubble machine with which the outnumbered protestors entertained the police blockade at one point.

It’s all a rort on the public, on the very taxpayers and citizens the Victorian government had its police assaulting this week, because weapons companies – the likes of AMDA’s exhibitors BAE, Lockheed Martin, Thales and Boeing – are funded by governments globally.

In Australia, the Defence budget is soaring amid rising weapons sales; so it is a fair bet that the income of AMDA will be higher in 2024.

And these ‘charitable’ weapons promoters certainly look after themselves personally with their ‘charitable donations’ income and their government grants.

AMDA’s $30m in expenses last year included $8m in pay for its 31 employees (FTE equivalent), which averages out at almost $260k per employee. The 5 KMP – the crew at the top of the charity – shared $1.5m or almost $300k apiece in ‘charity pay’.

https://michaelwest.com.au/the-lucrative-charity-yes-charity-running-the-land-forces-weapons-fair/

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.