Press Freedom Archives - Sydney Peace Foundation

Nous Sommes Tous Charlie: the Value of Satire

Sydney Peace Foundation — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 23:42:21 +0000

In the wake of the murders of staff from the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, it’s imperative to re-assert the indispensable function of a humour which contributes so much to civility in societies. Sydney Morning Herald cartoonist Sally Wilcox made the same point when she wrote, “I believe satire is where sanity is found”.

Over the centuries, at least in countries expressing humanist values and striving to become democratic, critics, including cartoonists, encouraged political and religious leaders to become less thin skinned about their societies’ sacred cows. Civility and humanism developed side by side.

In the 18^th century, the Anglo Irish essayist and author Jonathan Swift, in the 20^th century the American journalist H.L.Mencken, and in pre-war Germany the poet-playwright Bertolt Brecht contributed to such civility. Swift mocked the authoritarian rule of the English over Ireland and debunked those who appeared to be blindly devoted to certain beliefs. Mencken exposed those who thought they had discovered religious, commercial and political truth. Such truths, he said, were indistinguishable from a headache. Brecht challenged Nazism and authoritarianism in all its forms. In a poem, which sounds like a tribute to the achievements of all satirists, Brecht wrote ‘On The Critical Attitude’,

Give criticism arms
And states can be demolished by it.

Cartoonists and caricaturists, from Hogarth and Gillray through Low and Searle to Larson and Leunig, have consistently criticised and deflated pomposity and championed tolerance and humanity.

Satire acts as an antidote to authoritarianism, to bigotry and as a non-violent challenge to claims made for a myriad of ‘isms’ which nurture dogma and cannot tolerate doubt. The targets of satire are usually powerful individuals who are either unaware of the absurdity of the claims they make – the emperor has no clothes – or appear not to care about the human costs of their so called leadership.

Such leaders’ one dimensional mindsets nurture extremism. Of course, not all the proponents of extremisms resort to killing those who challenge them, but for centuries, the violence that accompanies defence of a particular form of power, religious or otherwise, has been expressed in the rack, the lash, the scaffold, the stake, the bomb and the gun.

At the end of last week 2000 citizens of Baga Nigeria were slaughtered by Muslim militants Boko Haram and a blogger in Saudi Arabia was lashed, with the promise of more to come, for questioning features of Islam and the attitudes of certain religious leaders. Such brutality can’t simply be named and condemned. It raises a key question about intolerance towards anyone who refuses to accept the precepts of powerful institutions, in this case particular types of Islam but it could be forms of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Scientology, free market dogma, the Tea Party, Marxism or the claims of the flat earth society.

By all means avoid the cultural insensitivity which implies that all western democratic values should be adopted elsewhere. Remember also the significant achievements of Islamic culture in art, medicine, poetry and architecture and recall too that countries which are breeding terrorism – such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar – are some of the closest allies of the West.

But if diversity of views, tolerance of differences and freedom of speech are key features of universal human rights – to which almost all countries say they adhere – we should be able to question why certain deities are fit for satire and others are not. I shudder a little when commentators who condemn cartoons in Charlie Hebdo seem unaware that their own cultural thin skins might have been interpreted by extremists as a cue to embark on violent revenge.

The other side of such violence is a massive illiteracy about non-violence. The murderers of the Parisian satirists perhaps knew nothing about freedom of expression in art, film, music, dance, dress, social or political commentary. The idea that such forms of creativity contribute to physical and mental health must have eluded them. In common with suicide bombers and other killers, they must have preferred death to life, violence to laughter.

Extremists, including the Parisian murderers, cannot harbour doubt about their religious, political or moral views. In common with members of al-Qaeda, Boko Haram or ISIS, they apparently believed only in their dogma and in themselves. They would have been puzzled by Bertolt Brecht’s constant reminders that the understanding derived from satire can become a crucial means of individual and collective empowerment. In his poem ‘In Praise of Doubt,’ he wrote:

But the most beautiful of all doubts
Is when the downtrodden and despondent raise their heads
And
Stop believing in the strength
Of their oppressors.

Satire provides insight into the personal and the political. Without such insights, bemusement, fog, fatalism and ignorance prevail. For example, supporters of capital punishment somehow persuade themselves that executions show a reverence for life and for their version of freedom. When he was Governor of Texas, the God fearing George W. Bush seldom granted clemency to prisoners sentenced to death; and when invitations were issued for witnesses to Texas executions, there was seldom any shortage of volunteers, moved apparently by their moral, religious or political certainty. In response to such ghoulishness I argued that if there was more satire in America, the justifications for murder by the State would fall away. Such arguments fell on deaf ears.

A couple of years ago, in ABC televised interviews with prominent Arab women, I asked about the nature of humour in their respective countries. These were intellectually critical, high achieving women from fields of literature, business, drama, government and medicine. They gave engaging illustrations of social and economic developments in their countries. They appeared optimistic about the future. They had been confounding stereotypes about patriarchal authoritarianism in the Arab world until. Until I asked, ‘Let’s turn for a minute to the function of satire in your cultures ? What and who do you laugh at ?’

Silence followed. The interviewees looked bemused. No doubt aware that their answers might be broadcast around the world, they admitted that they could not even laugh at bigotry, at authoritarianism, at the down right sadists – in particular regarding the rights of women. Somewhat ironically, they did laugh when acknowledging that in their cultures, in public at least, there was little to laugh at.

Praising satire and saluting the slaughtered Parisian satirists, does not mean to say that any topic is fit target for such humour, or that any alleged humour could be labelled satirical. Laughter at absurdity is great medicine but attempting to make fun of the powerless is usually cruel and therefore out of bounds. Exposure of radio shock jocks’ bullying and derision of opponents could be and has been fit focus for satire. Even if they like to laugh at their own jokes, such radio men seem intent on promoting views which are seldom funny. For example, Alan Jones’ pillorying of Bob Brown and Julia Gillard was humourless, cruel, contained no irony but did verge on encouraging violence.

The assassinations in France remind us that those journalists were continuing centuries of struggle to show that satire is salutary, that non-violence is crucial, that freedom of expression is not only part of French notions of liberty but is also an international torch to be held aloft.

Following Charlie Hebdo’s example means not being half hearted about freedom of speech. No holds barred irreverence may be problematic but self censorship can mean a blind eye to intolerance. The ink of satire must continue to flow. Nous sommes tous Charlie.

By Stuart Rees, Founder of the Sydney Peace Foundation. First published on Online Opinion 14 January 2015

The post Nous Sommes Tous Charlie: the Value of Satire appeared first on Sydney Peace Foundation.

Nous Sommes Charlie

Sydney Peace Foundation — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 01:16:40 +0000

Nous Sommes Charlie

We are seeing the killers

whose balaclava eyes

stared like bad breath

shared with collaborators,

each masturbating anger

sufficient only to hear

the notes of their Kalashnikovs

which they played

in defence of their deities,

their dogma and themselves.

We are mourning cartoonists

murdered for laughter,

their freedom stifled

on the steps of satire,

their drawings extravagant

with messages rude enough

to craft memorials

in honour of the indispensable

value of undressing

the pompous and the powerful.

In response to the murder of staff and a defending Muslim policeman in the Paris office of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on 8^thJanuary, a poem by Professpr Stuart Rees. Hyams Beach January 11^th 2015.

More information about the poetry for peace of Stuart Rees, founder of the Sydney Peace Foundation, can be found here: https://sydneypeacefoundation.org.au/resources/peace-and-poetry/

The post Nous Sommes Charlie appeared first on Sydney Peace Foundation.

How Julian Assange is putting the Australian Government’s character to the test

Sydney Peace Foundation — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 04:06:11 +0000

Being forced to take extraordinary measures by seeking political asylum in Ecuador shows just what a desperate situation Julian Assange has found himself in. Faced with the very real prospect of extradition to the US, once he fronts up in Sweden, Asssange is justifiably worried for his safety as he enters the black hole of the American judicial system. One only needs to look at the fate of Bradley Manning to see the seriousness of what happens when the US get their hands on public enemies seen to have embarrassed the government.

The Sydney Peace Foundation continues to support Julian Assange and Wikileaks unequivocally. In 2011, Julian Assange was awarded the Sydney Peace Foundation’s Gold medal for “exceptional courage in the pursuit of human rights.” In presenting the award to Assange at London’s Frontline Club Mary Kostakidis, a former member of the Australian Human Rights Consultation Committee, praised WikLeaks as an “ingenious and heroic website that has shifted the power balance between citizen and the state by exposing what governments really get up to in our name”. Kostakidis thanked Assange for his “heroic courage” as a whistleblower to take “great risks for our benefit”.

Today Mary Kostakidis commented, “Julian Assange had no choice but to seek political asylum given the failure of the Australian government to provide adequate assistance”.

But the real issue here is not about passing a character assessment on Julian Assange or debating the merits of WikiLeaks. It has taken on much greater significance to us all, and we should all be concerned. The real issue is what happens to an Australian citizen when your government has, in effect, decided that you’re on your own. We’ve seen this play out already with David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib.

Julian Assange has unwittingly become a test case of the Australian government’s rhetoric that it is not simply operating under the thumb of the US. The Sydney Peace Foundation urges the Australian Government to stand up for the rights of Julian Assange, thereby showing its independence and willingness to protect the interests of any Australian citizen.

This time, the test of character is on our government and we should all be hoping that it acts in the interests of its people, and not in that of its “big brother”.

The post How Julian Assange is putting the Australian Government’s character to the test appeared first on Sydney Peace Foundation.

Julian Assange: the freedom of free speech

Sydney Peace Foundation — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:42:07 +0000

By Professor Stuart Rees, Founder of the Sydney Peace Foundation

There are a few days left to appeal the British High Court’s five to two ruling that Julian Assange can be extradited to Sweden to be interviewed about alleged sexual assault. Regarding that appeal, almost all the commentary since the Court announced its decision has revolved around legal nit picking on issues such as whether the Swedish prosecutor is a recognised judicial authority. Assange’s lawyers can’t be faulted for their focus on such technicalities but other issues will stand the test of time long after this extradition paraphernalia has been resolved.

These ‘other issues’ concern the WikiLeaks-Assange challenge to governments’ secrecy, the barely concealed violence, which characterises American policy in regard to whistleblowers, the cowardice of leading Australian politicians over the Assange controversy and, finally, the implications of the Assange-Bradley Manning cases for any future conception of justice.

As the project for democracy evolved over many centuries, secrecy became a key means of governance. Rulers assumed, ironically, that not only was this a key means of sustaining open government, but that citizens who challenged such notions threatened the very viability of a State. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange follow a tradition of highly significant dissenters to whom we owe gratitude for key freedoms, of speech, of the press and of association. Those WikiLeaks forerunners include the 18th century English satirist Daniel Defoe who, in 1702, was imprisoned for challenging the power of Church and State but who wrote in the famous Hymn to the Pillory, ‘Tell them I stand exalted there for speaking what they would not hear.’ Ninety years later, in 1792, Tom Paine, author of The Rights of Man was charged with sedition for questioning the secret manner in which State authority was maintained and false claims made about citizens, who dared to say that human rights represented a much higher authority than governments.

At a time when the Nixon Administration in the U.S. attempted to cover up details of the conduct of the Vietnam War and the extent of the casualties resulting from it, military analyst Daniel Ellsberg revealed truths about government policies and in his own recent words, did no more then than Bradley Manning is alleged to have done now. In his revelations in the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg provided a key service to democracy little different in principle from that which Assange and Manning have given. If those two citizens – one in a U.S. jail awaiting trial, another about to be extradited to Sweden – could be judged, as Ellsberg was, according to the historical value of their actions, the world’s media would be concerned with human rights issues. In 1971 Ellsberg was charged with conspiracy and espionage but all charges were subsequently dropped and a U.S. Supreme Court, in covert praise for Ellsberg’s courage insisted, ‘Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.’

There is justifiable fear that so great is the U.S. government’s desire for revenge against anyone who dares to challenge their authority, that the utterances of US leaders should be listened to very carefully. We might begin by comparing U.S. Ambassador to Australia Jeffrey Bleich’s comments last week that his government was not interested in Assange with the anger of other U.S. leaders and commentators. The latter includes a Presidential hopeful Mike Huckerbee who said, ‘Whoever leaked that (Wikileaks based) information is guilty of treason and I think that anything less than execution is too kind a penalty.’ Republican Sara Palin wanted Assange ‘Hunted down like Bin Laden’ and a Fox News anchorman commented, ‘It may be illegal but I encourage any concerned U.S. citizen to get their gun and shoot the son of a bitch.’

The idea that violence of almost any kind is the best response to dissenters like citizen Assange should make Australian leaders repudiate the U.S. ‘revenge is sweet’ culture. There has been ample opportunity for the Australian government to ask whether a grand jury in Virginia was attempting to concoct charges against Assange and to insist that it would use every means to prevent such a citizen being extradited to the U.S.

The Australian Prime Minister at first inferred that Assange had committed an offence, a claim subsequently disproved by the Australian Federal Police. Subsequently the Attorney General said that he’d need to consider confiscating Assange’s passport, even though no charges had been laid, let alone any conviction recorded. It’s as though the mantra about the value of secrecy in a war against terrorism ensured that leaders of an important democracy too easily forgot their responsibilities to sustain openness, to demystify the games played by secret agents of a State, and did not consider whether the best service they could provide to their ally the U.S. was to say that violence or threats of violence have no place in government.

A lesson from the Assange controversy is what we may learn about the nature of justice.

Regarding the value of various Wikileaks revelations about the conduct of governments, such as the diplomatic cables about the conduct of the Afghan war and the collateral damage video showing U.S. marines 2007 murder of eleven civilians including children in a Baghdad street, the Australian Prime Minister confessed in an ABC Q & A program, ‘I don’t get it.’

The people protesting on behalf of Julian Assange on Sydney and Melbourne streets last week do ‘get’ the value of Wikileaks releases, they do understand that a superpower has no more entitlement to seek revenge than ordinary citizens. Those protesters’ conception of justice includes an insistence on the right to protest and a demand that powerful institutions and individuals should be held accountable irrespective of governments’ claims about a need to protect national sovereignty

Professor Noam Chomsky knows the significance of Julian Assange’s actions. On my way to London last year, to award Assange the Sydney Peace Foundation’s ‘occasional gold medal for human rights’, Noam Chomsky penned the following message to Julian. ‘I would like to thank you for fulfilling your responsibilities as a member of free societies whose citizens have every right to know what their government is doing.’

When the dust has settled on the legal technicalities and the political inanities, the real issues of openness and accountability as the cornerstone of democracy will remain. Assange needs to be supported because of the service he does to the presentation of human rights and democratic governance.

This article was first published by Online Opinion, 7 June 2012

The post Julian Assange: the freedom of free speech appeared first on Sydney Peace Foundation.