06 Jun 12 | Middle East and North Africa
Tunisian graffiti artist Elektro Jaye was recently censored at the Tunis Pintemps des Arts (Spring of Arts), a modern contemporary art fair which exhibited more than 500 art works this year.
“One of the fair’s organisers Luca Luccattini literally told me that the state had put pressure on him to remove my posters”, Elektro Jaye told Index.
Lucattini, the fair’s director, told Webdo.tn that one piece by the artist has been taken down, but for administrative reasons rather than pressure from authorities.
The artwork in question (on the far left) features the star and crescent from Tunisia’s flag, along with the Christian cross and the Star of David. The images are combined with the phrase “La République Islaïque de Tunisie”, which translates as “The Islaic Republic of Tunisia”. Islaic is a play on words, “Is” being taken from “Islam” and “laic” from the French word for secularism, “laïque”.
“The idea suggested here is that the religious should not interfere with the state’s decisions, nothing more! In my posters there is only a message of peace, and tolerance,” says Elektro Jaye.
Tunisia has had a heated debate about secularism and Islamism, dominating political discussions in the months following the fall of Ben Ali. Many Tunisian artists did not hide their desire for a secular state, and have used their work to express their view that religion should be kept aside.
While Elektro Jaye was unable to display his work at the art fair, he eventually succeeded in having his work displayed.
“Aicha Gorgi suggested that I display my works in her gallery. Some scandalmongers have been suggesting that this was just a marketing ploy. This is totally wrong.”
01 Jun 12 | Uncategorized
Last week I attended the Doha Debates, where the programme focused on whether or not “censorship makes a mockery of the arts”. The debate was between independent curator Nat Muller and Syrian composer Malek Jandali, who agreed with the statement, and Hay Festival director Peter Florence and Iraqi art historian Nada Shabout, who spoke out against the motion.
As it turned out, Shabout was the lone ranger in pleading for cultural sensitivity and avoiding offence. Florence spoke out against the motion because he felt it was “stupid”. Florence said that artists inevitably find ways to overcome censorship and the role of an artist to test the boundaries set against them. Muller and Jandali both highlighted the importance in creating unfettered spaces for artists, but Muller touched on some of the challenges of running exhibitions within the Middle East.
Inevitably, the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad and the topic of religious sensitivity came up in the questions from the audience. Shabout was insistent on respecting the specific culture of a region, and stressed the importance of respecting local culture and norms. Since we were in Qatar, it was unsurprising, and throughout my time there I had many conversations about censorship in the country, especially after spending time in two of Doha’s galleries.Examples of silly censorship in films, to struggles for foreign artists displaying work in galleries in the Gulf all touched on the question of censorship in conservative societies.
Often, I find these conversations to be frustrating, because it inevitably comes down to the rights of the artist vs the rights of the audience. I don’t think we should be framing it in this way. In the end, the solution is polarising — it is either to censor the artist, or to tell the offended to merely turn away from offensive works. What is usually missing is a conversation about the right to be offended, which should go hand-in-hand with artistic freedom. Art is not always beautiful, it often times brings to the surface the ugly components of our societies that we’d rather ignore. We can’t ban hatred or ignorance, and artistic expression can spark a conversation about some of the things that we don’t necessarily feel comfortable discussing. What we really should be discussing is not whether or not art should be censored, but how we create room for discussion and dissent.
Watch the full debate below. I make an appearance around the 26 minute mark:
Sara Yasin works for Index on Censorship. She tweets at @missyasin
30 May 12 | Africa, Digital Freedom, Index Index, minipost
The website of a South African newspaper has been forced to remove an image of a controversial painting of President Jacob Zuma. City Press newspaper were put under pressure from the ruling African National Congress (ANC) who called for the website to be boycotted until the “insulting portrait” was removed. The image, which shows the president with his genitals exposed and is entitled The Spear, appeared as part of a satirical art exhibition at a gallery in Johannesburg, and has caused massive controversy, leading to Zuma taking legal action to have the portrait removed.
24 May 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Revelations filled Court 73 at the Royal Courts of Justice today, as Adam Smith, former special advisor to Jeremy Hunt, and Frédéric Michel, chief lobbyist for News Corp took to the stand at the Leveson Inquiry.
Adam Smith, who resigned from his position as Jeremy Hunt’s aide after the Inquiry released a collection of emails between himself and Michel, told the court that David Cameron had appointed Hunt to oversee the BSkyB bid, despite demonstrating his support for the move to the Prime Minister.
Smith explained that Hunt sent the Prime Minister a memo, firmly taking the side of James Murdoch, dismissing and criticising the BBC. In the memo, Hunt also tells Cameron the bid should not be blocked, and asks him to intervene in the decision which should have been the sole responsibility of Vince Cable.
The former aide described a “very close working relationship” with Jeremy Hunt, and described that the pair had an understanding of what was expected of him in his role as special advisor. He added that he and his team were unfamiliar with a “quasi-judicial role”, until Hunt was appointed to oversee the bid, but explained that he approached it in the same way as every other policy.
He added: “My understanding was that Mr Hunt had to decide on the media plurality issues, and Mr Hunt himself had to decide on the bid. There was no difference in the way I approached it.”
Describing his role as Hunt’s advisor, Smith explained acted as a point of contact for organisations wishing to speak to the Secretary of State. He said he would be on the “receiving end of people phoning up to have a grumble about a process”. With particular focus on the BSkyB bid, Smith told the court he acted as “a buffer and a channel of communication” for News Corp.
When asked by Robert Jay QC whether he felt the assertion that Hunt was a “cheerleader” for News Corp as true, Smith disagreed, stating: “He didn’t really have that much of a relationship with ether of the Murdoch’s — he tended to deal with, as the inquiry has heard, Michel.”
Towards the end of his brief spell of evidence, which will continue tomorrow, Smith told the court that his views on the bid which were based purely on expert evidence, were broadly the same as Hunt’s. He added: “I didn’t particularly mind either way whether it happened or not. In a funny sort of way I didn’t see what everyone was getting so worked up about.”
In a much longer session of evidence, Jay thoroughly questioned Frédéric Michel on the emails exchanged between himself, Jeremy Hunt and Adam Smith. Jay detailed more than 1000 text messages which were sent between News Corp and the bid office, along with 191 phone-calls and 158 emails.
Michel insisted to the court that he was under the “impression” that Hunt was aware of the details being passed to him by Smith, in relation to the BSkyB bid, and believed that the “feedback” he was receiving from the aide had been discussed with Hunt. Michel added that the purpose of his contact was to “check the temperature at Westminster.”
The lobbyist also told the court that he received no legal advice into the meaning of a quasi-judicial role, but was aware it was regarded as inappropriate to have discussions with the Secretary of State.
He said: “It was the first time I had to deal with such a transaction — I didn’t have specific detailed reminder of what it meant to have a quasi-judicial process. I was never of the view that it was inappropriate to try to put the view to these offices. The legal team assessed that they key element of a quasi-judicial process was not to have inappropriate contact with the secretary of state.”
Despite that, Jay outlined a range of text messages and emails contacting Hunt, and raised the question of whether his contact with Smith was appropriate. Michel consistently denied that the contact was inappropriate, and stressed that Smith did not offer him a “running commentary” of the proceedings related to the bid.
Michel said: “Smith gave me updates on timings, process, atmospherics of the day. We were in contact a lot and I guess he was being helpful on the process. I think running commentary is a very broad definition. I think it was much more precise than chit chat commentary.”
He added: “Adam has always been a very warm, professional, available adviser, and always very diligent in his work with me. The only interactions I have had with him were always professional and reliable.”
Adam Smith will appear before the inquiry to complete his evidence tomorrow morning, and Jeremy Hunt is expected to be called to give evidence next week.
