Allan Seale MBE was a pioneer of TV and radio gardening shows. He also wrote 22 books. But I remember him best for his sibilance: he always whistled the letter ‘s’. He died in 2001. I’m sorry I never heard him say ‘solipsistic’. That would’ve been a treat. Sweetheart Vivienne tells me Farmdoc’s Blog’s solipsistic. I agree. I see the world through my eyes, and I write about what’s in my thoughts. Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about Israel. So Farmdoc’s Blog reflects this. And today’s no exception. A week ago the Council of Europe’s European Court of Human Rights (pictured) decided it’s illegal and discriminatory to boycott Israeli goods, and the illegality of calling for such a boycott does not violate one’s freedom of expression [1]. The Court’s rulings carry moral weight throughout Europe. This ruling makes the attitude and behaviour of English filmmaker Ken Loach even more repugnant and reprehensible than it otherwise would be. I’ve written of him before [2]. Now he’s withdrawn his film Looking for Eric from the 2009 Melbourne International Film Festival (which starts today) because the Festival receives funding from the Israeli Government. Previously he’d told the Festival’s organisers he’d withdraw the film if they didn’t reconsider the Israeli sponsorship. They wouldn’t reconsider, so Loach withdrew [3]. The Festival will be better off without his sanctimonious grandstanding whose moral indefensibility is reinforced by the ECHR’s decision. Goodbye, Mr Loach. Go darken someone else’s doorstep.
3 comments:
Here's the first half of a letter published in the Age on 23 July:
'Let's be clear about the extent of Israeli sponsorship of the Melbourne International Film Festival. It involves the Israeli embassy covering the travel expenses to Australia of the young Israeli film director, Tatia Rosenthal, whose film $9.99 was accepted for screening at the festival. Most countries do likewise for their artists and film-makers accepted into such cultural exchanges.
(Mary Werther, Camberwell.)
If this is true - which means there's no direct Israeli sponsorship of the Festival - then it makes Mr Loach even more irrational and pathetic.
I mightn't agree with Loach's decision either, but I don't see how you can call it irrational. He mightn't agree with us, but he is acting according to his own beliefs.
And I don't see how the European Court of Human Rights can say that dictating what goods we buy and what we boycott is not a violation of our freedom of expression, when it clearly is.
As someone who spends her money as ethically and morally as I can, I find the ECHR's ruling very, very distressing, because if we are not allowed to make choices according to what we strongly believe, what have we left?
Of course it's an individual's democratic right to decide where to shop, which conferences to attend and so on, LOM, but it's not their right to force their beliefs and opinions onto others. That's fascism. In this case, if Mr Loach doesn't want to attend a conference because a young Israeli film maker's air fares will be paid for by her government, that's his absolute right. Don't come, Mr Loach. But what he's saying is that the festival must do as he says (ie ban the young woman) or he will punish it by withdrawing his film. That's not democracy; that's blackmail. It worked in Edinburgh, where he wielded his big stick and the film maker was indeed banned, but not in Australia. It's interesting that the Scots were so quick to suck it up. But it's noteable that of all the governments in the world - American, Chinese, Iranian, for example, it's the Israeli government alone whose citizens Loach wishes to punish, for whom he reserves his utmost contempt. One can only wonder why.
Post a Comment