Inflicting damage under the guise of support

There is no right to demand others provide amplification. Having studied Human Rights Law some fifty years ago, before it was trendy, I feel qualified to assure you of that. Protestors are keen to talk about their rights, less so the rights of others. Do you think Jews have a right to feel culturally safe, especially in Australia?

How can Abdel-Fattah and her supporters think it's fine to demand a Jewish person be uninvited to a writers week event but not ok for that to happen to you? Everyone who has supported her has to wear the odium of such hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is rife among the righteous.

This is the third year in a row that the AWW has dealt with controversy relating to guests who were pro-Palestinian and or anti-Israel. Why aren't authors on other conflicts in Africa and Asia invited? Where are the writers pleading for women's rights in Iran?

It is quite understandable that in the wake of Bondi some wise heads thought that showing deference to the shock and grief that has touched so many Australians, not just the Jewish community, would be appropriate. No one would expect Abdel-Fattah to agree.

Her views and comments have had plenty of air space. They're strong and to me completely abhorrent views. She is however entitled to hold them. It will be interesting to see if the federal governments hate speech laws to be introduced into parliament shortly would restrict the articulation of such remarks.

Those who have gone out in sympathy have a very weird set of values. It's apparently OK to spew hatred but not OK to decline to amplify that hatred, even in circumstances when people are grieving.

MORE AMANDA VANSTONE:

The writers declining to attend say they are doing so in support of Abdel-Fattah. There is no doubt some truth to that. But it's not the whole truth. They could express their support for her privately or publicly, and still attend. Not attending doesn't so much support her as it does inflict damage. It exacts a price. And they've been successful, if you can call it that.

Is ramping up your protest by not attending really more important than offering the loyal public a successful writers week? Didn't anyone think about the writers and panelists who were looking forward to participating? Or about the staff who would had been scrambling to handle all the changed logistics from a changed line up and now from outright cancellation. Oh, incidentally what about the public who are meant to be the beneficiaries of the week. All of that must seem irrelevant to people who decide to not show up because someone hasn't been given a forum to amplify their views.

Generally speaking, both arts boards and governments would agree that they hire specialists to do the programming. They recognise that is not their function. Those protesting Abdel-Fattah's withdrawn invitation focus on this aspect. However, to imagine that means there are no circumstances when a board or government should have a say is plainly ridiculous. They have a responsibility to ensure taxpayers money is spent well. They have a longer term responsibility for the standing of the event. To imagine that governments, boards and donors should throw taxpayers hard earned money at the arts with no concern at all for what comes out the other end is just fantasy.

When bad decisions are made, risks taken (as they have to be), audiences don't show up or costs overrun ... guess who picks up the tab? That's part of the problem. So many arts people have no skin in the game. None. When things go belly up because they've made bad decisions or didn't manage costs they don't pay any of the bills.

So don't get sucked in to the idea that governments and boards should have no say ever at all. One arts person who recognises the isolated mindset of so many colleagues referred to the old Australia Council as Centrelink for the arts.

It is odd that the grandiosely named leftist think tank "The Australia Institute" would complain about the provider of the funding daring to have a say. The Institute provided funding that bought them some say. They withdraw their funding in protest. But they don't think funding should allow governments or boards to have any say. Ask yourself this, would the arts community be happy for mining companies to chip in in order to get the same influence as The Australia Institute?

Actors, producers, writers and the general arts milieu have as much right as anyone else to express their view. But if they think the taxpayer is obliged to fund the amplification of it, they are mistaken. Why would their view be any better than that of a retailer, sportsperson or tradesperson? Believe me, many, if they read that statement, would laugh mockingly. How could I suggest these people would have the insight artists have? I can answer that. People who aren't involved in the arts or who aren't economically lucky aren't stupid. They don't have to read or watch a Greek play to understand what tragedy or unfairness is about. They live it.

A quick look at the open letter from various arts people gives an insight into their unshakeable self confidence. They assert an incursion on free speech which just isn't true. Abdel-Fattah can say whatever she wants. They assert that an apparent outcry amongst many in the arts community is in fact a justified across the board public outcry. Twenty years in politics gave me some capacity to read the general public mood and there is no across the board outcry. That claim is further evidence of them talking to their own echo chamber.

Interestingly they refer to evil growing in darkness. Well, as to darkness, some of the signatories might ask themselves if everything about their own performance over the years has seen the light. How many of them have had their mistakes, poor behaviour, bullying or serious incompetence kept in the dark in part by their seeking to have it so kept? Non-disclosure agreements are wonderful things for bad people. Their wickedness hides in the darkness thereof. And they can then publicly lecture others on what they see as badness. It's the hypocrisy thing again.

Just an inkling of the overconfidence that beleaguers some of these people. One arts person, in defending a completely different (but what I thought was) series of biased and bad program choices simply smiled that smile that sometimes comes with overconfidence and said "the arts were a mirror to our soul". Seriously!

The mirror to our soul doesn't come from a publicly funded arts bureaucrat. And it certainly doesn't come from anyone who says one group of people should never enjoy cultural safety. The mirror to our soul can be seen in the likes of Jack Doolan the life guard who sprinted barefoot some one-and-a-halfkm from Tamarama towards danger in Bondi carrying a defibrulator to help. And politely said excuse me as he had to rush past a bystander!