Row over anti-Israel art display

[Scurrilous]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/03/1083436541739.html

<snip>

"The Melbourne City Council is likely to review public art funding policy after a row broke out yesterday over an artwork in a Flinders Street shopfront.

Jewish groups and the State Opposition yesterday criticised the work, funded by the council, as deeply offensive and probably in breach of racial vilification laws.

The work features a large Star of David painted on a wall. Red text, on the window in front, reads: "Since the creation of Israel in 1948. 200,000 Palestinians have been killed. 5,000,000 refugees have been created. 21,000 square kilometres of land has been annexed. 385 towns and villages have been destroyed. 300 billion military dollars have been spent. 100+ WMD's have been manufactured. 65 UN resolutions have been ignored."

The window was clearly marked with the City of Melbourne logo. The council paid $8000 to curator Mark Hilton for a program of works that would promote contemporary art from Melbourne's emerging artists. The Flinders Street work was part of that program.

Mr Hilton is overseas and unavailable for comment."

[Terry_M]

1. Facts are now "Deeply Offensive"

Yay!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. I don't get it

All of those statistics are facts. How in the world is this a "breach of racial vilification laws"? This is a political criticism supported with facts, not slanderous, unsubstantiated propaganda. Further, this art clear is clearly anti-Israel, NOT anti-Jewish. I don't see how that involves race at all.

Perhaps if Israel doesn't want to be villified, it shouldn't be killing all those people, nor should it be consistantly violating human rights.

[The Magistrate]

3. The Most Important Of Them, Sir, Is False

You will be quite unable to prove two hundred thousand Arab Palestinians killed by Israel since 1948....

[mitchtv]

5. quite right, like Iraq, I'm sure numbers are hard to

come by- since Palestinians don't count- ask the media

[The Magistrate]

8. Good Luck, Sir

There have been roughly three thoudand Arab Palestinians killed by Israel in the last three years, which have been marked by an unusual level of violence. The figure offered supposes roughly four thousand Arab Palestinians killed each year.

Even if all Arab Palestinians killed in Jordan by the Jordanian government, and in Lebanon by various Lebanese factions, and Syrian armed forces, were added into the total, it would certainly fall short of the proffered figure.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Oh really?

Find me a figure to disprove it.

[The Magistrate]

9. Find Evidence To Support It, Fellow

You will be unable to. Exaggerations like this serve only to discredit the cause they are marshalled in attempts to support. Reality, generally, is bad enough to sustain any real point....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. You're the one refuting

Burden of evidence is on you, fellow.

[The Magistrate]

12. Wear It In Good Health, Fellow

Any assertion ought to have some evidence behind it; there is none for this one....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. You're absolutely right

And you have no evidence behind YOUR assertion.

[Jim Sagle]

18. You made the ORIGINAL assertion, then refused to provide evidence.

Case dismissed.

[The Magistrate]

19. Go And Learn, Grass-Hopper....

Once the Master said: "I was not born with knowledge, but being fond of antiquity am quick to seek it."

[pdm]

24. THE TRUTH HURTS......

....nuff said!!!

[JohnLocke]

25. Uh, no -- the burden of evidence is on you.

Must of missed that logic class...

[Terry_M]

7. Which would make it possibly factually inaccurate

If the 200,000 lies outside of average estimates, but not racially/religiously offensive.

[The Magistrate]

10. Only The Factual Element Was Engaged, Sir

The refugee figure is, also, at best, disingenuous. Approximately 750,000 persons fled their homes in the '48 war; perhaps as many as 100,000 fled during the '67 war. Any larger total has been created not by any act of any government, but only by the normal processes of procreation, and by the idea that refugee status, like membership in the Second Estate, passes down the generations by blood-line....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. So since 1948

None of the Palestinian people have had children?

[Terry_M]

16. Well, perhaps instead of demanding the removal of the object

People should have provided more realistic figures so that corrections could be made.

[The Magistrate]

20. That Would Be Censorship As Well, Sir, Would It Not?

It is artistic expression that is the question: having known some art students in my day, it is unclear to me that the falsity of the statements are not part of the artist's design....

[Vladimir]

22. One could make the argument

that those born to refugees are likely to have a harder life than had their parents not become refugees, and that therefore they should count... but you are right that the figure, had it been for the 1st generation refugees only would be quite ridiculous.

[tinnypriv]

15. Prob 20k

In Leb. I assume that is the largest number. Nowhere near 200k and the rest of the figures (as you've noted) are off by large factors (not numbers) as well.

It should be allowed to be kept up, but that doesn't make it any less BS.

[The Magistrate]

17. Indeed, Sir

Idiocy on public exhibit is a valuable resource; in these grim times, we must get our grins where we can. My only engagement in this matter was where someone claimed accurate statements of fact had been made.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Idiocy?

I don't think so. It's an artwork, not a historical work, where accuracy and footnotes are essential. And while I agree that the first figure is way out, I'm not finding it idiocy or even getting the grins from it. As for the number of refugees, why is it disingenuous? What is the actual number of refugees created? It's got to be way more than the approx 600-750,000 immediately after the creation of Israel. Was all the other stuff made-up nonsense as well?

I'd love to see those groups explain how that artwork was, as described in the article 'probably in breach of racial vilification laws'. Last time I checked, we're allowed to express criticism of Israel without fear of having breached any law, even if at least one of those figures in our criticism is incorrect...

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

23. My Distaste For Modern Art, Ma'am, And For Its Purveyors

Doubtless colors my reaction to this somewhat.

The refugee point is a definitional question, that we are unlikely to resolve between us; it seems to me that the refugee population is, at least strictly speaking, those who fled their homes, and that their descendants are something else, but views differ.

In a list where one figure is so grotesquely padded, it seems likely there are similar distortions in others, but the precise military expenditures, for instance, are not within my knowledge.

[JohnLocke]

26. Oh, please.

It's misleading and implies that the "facts" are true. They are not. Next case!

[Violet_Crumble]

27. So are you guilty of racial vilification...

..whenever you post 'facts' that aren't correct? Y'know, like the ISM nonsense I've seen posted here? Or doesn't that count? Here's a fact. Getting statistics wrong isn't racial vilification. Next case!

Violet...

[mitchtv]

4. racial Villification laws? one sided maybe

but not untrue