Mr Mabalane Mfundisi
Chairperson Freedom of Expression Institute
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Dear Mr Mfundisi

Thank-you for your response to our letter of 27 November 2006. As you point out, the fact that the contents of this letter have been discussed by your governing structure, the Executive Committee, does indeed attest to the seriousness with which you take the complaint.

From the outset, I will state that I am disappointed, but far from surprised, at the line your organisation has chosen to take. The blustering, accusatory and wholly self-exculpatory tone of your letter underlines the FXI’s stubborn refusal to accept the possibility that it might, in certain instances, have been in the wrong. What is more, attempts to deflect criticism of your organisation’s conduct by accusing the SAJBD and other Jewish organisations of censorship are not only beside the point in the context of the charges made in our letter but lay yourselves open to the same charge of “bullying” that you level against ourselves.

By your upfront statement that the FXI believes “that the character of the Israeli state has been overwhelmingly repressive and has consistently denied the right to freedom of expression to Palestinian people”, you have effectively endorsed our central contention that the FXI has a pronounced pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel bias. Once again, therefore, I will restate our position that this represents a betrayal of the mandate of the FXI, which we firmly believe was intended as being an impartial organisation whose sole concern was to safeguard the right to freedom of expression, from whatever quarter, with thoroughness and above all with impartiality.

The crux of your response is the attempts you make to refute each of the examples of bias identified in our letter of 27 November. These attempts, on closer examination, will be shown to be evasive and wholly unconvincing, as will be explained.

1) The Linder Auditorium Incident, September 2002

In denying the charge that the FXI was grossly one-sided in its statement on the matter by not referring to harassment of people who wished to attend the lecture, you state that “the events referred to here are contested; one merely needs to consult the letters column of the Mail and Guardian from this time”. But if those events, as you yourselves acknowledge, are indeed “contested”, then why did the FXI so obviously take the side of only one side in the dispute?

It is further revealing that you refer only to the reports of the Mail & Guardian, the only Gauteng newspaper that adopted an overtly pro-demonstrator line, to buttress your contention that the facts of that night are in dispute. The reports in the Star, the Citizen and other dailies made it only too clear that blatant instances of harassment on the part of the demonstrators took place. Why did the FXI choose to accept the Mail & Guardian version of events?

To underline just how unreliable the Mail & Guardian letters columns are, I would point out that I was personally accused by Anna Weekes of inciting the police to attack the demonstrators. This is a downright falsehood, as I was not even present on the occasion, something I pointed out in a subsequent letters column in the newspaper. All my other SAJBD colleagues, on the other hand, were very much present and witness to the disgraceful events that occurred. Surely the FXI is not accusing my colleagues, not to mention the scores of other members of the Jewish community who were subjected to physical and verbal abuse at the hands of the demonstrators, of being liars?

The fact that the authorities chose to drop all charges against those demonstrators who were arrested proves nothing whatever. Obtaining sufficient proof to convict individuals of criminal behaviour in a court of law is a complicated process, and the authorities may simply have decided that given the widely differing accounts emanating from participants on all sides, the matter was not worth pursuing. Threats of law suits by those claiming to have been wrongfully arrested no doubt played a role in the cases being dropped.

What exactly happened that night five years ago remains a subject of dispute and it is in fact not even necessary in this matter to determine exactly what happened. The crux of it all is that despite the fact that there were widely differing versions of what occurred, the FXI wholly and unambiguously adopted the position of those who demonstrated against the lecture. In other words, Mr Mfundisi, this was an act of overt bias on the part of the FXI.

2) The e-tv/Pilger Documentary Incident

You have sought to evade this aspect by demanding why it was the SAJBD did not condemn alleged threats made to 3^rd Degree producer Deborah Patta. Trying to put the ball in the SAJBD’s court in this manner will not do. The fact that the FXI, by its use of such obviously partisan language as “pervasive Israeli atrocities in occupied Palestine and the deep humiliation and degradation to which the Zionist government has subjected innocent and defenseless Palestinians” is clearcut evidence of the ideological bias of the FXI that we are denouncing.

In this regard, see also the very important point raised under Point 6, infra.

3) Alleged Death Threats to Ronnie Kasrils

You seek, again unconvincingly, to deflect allegations of bias with regard to the charge by demanding why the SAJBD itself did not condemn alleged threats to Mr Kasrils. How the SAJBD chose to react to reports of threats to Mr Kasrils in no way contradicts our contention that by roundly condemning intimidation emanating from the Jewish community while remaining silent on cases where similar intimidation  has taken place within the Muslim community, the FXI has revealed a distinct bias.

You may be correct in asserting that Messrs Jeenah and Vally have been vocal against intolerance within the Muslim community. However, the fact remains that no official FXI statement has ever been issued on this score. Why not? Earlier this year, the FXI had a perfect opportunity to display its impartiality in this regard when the current editor of the Mail & Guardian, Ferial Haffajee, was subjected to numerous threats following her decision to publish (and then solely for illustrative purposes) one of the controversial Danish cartoons. However, no FXI statement was forthcoming. What we see, therefore, is that certain Jewish are officially condemned by the FXI for threatening Ronnie Kasrils but their counterparts in the Muslim community are not similarly called to book for threatening Ferial Haffajee. This glaring contrast, Mr Mfundisi, represents clear bias on the part of the FXI. 

4) The FXI and the Radio 786 Hate Speech Case

With regard to this sensitive matter, you firstly state that we were “factually incorrect to state that the FXI released a statement on the matter” and that Mr Jeenah merely made “one comment on the matter” when asked to do so. This is quibbling. Mr Jeenah’s “comment” was a lengthy one and was posted, amongst other places, on the Voice of the Cape website. His remarks were taken to be the official FXI position on the matter and the FXI never corrected this perception.

If Mr Jeenah was unfamiliar with the substance of the SAJBD’s complaint against Radio 786, it is surely self evident that he should not then have issued a comment favourable to Radio 786’s obviously self-serving version of events without first doing his homework. At the very least, he could have approached the Broadcasting Monitoring and Complaints Committee - or even, horror of horrors, the SAJBD itself - in which case he would have readily been furnished with the full particulars required for an informed comment.

I do not refer to my correspondence with Ms Duncan on this matter because Ms Duncan wholly failed to address the crux of my objection, namely that Mr Jeenah had misrepresented the extent and gravity of the SAJBD’s complaint against Radio 786.

The above incident at the very least suggests bias on the part of the FXI. Unquestionably, it reveals a lack of professionalism on the part of one of its senior staff members, who should have been sure of his facts before issuing statements that he must have known would have been interpreted as being his organisation’s official position on the matter.

5) The Danish Cartoon Controversy

Your defense of the fact that the FXI never issued an official statement deploring the court gag on newspaper republishing the offensive cartoons is that your staff were too busy with media interviews to do so until the issue was essentially a dead one. This seems to me to be a weak argument. I find it hard to believe that the FXI, which is able to find the time to weigh in boots and all against a small Jewish weekly for denying Ronnie Kasrils his right to reply could not have found the time to issue a strong, unequivocal public statement on what was undeniably one of the most serious threat to freedom of expression on a national basis that this country has faced in the post-apartheid era. That Ms Duncan and Mr Jeenah, in the course of media interviews, condemned the court ruling is obviously welcome, but the fact remains that the FXI’s stand surely should have been more forthright and unequivocal than this.

6) The Cancelled Pogrund-Salem Visit

Your attempted defence of the FXI’s failure to date to speak out on this matter is that, in your own words, “unlike in the case of the censoring of Ronnie Kasrils by the South African Jewish Report, no media approached us for a statement on the Pogrund-Salem tour and hence the lack of any comment from us in the media”.

This is rather astounding. Surely we are not expected to believe that the FXI acts in cases of censorship only when approached for comment from the media? Are you claiming, in other words, that the FXI is only reactive, and never proactive in combating violations of the right to freedom of expression, even after revelations of such violations have appeared in a respected mainstream newspaper? I find this frankly impossible to believe.

With regard to Mr Salim Vally and the central part he played in the agitation that led to the cancellation of the Pogrund-Salem visit, it is of course true that the FXI is not responsible for the actions of its former executive members. However, surely your organisation should at least have been especially concerned at the fact that it was its former chairman who has gone about suppressing legitimate debate in the manner he has done?

Finally – and this brings me to a crucial point: You state that it was Mr Vally’s right to lobby for the cancellation of the Pogrund-Salem visit and that on principle, while you support the right of people to express even odious views, at the same time, you will also support the right of people who disagree to protest.

If this is the case, why does the FXI not recognise the reciprocal right of Jewish organisations to lobby against television programmes, seminars or other events they find offensive? Why, in other words, is Mr Salim Vally permitted as of right to threaten to organise demonstrations against an event he personally finds offensive (with such threats, in Mr Vally’s own words, being aimed at bringing about the actual cancellation of that event and not merely protesting against its happening) but when Jewish organisations do the same thing, they are roundly accused of engaging in “censorship”?

To drive this point home, I raise the above-mentioned John Pilger documentary episode as an example. Surely, according to the kind of logic applied by the FXI to Mr Bally’s actions, the representative organisations of the Jewish community had every right to express their objections to a programme they found to be radically biased and dishonest in its portrayal of the Middle East conflict? However, the FXI condemned them for engaging in “censorship” for doiung so while allowing Mr Salim Vally and his cohorts to get away scot-free. That, Mr Mfundisi, represents gross bias on the part of the FXI.

In summary, Mr Mfundisi, far from refuting the specific allegations of bias the SAJBD has made against your organisation, your letter has served only to confirm them.

Yours faithfully
DAVID SAKS
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR