The madness apparently consuming all politicians in Australia continues today, this time it’s coming from the backbenches of the Australian Labor Party.
Antony Loewenstein gives the details of Labor MHR Michael Danby’s efforts to have the publishing of his book covering the Australia/Israel relationship quashed with a strongly worded attack on the books publisher, Melbourne University Publishing, within the pages of the Australian Jewish News.
The following letter appears in this week’s Australian Jewish News. It’s written by Federal Labor MP, Michael Danby. Its agenda is clear. Why is a member of parliament trying to stop the publication of my book?
Danby writes.
“However, faint praise for Adler is a sidebar to the substance of the issue. I want the entire Jewish community to know that I absolutely dissociate myself from her decision to publish a book edited by Anthony Loewenstein about the Australian Jewish community………”In preparation for writing his book, Loewenstein sent me a number of questions, based on assumptions, which made his views so blatantly obvious that I refused to answer them or participate in his book.
I understand Danby’s passion and watchfulness given the historical calamities that befell many of the ancestors of the largest Jewish electorate in Australia, an electorate he represents, but it appears that in his overwrought sensitivity, he has gone one step too far in his call for the censoring of a book before its publication based solely on the nature of a series of questions he received, a book he has yet to read.
Now I took the opportunity to e-mail Lowenstein about this, and specifically asked for and about the questions that Danby found so leading and assumptive. The questions posed to Danby were on how the ALP dealt with dissent in its ranks regarding Israel/Palestine, his views on Howard and Israel, and about general attitudes towards Israel and Jews here in Australia.
All appear to be reasonable, and comprise legitimate angles of discussion any journalist would wish to pursue in the normal course of research on a book of this nature.
Which leaves us with what? A silly and hysterical attempt by an elected Australian politician to censor a book about Israel and Australia being written by a fellow Australian and Jew, and a situation where it appears that Danby would like to make it impossible to canvas any issue regarding Israel and it’s relationship with Australia. It’ll be interesting to see how the ALP deals with Danby’s paranoia.
Update
Antony Lowenstein has now posted a couple of updates, one of which includes his specific list of unapproved questions.
Elsewhere
Tim Blair engages is some silliness. And Tim Dunlop has his say.
what is your complaint?
that Danby isn’t even entitled to write a letter to his community newspaper expressing his opinion because he’s an MP?
that calling for a boycott is equal to censorship? No it isn’t. It may be foolish, ill-judged, intemperate, whatever but it’s not censorship to feel so strongly about a work as to call for its boycott. I see no moral wrong in what Danby has done, simply a lack of prudence
For the record, Crikey published the following today:
4. Loewenstein v Danby — Australia’s debate over Israel
By Crikey reporter Sophie Vorrath
There’s an ugly fight brewing in Australia’s Jewish community over a controversial new book by Sydney-based journalist Antony Loewenstein. Due for publication by Melbourne University Press next May, Loewenstein’s as yet unfinished, untitled book is already attracting feverish criticism for its take on the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Leading the attack on the book is the federal member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby. In a scathing letter published in Australian Jewish News this week, Danby says he wants no part in Loewenstein and MUP’s Louise Adler’s “propaganda tract,” which he said was an attack on the mainstream Australian Jewish community.
Danby said he had taken this stance after questions he got from Loewenstein made his views on the issue “blatantly obvious.”
“MUP should drop this whole disgusting project. If they proceed, I urge the Australian Jewish community, and particularly the Australian Jewish News, to treat it with dignified silence. That is our best response. If, God forbid, it is published, don’t give them a dollar. Don’t buy the book.”
So why has a book by a relatively little-known journalist that’s not even finished got Danby so fired up? And is calling for it to be boycotted appropriate behaviour for a parliamentarian?
Loewenstein told Crikey this morning it was “incredibly disappointing” that Danby would try to “dictate policy” to a publisher. It’s a matter of free speech, he said: “It should be acceptable for a Jew or anyone else to criticise Israel or any other country.”
“The attitude is ‘there’s one line and one perspective (on the Israel/Palestine conflict) and if you dare to question it then look out’,” said Loewenstein, “it’s like ‘this is a war and there’s no room for dissent’.”
MUP’s Louise Adler, who graduated from Melbourne school Mount Scopus the same year as Danby and was given “faint praise” in his letter, told Crikey the political views Michael Danby ascribed to her in the letter were “palpable nonsense and pure invention.”
Adler said she was proud of MUP’s 80-year history of independent publishing and its mandate to publish books of public interest, and “dismayed” that a publisher like AJN “gives space to proposals to boycott ideas.” Danby’s proposal, she said, was “inimical to the central Jewish values of tolerance and open debate.”
Crikey called Michael Danby for a response, but we’re still waiting for him to get back to us.
What Jason said. Talk about storms in teacups. I can’t see it has anything to do with suppression of free speech. Antony’s free to say what he likes about Israel, Danby’s free to say what he likes about what Antony says about Israel. People call for boycotts on one thing or another every other day of the week.
Fries with that sir? Palestinian or Israeli spuds?
Would I be right in assuming that whatever spuds MUP dish up, they’re taxpayer sponsored? Is that the major chip on most of our shoulders?
I agree with Jason and Rob. Although Danby’s reaction seems silly and hysterical, and it would be preferable that he answered the questions and then responded to the book upon its publication, he hasn’t really done anything wrong.
I think Crikey almost asked the right question.
But didn’t offer the right answer.
So Loewenstein asked a few questions which Danby didn’t want to anwser
And while Loewenstein did no wrong by asking, however silly one may find his views, Danby was under no obligation to answer, however silly his views are as well.
So Loewenstein gets incensed that he had to wait two months for a reply.
And Danby gets all up himself and makes a song and dance about being asked.
It’s either a very failed attempt at viral marketing or politicking or something or both Danby and Loewenstein have a very over-inflated sense of their own self-importance.
All a bit of *yawn* really.
Surely Danby (who?) can see that any furore stirred up now will only be to the benefit of the author once the book is published. And how you can criticise a work before it is published is beyond me. Anyway, who wrote Danby’s letter for him?
Observa, I fail to see the relevance of MUP’s funding. How much money is the government giving to Holden? What is your point?
Oh, and what do Ant’s views on Zionism have to do with Melbourne Ports? Anyone?
What did Howard and Costello say when Church leaders wanted to comment on industrial relations?
Danby should stick to what little he knows. Let the campaigners conduct their own publicity stunts.
What disturbs me the most is that a university press should commission a book by someone who can’t write.
Where have literacy standards gone?
And when is your book out, EvPud? (Also, do you have a name?)
I like the way you manage to achieve both irrelevance and hypocrisy at the same time, dirtbikeoption.
Evil Pundit,
Stay disturbed. It suits you. You hardly contribute anything else, so…
You’ll LOVE my book, it’ll really challenge your bigotry.
Antony, that’s the first time I’ve seen you write anything without committing a major error of syntax or grammar. I think keeping your sentences below ten words might be the answer for you.
As for censorship — have you considered the fact that your book will probably be illegal in Victoria, since it criticises a religion? All it would take is one complaint from a Jew to make life quite uncomfortable for your publisher.
Don’t you love Steve Bracks’ Victoria?
My goodness, those pesky Jews.
As it happens EP this thread of commentary has overlapped with some of the things I’ve spent the last week researching. If you’re interested in the relationship between Jewish writers, organised Jewish community groups (like the Victorian Jewish Board of Deputies and the mass media), check out:
GENERATION, v3. n2. Sept. 1992. pages 11-27.
It’s a symposium on ‘truth in media land’, and a stoush on whether or not organised Jewish groups in Australia have a healthy relationship with the media.
NB. Before the passage of any religious vilification law.
Liam, EP doesn’t believe in libraries only in hyperlinks so I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Liam.
Any chance of getting a copy of that essay from 1992? Sounds rather intriguing…
Or should I simply head to my local library (how do I use them again?)
Perhaps a personal copy could be shipped to Sydney’s Inner West?
Antony, if you can manage to make it out of the Inner West you can hop down to UNSW where it’s in the library under SQ 305.892405/2.
If you scan the article and post it on the Net, I’ll read it too.
I am no fan of Danby, as a former Melbourne Ports elector, but these are lame questions. It would be more interesting to ask whether Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948? was Zionism like Communism a fundamentally flawed project based on the myth of a land without people for a people without land? (Of course liberate Palestine enthusiasts should also answer the question as to what the fate of the Jewish community in 1948 would have been if Israeli forces were defeated).
I asked Danby those questions because I actually wanted to get answers. He refused, fair enough, but asking if whether Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948 (my personal belief and examined in my book) would have guaranteed no response at all. As, er, happened eventually, but it was worth a go…