first published here: http://issuu.com/afrikadaamagazine/docs/politics_of_sound?e=4280787/32212638
December 27, 2015
December 26, 2015
July 17, 2015
June 11, 2015
Last Thursday in ‘Andere Tijden’ [TV documentary ‘Other Times]: Roemersma [former Rara = Revolutionary Anti-Racist Action] vs. Duyvendak [former activist]. Roemersma from Venezuela, and Duyvendak here in The Netherlands. And then this question pops up: What do you think about the fact that Korthals Altes [at the time Minister of Justice] called the arsons of Rara terrorism? Roemersma , surprised, could not conclude any different than to say this was and is nonsense, and that nowadays you can be labeled a terrorist much faster than in earlier times. Then Duyvendak: Of course it was terrorism, and he distanced himself from the slogan ‘Your legal order is not ours!’ So he considers ‘the legal order’ to be his and calls Roemersma a terrorist.
Now, who’s legal order is it, I have asked myself once again. I will leave the matter of terrorism for what is for now, because these days we are all terrorists or at least extremists, or otherwise criminal, repeat offender, or just scum. So be it. What’s in a name. But the legal order, how does it turn out for people? And I do not mean the privileged and the ones that sucked themselves up in this society, such as Wijnand Duyvendak.
For instance, take the ‘immigration’ policy. Less reimbursement for lawyers that appeal against detention: the result being that less often appeals are filed. Reversing the burden of proof: nice plan of the new government Brown 1 [First ‘brown’ government (2010-2012) consisting of a coalition of the 3 most right wing parties: Liberal party (vvd), Christian party (cda) and extreme right wing Freedom Party of Geert Wilders (pvv) 2010-2012]: now you have to proof why and along which route you have fled and otherwise: return straight back to misery. But ah, in fact it always worked like that: the IND does not have to prove the things they did or did not do, the ‘alien’ always has to prove all kinds of things. The pronouncement of undesirability: you no longer have to be criminal. To be found without papers in this racist and nationalist swamp for a second time is enough.
Expansion of the powers of the immigration police: a plan coming from Albayrak (previous state secretary of immigration) just like the above. The executioners can soon do everything: house searches, cavity searches, read out mobile phones, and this has nothing to do with investigating criminals such as the members of parliament of the pvv. No, this concerns undocumented people. You exist, therefore you are punishable. The legal order, is it there on behalf of these people? I do not think so. How can former activist Wijnand Duyvendak be so insolent as to renounce the thought ‘Your legal order is not ours’? Well, I would rather be a terrorist than a power corrupted wanna be politician!
Obviously, we the white privileged Dutch with a passport are not bothered by all this injustice so we could state that this legal order is indeed ours, it just is not ‘theirs’. This means that this legal order is full of xenophobia. I have not even begun to mention the many acts of violence against undocumented people, on the street, in police stations and in detention centers. I have not yet mentioned the acts of despair, the hungerstrikes and suicides,the swallowing of razor blades. I have not yet mentioned the violence during deportations, the use of cuffs on hands and feet and the use of ‘bite masks’, the intimidation, the Frontex charter flights.
There. Now I díd mention them. Still your legal order, Duyvendak?
I prefer Roemersma, who refuses to distance himself from the Rara fires that after four times led to Makro’s withdrawal from South Africa’s apartheid. Roemersma: “Successful? The apartheid regime was not gone”: He was right, of course. Only one small cog wheel had been taken away. But one is better than none.
The documentary closed by stating that violence works. But is setting fire to a company that makes money from apartheid actually violence? I do not think so. And the same goes for all those capitalist exploiters that are being supported and recognized for their contribution to ‘our economy’ by our Western democracies. A business premises burning down is not violence, it is the beginning of justice. Now you may call me a terrorist, Duyvendak, because I express this opinion.
Rara [rara in Dutch also means: “guess what”], who’s legal order is it? Not mine, although it is being forced upon me. This legal order, it is there for those who posses money and power, it is there for lobbyists and politicians, for bosses and goody-goody slaves (fees are allowed and bribes as well). This legal order is rendering people chanceless and once they have become chanceless real good, this legal order calls them useless and criminal and strikes them with punishment and measures.
Duyvendak does not want to hear about it, and Roemersma has stepped aside in Venezuela. The first I resent, the second I do not. No matter what: time for a new generation to stand up and continue to carry Rara’s torch!
Joke Kaviaar, November 20, 2010 (translation January 27, 2013)
(Between [ … ] are explanations not found in the original text)
first published here: http://13-september.nl/inciting-texts/rara-legal-order-it/
Last week African refugees massively stormed the Spanish enclave Melilla in Morocco, occupied territory in fact, just like the whole of the US has been snatched away by fortune seeking Europeans.
I remember the images of bleeding people climbing the barbed wire fences from the previous time. It is a bad sign that people keep trying it, over and over again and at the risk of their lives. But why not? Their lives were worthless anyway, just as the lives of all those people that try to reach the European continent in sinking sloops.
In the same week, on Saturday June 21, the death of a 41 year old Tunisian in a deportation prison in Vincennes, near Paris, led to protests of the imprisoned undocumented people. A solidarity demo followed, prisoners set fire to the center and many escaped.
Europe was ablaze, it seemed for a moment. That would be more than justified, because only last week the European parliament unanimously agreed on a plan to bar migrants coming from outside of our high erected walls. It is called: The Returns Directive. All it still needs is a formal approval.
No longer the European nations pass each other the ball of the ‘refugee problem’. No, ‘we’ join hands: ‘they’ are not coming in and ‘they’ will leave as soon as possible, or ‘they’ will be locked up as long as possible.
Resistance is required. But in The Netherlands of the Schiphol Fire all we do is hiss at the Proud of Orange tour of the Nationalists, led by Führer Verdonk. The tragedy of that is, that in the meantime Verdonks successor seems to be able to go ahead undisturbed.
This has got to stop! It is time for – as the French say – a considerable incentive for resistance. Because, how can it be that Albayraks neo-fascist changes of policy are so little being noticed?
How can it be that the only thing Dutch politics care about is the fact that Dutch detention centers are being pimped up as much a possible by bragging architects and artists. How cozy it all is. So humane and friendly. And so we intimately polder [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder_model] on, while in the meantime the incarcerated migrant does not understand what it means: polderen.
It all neatly fits in the European apartheid politics and we do that in our very own way, with healing words and soothing prayer. We all contribute to the dam that has to stop the flood of all those ‘aliens’. Ecclesiastical organizations sweet talk people into not protesting both inside and outside the walls of the centers, and organize their own project for ‘voluntary return’. It is all the will of God, you see. The government speaks of ‘intensive guidance’ and makes sure not to mention the word coercion, speaks of ‘freedom restricting locations’ and certainly not of prisons.
The new policy devised by Albayrak pretends that prolonging the asylum procedure with a few days, will be to the benefit of ‘the alien’, while the true goal is to justify and to veil the restriction of appeals, because: “Experience shows that the longer aliens can postpone their departure, the more difficult expulsion becomes.”
In the meantime the security forces of jailer Albayrak are taking “adequate” action against protesting prisoners in the Bijlmer prison. It must be very safe there now. Even her whining guards have nothing to fear. It must be okay when a government official uses the word ‘adequate’. Albayrak learned that from Verdonk [Verdonk used the word “adequate” to describe the actions of guards during the Schiphol fire in which eleven imprisoned migrants died]. The next uprising in another prison in this countries capital city is impending already, but questions are not asked anywhere.
Will the Dutch rebellion be stimulated by precisely those people that already have no way to go, that can simply and unobserved be forced back into their cells by the states thugs? Or will finally the free Dutch people go out into the street because they realize that in a country of increasing repression they themselves might be next? Identity control. Pre-emptive body searches. Raids. Or will the people only rebel when ‘orange loses’ [refers to the color of the Dutch soccer team]?
Where is the Dutch rebellion? Who is coming along to storm and empty the offices of the IND, to pour gasoline over the archives and computers in order to obliterate them by fire? Who will be helping to make the modern Gestapo stop filing the undesirables. Who is coming along to break down the walls of deportation camps and prisons, with demolition hammers and bulldozers? Who is coming along to distribute wire cutters that can be used to liberate people from fences and barbed wire?
Where is the Dutch rebellion? It’s about time!
first published here: http://13-september.nl/inciting-texts/dutch-rebellion/
April 27, 2015
April 17, 2015
keep reading this article here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/15/japanese-artist-trial-vagina-selfies
April 14, 2015
March 11, 2015
February 7, 2015
The formula of pathetic identification ‘I am …’ (or ‘We are all …’) only functions within certain limits, beyond which it turns into obscenity. We can proclaim ‘Je suis Charlie,’ but things start to crumble with examples like ‘We all live in Sarajevo!’ or ‘We are all in Gaza!’ The brutal fact that we are not all in Sarajevo or Gaza is too strong to be covered up by a pathetic identification. Such identification becomes obscene in the case of Muselmänner, the living dead in Auschwitz. It is not possible to say: ‘We are all Muselmänner!’ In Auschwitz, the dehumanisation of victims went so far that identifying with them in any meaningful sense is impossible. (And, in the opposite direction, it would also be ridiculous to declare solidarity with the victims of 9/11 by claiming ‘We are all New Yorkers!’ Millions would say: ‘Yes, we would love to be New Yorkers, give us a visa!’)
The same goes for the killings last month: it was relatively easy to identify with the Charlie Hebdo journalists, but it would have been much more difficult to announce: ‘We are all from Baga!’ (For those who don’t know: Baga is a small town in the north-east of Nigeria where Boko Haram executed two thousand people.) The name ‘Boko Haram’ can be roughly translated as ‘Western education is forbidden,’ specifically the education of women. How to account for the weird fact of a massive sociopolitical movement whose main aim is the hierarchic regulation of the relationship between the sexes? Why do Muslims who were undoubtedly exposed to exploitation, domination and other destructive and humiliating aspects of colonialism, target in their response the best part (for us, at least) of the Western legacy, our egalitarianism and personal freedoms, including the freedom to mock all authorities? One answer is that their target is well chosen: the liberal West is so unbearable because it not only practises exploitation and violent domination, but presents this brutal reality in the guise of its opposite: freedom, equality and democracy.
Back to the spectacle of big political names from all around the world holding hands in solidarity with the victims of the Paris killings, from Cameron to Lavrov, from Netanyahu to Abbas: if there was ever an image of hypocritical falsity, this was it. An anonymous citizen played Beethoven’s ‘Ode to Joy’, the unofficial anthem of the European Union, as the procession passed under his window, adding a touch of political kitsch to the disgusting spectacle staged by the people most responsible for the mess we are in. If the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, were to join such a march in Moscow, where dozens of journalists have been murdered, he would be arrested immediately. And the spectacle was literally staged: the pictures shown in the media gave the impression that the line of political leaders was at the front of a large crowd walking along an avenue. But another photo was taken of the entire scene from above, clearly showing that behind the politicians there were only a hundred or so people and a lot of empty space, patrolled by police, behind and around them. The true Charlie Hebdo gesture would have been to publish on its front page a big caricature brutally and tastelessly mocking this event.
As well as the banners saying ‘Je suis Charlie!’ there were others that said ‘Je suis flic!’ The national unity celebrated and enacted in large public gatherings was not just the unity of the people, reaching across ethnic groups, classes and religions, but also the unification of the people with the forces of order and control – not only the police but also the CRS (one of the slogans of May 1968 was ‘CRS-SS’), the secret service and the entire state security apparatus. There is no place for Snowden or Manning in this new universe. ‘Resentment against the police is no longer what it was, except among poor youth of Arab or African origins,’ Jacques-Alain Miller wrote last month. ‘A thing undoubtedly never seen in the history of France.’ In short, the terrorist attacks achieved the impossible: to reconcile the generation of ’68 with its arch enemy in something like a French popular version of the Patriot Act, with people offering themselves up to surveillance.
The ecstatic moments of the Paris demonstrations were a triumph of ideology: they united the people against an enemy whose fascinating presence momentarily obliterates all antagonisms. The public was offered a depressing choice: you are either a flic or a terrorist. But how does the irreverent humour of Charlie Hebdo fit in? To answer this question, we need to bear in mind the interconnection between the Decalogue and human rights, which, as Kenneth Reinhard and Julia Reinhard Lupton have argued, are ultimately rights to violate the Ten Commandments. The right to privacy is a right to commit adultery. The right to own property is a right to steal (to exploit others). The right to freedom of expression is a right to bear false witness. The right to bear arms is a right to kill. The right to freedom of religious belief is a right to worship false gods. Of course, human rights do not directly condone the violation of the Commandments, but they keep open a marginal grey zone that is supposed to be out of the reach of (religious or secular) power. In this shady zone I can violate the commandments, and if the power probes into it, catching me with my pants down, I can cry: ‘Assault on my basic human rights!’ The point is that it is structurally impossible, for the power, to draw a clear line of separation and prevent only the misuse of a human right without infringing on its proper use, i.e. the use that does not violate the Commandments.
It is in this grey zone that the brutal humour of Charlie Hebdo belongs. The magazine began in 1970 as a successor to Hara-Kiri, a magazine banned for mocking the death of General de Gaulle. After an early reader’s letter accused Hara-Kiri of being ‘dumb and nasty’ (‘bête et méchant’), the phrase was adopted as the magazine’s official slogan and made it into everyday language. It would have been more appropriate for the thousands marching in Paris to proclaim ‘Je suis bête et méchant’ than the flat Je suis Charlie.’
Refreshing as it could be in some situations, Charlie Hebdo’s ‘bête et méchant’ stance is constrained by the fact that laughter is not in itself liberating, but deeply ambiguous. In the popular view of Ancient Greece, there is a contrast between the solemn aristocratic Spartans and the merry democratic Athenians. But the Spartans, who prided themselves on their severity, placed laughter at the centre of their ideology and practice: they recognised communal laughter as a power that helped to increase the glory of the state. Spartan laughter – the brutal mockery of a humiliated enemy or slave, making fun of their fear and pain from a position of power – found an echo in Stalin’s speeches, when he scoffed at the panic and confusion of ‘traitors’, and survives today. (Incidentally, it is to be distinguished from another kind of laughter of those in power, the cynical derision that shows they don’t take their own ideology seriously.) The problem with Charlie Hebdo’s humour is not that it went too far in its irreverence, but that it was a harmless excess perfectly fitting the hegemonic cynical functioning of ideology in our societies. It posed no threat whatsoever to those in power; it merely made their exercise of power more tolerable.
In Western liberal-secular societies, state power protects public freedoms but intervenes in private space – when there is a suspicion of child abuse, for example. But as Talal Asad writes in Is Critique Secular? Blasphemy, Injury and Free Speech (2009), ‘intrusions into domestic space, the breaching of “private” domains, is disallowed in Islamic law, although conformity in “public” behaviour may be much stricter … for the community, what matters is the Muslim subject’s social practice – including verbal publication – not her internal thoughts, whatever they may be.’ The Quran says: ‘Let him who wills have faith, and him who wills reject it.’ But, in Asad’s words, this ‘right to think whatever one wishes does not … include the right to express one’s religious or moral beliefs publicly with the intention of converting people to a false commitment’. This is why, for Muslims, ‘it is impossible to remain silent when confronted with blasphemy … blasphemy is neither “freedom of speech” nor the challenge of a new truth but something that seeks to disrupt a living relationship.’ From the Western liberal standpoint, there is a problem with both terms of this neither/nor: what if freedom of speech should include acts that may disrupt a living relationship? And what if a ‘new truth’ has the same disruptive effect? What if a new ethical awareness makes a living relationship appear unjust?
If, for Muslims, it is not only ‘impossible to remain silent when confronted with blasphemy’ but also impossible to remain inactive – and the pressure to do something may include violent and murderous acts – then the first thing to do is to locate this attitude in its contemporary context. The same holds for the Christian anti-abortion movement, who also find it ‘impossible to remain silent’ in the face of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of foetuses every year, a slaughter they compare to the Holocaust. It is here that true tolerance begins: the tolerance of what we experience as impossible-to-bear (l’impossible-a-supporter’, as Lacan put it), and at this level the liberal left comes close to religious fundamentalism with its own list of things it’s ‘impossible to remain silent when confronted with’: sexism, racism and other forms of intolerance. What would happen if a magazine openly made fun of the Holocaust? There is a contradiction in the left-liberal stance: the libertarian position of universal irony and mockery, making fun of all authorities, spiritual and political (the position embodied in Charlie Hebdo), tends to slip into its opposite, a heightened sensitivity to the other’s pain and humiliation.
Subscribe to the London Review of Books
It is because of this contradiction that most left-wing reactions to the Paris killings followed a predictable, deplorable pattern: they correctly suspected that something is deeply wrong in the spectacle of liberal consensus and solidarity with the victims, but took a wrong turn when they were able to condemn the killings only after long and boring qualifications. The fear that, by clearly condemning the killing, we will somehow be guilty of Islamophobia, is politically and ethically wrong. There is nothing Islamophobic in condemning the Paris killings, in the same way that there is nothing anti-Semitic in condemning Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.
As for the notion that we should contextualise and ‘understand’ the Paris killings, it is also totally misleading. In Frankenstein, Mary Shelley allows the monster to speak for himself. Her choice expresses the liberal attitude to freedom of speech at its most radical: everyone’s point of view should be heard. In Frankenstein, the monster is fully subjectivised: the monstrous murderer reveals himself to be a deeply hurt and desperate individual, yearning for company and love. There is, however, a clear limit to this procedure: the more I know about and ‘understand’ Hitler, the more unforgiveable he seems.
What this also means is that, when approaching the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we should stick to ruthless and cold standards: we should unconditionally resist the temptation to ‘understand’ Arabic anti-Semitism (where we really encounter it) as a ‘natural’ reaction to the sad plight of the Palestinians, or to ‘understand’ Israeli measures as a ‘natural’ reaction to the memory of the Holocaust. There should be no ‘understanding’ for the fact that in many Arab countries Hitler is still considered a hero, and children at primary school are taught anti-Semitic myths, such as that Jews use the blood of children for sacrificial purposes. To claim that this anti-Semitism articulates, in a displaced mode, resistance against capitalism in no way justifies it (the same goes for Nazi anti-Semitism: it too drew its energy from anti-capitalist resistance). Displacement is not here a secondary operation, but the fundamental gesture of ideological mystification. What this claim does involve is the idea that, in the long term, the only way to fight anti-Semitism is not to preach liberal tolerance, but to articulate the underlying anti-capitalist motive in a direct, non-displaced way.
The present actions of the Israel Defence Forces in the West Bank should not be judged against the background of the Holocaust; the desecration of synagogues in France and elsewhere in Europe should not be judged as an inappropriate but understandable reaction to what Israel is doing in the West Bank. When any public protest against Israel is flatly denounced as an expression of anti-Semitism – that is to say, when the shadow of the Holocaust is permanently evoked in order to neutralise any criticism of Israeli military and political operations – it is not enough to insist on the difference between anti-Semitism and criticism of particular policies of the state of Israel; one should go a step further and say that it is the state of Israel which, in this case, is desecrating the memory of Holocaust victims, instrumentalising them as a way to legitimise political measures in the present. What this means is that one should flatly reject the notion of any logical or political link between the Holocaust and current Israeli-Palestinian tensions. They are two thoroughly different phenomena: one of them is part of the European history of rightist resistance to the dynamics of modernisation; the other is one of the last chapters in the history of colonisation.
The growth of anti-Semitism in Europe is undeniable. When, for example, the aggressive Muslim minority in Malmö harasses Jews so they are afraid to walk the streets in traditional dress, it should be clearly and unambiguously condemned. The struggle against anti-Semitism and the struggle against Islamophobia should be viewed as two aspects of the same struggle.
In a memorable passage in Still Alive: A Holocaust Girlhood Remembered (2001), Ruth Klüger describes a conversation with ‘some advanced PhD candidates’ in Germany:
One reports how in Jerusalem he made the acquaintance of an old Hungarian Jew who was a survivor of Auschwitz, and yet this man cursed the Arabs and held them all in contempt. How can someone who comes from Auschwitz talk like that? the German asks. I get into the act and argue, perhaps more hotly than need be. What did he expect? Auschwitz was no instructional institution … You learned nothing there, and least of all humanity and tolerance. Absolutely nothing good came out of the concentration camps, I hear myself saying, with my voice rising, and he expects catharsis, purgation, the sort of thing you go to the theatre for? They were the most useless, pointless establishments imaginable.
We have to abandon the idea that there is something emancipatory in extreme experiences, that they enable us to open our eyes to the ultimate truth of a situation. This, perhaps, is the most depressive lesson of terror.
first published here: http://www.lrb.co.uk/2015/02/05/slavoj-zizek/in-the-grey-zone
February 4, 2015
January 7, 2015
November 6, 2014
October 17, 2014
July 28, 2014
June 19, 2014
so i tell my daughter about wikileaks and julian assange
i explain to her why he is hiding in the ecuadorian embassy
and i tell her that he faces arrest if he leaves the embassy
she says very decisively:
i think the american government should be arrested!
she is six years and five months old.
June 4, 2014
May 11, 2014
February 23, 2014
October 21, 2013
first published here: http://www.filmcontact.com/africa/south-africa/good-report-receives-critical-acclaim-lff
October 20, 2013
One of the shows that has been banned focused on Right2Know’s Vula ‘ma Connextion campaign for the right to communicate. The show featured a robust debate with cell phone operators and senior government officials from the Dept of Communications as well as State Security focused on the impact of failed government policy and profiteering in undermining the public’s right to know.
The SABC’s canning of the Big Debate smacks of political censorship and an abuse of the public broadcaster to protect certain individuals’ political interests. In its first season of 10 episodes the Big Debate offered viewers high quality programming and deep level debates on various current affairs pertinent to South Africa.
We wholeheartedly reject Kaizer Kganyago’s (SABC’s head of group communications) statement that the show was pulled for reasons of editorial oversight, and that news and current affairs programmes should not be outsourced. It is telling that the SABC suddenly discovered this so-called ‘lapse’ once the first season had ended, and the show had earned a reputation as a tough-talking debate where Ministers went to be ‘sliced, diced and fried’ . It would appear that the SABC wants to insource current affairs because the programme producers are too independently-minded for the broadcaster, and they have developed cold feet with a national election looming.
This has happened as the SABC is on a nationwide roadshow to ensure public participation in the review of editorial policies. The decision flies in the face of the current and draft policies which both commit the public broadcaster to reflect the diverse range of South African attitudes and opinions. At recent public appearances the SABC GCEO Lulama Mokhobo held up the Big Debate as the best example of this diversity.
The SABC is being dragged back to the days when it was a state broadcaster practicing political censorship ahead of the public’s right to know.
In the wake of SABC’s acting chief operating officer Hlaudi Motsoeneng’s recent call for the production of 70% ‘good news’ we are witnessing the continued erosion of the broadcaster’s independence. We do not want skewed and biased sunshine journalism from our public broadcaster – we want real news, culture and current affairs!
The public are fed a diet of cheap American sitcoms, aspirational soap operas and poor quality foreign programming in part because of the perennial underfunding and financial mismanagement at the SABC. The Big Debate is a massively popular exception to this that gives South Africans a taste of what a true public broadcaster can deliver.
The Right2Know reiterates our call for an SABC that is publicly funded and free of state or corporate censorship of editorial content.
PUBLIC CALL TO PROTEST AT THE SABC:
In protest at the continuing censorship and lack of editorial independence at the SABC, as well as the canning of the Big Debate, we are issuing a public call to protest: Thursday 24 October 2013 from 12:00am-14:00pm outside the SABC in Auckland Park, Johannesburg.
For further comment contact:
Dale McKinley (Cell: 072 429 4086)
Julie Reid (Cell: 082 885 8969)