Editor's note: It is alarming to reflect that in the last 24 hours we have seen three instances of the suppression of free speech when it comes to the Israel/Palestine issue-- and all in sophisticated western settings. This is why Jewish Voice for Peace launched the website Muzzlewatch, because JVP understood the special censoriousness that surrounds this question, much of it inside the Jewish community. The three episodes: 1, Seattle bus ads being pulled, 2, Julian Assange's statement that he held back Israel disclosures in the Wiki-drop because western publications were reluctant to run them, and 3, the story that follows, about an action taken at the Gagosian gallery in New York a few days ago (covered at Huffpo here, and in the New Yorker also).
I am writing to alert people about an incident that happened at the Gagosian gallery Saturday, December 18, 2010, on the last day of the Anselm Kiefer exhibition, Next Year In Jerusalem.
In response to the title of the exhibition and the content of the work [occupations/historical memory] a small group of artists and activists decided to view the show wearing a shirt with the words Next Year In Jerusalem in the three languages Arabic, Hebrew and English.
We spent about one to two hours looking at the exhibition, mainly individually, silently and respectfully with full consideration of others viewing the exhibition. We simply wore the words on our shirts and did not engage with anyone unless they struck up a conversation with us. A number of people asked some of us about the meaning of the message, gave positive feedback, showed interest, asked where they could get the shirts or occasionally questioned our political attitude toward Israel and Palestine. We made it clear to those who asked that we were not affiliated with the gallery and this was our own personal response to the work. All our conversations were at a low level, similar to all the other visitors talking with one another while viewing the show. We never had an incident, raised our voices, disrupted anyone, and were not approached by the multitudes of guards that were there. We took photographs as was permitted and similar to many other people photographing the work and each other without flash or disruption to people's passage. We thought we were in an arena of ideas and that words on a t-shirt without any other provocation would be an acceptable method of free expression in response to Kiefer's work. We were so very wrong.
After about one and a half hours, half of our group left and four of us remained to continue to view the show. I walked around on my own looking at the work. I noticed that two other visitors had engaged two of my friends in a conversation that was lasting a long time. Curious, I wandered over to where they were standing to join them. The atmosphere in the gallery was very peaceful and calm. The conversation that they had struck-up was warm and all of them were very interested talking together. Suddenly, out of nowhere, two representatives from the gallery approached us. One of them asked who our leader was. It was an odd question and I responded that we had no leader. She then asked us who was in charge. And again I emphasized that no one was in charge and said that there was nothing happening. She then said that she had to ask us to leave the gallery. We, including the lovely couple we had just met, were dumbfounded. At that point, the gallery employee ordered the guards, the same ones that had observed us for close to two hours with no incident, to surround us and escort us out. I told her that there was no reason to have us removed. The gallery employee explained that they had received complaints about the words on our shirt, which were causing confusion, and therefore we would have to leave. We then decided to cover the language even though it was very disturbing to do so and we did this reluctantly, understanding the profound irony against the back-drop of the Kiefer exhibition which embodies a life's work supposedly concerned with the horrors of state-sponsored repression, the brutality of occupation, racism, abuse of power, fascism and the consequences of forgetting history, not allowing for keen reflection in regard to current strains of unchecked power. I mentioned to the gallery employees that I thought we were in the realm of ideas inside the gallery space to which she replied that it was a private gallery in the business of selling art and that they wanted us to leave. On principle, something no longer that valued or defended in the public or private sector, we stayed, acting again in no way that could be deemed disruptive. The guards went back to their corners and we went back to our conversation. We thought that the incident was over. To all our shock, several minutes later the police arrived and completely disrupting the calm atmosphere in the gallery began to order us to leave and threatened us with arrest for trespassing.
Within minutes after the police arrived an incident unfolded that could only be described as brutal. Upon reflection, it was like a staged scene, depicting what happens when the very forces Kiefer warns us about go unchecked. The police came on very strong and at first directed their warning at us, overseen by the gallery personnel, who pointed us out to them. I asked them to explain the complaints being made against us and rationale for our expulsion. The only explanation given was that it was a private space just like one's home and that we were no longer welcome and would need to leave. A woman witnessing the event and standing at a distance to my left, who I did not know, asked for an explanation as to what was happening. The police officer was very rude and belligerent to her. All this unfolded rather quickly, within seconds and suddenly I saw him grab her forcefully, pinching the muscle of her arm as he began to drag her from the gallery. It was shocking as she was screaming that she was being hurt and yet he wouldn't remove his grip. I heard her cry in pain all the way out as she was being removed to the entrance. I couldn't see what happened behind the wall between us but have heard an account from another witness that she fell to the floor and was dragged all the way to the door and outside on the floor by the police without complaint and in full view of the gallery personnel. She was badly bruised and needed medical attention and was taken to a hospital emergency room.
These are the facts of my experience as it unfolded. It was and still is traumatizing to recount and to attempt to grapple with all the implications of these events unfolding against the backdrop of the Anselm Kiefer exhibition. What happened there can not be explained away simply by the gallery stating that they received complaints. The question should be asked by whom? What was the content of those complaints? What was the confusion they pointed to and why couldn't the gallery personnel clear those issues up? What warranted setting into motion this course of action that led to a brutal assault by the police and the shutting down of ideas and speech embodied on a personal t-shirt? These (art) corporations are about money - rank and extreme consumerism. That they invoke the culture of private property as justification for their repression of inconvenient thoughts and ideas must not obscure the fact that they have no right to cause actual physical harm to members of the public or to violate the rights of that public. Our peaceful engagement with the Kiefer exhibition was not a demonstration that day in the gallery but the gallery deserves now to be shown what a real demonstration looks like in response to what it did.
I can only wonder what Anselm Kiefer would have to say about what happened in his exhibition because of the presence of those words that inspired him and led to an inspired idea, Next Year In Jerusalem, strung together in Arabic, Hebrew and English?
Scared of a T-Shirt is a new (and somewhat amusing) low.
You guys need to demonstrate peacefully and artistically outside the gallery. Organize, organize, organize!
Yep.
disturbing news.
Sue! Sue! Sue!
@Taxi,
not new.
link to commondreams.org
But still disturbing.
Yeah, Assange claimed this about several newspapers, including the Guardian, but there’s no evidence to back it up. The Guardian is not shy about publishing anti-Israel documents.
Yeah, unlike you, hophmi, Assange has developed no creds at all. The Guardian is only not shy in relation to its NY cousin here. The analogy is to any US MSM print versus its Online content.
Yeah, no evidence. Yet.
Enjoy the honeymoon while it lasts. Heh.
Why is fear of a t shirt anything new? Let’s not pretend.
link to globalexchange.org
If t shirts with political content never had the power to provoke a reaction, then activists would surely stop wearing them.
It’s a zionist natural progression from banning a billboard, to banning a bus side ad to banning a t-shirt’s with pic or text on it. At least this was in a private commerical spot–try wearing those t-shirts on a Seattle bus. And, as to that gallery, take the advice of Taxi–protest on the public way outside that private gallery.
Perhaps they need to go the same route as the JetBlue T-Shirt wearer Raed Jarrar: link to aclu.org
This case, and the others mentioned, point out another sad fact — free speech means nothing in a society in which public spaces are privately owned. When bus lines, galleries, credit card companies, newspapers — any non-governmental organization — disagrees with you, they can do as they please. Hey, it’s a free country!
Not new in United Kingdom. Under Tony Blair, wearing a logo or writing on the clothing was considered as engaging in political manifestation and/or protest. People were arrested for it in areas out of bounds for political rallying (like around the Houses of Parlament) Haven’t heard of incidents lately, but I am sure the law has not been repealed.
thanks laurie, i hadn’t heard about this at all. where can i buy one of these shirts?
Gee, annie, watch yourself; after all, they are SO hardcore provocative–why you may as well strut around outside with a photo lifted from Julius Streicher’s ancient rag on your t-shirt.
“That they invoke the culture of private property as justification for their repression of inconvenient thoughts….”
And just how, pray tell, do you distinguish the “culture of private property” from the culture of individual rights?
Can you really believe you’d be better off—especially with your message, and the Israel lobby being so powerful—if there *wasn’t* private property and the *government* operated all of same, including the museums and galleries, with all the laws and rules the Lobby could get the government to erect?
It was private property. I think not only your statement on your shirts but then especially your way of making your statement too was brilliant, and classy. But you should be no more entitled to demand answers as to why you were being kicked out than you would owe any answers if someone came onto your property and demanded to know how come you owned the kind of shirt you wore. Indeed, that’s exactly the kind of thing that’s happened and that still happens in countries that don’t have the “culture of private property.”
And as for the cops behavior, to a large degree especially when dealing in crowd situations they know they cannot sit there and debate, and that the best way to minimize disturbances and harm is to act peremptorily and let things get sorted out later. Moreover there was not a speck of ambiguity here: Anyone the gallery said was trespassing was trespassing, period, and thus the cops weren’t worried about being in a gray area. Plus, as a citizen, I would far rather have the cops spending their time on real crime than on playing at 60 Questions with every little group of people who are clearly trespassing.
Perhaps that one cop went too far with that woman: we’d have to hear the cop’s side too. But, again, if someone came onto your property and started erecting a pro-Yesha sign and you ordered him off and called the cops, how would *you* feel if instead of just hustling him off the cop started asking *you* about why you were so offended and gee maybe you should tolerate the guy and blah blah blah?
Again Ms. Arbeiter, brilliant message, brilliant execution, but just remember what happens when people start thinking they can dispense with just *some* “private” rights and essentially cede them to the government. The very next ones to go are almost invariably the very kind you just exercised even on the street corner or in your own house.
The fact of the matter is Sin Nombre, the ideas of “private property” are not a panacea. The point we extract from the reaction to this shirt is that property is the only thing that matters, and people do not matter – the implication by this forceful reaction (throwing people off of property) is that Jerusalem is supposed to only belong to the Zionist Jews (not what they pledged to initially when they were asked how they view Jerusalem, and that it would become an international center). The statement on the shirt said next year in Jerusalem as home in several languages, which implied that it belonged to others besides the Zionist Jews. The private property of the Palestinians does not mean jack to the Zionists, they will steal it with impunity.
Generally speaking, the idea of private property which belongs to anyone outside of the powerful is a misnomer, because there are those who hold private property – and those who hold Private Property. The powerful, the moneyed elite hold property which is deftly protected by the powers that be with determination in the sense of the government, which is merely their franchise. Powerful corporations hold property in the sense of a “person” that will never die (super-persons, and actually the new “we the people”), which holds more capital than any individual organic person (in most instances) and is protected beyond any means available to the people (when the police come to disperse unrest on corporate “property” do they serve the oppressed people who chose to strike or the corporation? The corporation every time).
The stated purpose of this government from the beginning (USA) was to protect the propertied, with the faculties (privilege) of gaining more from those who hold no or little property. People in the equation do not equal property, and therefore when I protest, I have no qualms about damaging or destroying this property held in such a manner. The average person who owns property can be assailed at any time by the propertied (through their franchise government) to take those who have little, to give to those who have more. It is as simple as raising a fee or duty (tax), or where hundreds of more powerful entities can attach to a property by a perceived offense or the inability to pay, etc (no matter what effect the powerful have invoked by almost bankrupting society). Average people do not hold property allodially (without fee or duty), as a king did in the past – that is because the power and type of ownership that average people have in essence means they own nothing under the correct circumstances, the concept of the kings property has passed to the moneyed elite (and this is what it ALWAYS reverts to sooner or later, because those with little property who think they are privileged become the duped fat around the midsection of the moneyed elite).
Indeed, the very process of property ownership not only engenders theft and war, but encourages such by definition. This is why the powerful attack the weak and the poor individually or in the sense of invasion, colonially or otherwise. There is more attrition of ownership of property systemically (note the recent foreclosure debacle) than any other method, that is because it is a monopoly of the rich and enfranchised. So my suggestion to you is to think twice because you sing the praises of “private property” Sin Nombre. Private property in the context of this post means settler colonial theft, and for that matter it is the same in the USA – just older.
So you think the police are here to protect and serve you? They are here to maintain law and order, which is really and inverse phrase – it should be “order and law.” Not order in the sense of against chaos, but in the present order of those on top and their place in society as opposed to those who become the oppressed. The law is merely and instrument by which the poor and disenfranchised are crushed beneath the strike of the gavel. I can further develop this beyond a shadow of a doubt, there is no “rule of law” there is merely the “law of rule.” No one is subjected to a set of objective laws which apply equally to all. Do you want me to develop this, I can.
AS AN EXAMPLE
So you better decide which side you are on, because when push comes to shove, as the country further degrades (rightfully so under this system) the net will be spread further, and soon you might be worth more in jail because it is now a matter of private enterprise traded on the stock exchange interpreted by how many people are fed to the prison industrial complex to measure profitability (two million plus at this juncture, more than any other developed nation in the world). Why don’t you ask yourself where this blessed police force comes from, what was its origin?
ORIGINS
Hi VR:
Very articulate exposition of your views for sure. I guess though I’d just say that while, for sure, there are problems with both the theory and praxis of private property, in the main, even dispensing with the moral problem of saying that a person isn’t entitled to the fruits of his own labor (which one might say even makes an individual a slave to everyone else), I would further just say I think the pragmatic evils that exist with socialism far outweigh their benefits, and the pragmatic benefits of private property far outweighs their evils.
Of course it’s a matter of opinion, and yours is as good as mine for sure, but I think history would be on my side here. E.g., look at the misery inflicted on the people living under the Soviet Union, or China when it was in the deep throes of socialism, and look at the erasure of all rights under the Nazis too. (Whose name, after all, were “National *Socialists*.”)
Lots of such misery it seems to me results just because I don’t see how socialism can ever solve the problem of … “free riders” as economists call ‘em. Or, perhaps even more accurately put, the problem presented by human nature which seems to instruct that people just are not going to work as hard for others as they are going to work for themselves, period. (One of the reasons that one sees so many socialist countries in the past really trying to re-invent humans themselves totally—after first thinking that only some social classes had a bad nature and exterminating them, and then realizing that no, their problem was with *everyone.* Indeed such realization led Trotsky, for instance, to pronounce all human beings as “monkeys without tails,” and either him or some other early Bolshevik to say that it just might be that they needed to exterminate 90% of everyone under their rule but that same would be worth it. A “new Soviet man” or “Soviet humanicus” or some such new kind of human was their aspiration I think they called it.)
But then one also observes, as I somewhat noted originally, that it’s difficult to formulate where “private property” stops and other “private rights” lie. That is, if one says that it’s okay for the state to own what one produces materially … because it’s for the good of all … well then if that “for the good of all” is the touchstone why *not* own what a person says too? Or thinks? After all those are just products of the mind; why stop at owning mere products of the hand? And indeed if you’ve really socialized all property, well the most valuable property is already a product of the mind, no? New inventions, for instance: fishing nets instead of catching fish individually by hand, and new drugs, and etc. and so forth.
Or who or what a person prays to? After all allowing people their free speech is far more dangerous than is allowing them their free property, right? Can cause far more “harm,” right?
But, anyway, and again, nice to hear such an articulate (if not indeed an even somewhat elegant) argument such as yours.
“if someone came onto your property and started erecting a pro-Yesha sign”
Nobody tried to erect any sign, though I do understand why you had to resort to such hyperbole, as your line of argument falls flat on it’s face without it.
Israel comes to New York.
i recommend reading the huff po article as well. apparently there was another incident at the gallery later that day as well, recounted in the other (excellent) article.
The issue isn’t free speech, it’s discrimination. The issue is, who does the complaining and what is the target of their complaint?
If I complain that I’m offended by a star of David, by a flag pin, by a tshirt with a picture of MLK, are they going to call the cops? If there wasn’t Arabic script on the tshirt, were they going to call the cops?
The gallery may be private property, but it also is a public accomodation, and there are rules about discrimination.
Good legal point, Potsy. The gallery is much more like a little restaurant or diner than a private home. What owner or manager gives truck to some customer entering his or her establishment who might buy something to eat after gazing at the menu and/or display racks on the counter but is whining about the ambigous script inked on the t-shirt of some other potential customer in the place?
Potsherd2 wrote:
“The gallery may be private property, but it also is a public accomodation, and there are rules about discrimination.”
Well, Pots, if you’re talking what is as opposed to what what we wish it to be my recollection is that this same exact kind of thing was addressed by the Supreme Court some years ago in a case featuring some demonstration in a mall or something and the Court held that no, this wasn’t such an “accomodation” requiring that the demonstration be allowed to proceed.
And indeed if you’re talking what we wish it to be I just think I’d disagree with what seems your ‘druthers: In the first place I don’t care if it’s my home or my business, I think I should have the right to allow or disallow political statements to be made on same regardless. And while I recognize that one can come up with some unusual circumstances even, or devise an argument that same exists—”it’s an *art* gallery, as Ms. Arbeiter said, isn’t this a place of *ideas?!!”—I don’t like how slippery that slope is.
Recent history only seems to confirm with me that on the whole individual rights are sort of on a one-way ratchet. This one is ratcheted away, making it only easier for the next to be gone, and so forth and so on.
Only my opinion though of course….
Happy Holidays everyone.
But Sin, there was no demonstration. No disruption not initiated by the gallery.
It was purely a case of singling out a certain group of people based on their appearance, and a public accomodation can’t do that. It can’t toss out a group of Orthodox Jews because they won’t take off their hats inside. It can’t toss out a group of Japanese tourists. Or Amish.
Hi again, Pots:
I think things have become a bit tangled here. In general when we talk about “public accommodations” that is because in such places there can be no discrim. on *certain* grounds such as race, national origin, and etc., right? I.e., started by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and as amended.
However, I don’t believe that either that Act or any of its amendments or other federal acts say that one can’t discriminate in “public accomodation” places on the grounds of speech. In other words, I think you *can* so discriminate there on that ground. Nor in fact (but to some degree less certainty on my part) do I think you are barred from discriminating on the simple grounds of “appearance” even. Indeed I believe you can the more I think of it: After all doesn’t seem to be any bar against … “No shirt, no shoes, no service,” right? And certainly places of public accommodation such as restaurants can bar you for looking/smelling of vomit, right? Or even for not wearing a tie.
So okay, to a degree you here are not framing this as a First Amendment matter but instead as a matter of appearance. And while that’s a clever argument I don’t think it either has ever held up or would. Again because I doubt discrim on the sole basis of appearance is barred. And also just my offhand suspicion/opinion because I don’t suspect the courts would entertain that this is anything other than a free speech case. For one, otherwise just think of the ways that people would find to cast speech as appearance, and the courts would consider that to be an endless muck-hole of impossible-to-draw distinctions.
Moreover they would also note that there already *is* a clear and deeply plumbed body of judicial thought and cases seeing matters such as these as free speech cases, and not involving the Civil Rights Act(s), and thus not being constrained by what is and isn’t a “public accommodation” at all. Instead they are just cases in which people have said that certain private settings—such as malls most famously if I recall—are “public enough” so that the First Amendment applies to at least some considerable degree.
And with such cases I’m pretty sure that in terms of the *Federal* First Amendment, no, while the Warren Court (if I recall correctly) at first started down the path of saying such places were “public enough,” the Court has since pulled 180-degrees away/back from that and has consistently stayed back therefrom.
On the other hand I think that some state courts (or federal courts enforcing state courts) have held that this or that state constitution or state law means that at least some if not all free speech rights applies to such private land/areas, so perhaps with regard to the demonstration here maybe these protesters have some New York rights. I doubt it, but in any event I very much doubt they would be successful saying their (federal) First Amendment rights were violated.
Oh, wait … here! A Slate article I just ran across doing a quick little search after writing the above that seems informative. Don’t have time to parse it all that close but I *think* it pretty much is in accord with what I wrote above, no?
link to slate.com
In any event is interesting. (And think you should have been a lawyer—if indeed you aren’t one already, and a good one—for arguing that this is really an “appearance” case. Clever.)
Sin, good point about the state laws – I was thinking more in Federal terms, but the NY case is certainly pertinent.
One reason I think the issue isn’t speech is that the people had already put on jackets to cover the words [specially the backs of the shirts]. So there was no “speech”, or at least they had ceased it.
“One reason I think the issue isn’t speech is that the people had already put on jackets to cover the words [specially the backs of the shirts]. So there was no “speech”, or at least they had ceased it.”
Like I say, Pots, you oughta be a lawyer if you aren’t one already. Really sharp. Don’t think it would work for the reasons I said before, regardless of whether it’s speech or appearance, but still it’s a sharp observation.
An awful lot of people are genuinely offended and genuinely fearful at the sight of dark or black skin.
Thanks, Mooser, that’s an underlying support base for what I was trying to say with my own comment earlier in this matter. Can any cop come over and boot out a black guy in a roadside diner because other customers in there say they are afraid of him and so the owner or manager wants him out? In the case at issue the customers were booted out under color of law merely for wearing t-shirts with at most ambiguous script on them. There’s a decent constitutional issue law suit there against the municipality. Those tossed out should contact the ACLU, for starters.
In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class (such as color, race, age, etc), the question generally turns on whether the business’s refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their “colors,” or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members’ unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members. Were the t-shirts sufficiently analogous to biker colors? But the other side wore no “colors.” And judicial notice could be taken that biker clubs relish their violent reputations. The t-shirt wearers cannot reasonably be compared to bikers without concluding they posed no threat at all, nor were they physically disruptive in any way.
The law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner’s private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved. So, the case at hand looks like a worthy thing to pursue. Probably win, and even if not–good PR, gets the word out. Those t-shirts words make the most valuable contribution to inform the public of what’s taboo to say in public these days.
The tshirt was printed with the name of the exhibition.
in arabic!
Who had dark skin? the girl looks pretty white in the photograph.
Keep this incident in mind when critics of BDS argue that art/culture should be put above politics and thus should never be boycotted.
Even more disturbing is further FBI harassment of anti-war and Palestine solidarity activists including one of Electronic Intifada’s editors:
‘FBI Expands Probe into Antiwar Activists’
link to democracynow.org
It’s crunch time in America, y’all.
Will someone who is fluent in Arabic please translate the Arabic, for it does not seem to be an exact translation of “next year in Jerusalem”. I read it as “al quds, mu idna l’rada” or “Al Quds, we will be with you tomorrow.” Is that accurate?
sure, that is a literal translation.
Download this :
If An Agent Knocks (the booklet)
What to do if you or your organization are targeted by federal law enforcement
link to ccrjustice.org
Merry Christmas !
This looks like some good advice lareineblanche, they say that hindsight is always better than foresight, I say that foresight is invaluable. Quite frankly I have been writing about this for years, here is some vintage foresight from 2006 –
TERRORISTS ONE AND ALL!!
“SO NOW WE HAVE A MANY HEADED MONSTER, AND THEY WILL TRY WITH EVER QUICKENING FREQUENCY TO PLACE ALL DISSENT BENEATH THE RUBRIC OF TERRORISM.”
And also -
NSA FINDS THE TERRORISTS?
“REMEMBER, THIS WAS DONE DURING THE YEARS 2003 AND 2004 – IF THEY DID IT TO THIS GROUP YOU CAN BE ASSURED THAT THEY HAVE DONE IT TO OTHERS. ANYONE AND EVERYONE BECOMES THE TARGET IN THIS ATMOSPHERE – THEY WILL TAP YOUR PHONES AND BECOME PRIVY TO YOUR MOST INTIMATE CORRESPONDENCE. THEY WILL INTERCEPT YOUR MAIL, YOU WILL BE WATCHED – WELCOME TO THE POLICE STATE OF AMERICA.”