The mainstream media’s attempts to stifle free expression continue in the case against Antoinette Lattouf and the dismissal of Peter Lalor, writes Rosemary Sorensen.
AS THE ABC defends the dismissal of journalist Antoinette Lattouf in the Federal Court this week and in the wake of the abrupt dismissal of cricket commentator Peter Lalor last week from his role with SEN, the potency of strident complaint to employers is very clear.
In both cases, it was support, particularly expressed on social media, for Palestine and criticism of Israel’s deadly assaults on civilians, journalists and aid agencies that led to the dismissals.
In court, Lattouf’s barrister, Oshie Fagir, read quotes of complaints received by then ABC chair, Ita Buttrose, that called the journalist an ‘antisemite conspiracy theorist’ and threatened to ‘engage Senior Council [sic] to take this matter further’ if she wasn’t sacked. Justice Rangiah approved an application to prohibit the publication of the names of the complainants, but Fagir referred to “pro-Israel lobbyists” in his opening statements.
Lalor was sacked mid-game when he was in Galle covering the first Test match between Sri Lanka and Australia. His statement about how that was done by station manager at SEN, Craig Hutchison, outlines how quick – and confusing – the dismissal was.
‘Perhaps I misunderstood,’ Lalor wrote on his Cricket et Al Substack, with characteristic mildness.
Lalor continued:
I was told there were accusations I was antisemitic which I strongly objected to. I was told my retweeting was not balanced and insensitive to one side and that many people had complained.
I was asked by station boss Craig Hutchison, who was civil if I didn’t care that my retweeting of events in Gaza made Jewish people in Melbourne feel unsafe. I said I didn’t want anyone to feel unsafe.
Of course, I care. I have friends who are frightened and have heard the fear in their voices during conversations. It is an awful situation. But so is Gaza. It was a brief and cordial call.
The following day Hutchison told me that because the ‘sound of my voice made people feel unsafe’ and that people are ‘triggered by my voice’, I could not cover the cricket for them anymore.
The outcry over Lalor’s dumping was led by Australian batsman, Usman Khawaja, who wrote on social media in response:
‘Standing up for the people of Gaza is not antisemitic nor does it have anything to do with my Jewish brothers and sisters in Australia, but everything to do with the Israeli Government and their deplorable actions.’
In both cases, it’s unnamed “people” who are complaining. And, in both cases, the identity of those people and the huge influence they are having on the work and lives of those being complained about is not stated outright. But it is, of course, understood.
This huge influence of (unnamed) people who, in both cases, want to suppress support for Palestine and criticism of Israel is one part of what we are witnessing. Another part is discovering how much freedom of expression cultural institutions believe those who work for them, as writers, musicians, journalists and artists, have a right to.
Lattouf is arguing in court that her short-term contract presenting a holiday breakfast show did not – ought not – prevent her from taking part in the public conversations about what was happening, day after day, to journalists covering the Israeli assault on Gaza. The ABC argued she should have – could have – waited a few days to post about another journalist’s death.
At issue is also whether or not Lattouf’s reputation and therefore work prospects have been damaged, and the ABC barrister was scathing in his assessment that, on the contrary, all this publicity has improved her professional standing.
Lalor was told that people tuning in to hear if Mitchell Starc had taken another wicket were “triggered” simply by hearing the sound of his voice.
The response by both employers was not to defend the employee’s right to use their personal social media to support what they believe is both factual and morally right, but to be rid of them, in both cases with what appears to be a lack of due process.
Pianist Jayson Gillham’s case is still pending, so this right to freedom of expression will, again, be opened to legal scrutiny when the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra defends the decision it made five months ago to immediately cancel an upcoming performance when complaints were made about him.
Gillham had spoken about the death of journalists in Gaza as background to the piano music he played at a recital. The rights of the artist to freedom of expression was to be part of a review MSO had commissioned from musician and former politician and lawyer Peter Garrett, from which Garrett withdrew because the legal proceedings had delayed its commencement.
Now, the MSO says, once the Gillham case is resolved, the review will be led by KPMG and MSO management, who ‘will consider the MSO’s policies, risk frameworks and processes in relation to the MSO’s principle that the MSO’s stage is subject to the direction of the MSO’.
“Subject to the direction” — what that means for a musician in this case ought to be of vital interest to all musicians, artists, writers and journalists, as well as to the management of every cultural institution in the country.
The dispute of the writers (including Omar Sakr, Alison Evans and Jinghua Qian) whose contracts to run writing courses for teenagers were suspended by the State Library Victoria for what the Library claimed were safety reasons is also still active, with the case filed at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal last month, awaiting response.
The SLV, as we reported in Independent Australia, responded by trying to claim that the contracted writers were bound by Public Service agreements and were therefore not permitted to make comments about what was considered contentious.
The MSO is, according to Gillham, claiming something similar, that anyone contracted by them is obliged not to be, in the words used by the ABC’s barrister defending the Lattouf wrongful dismissal case, “controversial”.
The policies cited by the MSO as the reference for their planned review are Creative Australia’s ‘Essential Governance practices for arts organisations’ and ‘Cultural Engagement Framework’. On the publicly available information about these policies, there is no reference to an artist’s rights to freedom of expression and also nothing about the rights of the cultural organisation to demand adherence to a code of conduct that excludes the potential for controversy.
(IA has requested Creative Victoria to clarify if these policies do reference artists’ rights and freedom of expression: no response has yet been received.)
To date, it appears that a sportsman such as Usman Khawaja has more freedom to speak about world events in ways that are “controversial” or upsetting for “some people” than artists, musicians, writers and journalists.
It also appears that, if these discussions are being had, tardily, within some of our most valued cultural institutions, it’s happening behind closed doors. And that’s why this expensive, excruciating, gruelling case about the sacking of Antoinette Lattouf by the ABC is important, for what it tells us about who gets to influence ABC management and how journalists are forced to censor themselves.
Jayson Gillham’s decision, as well as that of the writers taking on the State Library Victoria, will also reveal how such cultural institutions respond to campaigns of complaint designed to censor fair comment.
The damage is likely to be deep.
Rosemary Sorensen is an IA columnist, journalist and founder of the Bendigo Writers Festival.
Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.
