It's astonishing many organizations in wealthy democracies are terrified of the slightest criticism of Israel's genocide.
Even the Israeli government pretends to be sad that journalists die covering wars. They’re more extreme than this?
They are terrified of repercussions from the US.
If America were forced to choose between Australia and Israel, it won't be Israel.
Australia has more money.
Hahaha, no American politician ever calls themselves an Australinist. They are fucking nuts, like fanatically end of the world supporting Israel.
No need to choose, Australia is easy to bully
They don't have to choose, they have the power to make Aussie politicians bend the knee, and everyone knows it. That's what they're afraid of.
Sure, but that's kind of the point, isn't it? That Australia is run by cowards.
Because once that door swings open a little bit... who knows what might bear some scrutiny?
Who made the clothes you're wearing? Or your phone? Were they a slave? A child? Are they even still alive, or do they have cancer because of the factory where they worked? Do their parents miss them, if they're gone?
What happened to make the chicken sandwich you had at lunch? Are you complicit in slow torture unto death, just by existing in the modern world?
Better to keep the door shut tight, and attack the messenger if anyone has anything to say about it. We're just making music here. No torture, no killing, no profit from the destruction of lives. Just music! Trust me. Enjoy.
(I don't think most people are like this. I actually think most people in the West at this point are against the "war" in Gaza, to at least some tepidly inactive degree. But certainly, also, a lot of people aren't against it, q.v. this article.)
People talk regularly about those things and nobody gets cancelled over that. It's only the Israel lobby that made talking about Palestine equal to anti-Semitism, no matter how mild (like in this case).
Well... yeah, that's a fair point. The strength of Israel's lobby has a ton to do with it (and lobbies like China can accomplish the same types of things). It's 100% true.
I guess we know their stance on killing journalists, then.
I just wouldn't go to that symphony anymore. Nothing wrong with supporting not killing journalists. It's not like he went out of his way to espouse his views.
Do you go to see the Melbourne symphony orchestra often?
Not anymore
Here's what they cancelled him for:
for piano
duration: 5'00"
2024
for Jayson Gillham
dedicated to the journalists of Gaza
I acknowledge the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung people of the Kulin Nation, Traditional Custodians of the lands where I live, work, and create – lands on which First Nations communities have been creating and sharing music, art and culture for thousands of generations. I pay my respects to their Elders past and present, and I recognise the vital ongoing contributions First Nations communities continue to make on our music and arts scenes. This always was, and always will be, Aboriginal land.
I also acknowledge all Indigenous Peoples worldwide, their continued fight for freedom from settler-colonialism and occupation, and recognise the interconnectedness of these, all struggles for justice and work towards a world free from oppression for all everyone.
He didn't even dedicate it to journalists killed, just journalists. The headline is bullshit.
He never mentioned Israel.
EDIT: It just occurred to me that he wasn't canceled for dedicating it to the journalists of Gaza. He was cancelled for calling Aboriginal people victims of settler-colonialism in Australia, which is objectively true...
The article quotes him saying more:
The five-minute piece is dedicated to the journalists of Gaza and was written for Gillham, according to D’Netto’s website. On Wednesday morning, Gillham’s team released the full transcript of what he said while introducing Witness.
“Over the last 10 months, Israel has killed more than one hundred Palestinian journalists,” Gillham told the crowd on Sunday.
“A number of these have been targeted assassinations of prominent journalists as they were travelling in marked press vehicles or wearing their press jackets. The killing of journalists is a war crime in international law, and it is done in an effort to prevent the documentation and broadcasting of war crimes to the world.
“In addition to the role of journalists who bear witness, the word Witness in Arabic is Shaheed, which also means Martyr.”
Nah it wouldn't be that, those sorts of land acknowledgements are very common in Melbourne, especially in the Arts, that would have been perceived as utterly uncontroversial by the MSO
Land acknowledgements devoid of teeth are common, where someone flaccidly admits that Indigenous people exist and have some unspecified connection to the land, not where someone actually states out loud the crimes that put their opera house on that land.
This was a good acknowledgement that actually implicates the current ruling class. That's why they cancelled him.
Edit: he actually went on to say more, but I stand by the fact that this wasnt just a standard acknowledgement.
He was cancelled for calling Aboriginal people victims of settler-colonialism in Australia
Extremely unlikely. Australia's colonial history and its impact on Indigenous Australians is a very common theme in modern Australian classical music and many concerts I have been to, including one just the other week, have conductors or soloists introduce the piece and specifically cite the context behind it. Unless the MSO is significantly different (which it doesn't appear to be, based on some quick searches of Indigenous-themed concerts) this is not the reason. It was his comments about Israel targeting and killing journalists (what you quoted is not the actual introduction he made at the concert) which led to the cancellation.
This is absolutely untrue.
He probably did say this, but he was cancelled because of his comments about israel.
Truth is treason in the empire of lies
Wow, magnificent self-own by the Orchestra manager. Dedicated to journalists killed in Gaza - not Palestinians or Israelis or Hamas or the Israeli far right or IDF, but journalists in the broadest sense of the term. Who fucking cancels a show over that?
Because everyone knows who is killing journalists in Gaza
it was pretty specific if you read the article
It wasn't actually that broad, he specifically mentioned that Israeli armed forces have targeted and killed journalists in Gaza.
Which is a actual true comment. Isn't an opinion, it's a statement of fact.
What sort of brain dead organization cancel somebody over the statement of a fact?
One that is concerned about a public backlash. I'm not sure if you're from Australia, but the community is very divided here over this issue. It's also an issue that tends to be divided by age groups, with older people being more likely to support Israel's actions or see criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. Classical concert audiences tend to be quite old. With this context in mind, I suspect the MSO received a handful of complaints and incorrectly assumed this position would be less inflammatory. It's possible that it actually is within their immediate audience, but the problem with making a big public statement like they've done is that it automatically puts you on a "side' in this heated and highly polarised environment.
They should have just spoken to the soloist privately and explained their concerns to him prior to the next concert, instead of turning it into a big controversy. As triggered as some people may have been by the introduction, it wouldn't have been enough to turn this into a real controversy the way it has become since they cancelled the concert. Like this news story is not actually anywhere near important enough to make World News communities and get outraged replies from foreigners who had never even heard of the MSO before this. It's the story's connection to the situation in Gaza that is the big issue here, and deliberately involving themselves in that was a massive PR mistake.
but the community is very divided here over this issue
Noo it's not mate, this isn't America. The government supports Israel, but the people clearly favour Palestine.
The article goes into depth with the artists remarks. Its nowhere close to something like: "This next piece is dedicated to the journalists killed in Gaza" which is what I would have assumed.
He provided context as to why that piece would be performed. I don't think he went over the top at all.
Can I ask would you hold the same position that his statements should have been allowed if it was in strong support of the violence against the people in Gaza? Do you support the use of this platform because you agree with the position or because you believe he should be able to voice whatever position he wants? Would you be in support if his opinions were on White nationalism?
edit: Calm down people, I don't support Israel nor white nationalism. I'm probing where @T00l_shed@lemmy.world 's limits are for what they a believe is acceptable. I'm not advocating for any political position with my questions.
No, he is providing factual context about a situation, denouncing violence. Your examples aren't comparable.
No, he is providing factual context about a situation, denouncing violence. Your examples aren’t comparable.
So your position is that as long as context about the situation is factual, you would not have a problem with any commentary he'd give on any subject?
Sure, you could say that that is my position if you ignore everything else I said.
This doesn't sound like we're communicating then. Thank you for taking the time to converse up to now. Have a great day!
You too.
It seems I may have misread your statement. I apologize.
No worries. Text is an imperfect medium.
Denouncing violence is very different than supporting or inciting violence, fwiw.
Denouncing violence is very different than supporting or inciting violence, fwiw.
I completely agree. You can see that in the first question I asked in that post: "Can I ask would you hold the same position that his statements should have been allowed if it was in strong support of the violence against the people in Gaza? "
The followup questions were probing if that poster was simply against violence or simply a pure free speech advocate.
The main point here is being against the violence, of which israel is largely responsible. Your questions detract from that & minimize the problems to a matter of personal opinion
The main point here is being against the violence, of which israel is largely responsible.
The violence began before israel even existed. Israel is not responsible for violence against jews.
Violence has existed for all of human history. Doesn’t excuse Israel’s bombing of journalists.
Hamas issues press passes to its military spotters. The transmission of military intel makes people valid targets under the laws of war. That is a valid excuse for bombing journalists.
The main point here is being against the violence, of which israel is largely responsible. Your questions detract from that & minimize the problems to a matter of personal opinion
Isn't that what I said in the very first line of my post you're replying to? I'll quote myself:
"Can I ask would you hold the same position that his statements should have been allowed if it was in strong support of the violence against the people in Gaza?"
"I feel his comments were appropriate"
"Would you feel the same if they were different comments?"
You're getting closer to where I was going:
“I feel his comments were appropriate”
"How different would his comments have to be to be not appropriate?"
This isn't a binary state, its a scale. I was asking questions of scale.
::: spoiler The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
Oh, the IOF said it? Must be true 😂. The only thing they say concretely and sourced in the article is that he worked at a "pro Hamas" media outlet (can't speak to this claim, but remember all the other things the IOF has claimed are Hamas), and that he wrote a piece for Al Jazeera.
Disregarding all that. Assuming that this guy was a journalist who was also a gun carrying member of Hamas and held actual hostages in his house, does that say anything about the record number of journalists that have been assasinated by the IOF?
I think it pretty clearly doesn't.
Unpopular opinion time:
People pay to see and enjoy listening to a symphony, not listen to political opinion. And while I’m entirely on the side of the protestors, and stand firmly against the atrocities committed by Israel, I’d be against this at a symphony as well.
I know it’s impossible to comprehend, but sometimes, people need a bread from the negativity in the world. We don’t go to political rallies to hear how our congressmen and women enjoy listening to Taylor Swift for a reason…
You may now begin your downvotes.
Isn't the point of protest to not let people forget about things? How easy would it be in the west to not notice, the media certainly isn't keeping up on it. Every time I see one of these I think, that's a braver person than me, and thank fucking god for the Streisand effect. No downvote, but strong disagree.
They hired the guy to make fancy with the piano and he staged a protest?
So if a protest isn’t disruptive, it isn’t effective? I think you need to look up what protest means.
The point of protest is literally exactly that. The point of protest is to make the message impossible to ignore.
I’d urge you to look up the definition of protest and see where it says that it should be disruptive?
See-
I’m talking about REAL definitions. Not what people have turned it into.
“Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue,” King wrote. “It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”
MLK Jr. on the nature of nonviolent protests
MLK is not a dictionary. Try again.
If you genuinely think a dictionary has a better understanding of protests than Martin Luther King Jr, you either don't know his history or are not being serious
And when exactly did "people turn it into" that? The purpose of a picket line is to be disruptive, and people have been doing those for over a century.
Yes I do think that. Protest tactics change but they seem to gravitate toward noncompliance and, yes, disruption. I honestly can't think of a successful protest that was all roses and hugs. Could be missing something.
I agree, but I also think it depends.
Protesters have blocked hospital entrance ways which is absolutely NOT okay, it can result in people dying and I think the protesters involved should be charged with manslaughter in those cases.
I think I'm fine with disruptive protests as long as it's not harmfully disruptive. I also think disruptive protests can piss people off and make them angry at you rather than what you are protesting about, and it can end up hurting your cause.
100% agreed
Ahhh… so, say you own a restaurant… and you pay a pianist to perform music while people dine- you’d be fine if he went on rants about civil unrest and war in foreign countries between songs?
I guarantee you’d fire him when you saw how it affected your profits.
Absolutely, because that makes my life more difficult, as a restaurant owner. I don't feel like that says anything about it tactically or morally though.
That hair splits very fine.
I'm speaking from within a fictional situation that was presented. If I were someone else would I fire someone...the answer is probably. My principled take as myself, I wouldn't for the reasons I've been talking about throughout this thread. Everyone has different reasons for what they do. OP put their opinion and I put mine. I don't know what else to say...
So it’s also okay for cellular companies to interrupt your phone calls with their support for politics issues? What about movies? Cool with a 10 minute long ad about civil unrest in the middle of a movie you paid to see? Can I interrupt your work to explain to you how bad some people have it in places you don’t k ow existed?
How about if I stopped ambulances from caring for the sick an injured? Because this shit ACTUALLY happened- and it is what happens when a line isn’t drawn between “making your point heard” and violating people’s rights.
Cool with a 10 minute long ad about civil unrest in the middle of a movie you paid to see?
He interrupted mid song for 10 minutes? Or was it a 2 minute preamble and then a regular performance?
"Oh, you're fine with this thing? What if it was something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT?!"
Yeah, a phone company is never never never going to alienate customers like that. And the power dynamics in that situation are quite different. If you're looking to suss out the limits of what I think about this than you've done it. I 100% agree people shouldn't come to physical harm. Again, that's quite a different situation than the one described in the article though.
You say a phone company won’t do that, but protestors blocked ambulances. Where is the line drawn?
And it’s okay that there’s no end to the interruption to daily lives so long as no one is hurt.
Again, I wonder how you’d like a 20-30 minutes lecture in the middle of a movie you paid for. Or an interruption of a conversation you were having with a friend or loved one.
It’s all in the name of protest you know. So… you HAVE to accept it.
I wonder how you’d like a 20-30 minutes lecture in the middle of a movie
2 minute statement before the performance, 30 minute lecture in the middle of a performance, totally the same thing.
I don't have to like it, That's literally my point. Let's try this, rather than try to find my line, which I've already said was somewhere around causing bodily harm to uninvolved people, what do YOU think is an appropriate form of protest? It seems like that's what you're trying to get off your chest in a round about way.
When did they say it had to be disruptive? They just said the point was to not let people forget.
If you consider the statement "x is bad" to be disruptive then I wonder what you think a "non-disruptive protest" actually is. Thoughts and prayers?
You can not let people forget about a thing without injecting it into everthing that exists.
The point is- that venue and event wasn’t there for them to proclaim their stance on politics. This was the right move.
End of story.
End of story.
Oh, okay then.
HEY EVERYBODY! JIMSAMTANKO SAYS IT'S THE END OF STORY! I guess we all have to stop talking about it now.
I didn't find the definition that said "block ambulances", and I have to say that was effective when the hillbillies did that. I hope even your idea of "annoy people who can't help" doesn't include critical services.
I hate the message you started with. But I agree with this. These modern protesters are scum bags who often are a major reason why their own cause never makes much progress.
Ah yes, the massively disruptive tactic of checks notes saying genocide is 1) bad and 2) happening prior to playing a piano piece. You're right, he's really crossed the line this time. How can he ever expect to garner support like that?
He's almost as bad as the people with megaphones and signs marching and repeating chants!
Not this guy, I mean the protestors targeting random people like deflating tires of people going to work, throwing soup at art and standing in traffic. I don't get how this guy was protesting. It sounds like he was just saying common sense things. I don't get what the protest is here. Saying you support journalist doesn't seem like a protest. Just a statement
People pay to see and enjoy listening to a symphony, not listen to political opinion.
I guess you don't attend classic concerts often? It is very standard for conductors or soloists to introduce modern pieces and discuss their sociopolitical relevance. I literally just went to one the other week where the director of The King's College Cambridge Choir introduced a piece about the massacre, dispossession and forced assimilation of Indigenous Australians.
Tell me, when was the last time you went to a concert?
Because you should know, it's very common for someone to talk a little before the concert or before the piece about the piece itself, what inspired it, how it fits into the programme, etc.
That's what he did here. He explained what inspired the writing of this piece. No different to a conductor explaining that Shostakovich's 7th Symphony was dedicated to the city of Leningrad, which at the time it was premiered was being besieged by the Nazis. Or explaining how his 9th Symphony was a deliberate mockery of earlier composers' grand 9th symphonies, as a way to subvert expectations placed on him by Stalin's regime. Or how Beethoven's 3rd Symphony was written at first in honour of Napoleon, and then later changed to "celebrate the memory of a great man" after Napoleon went against Beethoven's republican idealism and crowned himself emperor.
Music has always been political, and in modern times no concert is complete without at least some discussion about the context in which the piece was written. That should be as true for a piece written to commemorate victims of a modern-day war as it is for mid-20th century or early 19th century pieces.
The good people of the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra disagree with you.
WDYT about this bit of the article?
Gillham also performed a song by György Ligeti, where the pianist had noted Ligeti was from a Holocaust-surviving family and he spoke about the political background of the piece.
I think that’s irrelevant to the point. He was not there to protest events in Gaza. He was there to perform music.
End of story.
The quote isn’t about Gaza! It was fine to be “political” about holocaust survivors but not Gaza. That’s the point.
I wish you bland music in your future. Bury your head in the sand and enjoy it.
You CLEARLY didn’t read the article:
“Over the last 10 months, Israel has killed more than one hundred Palestinian journalists,” Gillham told the crowd on Sunday.
“A number of these have been targeted assassinations of prominent journalists as they were travelling in marked press vehicles or wearing their press jackets. The killing of journalists is a war crime in international law, and it is done in an effort to prevent the documentation and broadcasting of war crimes to the world.
“In addition to the role of journalists who bear witness, the word Witness in Arabic is Shaheed, which also means Martyr.”
I did. The point I was making is that he got dropped because of political Gaza but not the holocaust. Both of these are confronting and might upset people who just want to listen to some music.
If he spoke out against Gaza and in support of Israel, would you still be against his cancellation?
Because if you can’t honestly say that you are against this regardless of his stance- than you’re not here to debate the point-
You’re just here to toss in your support for a cause.
My entire point is about the concept of what is and isn’t not acceptable for hired entertainment to include in their performance.
I’d be against him speaking against Gaza because I’m against genocide. How is this so hard to understand.
people need a bread from the negativity
Freudian typo: as long as people have "bread and circuses" it's surprising what you can get away with.
mozz@mbin.grits.dev to 
It's astonishing many organizations in wealthy democracies are terrified of the slightest criticism of Israel's genocide.
Even the Israeli government pretends to be sad that journalists die covering wars. They’re more extreme than this?
They are terrified of repercussions from the US.
If America were forced to choose between Australia and Israel, it won't be Israel.
Australia has more money.
Hahaha, no American politician ever calls themselves an Australinist. They are fucking nuts, like fanatically end of the world supporting Israel.
No need to choose, Australia is easy to bully
They don't have to choose, they have the power to make Aussie politicians bend the knee, and everyone knows it. That's what they're afraid of.
Sure, but that's kind of the point, isn't it? That Australia is run by cowards.
Because once that door swings open a little bit... who knows what might bear some scrutiny?
Who made the clothes you're wearing? Or your phone? Were they a slave? A child? Are they even still alive, or do they have cancer because of the factory where they worked? Do their parents miss them, if they're gone?
What happened to make the chicken sandwich you had at lunch? Are you complicit in slow torture unto death, just by existing in the modern world?
Better to keep the door shut tight, and attack the messenger if anyone has anything to say about it. We're just making music here. No torture, no killing, no profit from the destruction of lives. Just music! Trust me. Enjoy.
(I don't think most people are like this. I actually think most people in the West at this point are against the "war" in Gaza, to at least some tepidly inactive degree. But certainly, also, a lot of people aren't against it, q.v. this article.)
People talk regularly about those things and nobody gets cancelled over that. It's only the Israel lobby that made talking about Palestine equal to anti-Semitism, no matter how mild (like in this case).
Well... yeah, that's a fair point. The strength of Israel's lobby has a ton to do with it (and lobbies like China can accomplish the same types of things). It's 100% true.
I guess we know their stance on killing journalists, then.
I just wouldn't go to that symphony anymore. Nothing wrong with supporting not killing journalists. It's not like he went out of his way to espouse his views.
Do you go to see the Melbourne symphony orchestra often?
Not anymore
Here's what they cancelled him for:
He didn't even dedicate it to journalists killed, just journalists. The headline is bullshit.
He never mentioned Israel.
EDIT: It just occurred to me that he wasn't canceled for dedicating it to the journalists of Gaza. He was cancelled for calling Aboriginal people victims of settler-colonialism in Australia, which is objectively true...
The article quotes him saying more:
Nah it wouldn't be that, those sorts of land acknowledgements are very common in Melbourne, especially in the Arts, that would have been perceived as utterly uncontroversial by the MSO
Land acknowledgements devoid of teeth are common, where someone flaccidly admits that Indigenous people exist and have some unspecified connection to the land, not where someone actually states out loud the crimes that put their opera house on that land.
This was a good acknowledgement that actually implicates the current ruling class. That's why they cancelled him.Edit: he actually went on to say more, but I stand by the fact that this wasnt just a standard acknowledgement.
Extremely unlikely. Australia's colonial history and its impact on Indigenous Australians is a very common theme in modern Australian classical music and many concerts I have been to, including one just the other week, have conductors or soloists introduce the piece and specifically cite the context behind it. Unless the MSO is significantly different (which it doesn't appear to be, based on some quick searches of Indigenous-themed concerts) this is not the reason. It was his comments about Israel targeting and killing journalists (what you quoted is not the actual introduction he made at the concert) which led to the cancellation.
This is absolutely untrue.
He probably did say this, but he was cancelled because of his comments about israel.
Truth is treason in the empire of lies
Wow, magnificent self-own by the Orchestra manager. Dedicated to journalists killed in Gaza - not Palestinians or Israelis or Hamas or the Israeli far right or IDF, but journalists in the broadest sense of the term. Who fucking cancels a show over that?
Because everyone knows who is killing journalists in Gaza
it was pretty specific if you read the article
It wasn't actually that broad, he specifically mentioned that Israeli armed forces have targeted and killed journalists in Gaza.
Which is a actual true comment. Isn't an opinion, it's a statement of fact.
What sort of brain dead organization cancel somebody over the statement of a fact?
One that is concerned about a public backlash. I'm not sure if you're from Australia, but the community is very divided here over this issue. It's also an issue that tends to be divided by age groups, with older people being more likely to support Israel's actions or see criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. Classical concert audiences tend to be quite old. With this context in mind, I suspect the MSO received a handful of complaints and incorrectly assumed this position would be less inflammatory. It's possible that it actually is within their immediate audience, but the problem with making a big public statement like they've done is that it automatically puts you on a "side' in this heated and highly polarised environment.
They should have just spoken to the soloist privately and explained their concerns to him prior to the next concert, instead of turning it into a big controversy. As triggered as some people may have been by the introduction, it wouldn't have been enough to turn this into a real controversy the way it has become since they cancelled the concert. Like this news story is not actually anywhere near important enough to make World News communities and get outraged replies from foreigners who had never even heard of the MSO before this. It's the story's connection to the situation in Gaza that is the big issue here, and deliberately involving themselves in that was a massive PR mistake.
Noo it's not mate, this isn't America. The government supports Israel, but the people clearly favour Palestine.
He accused Israel of committing war crimes.
The MSO has already backed down and is rescheduling the concert.
spineless cunts
Pussies twice over.
Extremists always think that everyone agrees with them. They usually are unprepared for the scenario in which this is not the case.
What a bunch of fascists.
Sad Violin.mp3
The article goes into depth with the artists remarks. Its nowhere close to something like: "This next piece is dedicated to the journalists killed in Gaza" which is what I would have assumed.
He provided context as to why that piece would be performed. I don't think he went over the top at all.
Can I ask would you hold the same position that his statements should have been allowed if it was in strong support of the violence against the people in Gaza? Do you support the use of this platform because you agree with the position or because you believe he should be able to voice whatever position he wants? Would you be in support if his opinions were on White nationalism?
edit: Calm down people, I don't support Israel nor white nationalism. I'm probing where @T00l_shed@lemmy.world 's limits are for what they a believe is acceptable. I'm not advocating for any political position with my questions.
No, he is providing factual context about a situation, denouncing violence. Your examples aren't comparable.
So your position is that as long as context about the situation is factual, you would not have a problem with any commentary he'd give on any subject?
Sure, you could say that that is my position if you ignore everything else I said.
This doesn't sound like we're communicating then. Thank you for taking the time to converse up to now. Have a great day!
You too.
It seems I may have misread your statement. I apologize.
No worries. Text is an imperfect medium.
Denouncing violence is very different than supporting or inciting violence, fwiw.
I completely agree. You can see that in the first question I asked in that post: "Can I ask would you hold the same position that his statements should have been allowed if it was in strong support of the violence against the people in Gaza? "
The followup questions were probing if that poster was simply against violence or simply a pure free speech advocate.
The main point here is being against the violence, of which israel is largely responsible. Your questions detract from that & minimize the problems to a matter of personal opinion
The violence began before israel even existed. Israel is not responsible for violence against jews.
Violence has existed for all of human history. Doesn’t excuse Israel’s bombing of journalists.
Hamas issues press passes to its military spotters. The transmission of military intel makes people valid targets under the laws of war. That is a valid excuse for bombing journalists.
Isn't that what I said in the very first line of my post you're replying to? I'll quote myself:
"Can I ask would you hold the same position that his statements should have been allowed if it was in strong support of the violence against the people in Gaza?"
"I feel his comments were appropriate"
"Would you feel the same if they were different comments?"
You're getting closer to where I was going:
“I feel his comments were appropriate”
"How different would his comments have to be to be not appropriate?"
This isn't a binary state, its a scale. I was asking questions of scale.
::: spoiler The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for The Guardian:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/aug/13/melbourne-symphony-orchestra-cancels-pianists-performance-after-dedication-to-journalists-killed-in-gaza-ntwnfb ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Even the ones who were keeping hostages in their homes?
Oh, the IOF said it? Must be true 😂. The only thing they say concretely and sourced in the article is that he worked at a "pro Hamas" media outlet (can't speak to this claim, but remember all the other things the IOF has claimed are Hamas), and that he wrote a piece for Al Jazeera.
Disregarding all that. Assuming that this guy was a journalist who was also a gun carrying member of Hamas and held actual hostages in his house, does that say anything about the record number of journalists that have been assasinated by the IOF?
I think it pretty clearly doesn't.
Unpopular opinion time:
People pay to see and enjoy listening to a symphony, not listen to political opinion. And while I’m entirely on the side of the protestors, and stand firmly against the atrocities committed by Israel, I’d be against this at a symphony as well.
I know it’s impossible to comprehend, but sometimes, people need a bread from the negativity in the world. We don’t go to political rallies to hear how our congressmen and women enjoy listening to Taylor Swift for a reason…
You may now begin your downvotes.
Isn't the point of protest to not let people forget about things? How easy would it be in the west to not notice, the media certainly isn't keeping up on it. Every time I see one of these I think, that's a braver person than me, and thank fucking god for the Streisand effect. No downvote, but strong disagree.
They hired the guy to make fancy with the piano and he staged a protest?
So if a protest isn’t disruptive, it isn’t effective? I think you need to look up what protest means.
The point of protest is literally exactly that. The point of protest is to make the message impossible to ignore.
I’d urge you to look up the definition of protest and see where it says that it should be disruptive?
See-
I’m talking about REAL definitions. Not what people have turned it into.
MLK is not a dictionary. Try again.
If you genuinely think a dictionary has a better understanding of protests than Martin Luther King Jr, you either don't know his history or are not being serious
And when exactly did "people turn it into" that? The purpose of a picket line is to be disruptive, and people have been doing those for over a century.
Yes I do think that. Protest tactics change but they seem to gravitate toward noncompliance and, yes, disruption. I honestly can't think of a successful protest that was all roses and hugs. Could be missing something.
I agree, but I also think it depends.
Protesters have blocked hospital entrance ways which is absolutely NOT okay, it can result in people dying and I think the protesters involved should be charged with manslaughter in those cases.
I think I'm fine with disruptive protests as long as it's not harmfully disruptive. I also think disruptive protests can piss people off and make them angry at you rather than what you are protesting about, and it can end up hurting your cause.
100% agreed
Ahhh… so, say you own a restaurant… and you pay a pianist to perform music while people dine- you’d be fine if he went on rants about civil unrest and war in foreign countries between songs?
I guarantee you’d fire him when you saw how it affected your profits.
Absolutely, because that makes my life more difficult, as a restaurant owner. I don't feel like that says anything about it tactically or morally though.
That hair splits very fine.
I'm speaking from within a fictional situation that was presented. If I were someone else would I fire someone...the answer is probably. My principled take as myself, I wouldn't for the reasons I've been talking about throughout this thread. Everyone has different reasons for what they do. OP put their opinion and I put mine. I don't know what else to say...
So it’s also okay for cellular companies to interrupt your phone calls with their support for politics issues? What about movies? Cool with a 10 minute long ad about civil unrest in the middle of a movie you paid to see? Can I interrupt your work to explain to you how bad some people have it in places you don’t k ow existed?
How about if I stopped ambulances from caring for the sick an injured? Because this shit ACTUALLY happened- and it is what happens when a line isn’t drawn between “making your point heard” and violating people’s rights.
He interrupted mid song for 10 minutes? Or was it a 2 minute preamble and then a regular performance?
"Oh, you're fine with this thing? What if it was something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT?!"
Yeah, a phone company is never never never going to alienate customers like that. And the power dynamics in that situation are quite different. If you're looking to suss out the limits of what I think about this than you've done it. I 100% agree people shouldn't come to physical harm. Again, that's quite a different situation than the one described in the article though.
You say a phone company won’t do that, but protestors blocked ambulances. Where is the line drawn?
And it’s okay that there’s no end to the interruption to daily lives so long as no one is hurt.
Again, I wonder how you’d like a 20-30 minutes lecture in the middle of a movie you paid for. Or an interruption of a conversation you were having with a friend or loved one.
It’s all in the name of protest you know. So… you HAVE to accept it.
2 minute statement before the performance, 30 minute lecture in the middle of a performance, totally the same thing.
I don't have to like it, That's literally my point. Let's try this, rather than try to find my line, which I've already said was somewhere around causing bodily harm to uninvolved people, what do YOU think is an appropriate form of protest? It seems like that's what you're trying to get off your chest in a round about way.
When did they say it had to be disruptive? They just said the point was to not let people forget.
If you consider the statement "x is bad" to be disruptive then I wonder what you think a "non-disruptive protest" actually is. Thoughts and prayers?
You can not let people forget about a thing without injecting it into everthing that exists.
The point is- that venue and event wasn’t there for them to proclaim their stance on politics. This was the right move.
End of story.
Oh, okay then.
HEY EVERYBODY! JIMSAMTANKO SAYS IT'S THE END OF STORY! I guess we all have to stop talking about it now.
I didn't find the definition that said "block ambulances", and I have to say that was effective when the hillbillies did that. I hope even your idea of "annoy people who can't help" doesn't include critical services.
I hate the message you started with. But I agree with this. These modern protesters are scum bags who often are a major reason why their own cause never makes much progress.
Ah yes, the massively disruptive tactic of checks notes saying genocide is 1) bad and 2) happening prior to playing a piano piece. You're right, he's really crossed the line this time. How can he ever expect to garner support like that?
He's almost as bad as the people with megaphones and signs marching and repeating chants!
Not this guy, I mean the protestors targeting random people like deflating tires of people going to work, throwing soup at art and standing in traffic. I don't get how this guy was protesting. It sounds like he was just saying common sense things. I don't get what the protest is here. Saying you support journalist doesn't seem like a protest. Just a statement
I guess you don't attend classic concerts often? It is very standard for conductors or soloists to introduce modern pieces and discuss their sociopolitical relevance. I literally just went to one the other week where the director of The King's College Cambridge Choir introduced a piece about the massacre, dispossession and forced assimilation of Indigenous Australians.
Tell me, when was the last time you went to a concert?
Because you should know, it's very common for someone to talk a little before the concert or before the piece about the piece itself, what inspired it, how it fits into the programme, etc.
That's what he did here. He explained what inspired the writing of this piece. No different to a conductor explaining that Shostakovich's 7th Symphony was dedicated to the city of Leningrad, which at the time it was premiered was being besieged by the Nazis. Or explaining how his 9th Symphony was a deliberate mockery of earlier composers' grand 9th symphonies, as a way to subvert expectations placed on him by Stalin's regime. Or how Beethoven's 3rd Symphony was written at first in honour of Napoleon, and then later changed to "celebrate the memory of a great man" after Napoleon went against Beethoven's republican idealism and crowned himself emperor.
Music has always been political, and in modern times no concert is complete without at least some discussion about the context in which the piece was written. That should be as true for a piece written to commemorate victims of a modern-day war as it is for mid-20th century or early 19th century pieces.
The good people of the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra disagree with you.
WDYT about this bit of the article?
I think that’s irrelevant to the point. He was not there to protest events in Gaza. He was there to perform music.
End of story.
The quote isn’t about Gaza! It was fine to be “political” about holocaust survivors but not Gaza. That’s the point.
I wish you bland music in your future. Bury your head in the sand and enjoy it.
You CLEARLY didn’t read the article:
“Over the last 10 months, Israel has killed more than one hundred Palestinian journalists,” Gillham told the crowd on Sunday.
“A number of these have been targeted assassinations of prominent journalists as they were travelling in marked press vehicles or wearing their press jackets. The killing of journalists is a war crime in international law, and it is done in an effort to prevent the documentation and broadcasting of war crimes to the world.
“In addition to the role of journalists who bear witness, the word Witness in Arabic is Shaheed, which also means Martyr.”
I did. The point I was making is that he got dropped because of political Gaza but not the holocaust. Both of these are confronting and might upset people who just want to listen to some music.
If he spoke out against Gaza and in support of Israel, would you still be against his cancellation?
Because if you can’t honestly say that you are against this regardless of his stance- than you’re not here to debate the point-
You’re just here to toss in your support for a cause.
My entire point is about the concept of what is and isn’t not acceptable for hired entertainment to include in their performance.
I’d be against him speaking against Gaza because I’m against genocide. How is this so hard to understand.
Freudian typo: as long as people have "bread and circuses" it's surprising what you can get away with.
lol! Good catch.