I am prepared to go to great lengths to defend her right to have an opinion
share-arrowDela
unsaveSpara
expand-left
full screen Athena Farrokhzad is a poet and writer – and one of two responsible for the International Writers’ Stage at Kulturhuset in Stockholm, a municipal activity. Photo: Magnus Andersson/TT
Over 27,000 people, imprisoned in the Gaza open-air prison, have been killed by Israel’s army over the past four months. It’s grotesque, you might think, but we can all be calm. The casualties are part of Israel’s legitimate defense against the Hamas terrorists, who killed 1,300 Israelis on October 7.
Those killings were in turn a response to an occupation without end. Which in turn is a response to the vulnerable position of the Israeli state. And so on, in an eternal vicious circle. But 27,000 dead? Most civilians. Larger percentage of children than in any other conflict, it is said.
What can you even say in that situation? What should be debated? Hasn’t language itself – words like “right” and “defense” – become completely meaningless? Obviously not. In any case, the debate continues. The last few days it is Athena Farrokhzadone of two responsible for the international writers’ scene at Kulturhuset in Stockholm, who has ended up in the firing line because of his stance against Israel.
“As a poet is one free to flirt with activism and revolutionary romanticism. Dress it up in nice language on culture pages. But if you are the central cog in a tax-financed cultural event – then the matter ends up in a different light.” So wrote Hynek Pallas in Expressen (6 Feb). If we peel away the beautiful language: as a poet you can say what you want, but not as a publicly employed cultural worker.
pullquote Should I learn from Stavrous and Palla’s posts, I should stay away from the public in the future
A similar stance was adopted by the Israeli journalist David Stavrou in an open letter to Farrokhzad: “One can’t help but wonder – are you using your position as a public servant to promote radical agendas that some of the people who pay your salary may strongly oppose?” (Svenska Dagbladet 5 Feb) Yes, what would be the alternative? That as a public employee you promote “agendas” such as no taxpayers object?
I myself am a university employee, at the same time that I sometimes write on the culture pages, especially this one. So I am also tax-funded. Should I learn from Stavrous and Palla’s posts, I should stay away from the public in the future. Because I sometimes argue for things that “some” taxpayers strongly oppose. But isn’t there something about the idea of a cultural public that has thus been lost?
I often have difficult for Athena Farrokhzad’s stance on various issues, which I have also expressed. But I am prepared to go to great lengths to defend her right to protest against Israel’s war, however much she is employed at Kulturhuset. Because what will be the consequences if the criticism against her is heeded? Well, we don’t know that yet, that’s the unpleasant part.
But in the short term: that the Kulturhuset’s literature scene becomes a little more anxious. Another small prestige victory for Israel. Another confirmation of the power of the IHRA’s unfortunate definition and exemplification of antisemitism (Masha Gessens not i The New Yorker recommended). In the longer term: that the Swedish public will become even more fearful. Maybe it’s just something to chew on, for both taxpayers and public employees: we just have to have in opinion at a time in this country! Exactly what you can and cannot say, yes, it varies. Sometimes it is SD that is taboo, sometimes it is about the trans issue, sometimes it is criticism of Israel.
Is that how we want it?