Juliet Moses: Artists, Donors and Who Owns the Stage | Free to Speak

Juliet Moses is a lawyer, President of the New Zealand Jewish Council, and the author of "Biting the Hand", a Quillette essay on what happens when artists insist their work and their politics cannot be separated. Her argument is that when artists say the two are indivisible, the institutions and donors who fund them are increasingly taking them at their word.

Dane and Juliet begin with concert pianist Jayson Gillham, who used a Melbourne Symphony Orchestra recital in August 2024 to condemn Israel over the killing of journalists in Gaza, had his next performance cancelled, and lost his case in the Federal Court of Australia in July. They move to the Sydney Theatre Company keffiyeh curtain call, estimated to have cost the company $1.5 million in refunded tickets and withdrawn donations, and ask whether a performer has an unfettered right to turn a stage into a political platform, or whether an institution is entitled to protect its audience, its donors and its reputation.

They then turn the question around, to donors who are themselves the problem. The Sackler family and the use of arts philanthropy to launder a reputation built on OxyContin. Nan Goldin's de-naming campaign, and why Harvard broke ranks and kept the Arthur M. Sackler name. Epstein's money at MIT, accepted while he sat on the institution's own disqualified donor list. Dane's first ever funding, a $350 cheque from James Wallace, written years before Wallace's convictions and the transfer of his art collection to a trust bearing no trace of his name.

The conversation closes on whether actors need to hold some public neutrality to stay convincing on screen, and on this year's Ockham New Zealand Book Awards, where a fiction finalist used his reading slot to condemn the Government over Gaza and the awards' co-founder binned his prepared speech to answer him. Juliet's argument is not that donors should get their way. It is that campaigns without clear principles collapse into purity tests, and that declining to fund, to platform or to buy a work is not the same thing as censorship. Views expressed are the guest's own.

Read Juliet's essay in Quillette: https://quillette.com/2026/07/31/arts-funding-and-the-new-politics-of-patronage/

Note: this episode includes discussion of sexual offending in the context of a convicted arts patron.

Free to Speak is the official podcast of the New Zealand Free Speech Union. Uncensored conversations on free speech, civil liberties, and the people defending them. Hosted by Dane Giraud.

Join: https://www.fsu.nz/join
Donate: https://www.fsu.nz/donate
Newsletter: https://www.fsu.nz/subscribe
Website: https://www.fsu.nz

podcast@fsu.nz

Promoted by Free Speech Union, PO Box 10423, The Terrace, Wellington 6143

Transcript

Welcome And The Quillette Article

SPEAKER_03 0:00

Welcome to Free to Speak, the New Zealand Free Speech Union podcast. If you enjoy the show, subscribe for Uncensored Conversations and Free Speech News from New Zealand and beyond.

SPEAKER_01 0:14

Joining me is Juliet Moses, the do we say head of the Jewish Council? Is that the way we're not a head? President, not a head. Chief. Much more going on than just a head, yeah. And um uh also a lawyer. And there was something else I wanted to call you. What did I want to call you?

SPEAKER_00 0:37

I had oh, that's right. Oh okay, I'll take him.

SPEAKER_01 0:45

Now now writing for Quillette, the the wonderful Canadian. Is it Canadian or or Australian?

SPEAKER_04 0:52

Well, actually, it's Australian-based. It was founded in uh by an Australian, yeah. Clearly.

SPEAKER_01 0:59

Interesting. Okay. Nice. So we're going to um use uh your latest piece in Quillette called um Biting the Hand. Is that correct? And and that's that's we're gonna use it as a springboard to talk about um politics and art and uh and sort of the uh you look at it in the article, it's interesting because you sort of go both ways with it. You've got uh unruly um performers, but also the you know some of the sponsors and everyone who can who can be a bit problematic for people as well. So um what inspired you to to write the piece?

SPEAKER_04 1:39

That's a very good question. I think it combines a few issues that I'm interested in. Firstly, I because it's really focused on charities and and not-for-profits um in the arts world and and you know cultural institutions as well. Um, so as a lawyer, I do quite a bit of work for charities. Um, and I am also a trustee of a couple of charitable trusts. So I've thought about some of these issues about donors and stuff in that capacity. And then, I mean, I think I've always been interested in, you know, arts, cultural issues, societal issues, that kind of thing. Um, or you know, how they're all sort of wrapped up together. Then the very first piece I wrote for Quillet, which was just earlier this year, was about that shambles with the Adelaide Writers Festival when the whole thing collapsed. Um and so I I wrote an article about that, and then I so I started thinking about these issues a bit more, and then I heard about a couple of um examples that I refer to in my my piece. And so all these sort of issues were swirling around in my head about okay, well, how how do how do these arts and culture institutions handle donors who sometimes can be a bit problematic, shall we say, or you know, they might have reputational issues, uh, or they might be trying to wield a lot of influence um because of their donations. Sometimes it's the artists that are that are kind of um, I guess, revolting against the donors in a way, or saying to these institutions, we don't want you to be associated with these donors. But then it also, yes, goes the other way. So um, you know, donors sort of saying to these institutions, we've got an issue with this particular artist, or whatever. So it was all swirling around in my head. And I I wrote to Claire, the editor of Lehman, uh uh Claire Lehman, the editor of Colette, and I said, I'm kind of toying with this, you know, all this stuff. What do you think? She said, Yeah, I think it would make a good article. It took me months to actually really find the time and the energy to to sit down and write it. Because it's actually it's a pretty big thing once you get into it. There's a lot, you know, that I was researching and and thinking about. So yeah.

SPEAKER_01 4:16

But there's a lot of different examples. I mean, we could start with the performers. Uh I I did have David Cooman, who's a obviously friend of ours, but um uh also colleague on the board of the Free Speech Union on to talk about the Adelaide Festival. Um, what uh I I actually got a lot of um SHIT for that from a certain journalist we know that will remain in there.

SPEAKER_04 4:43

I know exactly who you mean. Yep. And I got a lot as well from my article, by the way, from that same journalist anyway.

SPEAKER_01 4:50

Interesting, interesting. Yeah, well, uh I I wasn't firm enough on the free speech um uh aspect of it uh in this man's uh who on any other day of the week is very very sensorial, but not not when um a Hamas supporter is um involved, it seems. But what I started discussing or talking about, or or really just wanted to bounce with David, because I knew that you know David would have an interesting view and it would be a good back and forth. I hadn't really formed a very strong view on it yet. But would being taxpayer funded, it I think there's a complication there, you know. Like uh would would you would you have a neo-Nazi at your arts festival funded by uh the public? Um because I I make no distinction really between a neo-Nazi and someone like uh Ab Abdul um Ren Renda.

SPEAKER_04 5:46

Renda Abdulfattar, I think. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 5:48

Abdul Fat Fatar, yeah, the Adelaide um festival. Uh I'd make no meaningful distinction there. So um, you know, should taxpayers be paying for this? Like that's all I was asking.

SPEAKER_04 5:58

And and I think that is and I I actually avoided that question in my piece in this this latest piece, because the whole issue of taxpayer funding and and state funding is adds another layer of complexity on it. And I and I was thinking at first about getting into that, and then I thought, no my god, this is actually long enough as it is and complicated enough as it is, without bringing that whole aspect into it as well. But yeah, I mean, I think generally, whether it's taxpayer or whether you're an individual donor or uh you know a well-established charitable foundation making donations to another charitable enterprise, whether it's a literary festival or a theatre company or whatever, I mean, I think you do have some rights to well, put it this way, if you don't like what's going on, you've got you can stop, depending on what your agreement says, if you've got a funding agreement, but you know, I think pretty much most people probably say, yeah, if if you're giving money and you don't like what's happening with your money, or you don't like the direction of the organization you're giving to, or whatever, then yeah, you're probably within your rights to say, yeah, I'm not actually going to fund you anymore. Um yeah, but the question is, does where does that influence go too far? Sometimes does it become like I guess a kind a form of censorship? Um there are a lot of difficult issues there.

SPEAKER_01 7:36

Yeah,

The Jason Gillam Court Case

SPEAKER_01 7:37

I mean, let's start with Jason Gillam then. So he's the the the first example you use. So what happened in this chap's case?

SPEAKER_04 7:45

Yeah, so he uh performed with the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra in 2024. He was a guest pianist, and um what he did was before he played a piece, he decided to get up and make a pronouncement from the stage about, as he saw it, Israel's deliberate targeting of journalists in Gaza. And um that of course caused a bit of a hue and cry. He hadn't he hadn't told the orchestra that he was going to do that beforehand. Um there was a big flurry of activity afterwards. Um they told him they cancelled his his performance, then they kind of seemed to try and walk it back and say, oh well, we won't you can still perform as long as you promise not to make any basically any kind of political statements from the stage. And he refused and he said no. Uh then he took them to court, and uh so so the piece really starts talking about that court case, and he just he he had lost in that court case, like it was just last month. Um, and he had essentially tried to say that his freedom of expression was being interfered with. And the court said no, the orchestra was within its rights to take account of the the fallout, the business consequences of you standing up on stage and making this kind of a statement, was entitled to do that and and to act sort of you know appropriately or accordingly. Um and again, that seems to me to be pretty fair because I mean, you know, otherwise any performer could stand on stage and make any proclamation they want and say, well, that's just my freedom of speech. I mean, you know, they could give a 10-minute dissertation on I don't know, uh, you know, Trump or what's going on in the Russia-Ukraine war or whatever, you know, like it seemed pretty obvious to me that that was a sensible outcome. But that so yeah, that's where it starts. And and part of the issue with that that I was looking at was there were allegations in the court case that um the donors and people on the board, particularly focusing on the Jewish ones, of course, um, had kind of interfered uh to to suppress his freedom of expression. That was the general kind of vibe of of what he was trying to say.

SPEAKER_01 10:34

But but it didn't fly. Like he just it yeah, he lost. So I I can't think of anything more um narcissistic than than that. Like when I read that, I was like, what?

SPEAKER_04 10:47

I know that's where it came to later in my article. Was what why why did he think people who had paid to hear, you know, they were coming to a a nice concert for a lot of people? I guess it's a form of escapism. You sit there, you you know, you just lose yourself in the music, whatever. Why do they think they need to hear from him? Or what does he think? Sorry, that they need to hear from him. They haven't paid to hear his political opinions, uh, they haven't asked to hear his political opinions. Why does he think it's his right to foist his political opinions on them well on an audience there to listen to his piano playing?

SPEAKER_01 11:27

Well well, I mean, you know, I I've done theatre uh uh in the past, and and if I was to do a Shakespeare, but then stop mid-soliloquy and do a sonnet by John Dunn, because I happen to think he's the better poet, uh, and then go back to it, the director would it would absolutely tear me a new one. They'd be entitled to. Now, I don't know why politics would be would get a free pass over what I my example there. You're breaking the show, you're breaking the illusion of the show. It's not planned, you haven't told anyone, it's not your show. You're being hired like a pianist as a gun for hire, unless he's hired the whole thing himself and it's his tour, and he calls the shots, sure, and he's got his own producer running the thing, very different. But if it's that's not the case, I I you could say anything, you could just decide to take your all your clothes off, and that would be freedom of expression. Yeah. Where does a sense of entitlement come from?

SPEAKER_04 12:29

Yeah, well, very good question. It's a it's a form of like you say, I think it's moral narcissism. It's like, you know, I I need to grandstand here and I need everybody to know what a uh good and self-righteous person I am, isn't it? That's what I think. I mean, there's a lot of that going on.

SPEAKER_01 12:48

There's a lot of it going on, and I I was thinking about this the other day. It's almost like with religion having, you know, there was a time when you know that the Sunday Christian could always say, I go to church on a Sunday, so I'm that guy, you know, like you you can trust me. I'm you know, it would cut up in court. He's always on the church on the Sunday and all that kind of stuff. But with with the power in some of these institutions waning, we don't have that now. And I think that's where a lot of this comes from. It is a substitute for that kind of thing. It's like, well, you know I'm good because I just I just came out and I said this. So like it well, I'm just explaining virtue signaling, but maybe we're well that's right.

SPEAKER_04 13:27

Well, and and that's it, that's the term bully pulpit, right? And I use that in somewhere in the article. That's exactly what it is.

SPEAKER_02 13:37

It's using pulpit.

SPEAKER_01 13:40

Yeah, yeah. I I I did see a um a reel of a it was an opera. I don't know if you've seen this one, but like they were these were that they weren't main players, they would have been chorus people, and then it it's the big chorus at the end where everyone on stage comes on just to sort of wrap everything up, and they're holding the Palestinian flag, and then someone backstage tried to tear it off them.

SPEAKER_04 14:05

I saw that, tried to rip it up. And they got a grip.

SPEAKER_01 14:07

Yeah, I I don't know whether that was staged or not. I don't know what's going on there. There's always that chance, but like it it's it wouldn't be surprising.

SPEAKER_04 14:16

Well,

When Performers Hijack The Stage

SPEAKER_04 14:17

there's the and similarly, yeah, there's also that other example that I I give along similar lines in the piece of the this again in Australia, the Sydney Theatre Company, where three actors came out at the end of the play draped in kafires, um, to take a, you know, take a curtain call. And again, caused a big hue and cry. It was not approved. Uh, there were you know recriminations, resignations, donors and subscribers really upset and wrote in. I think and and it was uh calculated that the company had probably lost 1.5 million from that little stunt.

SPEAKER_01 15:00

Wow.

SPEAKER_04 15:01

Um yeah. So again, just another, just another sort of entitled piece of grandstanding, I guess. To what end? Yeah. I mean, you know, they'd say, well, we just wanted to show solidarity with the Palestinians. And and you the the response from the theatre company was, well, you're uh along the lines of well, you're perfectly entitled to make political statements, but do it on your own platforms in your own time kind of thing. Don't use our platform for that.

SPEAKER_01 15:34

Yeah, that this is this is interesting, isn't it? Because it's that example of um uh uh or not not well uh people watching, you know, there's two Jews here talking about this. Uh that really doesn't play into this. It could be they could be talking about Sudan, they could be talking about anything. The topics could be completely um uh you know righteous and fantastic. I may agree with them uh 150%. It this is a place of employment. You know, exactly a play is yeah, a play is a place of employment, it's no different from a bus depot or whatever it is. Yeah. Um you know, you're you're under contract. You would imagine that well, I don't know if it'll be in a contract, but they might have to start putting them in contracts because if you were a performer on stage, you know, I I would have known that don't just do my own thing, you know. This is something these things are are planned, you know, and and that's right, that they can do it in in their own time. Uh like if people were coming after them in their own time, if they were on Facebook that evening saying what they wanted to say, then that's a very different discussion, isn't it? I mean, you know, then we can support them. But if they're they're being paid, and like as you said, if they're risking, I mean, that $1.5 million, I mean, you that they are literally just you know destroying the income stream of the people that are employing them. So of course they're gonna get upset.

SPEAKER_04 17:07

Which comes back to this sort of biting the hand that feeds idea, doesn't it? Um, you know, are you are you jeopardizing the organization that's actually paying you? Um, nobody seems to really think, or these people don't really seem to think about that particularly, but you know, that's the issue.

SPEAKER_01 17:32

Or yeah, and the other side of it too, probably is that uh like if you're going to take a risk on a protest action like that, you you you need to be prepared to fall on your sword. Um, there will be consequences. I mean, if you want to draw um, you know, if you want to sh be a martyr basically and show that this is how strong your um commitment is to a cause, I don't think you should be taking court cases and uh to try to say that I I I I had every right to do this. It's like, no, you wanted to do it, you're unemployable now, or people don't want to employ you. But you know, you but yeah, sure, everyone knows how committed you are now.

SPEAKER_00 18:14

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 18:15

So

Sacklers Epstein And Donor Reputation

SPEAKER_01 18:16

okay, so let's look at the um some of the cases that you high that you highlighted from the from the other direction where the donor themselves was the problem. What what's one you'd like to talk about that you think is really an exemplar there?

SPEAKER_04 18:33

Well, I think the exemplar is the Sackler family. Um so the Sacklers, um, for those who don't know, were uh the the family who developed uh Purdue, the the um sorry, the um was it Purdue? Yeah, the the Oxyconton. No, Purdue was the company. Oxycontin is the you know the drug that it was basically most heavily associated with the opioid crisis in in the United States. So yeah, Purdue was the pharmaceutical company that developed it. Sackler family owned that company. Um, they were heavily, heavily involved in financing um top galleries and museums around the world. I mean, pretty, you know, the the Take Group, uh, the Louvre, the Met, you know, could just go on and on, um, had their names on, you know, walls everywhere. And um when when the opioid crisis sort of became known and became a thing, an artist called Nan Golden, who's a well-known photographer, began a campaign to get these galleries to essentially divest from Sacklers and to dename. So naming is a very big thing, obviously, with um, you know, charities and particularly with with galleries and museums and well, other things, universities, hospitals, whatever. But I I guess that's the kind of that is like the the gold standard to aim for in a way for a lot of people, you know, to really preserve their legacy, right? It's to have their name in light somewhere. So uh so the Sackler name was everywhere, all over these art galleries. And and it it that was actually part of their strategy, uh, sort of um to kind of um I guess launder themselves in a way and and and to embed themselves in high society and as I say, kind of uh perpetuate their legacy and that kind of thing. So what happened was this campaign began and um and and most of these um galleries and and museums did dename themselves. So they got rid of the name. In fact, there was a court case in the States last year, which was kind of like the final part of the settlement, I think, with the Sackler family, um, that said that actually, regardless, I think, of of what agreements they had with the Sackler family, these institutions have, they could they could dename themselves, you know, they could kind of remove the the Sackler family, um, and and they wouldn't be in breach of their agreements or whatever for doing if they did so, as long as they didn't disparage the family. Harvard took a little bit of a a little bit of a different route. So they had one of their museums, so we've got museums at Harvard, was named after Arthur M. Sackler. And this is quite interesting. So he died something like nine years or whatever before the marketing of Oxycontin. And he um and then After he died, his branch of the family cashed out from Purdue. And so Harvard said actually, and because there was this huge again campaign to get them to divest. It went over years. And anyway, they decided in the end that they would keep his name up because they said, Yep, look, this is complex and um and his legacy is complex, but actually, we're not sure that it's fair to hold him accountable for something that happened after his death and when his family had cashed out at that point. Um, but what we will do is put something up on the wall or whatever that kind of contextualizes it and explains what had happened. I thought, yep, that's actually that's actually fair. You know, that was quite a nuanced approach in that case.

SPEAKER_01 22:50

Um, yeah. That is good.

SPEAKER_04 22:54

But yeah, so the the Sackler family were I I think that's that's the the big one. I mean, Epstein, the Epstein had um, you know, things named after him. MIT had taken uh a bunch of money from him, and they and they took it when he was already on a disqualified donor list. So he was already, because remember, he was in trouble a long time ago, and then there'd been, what did he do? I can't even remember the details. He'd done a plea deal or whatever it was, and then you know, it was sometime later that everything fully exploded in terms of all the details and stuff. But uh, so when he was already on that disqualified donor list, they actually took quite a big donation from him and then had to fall on their sword and apologise after everything came out and say we never should have done this. Um and we actually recognized that we helped elevate his reputation and kind of uh distract people from the terrible things he was doing. So I thought that was pretty interesting.

SPEAKER_01 24:02

Um yeah, it is. Well, I mean, that's I I guess the free speech story there is that if you know if people want to give money and lauder their reputations and say, oh, you know, look over there. I'm funding all of these galleries and everything. The protest and bringing to light, you know, are you comfortable with the facts here of this donor? Um, but but I gotta say, um, and this I I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way, but um I I do have some sympathy for some of the academics and people like that that that were prepared to meet with Epstein. Um after his, you know, after that plea deal, I I think it's pretty, it's hard to justify. Um harder to a lot harder to justify it. But you know, if you're if you got research you want done, if you got um a project that you want up, an artistic project or something like that, you know, like these these are very expensive paint boxes, and you're desperate. Like I got I got a story actually attached to this. The first

James Wallace And Denaming At Home

SPEAKER_01 25:11

funding I ever got in my life was from James Wallace.

SPEAKER_04 25:16

Well, and he comes up in the piece too, right?

SPEAKER_01 25:18

Um he comes up in the piece New Zealander. Interesting story. I'll just tell you, I'll tell you my story. Yeah, yeah. So what happened is yeah, so I was I would have been 24, something like that, very young. It was me, uh, or maybe 24, 25. It was myself, a director, an actor, and we were running around making films, and and I was basically learning how to write and still acting in short films and bits and pieces like that. And we we went to his office and and set up a meeting because we wanted him to fund our short film. So we go in there and he's like, really, okay, boys, what what have you got for me? And it was like, um, oh, we got this film, it's gonna be amazing. This is gonna happen, that's gonna happen. And he goes, Well, how much do you need? And uh, we said, Well, that this is where it really is attractive for you, James. We only need 350 bucks. And he's like, Well, he said, I make films for the film commission with the film commission. I make films a million dollars. It's like, you sure you don't want to go through that process? And maybe that no, no, we don't. We only want $350. And so he just wrote a check and just gave it to us and said, if you if you have a premiere, just give me a ticket. And we went out and we had really thought that we'd just cracked paramount pictures or something, right? Like because we got our $350. Oh my god. We we made it, and our director was ripping tickets at the Civic, and we put it on at the Winter Garden or the Civic, I can't remember. I think probably the Winter Garden, not the really big one. Maybe we did, but we we put it on there and we gave him a ticket, and he turned up. He turned up.

SPEAKER_04 27:09

Yeah, couldn't you boys? I mean, but there there's there's the classic example of of denaming, um, because of course the his trust, his art trust, after again, after he was convicted, and I guess you know, his we might need a bit more context to him, actually, Juliet. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. So so James Wallace was um convicted of um sexual assault and uh perverting the course of justice or obstructing the course of justice, whatever it was called.

SPEAKER_01 27:45

Um and so he was with witnesses, wasn't he, influencing witnesses and stars?

SPEAKER_04 27:50

Yes, of that kind of thing. Attempting to, I think, yeah. And so he he was a very, very big patron of the arts. I mean, he had he had a very big art collection himself. Well, sorry, it was the James Wallace Art Trust or whatever it was called. So after all this happened, it all his all his art, tens of millions of dollars worth of art, all went to another trust without his name. Um, so there's your there's your denaming your your very own foundation that you have set up to hold the art collection that you've built up goes to another trust without your name. Um, and you can 100% see why that would have happened. Um because it's uh it's a tainted name, obviously.

SPEAKER_01 28:39

It's a tainted tainted name, yeah. His money came from meatworks and stuff, I think, originally. Yes, he was his father. Um down in the Wa Waikato, I think it that was where a lot of his yeah, that operation was. And he was um in the arts, and and you know, the other thing is I met quite a lot of young actors and filmmakers over the years who would talk to me about going to his place. We, you know, I'm gonna find you, come to my house. I'm upstairs, or he's upstairs. You go upstairs, and then you get a bit of a surprise, and then they'd either stick around or they wouldn't, you know, they'd run out. And it was the worst, worst kept secret.

SPEAKER_04 29:22

I mean, I'm not really everyone knew that yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 29:27

Everyone, everyone knew, and you know, to be honest, at 27 or 28 hearing these stories, I mean, we thought they were kind of funny, which is awful.

SPEAKER_01 29:37

You know, it's like haha, you went there, it's like a prank got pulled on you, and then the guy runs out the door, but obviously, you know, for some some some were assaulted, and that these were serious. He ended up going to prison, didn't he?

SPEAKER_04 29:50

Uh-huh.

SPEAKER_01 29:51

Um for for serious charges. But um Yeah, I mean, there's no see it's almost like the whole the whole thing of like can you listen to Michael Jackson? There is an aspect of that.

SPEAKER_04 30:07

Well, there there is. I mean I mean yes, there is a bit. It it's how do you separate how or can you separate the person from their alleged or real uh misdeeds? And and and you know, this is something else that I've tried to bring through in the piece is when you're looking at donors, um there is a whole range of apparent misdemeanours that that donors are now being uh held accountable for or that there are campaigns against them for. So clearly um the the Sackler family and James Wallace are at one end of the spectrum, right? Um, well, you know, the Sackler family is, I guess, responsible for I don't know how many deaths um James Wallace committed crimes. Um, but on the other hand, and and I give some examples of this, you now have um uh donors. Again, there's a case in in Melbourne where a wealthy Jewish family who have donated to the um was it the the gallery there, MGV, I think it's called, or something. Is it whatever, uh, the gallery there. Because they're they're a Jewish family, they're a Zionist family, they give to, you know, Israel-related causes and stuff as well. There was a huge protest outside the gallery, basically just with horrendous signs and chanting horrendous things, because uh these activists think that the gallery shouldn't be accepting money from Zionists. Um so you know, we we're talking very far removed from the Sackler situation or the James Wallace situation.

SPEAKER_01 31:59

Yeah, I I they they still have the right to protest and everything, but I would expect or want the the Gallerionists to to hold the line there because that's one of those situations. Yeah, well that's good. That's good because if they don't, then you know you it'll just uh go further and further, won't it? Like Well, that's right.

SPEAKER_04 32:23

And this is what I say. It starts, it becomes like a purity gist.

Actors Activism And Audience Choice

SPEAKER_01 32:27

Uh we'll we'll wrap up soon, but let's just touch on actors. I know it's not really in your piece, but I think it this is this is a Zeitgeist now. We've we've had highly political actors in the past during the civil rights era. Um, Paul Newman, uh, Marlon Brando, Sidney Pointier, um Harry Belafonte, all these people. There would have been many, many more. So we've had that. Uh we we never uh Marlon Brando was was political. He he sent the the um what was her name? Someone Little Feather along to get his his famous Oscars, yeah. Yeah. You know, he he he did that. So he was always quite yeah, he had an activist spirit to him, definitely. Um he was sort of forgiven.

SPEAKER_00 33:16

Uh I think he was forgiven because he's so good.

SPEAKER_01 33:20

This is this often happens with a lot of performers and sports people, you know, like when they're exceptional at what they do, people do tend to look the other way. Like Mark Ruffalo is a just another actor, really. I mean, he's he's okay, but like his active activism really gets on my nerves when he talks about the climate in Israel and all this kind of stuff.

SPEAKER_04 33:43

Oh, yeah, he's he's complaining about everything. And yeah, he he's to be honest, I'd he's just not that smart, and he doesn't really have anything interesting to say. Like, sure, yeah, if you've got something interesting to say, maybe, but he's just dull. And the oh, sorry, you keep going. I know you talk. Oh, I was just gonna say, well, the the if we come back to Gaza again, I mean, the one that's really out there the most now is Javier Bardum, um, who was you know, he's he's prancing around in his cafe and whatever. And I I mean this comes back a bit to separating the art from the artist. I I won't I won't watch him now. I know he's in what's the end, he's in Cape Fair on Netflix or whatever at the moment. I'm like, no, I I don't think no, I I don't want to watch him. I mean I just don't feel like it. I can't separate his acting from the person that I know who he is, you know. Um that's my choice.

SPEAKER_01 34:54

Well well, neutrality is very important for an actor, you know, that to be able to um, you know, switch up and and you know convince you that they are like Ben Kingsley, for instance. He's Gandhi, he's Yitzhak Stern in Schindler's List, you know.

SPEAKER_04 35:13

Um and then he was um which Nazi was he? He was um oh did he play? One of the Nazis too, you know. Um which one was he? Oh god, I can't remember one of the was it Eichmann? Eichmann. I think he was Eichmann. I think that's right.

SPEAKER_01 35:29

Yeah, so so but I don't know his politics. He he's a he's an actor, like he and that neutrality is important. I love John Wayne, and he obviously was pretty out there with his right-wing views. Um, so yeah, there are kind of always exceptions, I guess. Um, artists like Billy Bragg, I do like his music. Um, his politics can annoy me sometimes. Um but but I guess I guess it's just uh it's it's it's such a gamble. Like uh Barrera, I think her name was, one of the young Mexican actress who was um uh in the Scream franchise, and they were obviously setting her up with that Jenny Ortega to sort of take on the franchise from Nev Campbell, you know, that she was going, but um, you know, her Palestine activism ended up getting her um fired. Oh really? You know, a lot of people, yeah, a lot of people really upset about that. And and this is a young person, so you are like, well, you know, I mean, she might not have been. I mean, when I was 22 or 23, I probably would have done something stupid in the name of Portland.

SPEAKER_04 36:42

Well, you know, yeah. I mean, some of these people do get pressured into making these statements. That's the other thing. Um if you're a young person and you're starting out and you get told you need to say something about Gaza, um, this is what happens in some cases, then they probably feel okay, that's what I have to do. Um yeah, so some people really are pressured and intimidated into saying something. Um or feel that they have to to be able to sort of maintain their, I don't know, legitimacy or whatever it is. Um I mean it keeps coming back to Gaza, but I don't I because uh that seems to be the only issue that people I mean, I can't think of many other actors in recent times talking about oh, maybe sometimes they talk about Trump, um but not in the same or maybe in the maybe in the States, but yeah, even Robert De Niro, but I I do think that I mean if you want to do it, like it's your your career, I guess, but I I think people have to understand that boy is it a risk.

SPEAKER_01 37:59

It's a risk because like uh on a topic as explosive as you know, Israel, Gaza, or or even the trans issue, you know, um uh you potentially are saying goodbye to 50% of your audience. Yeah. And and and the other thing is about like, you know, the classical recital and things like that, and and we didn't touch on this. Uh these are safe spaces for a lot of people in that they're not gonna hear politics.

SPEAKER_04 38:33

That's exactly right. That's what I was sort of saying about, you know, you sitting there in your kind of dream-like state, you know, listening to the music or whatever it is. I mean, it's the same, you know. I I think when I go to um you know, modern concerts, pop concerts, rock concerts, whatever you want to call them, um, that to me can be a great concert can be one of the best experiences. You know, like you can be on a high for days afterwards. I don't want to, and I don't care what it what kind of politics it is or whatever, I really do not want to have that spoiled by having people, you know, getting into politics there. I mean, sure, maybe if you know you're going to a political type, you know, I don't know, even you too. I suppose you might expect some from you too, or you know, something like that. But generally, I I don't want to hear that. I just want to be, this is great. I just want to be, and and you feel like you're, you know, you're all in it together with the the audience, right? You're having this like massive sort of group hug where you're just having this amazing time. The

Ockham Awards Sponsor Pushback

SPEAKER_04 39:44

the maybe just to come back to that this sort of where that biting the hand um title actually came from, because I think it is also quite a good example, which was a New Zealand example. Um, so that was the Occam awards that happened a couple of months ago, which are our top literary awards in New Zealand. And Occam's are uh uh, you know, the the corporate sponsor, a um property development company. And um so a writer got up there um who was supposed to be reading an extract from his novels, first novel he's ever written. I think it was it must have been nominated for something, and don't think it won anything. And he, of course, digressed. And what did he talk about? Let's take a guess. Oh, of course, he started talking about Gaza. And he started um kind of excoriating the government, and the minister of culture was sitting in the front row and he's sort of you know pointing at him and um, you know, ticking them off about their position on Gaza. And so then the the co-founder of the sponsor of Occam stood up and he binned his speech, basically, apparently, and then said, I don't, I don't want this tribalism, I don't like this tribalism, you know, something along those lines, um, and had a had a go at this this writer for talking in this way. And so that that was sort of the you know drama of the night. And I know somebody in the audience, I was talking to her recently, and she said, Oh God, when he started going off about Gaza, the writer, we're all sitting there going, oh God, can we not? Um, people just well, her group did not want to hear it. I'm sure, I'm sure it got some applause, and some people thought it was brave and whatever, but um not everybody. And then so what happened then to kind of defend themselves, the writer wrote a piece about, oh, well, you know, this is what my novel was about. It's about arts not, you know, arts not divisible from politics or whatever, and um and something about, well, if I'm not biting the hand of the corporate sponsor that feeds me, or you know, something like that. Something about biting the hand of the corporate sponsor, then I'm not kind of being true to myself, you know, was kind of the the gist of what he was saying. Yeah. So again, it's like, yep, good on you. Congratulations, well done. And sure, if the if the sponsor withdraws or nobody wants to fund you in future or whatever, congratulations. There you go, you've done very well. That's long and you might just end up being hungry.

SPEAKER_01 42:33

How committed you are.

SPEAKER_04 42:34

Yeah, exactly. You bit the hand, you got, I think I I said something like uh, you know, a morsel of you had your tasting morsel of moral posturing or something like that, and you might end up being hungry forevermore afterwards. So congratulations.

SPEAKER_01 42:49

You you you you can live off that that there is an aspect, I think, with a lot of these arts um uh award shows and everything, where poor poor goldsmith and many other ministers before him go there and just get such a hard time, and it's a really good example. Yeah, it's a real example of I I think that the left, uh the well, a certain certain type on the left really believing that they own these cultural institutions. Like Goldsmith is an intruder or a guest, and he needs to pay tribute, and we own this, and we're gonna say exactly what we want, and all our friends are gonna pump us up. It's but you know what I mean? That that that real sort of arrogant sense of ownership of this. The reality is, you know, the art is for everyone, and uh and people across the spectrum practice art and they and they consume art. And I know so many people in the arts that talk to me quietly. They they yeah, you know, I consider myself on the left still to this day, but they'll talk to me quietly because they don't, you know, I'll get on you for the free speech and all the in Israel and all. Other stuff, but they don't want to, they feel their clan uh would reject them, and and it's just they got no right to do that, they have no right to do that, these people, you know.

Moral Ambiguity And Free Expression

SPEAKER_01 44:13

Is art is art inclusive or not?

SPEAKER_04 44:16

Well, that's the thing, and it that's also what I you know when I'm kind of doing my concluding, but I say uh artists are supposed to be able to deal with moral ambiguity and human complexity, you know? And and also, I mean, this is a little bit being a bit naughty and stereotyping a bit, but you know, artists aren't generally themselves known for being like moral exemplars, you know what I mean? You know, like we can all, as you were talking about before, we can all think of artists, quite famous artists, who you know have not behaved particularly well themselves, right?

SPEAKER_01 44:54

So so I would be one of them.

SPEAKER_04 44:56

Who are you? What's that?

SPEAKER_01 44:59

I would be one of them. A lack of virtue, a lack of virtue signaller.

SPEAKER_04 45:04

Yeah, so so who are you as an artist to you know be enforcing these, as I call them, like sort of moral bright lines? Like, you know, it is not easy. This is not easy stuff. There is no, there are no black and white answers here. You know, it is tricky stuff. There are institutions that do have to, in order to survive, you know, literary festival, all the kind of organizations we've been talking about, in order to survive, they do have to take donations from people they would probably rather not take them from, but they've got to keep the lights on and they've got to keep uh keep acquiring the art if it's a gallery or you know, whatever it is. So, yes, they probably do have to make some compromises, and it's not ideal, but that's what I come back to. We're not living in an ideal world, and and you would think artists would understand that and sort of be able to grapple with those issues themselves. Um, and and if they don't, you do, as we talked about, you risk having these moral these these sort of moral purity tests and uh enforcing one way of seeing the world, or you know, the the sort of uh moral dogmatism, myopic sort of prevailing orthodoxies, all that kind of stuff, and and the diversity of thought which you would think is important to art dies, doesn't it? And and I think we are seeing that happen a bit. So so it's all this kind of stuff that that I and I I don't I don't envy the the more I got into this piece, I thought, oh my god, I actually don't envy these organizations having to balance all these different stakeholders and stuff. Not easy.

SPEAKER_01 46:52

No, it it it no, it's interesting, it's complex, it's complex from a free speech um perspective as well. But no, it's a it's great, great piece, Juliet. So we'll wrap it up. Um lovely to have you, love you to chat as always. You know, lovely to chat. Thank you for having me. Yeah, keep keep writing, keep fighting the good fight, and we'll speak soon.

SPEAKER_03 47:16

Okay. Thanks.

Subscribe Share And Contact Details

SPEAKER_03 47:19

Thank you for listening to Free2Speak. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and consider sharing the podcast with others. We release new episodes regularly, and subscribing is the easiest way to stay up to date. If you have any questions, feedback, or suggestions, you can contact us at podcast at fsu.nz. If you want to find out more about the New Zealand Free Speech Union, visit fsu.nz.