The Adelaide Festival is facing a firestorm of controversy after disinviting Randa Abdel-Fattah from its Writers' Week. But did the South Australian Premier pressure them to do it? The answer is more complex than a simple yes or no.
Premier Peter Malinauskas is vehemently denying that he directed the Adelaide Festival board to drop Palestinian-Australian academic Randa Abdel-Fattah as a speaker. This decision, made in the wake of the Bondi attack, was attributed by the board to "cultural sensitivity."
Malinauskas insists that, by law, he's prohibited from directly ordering the board to do anything. He emphasized his support for this legislation, stating he wouldn't attempt to circumvent it. "By law, I as Premier am prevented from directing the Board," Malinauskas stated, adding, "I support the intent of this legislation, and have made it clear at every juncture that I would not seek to direct the board."
But here's where it gets controversial... While denying direct orders, Malinauskas openly admitted that he made his opinion known: the state government did not support Abdel-Fattah's inclusion in the Adelaide Writers' Week program. So, while he claims no direct influence, his disapproval was clearly communicated. Was this subtle pressure? That's up for debate.
The situation has ignited a fierce backlash. Eleven prominent cultural figures, including Rob Brookman (a former artistic and executive director of the festival) and notable names like Neil Armfield, Jo Dyer, Jim Sharman, and Anthony Steel, have penned a letter to Malinauskas and the board, demanding Abdel-Fattah's reinstatement.
This isn't just about one speaker; it's about the festival's reputation and its commitment to open dialogue. The letter argues that cancelling Abdel-Fattah's appearance is a "grave mistake" that has brought the festival and Writers' Week into disrepute. They emphasize that linking her presence to the Bondi tragedy is appalling.
The signatories believe that silencing voices, even controversial ones, is never the answer. "Wickedness thrives in darkness and prejudice thrives in ignorance born of silence," the letter states. "The open discussion of ideas, beliefs, facts and opinion is ultimately the pathway to community cohesion. Silencing and censorship are not."
And this is the part most people miss... The letter also raises questions about the board's apparent lack of support for Louise Adler, the director of Adelaide Writers' Week, who is set to deliver her fourth festival. In 2023, Adler staunchly defended the inclusion of several Palestinian speakers, even when they faced criticism for past controversial statements.
In fact, during the opening night of the 2023 festival, Malinauskas himself revealed that he had faced immense pressure to defund Writers' Week due to the inclusion of those speakers. He argued then that allowing the government to dictate who could speak would set a dangerous precedent, likening it to the censorship seen in Putin's Russia. "What path does that take us down?" he said. "It’s a path to a future where politicians decide what is culturally appropriate … a path, in fact, that leads us into the territory of Putin’s Russia."
The letter writers point out the apparent hypocrisy, stating, "The festival board has previously been admirable in its support of the director’s decisions in the face of vocal and well-organised opposition … the board’s reversal of its principled support for the director and her program at this time is, in our view, antithetical to what the festival and writers’ week have and should stand for.”
So, what's really going on here? Is this a genuine concern for cultural sensitivity, or is it a case of bowing to political pressure? Did the Premier's expressed disapproval, though not a direct order, unduly influence the board's decision? And what does this mean for the future of free speech and open dialogue at the Adelaide Festival?
This situation raises important questions about the role of government in arts and culture. Should governments have the power to influence, even indirectly, who gets a platform? Or should artistic institutions be free to make their own decisions, even if those decisions are controversial? What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
