Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 2002, page 27

Special Report

 

Canadian Museum Decision, Reversal Angers Both Arabs, Jews

 

By John Dirlik

The question of whether life imitates art or vice versa was given added meaning shortly after Sept. 11, when one of Canada’s largest federally funded museums abruptly announced it was putting on hold its scheduled exhibition of Arab art. Titled “The Lands Within Me: Expressions of Canadian Artists of Arab Origin,” the exhibit was five years in the planning and set to open Oct. 19 at the prestigious Museum of Civilization in Quebec, when museum president Victor Rabinovitch declared that “more context” on the Arab world was needed in light of the attacks on America.

The museum’s decision provoked a stern rebuke from the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations, which in a statement said that the cancellation was sending the hateful message “that you do not recognize us as part of the house within.” The museum’s action also predictably infuriated the artists whose work was featured in the exhibit. “It is unfortunate that in this time of backlashes and a rise of racist attack on our community, a federal government institution is assuming such an unproductive and unsupportive position,” they wrote in a letter of protest.

The highly publicized controversy also deeply embarrassed politicians who were in the process of appealing for tolerance following a spate of hate crimes against Canadian Arabs. When the resulting public outcry prompted the museum to “explain” it was not cancelling the exhibit but only “postponing” it until March of the following year, even Prime Minister Jean Chretien got in the fray. “If it [the exhibit] is good for March 2002, it is good for October 2001” said Chretien to loud applause and a rare show of support from members of all parties in the House of Commons. Heritage Minister Sheila Copps was more blunt: “It certainly makes no sense when we are trying to build bridges, to send a message that seems to burn them.”

Not long after, the museum reversed its decision and announced that the exhibit would proceed as scheduled. “Personally, I regret any hurt that may have been caused by our original decision to delay the opening,” said Rabinovitch. “Given the reaction of so many people, our decision is simply: ‘Fine, we’ll go ahead as intended,’” he added.

The museum head had little choice, having been publicly chastised not only by the entire political establishment but taken to task by much of the media. Globe and Mail columnist Hugh Winsor expressed particular dismay that the embarrassing “faux pas was initiated by one of the most senior cultural bureaucrats [Rabinovitch] in the federal government.”

One of the exhibit’s featured artists, Jayce Salloum, said he was happy not only with the reversal of the decision but by the “unexpected and heartwarming” public support the artists received from places as far away as Nepal, Israel, Palestine and Australia. He was less pleased, however, by the reaction to his work by organizations like the Canadian Jewish Congress, which labeled his multi-video presentation “ugly political propaganda” and asked the museum to consider removing it from the exhibit. “It is unfortunate that such blatantly reactionary and prejudiced groups have to resort to tactics of attempted censorship to try to squash criticism” of Israel, Salloum told the Washington Report.

The segments of Salloum’s video that the Jewish lobby organizations found offensive were interviews with Palestinian refugees speaking of their grievances against Israel for uprooting them from their homes. In a press release the Canadian Jewish Congress warned the Canadian Museum of Civilization against becoming “a vehicle to promote the kind of hatred which is at the root of the attack on the United States.”

Another spokesman suggested to the Canadian Jewish News that the prime minister’s decision to pressure the museum into holding the exhibit had been gravely misused. “We believe our prime minister’s good-heartedness has been taken advantage of,” said communication director Rubin Friedman. “He was right to be concerned about the postponement of the exhibition,” he acknowledged, “but now that we have seen the video it is clear that the bureaucrats were also right to consider doing so.”

B’nai B’rith of Canada also issued a statement denouncing Salloum’s work as an “inappropriate one-sided promotion of hostility and divisiveness.”

Salloum dismissed the criticism, saying that Jewish lobby groups were “trying to intimidate” and “to use their bully pulpit to further their own distorted agenda.”

What is needed now more than ever, insisted the Canadian artist of Lebanese heritage, who lives in British Columbia, “is more discussion, dissent and debate.”

The museum so far has dismissed attempts to have the controversial video removed, saying the exhibit will be presented “as is” until it closes March 9, 2003. Responding to questions about the latest dispute, museum curator Aida Kaouk defended the right of Salloum to address the subject of his choosing. Articulating what in most cases is considered self-evident, the curator said that “if the artist wanted to get people to talk about their suffering and bear witness, that is the preoccupation of the artist.”

John Dirlik is a free-lance journalist based in Montreal.

< Prev		Next >