Dec 31, 2010

The World Bank has an unviable record in Africa. For several decades, it promoted an economic policy of Structural Adjustment through strict conditions attached to loans to vulnerable African states. These conditions or borrowing terms curtailed investment in public and social services, advocated liberalization of national economies and aggressive privatization that widened the gap between the very rich and the very poor.

The results, as even the World Bank itself now admits, were disastrous. Across Africa, states that swallowed the bitter pill of the World Bank’s Structural Adjustment Policy suffered unprecedented mass impoverishment and economic decline leading to social unrest and in some cases, political crisis.

Now, the World Bank would want us to believe that it is a changed institution more interested now in seeking fruitful engagement with Africa than making profits for its shareholders.

In 2010, the Bank began what it described as a major review its strategy for Africa. The result is a recently released policy document tiled: “Africa's Future and the World Bank's Role in It.” In it, the Bank states with not a little irony and euphemism:

"... The World Bank is changing. The “paradigmatic instability” of the past notwithstanding, theBank is supporting development models that allow for different mixes of government and market interventions. The Bank is not prescribing solutions. Rather, the Bank is using its knowledge assistance to nourish an evidence-based debate in countries on policy issues. The Bank is listening and learning. We are promoting South-South knowledge exchange for this purpose…."

The document then goes on to lay out the Bank’s new vision for Africa. It all sounds nice and good … but given its checkered and beleaguered history in the continent, many will remain skeptical. The taste of the pudding will be in the eating.

The Bank is now asking for input from the public on its new vision…. I suspect they will get an earful…

Read “Africa's Future and the World Bank's Role in It.”

The World Bank in Africa: Can a Leopard Change its Spots?

Dec 13, 2010

From what I have read of the man, his beliefs and work for the cause of human rights and democracy, I believe Liu Xiaobo is eminently deserving of this year Nobel Peace Prize. I am skeptical of denunciation of Liu as subversive and unpatriotic by the Chinese authorities and its supporters. After all, the same accusation has been made against almost every human rights defender in history. The fact that Liu remains detained by the Chinese authorities even as the rest of the world celebrate him is an indication of the disconnect between statist authoritarian agenda and those of committed human rights defenders.

But however much we might disagree with statist counter-arguments against human rights, we cannot afford to dismiss them. Those who believe in the cause of human rights must engage the arguments of those who seek to subvert it. That is ultimately the only way to strengthen the cause of human rights.

Below are two arguments for and against the award of the Nobel peace prize to Liu Xiaobo. Interestingly, criticism of the award comes not from the usual suspects but from two previous Nobel prize winners. It makes for interesting reading.

------------------------------------------------------
Liu Xiaobo: Living in truth and paying the price
Jean-Philippe Béja (Amnesty International)

"I dedicate this prize to all those lost souls who have sacrificed their lives in non-violent struggle for peace, democracy and freedom." - Liu Xiaobo, upon learning in prison that he was to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Nobel Committee's decision to award this year's Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo is undoubtedly a tribute to the memory of the 1989 pro-democracy movement that the Chinese government has been consistently trying to erase over the last two decades.

"June 1989 was the major turning point in my 50 years on life's road," Liu declared at his trial in December 2009.

This road had been fairly smooth until that day. Born in Changchun in northern China on 28 December 1955, Liu Xiaobo's itinerary had been typical for his generation.

The son of a university professor, during the Cultural Revolution he followed his parents to the Inner Mongolian countryside, where he stayed from 1969 till 1973. He then spent more than two years in a rural people's commune in his home province of Jilin, and was given a job as a construction worker in Changchun in 1976.

When Communist Party Chair Hua Guofeng re-established the national university entrance examination in 1977, Xiaobo was admitted to the Chinese department of Jilin University. He graduated in 1982 and entered Beijing Normal University where he was awarded his Ph.D in 1988.

Liu Xiaobo did not take part in the pro-democracy movement of the late 1970s. While Wei Jingsheng and his comrades were fighting for democracy, Liu was interested only in literature, writing poems, and reading Western philosophy.

He made a name as a literary critic when, in 1986, he wrote an article denouncing Chinese writers' dependence on the state and their inability to think for themselves. The article had an enormous impact and he was labeled the "black horse" of China's literary scene.

In the vibrant intellectual atmosphere of the late 1980s, his provocative ideas attracted the attention of the intelligentsia; he was invited to give lectures all over China, and abroad.

He was a visiting scholar at Columbia University in New York when the 1989 pro-democracy movement erupted in China. Whereas many of his colleagues at home were seeking ways to go abroad, Liu immediately returned to China and spent most of his time in Tiananmen Square.

Although he kept criticizing them, the student leaders respected him and debated with him. On the eve of the massacre, he launched a hunger strike with three comrades to protest the imminent repression by the People's Liberation Army. On the night of 3 June, he negotiated a peaceful evacuation of Tiananmen Square with the army.

Having found refuge in a diplomatic compound, he couldn't stand being safe while Beijing citizens and students were persecuted. Consequently, he left his apartment and was arrested on 6 June. Labelled a "black hand" behind the movement, he spent 20 months at Qincheng jail in Beijing.

On his release, he was a changed man. He wrote no more about literature, but joined the struggle for democracy, publishing articles in the Hong Kong media criticizing the Chinese government, and organizing petitions to denounce human rights violations.

The 4 June massacre had completely changed his outlook. Although he was criticized by dissidents for having said in an interview with state media that he had not personally seen the deaths in the Square, he has dedicated most of his energy to preserving the memory of the massacre - while refusing to lie simply for the sake of rousing the enthusiasm of the democracy movement.

The massacre changed his view of the ordinary Chinese people. A man who had been interested mostly in debating with the elites, discovered the courage, the intelligence, and the political sophistication of the common people - the lao bai xing.

The sacrifice of the people led him to act according to his principles. Liu Xiaobo, very much like Vaclav Havel, was convinced that the most effective weapon against the government was "living in truth". "To refuse to lie in public life represents the most effective force to undermine tyranny," he said.

He refused to use pen-names in order to be allowed to publish his articles, and accepted that he would remain outside the system.

From his release from prison in 1991 until his latest arrest in 2008, he has lived under the watchful eyes of the police. But this hasn't kept him from acting in accordance with his ideals.

Liu Xiaobo has worked hand in hand with the Tiananmen Mothers, whose objective is to force the government to acknowledge the massacre and rehabilitate the victims.

He has organized petitions against the arrest of writers imprisoned for the texts they have posted on the internet. He has written in defence of workers who protested the corruption of their factory managers, and has organized appeals to defend the rights of migrant workers.

The former university professor also enjoys the respect of people inside the system; the consistency of his ideas and his courage over the last two decades have impressed many in China, including Party members.

Liu Xiaobo has organized petitions with 1989 activists, with young intellectuals who have fallen victim to government repression, and with elder Party members formerly allied with the reformist senior Party official Hu Yaobang, whose death in 1989 sparked the student demonstrations. In the process, he has gained the esteem of the various groups and generations of the pro-democracy movement.

His writings in support of China's burgeoning "rights defence" or weiquan movement, and his interventions in favour of workers and young intellectuals, have made him a central figure in China's emerging civil society.

People from all walks of life admire his courage and his consistency. He hasn't hesitated to go to prison for his ideas. When, in 1996, veteran dissident Wang Xizhe asked him to sign an appeal to the Communist Party and the Taiwanese Kuomintang to collaborate to save China, he accepted: "I wasn't convinced, but I had a great respect for Wang Xizhe." He paid for this respect with three years in Re-education Through Labour. But this still didn't deter him from acting for democracy.

In the late 2000s, he worked with others to organize Charter 08, a manifesto inspired by Czechoslovakia's Charter 77, asking for the introduction of real democracy in China through separation of powers, the end to one-party rule, and a federal system.

Liu was not the main drafter of the manifesto, but took a key role in gathering signatories. His arrest gave the Charter great resonance, and it has now been signed by over 10,000 Chinese citizens from all walks of life.

The Charter 08 movement is not an organization which threatens the Communist party's grip on power in any way. It is only a symptom that in many circles, the idea of real democracy is growing.

However, the communist leaders have a different opinion. They consider it an attempt at subversion, and Liu Xiaobo has paid the prize. The 11-year sentence meted out on him on Christmas Day, 2009, is one of the heaviest ever for the crime of "incitement to subvert the state".

Subversion is the least suitable description of Liu Xiaobo's activities; he has always acted in the plain light of day.

Even if he had wanted to work underground, the fact that he has been followed by the police since his release in 1991, would have made it impossible.

Let us face the facts: Liu Xiaobo has been imprisoned because his ideas differ from those of the powers that be.
---------------------------------------------------

Liu Xiaobo wrong man for Nobel Peace Prize, say laureates
Lucy Bannerman, The Australian December 13, 2010

TWO British scientists awarded the Nobel Physics Prize have caused shock by condemning the decision to give the peace prize to Liu Xiaobo.

Andre Geim, a professor at the University of Manchester, who shares this year's $1.6 million prize with colleague Konstantin Novoselov, said the Nobel committee was out of touch, and dismissed its tribute to the jailed Chinese dissident as patronising.

"Look at the people who give this Nobel prize," Professor Geim said. "They are retired Norwegian politicians who have spent all their careers in a safe environment, in an oil-rich modern country. They try to extend their views of the world, how the world should work and how democracy works in another country. It's very, very patronising -- they have not lived in these countries.

"In the past 10 years, China has developed not only economically, but even the strongest human rights supporter would agree also human rights have improved. Why do we need to distort this?"

Professor Novoselov defended China, insisting Western criticism of the communist regime was misplaced.

"What is a dictatorship? It is not as if people are being constantly killed there," he said.

The scientists' support for China sparked an extraordinary exchange with another laureate, Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa, during the annual Nobel Minds debate.

Vargas Llosa, who expressed solidarity with the dissident Liu, said the scientists "must explain themselves".

Both were born in Russia, one of the 17 countries that boycotted the ceremony, but they have made careers in Britain. They were honoured for their work with graphene, the thinnest known material, which opens huge possibilities in technology.

Although both agreed it was unfair that neither Mr Liu nor his family had been allowed to accept his award, they said it was a myth that every Chinese person was terrified of the regime.

"China is doing a lot for its scientists. So many of our Chinese students want to go back because they see lots of opportunities there. They don't see it as breaching their human rights," Professor Novoselov said.

Professor Geim added: "I have many Chinese colleagues, and they believe that the slow way to Western democracy is better."

Liu Xiaobo: The Price of the Nobel Peace Prize

Dec 10, 2010

New York, Dec 10 2010 12:05PM

As the United Nations system gears up to celebrate 2011 as the “International Year for People of African Descent,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon delivered an impassioned plea today to the world community to eradicate racism once and for all.

"The international community cannot accept that whole communities are marginalized because of the colour of their skin," he told an event at UN Headquarters in New York to launch the Year. "People of African descent are among those most affected by racism. Too often, they face denial of basic rights such as access to quality health services and education. Such fundamental wrongs have a long and terrible history.

"The international community has affirmed that the transatlantic slave trade was an appalling tragedy not only because of its barbarism but also because of its magnitude, organized nature and negation of the essential humanity of the victims.

"Even today, Africans and people of African descent continue to suffer the consequences of these acts," he added, calling for their full integration into social, economic and political life and at all levels of decision-making.

The General Assembly proclaimed the Year in December 2009 in a resolution citing the need to strengthen national actions and regional and international cooperation to ensure that people of African descent fully enjoy economic, cultural, social, civil and political rights, to advance their integration into all political, economic, social and cultural aspects of society, and to promote a greater knowledge of and respect for their diverse heritage and culture.

"As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, 'all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,'" Mr. Ban said. "If we are to make those words real, then we must eradicate racism once and for all. The success of the International Year requires concerted efforts across the United Nations system and at the regional and national levels, with the widest possible engagement and participation."
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre athttp://www.un.org/news

ON EVE OF YEAR FOR PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DESCENT, BAN CALLS FOR FINAL END TO RACISM

Dec 3, 2010

Religion has historically been a key source of human rights violations. From the medieval battles of the Christian Crusades to contemporary Islamic fundamentalism, religion has often been invoked in ways that cause pain and suffering to others. However, religion can also be an effective means of promoting human rights and peace in our world. Think about it! Every region I know has something positive to say about human rights. We just have chosen not to pay attention.

Hinduism: Hindu tradition teaches non-harm of the self, others and the earth and offers passive constraints on recourse to violence. Idea of Ahmisa “non injury” or the absence of a desire to harm is a central tenet of Hindu ethics.

Confucianism: One of the five Confucian virtues is “Jen” (human-heartedness) which is described by Confucius as the principle “to love all men.”

ca. 475 - 221 B.C.E. The disciples of Confucius compile The Analects - a Collection of Confucius’ discussions with his disciples. The Analects has heavily influenced the philosophy and moral values of China and other East Asian societies.

“Fan Ch’ih asked about benevolence. The Master said, “Love your fellow men. He asked about wisdom. The Master said “Know your fellow men.” Fan Ch’ih failed to grasp his meaning. The Master said, “Raise the straight and set them over the crooked. This can make the crooked straight.”--- Confucius, “On Rightful Conduct of Rulers and Subjects” (The Analects, Book XVIII)

Even though it was patriarchal and hierarchical, classical Confucianism did hold the view that all people have the capacity to become flourishing moral persons in the community, if not exemplary sages. This view comes close to maintaining a position of moral equality even within social hierarchy, at least with respect to people’s moral potential.

§ Judaism: Judaism teaches tolerance, accountability, justice and the infinite value of human life.

“Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbour frankly so you will not share in his guilt. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbour as yourself.” -- Leviticus 19:17-18

“Thou shalt not curse the deaf.” -- Leviticus 19:14. (Disability rights)

“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favouritism to the great, but judge your neighbour fairly.” --Leviticus 19:15.

Judaism teaches that the individual has the right not only to life, but to security from harm, to health, dignity and making a living - all specific factors involved in assessing costs in cases of damages (Bava Kama, Mishnah 2:6).

§ Christianity: Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure in Christianity, preached virtues of love, compassion and justice.

Love your neighbour as yourself. -- The Bible, Mathew 22:37.

§ Islam: Prophet Muhammad, the central figure in Islam preached the virtues of tolerance, charity and equality.

“Oh mankind, we have created you from a single pair of male and female and made you into nations and tribes that ye may know each other, not that you may despise each other.” -- Koran, Surah 49:13.

Religion, War and Human Rights

Nov 21, 2010

I feel compelled to remind my friends, colleagues and students that Ubuntu is not just an open-source computer operating system. Even more important than the operating system is the original meaning of the term.

Ubuntu is a African humanist and ethical philosophy which affirms people’s interdependence and relations with each other. The essence of Ubuntu is captured in the following quotes.

“A person is a person through (other) persons”
-- African Proverb.

“Ubuntu is to say, ‘my humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in yours.’ We belong to a family bundle.”
--- Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

“A person with Ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed.”
-- Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

My neighbour and I have the same origins / We have the same life-experience and a common destiny / We are the obverse and reverse sides of one entity /We are unchanging equals /We are the faces which see themselves in each other / We are mutually fulfilling compliments / We are simultaneously legitimate values... /I am sovereign of my life / My neighbour is sovereign of his life; Society is a collective sovereignty /It exists to ensure that my neighbour and I realize the promise of being human.
---Zulu aphorism.

What is Ubuntu?

Nov 17, 2010

Chris Dolan, Social Torture: The Case of Northern Uganda, 1986-2006. New York & Oxford: Berghahn Books. 2009. xiv + 338.

In Social Torture, Chris Dolan seeks to complicate our understanding of the protracted conflict in Northern Uganda. Though typically portrayed as a military conflict between the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the government, Dolan argues that the conflict is better understood as a form of “social torture” that has maintained local population in a position of subordinate inclusion. The book shows how, alongside the activities of the Lord’s Resistance Army, government decisions and actions on the ground, consolidated by humanitarian interventions and silences have played a central role in creating and sustaining a massive yet little recognized humanitarian crisis.

Dolan questions the seriousness of the Ugandan government in its stated intentions of finding a solution to the war. The rebels, he argues, could have been overcome with a coherent military strategy that did not alienate large number of civilians. The point of the prolonged and intense suffering was not so much to defeat the insurgency as to send a sharp message to the members of the Acholi parts of the country.

At times, the conflict between the Government’s stubborn insistence on seeking a military solution, and the equally strong resistance to this from civil society actors, appear to be as important as the conflict they all purported to be seeking a solution to. The result is that individuals and the society as a whole came to exhibit symptoms typical of torture.

In Dolan’s interpretation of the conflict, the key actors cannot simply be reduced to perpetrators and victims. The category of perpetrator is further unpacked revealing visible perpetrators and complicit bystanders. Visible perpetrators include the government and the LRA. Less visible but no less complicit actors are donor governments, multilateral organizations, churches and NGOs.

For someone whose account of the conflict derives from working with an international NGO, Dolan is particularly scathing in his criticism of the role of NGOs in the conflict. He argues that like doctors in a torture situation, they appear to be there to ease the suffering of victims, but in reality they enable the process to be prolonged by keeping the victim alive for further abuse. Doing this serves some economic, political and psychological functions for both perpetrators and bystanders alike.

The book also offers a persuasive critique of public discourses on the conflict and their accompanying silences. By focusing loudly on some elements of the situation and keeping silent on others, public discourses serve to fragment and thus divert attention from the bigger picture. The discourse of the conflict and its silences are therefore themselves a form of violence.

One of the more interesting aspects of the book is the analysis of the gendered consequences of the conflict in Chapter 7. The author argues that although the war consolidated expectations of hegemonic masculinity, it simultaneously undermined men’s lived experiences of their own masculinity, thereby aggravating a process set in motion by colonialism.

Social Torture is a detailed and well researched book; perhaps too detailed in parts. The book could have done with less of the laborious methodological discussion that takes up much of the first two chapters.

Dolan acknowledges that his construction of social torture may raise concerns as to whether the integrity and condemnatory power of the term “torture” will be weakened, either conceptually or in terms of action taken against its perpetrators. He is convinced that it will not, but not everyone will agree.

He critiques as narrow and legalistic, the explicit emphasis on intentionality in the definition of torture in the UN Torture Convention. People’s behaviour, he argues, are not reducible to the intentionality that lies at the heart of the Convention definition of torture. However, one can argue that it is precisely that narrowness hinged on intentionality that gives the concept of torture its relevance and efficacy. Like “social genocide” or “cultural genocide,” the concept of “social torture” risks diluting the potency of the original concept. Torture, as a human rights concept, loses its meaning if used to describe every act of pain and suffering whether inflicted intentionally or not.

In all, Social Torture is a welcome study. By drawing on firsthand experience, the author brings a rare insider perspective to his analysis of the conflict. To this extent, Dolan largely succeeds in his stated aim of crafting a resilient counter-narrative to mainstream discourses about the conflict in Northern Uganda.

"Social Torture" in Northern Uganda

Nov 15, 2010

Sooner or later, even the most hardened dictators must cave in to the determined resolve of a people's yearning for freedom and democracy...

After fifteen years of house arrest, Burma has released Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, an outspoken proponent against the military dictatorship that has subjugated her country.

Appearing outside her home in Rangoon, Ms Suu Kyi told thousands of jubilant supporters they had to "work in unison" to achieve their goals.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner has been detained for 15 of the past 21 years. It is not yet clear if any conditions have been placed on her release.

US President Barack Obama welcomed her release as "long overdue".

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said Ms Suu Kyi was an "inspiration", and called on Burma to free all its remaining political prisoners.

The decision to free 65-year-old Ms Suu Kyi comes six days after the political party supported by the military government won the country's first election in 20 years. The ballot was widely condemned as a sham.

Suu Kyi has previously said that she would not negotiate for any release that came with conditions, such as preventing her from running for office. However, it is doubtful that the ruling generals would have granted freedom to Suu Kyi unless they felt confident that she posed little to no threat to their position. With the questionable results from the last election, it should be interesting to see how the Burmese now react to the symbol of democratic resistance in their country walking among them.

Burma Releases Nobel Laureate Suu Kyi After 15 Years Of House Arrest

Nov 11, 2010

Here is one of those human rights “grey area” stories that one encounters every now and again. Apparently, some airlines will not let men sit with unaccompanied minors they do not know. While I understand the obligation of airlines to protect children placed in their care, asking a man to leave his seat for the only reason that he is a man, goes beyond the bounds of prudent action. Move the kid if you must but the implicit suggestion that all men are potential abusers and perverts clearly raises serious ethical and human rights concerns.

By David Parker Brown, on July 1st, 2010 at 8:55 am

Making sure children flying under the care of an airline are not preyed upon is extremely important. So is making sure that a person’s individual rights are not taken away from them and made to feel like a criminal.

Recently, passenger Mirko Fischer took British Airways to court for forcing him to move seats because he was sitting next to a young child.

Fischer originally had the window seat, but switched with his pregnant wife, so she could see out the window (what a gentleman). This changed caused him to be sitting next to a young unaccompanied minor and the flight crew made him change his seat. The airline told him that they ban male passengers from sitting next to children they do not know.

The passenger did not feel this treatment was right and left him feeling, “embarrassed, humiliated and angry.” He took British Airways to court for “loss of damage and injury to his feelings.”

“This policy is branding all men as perverts for no reason,” Fischer said. “They accuse you of being some kind of child molester just because you are sitting next to someone.”

Fischer won his case and was paid $3712.00 in costs and $1288.00 in damages. He didn’t pocket the money however. He donated his payout and $3865.00 of his own money to two different child protection charities.

British Airways is currently reviewing the policy, but still states the rule is not discriminatory.

Parents put their children into care of an airline to make sure they are kept safe during their flight. But is it ok to keep all men away from children because of this? I say no.

If the flight crew has any reason to assume that a passenger is not acting appropriately, then yes, it is their duty to move the child. However, it is not ok to discriminate against a passenger just because of a fear of inappropriate behavior. Would it be ok to not sit a child next to someone of a particular race or religion because they are more likely to molest a child?

I have heard of other airlines having similar policies. The concept of these policies is to keep children safe, which is very important, but not at the expense of discriminating against other passengers.

To Sit or not to Sit

Nov 4, 2010

"There is never a convenient time to protest against injustice"

When I think about human rights in Australia, I don't unsually think "movies." But out of Australia comes a great documentary about the the meaning of true courage and power of moral conviction. "SALUTE is the story of how a white Australian sprinter became a hero in black America, even as he was virtually written out of the annals of Australia’s Olympic history. On one level, it is a story of real idealism, the youthful sort that the Olympics are supposed to be about; on another, it’s about the corruption and betrayal of those ideals in the way the Olympics are actually run."

I don't know how readily availbale this move is outside Australia, but I highly recommend it for anyone interested in issues of human rights and social justice. 4 stars out of 5.

Watch a Documentaray Trailer


Peter Norman didn’t actually do very much, except run the race of his life in the men’s 200-metre track final in Mexico in October 1968. He came second in 20.06 seconds, which is still the fastest time any Australian has run the distance, and half a second faster than anything he had run before.

The winner was Tommie Smith, a tall black American from Texas. Third was John Carlos, another tall black American. The race itself was worth a documentary because it was full of drama, controversy and psychological warfare, much of it practised by the extremely crafty Norman, but it’s what happened afterwards that everyone remembers.

Smith and Carlos turned on the victory dais and raised a gloved fist in a Black Power salute, as Norman stood beside them. He was the white guy in the photograph that made front page all round the world the next day. Everyone soon forgot his name, except Smith and Carlos, a lot of other black American athletes, and a couple of Australian Olympic officials.

In practical terms, all Norman did was wear a badge that simply said “Olympic Project for Human Rights”, an organisation made up largely of African-American athletes protesting against racism in sport. In 1967, the project had proposed that all black American athletes boycott the Mexico Olympics, a move that never came off. Wearing their badge was choosing a side, though.

The film makes clear why Norman chose that side. He was a devout Christian, raised in the Salvation Army. There is a picture of him at the time, a handsome, open-faced young man with sandy hair, in a tracksuit that says “Jesus saves”. He believed passionately in equality for all, regardless of colour, creed or religion – the Olympic code.

A few minutes before the victory ceremony, the two black runners told Norman what they were planning to do. He told them he agreed, which surprised them. Norman asked what he could do in support; he didn’t think it would be appropriate to raise his fist, so they borrowed a badge from an American rower. All three winners wore the badges on the dais.Afterwards, when all hell broke loose and Smith and Carlos were sent home, banned for life by an apoplectic president of the International Olympic Committee, Avery Brundage, the media asked Norman if he supported them. He said he did, and he criticised the White Australia Policy. Big mistake.
Julius (Judy) Patching, the manager of the Australian Olympic team, cautioned him at the Olympics, but Australian officials reserved their real punishment for later.

In 1972, despite being the fifth-fastest man in the world over 200 metres, Norman was left out of Australia’s team for the Munich Olympics. They took no sprinters at all, rather than take him. Even 28 years later, as every extant Australian Olympian was said to have been invited to the 2000 Sydney Olympics, they still managed to forget to invite him.

One of the most telling aspects of Salute is that even in 2000, many black American athletes had not forgotten. They flew Norman to Sydney and made him a guest of honour at Michael Johnson’s birthday party.

Johnson, still the fastest man ever over 200 metres, hugged him on their first meeting and told him he was a personal hero.

Salute could easily be seen as the worst kind of hagiography, because it’s Matt Norman’s tribute to his uncle, Peter. There’s certainly a lot of misty-eyed emotion, pushed to breaking point by an overused score, and it’s made worse by Norman’s reluctance to leave anything out – even badly recorded sound and image – but that’s beside the point. Even though Peter Norman was a bystander to history, the eddies of that history are far richer than we might have expected, and Matt Norman manages to find them all.

The film has an extraordinary sense of the moral intricacies of the situation, and the hypocrisies. Peter Norman could have chosen not to stand up that day. The other two warned him, because they were concerned he might suffer backlash, which indeed he did. He was then forgotten; rubbed out, in fact, by the grubby little men who always seem to end up running the Olympics.

Most Australians only heard of Peter Norman when two very tall black men turned up for his funeral in Melbourne in 2006. The film is finally incredibly moving because of their testimony. Here, just in time, is a great lesson in what the Olympics are supposed to be about.

Paul Byrnes, Sydney Morning Herald, July 17, 2008

SALUTE: A Story of Youth, Idealism and Courage

 
GIAZILO © 2015 Templateism.com