In the 1990s, when the Lebanese civil war was still a fresh memory, cultural products accused of “disturbing civil peace” began to disappear from the Lebanese scene. It proved to be a very flexible and useful category that included almost anything that touched on the war. I remember Robert Fisk’s Pity the Nation disappearing overnight from Beirut’s bookstores. Many blamed it on Syria at the time, but the heavy hand of censorship continues to strike today in Lebanon, the Middle East’s “only breathing space.”
This year’s Beirut International Film Festival promised to be the event of the year for film buffs. It kicked off with no less than Francis Ford Coppola coming to Lebanon to launch his latest film, Tetro. But the atmosphere soon soured when General Security prohibited the screening of two of Paolo Benvenuti’s films. The reason: they offend the church of the Middle Ages. The church here being the Catholic church, of course, because General Security based its decision upon consultation with the notorious Catholic Center for Media (المركز الكاثوليكي للاعلام), also behind the banning of Da Vinci Code.
But the story goes beyond the Catholic Center. Using the worn-out weapon of “safeguarding civil peace” — as if we needed the cinema to whip things up — General Security is now undermining the work of a promising young talent, Simon al-Habr. They have censored a crucial part of his documentary Samaan bil-Day`ah, which deals precisely with the memory of the civil war — a war we are allowed to commemorate but not to allowed to remember. The director has put the censored bit on youtube, so you can see for yourself how threatening it is (includes English subtitles).
In today’s al-Akhbar, Pierre Abi Saab rightfully points out the hypocrisy of the so-called “liberal” “intellectuals” in Lebanon who were quick to jump the gun when the censorship concerned Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis, but remained silent about the undermining of local works such as al-Habr’s documentary and Mark Abi Rashid’s Help.
But I think there is another side to this. This censorship, like most censorship, is not only about the content. It is more about who is allowed to do the utterance. For what is utterly ridiculous about censoring al-Habr’s documentary in the name of “safeguarding civil peace” is that the censored recollection of the mountain war is nothing compared to the venom regularly spewed by Lebanese politicians when they evoke the civil war. And those politicians who wield violence, ironically (or not), seem to have more right to the molding of a collective memory of the war. What this kind of censorship effectively does is strip only us, the citizens, of this right.
October 16, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Ms. Tee,
The hypocrisy of the liberal intellectuals wasn’t only manifested in the Satrapi case, but just a few months ago with the whole Gad Elmaleh case. Compare the media coverage of the two cases. How many facebook groups, night vigils and l’orient le jour articles will this recent case of censorship generate?
October 16, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I keep hoping to be pleasantly surprised, Haytham. But like you, I have my doubts. So far, our brand of “liberalism” has proven to be less about values and more about political expediency.
October 16, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Abi Saad and al-Akhbar both deserve credit for speaking up about censorship, but I have to disagree with the hypocrisy charge.
I’ve been working on censorship in Lebanon for a while now. Presumably, the “liberals” he’s talking about are March 14, and I know that the one media outlet that’s been concerned as much as (or possibly more than) al-Akhbar with censorship is Now Lebanon, which has covered many censored items, from Help to Persepolis to How Nancy Wished that Everything was an April Fool’s Joke to Gad el-Meleh.
I dislike their editorial line as much as you do, but when it comes to the question of censorship, I’ve got to give credit where credit is due.
And for the record, while I can’t say if the actual paper had anything to say about it (their archives aren’t available online), I do know that L’Orient-Le Jour’s blog did have a short segment on Help being banned.
One place where I have not only not seen anything against censorship, but in the case of Gad el-Meleh, quite the opposite, has been al-Manar. I can’t say one way for the other about other TV channels though.
October 16, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Sean, to translate what Pierre says: “Why have we not heard the ‘liberal’ voices that (rightfully) made such a racket when censorship almost banned Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis? Even the battles of freedom of expression are subject to fanaticism and suspect deals in the land of freedoms and the Cedar Revolution.”
As I understand it, he is going after bigger fish. You have to keep in mind that M14 political parties issued objections to banning Persepolis and the issue was discussed at the ministerial level (and the threat of ban thereafter rescinded). Pierre’s remark on hypocrisy is also part of a longer debate that has been going on in the press for a couple of years now and involving intellectual heavyweights such as Hazim Saghiyah, Samah Idriss, Abbas Baydoun, and Paul Shawul — and even a court case against al-Adab publishing house. And while credit is due to Now Lebanon, I am sorry to say that it remains peripheral to this debate.
October 16, 2009 at 6:40 pm
On another note: I don’t have access to L’Orient-Le Jour here. Should you (or anyone) run into something, I would be interested to know if they made/will make the same fuss they made about Persepolis and Gad el-Maleh.
October 16, 2009 at 7:44 pm
I suppose he is going after bigger fish, but that’s not how I read it. And even now, I think it’s far from clear from the wording. Presumably, though, these bigger fish are expressing their outrage (or not, as the case may be) in a media outlet.
October 20, 2009 at 4:34 pm
so what if the General security censors and bans a little?
after all, the beacon of human rights and freedom of speech baned Chomsky’s books at Guantanamo:
http://chomsky.info/onchomsky/20091011.htm
and as we say in Lebanon, ma hada ahsan men hada.