Adjudication No. 202 (August 1984) [1984] APC 25

ADJUDICATION No. 202 (August 1984)

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry complained to the Press Council concerning a drawing published in The National Times of 4-10 May 1984. The drawing accompanied a lengthy article headed "The brutal campaign to drive out West Bank Palestinians". As the title implies, the article was highly critical of the treatment of Palestinians in the state of Israel, both by official action and by what were described as "hardliners" or "zealots". However, the article was not racist in tone and indeed gave prominence to what was described as "moderate Israeli opinion" opposing official policy. The article is not the subject of complaint. Moreover the paper published a reply to it in a subsequent issue.

The accompanying drawing by Michael Fitzjames was described by the complainant in a letter to the publisher in these terms:

The cartoon in question depicts a Satanic cloven-hooved Jewish figure -- apparently a rabbi -- slicing an infant into pieces under the background of a crescent moon dripping blood. He is apparently dropping a bomb on a mosque and, it seems, has a Nazi "S.S." symbol engraved on his clothing.

The letter went on to say that the cloven-hoofed figure is particularly horrifying and outrageous to the Jewish community, as Jews were frequently portrayed as cloven-hoofed "agents of Satan" and "Christ killers" in the bulk of Medieval European anti-semitic depictions, frequently as a prelude to a massacre or pogrom of Jews during an outbreak of violent anti-semitism. To Jews, any depiction of a Jewish figure as cloven-hoofed conveyed the same image of hatred and fear as did a swastika. It was a symbol of racial hatred of the Jewish people.

A subsequent issue of The National Times carried a letter from the complainant protesting at the drawing and a reply from the artist strongly defending it. The paper also published a letter from the author of the article dissociating himself from the drawing, which he found "highly offensive".

Correspondence ensued between the complainant and the publisher and the editor. The chairman of the publishing company John Fairfax Limited adopted a conciliatory tone, assuring the complainant that anti-semitism of any kind is anathema to the company and certainly not part of its policies. This went some way to satisfying the complainant, but it has persisted with its complaint because the editor of The National Times, Mr Brian Toohey, has continued to defend the drawing, denying that it is anti-semitic and claiming that it is a legitimate strong comment on Israeli policies.

The Commissioner for Community Relations wrote to the Press Council supporting the complaint.

Mr Fitzjames explained to the Press Council that he intended his imagery in a different way to that in which the complainant understood it. In particular he intended the figure as a reference to certain extremist rabbis referred to in the article. What was taken to be a bomb was no more than his usual logo signature. He emphatically denied any anti-semitic intention, and said that he intended only a political, not a religious or racial comment. The Press Council entirely accepts his good faith.

In the opinion of the Press Council Mr Fitzjames was entitled through the medium of the drawing to express his strong disapproval of the treatment of Palestinians in Israel, and to convey that he saw an ironic parallel with Nazi Germany's drive for Lebensraum. However, no doubt unintentionally, he went beyond that and used images which tapped deep well-springs of racial and religious prejudice, thereby giving deep offence to at least some Jewish people through the revival of memories of past persecution.

In Adjudication No. 149 the council considered a complaint against a cartoonportraying Aborigines. The council said that the principles of a vigorous free Press as exemplified particularly in the cartoon field must be reconciled in a commonsense spirit with the principles of inter-group respect.

The Press Council believes The National Times should have been more aware that the illustration, with its hard-hitting imagery, although intended as political comment, was capable of being seen as anti-Jewish as well.

The complaint is upheld.