Back on 29 May I attended a book talk by French philosopher Michel Onfray (official site and wikipedia) at the Night Cat in Fitzroy. His book The Atheist Manifesto is published in Australia by Melbourne University Publishing, which I used to work for. The Night Cat was full to bursting - there could easily have been 200 people inside, maybe more.
The talk was recorded by ABC Radio National for the Late Night Live program with Philip Adams, who is an avowed atheist, as am I. The interview by Adams was broadcast on the 11 June episode, and you can listen to it here (25mb MP3). As well as Adams, professional troublemaker and ‘national treasure’ according to MUP CEO Louise Adler, you hear Michel Onfray, philosopher and public intellectual, and interpreter Charles Sowerwine, who is also Professor of History at the University of Melbourne.
The Atheist Manifestor was reviewed in the Age newspaper, but I can’t say I think much of what Barney Zwartz writes: he obviously hates the book. Zwartz also blogs about the book talk here.
I’d rather quote a more positive reviewer: blogger Russell Blackford, who argues:
It’s important that books like this be written and published, challenging traditional ideas, and especially challenging the claims of religious institutions and leaders to wield moral authority. I especially admire Onfray’s round rejection of the self-denial, false “purity”, cruelty, wilful ignorance, and authoritarianism that the monotheistic religions have exhibited and supported all too often.
The atheist debate is contentious enough, but it has been conflated, particularly in Melbourne, with the politics of MUP CEO Louise Adler, who is associated with a group called Independent Australian Jewish Voices, which advances a progressive view of the conflict in the middle east:
We are committed to ensuring a just peace that recognizes the legitimate national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians with a solution that protects the human rights of all.
We condemn violence by all parties, whether state sanctioned or not. We believe that Israel’s right to exist must be recognized and that Palestinians’ right to a homeland must also be acknowledged.
Everyone in the Melbourne media and political establishment has voiced an opinion on Adler, including the rabid Andrew Bolt, who says:
Listening to Adler, I suspect there may be something in the theory that Western ‘intellectuals’ are crippled by a suicidal self-hatred.
Or, rather, that they’re crippled by a hatred of the society that gives them every opportunity - including, to their rage, the opportunity to be ignored.
How true that seems to me of Adler, a Jewish publisher so keen on a book from a terrorist recruit [Hicks], who once wrote of his plan to ensure the ‘Western-Jewish domination is finished’.
Bolt refers to Adler’s interest in publishing a book by David Hicks:
Listen to Louise Adler, the far-Left head of Melbourne University Press.
She’s angry the Howard Government won’t let Hicks make money by selling (to her?) the story of his criminal career.
Adler’s position is described by the Age:
Louise Adler, head of Melbourne University Publishing, criticised comments made yesterday by federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, reiterating the Government’s commitment to prevent Hicks, a convicted supporter of terrorism, from making money telling his story.
“I think it is disingenuous of Mr Ruddock to take this position when, in the past, Mark ‘Chopper’ Read, who actually killed people, profited from his numerous volumes of memoirs.
The Australian Jewish News similarly reports that:
During a recent interview, Adler, the Jewish head of Melbourne University Publishing, argued that Hicks’ experiences should be put in print despite a Federal Government order prohibiting the known antisemite from selling his story.
It also claims that:
Adler has become a contentious figure in the world of publishing, ever since she printed Antony Loewenstein’s My Israel Question and Mark Latham’s infamous political memoir The Latham Diaries.
The agenda of the Australian Jewish News is different to that of the Age. In another article it argues that:
JEWS like to call themselves the People of the Book, but lately, there are more than a few Australian Jews discomfited by the actions of one of their own particularly bookish people - Louise Adler.
In the space of 12 months, Melbourne University Press, of which Adler is the chief executive, published two stridently anti-Israel books, Jacqueline Rose’s The Question of Zion and Antony Loewenstein’s particularly notorious My Israel Question.
Australian Jewish News equates publishing books it disagrees with and dislikes with questionable publishing decisions:
Adler has forged a fine reputation as one of Australia’s leading book publishers and as a champion of the arts. But she has also made some questionable judgment calls as to who she publishes. Rose, Loewenstein and Hicks might make a fashionable triumvirate for her fellow left warriors, but her fellow Australian Jews would hardly feel the same way.
I think they miss the point, which has been lost in the Jewish / Israeli / Zionist debate between Jews: that the debate itself is also occuring throughout Australian society, not just within the Jewish community. Middle eastern politics, from Israel to Iraq, are topical. Publishers seek to satisfy interest in a topic, and it cannot be assumed that they personally believe everything they publish.
As an atheist, I resent being accused of anti-Semitism when I question the human rights abuses perpetuated by the democratically elected government of the political state of Israel. I’m not questioning that state’s official religion or the values of that religion. I am questioning the political values and ethics of the elected leaders. This is precisely the point being made by the IAJV:
Uncritical allegiance to Israeli government policy does not necessarily serve Israel’s best interests. Our concern for justice and peace in the Middle East is a legitimate opinion and should be met by reasoned argument rather than vilification and intimidation. In particular, we are concerned that the Jewish establishment does not represent the full range of Jewish opinion. Contrary to widespread concerns, anti-Semitism is not fuelled by Jews who publicly disagree with actions of the Jewish State.
Having worked for Adler at MUP I’ve had the opportunity to observe her work, to learn from her and to even occasionally disagree with her. I can honestly say that she is convincing, sometimes intimidating, but totally sincere in her interest in and respect for honest intellectual debate. This willingness to engage in open debate is not necessarily appreciated by other participants.
