Post by Papa C. on Aug 13, 2006 11:44:45 GMT
Dated September/ November 2003
STATEMENT BY THE MAKERS OF "THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED"
The documentary "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" - which deals with the events surrounding the short-lived coup d¹etat against President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in April 2002 - was first broadcast in Europe in February 2003 and since then has been aired on a variety of national TV stations including the BBC, ZDF ( Germany), Arte ( France), and NPS ( Holland) as well as at numerous international film festivals. In Venezuela the film had its first airing on national TV in April 2003.
In July 2003 Mr Wolfgang Schalk made a detailed complaint to RTE (Ireland), one of the broadcasters of the film. In accordance with its established procedures RTE replied to Mr Schalk in September setting out a detailed response to his complaints. The complaint procedures of RTE allowed for Mr Schalk to then bring his complaints to the next stage, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, an independent body established to deal with such matters. This was not pursued by Mr Schalk.
In recent days it has come to our attention that Mr Schalk has been contacting broadcasters, festivals, juries etc worldwide in an effort to pressurise them into withdrawing the film from public showing. We welcome the fact that this documentary opens up political debate but we will not stand for the way in which Amnesty International has been used to spin an erroneous story in an effort to suppress the film.
On November 9th 2003, the film was due to be screened as part of the Amnesty International Film Festival in Vancouver, Canada. In the days running up to the screening date the Amnesty Office received representations from third parties urging them to pull the film. Considerable pressure seems to have been brought to bear. Amnesty chose at that point not to pull the film.
However, Amnesty Canada then received a communication from Amnesty Venezuela saying that they were concerned over threats to their safety if the film went ahead in Vancouver. Only at this point did Amnesty Canada decide to pull the film. It is clear from the recent statement of AI (see below) that in no way was their decision due to an assessment of the content of the film. Rather it was precautionary action to protect against the threat of violence, presumably by people opposed to the film, against members of their staff in Venezuela. This kind of threat and intimidation is simply unacceptable and a further example of the way certain groups continue to practice politics in Venezuela.
On Nov 7th we spoke by phone to the regional director of Amnesty who forwarded the following statement, which outlines the reasons AI chose to not show the film.
"Hi Kim,
John Tackaberry at the national office asked me to send you the information we're sending to members who ask about the withdraw of your film from our recent festival. I hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Don Wright
1. The Amnesty International Film Festival screens a selection of films on human rights issues around the world. The organizing committee chooses films that stimulate discussions of human rights issues. Efforts are made to avoid films that present a point of view that can lead to a polarized and unbalanced perspective on particular human rights issues.
2. In the final two weeks of October, we received from individuals and groups calls for the cancellation of the screening of the film. During this time we were also contacted by the chair and director of the Venezuelan section who requested us not to show the film. AI Venezuela believed the screening of the film created the perception of an association between Amnesty International and the views portrayed in the film. At the time of the showing, in the highly polarized climate in Venezuela, the perception of association created a security risk for AI Venezuela staff and members, described by the Director as "a real threat against our security and safety".
3. The Branch did not immediately agree to cancel the showing. In our communications with AI Venezuela we made a distinction between concerns related to the safety and security of AI Venezuela versus concerns about the accuracy of the film. We made it clear that any concerns about the accuracy of this or any film would be addressed in the normal way--which is to ensure that at the screening a disclaimer is made making it clear that the film's views are in no way endorsed by AI and that AI materials are available that describe AI's assessment of the human rights situation.
4. AI Venezuela maintained that there was a real security threat. Given this, we made the only decision we can make that is consistent with Amnesty principles, which require us to balance in a practical way perceptions of impartiality with requirements of security and solidarity within the AI movement.
5. The decision not to show the film was a Branch decision, made at the senior levels, in consultation other parts of the movement including the AI Venezuela and the IS. It was not a local decision, nor a decision made by AI Venezuela. As the security of AI members cannot be part of the organization's public messaging, the public message referred only to the highly polarized climate within Venezuela. We regret, however, any interpretation of our decision to withdraw the showing as a comment on the quality or content of the film. Amnesty International does not endorse any of the films screened during its film festivals. "
Unfortunately, this perfectly legitimate decision by AI to protect the safety of their workers has been distorted by some in order to claim that AI dropped our documentary because of its content. This is false.
It would seem that whoever is behind the campaign was determined at all costs to get AI to act in this way, and then to "spin" the story to suit their own purposes.
That somebody would have used the threat of violence as leverage to force AI to act this way we find deeply shocking and disturbing.
STATEMENT BY THE MAKERS OF "THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED"
The documentary "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" - which deals with the events surrounding the short-lived coup d¹etat against President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in April 2002 - was first broadcast in Europe in February 2003 and since then has been aired on a variety of national TV stations including the BBC, ZDF ( Germany), Arte ( France), and NPS ( Holland) as well as at numerous international film festivals. In Venezuela the film had its first airing on national TV in April 2003.
In July 2003 Mr Wolfgang Schalk made a detailed complaint to RTE (Ireland), one of the broadcasters of the film. In accordance with its established procedures RTE replied to Mr Schalk in September setting out a detailed response to his complaints. The complaint procedures of RTE allowed for Mr Schalk to then bring his complaints to the next stage, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, an independent body established to deal with such matters. This was not pursued by Mr Schalk.
In recent days it has come to our attention that Mr Schalk has been contacting broadcasters, festivals, juries etc worldwide in an effort to pressurise them into withdrawing the film from public showing. We welcome the fact that this documentary opens up political debate but we will not stand for the way in which Amnesty International has been used to spin an erroneous story in an effort to suppress the film.
On November 9th 2003, the film was due to be screened as part of the Amnesty International Film Festival in Vancouver, Canada. In the days running up to the screening date the Amnesty Office received representations from third parties urging them to pull the film. Considerable pressure seems to have been brought to bear. Amnesty chose at that point not to pull the film.
However, Amnesty Canada then received a communication from Amnesty Venezuela saying that they were concerned over threats to their safety if the film went ahead in Vancouver. Only at this point did Amnesty Canada decide to pull the film. It is clear from the recent statement of AI (see below) that in no way was their decision due to an assessment of the content of the film. Rather it was precautionary action to protect against the threat of violence, presumably by people opposed to the film, against members of their staff in Venezuela. This kind of threat and intimidation is simply unacceptable and a further example of the way certain groups continue to practice politics in Venezuela.
On Nov 7th we spoke by phone to the regional director of Amnesty who forwarded the following statement, which outlines the reasons AI chose to not show the film.
"Hi Kim,
John Tackaberry at the national office asked me to send you the information we're sending to members who ask about the withdraw of your film from our recent festival. I hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Don Wright
1. The Amnesty International Film Festival screens a selection of films on human rights issues around the world. The organizing committee chooses films that stimulate discussions of human rights issues. Efforts are made to avoid films that present a point of view that can lead to a polarized and unbalanced perspective on particular human rights issues.
2. In the final two weeks of October, we received from individuals and groups calls for the cancellation of the screening of the film. During this time we were also contacted by the chair and director of the Venezuelan section who requested us not to show the film. AI Venezuela believed the screening of the film created the perception of an association between Amnesty International and the views portrayed in the film. At the time of the showing, in the highly polarized climate in Venezuela, the perception of association created a security risk for AI Venezuela staff and members, described by the Director as "a real threat against our security and safety".
3. The Branch did not immediately agree to cancel the showing. In our communications with AI Venezuela we made a distinction between concerns related to the safety and security of AI Venezuela versus concerns about the accuracy of the film. We made it clear that any concerns about the accuracy of this or any film would be addressed in the normal way--which is to ensure that at the screening a disclaimer is made making it clear that the film's views are in no way endorsed by AI and that AI materials are available that describe AI's assessment of the human rights situation.
4. AI Venezuela maintained that there was a real security threat. Given this, we made the only decision we can make that is consistent with Amnesty principles, which require us to balance in a practical way perceptions of impartiality with requirements of security and solidarity within the AI movement.
5. The decision not to show the film was a Branch decision, made at the senior levels, in consultation other parts of the movement including the AI Venezuela and the IS. It was not a local decision, nor a decision made by AI Venezuela. As the security of AI members cannot be part of the organization's public messaging, the public message referred only to the highly polarized climate within Venezuela. We regret, however, any interpretation of our decision to withdraw the showing as a comment on the quality or content of the film. Amnesty International does not endorse any of the films screened during its film festivals. "
Unfortunately, this perfectly legitimate decision by AI to protect the safety of their workers has been distorted by some in order to claim that AI dropped our documentary because of its content. This is false.
It would seem that whoever is behind the campaign was determined at all costs to get AI to act in this way, and then to "spin" the story to suit their own purposes.
That somebody would have used the threat of violence as leverage to force AI to act this way we find deeply shocking and disturbing.
