FREE SPEECH HAS ITS LIMITS FOR SOCIETY OF AUTHORS
Brian Rudman writing in the New Zealand Herald on Friday.
The New Zealand Society of Authors proudly proclaims on its website how it "works to protect the basic right of freedom of expression".
But the moment one of its most venerable members, former national president Gordon McLauchlan, upset the booksellers who run the Montana Book Awards, his freedom-loving union dropped him like a hot potato.
But the moment one of its most venerable members, former national president Gordon McLauchlan, upset the booksellers who run the Montana Book Awards, his freedom-loving union dropped him like a hot potato.
Six weeks ago, Mr McLauchlan spoke out at a meeting of the Auckland branch of NZSA against the ongoing lack of Auckland representatives on the awards judging panel.Members overwhelmingly backed his call to award organisers "to take more notice of demographics when appointing judges".
A large majority also supported his remit to base some national cultural organisations, notably Creative New Zealand, in Auckland.
Mr McLauchlan followed this up with a robust article on the popular website of Graham Beattie, former chief of Penguin Books NZ.
The wrath of Wellington was swift. In October last year, Mr McLauchlan had agreed to represent the NZSA on the Montana awards management committee. But this week, following publication of the article, Linda Henderson, chair of the book awards management committee and chief executive officer of Booksellers NZ, declared him suddenly unwelcome.
In a letter to NZSA she wrote, "The management committee has reviewed the comments made by Gordon McLauchlan on Beattie's Blog regarding the Montana New Zealand Book Awards and believes that in light of this viewpoint, approval of his nomination as your representative on the management committee is not appropriate at this point in time."
Incredibly, the brave defenders of free speech immediately curled over and said yes, so sorry, we'll find you a poodle instead. On Wednesday, Mr McLauchlan received notice of his sacking from NZSA executive director Liz Allen.
Enclosed was a copy of the Montana letter. "I am sorry that this has been the outcome," wrote Ms Allen.
Enclosed was a copy of the Montana letter. "I am sorry that this has been the outcome," wrote Ms Allen.
What she didn't reveal was that the NZSA had been party to the decision, but more of that later.
NZSA president Paul Smith, an Aucklander, says, "I don't see what the big deal is", arguing "It's a simple process of them wanting somebody else, this one wasn't suitable. We'll find someone suitable for them from Auckland".
NZSA president Paul Smith, an Aucklander, says, "I don't see what the big deal is", arguing "It's a simple process of them wanting somebody else, this one wasn't suitable. We'll find someone suitable for them from Auckland".
Mr Smith says "this isn't about freedom of speech, but you can make what you want out if it". Oddly, he went out of his way to support Mr McLauchlan's call for judging changes.
"Everybody feels badly" about the unfair geographic distribution of the judging panel. He said he told last Friday's Auckland branch meeting that "it was obviously a much bigger problem than we thought, let's have a round table meeting of all people associated with the awards". He said it had been a longstanding problem and had to stop.
FOOTNOTE:
Bookman Beattie rates Rudman as one of our most independent and effective journalists, often acting as the conscience of Auckland.
The point with this current issue however is not whether or not you agree with McLauchlan's view on demographic representation, and most Aucklanders I have spoken to do not, but the fact that he was "punished" for making a criticism.
The NZSA and Booksellers NZ have got themselves into a right little pickle over this one and I reckon have come out looking rather silly, and hypocritical.
In spite of Paul Smith's claim to the contary this issue is everything to do with freedom of speech ,something that both of these organisations claim to hold dearly. We haven't heard the last of this one...................
20 comments:
I don't necessarily agree with McLauchlan's view but I wholeheartedly support freedom of opinion and its ridiculous that he has been sanctioned in this way. It seems to me that people have forgotten about the art of debate and and me a key point is that it is good and healthy to argue/debate issues but no one has to come out right or the winner and make everyone agree with them.
He hasn't been sanctioned by anyone. He just wasn't accepted onto a committee whose work he had publicly slagged off. What committee would want someone like that on board? If he'd kept quiet he could have gone on and tried to effect change from within.
This has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with attention-seeking. It's pathetic.
Gordon McLauchlan has not been 'punished'. The Booksellers Montana Management Committee decided they could not accept his nomination as the NZSA's representative after he abused them publicly in your very own blog. And perhaps it should be made clear here that Bookman Beattie is McLauchlan's brother in law. Booksellers presumably decided McLauchlan could not be trusted to do this again. This was a matter between Booksellers and MacLauchlan who has always had a tendency to throw his toys out of the cot if he doesn't get his own way. He has not been censured, expelled or asked to resign by NZSA nor has his 'freedom of expression' been threatened. More than anyone in this silly argument, he has been working the media. To suggest such is an insult to all those journalists around the world who are banned, imprisoned, tortured and murdered for the serious efforts to defend free speech. This is all about one man's outsize ego.
When I started this book blog nearly 18 months ago more experienced bloggers suggested I should not accept annonymous comments. Others went even further and suggested I should vet all comments before I allowed them on my blog. However for better or worse I declined to accept their advice.
When I read the comments of the last two anonymous writers I wonder if in fact I have made a mistake in accepting anon comments. Would they have the balls to write these comments if their names were attached to them? Not bloody likely!
Kia ora- I go by the web name 'Islander'
-I'm happy to be known by it here, BUT
if I used my name, there'd be a whole lot of other responses engendered (yep, just by the name.)
So, I am *really* happy you allow anonymity Bookman Beattie for such as me: I'm a humble writer.
BUT - people who are protecting their own backsides should have the courage mto attach their names to controversial statements - urm, particularly when they are spending our (writers')$$$-
To me freedom of speech and freedom of opinion are 2 different things. As anon said comparing this issue to loss of freedom of speech and punishment as described is wrong but people should be able to express opinions freely. In this case - he was left off a committee which may not be much but what does it say about the committee? Well they now seem to be taking note of representation isses so McLauchlan's stance did something didn't it? whether you thinks its toy-throwing or not?
Graham, I agree that anonymous posts are tricky but some people do have to do them. Others hide behind them and are cowardly. Don't know what the answer is for the blog-owner. But I notice that after Gordon's last post six of the 19 comments were anonymous and that wasn't an issue for you. Perhaps because they weren't critical? Is debate on this blog good or not? You choose.
Gordon is a great bloke whom I like and respect and who has done a lot of good work for the NZSA over the years, but he is entirely wrong about this non-issue, as I and many other senior members of the NZSA have told him many times over the last few weeks.
Unless he's joking. There is an alternative account of what happened at www.nzbc.net.nz.
Well we certainly have some local whining here. The issues seem very complicated to me but as a systems manager I am disappointed by the typical kiwi attitude of hiding behind anonymous tags but at the same time being critical of others. Clearly if the anonymous islander is a writer then he could be more careful with his spelling. Perhaps even some editing might be in order!!
Well I'm not going to hide behind anonimity:
While I missed the March meeting of the Auckland Branch of NZSA due to being out of Auckland, I was one of the great majority at the February meeting that supported Gordon McLauchlan's original motion reflecting Auckland Branch concerns at an evident Wellington bias in the Montana awards and the makeup of the judging panels.
As a result, I find it hard to believe that the Auckland branch of NZSA has apparently not staunchly backed Gordon after adopting his motion at that February meeting. I would have also thought that if the Montana book awards management committee reacted to Gordon's "expression of free speech" on this issue, by demanding his removal from the committee, that the Auckland Branch would have told them rather unpolitely to "go and get stuffed," and would have swung behind Gordon for having the courage to raise this important issue i.e. if the awards management committee was rejecting Gordon for speaking out, then the committee should be advised there is no Auckland replacement for him on the awards management committee - its either Gordon or nobody from Auckland.
However, instead from what I've been reading, Gordon has been hung out to dry by the very colleagues who adopted his rational and very valid motion raising the Wellington bias issue.
Clearly it's hit a raw nerve down there in Wellington - most likely because anyone can see the logic and (difficult-to-dispute) facts and stats which form the basis of Gordon's reasoning on the Wellington-bias issue in his blog on this site and in the NZ Herald article by Brian Rudman. A couple of quotations come to mind:
"The strength of criticism lies only in the weakness of the thing criticized” (Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, American poet, 1807-1882)
"The blind glorification of an institution serves to shield all those employed by the institution from criticism and also serves to create an ambiance that discourages criticism. Indeed, anyone daring to question, challenge, and otherwise criticize the glorified institution will almost assuredly be ostracized, if not demonized. Yet for an institution to improve, questioning, challenging, and criticizing are evident prerequisites." - G Tod Slone, American Editor
Cheers
Colin Taylor
NZSA member - Auckland Branch
On just rejoining NZSA National Council, enthusiastic to begin work on core writers' issues in election year, I find instead that we are wasting our time on a spurious 'freedom of speech' issue. Gordon McLauchlan's freedoms have not been confined in any way whatsoever. Booksellers decided that they did not wish to accept him as NZSA rep on the Montana committee because, even before he was confirmed, he decided to attack them publicly - and air NZSA business before his Auckland remit about 'demographic' representation had even been looked at by Council. I find it unsurprising that Booksellers would not be happy about having a loose cannon on their committee. NZSA was not in a position to change their minds. Would that we could! For more on this aspect - I suggest you look at www.nzbc.net.nz
Colin Taylor, like Brian Rudman (his Herald colleague?) appears to have missed the facts that the issue of better demographic representation was discussed at the November meeting of the Montana cttee and steps are being taken to sort the matter. When McLauchlan's remit was finally discussed by the NZSA Council ten days ago, we spent some time working out how we can best expedite that. If Rudman had either properly read the information he received from Booksellers, or contacted the NZSA's ED, then he would have known all this.
Gordon McLauchlan will continue to exercise his freedom of speech as he has always done. The point is to listen to what he is saying and why. In this particular case, he appears to have been chasing his own ego.
Philip Temple
Dunedin
Having just retired from the National Council of NZSA after serving at least seven years in my capacity as chair of Auckland branch and subsequently as chair of the Otago-Southland branch and knowing all the parties and history of this issue I can speak with some authority. I have also been in correspondence with Gordon, so far from being sent to coventry as he claims, a lot of people are falling over backwards to engage with him and point out his martyrdom has no validity. NZSA was more than happy to have Gordon act as their representative (for the entire country not just Auckland). However when he chose to make his remit public before it had been discussed at National Council, Booksellers NZ quite reasonably decided they would prefer not to accept our nomination of Gordon and asked us for another one. Not a poodle or necessarily someone from Auckland, but someone who acts with proper respect for procedure and confidentiality. The crime in this situation is that one man's ego is wasting a lot of time and diverting attention from the real issues for most writers, for example the declining value of the Authors Fund.
Diane Brown
Dunedin
Dear Graham,
Whether or not one agrees with the relocation of Creative New Zealand to Auckland from Wellington, it seems to me that a proper geographical distribution of judges for our national book awards is essential. This should apply to the Montana, the New Zealand Post Children’s Book Awards and to all major national awards. It is hard to understand why that is not written into the rules for the selection of judges.
Regards,
Ann Mallinson
Did McLauchlan offer stats on this? In the last 4 years (which is as far as my memory reliably goes) judges' places of residence were: Wellington 4, Auckland 3, Christchurch 3, Dunedin 1. Not quite the outrageous imbalance claimed.
BTW, it seems to me that while Wellington would easily win the NZ literature cup, a "state of origin" tournament would be far more fiercely contested. Why do so many writers end up here?
Fergus writes, "it seems to me that while Wellington would easily win the NZ literature cup..."
Not so fast. North Shore styles itself as New Zealand's literary capital, being home to Frank Sargeson's Army hut which hosted Duggan, Frame and Ireland and others, plus Stead and many more at gatherings large and small over the years. And with all due respect to Fergus's own excellent firm, VUP, where are all the big publishers? The North Shore.
Re the Montana judges, in my day - I was a judge for the last Wattie awards, the first Montanas and two more later on - there was always a writer or writer's representative, a bookseller or similar, and a suitably arts-friendly celeb (Sharon Crosbie once described herself as "the media fluff"). There were no academics, ever, which I think was a change Kevin Ireland succeeded in instituting when he was on the committee. The combination always worked well.
Personally, I am much less concerned with geography - come on, this is a small country - than with a range of expertise and sympathy among the judges. I don't care if they're all from Mount Maunganui, as long as collectively they have the requisite common sense, experience of the industry and appreciation of good writing and all the other elements that make up a good book.
Stephen:
Come now, my boy. Aren't Frank Sargeson, Maurice Duggan and Janet Frame dead? And didn't Janet Frame start off and finish in the far south?
Birkenhead Henry
And the publishers are only on the Shore because the warehouse space is cheap. They'd rather be in the CBD.
Open letter to the Council of the NZSA
I am appalled at the NZSA's reaction to Gordon McLauchlan's comments about Awards committees and Art Council administration.
The issue is not whether he is right or wrong. The issue is his right to have an opinion. Hugh Price would be turning in is grave to see people who supposedly participate in this, the epitome of intellectually free trades, silencing a colleague.
And why? What Gordon said is scarcely controversial. It is not original. It is emphatic and strongly argued. But shouldn't we be applauding this in our fellow writers? Is it simply because he may have embarrassed you?
In any case, the appropriate response is to use the same channels to rebut his arguments. What you have done is to limply acceded to an unconscionable request from Booksellers NZ. What you should have done is absolutely refuse to be cowed.
I note the defence of your position in today's Herald but am unpersuaded. If it had merely been a case of making nominations that could be accepted or rejected, that would have been one thing. But what has clearly transpired here is that Booksellers NZ asked you to withdraw the nomination. That should have set warning bells ringing for right-thinking bookmen. It is both weak and wrong to agree to withdraw a nomination, especially when Booksellers NZ signalled that it was because they disapproved of your nominee's opinions.
Shame on you.
--
GERARD REID | MANAGING DIRECTOR & HEAD OF PUBLISHING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
G.A. PINDAR and SON (New Zealand) Ltd trading as PINDAR NZ
Dear Graham
I wondered whether or not I should quit the Society of Authors for their extraordinary response to Gordon’s criticism of what he saw as continuing imbalance in the distribution of judges for the Montana Book Awards. He surely had every right to do that and to be heard. In my experience one way to deal with that is to make sure that view is heard by the Montana Committee – more particularly since the President of the Society so clearly seems to agree with it. I have decided to resign and I have done so on the basis of the two anonymous messages on this site – given their content and tone almost certainly from members. I have no wish to belong to any organisation which counts such mean spirited cowards among their number – I wonder what they may have written to justify their membership?.
I have resigned today after some 30 odd years as a member.
Hamish Keith
I have to take issue with Stephen Straford's views and also offer my support to Mr McLauchlan.
No, it is not just about geographical representation - and yes, it should be about having people who are able to do justice to the job. And I doubt that that happens in this country.
Many years ago, I wrote a column questioning the integrity of that year's Wattie / Montana (I can not remember what name they were under) Awards, as one of Keith Stewart's books had been shortlisted in the Non Fiction Lifestyle category. My concern was that the judging panel had shown little technical competence to review the book, and had apparently not sought technical help either.
Before I continue, I must point out that Keith Stewart is one of our finest wine writers, his book on Te Mata Estate is one of the finest wine books ever published in this country [Though I do not believe it was ever shortlisted for this award? perhaps because of the strong commercial connection - which is a shame...]
However the book in this instance was a guidebook Keith had written on the wines of the world. It was in a similar vein to Vic Williams and Michael Cooper's guidebooks, i.e. lists of lots of wines/labels with ratings beside them. The technical problem was this - not only did Keith include many wines not available in this country, he also assigned them ratings, which led me to wonder how on earth he could have obtained them to critique them in this way and, secondly, what use was there in publishing such a guide for the average NZ wine drinker. Now any person with some technical knowledge of the local wine trade could have spotted this howler - but the committee chose to shortlist the book.
I did not get shot at in public, as Gordon McLauchlan did, but this messenger did receive a sternly worded letter from (I believe it was) Mr Straford.
Thanks for publishing this controversy on this blog!
Best wishes
Paul Tudor
Master of Wine
Yeah some sense at last..pick all the judges from the Mount! I'm just going over there now for a swim and then sit under a pohutukawa tree with a couple of Bookman Beattie's recommendations.
Lee Rowe :-)
Post a Comment