Je suis Val?

In January of this year, the Charlie Hebdo attacks provoked worldwide debate about the right to publish images which others might find offensive. Free speech, most commentators agreed, includes the right to offend.

The Toronto Symphony Orchestra (TSO) apparently disagrees. This week, it cancelled a performance by pianist Valentina Lisitsa on account of comments she made on Twitter about the conflict in Ukraine. Lisitsa is an outspoken opponent of the current Ukrainian government. As a result her performances have become the focus of protest by that government’s supporters. They have sought to persuade orchestras and theatres to boycott her, and in this case, they have succeeded.

Valentina Lisitsa
Valentina Lisitsa

I suggest that there are a number of factors which can help us think about whether the TSO’s decision is justified, namely: the nature of the institution; the role morality of musicians and orchestras; the nature of Ms Lisitsa’s statements; and the task which she was invited to perform.

1) The nature of the institution: As a private individual I am ethically free to invite or disinvite anyone I choose into my home. Somebody else’s right to free speech does not extend to a duty by me to provide that person with a platform. Public institutions are different. The state is meant to be politically neutral. It would surely be wrong for a public organization to take somebody’s legally-expressed political opinions into account when determining its relationship with that person.

Is the TSO a private or a public organization? In 2012 the TSO received about $5 million from private donations and $5.8 million from government funding. It is officially a private institution, but it receives very considerable public funding. Consequently, I believe that the TSO does have public responsibilities, and that its decision to uninvite Ms Lisitsa is not a purely private matter. It seems to me that it should be of some concern to Canadian citizens if a publicly funded institution chooses whom it invites to perform on political grounds.

2) The role morality of musicians and orchestras: Aristotle remarked that a ‘good flautist’ was somebody who played the flute well. A good pianist is thus somebody who plays the piano well. On these grounds, Valentina Lisitsa could be a good pianist even if she is (and I have no reason to think that she is) a loathsome person. Philosophers make a distinction between ‘general morality’ and ‘role morality’, between the values of society as a whole and the morality required in a given role. The role morality of the TSO is founded on what it means to be a good orchestra. That is to put on the best possible performances for its audiences. Its performers’ political opinions are irrelevant to this obligation. There were, no doubt, classical music lovers in Toronto who were looking forward to hearing Ms Lisitsa play Rachmaninov, and now will miss that. TSO is not serving its audience well as an orchestra.

That said, any institution also has to guard its reputation.  Consequently, an organization might rightly decide not to be associated with a given person if that person holds views which might reflect badly on it. The TSO cannot be a ‘good’ orchestra if it entirely ignores general morality or public opinion. At the same time, though, free speech and tolerance of different political opinions are key values of liberal democracy. Intolerance will damage rather than enhance a reputation. Disassociating oneself from somebody because of that person’s legally-expressed political views is something which should be done in extreme cases only.

3) The nature of Ms Lisitsa’s statements: The key issue may be the nature of Ms Lisitsa’s statements on Twitter. The mere fact that somebody might disagree with an artist, or even find their views offensive, is not sufficient for a public organization devoted to the arts to disqualify that person from performing.

The TSO’s position is that the views in question go beyond that. According to Slavyangrad.org, in a private letter to Ms Lisitsa the TSO claimed that its lawyers had determined that she might have committed ‘public incitement of hatred contrary to section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada’ due to statements she had made on social media. If this is true, then it could constitute a legitimate reason for the TSO not to wish to be associated with her.

Certainly, some of Ms Lisitsa’s tweets are decidedly crude, as can be seen by those mentioned at this link. But crudity is not synonymous with inciting hatred. Moreover, in its public justifications of its action, the TSO has said nothing about ‘public incitement of hatred.’ Rather the TSO has made a more limited claim, that ‘Due to ongoing accusations of deeply offensive language by Ukrainian media outlets, we have decided to replace Valentina Lisitsa. Valentina Lisitsa’s provocative comments have overshadowed past performances. As one of Canada’s most important cultural institutions, our priority must remain on being a stage for the world’s great works of music, and not for opinions that some believe to be deeply offensive.’

4) The task which Ms Lisitsa was invited to perform : A final consideration is that the TSO did not invite Ms Lisitsa to come to Toronto to give a political speech. She was to play Rachmaninov’s piano concerto no. 2. Had the TSO allowed her to perform, it would not have been, as it fears, providing a ‘stage … for opinions that some believe to be deeply offensive’ but rather a stage for Rachmaninov’s music.

Although freedom of speech includes the freedom to be vulgar and offensive, I am not a fan of those who choose to exercise their liberty in that way. None of the above therefore should be read as an endorsement of Ms Lisitsa’s tweets. Nevertheless, it is worrisome that the TSO should apparently be so easily pressured. If we prevent people who hold controversial opinions from carrying out professional activities entirely unrelated to those opinions, we create a situation in which any public deviation from one particular simplified version of the truth becomes socially unacceptable. McCarthyism of that sort is not a desirable outcome.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Je suis Val?”

  1. Can you please write a post about freedom of speech in Crimea? People with unpopular opinions there are not paid for being silenced. They are arrested.

    Like

  2. That’s a blessedly fair minded take on it.

    I’m a little more partisan about the whole situation. What strikes me is the way that someone like VL’s reaction to extreme, ultra-nationalist power in Ukraine can be deflected and presented as extremism itself.

    Take her twitter handle: a piss-take on Yatsenyuk’s description of easterners as “inadequate humans.”

    The tweet equating Ukrainian costume with – to European eyes – “obvious” “tribal” dress is just begging to be be either mis-understood / understood but is a good example of the kind of “gotcha” humour that Charlied Hedbo trafficked in. In what way does one image illuminate the other? It’s actually not at all obvious.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. ‘Fair minded’ is what I aim to be. In Russia-West relations right now there is a woeful lack of willingness to regard the other side’s point of view as worthy of even the slightest attention.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Paul, the key issue here, which was also highlighted in the Globe and Mail article, is that the only time TSO did something similarly idiotic was during American McCarthyism in 1951. To succumb to a similar idiocy, and with similarity of cold war terminology and Russophobia in the adherents of the pro-Kiev Ukrainian diaspora, is extremely telling. I find it awful that TSO has pushed our Canadian cultural values into the mud of international politics. Even if I were to agree with the pro-Kiev group – and I very much disagree – this move is reprehensible.
    We know from experience that throwing our elevated human interaction theatres into the same mud as international politics is a huge mistake. We should at all cost maintain the Olympics, the World Cup, and these musical spiritual events separate from whoever’s political leanings. If we make the mistake to mix them as this horrible TSO decision does, we reduce the essential human space left – that space in which we still speak an inter-human language in spite of ethnic hatred, and that space which will in the end help us find more common language in negotiations.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Excellent piece, Paul. Indeed, the contrast between the hysterical defense of the absolute right to offend we saw exhibited in the Charlie Hebdo attacks and the hysterical defense of the right to not be offended is so remarkable as to be disorienting. But then, this country’s raison d’etre has devolved to pleasing the United States, and it is the official policy of the United States that Kiev must triumph and Ukraine become a satellite of the EU even if its government is heavily infiltrated by Seig-Heiling goose-steppers. Nothing to see here, folks – smart foreign-policy decisions being made in our own interests, and we are not neighbours of Ukraine, return to your homes.

    I went back in Ms. Lisitsa’s Twitter feed – perhaps i did not go far enough, but I uncovered only one mention of “genocide of Ukrainians” and Ms. Lisitsa was deploring it, not calling for it. it seems that anything other that vociferous support of Kiev’s murderous steamroller is unacceptable and vulgar.

    What a long, strange trip it’s been since this country championed the right of a handful of vagrants wearing balaclavas to prance around without underwear in one of Moscow’s holiest places and screech about shit and bitches. I guess we looked into the abyss, and looked away. Remarkably coincidental that our newly-rediscovered morality coincides with the policy of our allies, though. Did then, too. What a remarkably coincidental coincidence. Excuse me Canada – I think you dropped something; is this your spine?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “But then, this country’s raison d’etre has devolved to pleasing the United States…”

      I don’t think this is the only reason. There is a distinct constituency of ethnic Ukrainians in Canada, and a part of it was formed by the post-WWII emigration of nationalists and Nazi collaborators.

      See here, for example: http://www.jta.org/1997/06/05/life-religion/features/canada-knowingly-admitted-ss-members-after-world-war-ii

      And don’t forget this: http://rt.com/news/207899-un-anti-nazism-resolution/

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Thank you for writing this excellent essay on this matter. I have shared it on my twitter and Facebook accounts and shared it with friends. I agree with you, Paul. Left unexamined these issues corrode so many values we hold (so very) dear as a democratic (one would hope) society. I go to TSO to listen to music not because TSO favours or does not favour certain political views. TSO contracted Ms. Lisitsa to play the piano. This is what I assume when any pianist performs at TSO. Perhaps not anymore since their decision was a statement. We teach (thought what we do and how we act) what we want to learn, no?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s