Address by Michael Kirby – Sunday 24th May, 7pm.
At Sydney’s Central Synagogue in Bondi, Australia’s recently retired High Court Judge Michael Kirby gave a rousing Sunday evening address on the notorious Dreyfus affair and its relevance to modern Australia. He explained as a background that the French had been defeated in the short but humiliating Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871. This led to the formation of the first truly united German state which our speaker called the ‘First Reich’ (although it seems that it was actually the second). Whatever, it now included two previously French provinces, Alsace and Lorraine … where 12 year old Alfred Dreyfus was intent on a career in the French military.
Kirby emphasised the effect of the loss of face and loss of territory on the French psyche. Most of all, perhaps, was the proclamation of the new German state in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palais de Versailles in Paris. This was indeed a total humiliation to the country which, under Napoleon Bonaparte, had once ruled much of Europe and beyond. Our speaker said that one reason put forward for the defeat was that France was infiltrated with spies intent on its destruction (for what it is worth, Wikpedia maintains that it was the more advanced railway network in Germany).
Our speaker gave a clear description of the original alleged crime of passing information to the Germans. The only piece of evidence was a hand-written note torn into pieces and found by a cleaner at the German embassy. As a government ‘plant’ she handed the pieces in to the French authorities. A clumsy attempt at handwriting comparisons (and some other fabricated evidence, apparently) led to the conviction of the promising army officer for spying. Although Dreyfus lived and worked in Paris, he travelled to his native Mulhouse (or Mulhausen in German) each year to visit his elderly father. And he was Jewish (which our speaker failed to mention until well into his talk - although most in this audience will have known that).
After the initial guilty verdict, Alfred Dreyfus suffered a degrading public discharge from the Ecole Militaire in Paris and was sent to the notorious Devil’s Island prison in French Guiana as punishment. His family, especially his brother Mathieu, supported him throughout along with a band of faithful friends. They eventually had the matter re-heard after another note with exactly the same handwriting was found in the embassy. Not only could Dreyfus not have written the note, being in custody, its origin was traced to another mid-ranking officer named Esterhazy. He was charged by the military court with being the REAL spy but ended up simply transferred to Tunisia. The actual intelligence related to details of a ‘new’ recoiling howitzer artillery piece.
Despite the initial key evidence being false and other supporting evidence fabricated or circumstantial, Dreyfus was still not formally exonerated. However, following the famous letter by Emile Zola “J’accuse” in the “L’Aurore” newspaper (not Le Figaro as maintained by an insistent questioner) and subsequent moves in the French parliament a full enquiry was called and the prisoner finally released. Only much later was he actually pardoned and fully a hundred years further a formal apology came from the French President’s office to the Dreyfus family. Parallels were drawn with Australia’s recent and delayed apology to the Aboriginal people when some of the wrongs were atoned for.
Apart from polarising French society in an ugly and unprecedented manner, the case had many consequences, one being the French law of 1906 separating church and state which remains to this day. We were reminded about the essential bias of trials conducted by the military. In British countries there has been a convention that if an alleged crime were committed by a service person within 10 miles of a public court house the accusation would be tried in the civil court rather than a court marshal.
Other parallels were drawn between this case and contemporary issues involving minority groups. Kirby brought up the Communist Party case numerous times to emphasise how important it was that people be allowed to hold any views they like, no matter how bizarre and foreign they may appear to others. Only if they infringe on the liberties of others or cause specific damage should action be taken … and that should be by the police, prosecutors and properly constituted courts offering trial by jury.
He reminded us that the Australian Parliament had outlawed membership of the Communist Party around 1950. However, the law also included people who were known to have communist ‘leanings or beliefs’ whether or not they were formal party members. After the law was rejected as unconstitutional in an appeal to the high court, a subsequent referendum also rejected such a law. We were told that in the USA almost exactly the same thing happened but in that country the court upheld the law, saying (more or less) that the legislature can ban anything it likes, leading to the destructive McCarthyist period about which almost nothing good has been written (like prohibition of alcohol).
The retired judge told us that he has always felt close to Jews as a close relative had married a Jewish lady who died after having two young daughters. The gentile father decided to give the two girls a Jewish upbringing according to their mother’s wish (and tradition).
To emphasise his own understanding of the Nazi period, our speaker referred several times to a book he guaranteed was ‘un-put-down-able’ called “To the Bitter End” by Viktor Klemperer (the brother of Otto the conductor). Viktor was professor of romance languages in Dresden and wrote copious diaries his whole life, some of which became best sellers after his death. He describes in only a few months going from Jews being normal passengers to standing at the back of the tram to being banned outright from transport and having to travel by foot. This creeping anti-Semitism soon led to the death camps.
Kirby spoke specifically about discrimination against Jews, homosexuals, Aboriginals and other minority groups. There were wide-ranging examples from around the world of people who were denied justice, at least initially. Cases from Hong Kong, Malaysia, California, England and Australia were mentioned, sometimes by name (since all such trials are on the public record). Kirby clearly is in touch with jurists on several continents.
A woman in Malaysia was denied the right to change religions in order to marry her betrothed. Another was denied a divorce on spurious grounds. Gays in California who had been given the right to marry under State law found their licences annulled by a federal plebiscite which took precedence. We were given a break-down of the voting patterns in this latter vote which overturned the legislation allowing gay marriage. Black voters had been strongly in support of striking down the marriage provisions while Jewish voters were 80% against changing the gay marriage legislation. Rather than the colour of those rejecting gay marriage, some social researchers found that the black voters were more likely to be church-goers and thus it was not their genes, colour or background but their priests and pastors who had the major influence over the vote - which gained nothing for anyone.
Possibly to allay any disquiet in this Orthodox venue, Kirby made the point that these were proposed civil marriages and there was no suggestion that churches, mosques or synagogues would be forced to be involved in anything contrary to their beliefs. For himself, despite having a male partner of 40 years, along with his partner they felt no particular interest in marriage while not wishing to prevent others from being involved if they so wished.
On this Sunday night forum the Q & A session was almost as interesting as the talk itself. In fact rather than using a moderator or chairperson, the retired judge said that he was looking for a new job after being retrenched from the High Court and was seriously interested in a career as a television compare/host. A question came about free speech and the lack of a of bill of rights in Australia. He addressed the American situation and referred to the US Consul General who was present at the gathering. As he said, British societies had generally relied on Parliament to act when there were issues of disadvantage or discrimination - and by and large he said that this usually worked. He emphasised that we may be free to speak but we also have to be responsible and incitement to hatred or defamation could be prosecuted when they occurred. He also appreciated the current debate over the issue of a Bill of Rights, saying that there were merits in some of the arguments for such a move.
One of the first questioners began by saying: “Mr Kirby: you will live with honour and you will die with honour” (perhaps a coincidence, but this is in fact parallels what Madama Butterfly says before committing suicide!). Thence began a long diatribe which became somewhat confusing, disgruntled and personal. The public kvetchnik produced a ream of printed material for the attention of the guest speaker. The latter dealt with the situation remarkably well by saying that he would be pleased to discuss these matters after the proceedings as they may be of limited interest to the general public. And when the man tried to ask another question later on, Kirby reminded him “but we have a date, remember!?”
Our speaker was lauded and applauded by the audience on numerous occasions during his talk. However, in answer to one of the last questions on modern forms of anti-Semitism, he stated that until there was a genuine peace in the Middle East there would be continued ammunition for those hostile to Jews (or words to that effect). This relatively benign and logical comment brought distinct scoffs and groans of indignation from many in the audience. Kirby continued by mentioning ‘the settlements issue’, without going into detail. This seemed to annoy some people who may have felt this was not the place to raise such sensitive if important issues. Like Maria Callas’s last concerts, there was more clapping at the start than at the finish and our speaker had clearly ‘lost’ some of his audience by his candour.
The retired judge acknowledged and thanked numerous other dignitaries including Hon Peter Garrett, Minister from the Environment, Hon Gladys Berejiklian, MP for Willoughby, Chief Prosecutor Tedeschi, embassy, business, charity, kehillah, education and health care workers and officials present.
The evening had been organised by the B’nai B’rith as part of its community outreach program, hosted by Rabbi Levi Wolff and Central Synagogue president Paul Keen representing the Board of Management. Our master of ceremonies Mr Len Mahemoff had commenced proceedings by acknowledging the traditional owners of the Eora nation. He also sang, in succession the Australian and Israeli national anthems which finished the evening on a musical and dual-patriotic note. I noted that just about everybody knew all the words to both anthems, quite a feat when a majority of the audience were probably born overseas (many in South Africa, Russia and America).
Comments by Andrew Byrne .. Day job: Redfern dependency physician.
Email - ajbyrne@ozemail.com.au
Clinic web page: http://www.redfernclinic.com/c/
At Sydney’s Central Synagogue in Bondi, Australia’s recently retired High Court Judge Michael Kirby gave a rousing Sunday evening address on the notorious Dreyfus affair and its relevance to modern Australia. He explained as a background that the French had been defeated in the short but humiliating Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871. This led to the formation of the first truly united German state which our speaker called the ‘First Reich’ (although it seems that it was actually the second). Whatever, it now included two previously French provinces, Alsace and Lorraine … where 12 year old Alfred Dreyfus was intent on a career in the French military.
Kirby emphasised the effect of the loss of face and loss of territory on the French psyche. Most of all, perhaps, was the proclamation of the new German state in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palais de Versailles in Paris. This was indeed a total humiliation to the country which, under Napoleon Bonaparte, had once ruled much of Europe and beyond. Our speaker said that one reason put forward for the defeat was that France was infiltrated with spies intent on its destruction (for what it is worth, Wikpedia maintains that it was the more advanced railway network in Germany).
Our speaker gave a clear description of the original alleged crime of passing information to the Germans. The only piece of evidence was a hand-written note torn into pieces and found by a cleaner at the German embassy. As a government ‘plant’ she handed the pieces in to the French authorities. A clumsy attempt at handwriting comparisons (and some other fabricated evidence, apparently) led to the conviction of the promising army officer for spying. Although Dreyfus lived and worked in Paris, he travelled to his native Mulhouse (or Mulhausen in German) each year to visit his elderly father. And he was Jewish (which our speaker failed to mention until well into his talk - although most in this audience will have known that).
After the initial guilty verdict, Alfred Dreyfus suffered a degrading public discharge from the Ecole Militaire in Paris and was sent to the notorious Devil’s Island prison in French Guiana as punishment. His family, especially his brother Mathieu, supported him throughout along with a band of faithful friends. They eventually had the matter re-heard after another note with exactly the same handwriting was found in the embassy. Not only could Dreyfus not have written the note, being in custody, its origin was traced to another mid-ranking officer named Esterhazy. He was charged by the military court with being the REAL spy but ended up simply transferred to Tunisia. The actual intelligence related to details of a ‘new’ recoiling howitzer artillery piece.
Despite the initial key evidence being false and other supporting evidence fabricated or circumstantial, Dreyfus was still not formally exonerated. However, following the famous letter by Emile Zola “J’accuse” in the “L’Aurore” newspaper (not Le Figaro as maintained by an insistent questioner) and subsequent moves in the French parliament a full enquiry was called and the prisoner finally released. Only much later was he actually pardoned and fully a hundred years further a formal apology came from the French President’s office to the Dreyfus family. Parallels were drawn with Australia’s recent and delayed apology to the Aboriginal people when some of the wrongs were atoned for.
Apart from polarising French society in an ugly and unprecedented manner, the case had many consequences, one being the French law of 1906 separating church and state which remains to this day. We were reminded about the essential bias of trials conducted by the military. In British countries there has been a convention that if an alleged crime were committed by a service person within 10 miles of a public court house the accusation would be tried in the civil court rather than a court marshal.
Other parallels were drawn between this case and contemporary issues involving minority groups. Kirby brought up the Communist Party case numerous times to emphasise how important it was that people be allowed to hold any views they like, no matter how bizarre and foreign they may appear to others. Only if they infringe on the liberties of others or cause specific damage should action be taken … and that should be by the police, prosecutors and properly constituted courts offering trial by jury.
He reminded us that the Australian Parliament had outlawed membership of the Communist Party around 1950. However, the law also included people who were known to have communist ‘leanings or beliefs’ whether or not they were formal party members. After the law was rejected as unconstitutional in an appeal to the high court, a subsequent referendum also rejected such a law. We were told that in the USA almost exactly the same thing happened but in that country the court upheld the law, saying (more or less) that the legislature can ban anything it likes, leading to the destructive McCarthyist period about which almost nothing good has been written (like prohibition of alcohol).
The retired judge told us that he has always felt close to Jews as a close relative had married a Jewish lady who died after having two young daughters. The gentile father decided to give the two girls a Jewish upbringing according to their mother’s wish (and tradition).
To emphasise his own understanding of the Nazi period, our speaker referred several times to a book he guaranteed was ‘un-put-down-able’ called “To the Bitter End” by Viktor Klemperer (the brother of Otto the conductor). Viktor was professor of romance languages in Dresden and wrote copious diaries his whole life, some of which became best sellers after his death. He describes in only a few months going from Jews being normal passengers to standing at the back of the tram to being banned outright from transport and having to travel by foot. This creeping anti-Semitism soon led to the death camps.
Kirby spoke specifically about discrimination against Jews, homosexuals, Aboriginals and other minority groups. There were wide-ranging examples from around the world of people who were denied justice, at least initially. Cases from Hong Kong, Malaysia, California, England and Australia were mentioned, sometimes by name (since all such trials are on the public record). Kirby clearly is in touch with jurists on several continents.
A woman in Malaysia was denied the right to change religions in order to marry her betrothed. Another was denied a divorce on spurious grounds. Gays in California who had been given the right to marry under State law found their licences annulled by a federal plebiscite which took precedence. We were given a break-down of the voting patterns in this latter vote which overturned the legislation allowing gay marriage. Black voters had been strongly in support of striking down the marriage provisions while Jewish voters were 80% against changing the gay marriage legislation. Rather than the colour of those rejecting gay marriage, some social researchers found that the black voters were more likely to be church-goers and thus it was not their genes, colour or background but their priests and pastors who had the major influence over the vote - which gained nothing for anyone.
Possibly to allay any disquiet in this Orthodox venue, Kirby made the point that these were proposed civil marriages and there was no suggestion that churches, mosques or synagogues would be forced to be involved in anything contrary to their beliefs. For himself, despite having a male partner of 40 years, along with his partner they felt no particular interest in marriage while not wishing to prevent others from being involved if they so wished.
On this Sunday night forum the Q & A session was almost as interesting as the talk itself. In fact rather than using a moderator or chairperson, the retired judge said that he was looking for a new job after being retrenched from the High Court and was seriously interested in a career as a television compare/host. A question came about free speech and the lack of a of bill of rights in Australia. He addressed the American situation and referred to the US Consul General who was present at the gathering. As he said, British societies had generally relied on Parliament to act when there were issues of disadvantage or discrimination - and by and large he said that this usually worked. He emphasised that we may be free to speak but we also have to be responsible and incitement to hatred or defamation could be prosecuted when they occurred. He also appreciated the current debate over the issue of a Bill of Rights, saying that there were merits in some of the arguments for such a move.
One of the first questioners began by saying: “Mr Kirby: you will live with honour and you will die with honour” (perhaps a coincidence, but this is in fact parallels what Madama Butterfly says before committing suicide!). Thence began a long diatribe which became somewhat confusing, disgruntled and personal. The public kvetchnik produced a ream of printed material for the attention of the guest speaker. The latter dealt with the situation remarkably well by saying that he would be pleased to discuss these matters after the proceedings as they may be of limited interest to the general public. And when the man tried to ask another question later on, Kirby reminded him “but we have a date, remember!?”
Our speaker was lauded and applauded by the audience on numerous occasions during his talk. However, in answer to one of the last questions on modern forms of anti-Semitism, he stated that until there was a genuine peace in the Middle East there would be continued ammunition for those hostile to Jews (or words to that effect). This relatively benign and logical comment brought distinct scoffs and groans of indignation from many in the audience. Kirby continued by mentioning ‘the settlements issue’, without going into detail. This seemed to annoy some people who may have felt this was not the place to raise such sensitive if important issues. Like Maria Callas’s last concerts, there was more clapping at the start than at the finish and our speaker had clearly ‘lost’ some of his audience by his candour.
The retired judge acknowledged and thanked numerous other dignitaries including Hon Peter Garrett, Minister from the Environment, Hon Gladys Berejiklian, MP for Willoughby, Chief Prosecutor Tedeschi, embassy, business, charity, kehillah, education and health care workers and officials present.
The evening had been organised by the B’nai B’rith as part of its community outreach program, hosted by Rabbi Levi Wolff and Central Synagogue president Paul Keen representing the Board of Management. Our master of ceremonies Mr Len Mahemoff had commenced proceedings by acknowledging the traditional owners of the Eora nation. He also sang, in succession the Australian and Israeli national anthems which finished the evening on a musical and dual-patriotic note. I noted that just about everybody knew all the words to both anthems, quite a feat when a majority of the audience were probably born overseas (many in South Africa, Russia and America).
Comments by Andrew Byrne .. Day job: Redfern dependency physician.
Email - ajbyrne@ozemail.com.au
Clinic web page: http://www.redfernclinic.com/c/
