Rex Bloomstein
“An Independent Mind”
Rex Bloomstein | “An Independent Mind” | 06.14.22
Visuals and video displayed throughout the presentation.
- Well, good evening everybody. My talk is about freedom of expression and I’m looking forward to your reactions to it. I’ve made a number of films, programmes, appeals on human rights. It’s one of the major themes of my work. And in doing so, it became increasingly clear to me the one right, fundamentally underpinned so many of the stories I explored, exposing violations of human rights. And that was the right to freedom of expression, the right to criticise, to challenge authority. To say unpopular or controversial things. To be free to report what’s happening in your country. And the fact that this right is often the first to be trampled on. Thereby signifying its profound importance in any society. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration, everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. That we have such a right enshrined in international law is vital in order to set standard for all societies to aspire to. What does it actually mean to the individual, artist, writer, singer, cartoonist who faces censorship, threats, imprisonment, and even torture.
An opportunity to explore this theme in a- featured in the next documentary came in 2008, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I gathered a production team together with the help of organisations like Amnesty International Human Rights Watch, index on censorship, and the writers organisation, PEN, created a list of well over 100 different cases from around the world. We made a short list of about 30 and began filming. When finished, we made a final selection of eight different characters living in eight different countries and called the film “An Independent Mind.” It was eventually screened at a number of festivals and shown on the More4 channel here in the UK. How then do you deal with a threat to you and your family for exposing abuses in your country? How do you survive being sent to a labour camp for telling a joke or being forced into exile for singing a song?
So tonight I’d particularly like to show three people featured in “An Independent Mind” that reflect these themes, plus a last segment from the other end of the spectrum, which explores someone convicted and imprisoned for his sympathies for Adolf Hitler. Which raises the question, why give such a person any sort of platform to espouse their views? The approach I took is direct, no commentary. Each segment is self-contained and is not intercut with the others individual voices that together illustrate the complexities of this one profound central theme, freedom of expression. So our first story features reggae singer, Tiken Jah Fakoly, who was forced to flee from his own country, the Ivory Coast into exile, into a neighbouring one, after his popular protest songs about corruption and neocolonialism in Africa prompted a series of death threats from the governing regime. Here is Tiken. Thank you Lauren.
[Clip begins]
- I think it’s very important to greet people when, you know- because I’m- I sing for them. So it’s- I think it’s very important for me to be with them. You know, reggae music is the music- is the voice for the poor people, for the majority who cannot talk. Yeah. So this is why it is important for reggae artists to be with people. Yeah.
♪ Yes I know your system ♪ ♪ Is a plot against my people ♪ ♪ But if Jah be for us ♪ ♪ Nobody can be against us ♪ ♪ If Jah is for my people ♪ ♪ I don’t know who can try ♪ ♪ Who can try to be my enemy ♪ ♪ My Africa wants to be free ♪
- [Crowd] Africa! Africa! Africa wants to be free! Africa! Africa! Africa wants to be free!
[Clip ends]
- Next segment- is about- Let me stop it there a second Lauren. Too early. The next segment is about a group of comedians from Burma, or as the country is also known, Myanmar. I’ve been told about the Moustache Brothers who carried on performing their comedy every night from their house in Mandalay, in defiance of the generals who ran Burma. The country was, and tragically still is, in the grip of yet another ruthless military dictatorship. Like many artists in Burma, two members of the Moustache Brothers comedy troop, a hard labour camp, because they performed for Burma’s, now jailed, leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, whose rise and fall is one of the stories of our time.
For decades, she was a heroin lorded around the world in her stand against the military. And then with the emergence of limited civilian rule as a virtue prime minister, she stood aside as the genocidal actions against the Muslim, Rohingya, took place. Thousands murdered and even more thousands forced to flee their homes. Her tacit support did not stop the current military dictatorship from again imprisoning her and thousands of others. So this sequence that I show is as relevant now as it was then. Enjoy these brave and marvellous characters who, when we filmed, were still able to perform for a small gathering of tourists who included us, which is how we were able to get into the country. So, here are the Moustache Brothers. Lauren.
[Clip plays]
Okay, my name is Lu Maw, Moustache Lu Maw.
Hello, my name is comedian Lu Zaw.
My name, Moustache number one, Par Par Lay.
One hour tourist perform, very easy. Easy money yeah. I rip you off very easy. One hour. No sweating off. I take you tourists to the cleaner. Very easy. Oh, you watch my performance? You are sitting duck. Shoot. You are easy mark. Okay, I’m joking. My name is Lu Maw, please.
My name is comedian Lu Zaw.
My name is Moustache number one, Par Par Lay.
Moustache brother now stay under there in house arrest.
[Speaker] Thanks!
20, go! Yeah. Your cars yellow line, say . 20, go, not here, police office, cop shop. You know cop shop? Pig heaven, you know pig heaven? Yeah Pig heaven. In the pig shop, pig heaven, okay? And I stop your motorcycle . You are very clever, come here, negotiate. And then 5,000 charge. Put it in my hat. Go! Behind you, two car coming . 10! Yeah, evening, my duty finished. Inside hat, full of the money. That’s why, this hat, we don’t call, the helmet. We call donation box. Yeah, donation box. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Independence Day, 1996. Independence Day, just two comedian. Par Par Lay, Lu Zaw, Yangon, performed in 1996. Independence Days performance. At that time, I stay here. I’m not the because, in our house, we need the watchmen. I watch my family.
[Speaker] So when there was this gathering, this demonstration.
[Lu Maw] Yeah?
[Speaker] What jokes did Par Par Lay make?
Many joke, I can’t remember.
[Speaker] Give me some example. Give me example.
[Speaker] Keep moving back?
Okay, you order me? No problem, I push. Okay, you order again? No problem, I push. Like a joke!
[Speaker] Yes.
Please, what are you talking?
I don’t know what I’m saying.
Midnight, arrest, here.
[Speaker] What happened to you during interrogation?
He said no problem. No sweat. Any torture…
[Speaker] No torture?
Torture!
[Speaker] Torture?
But, no sweat. Okay.
[Speaker] What did they do to you? What did they do to you? Uh, my brother told me… And there’s a small light, one face. They ask many question, yeah. Like this, beat, something like that, yeah. Like that, yeah.
So many, many. Many torture.
[Speaker] But uh how did you, how did you survive that? How did you get through that?
That’s a comedian heart, comedian.
Yeah .
[Lu Maw] What’s wrong? What’s that? What’s that? Don’t eat! Very dirty, you’ll vomit! Don’t eat! I give you banana! Monkey hungry . I give you banana. Lu Zaw, my brother, brother Lu Zaw! That’s a real monkey. That’s a real monkey.
Hard labour camp.
Like duck, duck! Always, day and night, the shackle iron ball on the leg.
They are singing song. The other prisoner are happy and clapping. Okay, you are- rest, and then we work for you, and then- where you stay. And then Par Par Lay and singing song.
. Entertainment!
Yeah, very good, very good, Par Par Lay! Par Par Lay!
[Speaker] Can Par Par Lay tell me what he can and what he can’t do now?
They order: no show, no entertainment, we arrest all your family, but we never listen. That’s our job, our ideas, our professional. We are- continues to perform here. Home entertainment not allow, but their order go in this ear, out the others. Like water off duck’s back . Maybe tomorrow, no show. Our life, the government arrest, anytime. That’s why every night we perform here, our life, not sure. My job, we know, we tell it every day, during the performance, daily life. We have to risk. That’s why my job.. So how do you say.. skate! Skating on thin ice. Yeah, are you with me? Yeah . Now my father like sitting outside. My father, comedian, sitting the outside . Every night, sitting outside. While sitting outside, my father… My father, sitting outside, he keeping eye out for KGB. Yeah, KGB. Very clever, Burmese KGB without uniform. Disguise very clever, small cassette, recording cassette under the clothes cover… Holding the hand phone, cellular phone, walkie talkie… Blah blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I don’t understand what they are talking… In code, C-O-D, code. Okay, my father see this guy. My father give me signal, message, like this. Hey sister, come on, KGB! Come on! Running, running, running, running! Every night, our family running, escape. They arrest tourist . Yeah. Your camera okay? You got it?
[Tourist] Yeah, I got it.
Your camera made in China? Three dollar. Okay? So my name’s Lu Maw, Moustache Lu Maw.
My name’s comedian Lu Zaw.
My name, Moustache number one, Par Par Lay.
We are blacklist!
Thank you!
Thank you.
[Clop ends]
- Sorry, unmute. Forgive me. I should’ve unmuted. Since we filmed, I understand that the oldest brother, Par Par Lay, since died. I have no idea whether they still function as a troop in such conditions of repression. I doubt that very much. Another country with another profound history of repression is Guatemala in Central America. A country plagued by a series of genocidal actions against the indigenous Indian population and ruled by corrupt and vicious regimes, often supported in the past by the CIA. I’d been to Guatemala before in the early 90s . A beautiful and tragic country where dissent and social action were met by death squads protecting its elites. I’d been told about a journalist called Marielos Monzón, who continued to report on so many of the human rights abuses that prevailed in Guatemala and had been honoured for her courage and commitment to telling the truth about her country. She welcomed my coming to Guatemala and agreed to participate as one of the contributors to “An Independent Mind.” So here is the journalist and radio presenter, Marielos Monzón, a woman who had to deal with death threats against her and her children. Thank you, Lauren.
[Clip plays]
Our big goal is to have our own radio station. It’s pretty difficult in a country like Guatemala. My problem here is that the radio stations and the TV channels, they are owned by five or six families. They own the land, they own the companies and they own the media. And so you can hear the same things in all the radio stations. And nobody’s talking about different issues as women, as indigenous people, as massacres, as… what happened with people who had been disappear. We have 50,000 people disappear. We have 200,000 people who were killed. And nobody’s talking about that.
I think that they really don’t want to kill me, they just want to get me pregnant, you know, because they have been in the house for- three times and they never do something very bad. They didn’t kill me, whatever.
[Speaker] What was the worst occasion?
They came into the house at four o'clock in the afternoon and it was Jan and Stephanie. They were little and it- it was very bad because when I came in, they were crying and whatever, telling me what- So, I think that was the worst time because they put the gun in one of the children’s head and it was very awful, terrible. So we have to leave the country. We went to Uruguay for almost six months and that was the worst, I think so.
[Speaker] They put a gun to your boy’s head?
Yeah, but he… now he- It is like if you have a lot of fear and everything, then you forgot. But he has to go to the psychologist in Uruguay because of that. Because he was very, very afraid. He has these nightmares and he was crying and he was thinking something is going to happen to me or to his sister. When I’m feeling very, very lonely. I came here. When these armed men came into my house and they frightened my two kids, they were very little. And then I was feeling guilty because I put my little children in danger. And I was feeling- it is my fault. So I came here and I was feeling very lonely and feeling guilty. And I stay here for, like, I don’t know, one- one hour and a half. And then I realised when I saw his grave that he put, in danger, our family also. And I was trying to think, why you do that? Why you did that, and why I am doing this, just the same as you?
[Speaker] Would your father approve of what you are doing now?
[Clip ends]
- It’s my understanding. Let’s hold it there, Lauren. Yeah. It’s my understanding that Marielos continues her work. Freedom of expression is the most right under international law, it’s subject to restrictions on certain grounds such as national security, morality, protection of an individual’s reputation or incitement to violence. But these limits and restrictions are rarely clear cut. How they defined how open to abuse are they, should freedom of expression include the freedom to say unpopular things or be satirical. Is freedom of expression a luxury in the modern world? How then do we react to someone like David Irving, whose segment I’m about to play? I’d imagine there’ll be those amongst you who will say, why on earth include David Irving of all people in the same film with Marielos or Moustache Brothers or Tiken Jah Fukoly?
Well, first thing I wanted to grips- get to grips with someone like Irving to subject him to questioning, to glimpse what drives such a man. To see if I could possibly understand the mentality of someone admired by right wing fanatics. Was this a pointless task? And we’re still giving a platform to someone seen as an enemy of the Jewish people, the man who lost to formidable Deborah Lipstadt in that famous trial for defamation, of which, of course, Irving lost. Should we have the same criminal sanctions against Holocaust denial, for instance, as the Austrians have, and who put Irving behind bars? But above all, what does it say about freedom of expression and its limits? So here’s the segment on David Irving. Thanks Lauren.
[Clip plays]
[Speaker] If you think about your career and the controversies that surround you and swirl around you and still do, where do you think this comes from?
There’s a certain amount of kicking, begins at school, I know this. I was the outsider at school. When the rest of the school wore school uniforms, I bought myself a charcoal grey suit at Burtons around the corner and wore a charcoal grey suit into school for the last year because I began earning money in the construction gangs. And I was beaten heavily at school.
[Speaker] You’d been fascinated by Hitler for so many years. What was it about him that fascinates you?
My twin brother, Nicky, bought a copy of “Hitler’s Table Talk.” I would’ve been, what, 12 years old. Magnificent source, the one of the best sources of information on Hitler’s private thinking. And I’ve read that I still allow myself one meal per night, so to speak, when I went to bed. I read the book the whole way through, and I hold to myself, what a clever man. A lot of what he says is true. His views on women, his views on Bolsheviks, his views on Christianity, his views on all the things that I, too, privately thought odd, he thinks the same. How odd?
[Speaker] What was the thesis of Hitler’s war?
I wanted to find out who this other Hitler was. Not the Hollywood version of Adolf Hitler and I put this to the publishers. I said, I want to get- I want to use a book- write a book about Adolf Hitler using only the original documents. There’s so much about him. Ignore the books about Hitler, let’s go to the documents. The documents were on his desk, the documents he read, the documents he wrote, the speeches he made, “Table Talk,” sources like that. So you begin selecting the documents to various strict criteria and ignoring all the rest. And you got this very different picture. The first thing that happened was- when the manuscript was originally complete, I showed it to my American literary agent, Max Becker. And he said, David, you’ve got a bit of a problem here. Where’s- about Hitler and the Holocaust?
There’s nothing about hit- And I said, Max, my big problem is that in all the documents I’ve collected, there’s 70 feet shelf length of documents, there’s not a single document linking Hitler with decisions on the Holocaust except negative decisions. This mustn’t happen. That’s not to be done. Spare that man. Negative- when I say he’s putting out his hand to protect the Jews, or individual Jews. Not being entirely stupid, I didn’t fly to Vienna. I flew to Switzerland instead. And I rented a car and I drove across the border into Vienna, already suspecting, who knows what may happen. ‘Cause 1989, when I last spoke in Vienna, 17 years earlier, I’d been told there was an arrest warrant out for me. But I’ve been to Austria six times since then.
[Speaker] Well, what did you say in 1989?
I would have to think back. It was a routine speech I delivered. Probably the same as the kind of things that you’ve been mentioning in our interview now. Doubts, scepticism, admissions, the whole- the whole speech I gave, said, let’s be quite frank, the Nazis liquidated millions of Jews, for example- and I gave examples from eyewitness accounts on the eastern front by German generals who were present and saw it happening. Most horrific accounts, which I’ve printed and which I revealed in this particular speech. So it was a very balanced presentation. I then went on to say, however, on the other hand, we had to have scepticism about what happened in Auschwitz, what happened in the other so-called gassing centres because there’s forensic evidence, eyewitness problems and this kind of thing. And it was these latter passages alone, which were then held against me.
[Speaker] But you knew there was a law against Holocaust denial in Austria. You knew the-
I was not arrested for Holocaust denial. I was arrested for what they call vitiating on reactivation. I was arrested- The men who actually held the guns to my head had been told I was a car thief. Okay, so they’re off the hook. I was arrested for, under a Stalinist law of 1945, for attempting to reactivate the Nazi party 'cause I had said good things about Adolf Hitler in my speech. Go figure.
[Speaker] So you were put on trial in Austria?
I was held incommunicado for two or three weeks. Nobody knew where I was. Bente was absolutely frantic. She telephoned the mortuary, she telephoned the hospital, she telephoned the embassies. Nobody knew where I was. Eventually, the British consult sent somebody around to see me in the prison in where I was being held on just bread and water, 15 slices of bread put through a slot in the door for a week. And, oh- And the governor of the prison came in with four copies of my books from the prison library and would I sign them please? Which I did.
[Speaker] You admitted in the trial that you had denied that Nazi Germany killed millions of Jews. You said that this is what you believed until you saw the personal files of Adolph Eichmann, chief organiser of the Holocaust. Is that what you told the-
I think , right? I think, obviously when everything is encapsulated, it looks a lot more dramatic and brisk than it actually was. I just said, well these are things that I’m accused of having said in 1989. But of course I wouldn’t say it now because, since then, 1991, I got out of Eichmann’s papers. When I went to Buenos Aires, 1992, I found the papers, the memoirs of the Deputy Commandant of Auschwitz and so on. And since then we’ve had the decodes, the basis of history is constantly changing.
[Speaker] Did you say the Nazis didn’t murder millions of Jews? Did you say that?
Almost certainly. Definitely yes. I said there’s no question.
[Speaker] In the past, you claimed that Adolf Hitler knew little, if anything, about the Holocaust and the gas chambers were a hoax. And the judge, um, you did say that?
I certainly wouldn’t have used the word hoax.
[Speaker] Oh.
I don’t what word I would’ve used and I don’t what occasion he’s referring to. There was reference- Adolf Hitler’s, correct, of course. Adolf Hitler, I still maintain, knew virtually nothing of what was happening to the western European Jews. And this will be a central argument to my biography of Heinrich Himmler, which I’ve been working on the last eight years.
[Speaker] So what danger did you present to the Austrian state, do you believe?
Yeah, I think it was the other way around. The Austrian state had cause to repent and be contrite. Austria had for many, many years, refused to pay any compensation to slave labourers and other Holocaust victims. They had said this was Germany’s doing, and we too are a victim country. It was rather a specious argument when you consider that Ernst Kaltenbrunner, that Adolf Eichmann- virtually every concentration camp commander and liquidation centre commanders, not to mention Adolf Hitler himself. They were all Austrian. So Austria has most to apologise for and things were coming to a head in that particular period because Austria had the presidency of the European Union and in the month that my trial took place. And so Austria was determined to be the good boy, and they could show this, by no better way, than by punishing Mr. Irving yet again.
So I was back in school being beaten all over again and they did it in a big way. Then, virtually, nothing we said had any effect on the trial. The whole thing was an ugly . It was game, set and match, planned in advance by the judge and the prosecutor. I was sentenced to three years in prison. You were locked in for 24 hours a day for 14 months as it turned out. Occasionally they let you out to exercise in a yard the size of this room. 70 men shuffling around anti-clockwise from 35 different nations, all anti-clockwise, except for the two or three schizophrenics who would always go the other way around to prove that they were slightly bent and sometimes it was minus 16 degrees.
It was very unpleasant. And they always spoke in this- top of their voices, with Serbian, Croat, Russian, whatever language it was- lot of blacks. The blacks came and treated me as an equal and as a friend because they all spoke English or French or Spanish with me. And so I translated for them. They were in a very bad way, all the blacks, because they were treated as vermin by the Austrian guards. It was psychological. You were locked in with a door that was six inches thick, fastened with a wheel on the outside, like a bank safe. And the way I took charge of that was when they came around in the morning with the breakfast truck, at six in the morning, with a cup of pink tea, some kind of fruit tea and black bread. If they left the door open a few seconds too long, I’d say, excuse me, would you oblige, would you mind shutting the door, please?
So you took charge. It was your door, not their door. And they were being- as a right, you look on it as being right as paradise. You have a little table, you have three meals a day, you have complete solitude, you’re in one of the safest places in Europe. Nobody can get at you. And as long as you can overcome the enshrinement, the one that says kill yourself, which happens in the first week or two. We had several suicides in our block, always hushed up. Two in the last week I was there, one in- three doors down, cell blocks down- the cells down. Then you were okay.
[Speaker] There will be people who will say, to me, that I shouldn’t interview you and shouldn’t include you in this.
You may have to change your name to something else.
[Speaker] But what’s to stop me including you in this film? What would be wrong about that, do you think? I mean, what’s the risk I’m taking?
Oh. The grounds for excluding me from the film would be if you found somebody who’s even better. Difficult, but you may find somebody who’s more useful for your cause. But I become not a poster boy for the free speech movement, but certainly the newspapers around the world, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, the Times in this country and elsewhere regard my imprisonment in Austria as being a milestone in the war against free speech.
[Speaker] The fear is that people like you will become a magnet for those who wish to go along a similar path of nationalism. And racism. The worst horrors of the Hitler right regime.
Yeah, in part, you’re right, people say to me, David Irving, you may be, at present, banned from Germany, but have no fear. Eventually the right wing will come to power in Germany and then you’ll be welcomed with open arms. I wouldn’t want to visit such a Germany. I would want to visit a free Germany where everybody can say what they want, the left and the right, and the Jews and the non-Jews and all the rest. And that every opinion can be freely held up and exposed either to acclaim or to ridicule. As soon as you start saying, well this opinion is accepted and acceptable and that opinion is not acceptable, then you are degrading society and society is losing in the long run.
[Clip ends]
- Thank you, Lauren. I made “Independent Mind” because I wanted to encourage reflection on the questions we have about freedom of expression by seeing people who are actually dealing with the consequences of living their lives as artists and writers like Tiken, the Moustache Brothers, Marielos and the other people in the film, allowing us to glimpse the pressures they have suffered in exploring, confronting, and commenting on their societies. Then the questions that arise from exploring the other side of the freedom coin, hate speech, the cruelties of the internet, the David Irvings and that red line incitement to violence. I produced this to 2008 filmers. Social media was growing in importance, now so dominant, of course, in its effect on the debate.
Nevertheless, I hope you might agree that the excerpts I’ve shown are relevant to contemporary discussion about the importance of freedom of expression. Its complexities and challenges and its repression as we can see all too clearly today in Russia, where the control of the media is crucial in Putin’s dictatorship and where journalists are killed in different parts of the world. Freedom of expression has been called a dirty right. It’s complex and often contested. The right to free expression protects everyone. From the man on the public soapbox to the anonymous blogger. From the woman who prefers hijab to the cross-dresser. From the persecuted defender of human rights to the repellent, genocide denier. But as said, the right to free expression can be qualified in the light of public safety, national security, public order, morality, and the rights of others.
Let me quote some opposing arguments. “On one hand, it’s been written that counterterrorism has given new vigour to some old forms of censorship and created new ones. Crimes of glorification of terrorism, once rare are proliferating and hate speech is increasingly becoming the rationale for imposing criminal or administrative sanctions against those thought to be extremists despite or because of the continuing cyber revolution. Countries are also moving quickly to fence and filter the internet and new technologies of fueling an explosion of state surveillance, often justified in the name of counterterrorism.” An opposing argument goes like this: “Hatred is the gateway to discrimination. Harassment and violence is the psychological foundation for serious harmful criminal acts. Without the precondition of hatred, there would be no hate motivated, violent attacks on black, Jewish, gay communities. In other words, if we can stop hatred and hate mongers, we’ll stop the prejudice that often spills over into hateful damaging acts such as racist and queer bashing, which have even led to murders. On these grounds, laws against inciting hatred are ethically justified and have practical benefits.”
End of quotes. The downside of incitement to hatred prohibitionist is they risk infringing freedom of speech. Who decides what constitutes hatred? It’s a grey disputable area. Defining hatred is difficult to determine in a way that’ll satisfy everyone. Different people have different interpretations of hatred. Is causing offence or even distress an incitement to hatred? What about ridiculing and mocking someone’s beliefs? Is that hateful? Where do you draw the line between legitimate, robust criticism and satire and illegitimate criminal incitement of hatred? It isn’t simple and it isn’t straightforward, but it’s damned important with the emergence of new threats that challenge the balance between the security of the state and the freedom of the individual. Freedom of expression is increasingly coming under attack.
Thank you. Now if any of you-
[Lauren] We have time for a couple of questions.
[Rex] Thank you Lauren.
Q&A and Comments
Q: [Lauren] The first question is… how do people in oppressive countries have the bravery to see the truth and want to change?
A: They find it in themselves, don’t they? People are motivated by many different things and injustice. You know, distress, abuse is something, I’m afraid, in most parts of the world, most countries of the world. There are those who will say, I can’t tolerate this anymore and become human rights activists and often a great peril to themselves. So frankly, thank god for all such people because they are vital in bringing attention to what’s happening in so many different parts of the world. We can see it every day. Other question?
[Lauren] Here’s one, the bravery is so well described, especially with the visuals and if one understands the languages. The issue remains, does this make a difference or not?
Well, what do we mean by, does one make a difference? You mean, does such film do- does a film like this make any difference?
[Lauren] I think she means does the actions of these individuals who are standing up…
Yes. Yes, it does.
[Lauren] Or democracy?
Yes, it does. That’s a very interesting question. I think it’s vital that we hear about people who are standing up。 They become a benchmark for any society. And they say, look, no more. And in the media age, in which we live, hopefully they’ll be reported. What they’re saying will be reported. It’s vital that we don’t stand aside. We all know what bystanders do， that reality in the Holocaust, you know, that triangle of victims, perpetrators and bystanders. People who do nothing. So as we said before, those people who have the courage to stand out, to report, to bring attention, to say no to repression are vital in changing things. And there will always be people like this, I believe. And I think, I think it’s crucial that they’re there. And of course, alongside this, I hope we have increasing education about human rights, our basic rights that should be taught in every school, in every country of the world, what we as human beings are entitled to. And scrutiny and accountability are crucial things in the health of any country. And so people who are prepared to risk everything for that, I think are so important.
Q: [Lauren] Thank you. Another question, I compliment you on your films, but these are courageous individuals standing for justice and human rights abuse by state-sponsored repression. What is the way forward in your opinion?
A: Yeah, I think pressure human rights, a media- a free media fighting the… the attacks on freedom expression, as I tried to explain earlier on, in every way possible. Because you know, if we don’t do that, we’re in trouble. We really are in trouble. If we don’t know what’s going on in our society, if we don’t know. And therefore it’s, you know, it’s crucial that journalists, filmmakers, others, you know, people from every walk of life, you know, have a stake in society and want to express it. And I think these basic responses to injustice are crucial. So the way forward is, us, we, the people, taking on our society, exploring it, questioning it, challenging it. And of course, in many countries the world, it’s a damn dangerous thing. Look at Tiken at having to flee. Look at the Moustache Brothers, you know. And another extraordinary brutal regime in Burma. Look at Marielos. I mean, these are crucial people. That’s what I was trying to get over. That their example, I think, is an example for us all.
Q: [Lauren] Thank you And I believe we have time for just one more question. Will the USA cease to exist as a democracy, as a result of a president’s right to assert that the election was stolen?
A: Oh god, watching, I mean, for those who may be watching in the states, for us here in the UK or around the world, the hearings that the Congressional committee are carrying out are just remarkable. What is even more remarkable is the extent of loyalty towards Trump. A man of fascist tendencies. A man who tried to steal the election. A man who’s a threat, not only to his own country, but to society, to the world. He must be exposed entirely for what he is. And America’s under threat, undoubtedly under threat. It’s so divided. And for Trump to get the nomination again, will be a disaster for all of us. So all part of that committee in doing what they’re doing and exposing what happened, the conspiracy, seeing it acted out. I mean, there’s democracy in action. There’s a free media doing its business. Though you have, of course, Fox News on the other side of the coin, as we always do. So very important what’s happening in the States. And by god, it’s something that should concern all of us.
[Lauren] Thank you so much, Rex.
[Rex] Thank you.
[Lauren] And if- great, we will see you sometime soon, I believe.
Yes, thank you to everybody watching.
[Lauren] Thank you. Good night.
[Rex] Good Night.