Western Sahara and Faitim’s Story
June 30, 2009
Farah
Since my last post I’ve been on what I like to call exam sabbatical – I generally drop off the face of the earth and attempt to prove that I haven’t wasted away the past 13 weeks of my life. Whether or not I’ve succeeded is a different story, but my point is I don’t really register the goings on of the outside world. Well, except for the Iranian elections (you’d have to be stupid to miss that) and this story. “Stolen” is a documentary directed by two Australian filmmakers; Dan Fallshaw and Violeta Ayala about Western Sahara, in North Africa. Western Sahara has a long history of colonial rule by European powers. Control of the territory is being fought between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Liberation Front (PLF). Since 1991 most of the territory is controlled by Morocco, with the remainder controlled by the PLF (backed by neighbour Algeria.) Nearly 100% of the region is Muslim, practiced with significant influence from their tribal background.
Ayala and Fallshaw initially set out to document the reunion of Faitim Salam/Fetim Sellami (the articles I’ve found seem happy with either spelling of her name) with her mother Embarka after thirty five years of living in either side of the Wall of Shame/Moroccan Wall/ Berm of Western Sahara the Moroccans constructed to separate their own territory from the areas controlled by the PLF.
Faitim Salam, from SMH
Faitim lives in the Tindouf refugee camps controlled by the PLF and Embarka lives in Moroccan controlled Western Sahara. But what the filmmakers allegedly ‘discover’ is far worse; the enslavement of the refugee camps minority black Sahrawi population by the Arab-Berber descended Sahrawis. The problem is the filmmakers may have been a bit flexible with the truth – the whole slavery story might be all made up.
Fallshaw and Ayala were interviewed by ABC shortly after the allegations were made against their film. Both have strongly denied they misrepresented the facts or paid anyone off to lie (but I guess after spending nearly $250,000 of government money on filming the ‘truth’ it wouldn’t look good to own up to lying). In that ABC interview and subsequent press releases they point to a Human Rights Watch report published in December 2008 that supports their claim. Now I’ve read the report and it doesn’t suggest anything near the slave numbers Ayala and Fallshaw allege (both state the number of slaves is around something like 20,000) Aid workers at Tindouf interviewed by the ABC and Sydney Morning Herald are also similarly surprised that out of the 6,000 volunteers, aid workers and UN officials who have been frequenting the Tindouf refugee camps for years, only Ayala and Fallshaw found slaves. You can watch the ABC Radio interview here and read the HRW report here.
Whether or not slavery is actually being practiced is not the point of this post. While I haven’t watched the documentary yet (it hasn’t been screened in Melbourne) all I have to say is that it all sounds really dodgy (and no, I can’t think of a better word). What’s been interesting about the whole fiasco for me is the controversy surrounding Faitim herself. In early June Stolen was shown at the Sydney International Film Festival. Faitim and her husband Baba Hocine travelled to Sydney and made public statements after the screening of the film at a Q-and-A session. Through a translator they told the audience that the filmmakers had misconstrued Faitim’s words and paid several of the film’s subjects to lie about slavery. But instead of supporting Faitim and encouraging her to tell her own story, the audience shouted at both her and her husband that they were being manipulated by the PLF, and cheered on the filmmakers. Similarly in the ABC Radio interview, Fallshaw states that his ‘gut’ reaction to hearing Faitim’s statement is that she is being forced by the PLF to retract what she said in the film. Is it just me or is Fallshaw (and the audience) missing the point? All of this controversy is surrounding a woman who isn’t even discussed – she is reduced to a single sentence repeating “I am not a slave”. (One of the best articles I’ve read is written by Yvette Andrews at newmatilda, and the interviews above at ABC and SMH.) Since when did we start claiming authority to speak for someone else?
Before the release of the film Faitim sent a video-taped request to Fallshaw and Ayala, requesting to be taken out of Stolen because they misconstrued her words. Instead of respecting her wishes, the filmmakers include her videotaped statement in the film. If Faitim, the primary subject of the film is asking you to take her out, maybe you should listen to her instead of objectifying her, her story and her people. Or do they think they can disregard Faitim’s wishes because she’s a powerless, stateless Muslim women living in a refugee camp with no money? Not only are the filmmakers dodgy but they are now sounding completely unethical as well.
Last week Sahar and Fatemeh at MMW blogged about the manipulation of the image of Neda Agha-Soltani – a woman who in her passing has given the world a video that has been replayed countless times, and an image which sees her dehumanised and mythologised for our own purposes.
Neda Agha-Soltani, from weareallneda.com
Her image is no longer that of a woman in death but rather a sign of Iran’s oppressive regime. Neda’s agency is denied, and in her passing we cannot afford her privacy but continually reproduce an image of her death which to me resembles a Warhol pop art print. Neva Mwiti writes a really strong analysis of Stolen and the controversy surrounding it. She asks whether or not “film producers, brand gurus and marketers from the West will realise and respect that the third world is not fodder for their notoriety, but actually made up real people, with real feelings and real rights over their own destinies and identities.” I think her comments can be applied to the majority (if not all) representations of women like Faitim and Neda. When will these women be given the respect they deserve
F
Sahar
Farah
June 30, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Thank you very much for your post. Yes, the filmmakers are dodgy and unethical in their behaviour. They’ve also misued public money.
See: http://newmatilda.com/2009/06/26/slave-story
June 30, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Dear Farah,
I am honored to have had a private screening of the powerfully haunting film that Dan & Violeta created, especially considering all the post screening publicity and how many people are discussing the film online without ever having actually seen it.
I realize that personal attacks can be vicious and weigh upon the soul at times. My unsolicited advice for what it’s worth, is take solace in a job well done, and continue to stay true to who you are. As cliché as it may sound, the truth shall always prevail, and the truth shall set you free.
The film itself is a work of art, and provides the medium for an interesting & provocative story. By following the unintentional storyline as it unfolded in real life, they acted in the honored tradition of true investigative reporters and authentic documentarians. In doing so have apparently struck quite a raw nerve.
July 1, 2009 at 2:28 am
[...] Silence and invisibility for the sake of Neda: Her image is no longer that of a woman in death but rather a sign of Iran’s oppressive regime. Neda’s agency is denied, and in her passing we cannot afford her privacy but continually reproduce an image of her death which to me resembles a Warhol pop art print. Neva Mwiti writes a really strong analysis of Stolen and the controversy surrounding it. She asks whether or not “film producers, brand gurus and marketers from the West will realise and respect that the third world is not fodder for their notoriety, but actually made up real people, with real feelings and real rights over their own destinies and identities.” I think her comments can be applied to the majority (if not all) representations of women like Faitim and Neda. When will these women be given the respect they deserve? [...]
July 3, 2009 at 8:03 am
[...] Nuseiba reviews Stolen. [...]
July 7, 2009 at 9:05 am
It is interesting to find out that two western filmakers who have initially gone to Tindouf camps to make a documentary of a family reunion between Fetim Sellami and her mother who did not see her for over three decades as a result of the dispute over Western sahara.
It turned up that the Australinian producers found out of the blue that the slavery phenomenon still exist in the Tindouf camps, and therefore they oted to tackle this phenomenon , particularly when they found out that other sahraouis of black skin were ready to talk about it and even eager to make the world know about it .
The story is not fabricated as the Polisario representaive in Sidney tried hard to explain to the Australian media . In fact the two filmakers have not changed their mind about their story , they have proofs and the UN officials in Geneva have confirmed that slavery exists in Tindouf camps as well as some part of mauritania.
The point here to think about is how come the Polisario leadership keeps a blind eye on a matter of dignity, and human right principle .
another point that should said is that slavery does not exist in the Sahara region , but only in Tindouf, the content of interview in the National Australian Radio ABC is very clear ,concise and therefore there is no doubt that slavery is part of the daily life in Tindouf camps , I wonder if some European NGO’s and huma rights activists will take this sad event in their final analysis
July 7, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Hi Taoufiq,
I believe in the integrity of the film and filmmakers because I know slavery exists in many North African countries. The Sahara is where slavery was born and sadly slavery still exists there.
I traveled extensively through Mauritania, Mali and Sudan and slavery was well and truly alive there. I experienced racism first hand while traveling the region, bears mentioning that I am a black man who was born in Paris.
July 7, 2009 at 12:59 pm
That there are still slaves in the Sahara is not even a secret. The Sudanese government has been using slave labor in its campaign against the pagan south. In Niger and Mali and Mauritania, the Moors and the northern Tuareg have never given up their ways, and while they seldom use the word slave openly, the practice remains. Mauritania officially declared slavery illegal in 1980, but at the time there were an estimated one hundred thousand “haratin slaves” in the country and best estimates are that the numbers have barely changed. There are, reportedly, still slave markets in the Adrar area, northeast of Nouakchott in Mauritania.
Indeed, in parts of the desert slavery is still the natural order of things. Those few slaves who escape, either by running away or by dint of a soft master and a hard education, find only incredulity when they tell their stories.
http://www.ralphmag.org/BU/slavery.html
July 8, 2009 at 3:55 am
@ Lawrence, Taoufiq, Viva la liberté! and Jonh S
My post wasn’t about whether or not the claims of slavery in the film are true, and I do plan on watching the film when it airs in Melbourne later this month. It was about the way in which Ayala and Fallshaw have used and objectified the people in the film, to serve their own ends. Regardless of them following the true spirit of investigative journalism and taking the story where it leads them, Faitim asked to be taken out of the movie! Doesn’t that ring alarm bells for anyone?
I appreciate the later comments defending the film and its subject matter, but in my post the only point that I wanted to make about the slavery is that based on the evidence relied upon by Fallshaw and Ayala and other information I found, the claims are kinda shaky.
I haven’t travelled to Africa and admittedly some of the information I’m relying on is secondary information. And if slavery does still exist (in whatever form), it must be eradicated. But like I said, the evidence doesn’t suggest that slavery exists, at least not to the extent that Fallshaw and Ayala says it does.
July 8, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Dear Farah,
‘It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.’ Voltaire
I haven’t watch the film so I can’t comment on it but what I find dangerous is the take of the Polisario.
July 11, 2009 at 5:08 am
Farah, it is preferable not to believe all that you see in the media. It can be misleading.
I’m glad that you have received some posts from people attesting to the existence of slavery in the camps at Tindouf.
Fetim’s rebuttal was at the behest of the Polisario who brought her to Australia for this express purpose: to deny the existence of slavery there. This is for their own political purposes although misguided.
The film would not be being screened at film festivals if there was any proof that it had been made in a fraudulent or unethical way; on the contrary the film makers have to prove the veracity and integrity of their film and clearly they can do this.
As I see it the fraud and corruption is all on the side of the Polisario and their supporters. You need to look into the issue for slavery for yourself, then you will see; rather than simply believing false reports fed to the the media by the Polisario and their supporters.
July 12, 2009 at 10:50 pm
11 July 2009
Statement by the makers of Stolen.
Re: Translations
We stand by the references to slavery raised by people interviewed in our film.
A small amount of translated conversation is being criticised, yet another example of the Polisario’s attempt to undermine the film.
More than seventy per cent of the discussions about slavery are in Spanish, with the remainder being in Hassaniya. So there are millions of Spanish speakers who will be able to hear for themselves key conversations about slavery used in the film.
The issue of slavery was raised to us in Spanish over many conversations, that’s how we became aware of it in the first place.
Hassaniya is a dialect of Arabic. It has no written form and as such only an interpretation can be made which is a subjective skill. That is why we have now sought advice from a recognised NAATI translator.
Oumar Sy in New York only verified the film’s translations, he did not translate the film. If he had concerns, there were many opportunities to clarify these for us at the time. We asked him if he was sure all the translations were correct, he signed a letter to say this.
He had a further opportunity to raise this with us when we sent him the final version of the film with subtitles. He did no such thing.
We do not understand his most recent actions. He had more than 4 months to contact us with any concerns. The first we heard of his concerns he copied the email to the New York and Australian representatives for the Polisario. Why?
This is disappointing, however, it should not be allowed to overshadow the important issues the film raises.
Dan Fallshaw and Violeta Ayala
Directors
Tom Zubrycki
Producer
July 14, 2009 at 7:02 am
“Farah, it is preferable not to believe all that you see in the media. It can be misleading.”
Do you include the documentary in your definition of the “media”? Or are you assuming that just because they’re documentary filmmakers they’ve followed some vague duty to represent the truth? I don’t presume to think that Ayala and Fallshaw have intentionally mislead the public or made up the claims, but if the “media” must be taken with a grain of salt, so too must the documentary.
“You need to look into the issue for slavery for yourself, then you will see; rather than simply believing false reports fed to the the media by the Polisario and their supporters.”
I *have* looked into the issue myself and my position is (as I’ve stated above and I guess I’ll have to say it again): I don’t know whether slavery exists in the Tindouf camps. And I probably won’t change that position even when I watch the documentary. Maybe slavery does still exist BUT (like I said) the evidence I’ve found – including the Human Rights Watch report relied upon by Ayala and Fallshaw and mentioned in their ABC radio interview – I believe doesn’t suggest the extent of slavery that Ayala and Fallshaw claim. The only way I will change that position is by traveling to the camps and seeing the slavery for myself.
For the readers who don’t know what the media release quoted above refers to, its this story. This isn’t the first time the translations have been questioned – the same sequences in the film questioned by Oumar Sy are identified as mistranslations in the segment on the documentary done by the ABC’S 7.30 report. Its another issue in the way of Ayala’s and Fallshaw’s claim that they faithfully depicted the issue of slavery and the people in the documentary. While I am glad to know that the translations will be re-checked before being screened in Melbourne, what’s interesting to note about the media release is this statement:
“A small amount of translated conversation is being criticised, yet another example of the Polisario’s attempt to undermine the film.”
It’s kinda funny (in very a sad way) – blaming the PLF for all the attacks on the film seems to be the default position of Zubrycki, Fallshaw and Ayala. A similar thing happened after one of their cinematographers, Carlos Gonzales, came out and said he disputed what was being portrayed in the film. A press release was later issued by Ayala and Fallshaw saying that Gonzales had a conflict of interest because he had worked on a pro-PLF documentary in the past and his words weren’t to be trusted. They knew that was the work he’d done in the past. And if they thought he had a conflict of interest, why hire him? Sounds to me like someone bought sour milk then cried because it was sour.
July 14, 2009 at 7:48 am
Farah, thanks for responding.
Re your comment: “the evidence I’ve found – including the Human Rights Watch report relied upon by Ayala and Fallshaw and mentioned in their ABC radio interview – I believe doesn’t suggest the extent of slavery that Ayala and Fallshaw claim.”
I can understand why you feel this way and I felt similarly initially. Slavery as practised in North Africa probably wouldn’t fit many people’s expectations of what slavery is either so there is the issue of how you define it.
However, in the context of the film and the digging around I’ve been doing for the last few weeks, I’m convinced that the film makers have uncovered issues in relation to slavery that had not been documented in Tindouf as yet; although they have been in Mauritania by Kevin Bales and so it makes sense as the cultural practices are the same or similar.
This discovery explains why the film makers feel so strongly about the issue and have wanted to go ahead with the film against intense opposition. They got to know and talked with these people. They know how it has affected them and they know how the black slave class feel about it. They know that these people wanted their story told. Fetim is a slightly different case because she was raised by a white woman (which is part of the practice of subjugation) and feels allegiance to her.
I’ve come across some reports that while the Polisario have made some attempts to address slavery, they have not fully addressed it and it is hard for them to do this because it suits the white Arab ruling class to continue to keep black slaves i.e the practice is entrenched.
Add to that that traditionally in these white Arab communities it is forbidden to mention the subject of slavery. Kamal seems to be one of this class.
It may seem ironic my blaming the Polisario as I do, given their official story of struggle; yet the more I’ve looked into the issues and the more I’ve seen of their behaviour in Australia, the more I’ve accepted that their position on the issue of slavery is oppressive and that the media campaign is designed to suppress the evidence of slavery coming out.
What puzzles me is why the Polisario would feel that the evidence coming out would harm their independence cause, given that it is a widespread cultural practice. It may be because Morocco tried to use the issue of slavery to damn them on local TV. Still, the UN and others, including the film makers, have openly acknowledged that Polisario have been working to address slavery and that they support them in this.
July 14, 2009 at 8:52 am
“I can understand why you feel this way and I felt similarly initially. Slavery as practised in North Africa probably wouldn’t fit many people’s expectations of what slavery is either so there is the issue of how you define it.”
Its not that it doesn’t fit my ‘expectations’ of what slavery is – it doesn’t fit in what Ayala and Fallshaw have represented slavery in the camps as. In the 7.30 report interview, Ayala is question about what slavery constitutes within the camps. The below conversation is extracted from here:
MATT PEACOCK (reporter): Violeta Ayala believes slavery in the camps is institutionalised. [To Ayala] And you say here slaves perform all the domestic work.
VIOLETA AYALA: Yes, they do.
MATT PEACOCK: They’re kept as concubines, raped by the members, they’re not allowed to marry without their master’s consent and you estimate there’s something like 20,000 in the Polisario camps?
VIOLETA AYALA: Yes, that’s what they say.
But the HRW report replied upon by Fallshaw and Ayala doesn’t mention anything about rape, concubines nor ‘institutionalised’ slavery. As extracted from the HRW report,
“Black-skinned Sahrawis constitute a small minority of the population in the camps. Some members of that minority are “owned” by “white” persons or families. An “owner” previously enjoyed broad rights, de facto, over the “slave,” but today, those “rights” are limited largely to one realm: the “owner’s” ability to grant or withhold consent for a “slave” woman’s marriage, a consent without which a religious judge (qadi) will decline to perform the marriage. As one Sahrawi put it, “I don’t really know if I’m a slave or free until my daughter tries to get married.” A male “slave,” on the other hand, faces no such constraint when he wishes to marry…Our several black informants characterized the persistence of slavery as it relates to the marriage of women as a vestige of past practices that survived in spite of the Polisario’s opposition to slavery, and that is related to practices that persist in Mauritania, a neighboring country with cultural and ethnic links to the Sahrawis.”
Yes, mention of consent required to marry female black Sahrawis, but no mention of rape, concubines or forced domestic labour.
“Add to that that traditionally in these white Arab communities it is forbidden to mention the subject of slavery. Kamal seems to be one of this class.”
But HRW didn’t seem to have any trouble talking to Tindouf refugees about slavery. They note:
“Black Sahrawis were willing to be quoted by name when reproaching the Polisario for failing to eradicate all vestiges of slavery in the camps”
Yes I’m relying heavily on the HRW report, but so are Ayala and Fallshaw, and it doesn’t say what they say it does, nor does it support their other claims of what slavery involves. I’ll take the report with a grain of salt but until a similar report is released by another independent international body then its the only thing that I have to rely upon (aside from of course the “misleading” news reports from the ABC, SMH and newmatilda.)
“The more I’ve looked into the issues and the more I’ve seen of their behaviour in Australia, the more I’ve accepted that their position on the issue of slavery is oppressive and that the media campaign is designed to suppress the evidence of slavery coming out.”
The media campaign? The whole campaign? While I’m sure the PLF has a strong presence in both Africa and Australia, I’m pretty sure that doesn’t extend to the board of the national broadcaster, nor state newspapers (or me for that matter.) Yes the PLF paid Faitim to travel here, but they didn’t pay/influence Kerry O’Brien or Matt Peacock to report negatively on the issue, nor anyone at smh, new matilda or Fran Kelly at ABC National. Nor a number of other well respected journalists who also reported on the matter.
“What puzzles me is why the Polisario would feel that the evidence coming out would harm their independence cause, given that it is a widespread cultural practice.”
I think the PLF are reacting because it depicts all white Sahrawis as slave owners, and a large majority of black Sahrawis (if not all) as slaves on shaky evidence. Its an attack not on their independance movement, but rather their cultural and national identity.
July 14, 2009 at 11:16 am
Farah, something I’m aware of that perhaps you are not re the media coverage, which has given the Polisario’s campaign credibility and why I refer to it as such; and which has caused me to feel outraged. I twigged to this the night of the Sydney screening.
The media campaign has benefited from the support of former NSW MLC President and human rights activist, Meredith Burgmann, and her former chief of staff, Yvette Andrews. Both are active in the Sydney based Australian Western Sahara Association and they visited the camps in 2004. Yvette made her own film telling the official Polisario story.
It became apparent to me on the night of the screening that Meredith and Yvette had used their media know how, contacts (with SMH and 7.30 Report) and networks to push the Polisario’s propaganda. It is without doubt an orchestrated campaign supported by them. They have had a long association with Kamal through AWSA. Perhaps the AWSA people believed the Polisario because they are friends; and they did not have the relationship of trust with the black residents the film makers did and that resulted in talk about slavery. Meredith and Yvette were too high and mighty for that on their visit.
I feel Meredith and Yvette have pulled their heads in somewhat since I started naming their game and castigating them for being complicit in covering up human rights abuses; which they have been doing.
I believe it from the bottom of my heart and would be prepared to swear on my father’s grave when I say to you that the Polisario campaign is pure propaganda and nothing else but…
In time the truth will come out.
There is more I can say in response to other issues you raise however that will do for now.
July 14, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Dear Farah and Jane A,
I would really like to hear from Fatim’s mother…so far we’ve heard from everyone else except the woman who knows the truth.
Did she lost or gave away her child? How did that happen? What were the circumstances of this? Why her child ended up with another woman?
July 14, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Mariam, the truth as portrayed in the film has been thrown into doubt by the false spin of a media campaign conducted by powerful people. I meant to say Meredith Burgmann was former president of the nsw legislative council and the longest serving in the role. Who is going to disbelieve her? And yet she is wrong because she has believed Kamal over Australian film makers. This is the way ALP cronies operate. They look after their friends first and they employ any foul means to achieve their own ends. A great piece has been written about the ALP by Margarita Windisch on the Socialist Alliance website.
July 17, 2009 at 4:04 am
STOLEN by Tom Zubrycki
OP Published in the Canberra Times
14/July/09
It’s the nature of documentaries that they often change in the course of production – the film that one sets out to make is not always what eventually gets made. Filmmakers have to trust their instincts and go where the story takes them. In the film STOLEN there was an added moral obligation to do so. As a result, it has become embroiled in a cloud of controversy.
In 2006 I was approached by two filmmakers who were working in a part of the world that interested me. I was aware of the Polisario-run camps in Algeria comprising Saharawi refugees who had fled Western Sahara after Morocco occupied it 30 years earlier.
The film was to tell the story of Fetim’s reunion with her mother who lives in Western Sahara. They hadn’t seen each other for more than 30 years.
As producer, I was in regular email contact with the filmmakers while they filmed. They’d got to know the family quite well during two trips and were in the enviable position of making a film from the ‘inside out’. Everything seemed to be going to plan when I received a troubling message: during the course of several conversations Fetim and her eldest daughter had brought up the issue of slavery. Soon other black people in the camps began telling the filmmakers how slavery was affecting their lives as well. (There are two ethnically different groups in the camps. The majority refer to themselves as ‘white Arabs’. The minority, including Fetim, are black Africans.)
Ten days after being told about slavery the filmmakers were detained and questioned by Polisario authorities. It took five days and serious negotiations involving the United Nations, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Algerian government to get them safely to Paris. It was a very confusing and worrying time for me as their producer, back in Australia.
Clearly the subject of the film had changed – slavery had become the central issue. The filmmakers could have ignored it, but that meant turning their backs on the people who told them their stories. It was a decision that necessitated moral courage.
After leaving the camps the filmmakers contacted Human Rights Watch (HRW) who subsequently went to carry out their own investigations. In 2008 they published a report which verified the existence of slavery:
“In sum, credible sources testified to Human Rights Watch about vestiges of slavery that continue to affect the lives of a portion of the black minority in the Tindouf camps.”
Slavery in the region is well documented. In the bordering Mauritania a law was passed to criminalise slavery in 2007. The practice is officially condemned but continues unchecked. Mauritanians and Saharawis share a similar culture, language and traditions.
So how is slavery manifested? As the HRW Report puts it: “The practices involve historical ties between families that involve certain rights and obligations that are not always clear. Being a slave does not necessarily preclude freedom of movement”
The characters of the film describe slavery as the master having the right to take children away, women being subject to their master’s sexual pleasure, and having to seek permission to marry.
Romana Cacchioli, from Anti-slavery International, works in North Africa. She says: “Slavery is a sensitive and particularly thorny issue for states….It is also a common practice for states to put pressure on victims to retract their statements.”
Fetim was flown to Australia by the Polisario to protest at the film’s Sydney opening. She claimed the filmmakers manipulated her and that slavery doesn’t exist. Others said they were paid to talk about slavery.
The Polisario is clearly concerned the film’s screening will damage its public image. This may explain the many attempts by their Australian representative to stop the film. Pressure has been applied on our principal investors Screen Australia, the Sydney Film Festival, and the Melbourne Film Festival where the film will screen later this month. The Australian Western Sahara Association (AWSA), long-time supporter of the Polisario cause, has been campaigning to have the film banned.
“Stolen” is not the first documentary to stir up public debate, and won’t be the last. “Capturing the Friedmans” started out as a film about a party clown but became a film about child paedophilia. “Darwin’s Nightmare” about the Nile Perch and the global arms trade was denounced by the Tanzania government and became the subject of law suits. Both films were nominated for Oscars.
What this film does is what every documentary should do – to question without passing judgment. I speak on behalf of the filmmakers and the entire documentary community when I say we all believe in open uncensored debate. All I ask is that people see the film and draw their own conclusions.
July 19, 2009 at 6:33 am
I’ve read in other comments that Jane is the aunt of one of the directors (Dan Fallshaw)! This explains why she has been defending the film which has been put into questions because:
A UN official, Ursula Abouchar, who appeared in the Sydney version has denounced the film makers for falsely using her interview and abusing what she said by editing.
In the film there are inaccurate or deliberately mis-translated sub-titles. The translator, who the film makers claimed certified the translations for the subtitles has denounced the film makers as falsifying what he said:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/film/reel-drama-more-fiction-than-fact-or-lost-in-translation/2009/07/12/1247337022664.html
July 19, 2009 at 11:27 am
GLW: Western Sahara — what has really been stolen?
Cate Lewis
19 July 2009
The documentary film Stolen is now largely discredited. It has been in the press recently for its controversial claim that slavery still exists among Saharawis in Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara.
The film implied the Saharawi liberation organisation, the Polisario Front, permits the practice of slavery in the refugee camps. However, from its formation in 1973 the Polisario stated that all Saharawis were equal and addressed any residual issues brought to its notice.
Since its premiere at the Sydney film festival in June, a lot of evidence has come to light against the film’s claims. On June 13, the 7.30 Report revealed the film’s subtitles distorted some of the dialogue in crucial ways.
One subtitle translated a Saharawi woman saying: “Fetim is a slave”. However, an independent translation revealed she actually said: “Violeta wants us to say Fetim is a slave”.
The film’s translator, Oumar Sy, only recently saw the final version of the film and has withdrew his certification. He told the July 13 Sydney Morning Herald that the filmmakers, Violeta Ayala and Dan Fallshaw, had not corrected the subtitles despite his advice they were wrong.
The camera operator who worked on the film with Ayala and Fallshaw on their second visit to Western Sahara also sharply criticised the film’s claims. He returned to the camps to take video testimony from some of the main characters in the film and UN aid workers who live in the camps.
Fetim Sellami, who is portrayed as a slave in the film, said she had withdrawn her consent to appear in the film, yet the filmmakers went ahead regardless. She said she felt tricked and betrayed by Ayala and Fallshaw, whom she had welcomed into her house and introduced to her family.
In June, she travelled to Sydney to denounce the film as a fraud and declared she was not a slave.
Several young men who appear in the film have since revealed they were offered money and gifts to make allegations about slavery for Stolen.
Some were paid up to 4000 euros to make the false claims. One man claimed two men working forthe Moroccan government offered him money to make the statements. The footage can be viewed at http://www.media.smh.com.au.
Given the false claims in Stolen the Melbourne International Film Festival should not run it. The Polisario Front asked the festival to not screen the film, pending investigations into its accuracy. But like the Sydney film festival, the Melbourne film festival organisers have refused this request.
For many years, the Moroccan government peddled the myth Saharawi refugees were hostages of the Polisario Front and held against their will. But this claim has little support internationally. The newer claim that Polisario endorses slavery is another case of false Moroccan propaganda.
It is designed to distract from the real issue — the legitimate right of Western Sahara to self-determination and freedom from Moroccan occupation.
Saharawi refugees live in extreme conditions in a harsh desert, behind a Moroccan built military wall, while Morocco steals their natural resources.
The documentary made a bogus claim about “stolen” children, and ignored a stolen country and its stolen resources.
[Jose Ramos Horta, President of Timor Leste will speak in Melbourne on July 23 at a meeting titled “Western Sahara and East Timor: What has really been stolen?”, 5.30pm, Kino cinema 2, lower ground level, 45 Collins St, Melbourne. A short documentary on the theft of Western Sahara’s natural resources will also be shown. Entry $10. For information, email .]
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/803/41322
July 20, 2009 at 3:00 pm
From the Metro Magazine 161.77 by Maryella Hatfield
STOLEN
A FILM like Stolen (Violeta Ayala and Dan Fallshaw, 2009) explores complexities that exist within the issues that are increasingly affecting us all. Camps in Western Sahara are a microcosm of the massive sweep of displaced persons the world over, people who are seeking refuge from political, economic and historical conditions that are not of their own making. Ayala and Fallshaw’s original plan was to tell the story of a family reunion in one of the United Nations-sponsored refugee camps as a way of exploring the territorial issues. Then their documentary took an unexpected turn, and this is where the making of the documentary took an unexpected turn, and this is where the making of the documentary started to become a subject of the documentary itself.
Once a Spanish protectorate, the Western Sahara is now a territory in dispute between Morocco, Mauretania and Algeria. The Polisario who claim to represent the Sahrawi people – or ‘people of the Sahara desert’ who have ancestral tribal claims to the area – are demanding full independence.
The people in the camps are of mixed heritage, however, and the product of complex and extremely contentions relationships that have developed over centuries.
The biggest surprise to the filmmakers was discovering that their main character, Fetim, a young black African woman, was still ‘bound’ to a Berber-Arab family as a slave. The shocking revelation let them down to a path that they never expected to follow. It radically changed the story of their film, making it more of a political thriller than the poignant human story they had originally intended.
In the year or so since production, Fetim, had withdrawn her consent to be part of the film. She recorded a statement to that effect, which the filmmakers included at the end of their film. Fetim appeared in person during the post-screening Q&A session at the festival – not to support the filmmakers, but to denounce them and deny she was a slave.
Stolen and this incident raise many pertinent questions for filmmakers, for those who take part in films, and for audiences.
For a start, whose truth is presented in any documentary? Is the filmmaker’s truth or that of the participants? At what pint does the filmmaker decide that their belief in the bigger picture is best serve by completing and showing the film regardless of a participant’s consent? What is the legal position for the film’s investors?
Media around Australia reported the confrontation the following day and many would have been left with the impression that Fetim had been done a terrible injustice. But with the controversy in mind, a second viewing of the film revealed how a highly complex political situation was very much being played out in personal relationships.
Fetim, a young black mother, is filming going about her everyday life as she prepares to be reunited with her mother, Embarka, whom the UN is bringing from Morocco. Preparations are in full swing for a party to welcome Embarka but they reveal to what extent an Arabic woman, Deido, is involved. An explanation is given – that many years before, Fetim had been offered as a young woman to look after Deido’s son. The way it is explained is light, almost dismissive, and doesn’t reveal the reality of Fetim’s situation and how much work she does for Deido’s family.
When Embarka finally arrives, we see Fetim having to search for Deido’s shoes, which she lost just minutes before. Deido then takes it upon herself to hold the party in her tent, but only invites her own family, excluding Fetim’s extended family and friends. This is where the film comes into its own. We see the expressions on the faces of Fetim’s family and friends as they are pushed to the side. We see Fetim’s cousin decide to organise another gathering, an this time Fetim’s family dance and laugh joyfully together.
Deido discusses the film crew in Arabic with her friend, who asks, ‘Why are they always filming?’ Deido’s reply is telling: ‘Be careful what you say, they know everything but they can’t do anything.’
Soon after, Ayala and Fallshaw go to the UN to report what they have begun to discover and the extent to which slavery still exists even in the refugee camps. Not long after that , they find themselves on the run, pursued by the Polisario, and having to bury their tapes in the sand, not sure if they would ever be recovered. The cloack-and-dagger tale of the documentary subsequently criss-crosses Europe and the United States as the filmmakers try to recover their tapes with varying degrees of help and obstruction from undercover Moroccan agents, ambassadors and the UN.
Meanwhile we see scenes filmed in Morocco with Fetim’s cousin and brother, who make the arduous journey across the desert from the camps to explain in detail the extent to which they are sill slaves, the way liberation papers work and how the courts will rule in favour of the masters.
The filmmakers, and indeed the viewer, realise how difficult it is for thoe who stayed behind. We hear a heartbreaking phone call from Fetim’s daughter Leila telling Ayala: ‘We trusted you as if you were our family, in trying to do good, you did bad, now the police are all over us.’ Ayala tearfully responds that this was the last thing they ever wanted.
And this is part of the difficulty of knowing how much of Fetim’s denunciation genuinely comes from her, and how much has been coerced. Does she risked losing her three children if she challenges Deido’s mastery of her? What is the role of the Polisario in bringing Fetim to Australia? Who engineered Fetim’s denunciation included at the end of the film?
Until this questions are fully answered, there should be no surprise to see Fetim’s impassioned plea to distance herself from the story, calling the filmmakers liars and cheats. Considering the stakes, she might well be fighting for her children and her life. There are many resonances for Australian audiences here, with stolen children, displaced peoples, political disempowerment. It seems a story that is still to be fully played out.
* Maryella Hatfield reflects on some of the Nominees for the inaugural Foxtel Australian Documentary Prize at the 2009 Sydney Film Festival.
July 21, 2009 at 7:22 am
People need to be careful what they read on this issue. The Polisario representative, Kamal Fadel, and his supporters are blogging on all possible the websites, repeatedly posting false claims and propaganda about the film. I respond to this as I can, in the interests of natural justice and to introduce some balance to the debate, however as has been said here and elsewhere, this is part of a well resourced and highly organised campaign to discredit a film that shows evidence of slavery in the Polisario controlled camps.
As to their attempts to discredit my postings in response to the Polisario campaign, I act and speak for myself and my concern is how the Polisario have been able to misuse Australian media in ways that may be plausible to people who are unfamiliar with the issues of slavery in the area. The truth needs to come out. The truth will come out, whether the Polisario try to stop it or not, because unlike the Polisario controlled camps, Australia is a free country.
July 22, 2009 at 1:23 am
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/timors-link-to-a-saharan-struggle-20090721-dryz.html
Timor’s link to a Saharan struggle
Jose Ramos-Horta
July 22, 2009
As I visit Australia again, to attend this week’s opening of the Melbourne International Film Festival, I have been confronted by the outcry over the film Stolen, which will screen at the festival and which represents, in microcosm, the importance of truth in the struggle for justice. The film, which makes claims of widespread slavery in the Western Saharan refugee camps, represents many of the ugly realities of this central dynamic. It is a scenario I know only too well.
I have followed closely the question of Western Sahara for decades. In our years of struggle for independence, strong friendship and solidarity grew between the Timorese and the Saharawis. I have met many Saharawis and visited the Saharawi refugee camps and liberated areas twice. I did not see any form of slavery in those camps.
Rather, what I know of the Saharawis is that they are enlightened and committed to their cause of freedom.
The situation of Western Sahara is perhaps not well known to Australians. For East Timorese, there are ties which make a mutual understanding easier to find. Both East Timor and Western Sahara were colonised by Iberian powers – Portugal and Spain, respectively; both have been identified by the United Nations as being ready for decolonisation; both were invaded, post-European withdrawal, by regional powers in 1975; both peoples have been subjected to widespread human rights abuses; and both have been caught up in global political trends not of their making.
But East Timor and Western Sahara have also diverged. We achieved independence in 1999, and the Western Saharans have not. This is inexplicable: before our independence we actually had less formal international backing, were less regionally recognised and were more internally divided than the Saharawis.
The other important difference between our histories is that East Timor is predominantly Christian, while the Saharawis are Muslims. As a result of this, Western Sahara has been erroneously cast as a hotbed of Islamic terrorism and as a potential base for al-Qaeda. This form of knee-jerk racism has ensured that Western Sahara’s illegal occupier, Morocco, has been able to play the security card and has gained enough traction to deconstruct the UN’s formal decolonisation agendas which served us so well.
Stolen emerges as a stark example of the implications of this reality. It is easy to cast societies seen through the lens of bigotry as backward and to manufacture spurious storylines to suit a certain need when the politics of the moment encourage it.
In the situation that Western Sahara finds itself now, and in which East Timor faced before independence, is one which tilts in favour of those who represent the status quo. BothIndonesia and Morocco were or are able to manufacture a range of reasons to deny these peoples a free and fair act of self-determination.
Australia’s role in freeing the East Timorese from the yoke of Indonesian rule was, and is, central. I know from my many dealings with many Australians that this country promotes the very highest standards in human rights and democracy. I have no reason to change that view.
I also know that truth is a highly traded commodity in the market of decolonisation politics. The prevailing state interests of the ruling power of the day – Indonesia then, Morocconow – will always bend truth to suit the political imperatives of the day. The uneven balance of resources, as well as the ability to obtain better access to geo-political power structures, further benefit the coloniser.
As we are learning in East Timor, freedom demands responsibility. The ability to use democracy’s openness can never be an excuse for shoddy views or irresponsible behaviour. Being nominally free to commit acts of injustice, artistic or otherwise, is not a reason to do so.
As a friend of the Saharawis, I ask all Australians to take the time to understand the issues surrounding Western Sahara. I implore all to search for the truth with vigilance and commitment, lest lies become manifest and the vested interests of certain powers be allowed free reign in the marketplaces of ideas and power.
The world must support the independence of Western Sahara as a bridge between the Maghreb and the rest of Africa and as an enlightened Muslim nation bringing the Islamic world and the western democracies closer.
The Government and the people of Western Sahara deserve at least that much. As for East Timor, the worldwide support of the people, quite apart from governments and world organisations, has been, and remains significant. Those connections count and the value of ensuring truth and fiction remain separate is vital.
Jose Ramos-Horta is President of East Timor.
The article is also published in the Age:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/timors-link-to-a-saharan-struggle-20090721-dryz.html
July 24, 2009 at 1:33 am
People would do well to heed Hose Ramos Horta’s words.
While Ramos-Horta may have been misinformed about the subject of slavery is treated in the film, those who have been exposed to the Polisario’s propaganda campaign to suppress and discredit this film really do need to:
“take the time to understand the issues surrounding Western Sahara. I implore all to search for the truth with vigilance and commitment, lest lies become manifest and the vested interests of certain powers be allowed free reign in the marketplaces of ideas and power.”
If they do this, people will start to see the truth of what has been occurring in the media in Australia lately, in relation to the vested interests at play in the Polisario’s very public campaign against this film.
July 25, 2009 at 3:49 pm
This is a transcript of what Jose Ramos-Horta said on the slavery allegations in the film “Stolen” during aan event held in Melbourne on 23 July 2009.
“I have to confess I have not seen the film but have read about it for many months – transcripts and articles. I have to say I was in the(refugee) camps and I am not naïve – I am always a very curious person. You go to East Timor and you will see me walking into the back alleys of buildings, visiting people while they were cooking in the kitchen and wherever I am I
am always curious about human beings and at the Sahara camp I went visiting people in tents and talked with so many people.
I do not know the number of international NGOs that over the years have operated in the camps – numerous – far more than ever in East Timor. The number of European parliamentarians visiting the camps and internationally, the Red Cross, always had free access to the Saharawi camps. UNHCR – all areas that you can think of, all these years – no one ever heard of it because this is the first time I heard of it in the camps. It is totally an absurdity and made up, I guarantee you.
And if there is one liberation movement that I know ….. over the years, many of us like Fretilin in the past, even the ANC, we have been embarrassed by some of things that we did. The Polisario is one of the most genuine liberation movements and very humanitarian. I never heard of brainwashing by the Polisario. You don’t see much propaganda material by the Polisario.
It is not an authoritarian, centrally controlled movement – very liberal, very open. I know from my feelings – I am not stupid, not a genius – but I know when someone is deceiving me. I know how to ask questions and I would never, never turn a blind eye if I knew of any abuses in the Saharawi camps because I would be an accomplice by supporting a movement that I knew was committing these barbarities so it is totally unheard of.
My experience being there – the experience of the UNCR, International Red Cross, numerous NGOs, European parliamentarians, US Congressmen – was that no one was ever told about this.”
July 26, 2009 at 3:09 am
What would make Jose think that a person who feel powerless will say something to him, a friend of the Polisario? Does he speak the language or even Spanish? How long did Jose spent in the camps? How many black people did he meet?
If I was a slave, I would never tell anything to a friend of the Polisario, it would be suicidal…
“The Polisario is one of the most genuine liberation movements and very humanitarian. I never heard of brainwashing by the Polisario. You don’t see much propaganda material by the Polisario.”
I think Jose should watch the film, read the Human Rights Watch Report, talk to anti-slavery organisations about slavery in the Sahara, talk to black Saharawis from the camps. Then his opinion might be of some validity.
I think Jose would be better of minding his own business and if this is the way he makes decisions in East Timor…I wonder why the country in not going forward!
July 26, 2009 at 10:42 am
Yes, Dr. Ramos-Horta speaks Spanish.
Fetim has never said that she is a slave. It is the filmmakers who are making the claim about her.
Fetim is a teacher, a mother of four, her husband lives in Spanish and has Spanish nationality.
Fetim travelled to Australia with her husband to tel the filmmakers in their faces that they are liears.
So Jose Ramos-Horta is right. He is known worldwide to be a credible and respected personality. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996.
July 26, 2009 at 1:20 pm
The above statement is what the Polisario would like the public to believe.
Hose Ramos-Horta is a disappointment and he has lost credibility and respect with me. While I feel sad about that, much of this sorry saga has been deeply disillusioning.
While enlightenment has come at a high price, I’d still rather know what I know than spend my time repeating Polisario propaganda.
July 27, 2009 at 3:12 am
Desertrose,
I have never heard the filmmakers saying that Fetim is a slave. My question is…Why was she separated from her mother? Until I hear from her mother, I won’t believe anything of what the Polisario says.
I know Fetim is a teacher, is on the film. But the film is not just about Fetim, there were many black Saharawis telling their stories about slavery.
Fetim just got her passport 10 days before coming to Australia, why? Why the Polisario paid for her trip?. Where were her children? In the film they were young. Why she didn’t come with them?
Could you please answer my questions and I do not want to hear your political rant.
July 27, 2009 at 5:28 am
Thank you to Desertrose for providing the transcript of Ramos-Horta’s speech.
@Erika “What would make Jose think that a person who feel powerless will say something to him, a friend of the Polisario? Does he speak the language or even Spanish? How long did Jose spent in the camps? How many black people did he meet?”
I can ask you the same questions.
“I have never heard the filmmakers saying that Fetim is a slave.”
They do so repeatedly in a number of interviews, including the ones I’ve provided links to in the post.
“My question is…Why was she separated from her mother?”
Quite a number of Sahrawis were separated from their families when the region was cut up between the colonial powers – a large number live in the camps, and a significant community lives in Mauritania.
“Until I hear from her mother, I won’t believe anything of what the Polisario says.”
It is unfortunate that you take that position only in relation to what the Polisario says, rather than the documentary as well. And why only her mother? Is it a completely foreign concept to you that the directors may in fact have been made up, and she is actually talking out of free will? Or doesn’t that suit your world view?
“Why the Polisario paid for her trip?”
She lives in a refugee camp, she’s not your next door neighbour. Maybe she didn’t have enough money to fund a trip to Australia – its not exactly cheap is it?
“Could you please answer my questions and I do not want to hear your political rant.”
I’ve read Desertrose’s posts and they’re not politically rant-like at all, well, no more so than your posts. Don’t accuse people on this blog of rants – or anything for that matter, this is a discussion not a mud slinging match.
July 27, 2009 at 5:51 am
Why would documentary film makers go the extreme lengths required to make something like that up? It does not make sense.
The suppression of free speech of black Saharawi by the ruling Berber class is more plausible; makes far more sense.
To believe the Polisario’s version of events requires a much bigger stretch of the imagination.