film
26 Jun 2009
Slaves To The Story?
Fetim Sellami with her husband, Baba Hocine, and Meredith Burgmann
The documentary Stolen created a storm at its Sydney screening when the central character arrived and claimed she had been falsely portrayed as a slave. Now, a UNHCR spokeswoman says her interview for the film was also manipulated
Fetim Sellami immediately reminded me of the strong, gracious women I had met in the Western Sahara refugee camps in 2004 when I toured there with then-president of the NSW Upper House, Meredith Burgmann. Sitting on Burgmann's couch in inner city Glebe — where she stayed while in Sydney — Sellami chatted happily in Hassaniya with her husband and smiled at our clumsy attempts to communicate.However, when asked about her experience with Australian filmmakers Violeta Ayala and Dan Fallshaw, her demeanour darkened. "We welcomed them into our homes. We fed them. And they made up terrible lies about us."
Fetim Sellami travelled to Sydney from a remote refugee camp in North Africa infuriated by their controversial documentary, Stolen, that claims she is a slave. Far from being a slave, Fetim is a kindergarten teacher.
The film has caused a furore over its allegation that slavery — black Africans owned by Arab families — is common place in the refugee camps where 165,000 Saharawi refugees have lived since Morocco invaded their country of Western Sahara in 1976. The camps are administered by the Polisario, the Western Sahara liberation movement.
Historically, slavery existed in the region but it is now outlawed throughout North Africa, although there are still concerns about residual practices especially in Niger and Mauritania. Like everyone else with a connection to the camps, I was shocked when I heard about the allegations of entrenched slavery and was keen to know more.
However, what is presented in Stolen is not a rigorous account of a serious issue. Rather, evidence is mounting that the story is concocted and that the filmmakers' approach was unethical.
The furore presents real problems for the film's producer, Tom Zubrycki, and the funding body, Screen Australia, who invested over $250,000 in the project.
Sellami is not the only one furious at the filmmakers' tactics. Deputy Director of the UNHCR Bureau for Middle East and North Africa, Ursula Aboubacar's interview was used in Stolen to give credibility to the slavery claim.
I felt uncomfortable about the way the interview had been used — it was clearly heavily edited and the only time slavery was mentioned was by the filmmakers themselves — so I wrote to Ursula to ask her how she felt about the film. She sent me a copy of an email she sent to the filmmakers on 21 June 2009. It was titled "protest".
In it she claims the filmmakers used an interview with her without her consent. "Despite my written request to you for my formal clearance to use my voice or face in your documentary in the Tindouf camps you went ahead without my clearance ... The release form you gave me for signature is still with me."
She went on to write:
"I strongly protest the way you manipulated my one hour interview ... into the short compilation of sentences ...
I stated clearly from the very beginning, and on several occasions throughout the interview, that never any case of slavery [in the camps] has been brought to the attention of UNHCR which obviously you did not like and made you very aggressive ...
While you continued to focus on slavery practices in the camps only, I explained that slavery is an issue to be seen in a regional, traditional and cultural practice which will take a long time to completely eradicate. This was the only moment I mentioned the camps as, per se, they are part of the sub-region.
Again you manipulated these statements in the most abusive way and took them out of their context for your own purposes."
A statement distributed after the film's release by Ayala, Fallshaw and Zubrycki as a response to the film's critics states that "UNHCR state in the film that they know slavery exists in the camps". But Ursula Aboubacar makes it clear she didn't.
Ayala told newmatilda.com that there was "nothing untoward" about the interview with Aboubacar. She explains the process like this: "We requested an official on-camera interview with UNHCR in Geneva to talk about our discovery of slavery in the camps. Ursula was presented to us as their spokesperson. The interview was done in December 2007.
"We provided Ursula with a release form. She answered that she didn't need to sign it because she was appointed by UNHCR to do the interview … We intend to show the whole unedited interview to the High Commissioner in Geneva.
"Ursula is not the only person at the UN that we've been in contact with. We screened the film to the High Commission for Human Rights in New York … [and to] all of Ursula's colleagues in New York [before it was released]. They did not raise any issues with the way that Ursula was portrayed." (Ayala provided this transcript of the interview with Aboubacar, as it appears in the film.)
But the list of allegations against the makers of Stolen grows daily. Most of the Saharawi people in the film, including Fetim Sellami who spoke publicly at the film's premiere, have now made statements withdrawing from the film (Sellami also told me she had never signed a documentary release form). Some of the English subtitles were also found to be false by an Al Jazeera interpreter commissioned by the 7:30 Report.
Carlos Gonzalez, the American cinematographer who worked with Ayala and Fallshaw on their second trip to the camps, was so disturbed by their subsequent actions that he returned to the camps. He recorded on-camera admissions by interviewees that they were directed by the filmmakers to say what they did and that their statements about slavery were untrue.
The film's supporters howled down Sellami's appearance at the Sydney Film Festival as a cover up organised by the Polisario and Gonzalez has been labelled a Polisario operative.
The film is also exploitative: Sellami's teenage daughter appears to be used in the film to stir up debate about the slavery issue. Her parents were so concerned by this manipulative approach that Sellami's husband, Baba Hocine, tells me he wrote to Tom Zubrycki in 2007 stating that "no information may be used under any circumstances if it affects in any way my children who, being minors, should be protected everywhere in the world."
Incidentally, Baba Hocine, a Cuban-trained engineer who lives and works in Spain earning money to send back to his family in the camps, was also interviewed for the film. But his story did not fit the film's depiction of Fetim Sellami and he is not mentioned once in the final documentary.
Part way through the film, Ayala and Fallshaw insert themselves into the drama and the political conflict. They flee the camps after hiding their tapes in the desert and claiming to be detained by the Polisario. They meet a Moroccan official in Paris with whom they discuss their discovery of slavery. They agree to travel to New York with him and take up his offer to send their retrieved tapes out of Mauritania via a Moroccan diplomatic bag. To the apparent surprise of the filmmakers, their footage is then screened as propaganda on Moroccan TV before their film is released.
Australians from the Australian Western Sahara Association who were concerned by the activities of Ayala and Fallshaw wrote to Screen Australia over a year ago. Most never received a response. A year later, and just weeks before the film's premiere, the Polisario Representative in Australia, Kamal Fadel, eventually met with Screen Australia's CEO and as a result received a written response.
In it, Screen Australia acknowledged the seriousness of matters related to the accuracy of the film's claims about the Polisario's laws on slavery, the treatment of Sellami, and the involvement of Morocco. Screen Australia expressed its faith in Tom Zubrycki and assured Fadel that these matters had been raised with the producer, and that they would be addressed.
Despite the numerous concerns, however, Zubrycki never went to the camps to test the filmmakers' claims for himself. The end result is a film that undermines the integrity of an industry that Zubrycki himself has worked so hard to build. At what point is Screen Australia required to justify why public money allowed this film to go ahead and why they chose to ignore credible warnings that their own policies were being disregarded?
Ayala and Fallshaw say they have been victims of a concerted campaign by the Polisario to discredit their revelations about the extent of slavery in the camps and that the Saharawi people who are now coming forward to retract their statements are doing so under duress.
They stand by their story citing a Human Rights Watch report produced in 2008. However, while the report stated that no evidence of slavery or domestic servitude was found in the camps, it identified some vestiges of related practices in the form of permissions for marriage. When questioned about the Human Rights Watch report on ABC radio, Ayala explained that you had to "read between the lines" to appreciate the full extent of the problem.
Stolen is not a controversial documentary. Stolen is a hoax — a case of two young filmmakers fudging the facts about a place so remote that they thought they could get away with it. Film festivals should be very wary of screening it and Screen Australia should answer some serious questions about why it was ever funded.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
I saw no one howling Fetim down on the night of the screening.
I read in The Australian last week that you’d made a film on the same subject in 2004 which apparently did not get funding and has been largely forgotten since.
The piece in The Australian implied that your opposition to the film is personally motivated.
You certainly seem to be going great lengths to discredit it.
The article does not say anyone howled her down on the night of the screening. It says:
"The film’s supporters howled down Sellami’s appearance at the Sydney Film Festival as a cover up organised by the Polisario and Gonzalez has been labelled a Polisario operative."
This clearly refers to the public reaction of the film’s supporters *following* her appearance.
The question is, personal motivation or not, is Yvette Andrews right or wrong?
Thanks for asking. Yvette Andrews and others are tying themselves in knots over the cause: is it true or not that there’s slavery at Tindouf?
It’s contrived and a furphy; although a sensitive issue for the Polisario and a good way to get them on board opposing the film
The film is about some camp residents talking about their lives. Many talk about their histories of embedded slavery, well known to be endemic in North Africa for hundreds of years. This is fact. Get over it!
The film makers have not misrepresented anything nor betrayed anyone. Nor, contrary to popular rumour, are they spies working for the Moroccan Government. They are ordinary Australian film makers who have made a film worth seeing about an important and enlightening issue.
Reading between the lines: the jealous are troublesome to others but a torment to themselves.
Documentary and other films dealing with controversial issues often evoke strong emotional responses. Generally these responses concentrate on the content, but in Yvette Andrews article
about Stolen she is implying that the filmmakers have deliberately set out to twist the facts. The facts as presented in Stolen are being contested, but this does not mean that the filmmakers
were not acting in good faith. I know that the film’s producer, Tom Zubrycki has been involved with several fine documentaries about human right issues, and has the highest ethical standards.
While I am unable to give any kind of definitive opinion about the slavery issue, I do think Yvette is wrong in this case to accuse the filmmakers of deliberately creating a hoax. Tom Zubrycki is a producer who takes his responsibility towards the subjects of his films extremely seriously. There is no way that Tom Zubrycki would collaborate in a film that did not attempt to be faithful to the subject. Films that go out on a limb will always be attacked, and the attackers invariably attack the funding of these kind of films. We are fortunate to live in a democracy that encourages open debate. I have no problem with anybody criticising the content of a documentary film, but by impuning the filmmakers’ motives and by condemning the funding of a film, Yvette Andrews is trying to stifle the free flow of opinions other than her own.
From what is now the public domain reflected in the testimony of the main character of the film Fetim Sellami to the media the filmmakers were not acting in good faith because they deceived and manipulated her. According to Fetim the filmmakers made up stories about her and her family.
The film producer Tom Zubrycki was aware of the whole issue from the beginning and chose for whatever reason to ignore all the warnings. After all what has been revealed concerning the wrongdoings of the two directors the producer unfortunately keeps hiding his head in the sand.
The filmmakers chose not to invite any of the subjects of the film to its Premiere and when the main character turned up they chose to ignore her and kept making false accusations about her (that she is pressured, that her children are threatened and that her family said things about her) when in fact none of those accusations are true. If the filmmakers had any respect to Fetim they could have shown some decency and stopped their public abuse at least while she was in Australia.
Every tax-payer has the right to question the use or misuse of public money. Given that the filmmakers were granted over AU $ 300.000 of public money they can not hide behind the excuse of “free flow of opinions” when they invent stories and baseless accusations and present them as facts under the category of documentaries.
Yvette’s article is balanced and discusses the content and form of the film and as any writer she is entitled to state her opinion. That’s called free speech and is indeed an example of free flow of opinions.
From what I’ve seen of her video rebuttal in the media, Fetim was misled into believing that the film makers were Moroccan spies who had tricked her. Fetim’s participation in the film has also been actively opposed by the Polisario. There’s a lot more to this story. Fetim has left her children back at the camp. I doubt she’ll put a step out of line until she has them safely in her care again and who could blame her for that. I feel sad to see how Fetim’s being paraded in the media.
Clearly the Polisario have been mounting a propaganda campaign that has the backing of the Australia Western Sahara Association which has strong links to the ALP, most notably to Yvette Andrews and Meredith Burgmann.
Yvette’s own film about the very same refugee camp was subtitled: "the Polisario’s heroic fight for independence" - a film made on a Polisario hosted tour by a large party of high ranking officials, including Meredith Burgmann. This is not the real story of life in the camps. Many people in Australia see behind the Polisario propaganda campaign and want to know the real story.
Below is a response from the producer of Stolen, Tom Zubrycki, regarding the letter sent to him by Baba Hocine.
––
Hi Marni
This letter you refer to came shortly after the filmmakers were evicted
from the camps.
The filmmakers had originally gone to the camps to make a documentary about a UN-supervised Family Reunion program. Over the period of two and a half months they had developed a warm positive relationship with the family over a series of separate visits, and this is clearly and unambiguously evidenced in the unedited camera tapes.
The reason the relationship with the filmmakers soured was when they started recording testimonials of slavery. As soon as the Polisario realised that people were giving them these testimonials they applied pressure on Fetim’s family, turning them against the filmmakers. (This is expressed in the film in Violeta and Leil’s strained phone conversation filmed only days after the filmmakers had left the camps). The letter from Baba Hocine needs to be
understood in this context. Mr Hocine and Fetim’s daughter Leil spoke
freely with the filmmakers on camera with her mother’s consent and often in
her presence and supervision.
The filmmakers had every intention of resolving their issues with the family
and saying their good-byes, but suddenly they were detained by Polisario
officials and had to organise their own safe passage from the camps.
I had the benefit of viewing the unedited material, and there is no
suggestion that "Sellami’s teenage daughter appears to be used in the film
to stir up debate about the slavery issue". This is totally wrong. She
freely gave her views - in most cases with her mother there in the
same room. Some of these views were references to slavery which caught the filmmakers interest. I certainly vouch for the fact that her words were not manipulated in the final version of the film.
Regards
Tom Zubrycki, producer
While there may be a semblace of balanced reporting above, Yvette has done her own skilful job of selective editing in order to throw the film and film makers in the worst possible light.
There’s more to the issues with the UN. Dan Fallshaw said in the interview after the film that the UN are in a difficult position because they’re afraid the Polisario will evict them from the camps too; hence they can’t come out openly about the issue of slavery.
Yvette’s undeclared motives are transparent: bitter rivalry from an aspiring film maker. I say aspiring because I have found no reference to a single successful film that Yvette has made, although she describes herself as a filmmaker.
The one film that Yvette made in 2004 received limited informal circulation through organisations like the AWSA and ALP. The film shows partisanship for the Polisario cause in the sub title: "the Polisario’s heroic fight for independence".
Yvette has also shown partisanship in actively soliciting negative material on the film. I doubt that Yvette would be preapred to publish any positive or supportive statement.
Given all of the above, what Yvette has said or written so far on this topic here and elsewhere lacks credibility entirely and will continue to do so.
Yvette Andrews
Dear Readers,
I thought some clarification may assist the debate. Firstly, my film did not have the colourful subtitle "the Polisario’s Heroic Fight for Independence" that JaneAgatha has claimed.
The delegation that visited the camps in 2004 included a human rights
lawyer, a solar engineer, a journalist, academics, trade unionists and
artists. We paid entirely for our own airfares, accomodation and
transport.
I went to the camps because I was interested in other independence
movements including West Papua and East Timor. I was studying a
Masters in Media Arts (and documentary) at UTS at the time. I was happy
with the success of my film and learnt a lot in the process. When I
heard that Tom Zubrycki was making a film about Western Sahara I was
thrilled.
But because I have a knowledge and interest in the issue and in
documentary making, I felt it was important to write about the problems
with the finished film "Stolen." Those problems go to the heart of
documentary making. Accepting the film without an open debate runs the
risk of undermining the integrity of the genre.
Correction: It was the theme in the promotional material not the sub-title as such.
The intention has not been for open debate, rather a one-sided campaign of total annihilation: to suppress the film and discredit the filmmakers.
Now pull the other one…
Comment below from Kamal Fadel, Western Sahara Representative to Australia.
––—
I read with interest Newmatilda’s article: Slaves To The Story?
I would like to respond to Mr. Tom Zubrycki’s comment on the article.
I can confirm that the filmmakers were never evicted from the Saharawi refugee camps. They left of their own volition. The UN mission in Western Sahara (MINURSO) was a witness to their decision. The Western Sahara independence movement, the Polisario, has never in its history of 36 years evicted a journalist. On the contrary we have always welcomed the media and provided all the necessary assistance.
We fully cooperated with the filmmakers, provided them with a car, a driver, accommodation and food. We let them do whatever they wanted in the camps and meet who ever they wanted. I offered assistance in Australia and was the person who introduced Fetim and her family to them.
The filmmakers spent only 6 weeks in the Saharawi refugee camps and not two and a half months as stated in Mr. Zubrycki’s comment. They spent less than 4 weeks with Fetim’s family. The filmmakers visited the Saharawi refugee camps during the following periods: 13-27 September 2006; 14-28 January 2007 and 17 April to 2 May 2007.
The filmmakers left Fetim’s family on 2 May 2007 at around10.30pm at night. I was contacted by their producer Mr. Tom Zubrycki who was concerned about their safety and asked me to find what was going on. I contacted the camps immediately.
The search for the filmmakers lasted eight hours. The two film-makers were finally found at the residence of a group of doctors at 5pm the next day. When the Saharawi authorities found them they contacted the UN mission (MINURSO) to come to meet them and be a witness to what they had to say regarding their hiding. To indicate that “suddenly they were detained by Polisario officials” and “had to organize their own safe passage from the camps” is completely misleading. Because the filmmakers were never detained and they stayed for 2 days in a hotel in the Algerian town of Tindouf near the refugee camps before they caught a regular flight to Algiers and from their to Paris as they were originally scheduled to do. Mr. Zubrycki knows this very well. He and I stayed in regular contact during that period.
This sequence of events is also verified in a press release put out by the film-makers at the time.
The claim that Polisario has applied pressure to members of Fetim’s family is utterly wrong and rather disingenuous. This is a claim made without any proof and is calculated to cause damage to Polisario’s reputation and to prop up the false premise of the film. The filmmakers were offered an opportunity to meet privately Fetim Sellami in Sydney but they declined.
Fetim Sellami has stated on several occasions that her relationship with the filmmakers soured when she didn’t want to play the filmmakers game and act as a slave of Deido. The filmmakers tried hard to create friction amongst the family of Fetim and Deido and attempted to turn them against each other.
The phone call in the film between Violeta and Leil was made by Violeta. Leil was angry with her because she left without saying good bye and she was worried because everyone was trying to find her. Leil told Violeta that she was a trouble maker who acted under the guise of someone trying to do well (the story about family separation). She told her that the police came searching for her because everyone was concerned for her (Violeta’s) safety while she was hiding with the Cuban doctors.
The filmmakers did not only manipulate Leil, the daughter of Fetim and Baba but also their son Caritu then aged 12. Fetim and Baba told me while in Sydney in the presence of other Australians that Violeta offered to give Caritu a play station game if he spoke against Polisario. He did not co-operate and did not received the playstation.
All of these facts are independently verifiable and surely underline the fact that this film is a beat-up, generated by misinformed and/or publicity hungry Individuals, hoping to take advantage of a situation too far away for anyone to notice.
New Matilda’s article is an accurate critique of the film. I will be happy to respond to any further queries.
Kamal Fadel
Western Sahara Representative to Australia and Ambassador to East Timor
SLAVERY MUST BE ABOLISHED IN ALL NORTH AFRICA!!!
POLISARIO = DANGEROUS ORGANISATION
I couldn’t be bothered by reading Mr Polisario diatribe so I did my quick research and look what I found:
After Slavery: Emancipation and its Discontents (Page 230)
’ In May 1975 a UN mission visiting the territory reported the persistence of slavery and a market in slaves’
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
June 19, 2009
‘While we did not find systematic violations of human rights at the present time, the concerns we noted, including the absence of open debate on fundamental political issues and the survival, in a limited number of cases, of practices related to slavery, heighten our concern that the rights of the Sahrawis living in these camps are vulnerable due to the camps’ extreme isolation, the lack of regular, on-the-ground human rights monitoring, and the lack of oversight by the host country of Algeria.’
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/19/letter-un-high-commissioner-human-…
SLAVERY MUST BE ABOLISHED IN ALL NORTH AFRICA!!!
Kamal, really, I didn’t mean it literally when I said to "pull the other one"… There’s nothing more to say on this subject.
Spare me these tedious attempts to whitewash the Polisario’s actions. The facts of what happened are available on the world wide web, for anyone who wants to read about it.
I repeat that, despite your endless spurious denials that slavery exists in the camps those who have seen the film know that Fetim’s life has been deeply affected by slavery.
You have done your credibility no favours by glossing over facts just because they don’t fit with what you would have the public believe. This is not North Africa.
IS MR KAMAL THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR WESTERN SAHARA? WESTERN SAHARA IS UNDER MOROCCAN CONTROL…
Kamal, you invited queries can you explain why you distance yourself from the Polisario?
SLAVERY MUST BE ABOLISHED IN ALL NORTH AFRICA!!!
Media Statement below from Ayala, Fallshaw and Zubrycki
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
This man appears in Stolen…There is some for the people who live in slavery in the camps.
Anti-slavery candidate fans hope
Nick Meo in Nouakchott, Mauritania
July 13, 2009
A YEAR after she ran away from her master, Barakatu Mint Sayed prays that next Saturday’s election will mark the beginning of the end of slavery in Mauritania.
Like thousands of other slaves and freed slaves across the Saharan country, her hopes are fixed on a man born to slave parents, who has sworn to put an end to the practice if elected president. Messaoud Ould Boulkheir, 66, a former public servant, has promised that in power he would punish slave owners and do everything he could to free their human property.
His prospects of winning power are growing by the day - and he is being hailed as Mauritania’s brightest star by his supporters. "He is the Obama of Mauritania," said Boubacar Messaoud, an architect and veteran anti-slavery campaigner in the north-west African state. "He is going to bring change, and he represents social justice and equality."
Mauritania is one of the last places where slavery is still widespread. Officially it has long been abolished, but the law has never been enforced, and there are an estimated 600,000 slaves, almost one in five of the country’s 3.2 million people.
Change will come too late for Mrs Sayed, a black African from the country’s Haratine caste who was born into slavery about 40 years ago and is illiterate.
But she knows Mr Boulkheir’s victory could transform the future for her daughter and grandchildren, whom she had to leave behind in captivity when she finally escaped."All that is needed to free the slaves is will power," Mr Boulkheir said.
Telegraph, London
http://www.smh.com.au/world/antislavery-candidate-fans-hope-20090712-dhf…
There is some HOPE for the black people who live in Slavery in the Sahara!!!
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/film/reel-drama-more-fiction-th…
July 13, 2009
Reel drama more fiction than fact or lost in translation?
Questions persist over the veracity of a slavery film, writes Louise Schwartzkoff.
THE disputed documentary Stolen is full of mistranslations and incorrect subtitles, a translator who worked on the film, Oumar Sy, says.
The Bondi filmmakers, Violeta Ayala and Dan Fallshaw, claim slavery exists in Western Saharan refugee camps.
Controversy surrounded a screening of the film at last month’s Sydney Film Festival, when one of the main subjects, Faitim Salam, left the refugees camps at Tindouf in Algeria to protest against the documentary’s claims.
Ayala and Fallshaw stood by the film, saying it had been verified by three separate translators including Sy, who works as a Hassaniya Arabic to English translator for the United States Immigration Court.
Sy went through the film with the documentary makers in February, pointing out several mistakes in their subtitles.
He said Ayala and Fallshaw wrote down his corrections and promised to alter the subtitles. They arranged to meet for a screening of the final cut, but cancelled the appointment.
"They told me they would send a copy of the film for me to check, but they didn’t," Sy says from New York. "They didn’t respect their commitment to me. I was surprised and disappointed."
He saw the final version of the film for the first time last week and was shocked at its inaccuracy. "There is still a lot of work to do on the film," he says. "The translation I put on paper was correct. I went through [the film] minute by minute, but a lot of the mistakes have not been changed."
In one scene Salam’s mother and sister appear to confirm that she is a slave to her white foster mother. More recent translations show they are discussing Ayala, who they say has misunderstood the family relationships.
Another problem was that some of the film’s dialogue was in a local dialect that Sy could not understand. "If you don’t live locally, you cannot understand what they say," he says.
In an email to Sy on Thursday, seen by the Herald, Ayala and Fallshaw accused the translator of "negligence".
They say he failed to tell them his concerns about the translations and has damaged the film’s credibility. In a statement, they suggested Sy’s comments were part of an ongoing campaign by the organisation that runs the refugee camps, the Polisario Front, to undermine the film.
"If he had concerns, there were many opportunities to clarify these for us at the time," the filmmakers say in the statement. "We asked him if he was sure all the translations were correct; he signed a letter to say this."
They say only a small amount of dialogue was in question and most of the talk about slavery was in Spanish. "There are millions of Spanish speakers who will be able to hear for themselves key conversations about slavery used in the film."
A translator from Australia’s National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters will check the film before its next screening at the Melbourne International Film Festival on July 31.
Rick, The translation is not fautly. Were the Polisario’s other accusations true, that the film makers have bribed or tricked the participants into making false testimonies on film, why then would the Polisario representative in Australia have raised a stink about the veracity of the translations? It doesn’t add up.
If the testimonies in the film are false as all the Polisario’s supporters have said, including Fetim, why would there now be a need for them to question the veracity of translation or make such a fuss about it in the media now? If the testimonies in the film are false as claimed earlier, it would be pointless quibbling about the translation now.
Kamal has gone beyond himself in his tactics of deception. As my mother used say: Oh what a tangled we weave when first we practice to deceive
The Polisario have woven such a complex web of lies and they’ve just about strangled themselves in it. They’ve already strangled truth.
Good point JaneAgatha!!!
The more they try the less i believe them…
Good point JaneAgatha!!!
The more they try the less i believe them…
http://www.ww4report.com/node/3786
"Press release issued by Daniel Fallshaw and Violeta Ayala
Paris, 7 May, 2006
We have been working on a documentary film focusing on the life of one
family living in the Saharawi refugee camps in the Tindouf region of
Western Algeria. The film deals with the separation of Fetim from her
mother, separated 31 years ago as a three year old when Morocco invaded
Western Sahara. Ambarka Fetim’s mother who lives in the occupied
territories of Western Sahara flew for the first time to the refugee
camps in Algeria on 27th April with the UN mission that reunites
Saharawi families for 5 days.
This trip was our third to the Polisario run camps since September 2006.
We have been working closely with the Polisario who had until recently
been extremely helpful and supportive as they are with the many aid
organisations and other media that visit the camps.
Toward the very end of our most recent stay in the camps difficulties
began to arise between ourselves and the Polisario, after the discovery
of a missing tape. The Polisario began to believe we were straying from
the focus of our film, that of family separation and giving too much
attention to Fetim’s black extended family and friends.
On our second last day we arrived back at Fetim’s home for the farewell
dinner of her mother and found the head of Protocol and 3 other
Polisario officials there, the situation was extremely tense. We decided
to spend the night somewhere else.
The following day at around 5pm we were picked up by Polisario officials
and were held for a total of 5 hours. After which we had a long
discussion with the head of protocol together with the head of security,
there were two UN officers present to observe. After the discussion we
requested to the UN officers to be removed from the camps. After
negotiations with the Polisario, we were allowed to leave with the UN
officers. At all times the Polisario looked after us and afforded us
every courtesy.
We never discussed with the media any of our activities within the camps.
This moment in time is extremely important for the independence of Western
Sahara. Something we support and have been fighting for the past 12 months.
Any information and material we gathered while in the camps has been and
will continue to be treated with the utmost respect. We care for and
respect Fetim’s family a great deal, they opened their lives and home
and hearts to us as we did for them.
Violeta Ayala
Documentary Director
The Wall of Shame"
I happened to be in the Sydney Film Festival audience on the night of the screening of Stolen and remained for the Q&A. I had no particular reason to be there: I might easily have gone to another film. But I came out of it feeling disturbed and uneasy. I had seen something that purported in the narration and subtitles to be an uncovering of widespread slavery in a particular camp in the Western Sahara. I had seen nothing much that supported this. I had seen a woman who was shown in the film as a teacher taking food to a neighbouring household, something you would see in all Australian country towns and in the cities too. I had seen an old woman ask a younger woman to help her find her shoes so she could cross what was presumably very hot sand and join a celebration. It was all in the spoken words in the film. And these, as the weeks have gone on, have come more and more into question, it seems.
The 7.30 Report showed, in comparative subtitles, that there were real doubts about their translation. I then read what I thought was a strong piece by Yvette Andrews above, in which she quotes at length a woman named Ursula Aboubacar, a UNHCR representative in the area who insists that her words were used selectively in the film and to support a case for slavery in the camps that she and the other UNHCR workers had not seen any evidence of in many years working there. I can’t say I now remember all details now of what was said at the Q&A, but I do have a memory of Violeta Ayala saying either then or later that the translations of the subtitles had been certified and verified by a translator in New York. This translator proves to be a man named Oumar Sy who was quoted in the Herald on Monday July 13. According to the writer of the piece, Louise Schwartzkoff, Oumar Sy has now said that ‘Stolen is full of mistranslations and incorrect subtitles’ and there are quotes in the piece to support his contentions.
Nothing I have read in the responses to Yvette Andrews, including those by Tom Zubricki and another good documentary maker, Curtis Levy, seems really to answer this problem, and the allegations against the film, and against the professional honesty and integrity of the makers of it, are now quite serious. I think there was mention somewhere of other tapes that the filmmakers have of footage that was shot in the camps. If there was truly slavery visible there – and it seems undisputed that there is slavery in other parts of Africa, including neighbouring Mauritania – I think that they should now produce these other tapes and have the words said in them independently translated. There must also be further footage of Fetim and her family. We were surely not seeing a ratio of 1:1 in what was screened. Or are these other tapes mysteriously missing? (We were told about mysterious and even sinister events in the film, but I couldn’t, as I watched the film, much make sense of it all.) However one big question remains for me, which is that the repeated assertion by Violeta Ayala and Dan Fallshaw that there are 20,000 slaves in the camp is surely not supported by the filmmakers’ observations of a single family over a few weeks alone and by the visual evidence — or lack of it — we saw in the film. Or is that really all there is? I think it is time that we knew this.
The portrayal of slavery in the film, Stolen, is as practised in North Africa. Modern slavery is different from what we grew up believing slavery to be. There are no graphic images of people in chains being whipped and tortured or forced to work as beasts of burden.
The form of slavery perpetrated by white Arabs upon black Africans is not the slave trade variety that we know of from history. It is a hereditary class system that has existed for 100s of years. White families own slaves and pass them down; many developing close relationships like an extended family. However it is common for the black women to be sexually abused by the family of white owners. Fetim and her daughter have been so abused. This information is readily available.
Slaves, being slaves, don’t have the same rights as their owners; not unlike what it used to be for women in Australia who were chattels of men 50 or 100 years ago, and still to some extent.
Slavery in North Africa is a current concern for human rights organisations. There are many reports that confirm that this form of slavery is still practised widely.
In Mauritania the number has been quoted as 600,000 or 20 percent of the population. It is an entrenched problem that has defied attempts to eradicate it for the last 100 years. Twenty percent of 125,000 is 25,000 so (alarming as it may sound) the 20,000 quoted by the film makers is not far fetched. Some of these people may have been "freed" from slavery if not from refugee status. How many and how successfully is anyone’s guess given the experiences in Mauritania. There is evidence that by no means all Saharawi slaves have been freed. This is an issue that the Polisario wish to hide.
Nothing in the real world is black and white; more like many shades of grey and whatever the social or economic role a person might fill, there have always been people who have treated other human beings with compassion.
Daido may love Fetim and treat her well and Fetim may love her back; just as abused children love their parents. However well Daido treats Fetim and whether or not slavery is a traditional cultural practice, to deny Fetim and people like her freedom of speech and freedom of movement is a human rights violation. What Fetim is saying to the media in Australia is what she’s been told to say by the Polisario and her owner, Deido. If Fetim were free to speak for herself in her own voice about slavery she would speak as she has spoken in the film.
JaneAgatha, could you please comment on the methods used to produce Stolen.
Please comment onn what Oumar Sy, the translator, the filmmakers claimed certified the subtitles used in the film, he wrote:
"They asked me to correct the wrong translation and I agreed to do it.
Step by step and minute by minute, stopping and replaying the film, I made the right translation which they were writing down on paper. They asked me to certify that the translation I made which they wrote down was accurate and truthful, which I did under the understanding that all my translations will be incorporated into the final version of the film.
They committed themselves to rectify the wrong translation and make the necessary change and then come to my house in Brooklyn (New York) to verify that my translation was indeed corrected into the film. We agreed to meet one Sunday afternoon around 12:30 PM.
However, 15 minutes before our appointment time, they called me to cancel it, due to prior commitments they had. When I asked them how I can know that the translations were correctly done they told me that they will send me a copy of the film.
Since that day, I never heard from them. I regretted that they did not keep their word and respect the commitment they made to me.
Recently, by the last week of June 2009, they called me, e-mailed me and sent me by mail the film asking me to review some parts of the film, which -they said- “are source of problems”.
Therefore, I would like to reaffirm that I did not certify that the translations, from Hassaniya into English of the final version of the film called “”Stolen” directed by Ms. Violeta Ayala and Mr. Dan Fallshaw and the produced by Mr. Tom Zubrycki, are correct.
However, I did certify that the corrections I made which they wrote down on paper were correct. "
JaneAgatha please comment on the letter sent by Ursula Abubacar, from UNHCR to to the filmmakers:
"I understood that despite my written request to you for my formal clearance to use my voice or face in your documentary in the Tindouf camps you went ahead without my clearance, which I formally want to protest about. The release form you gave me for my signature is still with me…
I strongly protest about the way you manipulated my one hour (or longer) interview in your film and the short compilation of sentences (in 2 minutes) of what I said."
Could you please comment on the letters mentioned above from people the filmmakers used in their statements to the media to support their claims in the film.
I feel that Rick is Kamal Fadel.
JaneAgatha I agree. I have thought this for awhile.
Also it is pretty obvious the translation issue is a distraction form the real issue which is the plight of the people in the film and of other people in the camps. On the night of the film before it had even been shown some of Kamal’s supporters had already raised the issues of the translations not being accurate? It appears that this was part of their plan even before they had seen the film. It is an aspect of the film that is easy to attack as very few people speak Hassaniya so it is impossible for people to judge for themselves. By Melbourne all issues around the translation will be resolved. What will Kamal or should I say Rick say then? As for the UN lady it seems to me that maybe she has said things that are not politically correct and is worried. Watching the film it was pretty clear what she was saying. This issue will also be dealt with in the future I am sure.
It is a great film that informs people of an important human rights issue.
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.
From:
http://nuseiba.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/western-sahara-and-faitims-story…
The above serves to balance Yvette’s report, which entirely reflects the perspective of the Polisario as supported by the Australia Western Sahara Association, ALP faction and Socialist Alliance.
Tom has provided a clear and comprehensive response to the rampant denials of slavery that have been widely disseminated in Australian media. I wonder though, are the denials conscious fabrications or do Yvette Andrews and Meredith Burgmann actually believe that slavery is not practised at Tindouf still, despite all the evidence to the contrary?
Meredith indicated on the 7.30 Report that she had been to the camps and had not seen slavery there herself, which along with the rest of her stand against the film conveyed a clear message to the Australian public that she believes the film is a fraud. Many would believe her.
Kamal’s statements don’t ring true, however their tone and intent is unfamiliar and difficult to interpret. He appeared charming (on the surface) on the night of the screening and yet what he’s said in the media is twisted with deep seated hostility; indicative of what can happen to a person who has lived most if not all of their life in exile, engaged in a bitter war.
Kamal sees the film makers as in the camp of his enemies and his opposition to them and the film appears to be an emotional issue. Hence the complex and detailed case he has fabricated against them is flawed and inconsistent; just as Yvette’s piece above is flawed and inconsistent and blind to key facts.
Yvette, Meredith and their fellow members in AWSA have been associates of Kamal for many years and it appears that the Polisario cause has beomce their personal cause and is an emotional issue for them as well. That being the case, Yvette and Meredith would have been well advised to stay out of the limelight on this issue.
Tom Zubricki says correctly that there have been disputes over documentaries before and quotes two instances, but I don’t remember anything quite like the dispute over the documentary Stolen. I saw the film, as I wrote above, without much in the way of preconceptions. I had planned to go to another film. The central figure was a woman whom I saw at the beginning as a schoolteacher and then was later told, not by herself but by others, that she was really a slave. I do understand that this term can have many gradations, but essentially it must comprehend the use of a person’s unwilling and unpaid labour in a situation where this person has been made to feel that he or she had no other options, whether this is true or not. It must mean something like this, or the word has no meaning and comprehends probably a million or so Australians who look after ageing parents day and night, feeling they have no options, because of the cost of home nursing care, to do so. Will there soon be an exposé of slavery in Australia by Violeta Ayala and Dan Fallshaw along these lines?
It could of course be that this central figure in the film had concealed her slave status from the filmmakers and they took it upon themselves to reveal it to the world – and to her herself, it seems, since there is a recorded piece at the end of the film where she herself repudiates the conclusions the film came to and she and her husband travelled here to emphasise this. I saw them both at the Q&A after the screening and there was no evidence of compulsion that I could see, though one of the writers in this saga JaneAgatha (who must surely be either one of the filmmakers or someone very close to them – it is hard to imagine a mere audience member writing all those letters) that Fetim’s children were probably being held as surety at the time by sinister forces back home. Really?
Since then more disturbing allegations about the film have emerged; one of the most that I remember being the conversation with Fetim’s young daughter in which, according to the subtitles, she said, ‘Fetim is a slave’. It was, I think, on the 7.30 Report that we were told that she had actually said, ‘Violeta wants me to say Fetim is a slave.’ One wonders in retrospect why, rather than the bald statement quoted in the subtitles, she did not say ‘My mother is a slave’ and then go on to amplify this. There are also questions, I understand, about whether the men from the camp, who drove an extremely long distance (1800 miles, I think I remember) and spoke in a low-key, uncomfortable way about slavery and about Fetim, were promised a reward to do so.
The UNHCR response has also been dismissed by the filmmakers, but one thing that can’t be dismissed, I think, is the account by the New York translator printed above, who writes very convincingly about how he verified the translations of the subtitles on the basis of certain undertakings by the filmmakers, none of which were met. I do remember one of them quoting the verification by a New York translator at the Q&A. His letter withdraws that.
I don’t think I have heard of anyone demanding the suppression of the film and I think the screening at the Melbourne Film Festival should go ahead, but I also think that Tom Zubricki, the producer who has defended it right through, should then take control of it as producer, approach Screen Australia for more money – they have put in quite a lot already and it is reasonable to ask that they support it now – and get the subtitles re-translated, both from the Spanish and from the local language, and re-release the film. I think more could be added from other tapes about the camp and the social context rather than being about one apparently isolated family. The film is not all that long, as I remember it, and there is probably room for more. If the re-released film proves to be more about a family reunion than slavery, then so be it. It could still be a good film and there might be enough agreement on it to allow the statement at the end of it from Fetim to be removed. At the moment, with that statement on the end undercutting the whole truth and integrity of the film, it seems – or it seemed to me when I saw it – broken-backed.
Petra
Kamal approached the Sydney Film Festival and the Melbourne Film Festival in an attempt to descredit the film so that it would not be shown. What is that, if it not suppression?
The subtitles issue is a distraction from the real human rigths issue that is documented in the film.
How quick the writers of these responses are (Lawrence H for example) to leap to emotive language and to make assumptions and slides of logic within a single sentence. For someone to approach the Sydney and Melbourne Film Festivals about the problems in a film becomes, in this kind of slide, an attempt to suppress the film altogether. I can’t say I know enough about this aspect of it to comment further, but I do wonder who was able to impose the piece from Fetim in which she challenges the filmmakers and in effect repudiates the film at the end of it. I haven’t got the impression in the Q&A and the subsequent responses that either Dan or Violeta would have willingly put it there and these responses that I have read – and I certainly have not read all of them — seem to ignore it. But I would say to Lawrence H that the evidence is there that the film has not been suppressed, but, in the light of Fetim’s statement, are we the audience meant to take the film as a serious exposure of deep problems in this woman’s life – and, as we later heard, the lives of twenty thousand others in the same camp – or what?
Lawrence H’s further comment that ‘The subtitles issue is a distraction from the real human rigths (sic) issue that is documented in the film’ is jaw-dropping when almost the entire substance of the human rights issue allegedly documented in the film is in the subtitles, and reinforced in the narration. As I wrote on July 15, ‘I had seen something that purported in the narration and subtitles to be an uncovering of widespread slavery in a particular camp in the Western Sahara. I had seen nothing much that supported this. I had seen a woman who was shown in the film as a teacher taking food to a neighbouring household, something you would see in all Australian country towns and in the cities too. I had seen an old woman ask a younger woman to help her find her shoes so she could cross what was presumably very hot sand and join a celebration. It was all in the spoken words in the film. And these, as the weeks have gone on, have come more and more into question, it seems.’ And then today I wrote, ‘…more disturbing allegations about the film have emerged; one of the most disturbing that I remember being the conversation with Fetim’s young daughter in which, according to the subtitles, she said, “Fetim is a slave”. It was, I think, on the 7.30 Report that we were told that she had actually said, “Violeta wants me to say Fetim is a slave.” One wonders in retrospect why, rather than the bald statement quoted in the subtitles, she did not say “My mother is a slave” and then go on to amplify this. There are also questions, I understand, about whether the men from the camp, who drove an extremely long distance (1800 miles, I think I remember) and spoke in a low-key, uncomfortable way about slavery and about Fetim, were promised a reward to do so.’
I feel a little embarrassed at repeating myself at such length and am wondering how I got into this, but yes, I think human rights issues are involved here, but it is not so clear whose human rights they are and how well and how responsibly those rights have been handled in this particular documentary film.
Petra, would you like to direct the film? You seem to know so much about it.
I watch the film, I speak the Spanish and there is no doubt in my mind that those who spoke in the film were telling the truth, there is a deep rooted slavery in those camps. ‘The film is not all that long, as I remember it, and there is probably room for more.’ This a real compliment for the makers, every filmmaker wants his/her film to be described as short. By the way was an 80 min film.
Congratulations on this article Yvette.
Allegations of slavery amongst the Saharawi are ludicrous. The refugees of Western Sahara have built a tolerant and liberal society under extremely difficult conditions. If slavery existed the POLISARIO would not be lobbying the UN for human rights monitoring in Western Sahara. One way to clear this up would be for the Security Council to agree to monitor the human rights situation which the POLISARIO has consistently called for to monitor the repeated abuse of Saharawi people under Morocaan occupation.
This film is highly irresponsible.
Petra,
‘For someone to approach the Sydney and Melbourne Film Festivals about the problems in a film becomes, in this kind of slide, an attempt to suppress the film altogether. I can’t say I know enough about this aspect of it to comment further’
FYI
Protesters step up campaign to have slave film banned
THE disputed documentary Stolen should be banned from the Melbourne International Film Festival, a Sydney representative of the Polisario Liberation Front, Kamal Fadel, said yesterday.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/film/sydney-film-festival-2009/…
An Audience member, Note that the journalist did not put quotation marks for what Kamal told her. She was speculating as she did in her more recent article when she wrote:
A translator from Australia’s National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters will check the film before its next screening at the Melbourne International Film Festival on July 31.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/film/reel-drama-more-fiction-th…
When someone says something to a journalist they put it in quotation marks like this (Ouma Sy) speaking to the journalist: ""There is still a lot of work to do on the film," he says. "The translation I put on paper was correct. I went through [the film] minute by minute, but a lot of the mistakes have not been changed."
I feel that Rick and Petra are the same person: Kamal
The trouble with the media commentary to date is that it has been influenced by the negative spin put of the multitudinous statements issued by Kamal and his supporters, all of which claim the film is a fraud and the filmmakers tricksters.
Hence the film makers have been forced merely to defend themselves against a grab bag of accusations designed to throw the veracity of the film into doubt; and there has been little opportunity to positively promote the film which is a shame. Basically, there has been no balance in the debate so far.
[I’m rather sorry to see that the comment Yvette had placed here yesterday has been removed. She actually said or implied something to the effect that maybe it WAS a good film and perhaps it WOULD go ahead; and provided some editorial advice should any funding remain.
This may be a sign that dissension and/or doubt is emerging in the camp of Kamal’s supporters. Apart from Yvette’s comment about which she must have had second thoughts, Kamal has been the only one blogging lately.]
JaneAgatha, I am not now, and never have been, known as Kamal. You have the wrong gender for a start.
I have come into this argument fairly late, but it still seems to me in my reading that no-one much in these responses considers a number of things that have been written or else said on the 7.30 Report about this film or at the original noisy Q&A. Yvette Andrews was said to be ‘jealous’ of the filmmakers, and this is a theme I have noted cropping up elsewhere. The filmmakers ask us to believe in a conspiracy to deny the existence of twenty thousand slaves in the camps in the Western Sahara, a conspiracy that has apparently succeeded in keep the whole world and the many people who have freely visited the camps and the people of the UNHCR who have lived and worked there unaware of this extensive abuse of human rights for a long period of time.
I know that there is some shifting and changing on the subject of what is a slave – the kind of shifting and changing I have elsewhere noted in the responses — but, as I have said above, there is some general agreement in the English language as to what is constituted by slavery or we would not use the word and nor would the filmmakers have done so. Can we at least agree that the life of a slave is not one that any of us would willingly choose? And the filmmakers or their representatives also write at length of another conspiracy, which is a local conspiracy now to bring the film into serious question, ignoring the fact that the piece on the end of it in which Fetim herself denounces it has already done that. Or are we to believe there another conspiracy that somehow pressured her into it, and she came and went from this country without seeking asylum? Or that this conspiracy prevented her from doing this because of threats to her children?
Though already said I have no direct knowledge of this in my response on July 18, the lines quoted from the Herald about a call for the ‘banning’ of the film in Melbourne sound to me very much like newspaper-speak. As we all know, a film can’t be ‘banned’ unless it breaches particular guidelines of the censorship board. I don’t think anyone would want or expect it to be ‘banned’ nor should it be.
I will wearily repeat again what I suggested in that same response, since no-one in these responses seems to do anything much but repeat catch-cries — and perhaps someone might just answer more responsibly. I think that Tom Zubricki, the producer who has defended it right through, should now take control of the film as producer, approach Screen Australia for more money – they have put in quite a lot already and it is reasonable to ask that they support it now – and get the subtitles re-translated, both from the Spanish and from the local language, and re-release the film. I still think more could be added from other tapes about the camp and the social context rather than being about one apparently isolated family. JaneAgatha has confirmed that the film is only 80 minutes, which is not very long for such a big subject. If the re-released film proves to be more about a family reunion than slavery, then so be it. As I wrote then, ‘It could still be a good film and there might be enough agreement on it to allow the statement at the end of it from Fetim to be removed. At the moment, with that statement on the end undercutting the whole truth and integrity of the film, it seems – or it seemed to me when I saw it – broken-backed.’ No comment I have heard in reply changes my opinion on that.
Petra
I’m not aware of shifting ground in definitions of slavery. (All concepts are open to varying and contested definitions over time anyway.) The film caused me to question my own understanding of slavery. I could see the issues in the camps are complex. As I’ve said, I have since learned of the hereditary slave class amongst the Berbers; a class of people who have been oppressed over many generations and continue to fill a low status position in that society with the relationship of servitude persisting for many.
Yes there have been several references to jealousy by Yvette. However her support for the Polisario through AWSA seems to be her main motivation in publicily supporting the Polisario’s media campaign. I don’t doubt though that Yvette’s status as a rival and less successful film maker has strengthened her motivation to denounce the film while remaining blinded to wider political issues at stake; including freedom of expression here and in the W. Sahara AND the complex politics of that region. There is much information around to suggest that the Polisario form of democracy is a sham, put on for public relations purposes only, and that the Polisario are backed by Algeria.
The Polisario are all powerful in those camps because they hold the resources necessary for the life of camp residents. UNHCR indicates that pressure from them whether overt or covert prevents residents from leaving. Some have escaped under cover and have lived to tell their stories later: of being forced by the Polisario to stay there against their will.
I am awaiting with interest to see what changes are made to the film and no doubt it could be improved as you suggest; although even the prospect of changes is being used by Kamal and/or people like him, as a lever for further denigrating the film and the film makers. No matter what they do, I’m sure they’ll still cop criticism from Kamal. What irks me is to see other Australians, including through the Australian media supporting Kamal in this.
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 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
In response to the above.
The film does not imply that the Polisario permits slavery; rather the film and what the film makers have said in public has been sympathetic towards the Polisario cause. It’s the Polisario who have been behaving like ratbags over the film.
No evidence so far has come to light that undermines the evidence of slavery as portrayed in the film. The minor issues that have been raised in relation to the translation do not negate either the veracity of the film nor the evidence of slavery that the film makers found.
Omar Sy was not a translator. He was only asked to verify part of the translation. There are inconsistencies between what he says and what the film makers say. It’s anybody’s guess whether what Sy says is true and what the film makers say is true? Clearly "rick" believes Sy. I believe the film makers.
Re Fetim, her retraction came only after Polisario interference. It does make them look oppressive and I feel they are the ones who have misused Fetim. Who is to be believed? The whole scenario suggests to me that the film makers and what Fetim says on film is more believable than what appears to be a forced retraction made on a Polisario sponsored trip.
Only certain people say the film makes false claims; most particularly Kamal Fadel and his supporters. All of the evidence I have seen and considered has led me to the conclusion that the Polisario and their supporters are wrong and that they have their own reasons for wanting to discredit the film, to do with a long standing issue with Morocco. They seem to wish to deny that what the film portrays is true; which is not an indication to me that it is false as Kamal claims.
The issue as to whether Morocco is stealing Western Sahara resources is not one on which there is wide agreement. Specifically, the Polisario and their supporters say the resources are being stolen. There are other interpretations of this issue, including interpretations by major world powers that are contrary to this.
There is no doubt and foolish to deny that the Berber practice of slavery has long involved taking black slave children from their parents at a young age and that Fetim is one of these children. No way have the film makers or Fetim and others made this up.
I’d be interested to see what Hose Ramos Horta says. I can’t imagine that he’ll spend any time railing against the film. He may talk about the issues of resources in the Western Sahara which is a sore point for those who support the Polisario cause.
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.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/timors-link-to-a-saharan-struggle-20090721…
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.
Published also in The Age :
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/timors-link-to-a-saharan-struggle-20090…
Boring!
Ramos-Horta on Stolen:
This is a transcript of what HE Jose Ramos-Horta said on the slavery allegations in the film “Stolen” during an event held in Melbourne on 23 July 2009 where he spoke on the issue of Western Sahara:
“I have to confess I have not seen the film but have read about all about it for many months - transcripts and articles. I have to say I was in the 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.”
Report on flaws in Stolen handed to Minister Garrett
The Federal Government will today be presented with a damning critique of the Australian film Stolen and asked to disassociate itself from the film.
The critique uncovers serious misleading and deceptive practice on the part of the film makers and, on this basis alone, the Australia Western Sahara Association said, the Commonwealth crediting should be removed before its MIFF screening tonight.
Lyn Allison, President of AWSA said “The credibility given by the Commonwealth crest to the false claims of widespread slavery in the Saharawi camps should be of great embarrassment to the Minister and Screen Australia.
“The film was funded as a documentary but turned out to be a fiction. Now the real story behind its production needs to be told.”
The critique, collated by AWSA, documents untruths and basic errors identified by independent translators, witnesses and individuals used in the film. It cites “…. questionable methods and unethical practices from pre- to post-production.”
The full critique is at: http://awsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/critique_finalversion1.pdf
“Australia’s standing as a trusted producer of documentary work is challenged by Stolen carrying the Government’s seal of approval and its $300,000 of support.”
The critique details statement retractions, payments for false statements, a lack of release forms and standard interview permission documentation, manipulation of subjects, contradictory translations, fictitious scenes and questionable funding arrangements.
“AWSA offers this analysis of Stolen in defence of the dignity of the Saharawi people.”
“Unfortunately, Stolen does not help Australians understand or care about the plight of the Saharawis or their legitimate struggle for self-determination,” said Ms Allison.
For comment: Lyn Allison: 0407 691 512
For background: http://www.awsa.org.au