- The Guardian
- Issue #2176
When is a kidnapping not a kidnapping? It’s not a riddle. The answer is “when the famously impartial British Broadcasting Corporation is reporting it and the kidnapped person is Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro.” The BBC has apparently sent out a directive that the kidnapping is to be referred to as “seizing” or “capture.” ‘Seized’ is neutral, while ‘capture’ suggests that Maduro was on the run. Maybe he deserved it?
The facts are that the USA has invaded a country and kidnapped its leader. One hundred people were murdered during the attack.
A quick look at Australian media shows outlets here are going with ‘seizure’ or ‘capture’ too. Maybe they don’t know how to spell ‘kidnap.’ No amount of seizing and capturing will change that. Calling the attack ‘audacious’ doesn’t make it not a kidnapping.
It’s tempting to say that this is just language, but these choices are important for several reasons. Australia’s leadership, always subservient to the US, is facing a difficult truth just now. For decades it has been the policy of both major parties that ‘the alliance’ with the US was the best thing for Australia and must be preserved. Ordinary Australians don’t get a vote on this, and it’s not up for discussion, whatever the US does. After Venezuela, and considering that the US is directly threatening another US ally, Denmark, it’s become harder for the government to pretend that the US cares about Australia’s interests.
So language that suggests that a murderous kidnapping was a bit of an adventure and that Maduro deserved to be kidnapped matters because it keeps us from the truth about our so-called ally. If Australian people were really confronted with the plain truth about what happened, they might start questioning AUKUS, whereby this country is spending more than it has ever spent on anything to make us even more integrated with the US military.
Another misuse of language is the word ‘antisemitism.’ The word itself describes a real thing that the Communist Party of Australia wholeheartedly opposes, racism and bigotry towards Jewish people.
The misuse comes when ‘antisemitism’ is used to describe support for Palestine or opposition to actions taken by the state of Israel. Almost every week in Australian cities large numbers of people march in the streets because they oppose an ongoing genocide and an unjust occupation. That’s not antisemitism. Misuse of the term reached some kind of pinnacle when the Australian government’s ‘antisemitism envoy’ equated a peaceful march over the Sydney Harbour Bridge in opposition to the Israeli attacks on Gaza with the Bondi shootings.
The misuse looks set to continue with the planned Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. The terms of reference clearly state that the government “has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism.” That’s a working definition that conflates criticism of Israel and its actions with antisemitism. Commentator Osman Faruqi has called the Royal Commission “a de facto Royal Commission into Israel critics.”
Misuse of the term ‘antisemitism’ matters because it cheapens our understanding of what is a real and dangerous phenomenon. As an example, the government’s ‘antisemitism envoy’ was quiet about a public demonstration by actual Nazis holding signs about Jews, but has plenty of time to criticise protestors who oppose a genocide.
At a time when even trusted media sources like the ABC and the BBC are sugar-coating a murderous US attack on a sovereign country, and a government envoy and a lot of the media are painting opposition to an apartheid state as antisemitism, the Communist Party of Australia does its best to show the working class the world as it actually is. If you support us in that, consider joining or supporting our efforts through a donation to the Press Fund.
