SCUM AT THE TOP

Philip Ruddock struck a note of Orwellian absurdity when he announced the granting of a visa to the US performer Eminem. The Immigration Minister said he had imposed a condition that the rap artist be counselled not to say anything that could cause dangerous discord in sections of the community. The purpose was to draw his attention "to the requirement to observe the tolerant nature of our society". If he did not, he could be sent home. We, as a free society, apparently demonstrate our tolerance by prescribing what can and cannot be said even in the context of a concert. As it is actually Eminem's songs that have caused offence, is there to be a ministerially approved play list?

The government's approach has been troubling on several grounds: its political opportunism in applying ministerial discretion; its shaky grasp of the values of democratic freedom; and its apparent inability to distinguish between a visa applicant and his artistic personae. The issue should have been simple: did the critically acclaimed, but also highly offensive Eminem, real name Marshall Mathers, qualify for a visa to tour Australia? It was decided that a US conviction on weapons charges did not disqualify him. And once admitted, like any other visitor or citizen, Eminem must observe the laws of this country. Should his sickening and demeaning lyrics and "constantly gratuitous exhortations to violence" that is Prime Minister John Howard's opinion break the law, the law should be applied. And, of course, those who object to Eminem are not obliged to attend his concerts and are free to dissuade others from attending. But Mr Ruddock could not leave it at that. His posturing risks betraying greater values which go to the core of being a free country than those values he purports to defend.

What this episode also reveals is a lack of sophistication in so confusing a real person, Marshall Mathers, with his artistic personae. If the Prime Minister and his ministers, who readily complain of being misrepresented when quoted out of context, could bring themselves to listen to Eminem's work, they would probably still find it distasteful, but they could not assert that he simply advocates violence, misogyny and homophobia. Not unless they had other reasons for conflating message and messenger. Those who know his music well say Eminem's work has a brutal, confronting commentary on evils that are already out there as is his work, via freely distributed CDs, radio and the Internet. Marshall Mathers to some extent even distances himself from his subjects: he doesn't perform under his given name; his songs contain layers of commentary and editorial asides; he assumes the persona of Slim Shady to voice the ugliest sentiments, which are in turn subject to irony and parody; he even dons a mask on stage. Do we hear anyone demanding that the other famous mask-wearer Anthony Hopkins, so identified with his signature screen character Hannibal Lecter, be denied entry for advocating cannibalism? Of course not. Who'd be that silly?

Click here for The Age editorial

Top    Back to SCATT