Anti-semitism, banter and apologies: azeem rafiq and the royal court | thearticle

Here we go again. Anti-Semitism in Britain keeps on making the headlines. First, there has been a further twist in the Azeem Rafiq story about racism. Two days after his eloquent and moving

testimony before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) select committee hearing, it was revealed that he had made anti-Semitic remarks in an e-mail exchange with a friend. Some of the

language of this exchange is unpleasant. At one point, Rafiq tweets, “Hahaha, he is a jew. Probs go after my 2nds again ha.” And then, “How wrong is tht?? Only jews do tht sort of shit ha.”

His friend replied, “defoo mate!!!!! He must be out now getting getting talyyyyyy lool jew shit.” To his credit, Rafiq apologised immediately: “I was sent an image of this exchange from

early 2011 today. I have gone back to check my account and it is me — I have absolutely no excuses. I am ashamed of this exchange and have now deleted it so as not to cause further offence.

I was 19 at the time and I hope and believe I am a different person today. I am incredibly angry at myself and I apologise to the Jewish community and everyone who s rightly offended by

this.” Some were quick to defend Rafiq. One tweeted, “he’s taken full ownership, apologised, and undoubtedly — through his own experiences — learnt a lot about racism since then.” The word 

“undoubtedly” seems to be doing quite a lot of work in this sentence. Dave Rich, a leading writer on anti-Semitism, tweeted, “The anti-Jewish slurs used by Azeem Rafiq and exposed by

@thetimes are really bad, and very common. Just another window on what passes for ‘banter’ about Jews. But his apology comes across as a proper apology, and that is a lot less common.”

Douglas Murray was less forgiving: “ Not a surprise. As Mehdi Hasan once admitted, anti-Semitism is ‘routine and commonplace’ and ‘the dirty little secret’ of British Muslims.” This twist on

Thursday afternoon coincided with the latest statement from The Royal Court about the Hershel Fink affair. The release summarises the situation clearly: “ Originally and throughout the

development and rehearsals of the play, the character of Henry Finn was named Hershel Fink. On 5th November, the Royal Court was notified by members of the Jewish community that the use of

this Ashkenazi Jewish name for a ‘Silicon Valley billionaire and CEO’…  ‘on a mission to save the world’…  ‘and make millions of dollars in the process’ — risked perpetuating antisemitic

tropes.” The playwright Al Smith “immediately changed the name and the Royal Court issued two statements of unreserved apology on 6th November.” After this, things get less clear: “Since 7th

November we have been in active work with members of the Jewish community to understand how this harm was committed on both creative and institutional levels throughout the development and

rehearsal processes. We acknowledge our wrongdoing and will include anti-Semitism in future anti-oppression practices and training. We are meeting with providers of this training over the

coming weeks and they will be appointed in consultation with the Board.” “The Royal Court Board  met  on 11th November and is steering an internal review to interrogate how this happened

across all areas of the organisation. This will include looking at our artistic practices as well as the  organisational  ones which let this go unchecked and unchanged… Through learning

more about the Jewish experience and    anti-Semitism in theatre, the Royal Court will work to dismantle anti-Semitism internally and will strive to join   up with other  organisations  

across the industry.” I don’t know which is worse: the original mistake by The Royal Court or the series of woeful responses since, full or jargon and somehow failing to grasp the obvious

point that anyone should have been able to spot the problem and that so many didn’t raises serious issues about The Royal Court. It is unimaginable that a villainous character would have

been allowed to have a name associated with another ethnic minority or that such a character would have been associated with age-old racist tropes. This would have been instantly called out

by people working on the production. No ifs, no buts. But somehow no one, from the artistic director to the literary manager or the actors involved, seemed to spot the problem. This is the

heart of the problem, not the need for “ future anti-oppression practices and training” or “learning more about the Jewish experience and    anti-Semitism in theatre”. What is blindingly

obvious from both these incidents is that anti-Semitism is alive and kicking in contemporary Britain and that it is instantly recognisable to anyone who understands anti-Semitism. Rafiq was

right to protest against the racism he experienced as a cricketer. But what is disturbing is that while arguing his case he seems to have forgotten that ten years ago he and a friend made

equally vile comments about other people and that he couldn’t find a way to acknowledge any of this until it came to light. The Royal Court seems to be blind to the problem at the heart of

the “Hershel Fink” controversy: that no one involved with this production could spot a glaringly obvious anti-Semitic trope when it was staring them in the face. Amidst all the jargon, none

of the statements from The Royal Court have mentioned resignations or sackings. Worst of all, these two stories from yesterday are not the end. They are just the latest examples of the rise

of anti-Semitism in Britain today. A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s

needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation._