The bedouins do not touch gold

This video that I present here: “The Bedouins Do Not Touch Gold,” recorded over a brief four days Solroute’s field work in the village of Chami, Mauritania, is not the piece I initially wanted to show in this museum gallery. The video you are about to see is a summary of those four days in Chami, undoubtedly one of the most physically unpleasant places I have ever visited in my life. The video is a naturalistic view of that part of the world and the people who inhabit it. What is surprising about Chami is that a place generating so much wealth can be so miserable: highly polluted, where Syrian refugees search through the trash, Malian migrants fleeing war, and Somali gold-washing experts dip their hands in mercury and cyanide as if it were water, and a Canadian private mining company create a 500-meter-high mountain in the middle of nowhere, protected by a private security army, talking about green mining. Finally old Bedouins who have inhabited the area for centuries watch the disaster with resignation, unless they have joined the gold rush madness themselves. A place where, if the devil existed, would have a home.

The video I first had in mind was one that juxtaposed the testimonies of Malian migrant miners with the advertising images of major luxury companies selling gold jewelry, interspersed with texts by Achille Mbembe on the cruelty of borders and how capitalism subjugates the global population by creating an unnecessary desire for something that glitters, which doesn’t necessarily have to be gold, though it often is.

I wanted to show how gold is a cruel metaphor for our contradictory system: Gold is useless, but it’s worth a lot. Gold is supposedly beautiful, but its extraction is objectively dirty. Gold is gifted out of love, yet its extraction is odious. Gold seems innocent, but it kills thousands of people and destroys ecosystems. And beyond all that, we often don’t see the reality because we are blinded by its shine.

Sadly, I was unable to present that video piece because the university—my employer—feared that the lawyers of those multi-million-dollar gold jewelry companies might sue us for the unlawful appropriation of their promotional audiovisual materials.

This is the contradiction of our project: we denounce borders, we are abolitionists, yet we are funded by the same people who finance Frontex. Our lives are not in danger, but sometimes we have to censor ourselves to avoid offending those who pay us. It’s the constant bipolarity we live in here in Europe, those of us who depend on academic and/or artistic funding. I consolate myself remembering that their money isn’t theirs; comes from our taxes, and thinking that is better that it finances progressive ideas rather than reactionary ones. Better to finance life than death, poor consolation?. It’s also worth noting that the budgetary differences are immense. This five-year project represents just 0.2% of the €922 million Frontex will have in 2024 to sow terror and death at Europe’s borders. In any case, the contradiction taints us.

Finally, it was decided not to publish the video within the framework of the project, the University, and the European Union. Being aware that this is not the main topic of the Solroutes study, I am transcribing, for those who may be interested, the arguments given to us by two lawyers we consulted in response to the fear of the contracting party. As an audiovisual creator, I support not only the abolition of borders but also the abolition of intellectual property rights when the goal is not to profit economically.

Accusation: “Copyrighted content is reproduced (but with altered sound), obviously without the owner’s permission. This could lead to legal action as well as damages.”

Possible Defense: Fair use or citation rights: If the content is used for educational, critical, commentary, research, or parody purposes, it may be protected by fair use exceptions. In many jurisdictions, these exceptions allow for the use of copyrighted material without permission as long as certain criteria are met. Transformation and Creativity: If the alteration of the audio constitutes a significant transformation of the original content, it could be argued that a new work has been created, sufficiently different from the original, and therefore not infringing copyright. Purpose and Nature of Use: Evaluating whether the use of the content is commercial or not and whether it aims to generate discussion or critique of the original content. Non-commercial, educational use is more likely to be considered legitimate use.

Accusation: “The use of advertising related to jewelry manufacturers to denounce labor exploitation and worker conditions is, in my opinion, defamatory. Although the brand is not visible, it is not difficult to trace the type of advertising back to the client company, which could feel harmed by this combination. In this case, legal action and compensation are also possible.”

Possible Defense: Truth of the statements: If the statements made in the new audiovisual piece are true and backed by evidence, they cannot be considered defamatory. Truth is an absolute defense against defamation charges in many jurisdictions. Opinion and Freedom of Expression: The defense could argue that the publication is an expression of opinion and is protected by the right to freedom of speech. Criticism and commentary on labor practices are matters of public interest and are generally protected. Public Interest: Denouncing unfair labor practices could be considered a matter of public interest, and statements made in this context could be protected if they are deemed reasonable and relevant. Specific Identification: If the company is not specifically identified in the publication, it could be argued that no defamation has occurred, as no specific entity has been directly identified.

Accusation: “The passive subject of this action refers to the entity (individual or legal person) mentioned in the publication, as well as others in the “supply chain.” If this entity were the university, the action would be brought against the university (through its legal representative, i.e., the Rector), as well as other parties (for example, the project director), and also the author.”

Possible Defense: Academic immunity: Depending on the jurisdiction, universities may enjoy certain legal protections against such claims, especially when it comes to academic and research activities. Author’s Autonomy: Arguing that the responsibility falls primarily on the author of the publication and not on the institution, especially if the institution has no editorial control over the published content. Internal Review Process: If the university has an internal process for reviewing and approving publications, demonstrating that this process was followed could reduce its liability. No Direct Harm: Demonstrating that there has been no direct harm to the company’s reputation and that the accusations are not defamatory, thus reducing the possibility of damages.