Ken Livingstone
Perhaps it’s all down to the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, but it seems that Nazism is very much back in the news. Our bonny Prince Harry started the ball rolling with his ill-advised Nazi armband costume, and now London Mayor Ken Livingstone is in the spotlight for accusing a reporter of acting like a concentration camp guard.
I always felt that the people had been offended at the wrong part of the Prince Harry story. The focus was firmly on the swastika armband he was wearing, but I personally found much more to be offended by in the fact that he was attending a ‘colonials and natives’ party (were the Nazis colonials or natives, anyway? It’s been a few years since I studied history, but I’m reasonably sure that they were neither, so I can be offended from a historical perspective as well). That story died down eventually as people got bored of hearing group X demand further apologies, in person, with perhaps some bowing and self-flagellation and forced viewings of Schindler’s List, and group Y insisting that one apology was enough and couldn’t we all just move on? Now, we have a new story to enjoy — London Mayor in Nazi Jibe Shocker.
The specifics of the story can be read elsewhere, but I’ll rush through a quick summary; Livingstone attends party celebrating 20 years since Chris Smith became the first openly gay MP. Livingstone leaves party and is accosted by a reporter for the Evening Standard. Livingstone accuses reporter of acting like a concentration camp guard. Reporter declares he’s Jewish. Various people demand an apology. Livingstone refuses. DEADLOCK!
It’s very dramatic, of course.
Who’s being offended by what?
So, would the reporter not have been offended had he not been Jewish? This seems to be the crux of the issue, and why people are demanding apologies — not because he accused someone of acting like a Nazi, but because the person he accused was Jewish. The reporter was offended, it would appear, not because he felt it was an unjust comparison, but because he was Jewish:
“No, I’m Jewish, I wasn’t a German war criminal. I’m quite offended by that.”
Was he offended? Probably — those of a right-wing bent, and particularly those who work in the right-wing media are generally the first to offend and yet also the first to be offended. Nevertheless, it no longer matters whether the reporter was genuinely offended or not because lots of other people are. We have the The Board of Deputies of British Jews demanding an apology, and Holocaust survivors attending hearings at the London Assembly, which has passed two motions censuring Livingstone and insisting that he make that apology, which he’s so far refused to do.
Tony Blair has said that the Mayor should apologise:
“A lot of us in politics get angry with journalists from time to time, but in the circumstances, and to the journalist because he was a Jewish journalist, yes, he should apologise.”
There it is again; he should apologise not because comparing someone to a Nazi is offensive, but because the reporter was Jewish. So it’s ok to compare someone to a Nazi so long as they’re not Jewish? I’m not Jewish, but I’d be offended if someone compared me to a Nazi, and I’d also be concerned as to what I’d been doing that had prompted the comparison. Would the Board of Deputies of British Jews have intervened had he accused, say, a Muslim reporter of acting like a Nazi? Or an atheist reporter? Would a non-Jewish reporter even bother to state their religion before saying that they were offended? And, if he was so offended by the comparison between himself and a concentration camp guard, why is this Jewish reporter working for an organisation that supported Nazism and Fascism during the run-up to World War II?
(As an aside, Daily Mail Watch is a good read.)
Empty apologies.
I don’t think he should apologise, and I don’t think he will apologise, because he wouldn’t mean it. He’s said as much himself, that any apology would be meaningless as he wouldn’t stand by it, and given the 25-year campaign against him from Associated Newspapers, I’ll be very surprised if he gives in to pressure on this — he has at least as many supporters as he does detractors.
Livingstone has denied accusations that he is racist and anti-Semitic, and justified his comments with this:
“But when reporters say to me I’m only doing this because it’s my job… that’s the same abdication of moral responsibility at the thin end of the wedge that in its most extreme and horrific version ends up with others being prepared to stand as a concentration camp guard.”
Livingstone faces censure, he faces the possibility of being barred from serving the public for five years, he could be expelled from the Labour party again, he could end up losing the next Mayoral election. Despite this, he stands his ground, and it’s most likely for this reason that he’s stood up to Associated Newspapers attacks in the past, and survived intact.
Or, it could all blow over, and the press can fuss over some new issue of little importance instead.