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.
“Ken Livingstone is a folk hero.”
I find it interesting that about 60 years after the porajmos (gypsy for holocaust), we still have problems regarding nazism.
I mean, from a logical point of view, did anything prevent a Jew from being a nazi ? Nothing at all. There even are books about that, and Google has plenty of links regarding “hitler jewish soldier”.
Also, Livingstone seems quite right with his point : “I’m only doing this because it’s my job” sounds like some “abdication of moral responsibility” to me.
Perhaps one day, we will learn to understand that being politically correct means no freedom of speech, no argumentation, no understanding, no evolution. And that we’ll do shit over and over again because we didn’t understood what was bad.
Ken Livingstone is the man, a true honest politician who shoots from the hip. SO what if he makes a comment that occassionaly offends a few here and there, he is a true statesmen doing his job passionately. Of course he does not sympathize with the nazi’s, look at his track record of helping minorities.
I think anyone, whether Jewish or not, would, or at least should, have been deeply offended by such a horrific comparison. And worse still, it was completely out of the blue, as the reporter did absolutely nothing wrong to him. Apparently, the reporter had to answer for the (mis)behaviour of the whole newspaper group over many decades, which is grossly unfair.
Why this was more offensive to the Jews? Because others, especially younger people, may not even know what these words meant.
And while I agree that political correctness should not stand in the way of free speech, I think this should not extend to public figures.
I disagree, and this is pretty much the point that Livingstone was making — the abdication of moral responsibility. In this case we have a Jewish reporter who’s working for a right-wing organisation with a history of attacking minorities but is “only doing his job”. Perhaps he shouldn’t have to answer for the behaviour of the whole group over many decades but he either supports that behaviour or he doesn’t.
I don’t see how the possibility of young people not knowing what a Nazi is makes this incident more offensive to Jewish people than anybody else.
Again, I disagree. Simply being a public figure should not prevent you from speaking your mind, and this is one of the reasons as to why Livingstone remains as popular as he is — people trust him because he speaks his mind. I would sooner have politicians that spoke their mind and offended some people than politicians that carefully scripted their speech to make sure it’s as safely bland as possible.
Mayor is suspended for four weeks