The New Statesman has “an excellent leader on the Ken Livingstone row”:http://www.newstatesman.com/nsleader.htm . Read the whole thing, but here’s a taste:
bq. The demand for ritual recantation and punishment whenever someone expresses themselves “inappropriately” (itself a prissy, nannyish sort of word) has become an inhibition on free speech. A football manager loses his job when he “insults” disabled people; an editor’s career is endangered when his magazine “insults” Liverpudlians; a commentator is thrown off the airwaves when he “insults” tsunami victims with a feeble pun. The worst sin of all (and rightly so) is anti-Semitism; but to place Mr Livingstone’s remarks in that category is another example of trivialising the genuine article.
Indeed. The second part of the Statesman leader is about Michael Howard’s disgraceful pandering to the racists with his proposed “health checks” on migrants. Unfortunately this (and the recent competitive bidding by Tories and Labour alike for the xenophobic vote) doesn’t receive nearly as much attention from the “left” blogosphere — a point “well made on John Band’s blog”:http://www.stalinism.com/shot-by-both-sides/full_post.asp?pid=788 .
{ 23 comments }
Tom T. 02.17.05 at 1:46 pm
I think Kieran’s superb commentary on the recent Prince Harry controversy holds up nicely in this context as well:
Happily, Sarah Ferguson has intervened today to clarify things, saying that “It is time for the press to back off. I know what it is like to have very bad press and be continually criticised — it is very tiring and unpleasant.†(For “very bad press†read “terrible judgment†and for “continually criticised†read “always making PR gaffes.â€)… If he doesn’t want the responsibility he can always renounce his position…, refuse a public subsidy, move to a bedsit somewhere and do whatever he likes.
mc 02.17.05 at 1:47 pm
Indeed. The problem with this kind of thing, besides being essentially frivolous and soap-ish (“Will he, won’t he?”), and counterproductive in its own terms (it’s supposed to be driven by concerns about people being offended, but ensures precisely that no one anywhere who might possibly be offended could escape without being), and, as you say hardly helping to foster a culture of free speech, it also, and we shouldn’t overlook this, hardly encourages a culture of spontaneity or straight talking either. It’s hard to stomach the very same commentators who ramp this kind of story up, elsewhere bemoaning the fact that politics is boring, politicians are too on-message, can’t give a straight answer to a straight question etc.
Des von Bladet 02.17.05 at 2:07 pm
The Livingstone kerfuffle didn’t make the papers here in the von Bladet (psychogeographical) estate, and I find myself disinclined to read media coverage complaining about the amount of media coverage of something I didn’t see any media coverage of.
This left blogosphere of yours must be populated by dullards indeed, though, if it can’t spot that the Tories are still evil and that Labour still (feels it) needs to bend over for the Mail readership.
kasei 02.17.05 at 2:08 pm
It’s highly depressing that modern politics is run entirely by vacuous marketing executives, and all “issues” consist of are insincere apologies for offhand remarks. Politicians like Blair and Howard then get away with repressive policies because no-one gives a shit. In a few years they’ll probably be apologising to the families of people sent back into war zones for scoring insufficient points on Labour’s proposed immigration system, whilst enforcing ever-harsher clampdowns in reality.
Howard perfectly encapsulates the Tory mindset – the son of immigrants, he is clearly too selfish to extend the opportunities his family had to others.
dsquared 02.17.05 at 2:15 pm
Thanks very much, Chris; this saves me having to write a post on roughly the same lines. I must say that the British liberal establishment[1] has really not covered itself in glory on this issue recently.
When the issue is a controversial play about the Sikhs, or blaspheming against the prophet Mohammed, or indeed portraying Jesus Christ as a homosexual coprophile in a satirical opera, you can’t fault us as a nation; our media and political commentators stood foursquare behind the right of people to express themselves. When, however, it comes to having a go at the victims of Hillsborough or the tsunami, or saying that the WTC had it coming, or dressing up as a Nazi or god forbid coming out as a racist or anti-Semite, then we suddenly go all yes-butty.
If I was a Muslim, and if I saw the entire columns of the British media lining up with Rowan Atkinson to defend the “right to offend” me and my lot, but then saw them squirming on a hook, shouting for apologies and saying things like
when it all came back to them, I think I would end up forming the conclusion that it was not so much the “right to offend” that people thought was important as the right to offend me and my lot. It is the nature of offensive speech that it offends, and if we are going to have laws about it then I think my criterion (does this speech have visible public order implications) is better than the implicit one being used (are the people offended by this religious believers or some other beyond-the-pale group).
I’d like to suggest the motto “Ad Nos Bovem Punctur” for any nascent British equivalent of the ACLU. Roughly translated from dog Latin, it means “Until our ox is gored”, because that appears to be the extent of our commitment to free speech.
Footnote:
[1]I have now apparently used that phrase non-ironically. I’m just off to buy a pearl-handled revolver and would be grateful if someone could arrange for me to be buried at sea.
Tom T. 02.17.05 at 2:43 pm
“if we are going to have laws about it”
I haven’t seen any suggestion that Livingstone be punished at law, but I’m following at a remove from the US.
I don’t see that the national commitment to free speech is endangered simply because that right is extended equally to those who are offended. If people wish to call Livingstone nasty names and call for his resignation, they may run the same risk of looking foolish as Livingstone did when he spoke, but isn’t that their right?
dan hardie 02.17.05 at 4:19 pm
Yes, not anti-Semitic, right to free speech, yadda yadda, agree very much. Still: Isn’t it extremely depressing that ‘You are like a Nazi concentration camp guard’ is how an intelligent politician expresses the thought ‘You are an intrusive and unpleasant journalist’? If a door-stepping hack is like an SS man, what do we compare a genuine mass-murderer to? Of course, if anyone disagrees with me, I’d just like to say in advance that you’re exactly like Goebbels, or possibly Heydrich.
Cruella 02.17.05 at 5:44 pm
Yes completely agree – people have free speech, we can draw our own conclusions about them if we wish from what they say. If people believe Livingston is a fascist they can vote for someone else in the next mayoral elections. What is the point of apologising because someone else told you to.
incidentally I have been asked to read a poem (of my own choosing) at my sister’s wedding. When I suggested a favourite of mine which begins “there was a young man from brewes…”, i was told this was inappropriate. Does anyone think i should read it anyway. Or better still do any of you learned people on here have a better suggestion for some suitable romantic poetry?
Cruella 02.17.05 at 5:45 pm
Yes completely agree – people have free speech, we can draw our own conclusions about them if we wish from what they say. If people believe Livingston is a fascist they can vote for someone else in the next mayoral elections. What is the point of apologising because someone else told you to.
incidentally I have been asked to read a poem (of my own choosing) at my sister’s wedding. When I suggested a favourite of mine which begins “there was a young man from brewes…”, i was told this was inappropriate. Does anyone think i should read it anyway. Or better still do any of you learned people on here have a better suggestion for some suitable romantic poetry?
Uncle Kvetch 02.17.05 at 5:50 pm
Does anyone think i should read it anyway.
I’m not answering that unless you provide us with the entire poem…
aspiring libertine 02.17.05 at 5:54 pm
I agree with Dan Hardie. And not just to pre-empt the possibility of being compared to Goebbels. I could always respond to that with a reference to Stalinist purges, and we could go on and on and much fun would be had by all.
Besides, Berlusconi had been there before, in the EU Parliament. That somehow makes Livingstone’s choice of words even more inexcusable.
Chris Bertram 02.17.05 at 6:10 pm
Besides, Berlusconi had been there before, in the EU Parliament. That somehow makes Livingstone’s choice of words even more inexcusable.
However objectionable Livingstone’s words were, an utterance by a drunk man to an individual after a party which would could not have offended anyone except the person to whom it was addressed unless that addressee had chosen to disseminate it in a “Ha! Gotcha!” fashion, is a rather different speech-act from an address to the European Parliament in front of live TV cameras.
dsquared 02.17.05 at 6:28 pm
: Isn’t it extremely depressing that ‘You are like a Nazi concentration camp guard’ is how an intelligent politician expresses the thought ‘You are an intrusive and unpleasant journalist’?
Hands up how many people said “isn’t it extremely despressing that an intelligent playwright expresses the thought ‘Islamic culture has a problem with women’ by scrawling verses from the Koran over naked bodies”? Or the equivalent with respect to Bekhti or JSTO. The point I’m making is that when we’re defending things that don’t directly concern us, we’re all forthright and absolute. When it’s our ox being gored, we seem to go all yes-but. The American ACLU is much better and more consistent on this.
(by the way, I have always thought that Livingstone was an egotist and a prick, and as a result have not voted for him both times I was given the opportunity, so all I can really say on this specific issue is “where were you guys?”. It’s not exactly a secret that he’s spiteful when drunk, and I regard that as a character issue. Frank Dobson would have made a much better mayor).
aspiring libertine 02.17.05 at 7:18 pm
Chris, what I meant as inexcusable is the fact he chose the same phrase, same concept, as Berlusconi did. The fact that he lowered himself to that level. Of course what Berlusconi did was a lot worse, hugely worse, no discussion on that, but that was my point. (Also, it wasn’t in response to an obnoxious journalist but to simple parliamentary opposition). I’d take a drunk, egotist Livingstone over a pompous, corrupt, megalomaniac Berlusconi any day. But they reacted the very same way. That’s what disappoints me.
Ironically, one insulted a non-Jewish German, the other insulted a Jewish Brit. Let’s just hope they don’t get together and starting insulting German Jews. (Of today.)
Alan 02.17.05 at 7:36 pm
Actually, Livingstone said ‘like a Concentration camp guard’, not ‘like a Nazi concentration camp guard.’
Berlusconi said:
“A producer is now shooting a film about the Nazi concentration camps,” he said. “I propose you to play the role of Capo.”
Pissed as he was, Livingstone did not use the word ‘Nazi’, perhaps because of Finegold’s Jewishness. If he’d said Finegold was like “a guard at a Gulag” presumably yer man would have been OK with that, even though it’s actually a more specific label than simply “concentration camp guard”.
Berlusconi’s remark was aimed simply at the Euro MPs nationality, and had nothing to reasonably to do with the actual action of the Euro MPs in question.
aspiring libertine 02.17.05 at 8:48 pm
Actually, from Berlusconi’s point of view (…), it did have relevance with the action of the Euro MP in question, because that Euro MP had dared express disapproval, mentioned the conflict of interests, mentioned the corruption charges, made it clear he did not like the fact he was President, and in the Berlusconi world, this is just as vile as, in the real world, an obnoxious journalist asking obnoxious questions. He did pick on the nationality, which does make it a lot more pathetic, but the irritation was at what the MP had said.
This is pedantic, come on, as is the supposed distinction between mentioning or not mentioning “nazi” next to “concentration camp”. Like that’s supposed to be a lot more sensitive. Especially to a Jewish person. Hmm.
Again, I’m in no way comparing Livingstone to Berlusconi or saying their motives for being irritated were equal. It’s just eerie to think their choice of words was so similar. Precisely because there’s not much else in common.
Alan 02.17.05 at 9:01 pm
Someone upthread misquoted.
If he had said “Nazi” within the context of Finegold’s Jewishness, yes that could be construed as gratuitiously reacting to Finegold’s faith. Just likening his attitude
to that of a Concentration camp guard is offensive, sure, but it
in no real way is dependent on Finegold’s faith.
What we are talking about is whether being gratuitiously offensive to a reporter whose conduct bothers you is appropriate for a leading politician.
harry 02.17.05 at 9:16 pm
Remember which nation invented concentration camps? I bet Livingstone does, even if his detractors don’t. Whatever his personal faults, his command of details is, I understand, peerless.
Dan Simon 02.18.05 at 12:28 am
The demand for ritual recantation and punishment whenever someone expresses themselves “inappropriately†(itself a prissy, nannyish sort of word) has become an inhibition on free speech.
I think we have a new irregular verb:
I defend the free speech rights of outspoken popular leaders.
You remain shamefully silent in the face of a cynical politico’s inappropriate remarks.
He rallies around a war criminal who has openly espoused racism.
Another Damned Medievalist 02.18.05 at 6:58 am
Er … what exactly is Gitmo? Because I’ve had a little wine, and I’m thinking, if they aren’t POWs per se, and we don’t have to treat them that way, what exactly do we call the camp where the not-really-POWs are imprisoned? Oh. Detention center. Like the library at school.
aspiring libertine 02.18.05 at 8:06 am
Of course, the most truly offensive moment in all this was not Livingstone’s insult or even Finegold pretending he didn’t have a clue why he was insulted in the first place. It’s Blair being asked if Livingstone should apologise and replying “yes”.
dsquared 02.18.05 at 1:01 pm
If there’s one thing that we’ve learned about Blair over the last eight years, it’s that when it comes to insincere, self-serving apologies, he’s Elvis. Maybe he should apologise to the journalist, on Ken’s behalf.
dan hardie 02.18.05 at 5:28 pm
‘Hands up how many people said “isn’t it extremely despressing that an intelligent playwright expresses the thought ‘Islamic culture has a problem with women’ by scrawling verses from the Koran over naked bodiesâ€? ‘
Well, dsquared, I think it may just be possible that the problem people like me have with the Theo Van Gogh affair is not that Muslims expressed their offence at Van Gogh’s technically incompetent porn-with-a-message, but that one particular character took so much offence that he shot Van Gogh, stabbed him, and affixed a note to his corpse, and that rather a lot of people had a certain amount of difficulty condemning the murder. Put me down as having a certain weird distaste for political and religious butchery: I’m a bit funny that way.
Comments on this entry are closed.