Why give red ken a hard time?

Great Debates
1

Ken Livingstone (Mayor of London) has been in the news recently for comparing a news reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard. It turns out the reporter was jewish and he has accused Livingstone of anti semitism.

Just for the record I am not nor have ever been a fan of red Ken, but this is a pretty pathetic jumped up charge, we have all snapped and called people names in the past and the reporter was harassing him at the time.

Ken has apologised for any offence caused to the Jewish community, but has refused to extend that apology to the reporter in question as he still feels slighted. Personally can’t say I blame him, I wouldn’t want to be interviewd by the press in this country either.

What are the opinions of British or other dopers on this matter?

Heres a link btw. Red Ken - No apology

2

A monumentally stupid thing to say and no mistake, but I gather he was quite pissed and this chap was being a bit of a tit himself. That does not excuse it, of course, but it does place it in context a little more. I certainly think I’d give a Tory similar latitude (and I gather the Royals quite regularly say the most shockingly racist things when they’re pissed and they know it’s off the record.)

Whatever political persuasion you are, you have to admire the way Ken basically told Blair and the Labour Party to go fuck themselve, won the Mayoralty all on his own, and then became moderate himself!

3

It’s just a Daily Mail inspired scandal. The reporter tried to use the ‘just following orders’ defence for the doorstepping conduct and was called on it. Damn right he should not apologise to the Mail Group or their grubby hacks.

4

It’s just the usual media frenzy; that’s all; the papers are all demanding that he deal with the massive outrage that they have whipped up. Seen it before, we’ll see it again next week with someone else.

This is my opinion(of course) quite aside from anything I might think about Red Ken, or the stupidity of his comment.

5

It was my impression that he only went for the Nazi comparison after being made aware that the reporter was Jewish.

Still nothing to make a fuss about. Refreshing to have a politician who speaks his mind without first consulting with his PC consultant on the range of permissible words. That said – Ken is a fucking moron.

6

Ken has a habit of getting a bit pissed then lairy. By and large he does it to people who couldn’t care less, as they know him. This time he did it to someone with a tape recorder and an axe to grind.

As a staunch Tory I obviously don’t agree with Ken and would gleefully critcise him for cosying up with IRA figures and Muslim fanatics, plus any number of gripes about bendy buses and so on. Needless to say I din’t vote for him. Having said all that he didn’t actually insult the man’s ethnicity - just his conduct, and that is a matter for debate.

BTW My wife is a journalist and her opinion is that if the guy was offended by that he should consider a change of career.

7

Any attack on the Daily Mail is fine by me. It’s a reactionary, tiny minded, evil rag. All the outrage is chiefly their own invention and it has consistantly attacked Ken Livingstone at every turn in pretty nasty ways. I may not agree with all his politics, but at least he has principles and standards beyond most politicians. Good on him for refusing to take it back.

He could have picked a better description, but you don’t expect every spur of the moment comment to have to be compared and judged as fitting in the grand scheme of things. It was just an expression, not a historical and social thesis. And whether the reporter was Jewish or not is irrelevant. You judge people by their behaviour, not who they are.

8

The Standard had six pages last night along the lines of why he isn’t fit to be Mayor. Looks like they’ve fallen out completely (For thiose who don’t know Ken used to be the Standard’s restaurant critic).

Also he has been reported to the Standards Commission for Local Government - but I don’t see he has a case to answer.

To me it’s quite simple - if you’re offended, vote for someone else.

9

I have to ask - what if the reporter had been African-American, and this guy had called him an “Uncle Tom?”

10

Slight aside:

Did Ken say anything in the ‘interview’ about Nazis, or even use the word Nazi, at any stage?

I have seen no sign of that in any actual quote he said, but have seen it repeatedly attributed to him in many stories. Okay, it was most certainly implied, but not actually spoken by Ken. But the Nazis were not the first or only to use concentration camps, nor were Jews the only ever victims of said camps.

11

Different thing entirely - that would be offensive. That’s because “Uncle tom” is a term of abuse that is directed at black people, and only black people, and has no other interpretation other than as an insult.

The “just following orders” Nurenburgh defense is a routine way of derailing jobsworths etc.

He didn’t use any racial epithet at the reporter - he merely accused him of having the same morals as a Concentration camp guard - ie doing something he knew was wrong because someone else had told him to.

12

The thing is, there were Jewish concentration camp guards - the capos. Calling a Jew a capo, even by implication, is one of the worst insults imaginable… at least as bad as “Uncle Tom”. If thes Ken person was unaware of the implications of his words, I’ll understand it, but he really should apologize for the specific term he used. He should have called him something less offensive, like “sheepfucker”.

But let’s put that aside. Instead of 'Uncle Tom", let’s say that he (as I believe Harry Belafonte did to Colin Powell) called our hypothetical black American journalist a “house slave” instead. This is not a racially directed insult, is it? After all, other people have been slaves besides blacks, so the phrase has no inherent racial content. And yet, I believe that it would be considered a bigoted remark, and rightly so.

13

Context and culture matter here.

In Britain we use words like “Nazi” and “gestapo” willy-nilly, and they don’t really have any direct realtionship to their original meaning (Nazi usually means some form of over zealous individual eg “Health and safety Nazi”). We grow up playing war (well the boys do - the girls are in their wendy houses) of English v German/Nazi and you will hear all sorts of dreadful “German” accents in any playground.

So the “just following orders” jibe is common currency - I’ve used it most Brits have and most of us have been on the wrong end of it. It isn’t a particularly offensive remark (and don’t forget we Brits are world champions at swearing and insults).

“House slave” to me is a deliberately offensive remark , and I would really only assume it applied to black people. But, again, that is from my context and culture.

Believe me the journalist wasn’t mortally offended - he was as pleased as a cat with a stawberry flavoured arsehole that he’d got a hot story.

14

Two professional media hogs, flailing away at each other in the street, screeching like banshees, full of sound & fury, signifying nothing.

Colour me unimpressed. :rolleyes: :dubious:

15

But see, context matters. If I called you a “bastard”, you’d probably be mildly insulted. If, however, I knew that at the time of your birth your parents happened to be married to other people, well, you’d be well be in your rights to consider my comment far more offensive. Red Ken should have known who he was talking to, and how his words would be taken.

There’s also another way to look at this: you noted that using “nazi” and associated terms as insults is common in British parlance and should not be taken seriously. But isn’t the term “gay” also widely used in the same fashion (as in “that’s so gay”)? And haven’t we already agreed on this board, several times over, that this is not legitimate usage? On several threads on the subject, posters have hammered again and again that it’s not what the speaker means that’s important, and that a term can be offensive no matter how common and inadvertant it’s use is. The analogy isn’t perfect (after all, Jews don’t call themselves Nazis), but I think it’s pretty apt.

16

That “gay” usage is an Americanism. It’s not used over here (at least I’ve not heard it).

Also Ken called him a “concentration camp guard” before he knew he was jewish, and as I say that isn’t considered a bad insult here. I can appreciate that it would be one in Tel Aviv - or perhaps to someone like a hassidic jew - ie so you would know their race, but in this context it’s not very rude.

17

According to the transcript in the Telegraph, the mayor started in before the reporter stated that he was doing his job. Is the transcript incomplete or misleading in some way?

On preview, it occurs to me that the Telegraph might be a subscription site – I’ve long since lost track of which cookies I have and which I don’t. So the transcript:
Oliver Finegold: Mr Livingstone, Evening Standard. How did tonight go?

Livingstone: How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?

**Finegold: **How did tonight go?

Livingstone: Have you thought of having treatment?

**Finegold: **Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?

Livingstone: What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?

Finegold: No, I’m Jewish, I wasn’t a German war criminal and I’m actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?

Livingstone: Ah right, well you might be [Jewish], but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren’t you?

Finegold: Great, I have you on record for that. So, how was tonight?

Livingstone: It’s nothing to do you with you because your paper is a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots.

Finegold: I’m a journalist and I’m doing my job. I’m only asking for a comment.

Livingstone: Well, work for a paper that doesn’t have a record of supporting facism.

Livingstone then walked off.

18

Actually, the reporter did identify himself as being Jewish just prior to the “concentration camp guard” comment, so this isn’t strictly true, although they both happening to almost overlap as both speakers were in mid sentence, almost talking over each other.

19

As others have already said, its a total pile on from the rest of the media.

Here is a transcript of the exchange :
( from here: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/16539119?source=Evening%20Standard )

"Mr Livingstone [talking to photographer Nigel Howard]: You’ve got one [picture] already.

Finegold: Mr Livingstone, Evening Standard. How did tonight go?

Livingstone: How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?

Finegold: How did tonight go? Mr Livingstone: Have you thought of having treatment?

Finegold: Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?

Mr Livingstone: What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?

Finegold: No, I’m Jewish, I wasn’t a German war criminal and I’m actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?

Mr Livingstone: Arr right, well you might be [Jewish], but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren’t you?

Finegold: Great, I have you on record for that. So, how was tonight?

Mr Livingstone: It’s nothing to do with you because your paper is a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots.

Finegold: I’m a journalist and I’m doing my job. I’m only asking for a comment.

Mr Livingstone: Well, work for a paper that doesn’t have a record of supporting fascism. "

And then another piece from the same web site:

"Asked about the incident, Mr Livingstone said: “When you make it quite clear you don’t want them to interview you and they follow you, constantly badgeringyou with questions, you have the right to make it clear that they are not welcome.”

Asked if he would apologise to Finegold, Mr Livingstone said: " Absolutely not. If he isn’t happy he shouldn’t be working for a paper like that. You can’t expect to work for the Daily Mail group and have the rest of society treat you with respect as a useful member of society, because you are not."

I’d just like to second Owl’s point about the use of this language in British culture. Any offence the poor journo may have felt would have been nuked out the water, when (~ 1 pico-second later) he realised what a story this was. He couldnt even stop himself from immediatly telling Ken !
A jounalist who uses fake offence about his religion and the Holocaust, to create a story, is on more dodgy moral ground than Ken is by using a common insult.

Discalimer: I dont live anywhere near London, so know v little about Ken L and his other ‘controversial’ views.

Of cource Ken is a tosspot for getting into any of this…

Sin.

20

What is the real problem here is that there is lots to blame Livingstone for. Here are some of them:

The tube - expensive and wonky.

Bendy buses - not wanted and they catch fire. Also it’s £1.20 a ride!

That muslim nutter he keeps sucking up to with the rather odd take on homosexuality, infidels and wife beating. Ironically he’s make a great concentration camp guard.

The st Patricks Day parade

The useless police.

Crime

Litter.

The general pikiness of the West End

and so on…(and this without going into his loony left years)

This barely comes into it.