|
|
March 3, 2006
Time for perspective
Editorial
London mayor Ken Livingstone has been suspended from his post for
four weeks as punishment for bringing his office into disrepute.
Livingstone, in a flash of cruel insensitivity, engaged a Jewish
reporter for a British newspaper in a nasty – and recorded
– confrontation.
Livingstone, peeved at the persistence of a reporter for a newspaper
he apparently does not favor, asked writer Oliver Finegold if he
was a “German war criminal.”
Finegold replied: “No, I’m Jewish, I wasn’t a German
war criminal. I’m quite offended by that,” to which Livingstone
retorted: “Ah right, well you might be, but actually you are
just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because
you are paid to, aren’t you?”
The petulant comment landed Livingstone with a suspension under
British law, but the mayor has so far been unrepentant. And a significant
chunk of the British populace seems to agree that the comment was
not offensive enough to inspire such outrage.
While it is certainly a slippery slope to censure elected officials
for stunningly stupid remarks, the incident puts into relief the
lack of sensitivity and understanding over the use of the Holocaust
in common discourse. It is illustrative that this incident emerges
at a time when the world is confronting the aftermath of another
act of insensitivity: the publishing and republishing of Danish
cartoons that are offensive and sacrilegious to Islam.
There is a case to be made that democratic countries should take
a very lenient legal approach to such offensive speech, employing
instead a less litigious form of social censure – condemning,
but not criminalizing, nastiness. The limitations placed by British,
Danish or Canadian law on expression that could be considered hateful
is a discussion for another day. On a strictly ethical level, the
two cases make an interesting juxtaposition. Outrage across the
Muslim world greeted the publication of the cartoons, which led
to a chorus of Western voices calling for greater sensitivity to
Muslims and their religious sensibilities. What is notable in the
Livingstone case is that many commentators are contending that the
punishment is too extreme or that such language should not be censured
at all. In contrast with the reaction to the cartoons, this betrays
a lack of understanding of the sacred, near theological significance
that the memory of the Holocaust holds in the Jewish psyche.
The degree of offence caused by the Danish cartoons – and the
violent reaction to that offence – has led the world to debate
the right of religious groups to live free from such insults. Yet
some of those who were most offended by the cartoons seem nonplussed
by Livingstone’s cruelty, judging by commentary in British
media over the case.
“This [Livingstone] decision constitutes a clear over-reaction
and an affront to our democratic traditions,” said Sir Iqbal
Sacranie, secretary- general of the Muslim Council of Britain, who
himself was investigated in January for comments he made against
homosexuality, and who days earlier called the republishing of the
cartoons “a deliberate and senseless act of provocation.”
Sacranie, in an interesting commentary on “our democratic traditions,”
added: “Newspaper editors must exercise restraint and good
judgment instead of adding to the increasingly xenophobic tone being
adopted in parts of Europe against Muslims. These newspapers should
apologize immediately for the harm they have caused.”
While his organization harshly condemned the extremist protesters
in London who carried signs reading, “Behead those who insult
Islam” and “Europe, you will pay. Demolition is on its
way,” his response to the London mayor’s comments were
surprisingly lenient.
And as death and mayhem spread across the Muslim world over the
depiction of the Prophet, it was easier to overlook the grisly abduction,
torture and murder of Ilan Halimi, a French Jew, who was apparently
targeted in one of Europe’s most brutal recent anti-Semitic
attacks. This is a particularly horrific incident that may not have
received the international attention it deserves because it occurred
at a time when people are dying worldwide at the hands of extremists
inflamed by anger over the cartoons.
Condemnation over the cartoons is understandable, but when that
condemnation eclipses our outrage over murderous attacks ostensibly
motivated by the publishing of a few cartoons, we are truly entering
a realm of inverted morality.
^TOP
|
|
