It appears Stuart Syvret has sent an email in which he made some rather foolish comparisons. The JEP has it that "he compared a Jewish States Member to a Nazi war criminal in an e-mail row over GST", but in fact what he has done is to compare the excuse made by the Nazis at Nuremburg - they were only "obeying orders" - as an interpretation of what Freddie Cohen means by being a "team player". This is what is called the "Nuremberg defense, and is often used as a shorthand - as for example in this newspaper cutting from 2004
A split opened up between Manchester fire chief Barry Dixon and councillor Fred Walker about who was responsible for the decision to suspend staff. Barry Dixon has adopted the Nuremberg defence and told the union and reporters that he is only obeying the orders of the fire authority councillors.
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=123400
In fact, this is widely accepted as a shorthand because of its historical antecedence, see for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense
The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "order is order") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.
In fact, it goes back much further than that. Samuel Pepys notes that Colonel Daniel Axtell (1622-1660), Captain of the Parliamentary Guard at the trial of King Charles I at Westminster Hall in 1649 used this defense. After the Restoration he was hanged, drawn and quartered on 19 October 1660 for his part in the Regicide. His defence at his trial as a Regicide, that he was only obeying orders!
What is clear is that given the sensitive nature of the phrase in these circumstances - Freddie Cohen being Jewish - this was an appalling misjudgment on the part of Stuart Syvret, even if idea behind it was accurate, as it obviously carries anti-Semitic overtones. I think Stuart should do what Frank Walker has been unable to do (after the "shafted" incident), and show how he can apologise unreservedly and admit he made a gross mistake and should have taken more care. He should also apologise for to the Jewish congregation for any upset publicity of this sort has caused. A gracious apology I am certain would be acceptable.
There have been swastikas daubed on the Synagogue at Tabor, and I know (from eyewitness sources) that Freddie Cohen certainly would have been in a culture at Victoria College where schoolboys made anti-Semitic jokes, although anti-German ones were more common. But the stock Jew in jokes of the time, like that of the Scotsman, or even the Jersey born individual, was that of a very greedy and selfish individual. Freddie would have also not attended the School Assemblies - in those days certainly very Church of England - Catholics were also excused, and this did mark out these individuals as different. Schoolboys can be very cruel in such circumstances, and it is not surprising that Freddie's antenna for any kind of discrimination is very fine - note he was the only States member to come out in support - on the Facebook site - of the Havana club protest.
So I hope Stuart does apologise, and show he is not above admitting he can make mistakes. It is people who cannot admit mistakes - the so-called "strong men" - who actually demonstrate their own insecurities in their posturing, all the time deludedly thinking that other people see them as strong.
If you want to know how Stuart replied to this, see my blog entry at:
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2008/08/setting-bad-examples.html
http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/08/08/senator-sparks-nazi-e-mail-row/
Senator sparks 'Nazi' e-mail row
SENATOR Stuart Syvret has compared a Jewish States Member to a Nazi war criminal in an e-mail row over GST.
Attacking Senator Freddie Cohen over his changing position on sales tax exemptions, Senator Syvret ridiculed the Environment Minister for saying that he was 'a team player' and that he had only backed GST on food after ministers agreed to exempt medical supplies.
Senator Syvret wrote: 'So, you are a "team player", eh? I expect that's exactly what Nazis on trial at Nuremburg would have said by way of mitigation.'
Senator Cohen has made a formal complaint about the e-mails to the Privileges and Procedures Committee, who are responsible for States Members' conduct. The committee do not have the power to discipline Members themselves - they can only recommend a censure or suspension to the States. The e-mails were copied to the Council of Ministers, some States Members and States chief executive Bill Ogley.
http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/08/11/jewish-communitys-distress-at-nazi-jibe/
Jewish community's distress at 'Nazi' jibe
August 11, 2008 - 3:00 pm
From Stephen Regal.
I AM writing to you in my capacity as president of the Jersey Jewish Congregation and particularly in respect of the article in the JEP headed 'Senator sparks Nazi e-mail row'.
Commentary on the issues underlying the report are not within my remit. However, I feel that it is necessary to write to you to express both my and my community's distress at the reported comment made by Senator Syvret.
I find it difficult to consider that any individual as apparently erudite and educated as Senator Syvret could have innocently used such emotive phraseology in comparing the action of any Jew to that of a Nazi.
A more offensive or odious comment would be difficult to find. Irrespective of the context, the term Nazi is abhorrent to any Jew.
Unfortunately, memories of the Holocaust are still fresh in every Jewish mind and such intemperate comments from our democratically elected representatives can only cause tension and uncertainty in our minds.
Regrettably, anti-Semitism is on the increase around the world and negative comparisons tend to aid stereotypical visions that individuals who wish to interpret remarks in other than the context they have been made.
My plea, therefore, to all is please consider our words on all sections of the community. This should be particularly emphasised when committing oneself to print.
Armon,
Rue de La Croix,
St Ouen.
7 hours ago
Posts
7 comments:
Can you direct me to the full email content?
I hope Stuart Syvret has not resorted to the 'ad hitlerum' argument to add emotive weight to his point.
Again I ask for the source.
Don't expect u to publish this.
Did you know that Cohen allegedly paid somebody to put graffiti on his house before the election?
You clearly have not been past Freddie's house in St John - take a drive sometimes - there is a big Securicor notice on the entrance, security fencing and all sorts of security stuff - CCTV etc. So in the words of Victor Meldew, about the allegation, "I don't believe it". The graffiti news story said the antisemitic graffiti was on Freddie's posters, which were far more accessible. And I still don't believe he did it himself.
Stuart Syvret has said that his "remarks were intended to be insulting" and that it was a "calculatedly provocative analogy", presumably reflecting his anger at what he describes as Freddie Cohen "lying to [him] about his intention to support the non-taxation of health care – on the very eve of the exemptions debate".
When he was calculating his insult, I wonder if he also had in the back of his mind Ken Livingstone's jibe at a Jewish Evening Standard reporter, comparing him to a Nazi concentration camp guard (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4746016.stm)?
Ken got four weeks' suspension but I don't think he ever apologised.
I wonder if his suspension would have been longer if he had admitted that he knew the reporter was Jewish and that he deliberately used that analogy?
Stuart chose the analogy knowing the precedents and the kind of conflagration that was likely to engulf him, so I suppose everyone must just stand back and enjoy the fireworks, unless you are distantly related to Guy Fawkes and the English Catholic martyrs, in which case, I preemptively apologise for the unfortunate analogy.
I think one has to be extremely careful in selecting analogies where antisemitism may come into the equation, bearing in mind the scale of the horrors, and even a more obvious jibe, that Freddie no doubt would get thirty pieces of silver from Frank might verge upon that.
I agree - it's too sensitive to bother going near when there are equally vicious analogies that could be made if you really wanted to insult someone.
In fact, using something so contentious is counter-effective because the debate then moves on from Freddie's betrayal of his voters to the antisemitic one.
Freddie Cohen's actions were reprehensible, unless he heard some highly persuasive, previously unheard, arguments during the debate. You could probably excuse them under the British Party system where there's a 3-line whip lashing you into the Lobby - under the threat of cruel and unusual retaliations, or revelations from their little black book of transgressions; but under the Jersey system, there's no such excuse.
So the team got it wrong - there's no need to go along with them. Unless, I suppose, you really don't want to end up like Stuart - marginalized and surrounded by enemies.
But that says something quite unpleasant about the Jersey government - fall into line, or else be ostracized.
Great post, I am almost 100% in agreement with you
Post a Comment