Gerard on Nazi comparisons
Whilst I applaud Gerard Henderson’s dislike of Nazi comparisons, he has a fairly one-sided way of criticising them.
Here are some recent examples he lists in his Fairfax article yesterday:
Take the past couple of days. On Insiders on Sunday the Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt said democracies sometimes make errors and this was the case with those Germans who voted for the Nazi party in 1933. His point was that Australians who vote Greens today also err. The NSW Greens MP Jamie Parker then upped the ante by maintaining Bolt had said that the Greens were like the initiators of Kristallnacht, the Nazis’ 1938 pogrom against the Jews.
Last week, in the Federal Court, Bolt was accused by Ron Merkel, QC, of making comments on Aboriginal identity that were akin to anti-Semitic Nuremberg laws introduced by the Nazis in 1935. Merkel declared: ”The Holocaust started with words and ended with violence.” It is difficult to imagine a more serious allegation. However, like virtually all attempts to link modern democracies with totalitarian regimes – whether by the extreme right or the extreme left – the comparison fails.
If Parker did indeed assert that it was Bolt who likened the BDS campaign to Kristallnacht being by Bolt, the new MP must’ve just mixed up his right-wing News Ltd ranters: it was David Penberthy, in his now notorious smearing of last Friday, who made that hideous claim.
So, fair point – the allegations that Bolt’s casual, shall we say, focus on skin colour, and the support by some Greens in NSW for a boycott by Marickville Council of certain Israeli government goods until there’s improvement in the area of human rights are in any way like the Nazis are offensive to anyone who lived through that period or, you know, actually knows anything about it.
Henderson is quite right – there’s a reason the Godwin is recognised as the point at which rational debate is over.
But, surprisingly, Henderson reserves explicit criticism for those who used the Godwin against conservative commentators. The only mention of the right-wing Godwin against the Greens is in the first paragraph quoted above, and immediately undermined by the claim that Parker sought to “up the ante” and made the Godwin worse himself. The remainder of the article is dedicated to a defence of Bolt and his News Ltd colleague Greg Sheridan.
Still, I don’t expect Henderson to explicitly condemn David Penberthy, the editor of News.com.au and thepunch.com.au. And, even if they weren’t directed by name, his final words are certainly something from which the Penberthys of the world could learn:
In modern Australia there are no Hitlers and no Stalins. These days the only real political violence is found in the abuse of language. This is best treated by a reading of history.
For once, Gerard and I agree.
UPDATE: As if deliberately to make Gerard look silly (or the other way around), Bolt yesterday did in fact draw the Kristallnacht comparison.
Lenin to the left of me,
Hitler to the right, here I am
Stuck in the middle with you.
The Nazi thing was a one-off. Ain’t never gonna happen again. Ever. To ever think or suggest that there’s ever a risk of a return to that … why that’s unreasonable … irrational … impossible! Discussion just stops. Because it just can’t happen. Ever again!
peter de mambla @2
Absolutely correct. But I don’t believe that’s what we’re discussing. Suggesting that “hey, you know, maybe it’s possible that nazis might happen again one day” is hardly the same as (or justification for) comparing somebody you disagree with to hitler.
Interestingly AB had a post in 2006 which compared the ‘Greens’ (aka conservationists) with the Nazis. He recommends a book called The Green and the Brown and says “It is a story of ideological convergence, of tactical alliances, of careerism, of implication in crimes against humanity, and of deceit and denial after 1945. It is also a story that offers valuable lessons for today’s environmental movement.”
Just Google ‘Andrew Bolt The Nazis and the Greens.’
However the links he originally included have been disabled. I wonder why?
Also if you Google ‘andrew bolt’ blog nazis you get 57,400 hits.
It depends what you mean by “Nazi” and “one-off”. I’m probably in agreement that it will now be impossible for a political force called the “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” to arise in modern Germany and, under the leadership of a monomaniac egotist with a narcissistic fixation, effectively subvert established democratic political norms to seize power, thereby launching aforementioned egotist’s ambitions of prejudice on the world. In that sense, yes, it was a one-off.
Sadly, the propensity for humans to wish for control over others to play out the miseries of their childhoods and their sublimated anger are only too common. One can see those desires and hatreds everyday in international news items, and even in certain commentaries in the Australian media.
It’s not a matter of “never again”. It’s a matter of propensity and opportunity. We must always be wary.
There is a monomaniac egotist with a narcissistic fixation who has effectively subverted political process with his media empire thereby launching aforementioned egotist’s ambitions on the world. And he employs individuals who show a propensity toward prejudice and dishonesty to manipulate public opinion. Hitler he is not but empire can be described as evil incarnate. And he doesn’t like us rastafellas one iota either, but I wear that as a badge of honour.
Didn’t Brandis compare the Greens to the Nazis during the Howard error (sorry era)
The Greens did not wage war, did not attempt to take anyone’s collective bargaining away, did not lie and pander to racism, nor do dirty deals for wheat with our supposed enemies…there was no vague whiff of fascism to be argued whatsoever…except that Mr Brandis’ genteel political preferences were a bit confronted.
Does Mr Henderson mention that one?
It was also the precise moment I stopped thinking of the Coalition as any kind of credible or reputable force in Australian politics capable of moderation. They have been pandering to bogans, wackos and corporate pushers ever since and Mr Abbott is refining that art of the wedgie. I hope at his own peril.
We see their frothing mad slaves turn up here and never once question the outrageous hypocrisy.
Well, The Hun’s ultra-Zionist Alan Howe has referred to Palestinians as cavemen, goat-herders and chimpanzees.
Untermenschen, in other words.
Is that a Godwin? Who cares? I’m just playin’ it as it lays.
Poor boy’s probably tired of people on the street telling him he looks like Himmler.
I’m also about 95% certain that when he became exec-director of the Sydney Institute he immediately ordered six reams of letterheads with GERARD HENDERSON: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SYDNEY INSTITUTE in 50pt Old English. Then he spent the night trying to think of excuses to send letters to people he used to go to school with.
If a moratorium were imposed on hyperbole as subject matter (Nazi comparisons being his favourite subset) Gerard would struggle to find anything to write about.
We know about ‘Godwins’, but on a not unrelated theme, what does one call it when a most-read columnist uses the term “apartheid justice” to refer to any of a range of measures intended to redress chronic over-representation of aboriginal people in the criminal justice system? Or when a most-read columnist holds that multiculturalism is itself “a form of apartheid”?
And would a most-read columnist demand an apology of anyone who uses the term “apartheid” to refer to the discriminatory and punitive policies of Israel in the Palestinian occupied territories?
That’s racism, fascism and fascist propaganda, Jack.
Andd before MofC gets all upset again, “fascism” is not a Godwin.
A think a variant of Godwin needs to be appropriated for comparisons to communists. It seems much more acceptable and apparently not offensive to brand someone on the left as a commie and Stalin reincarnate than it is to call someone on the right a Nazi.
Jack – maybe we can call it a ‘Botha’. There are several examples around this morning.
AB approves of Sheridan’s anti-Greens hysteria. – They’re preaching Apartheid! ‘Extremists, extremists!’
This is actually funny “Like most extremists operating in a democratic space, they try to garner support on broadly populist issues while still servicing their extremist activist base with extremist positions and campaigns.”
Maybe he’s been looking in the mirror a bit too much. ‘This is very unpleasant’.
Yes it is AB and I think you about to get you cumuppance.
“Andd before MofC gets all upset again, “fascism” is not a Godwin.”
You’re right. It’s just hyperbole, and even more common.
The Magical Liopleurodon: It could be called a “coulter”
Sheridan today: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/a-party-of-ignorant-extremists/story-e6frgd0x-1226034965235
“The language of a number of the Greens senators about Israel – rogue state, apartheid, should be boycotted – is the language of political sectarianism and prejudice.”
Hmm. I don’t think that’s true, if you just consider the words themselves. That same language was once applied to another country – south africa. Was it the “language of political sectarianism and prejudice” then also? What if we applied it to iran? If you include gender apartheid, they certainly fit the bill. Saudi arabia fits, if you consider religious apartheid. If I said we should boycott saudi arabia, would that be “political sectarianism and prejudice”? Not that I’m exactly sure WHAT we’d boycott – they only seem to export one thing (two, counting bin laden).
The bottom line is whether you agree with the policy. Trying to prove antisemitism through exegesis alone doesn’t work.
I think boycott is wrong headed, and also just wrong. But I can understand the frustration at trying to negotiate with a government that’s figured out that it doesn’t have to budge as long as it maintains walls and superior firepower.
It’s just Gerard doing his typical shtick, posturing to take the moral high ground…which is absurd given his support for lies and the war that’s been waged on them.
Quite.
And to the question often asked by the most-read ignoramus, “Why single out Israel?”
Well, the occupied territories have been, you know, occupied for nearly 45 years, resulting in this.
The refugee issue has been around 60 years, long enough for some to now claim there’s no refugee issue.
Talking of hyperbole, apparently Gillard mispronounced the word last night.
You can imagine the howls of glee in monkeyland.
Actually on the last episode of Insiders, Blot did Godwin the Greens. Not only did he, in justifying the claim that Democracy doesn’t always get it right, comapre votes for the greens with votes for the Nazis in 1933, and add “the cancer grows”. He also slippery sloped the BDS issue suggesting that Jewish shops might be required by the Greens to display the Star of David.
So Blot, who complained so loudly in court about being Godwinned, showed days before that the tactic in his view is entirely legitimate. It’s worth noting that his columns persistently allege that “Greens” are incipiently genocidal. He’s said this in relation to the smears around DDT and Silent Spring. Another recent example was that article in which a UK council proposed to feed back heat from a crematorium to offset energy usage. This too was said to point to the putatively muderous intent of Greens even though the said Council was controlled by conservartives.
If anyone deserves to be Godwinned, it is Blot.
I heard her say “hyper-bowl on AM630 this morning. Ugh!
Then again, a reporter in the same bracket of news said Gbagbo was taking refugee in a bunker. Someone else said that Stephen Smith had lamb{ay}sted the Defence Department.
Perhaps there was something in the air last night. Apologies Phil Collins.
No, Fran – Effie has infiltrated our mainstream media. How embarrassment for Australia.
Po-ta-to, po-tah-doh. Crikey was the last place I expected to find prescriptivists. Perhaps some of the previous commentators can start the Crikey Elocution Blog.
I thought the hyper-bowl was some sort of US football match?
And I still get into trouble for calling a data-switching device a ‘rooter’.
Hendo suggests a study of history will reveal the truth. He might like to examine the history of Australian conservatives’ love affair with the 3rd Reich. Menzies was a particular fan, and sided with the (arch appeaser) Halifax faction in Britain that wanted to negotiate with Adolf following the fall of France. Menzies also enthusiastically used the coercive powers of the state to suppress anti-Nazi views: the treatment of Hitler foe Egon Kisch who was denied entry to Australia in 1934 when he came out to spread the news about what was happening in Europe is a case in point. Hendo is always keen to downplay Australia’s slide towards fascism in the 20s and 30s. If challenged on things like the Kisch incident, Hendo would shift ground and point to Kisch’s Communist affiliations – which would put Hendo in the same frame as Joe McCarthy, who coined the moniker ‘premature anti-fascism’ in order to attack those on the left who, for example, supported the Spanish Republic.
And don’t forget the popularity of the New Guard in the 1930′s, especially in Sydney where they had around 50,000 members. They were a fascist para-military group dedicated to the downfall of Jack Lang and prepared to stage a coup to achieve that.
I think some of the current rightist commentators hanker back to these good old days.
“Less well known than de Groot’s exploits on the Harbour Bridge are the attempts to kidnap Jack Lang while he was being chauffeured home along the Parramatta Road from his Parliament House office at night. This attempt was foiled because Lang had switched to a cheaper, older car and driven himself home. The plan had been to detain Lang in an unused gaol at Berrima, a village approximately 100km south-west of Sydney, stage a coup d’état and place NSW under martial law.
On the evening of the dismissal of Jack Lang by Governor Sir Philip Game on 13 May 1932, a brigade of several hundred men of the New Guard were stationed in the basement of a department store building several hundred metres from Parliament House. They had threatened to march upon Parliament House and stage another coup attempt if he did not resign before seven o’clock. Lang was sacked at six o’clock.
A civil war might well have ensued had they attempted the coup, as important government buildings throughout the city of Sydney were being guarded by members of the Australian Labor Army and the New South Wales Police (legally responsible to the Crown through Governor Game but allegedly loyal to Lang’s ministers). Certain Army officers, loyal to the Federal Government, were also members of the New Guard and might have been expected to bring out their troops in support of a coup.”
Another Dutchman in trouble with the courts.
Geert Wilders has stepped up his anti-Islam rhetoric by describing the Prophet Mohammed as an “insane, paedophile, rapist murderer” just two weeks before the opening of his trial on charges of inciting race hatred. “The historical Mohammad was the savage leader of a gang of robbers from Medina. Without scruples they looted, raped and murdered,” Mr Wilders claimed in the Dutch magazine HP/De Tijd.
“Mohammad had an unhinged paranoid personality with an inferiority complex and megalomaniac tendencies. In his forties he starts having visions that lead him to believe he has a cosmic mission, and there is no stopping him,” he wrote.
Mr Wilders was charged with insulting Muslims by comparing Islam to Nazism. The case has attracted considerable attention, not just because of Mr Wilders’ controversial comments, but also because of the increasing influence of his Freedom Party, which provides support for the Dutch minority government on key issues.
Mr Wilders has argued that he is exercising his freedom of speech when he criticises Islam and had won the right last month to seek a dismissal of the case.
But reading out the ruling on Wednesday, presiding judge Marcel van Oosten said the case would go ahead. He rejected most of the defence’s objections such as its questioning of the court’s authority to hear the case in the first place and of the way that the prosecutors had pursued the trial.
UK Telegraph
Another Botha award to AB this morning for the gratuitous comparison of what he doesn’t like with Apartheid – this time because the Baillieu Liberal government will retain Drug and Koori courts – ‘Baillieu retains apartheid justice’.
He seems to be off the starting blocks over his case at a gallop this morning with another piece referring to an article by Dylan Bird called ‘The Benefits of a Guilty Verdict.’ Bird says ‘At the very least (such a verdict) would demand a higher standard of reportage from journalists, ensuring basic respect is upheld in their forays into the political issues of the day. ‘
I had better not respond to Bird’s article at least until the judge delivers a verdict. So no comments mmkay?
Angra @27
One of the more enjoyable historical reads I’ve encountered is (snipped from wiki):
“In the Name of Decent Citizens: The Trials of Frank de Groot” by Brian Wright, ABC Books, Sydney 2006.
It is a ripper of a book. Written by a descendant-in-law who knew the guy and has all his personal papers. It’s fairly sympathetic to de groot’s point of view, but almost everything that happened was surprising.
One of the things that struck me was the contrast between the ideological nut-jobbery of the maniacs trying to write history and the people on the ground taking orders. For example – after he was arrested and sequestered in a guard house for safe keeping until proceedings were over, everyone’s main concern (including the police present) was making sure the horse was taken to safety and being looked after. Most of the lower-ranking police thought it was all a great lark.
The premier tried to have de groot declared insane, so the police had to drag him to a couple of asylums, against their own judgment. The second psychiatrist they tried to hoodwink went ballistic and basically demanded that he be released.
After the trial, de groot found himself in the foyer of the court building facing a crowd outside of angry, hard-core communists looking for a proper fight. His personal protection had evaporated for some reason, and the police who WERE present – all of them high-ranking officers and administrators, formed a bodyguard, physically surrounded him and escorted him to safety.
I’m sure there’s a certain amount of gauziness, but the whole thing is so darn australian ratbaggery.
The best part? He didn’t have a proper plan. He borrowed a horse form a family friend, sharpened a short section of a dress sword, put on his uniform and headed into the city to see if he could pull it off. He lucked it all the way.
After reading that book, it’s really impossible not to like de groot. He was a member of the new guard, but the author thinks it was temporary affair and he thought they were nuts.
Harold Thornton @26
Everybody makes mistakes. More than a few australians quite liked the cut of mussolini’s jib as well (one of the better “late night live classics” is adams’ interview with BA Santamaria, wherein they both admit to previous errors)
I honestly suspect that if all the artists and singers and socialites genuinely understood what was happening in soviet russia, they never would have pledged their moral support. And, not having done so, their egos would never have required that they start to weasel their way out, or continue their tacit support, after the reality had become clear.
If you didn’t know anything about the social, racist and eugenic nazi policies, I can see how an outsider might have looked at their industrial and infrastructure developments and thought “wow – these guys have really got it going on”. All that noise and offing of political opponents … that really wasn’t all that unusual in early 20th century european politics. To understand the threat required some insight – and I don’t think good reporting was going on.
Angra @29, yes, well spotted, we have our Botha du Jour.
While elsewhere bemoaning a general lack of shame in society, the most-read columnist again misuses a word he yesterday concurred with Greg Sheridan in condemning as “the language of political sectarianism and prejudice.”
Our serial Botha laureate says,
After the ‘but’, Andy links to a string of his past Bothas to substantiate his counterclaims. If there’s an award for self-referential appeal to auto-authority, I nominate the Herald Sun’s most-read new multimedia phenomenon.
From supporting a boycott to “supporting genocide” in one easy step:
We consumers just can’t win: If we’re not “supporting” the Bantustanisation of the West Bank, then we’re “supporting” genocide.
Good article by Matthew Ricketson at the renamed ABC Drum ‘unleashed’ on the hypocrisy and arrogance of a certain commentard.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/55610.html
“Prescriptivists”? So hyperbowl’s OK?
According to many a dictionary, no, it’s not technically correct. But unless you had trouble understanding her I would say it is an acceptable variation, much like any other you here on a daily basis (‘penchant’ is a personal favourite).
Whilst I prefer the ‘correct’ pronunciation of hyperbole ( it does sound more sophisticated, doesn’t it?), I also recognize language is ever evolving and perhaps, heavens forbid, ‘hyper-bowl’ will one day become the new ‘proper’ pronunciation!
All that matters is the maintenance of clarity and precision of meaning. All other objections are but pedantic snobbery.
I also note that Crikey’s spellchecker is American. I demand this affront be rectified post-haste.
Bullshit. Ignorance is ignorance, and it doesn’t mean ignoring someone. And agreeance is not a word. And key is not an adjective, not really. I could go on, but then you’d think I was a snob.
Actually, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, ‘key’ is a perfectly acceptable adjective. Should you now be condemned as ignorant?
Whilst ‘agreeance’ is not in the dictionary, its meaning is instantly deducible and, should it continued to be used en mass it will be in future dictionaries. How do you think words are coined in the first place? by committee?
Bis – ‘agreeance’ is actually the older and therefore more correct term, although now all but obsolete.
Main Entry: agreeance
Part of Speech: n
Definition: the act of agreeing
Example: Usage of the site constitutes agreeance with these terms.
Usage: now considered obsolete and a bastardization of ‘agreement’
Another good example, the old term for ‘translated into English’ was ‘Englished’ which I think is much better.
(Mind you we don’t use half the words Shakespeare did and he made up a few to suit his creative licence.)
The last word should perhaps go to the Blackadder episode about Dr Johnson’s dictionary.
I offer you my most enthusiastic contrafribularities.
BIS – a bit more evidence for you.
Agreeance comes from the Old French agréance and would therefore be expected to be used in areas with (former) French influence. It is also used in New Zealand.
It is found in Scottish Law. It originates in Old French, but it came into English usage through Law French, like Assize, Oyer and Terminer, and so forth did.
Always remember that dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Blood05 – gracefully admit defeat! Go on!
Angra, couldn’t concur more for we are in furious agreeance. Whilst language needs an element of prescriptivism, it is only to maintain clarity of intelligibility.
Are you saying you have a dictionary in which ‘agreeance’ is listed?
Bis – yes – the full version of the OED.
It’s like the word ‘thou’ that’s evolved to ‘you’. Our language has become more simplistic over the years (eg WTF?)
I’m sorry sir. I’m inuspeptic, frasmotic, even compunctious to have caused you such pericumbobulations.
re my comment @40.
‘Welshed’ should therefore mean ‘translated into Welsh’, which draws the sting from the poisonous abdomen of rightist abuse.
Tynged yr Iaith!
Ha, ha, ha! I’ve longed thought about shelling out for one of those huge tomes but fear I might do myself a back injury.
bis – I must admit I cheated (sort of). While it’s available on-line via subscription, I have access to a Uni library.
But I do have access to my Dad’s full version of a 1949 Britannica – which also has an entry for ‘agréance’. Not quite sure why he’s kept all 25 volumes, but it’s bloody useful at times.
I’m yet to see a white flag from Bloods09!
(Sorry – I’m yet to see a white flag from Bloods05)
More evidence of the ancient and noble history of the word ‘agreance’ (onby about 1,000 years old) –
from THE HISTORY AND CHRONICLES OF SCOTLAND.
THE FIRST BUKE. 29
Sone efter, the said Fergus, accumpanyit Anth ane certane of his
nobillis, past in Ireland, and pacifyit thaim of all debattis. This
wes the last act he did; for, efter the AGREANCE, this nobill prince,
returning hame throw the Ireland seis, be ane wickit tempest was
drevin apon ane crag; quhare he perist, with all his nobillis, the
XXV yere of his regne. In quhais memory, the crag, quhare he pe-
rist, is namit yit Crag Fergus.
http://www.archive.org/stream/historychronicle01boec/historychronicle01boec_djvu.txt
Well bugger me, if you can’t understand this for yourselves – here’s a modern version…
“Soon after, the said Fergus, accompanied by Ainth and certain of his nobles went to Ireland, and defeated and pacified them all (the Irish) in his debates. This was the last act he did; for after the AGREEANCE, the noble prince, returning home through the Irish seas, was driven on a rock by a wicked storm and unfortunately perished with all his nobles, in the twenty-fifth year of his reign. In his memory, the rock where he perished, is named Crag Fergus.”