Spot the swastika

Compare and the contrast the two images below. The first is a picture of the gay couple turned away from a hotel, who recently won a discrimination case against the owners. The second is the Daily Mail cartoon by Mac, who is covering the story in his own unique style. See if you can spot the swastika in the Mac cartoon and then challenge yourself to try and come up with an innocent explanation for why he decided to add it.

17 Comments

  • Mr Larrington says:

    I’ve been staring at it for about ten minutes, my eyes have gone all wonky and I can’t see a swastika. Could someone please enlighten me?

    FWIW one can detect a swastika motif in the stained glass at Walthamstow Assembly Rooms but unless Hitler survived the war and reinvented himself as the architect of civic building in Britain it’s probably just a coincidence. Although TWFKAML – herself an architect – says that Stafford Town Hall was almost certainly designed by a Nazi.

  • the_voice _of_reason says:

    I’m still struggling to find a story here that is more than “Woman too mean to pay for playgroup place moans at practice of largely voluntary group”.

    A whole ONE THOUSAND of Council Tax payers’ pounds go to fund this group, and HARD WORKING BRITISH FAMILIES might have to fork out up to TEN POUNDS a week for their BRITISH children

  • Chris says:

    If it’s the bottom right of the pigeon-holes, then I think it’s a tad farfetched to try and claim it’s a deliberate swastika…

    Although I will concede that it’s a good spot and it’s possibly the closest someone would dare go to drawing one outright.

    It would be interesting to know whether this ‘artist’ has had a few similar claims made against them in the past.

  • Alex Greene says:

    Another slur on gay people that leaves me speechless. Unbelievable. That goes so far beyond mere mischief-making, through trolldom and out the other side.

    In the name of honour. Anonymous really need to target the British press.

  • user@example.com says:

    I couldn’t see it for the life of me at first. Then I remembered to look at the full-size pic. I was really hoping you were just confused and saw a swastika that wasn’t there in the mess of tattoos, but no, there’s a swastika.

    Still, this is the Mail – this is practically an endorsement of homosexuality from them.

  • ACG says:

    the larger version of the image can be found here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348384/Mac–Damages-payout-gay-couple.html

    whilst it is true that any mass of geometric shapes will often throw up a swastika bu accident, the tattoo in the cartoon is clear, and sepperately drawn.
    no idea what mac was thinking with this one.

  • gonzo says:

    yes, its obvious, but only if you view the image at its original size…sigh.

    tbh they look more like BNP or EDL members so really not sure what the ‘point’ is meant to be.

    Mind you I recently read a phd entitled ‘A Sociological Study of an Online Gay Nazi Fetish Group’, so what do I know!

  • Nick says:

    To confirm, the character on the left has a swastika tattooed on his right forearm. What I don’t get is that I thought the Mail like the Nazi movement, what with their relationship with Oswald Blake and the Blackshirts.

  • Ian says:

    @ Mr Larrington

    There is a swastika on the right forearm of the guy on the left.

    I don’t about swastikas in Walthamstow Town Hall, or Hitler being involved in British town planning, but the building bears a remarkable similarity to the Reichstag.

  • Crispin says:

    The Mail’s website has only allowed 6 comments below the cartoon I wonder if this is because so many people tried to post comments criticising the cartoon?

  • Peter Pieeater says:

    Aw, come on – be fair! This is the Daily Mail trying to chuckle indulgently instead of foaming at the mouth. It’s the media equivalent of your granddad shaking his head in a resigned way at the bloody racket you young folk call music. The swastika tattoo comes from the Mail’s pallette of out-of-date stereotypical “bootboy” images – it’s meant to say “he’s really hard”. The cartoon assumes that Mail readers regard sex between men as inherently amusing, and this cartoon exaggerates that for what it imagines is comic effect. It is saying “Look – a couple of tattooed bruisers in Doc Martens are going to get all soupy in a fluffy soft focus bridal suite. Ha ha ha.” Moronic for sure, but not intended to imply that gay men are likely to be Nazis – or am I being too generous.

    • Uponnothing says:

      I look at the Swastika as Mac following the Mail line that ‘some are more equal than others’ in the same way that Littlejohn refers to ‘diversity Nazis’. The media narrative is that any group seeking equality is actually seeking superior treatment or replacing one unfairness with another. The equality in this case seems to override the right of the hotel owner to be bigoted, their freedom to be bigoted is prevented by the gay couple, ergo the gay couple are like Nazis. I wonder if Littlejohn will cover this story and if he will use the term ‘diversity Nazis’ again.

  • exilednzer says:

    Somebody I knew tried to explain it away by saying that the DM’s point was that, in the light of all the potentially offensive/scary things about this couple, the fact that they’re gay would be the biggest issue. He was being charitable in the extreme, I think.

  • David Belcher says:

    Re. Walthamstow Assembly Rooms – is this the same thing as the Assembly Hall? If so, that dates from the early ’40s so down to pure coincidence if you ask me; the swastika symbol pre-dates Nazi Germany by a long chalk (I believe the Nazi symbol is a reversed version of the old-established version) and it’s only in relatively recent times that it acquired unsavoury connotations.
    As for “spot the swastika” – is the prize a £2000 Nazi-themed holiday courtesy of the DM?

  • Lorraine says:

    It’s a cartoon that plays into and reinforces all DM reader fears. I think the swastika does indicate that the Gay Nazis are telling those good Christians what they can and can’t believe. The most obvious one to me though was that it wasn’t ‘just’ scary gay Nazis, but scary gay German Nazis. For DM readers gay people are either flouncing effeminate men, ugly scary feminist lesbians or that lovely stereotype of the doc martened, tatooed, moustached, shaven headed german type, which are the ones in the picture.

    God forbid they might actually be normal looking guys like in the photo. No doubt they had dressed up like ‘normal’ people for court and would head home to change into their tight jeans, doc martens and black vests, so they could continue to force their gay ideas on everyone.

    ‘Horrible gays, telling us we can’t tell them that their lifestyle is evil and against god’s laws’
    ‘Horrible EU gays, telling us we can’t tell them that their lifestyle is evil and against god’s laws’
    ‘Horrible German gays, well we all know what Germans are like!’

    I think that’s the actual message of the cartoon, but maybe I’m reading too much into it.

  • Mr Larrington says:

    I’m probably getting my bits of Walthamstow’s impressive civic architecture confused but it’s the big building on the right where they sometimes have gigs. We remarked upon the windows while waiting to be let in to see Fairport Convention…

  • Andy B says:

    Stunning response to my complaint on this from the PCC:

    In regard to the concern that it was inaccurate to depict a gay man displaying a swastika tattoo, the Commission emphasised that the cartoon was depicting figurative characters and not specific individuals. While it acknowledged the assertion made by many complainants that, given the treatment of homosexual people by Nazis, a gay man would not have this insignia tattooed on his arm, it did not consider that readers would be misled by the cartoon into understanding that homosexual people in general had an affiliation or association with Nazism or that they held similar views.

    Virtually all of the complainants considered that the portrayal of the couple in the cartoon, and especially the depiction of a swastika, was in breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Code. The terms of this clause state that the press must avoid making a prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s sexual orientation. However, the clause does not cover general concerns over the discrimination of groups or categories of people. Given that the majority of complainants considered that the cartoon discriminated against homosexual people in general, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

2 Trackbacks