What the £%$^$??&!!?
‘What the £%$^$??&!!’ was my first reaction upon reading the long awaited Cohabitation Bill. It was followed by ‘££%$£%£$£$££$^$”£”£ and more £$£”%$£%$£%££!!!
But as tempted as I was to write about the matter and vent out in anger, I decided to sleep on it until my emotions subside – I learnt the 'waiting lesson' late in life, and for this I’m thankful, but sadly it seems not to have reached everyone.
I’m referring of course to Joe Grima’s reaction to an anti Mintoff article written in The Catholic Herald by Fr. Alexander Lucie-Smith. Clearly overwhelmed by emotions, Grima, a former Labour minister, left a comment under the article with the words “F**k you Father…if you’re not already used to it there are enough paedophiles in your clan to show you the ropes.”
Had I or anyone else done something of the sort it would have been bad enough, but when you’re a former Labour minister and you know that your party’s biggest challenge is its violent and thuggish history, and when you know that the mayhem of 25 years ago is still being used against your party till this very day, this is downright suicide.
Though Joe Grima is a former Labour minister, he’s been hosting discussion programmes on Labour’s and other media for years. His use of profane words is therefore not an attempt to appear to be in tune with popular culture, because we all know he is, on the contrary Grima simply let his emotions get the better of him even though he probably knew that he’d be under the spotlight and automatically associated with the Labour Party’s attitude at large –thus validating the stereotypical brash view that the PN like to portray it with.
We all swear and cuss in private, in fact I wouldn’t believe anyone who claims the contrary, not even the bishop. Using profanities in private is not only cathartic but also creates intimacy with those around you - if people know that you don’t use that sort of language in public, they automatically work out that they are closer to you and by default more trusted than the rest.
Of course I see the hypocrisy, I see it loud and clear, but this is the reality we live in, this is the game we have to play, and if we want the slightest chance of winning we must play well. This distinction between the public and the private dates back to the 18th century when authorities realised that it’s simply impossible to regulate speech in the private sphere, and though centuries later things are changing, things are also pretty much the same.
For instance up to a few years ago this same paper wouldn’t have carried the title of this blog, but despite the liberation of today’s world, the fact remains that swear words and derogatory insults make you look like you’ve run out of arguments.
Though profanity is used as an expression of intense emotion and, admittedly we do need special words to convey the ineffability of feelings, using such words without a very clever follow-up argument, makes you look like you’ve lost your cool, and that your opponent has managed to get the best of you. Worst of all it makes you look like you’re linguistically challenged.
Unfortunately for those who like me find it difficult to bite their tongue, the link between bad language and moral degeneracy, low education and callousness is, incredibly strong, and though profane words are sometimes used as power words or as an expression of contempt for authority, they are also represent the end of rational expression.
So instead of telling Minister Chris Said exactly what I’d like him to do with his Cohabitation Bill, I will give myself a minute or two to turn the £!$£$”%”£$! into a meaningful debate, I might need more than a cold shower for this one, but I’ll do whatever it takes, because it’s worth it.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
14 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Franco Farrugia
Aug 29th 2012, 20:53
I somehow disagree with the writer.
Quote: 'Had I or anyone else done something of the sort it would have been bad enough, but when you’re a former Labour minister and you know that your party’s biggest challenge is its violent and thuggish history,..'
But what do you expect from the likes of Grima? Grima, even if he appeared on the political stage a trifle late, and so needed to show himself more and faster in order to shoulder his way to the front which he did and with gusto, IS VIOLENT AND IS THUGGISH! Or 'was', whichever you want.
Patrik Larsson
Aug 29th 2012, 08:44
In the tune of such emissaries as George Carlin and Stephen Fry I use the F word amply and suitably. No need to shy away from a words with such splendour and usefulness. Of course, even the most useful words should be used with some care and put in its right context and used correctly.
Perhaps it's the Scandinavian in me that is nurtured on a diet of the full national vocabulary, where even the most excruciating words for various genitalia is used in newspaper print, without much scoffing nor fanfare. The scarce use of these words in English print seems to have only added weight to these words. I say use them frequently. Use them with people you like. Use them with people you loathe. Just use the correctly.
You will find that when you stop being shocked at the vocabulary you'll actually see the message and the message is what was truly wrong in Maestro Grima's post. Said priest wrote a most passionate, honest and - most importantly - accurate account of a dark piece of history and the gentleman's response was to ignore all content and substance and take a swipe at the entire priesthood.
But then again, come election I have a vague feeling we will all have to get used to such behaviour...
Carmen Borg
Aug 30th 2012, 00:23
To put it politely, you can go and join Fr Lucie-Smut in the journalistic gutter.
Patrik Larsson
Aug 30th 2012, 10:08
Carmen:
That is extremely polite of you. Especially since I'm not even a journalist. Thank you for your resilience, although there is a quite strong glimmer of your true colours in the tone of your comment.
A Montebello
Aug 31st 2012, 10:23
Carmen Borg - I had to re-read Mr Larsson's post to see whether I'd missed anything. But no, there really is nothing there that could deserve such a stupid and meaningless reaction as yours.
Andy Farrugia
Aug 31st 2012, 16:55
@ Mr/Ms A Montebello
That's because there is this weird idea in some circles that "foreigners" cannot comment on(for which read, according to same, "interfere in") matters Maltese. I find this notion not simply weird, but highly offensive and undemocratic.
Anthony Scicluna
Sep 3rd 2012, 14:17
Mr Larsson
You cannot draw too many extensive parallels between a Nordic and a Mediterranean culture. The foundations are entirely different. The differences are demonstrable in nuances and so on.
Having said that, the general principle appears to be that the higher one goes in the media quality ladder, the less profane are utterances therein. Second, despite the beauty of the profane, would you tell someone with whom you disagree to fornicate off plus surrounding mudslinging or would you build a case to destroy the argument?
From the little I know of Scandinavians, they generally use their Viking vigour to argue points rationally rather than go senseless berserk just because of a set of realistic comments. The issue was not the use of fornication to prove a point but that the term was used by a figure who paints the past of one faction within the Labour Party with such whiteness that would make your Viking ancestors look like regular Martin Luther Kings.
Patrik Larsson
Sep 4th 2012, 08:04
Anthony Scicluna:
A quick reply to your comment, paragraph by paragraph
1) I'm well aware of the differences, having lived in both for a significant time. I'd go so far as to say it's not just nuances, the cultures are miles apart - for good or bad.
2) Disagree completely. This is why I mentioned Stephen Fry to begin with. You can't really beat his level of eloquence, yet he is a starch supporter of using even what is considered the ugliest words of the English vocabulary and that was my whole point. I'm not saying we need to swear at people every time we have a disagreement, I'm merely advocating the fact that including "bad words" doesn't automatically render an argument invalid and if we focus on only those words to make the point we might miss the forest for the trees. Case in point; in the Grima case people were highly focused on his cussing, rather than what he actually said - which was far worse than the actual swear words.
3) Well, thank you for your kind words on our culture. I'm well aware of the scope of Grima's comments and the ugly reminders of a dark past they bring to life. But, and I re-iterate, the point is that it was not the cussing that was the bad (or, to be fair, worst) part of his comment, it was the surrounding content.
Anthony Scicluna
Sep 4th 2012, 15:16
Patrick
Agreed - we arrive at the same conclusion albeit disagreeing on the profanity clause. I also agree wholeheartedly that the issue was not the use of profanity but "the swipe at the entire priesthood" used to belittle otherwise intelligent comments.
As to Stephen Fry, well, he's one of my favourite authors because of his eloquence. Having said that, profanity in English does not have the same effects and 'power' level as it does in such languages like Maltese, Chinese and Italian. I have no clue with respect to Scandinavian language.
If one would compare English to Maltese, the former is extremely poor. Maltese tend to stop, therefore, at the offending word. Plus, we Maltese typically focus on the literal rather than the metaphorical. I don't know why that is.
J Farrugia
Aug 29th 2012, 08:37
You see this is where you are wrong Alison, having the guts to tell someone to go $%£& themselves puts things on the plate there and then you know where you stand and it usually works. Also you serious think Minister Said is going to spare time to have a serious debate, like the PN has ever bothered going down this path with anyone of course unless you have lovely blue eyes ;)
Franco Farrugia
Aug 30th 2012, 05:58
Well .... did we ever have a 'serious debate' on anything? Please don't mention Old Labour, or whatever we want to call it.
I Bugeja
Aug 28th 2012, 22:57
Well we can only imagine what meaningful use you would suggest to Chris Said however don't blame it on him.
Alison don't think too much either since you are (part of) the press and can show what the cohabitation bill is really about without much*%&^$%$*. I'm sure not everyone understands it is much less than an equal opportunity for everyone since the bill itself distinguishes the way some may unite their relationship to the rest of the population.
Obviously there is the part which says that the cohabitation will not remain valid should the cohabitants (would it have been so difficult to refer to them as couple?) decide to marry. However even more obvious is the fact that the marriage legislation is very selective.
My thought is that we had a very good legislation protecting civil unions which should have been used across the board but instead the cohabitation bill prefers to create two scenarios. The cohabitation law applies to everyone while civil union applies to some. And this is only one but the most important issue.
Andy Farrugia
Aug 28th 2012, 20:11
I believe you got yourself into some confusion between using "you/your" and "we"! No need to doff masks, honey, some people have been able to see through you for ages. And, please, do tell Minister Said what to do with his Bill; no great fuss there! That Falzon Garret lady did it before you with Minister Gatt!
Andy Farrugia
Aug 28th 2012, 23:02
Pardon! A slip! Should read Abela Garrett, not Falzon Garret! Apologies!
Please choose the reason of your report below: