There’s a whole art to insulting people. For one thing, an ad hominem can only be effective if it has a modicum of truth – or widely perceived truth – to it.
Thus calling, say, Jeremy Corbyn ‘commie scum’ would hit the mark, even though, as far as I know, he isn’t a member of the British Communist Party – and I’m not even sure it’s still in business.
The ‘commie’ part could be defended as a representation of Corbyn’s views, rather than party affiliation. And the ‘scum’ part is merely a matter of opinion, which one is free to express – at least until he’s in power.
But referring to Jeremy as too clever by half would be wide of the mark because it’s way too far-fetched and so drastically removed from the truth as to defang the insult altogether.
In the same vein, calling Rees-Mogg anything disgusting in reference to his conservative views would work on its own terms – but calling him a fatso wouldn’t.
And stating publicly that, for example, he misappropriates public funds or abuses his children, would be cause for a libel suit or criminal prosecution.
These nuanced thoughts came to my mind the other day, when, commenting on my article Down with Islamophobia on TV, a grateful reader sent me an email admirable in its laconic power.
It said: “Boot = paedo Fascist scum”. No salutation, no signature, no ‘yours faithfully’ – don’t they teach people how to write missives any longer?
Quite apart from its style, that simple equation illustrates both the right and wrong approaches to insults.
‘Fascist’ is a standard term of endearment used by leftists to describe conservatives, though usually not actual fascists (they are called ‘right-wing extremists’).
That much is par for the course, as is ‘scum’, a non-specific form of abuse. Thus ‘Fascist scum’ strikes me as a legitimate expression of opinion, however derogatory. It is, however, tautological.
One could argue plausibly that, though not every person deserving the soubriquet ‘scum’ is a Fascist, every Fascist is definitely scum. Thus rhetorical rectitude would suggest that the word ‘Fascist’ could have done the job by itself, with no extra help necessary, thank you very much.
Be that as it may, that’s good knock-about stuff and a welcome release of a hitherto pent-up cri de coeur.
Any analyst charging £100 an hour will confirm that bottling up strong feelings inside oneself may have a destructive effect on one’s mental health. Hence the aforementioned equation has a self-medicating value, a sort of DIY session on the couch.
When God is niggardly when equipping a person with a functioning mind, but overgenerous in doling out emotions, vile invective is the only possible debating technique. This I understand and, following a French maxim (tout comprendre, c’est tout pardonner), forgive.
But the ‘paedo’ part is more problematic. The epithet ‘Fascist scum’ can be construed as a matter of opinion, and in some quarters laudable opinion at that, when aimed at a conservative.
But ‘paedo’, which is the colloquial for ‘paedophile’, is a different kettle of cuttlefish. For paedophilia, defined as having or at least pursuing sex with a prepubescent person of either sex, is a crime.
That insult therefore levels an accusation of criminal activity, which, unlike ‘Fascist scum’, can only be one of two things: either demonstrably true or libellous. Since – and I know you only have my word for it – it’s not true, it’s libellous.
That’s a serious matter, for libel, otherwise known as defamation of character, is itself a crime, punishable by up to two years in prison and/or a fine. It’s also an invitation for a civil lawsuit, which, if successful, can produce a fine ranging from derisory to astronomic.
Now no one can prove a negative, even though I know for sure that I’ve never harboured impure thoughts about prepubescent girls or, God forbid, boys.
But our jurisprudence is such that I don’t have to prove any such thing. The burden of proof is on the accuser, which makes him liable for all sorts of unpleasant things.
His address was only given as the initial P, and – even if I could be bothered to waste time on such nonsense – if traced, it would probably lead to a troll factory somewhere in Russia or some country where the religion of peace is practised.
My point is that insulting people isn’t as easy as some people seem to think. I’d be prepared to give P a crash course in that art. Meanwhile, my only message to him is: you too, squire.
To be fair to fascists, they tend to take a pretty dim view of paedophilia. One of the most insistent demands of the Combat 18 types was the execution of child molesters.
The British public schools had that reputation, deserved or otherwise, of buggery. Is that still the case?
I suppose so. But it doesn’t qualify as paedophilia if children do it to one another. As to Gary Glitter, he was more than just a paedophile – he was a murderer.
“The Execution of Gary Glitter”. BBC production [?] and well done.
Now you’re accusing my detractor of not knowing history. How can that be, he such a refined gentleman.
Maybe it was Corbyn himself. Mustering all this intellectual capacity into one single phrase.