Sir, – I’m perplexed by Justine McCarthy’s stance on politicians’ statements about the protagonists in Dublin’s recent riots (“Irish politicians throwing around terms such as ‘scumbags’ and ‘thugs’ is a slippery slope”, Opinion & Analysis, December 8th).
She appears to suggest that limits on invective used in political exchanges should be extended to how politicians could comment on criminal behaviour. Thankfully sparing us the original American meaning of “scumbag” she interprets it as a “contemptible or objectionable person”.
It is hard to see how politicians might sensibly comment on people setting fire to Garda cars and looting city centre shops without deeming it objectionable or worthy of contempt.
Perhaps suggesting there “were very fine people on both sides” would be appropriate?
Rail disruption hell: ‘There has not been one day without delays on the train’
The top 25 women’s sporting moments of the year: top spot revealed with Katie Taylor, Rhasidat Adeleke and Kellie Harrington featuring
Father’s U-turn in a will left son who took care of him with a pittance
The Guildford Four’s Paddy Armstrong: ‘People thought I was going to be bitter and twisted when I came out of prison’
The real problem such events pose for public communications is with potential bans on hate speech.
It is impossible to prevent the type of life experiences that might move a person to strong feelings, including hatred. Preventing them from expressing the emotion is difficult to achieve also, given the basic freedoms we take for granted.
Thus we have the scenario of Minister for Justice Helen McEntee advocating a ban on hate speech while describing people as thugs and scumbags. The fact is the definitions of these words was met by those protagonists and claiming to be condemning the act rather than the person is nonsensical.
Such proposed limits to freedom of speech will obviously be ignored by law breakers or anonymous contributors to online forums. It will simply make it impossible for decent people to describe them. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN O’BRIEN,
Kinsale,
Co Cork.
Sir, – Justine McCarthy quotes from Dáil Éireann’s linguistic style book on words such as gurrier, guttersnipe, rogue, scoundrel, corner boy, yahoo and scumbag as being unparliamentary language that TDs are not allowed to call each other during proceedings in Leinster House.
Readers may recall back in 2010 when former ceann comhairle John O’Donoghue described then Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore as a “gadfly flying around the smelly tail of an old cow” in the Dáil chamber.
Having heard another Kerry TD during the week describe a Dublin Labour Party TD as a “horrible little man” that “can’t contain himself”, one might ask if the Salient Rulings of the Chair needs to be completely revised and updated. – Is mise,
TOM McELLIGOTT,
Listowel,
Co Kerry.
Sir, – I fail to understand how Labour TD Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (“Dublin riots: Helen McEntee refuses to withdraw use of term ‘scumbag’”, Politics, December 7th) can describe the term scumbags as “classist” when upper-class people are perfectly capable of being scumbags too. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN AHERN,
Clonsilla,
Dublin 15.
Sir, – Justine McCarthy criticises politicians who describe constituents in pejorative language.
The offending TDs should reflect on the fate of leaders who gave vent to their unvarnished opinion of voters: Hillary Clinton for her “basket of deplorables . . . racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic” and David Cameron for his “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”. – Yours, etc,
Dr JOHN DOHERTY,
Gaoth Dobhair,
Co Dhún na nGall.
Sir, – Well done to Justine McCarthy for calling out our elected representatives on their language.
Far from inspiring confidence in their ability to find solutions to problems, such labelling further damages efforts to build hope in the already most marginalised groups and communities in our society. – Yours, etc,
MARY HELEN McCANN,
Dún Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.