Brexit

Sept 26, 2019 8:43:01 GMT sf said:

Absolutely. The language he used last night was absolutely sickening (and for the sake of my sanity I'm very glad I wasn't watching it live). My expectations of him, God knows, are rock bottom, and he managed to stoop even lower than I thought possible, and his party cheered him on. There's a gaping moral vacuum where the Tory benches used to be.

Something terrifying, but telling, was that, yesterday on Question Time, James Cleverly was confronted with Johnson’s rhetoric, and consistently replied with “What Johnson means by that is…”.

So, what Johnson meant by “Death threats are humbug” is “Oh, violence a serious issue, but to place it all on Johnson’s shoulders is taking it to an extreme, and Labour are insensitively mischaracterising Johnson.  Humbug.”. That’s not what he said – but it’s what he meant. Obviously!

That gives Johnson the immunity to say anything.  This is TERRIFYING. 

If his words mean what they mean, he’s a danger at best and an authoritarian at worst.

If his words don’t mean what they mean, he’s an idiot who doesn’t understand Key Stage Two vocabulary.

Either way, his party will be there to rewrite his script.  But his can’t prop him up every time he makes a mistake. They certainly shouldn’t.

“When he calls it a surrender bill, he doesn’t mean we’re at war and surrendering, he just means he disapproves of a slight delay to secure trade between Ireland – it’s innocently political. However, he’ll still use Churchill's language of war about it, which is stoking us-and-them divisions which often lead to violence, just, ya know, because.  He’s using a dangerous word incorrectly, but that’s not what he means, so it’s all harmless, of course.”

NO! Let his words be his words. Let his rhetoric be his rhetoric. If he’s a bad leader, oust him as leader. If he’s a good leader, let him represent himself with his own damn words.

My hunch? He’s honestly that thick. Well done, Eton.

It’s also terrifying that the newspaper front pages are quite so extreme, and I think that we need press moderation – that newspapers should be prohibited from using over-inflammatory language, or language with the potentiality to incite violence (which means that, if epithets like “Will of the People” have been employed by less-than-savoury regimes, by anarchists and assassins, they should probably be used with caution about milquetoast moderates). Most people don’t pick apart why Johnson is using the word ‘surrender’ (to pettily ape Churchill albeit confusing Mr Benn with Adolf Hitler) – they just hear the word and assume its warmongering meaning.

It’s important, therefore, that our press NEVER repeat, but report – which means moderating when our leaders go too far. It also means moderating themselves when they go too far. Only this controversial week, many have gone too far – that headline conflates illegal Johnson with legal compromise, and to conflate the two, in the context of reporting the truth, is terrifying.

Whatever else, Brexit isn’t a war, and frankly shouldn’t be divisive. THIS is something we should all agree on – that no-one has ‘surrendered’, nor will, nor can – but those who use that vocabulary ARE stoking violence, ARE stoking war. If there are enemies in this situation, it’s those who use the word ‘enemy’. Brexit is only a war if our leaders and newspapers want it to be.  With his rhetoric, our Prime Minister wants it to be.

The long and the short is I’m truly, truly terrified – @cardinalpirelli , I would say shellshocked myself – in a way I wasn’t 48 hours ago. The man we saw on Wednesday, the rhetoric he’s using, is full of violent connotations, yet immune to criticism. Our leader believes that language of violence is “humbug”, despite often using carefully chosen loaded words, at other times being dangerously careless. His party then rewrites his words, rewrites his meaning, rewrites our language. These events could have dangerous, violent consequences. We can't let the lies of "he means something different" let Johnson off. This is how violence on the streets starts, violence amongst families, violence against the state. Worse, it’s not just Johnson – it’s his party accommodating his idiocy.

I cannot believe I’m typing this, but we need a leader who will not break the law, who doesn’t stoke violence against his own country, and who knows what basic words mean. I don’t know what we do, but we need Johnson’s party to apologise for not explain this rhetoric, and Johnson out ASAP, before his words really do have consequences. In some situations - "she just went to Iran to teach journalism" - they already have.

Words have meaning. Words have consequences. Any Prime Minister using the word 'surrender' at that dispatch box knows exactly that words have history. His party knows this too, and have the option to challenge or to condone.  Whether intentional or idiotically unintentional, what words incite cannot be brushed away when inconvenient.

Or, to quote a great historical trial about the repercussions of language, "At best what you do is offensive, at worst it incites harassment and violence" - "That was popular for a certain demographic of people".

Dapper Laughs was held up to higher standards than our Prime Minister.

Sept 27, 2019 12:36:30 GMT @jeanhunt said:

McDonnell/McVey

Just to repeat, and emphasise, though - leaders set higher standards than the rest.  Johnson's words have larger, even global, repercussions.  A leader saying death threats don't matter - that matters.

Anywho, I have HUGE problems with Corbyn.  He's infinitely better than Johnson, but personally I'd like to see a new leader before the next election - albeit one who continues principled left-wing politics for a principled left-wing party.