The Language Of Hatred
Opting for the lingo of cowardice is a sign of bankruptcy in the issues department: this is not a standard we allow for debating our case
There was a flurry of correspondence recently [*] that showed much more than it said even though it said plenty of reprehensible material expressed in a distinct class of language that is alien to political debate, even the Libyan fashion. The selection of the style had hints of research behind it, no doubt for additional effect. It is difficult to take the correspondence in question seriously but at the same time it is also unwise to ignore it and allow it to pass with impunity. It must be repeatedly and strongly criticised, if not condemned. The reason is that it is an issue of standard, our standard of debating our case. Language of cowardice and ill judgement must not enter the vocabulary of discussions even when there are disagreements. Individuals can practice their own thing in whatever fashion they wish, but if they chose to enter into public matters and directly address honourable public figures in a style far below the normal measure, I believe it is our (the spectators) obligation to express concern. Yes, the case in hand appeared like a dispute between individuals, but it is not really a private matter anymore due to intrusion of others in heavy-handed manner and in a particular example it was down right disgusting.
I am not going for the old belief: we are Libyans and this is not what we expect from each other and the rest of the myth. The fairytale does not wash anymore, if it ever did. Plenty of printed evidence posted on this site alone to show this is just a myth.
In here, the matter is addressed on face value alone, on the basis of the style of what was said in the correspondence in question and several others since.
Disputes on either facts or views in politics are normally addressed with a language that strictly follows certain guidelines and strict standards in terms of vulgarity and accusatory terms. It is a fact that whenever a party unilaterally opts for the use of unacceptably vulgar lingo to argue, it exposes bankruptcy in ideas and inability to take part in a proper debate. It is a give a way. It demonstrates shortage of insight and depth, poor judgement, basically nothing of value to contribute, even to the defence of dear friends let alone to advancing ideas of national importance.
The correspondence in question showed an additional truly disturbing feature. It had an air of enjoyment, almost satisfaction, by the composer. The attack appeared to discharge naturally and without effort, expressed by the aid of vulgar language to vent stored anger mixed with hatred. It paints a sorry picture, vacant in culture and poor in judgement. The episode is a terrible stain on the Libyan (our) case. It is the last thing it needs.
The shameful conduct must be repeatedly and strongly criticised, especially when it is committed by writers with a readership.
Ahmed S. Mosbah
(*) Correspondence by Mr. Yosef Majrisi, ostensibly provoked by Mr Ben Ghalbon’s critical views of Mr. Nuri Kikhya, which were recently expressed in part 16 of the series on the Libyan Constitutional Union.