Guernsey Press

No right to be rude

Public criticism is guaranteed in politics, but rudeness and abuse are a step too far in Peter Roffey's opinion. He has first-hand experience of the island's unique proximity to its politicians and believes it would be a disaster if online abuse led to a lack of candidates and less access to those willing to stand

Published

The recent Press headline about deputies facing 'vile and violent abuse on-line' has got me thinking about the relationship between the public and their politicians in Guernsey.

How should the two parties interact? What is the correct dividing line between undue deference and excess cynicism? Is outright rudeness ever justified?

Of course it's a truism that the politicians in Guernsey are closer to their electorate than those just about anywhere else in the world. Not only are their personal phone numbers listed at the front of the telephone directory and their email addresses on the States' website, but they bump into scores of their constituents every day. If they go out for a meal, shopping in the supermarket or for a swim with their kids there is always someone who says, 'ah, Deputy Le Page, I've been meaning to get hold of you'.

Then there is the phone. Become a deputy and the days when you could regard mealtimes as sacred disappear. Go for an early night and the phone will ring at 10pm with someone saying 'sorry to call so late, but it's urgent'. Conversely, opt for a rare lie-in and someone will call at 7am certain that you must be an early riser.

In many ways I think all this is great. Far better than politicians dwelling in remote ivory towers. But I can tell you from personal experience that being constantly on duty, except when taking an occasional break off-island, can be wearing. Even more so if you are at the receiving end of aggressive criticism and rudeness. Nor is it just the deputy him/herself who suffers from such incomings. In many ways it is worse for their family.

So from my perspective our very closeness to our politicians gives us a greater responsibility to treat them civilly. That doesn't mean we can't disagree with them as vigorously as we like. It's quite possible to oppose policies strongly and passionately without descending to personal abuse. In short, we should play the ball and not the man.

If we don't, then not only will we deter people from standing as deputy but we will also encourage those that do to insulate themselves far more from the public once elected. If, as a result, we lose that traditional closeness between the public and politicians in Guernsey we will have lost something precious – and we will only have ourselves to blame.

How does the internet fit into this debate?

I have to admit to being a total social media virgin. I simply don't see the point in it. But it seems to me that Facebook, Twitter and similar sites have become the public bars of the 21st century. They provide a space for armchair politicians to sound off about how useless their deputies are and opine exactly where 'this bunch of clowns' is going so badly wrong.

Often they will also put forward their own patent remedies, most of which would prove calamitous if ever put into practice. But of course they never will be so they will never be revealed to be even more inept themselves than the deputies they spend their time slagging off.

I suppose the main difference between today's social media and yesterday's saloon bar is less what's being said and more the size of the audience. Firstly, there's a danger that what starts off as one overly aggressive critic can spark off a feeding frenzy, with others competing to be the most strident/rudest contributor to the debate. That sounds very childish, but it does seem to happen.

The other difference is that in the old days, if a public house critic went over the top and was outrageously rude about a deputy then neither they nor their family probably ever got to know about it. These days if they miss a scurrilous online posting about themselves lots of other people will draw it to their attention.

So what am I saying? That we shouldn't criticise our deputies or get hot under the collar about their actions when we disagree with them? Not at all. Indeed, that would be fairly hypocritical, coming from a political columnist who criticises the States on an almost weekly basis. Rather, my message is very simple: There is no excuse for downright rudeness or aggression.

Nor do I buy the often quoted excuse that, 'I pay their wages so I can say what I like about them'. What arrant nonsense. The public also pay the wages of their police officers and GPs, but they wouldn't dream of speaking to/about them in the same way. And I think these armchair critics would be pretty shocked if their employer suddenly started to constantly refer to them as 'useless numpties without a f***ing clue' on the basis that they paid their wages.

Finally I want to say something to and about Deputy Yvonne Burford.

Clearly she is something of a Marmite figure. Some people absolutely hate her policies, in particular, those who feel the car should always be king and hang the consequences. I'm of a somewhat environmental disposition myself and not mindful to apologise for it. So I tend to be rather more sympathetic to some of her ideas, but when I disagree with her policies I say so. That's not the point.

The point is that all of those policies flowing from the States-approved integrated transport strategy are the responsibility of the whole assembly. They passed it and they own it. They are also able to reverse that decision if they want to, but so far not one deputy has made a move to rescind their resolution endorsing the strategy. Instead, they've just sniped from the sidelines. I don't know why that is but I suspect it might be that a requete proposing scrapping the strategy would also be expected to propose an alternative. That's not so easy as just criticising.

Finally, I have been shocked at the amount of odium and bile heaped on Deputy Burford's head. She is not a she-devil but a very sincere politician, bravely pursuing policies that she clearly believes deeply in and was quite candid about when standing for election. Some islanders may believe she is very misguided and they are free to say so, but that doesn't in any way justify the nasty (and often misogynist) vilification that has been going on.

It may be meaningless to apologise on someone else's behalf, but as one member of the great Guernsey public I would like to say 'sorry' to Deputy Burford for the utterly unjustified and despicable rudeness she has suffered at our hands.

What are we coming to as a community? If our children behaved this way we would tell them off and put them on the naughty step.

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.