Guernsey Press

Keep it civil

WHILE I would love to see lots of talented new candidates put themselves forward in the 2020 election, you do have to ask yourself the question, ‘Why on earth would they want to?’

Published
(23132302)

The level of abuse being levelled at deputies these days is off the scale. In particular from anonymous detractors on so-called ‘social media’.

While I am not personally a user of any such online platforms – I really struggle to see the point – some of the more vile contributions are occasionally brought to my attention.

Threats of physical violence, deeply derogatory comments and aggressive swearing are all supposed to bounce off the thick skins of those who ‘asked for it by putting themselves forward for public office’.

This, of course, is complete nonsense. They asked for no such thing and nor should they be expected to put up with it. More to the point, nor should their families.

Of course, deputies take decisions which affect everybody’s lives, so they are bound to sometimes upset sections of the community. As such it is not the trade to go into if you want to be universally popular.

There will always be those who question your policies, your judgement or your ability. Some of those may even be your colleagues!

However, there is all the difference in the world between trenchant criticism and out-and-out abuse. I was brought up to believe that there was no excuse for rudeness, but these days that philosophy seems to carry a caveat of ‘except for on social media’.

I think there are two things coming together here. The first is that politicians have always been regarded as fair game for criticism to an extent which simply doesn’t apply to most other professions or trades. I can live with that because, as I say, we do make policy decisions which affect everybody’s lives and that is bound to raise hackles from time to time.

As a result, I have seen well-regarded doctors, teachers, nurses, business people, lifeboat coxswains and so on enter the States as virtual Guernsey folk heroes, regarded as almost above criticism, only to become ‘damn fools who couldn’t run a bath, let alone a government department’ within a year or two.

Such is the price of assuming power over other people’s lives (even if they have chosen you for the task) and politicians have to learn to live with it.

The second ingredient in this toxic mix is the ability that social media provides to throw stones without being identified. Of course the grief, abuse and threats that politicians get via this route of communication are just one facet of a far wider problem. It is not only politicians at the receiving end. Whether it is cyber bullying among youngsters or faceless and cowardly vilification of those in the public eye, you can’t help feeling that this way of communicating has outpaced the ability to regulate it.

The idea that somehow insults hurled online, via social media, should be regarded as less defamatory or taken less seriously than those ventilated in the traditional media is both risible and legally nonsensical. Both are being published and both the authors and the publishers should be held accountable. Alas the originators of such abuse are usually hiding behind pen-names and the social media giants seem all too often to be above the law.

So is this just a whinge from a thin-skinned politician? Partly, although I think it is a justified one. I wish I could reproduce some of the more vile stuff here but the Guernsey Press rightly has standards. However, this issue is a far wider one than just the abrasive and abusive flack that politicians are expected to tolerate these days.

Rather it is about generally falling standards of behaviour towards each other in society as a whole. Particularly where anonymity has bred a feeling that insulting others is not only acceptable, but normal behaviour. Whatever happened to the golden rule of ‘do as you would be done by’?

If you don’t like a person’s views, then attack those views. If you don’t like their actions, then criticise them by all means. But anybody who has to resort to personal nastiness or derogatory comments in order to pursue a disagreement has already lost the intellectual argument. How can any community teach its youngsters right from wrong when so many of its adults now behave like the worst sort of playground bully?

In closing, let me stress that I am not against robust and full-bodied debate. I indulge in it myself and think is a healthy, indeed vital, part of any democracy. If you disagree with an idea, a policy or an initiative then say so and say so robustly. My ‘cri de coeur’ is that, when doing so, you make sure you play the ball and not the player.