Jarlath Burns and the back of a van (but check the footnote)

What constitutes fair criticism? It’s an important question, especially since we’re in the middle of an election campaign. (What do you mean, you hardly noticed?)

Actually ‘fair criticism’ is a misnomer. ‘Fair insult’ would be nearer the mark. Former GAA star and school principal Jarlath Burns has been criticized and is under investigation by the Catholic Council for Maintained Schools (CCMS), after a tweet from his account described Mrs Karen McKevitt, a former SDLP MLA, as having “a face like the back of a van”.

Is this an example of fair criticism/insult? You could argue around the houses on this one. Several decades ago  a term very close to it was commonly used – ‘a face like the back of a bus’, rarely to the face of the woman in question (it was usually a woman). It was also considered not particularly insulting, in that it was clichéd and non-specific.

At secondary school, in contrast, we used nicknames, and frequently these were very specific. If a boy had a squint, he was called Squinty. If he had a big nose, he was called Schnozz. If he had a snub nose he was called Pig. I myself was referred to as Ram. (No, Virginia, it would take too long.) I rarely felt particularly hurt by the description/name, but you can see how some of the name insults could have wounded.

However, we had the excuse that we were children, not sufficiently civilized to know that words can be barbs that bite and tear. And I’m talking about more than fifty years ago, whereas the case of Mrs McKevitt is contemporary and Jarlath Burns is not a child but a school principal. Mr Burns claims that someone else used his account to deliver the insult, that he was at a GAA game at the time. That may be so, but it’d be fair to say that, in the absence of convincing proof otherwise, he is ultimately responsible for tweets that go out under his name.

It’s quite possible that the social media form which the insult took plays a part. People will say things about you on Twitter or Facebook that they’d be slow to say to your face. I’ve been condemned as sectarian, as a bigot, as a prat, as bitter. I’d reject all four, but at least they refer to matters over which I might be expected to have some control. But criticism of me for being old, or bald, or small or big – all these are stupid as well as insulting, because they criticize me for things over which I have no control. It’s one thing to make a mental note of these matters – we all do it all the time. That woman is beautiful, that man has funny ears, that child’s got a scar on his face, that woman is losing her hair. We register the things as we see them, but if we’re half-sensible and half-sensitive we don’t utter our judgement out loud.

So it’s fair enough to criticize people for the things they’ve done, providing they have in fact done them. But it’s sad and stupid to call people names on the basis of their appearance, however accurate that description may be, if the feature in their appearance is something over which they’ve no control.

That’s why Jarlath Burns should disown the tweet about Mrs McKevitt, condemn the stone-age thinking of the person who he alleges sent the tweet under his name (assuming he knows who that is), apologise for this insult and finally condemn all similar insults for the reasons I’ve listed.

God gave us all the face we have. Even when your face is handsome like that on Jarlath Burns, you  should refrain from throwing stones.

IMPORTANT FOOTNOTE: Since writing the above, I’ve come on information that relates to the words in bold font above:’in the absence of convincing proof otherwise. ‘

I’m now satisfied that Mr Burns was, as he claimed, not present when the uncomplimentary tweet was made, and  I understand that it was indeed made by someone over whom Mr Burns at the time  had  no control.  In the light of that new information, it’s unfair to point the finger of blame at the man. If as I say we can’t control what kind of face God gives us, likewise if somebody  sends a crude tweet without your authorisation, it’s a bit senseless to blame you for the act. It’d be like me taking my neighbour’s garden spade and using it to beat gio unconscious and then saying the neighbour was to blame for gio’s damaged state. (No, no, you can sit up now, gio – it was only hypothetical, I promise you.) So while you might say Mr Burns was careless to leave his phone or ipad or whatever lying where someone else could use it, it’d be wrong to say he was responsible for the actions of the insulting tweeter.

It’s a slippery old thing, morality.