The Debasement of Language

Specifically, death threats.

The army and police are investigating after a soldier sent a death threat to the shadow education secretary, Angela Rayner, defence officials have said.

The commander of the British field army, Lt Gen Ivan Jones, and the defence secretary, Ben Wallace, denounced the message, which was posted on Twitter on Wednesday, as MPs pleaded with the prime minister to tone down his Brexit rhetoric, saying they feared it would incite violence against them.

Okay, two issues here – well, maybe three. Firstly, Johnson’s comments were mild. It wasn’t he who raised the ghost of Jo Cox in parliament. He merely pointed out that the opposition was talking humbug when they invoked her death and humbug it was. So there is no need to tone down his language and his language has nothing to do with what is being said on and off-line. That is a consequence of behaviour specifically the behaviour of unelected individuals using the courts to stymie a legitimate vote and a parliament that is wilfully obstructing the desire of the electorate to remove them, not to mention and increasing number who just want to leave the EU.

Secondly, the political discussion has become incredibly toxic this past few years, but is it leavers who are using terms such as gammon, wanting to kill off older voters who were too thick, xenophobic and racist to know what they were voting for and should be disenfranchised as a consequence? Before those who complain about what Johnson is saying, need to engage in some introspection and consider their own behaviour. Yes, yes, I do know that some leave activists have engaged in unpleasant words, but is not, as the remain side are inferring, one-sided.

Thirdly, what did this soldier actually say?

Posting an image of the message online on Thursday, Rayner said it was just an example of the “usual vile tweet I get daily”. It read that she will “perish when civil war comes”, suggesting that people who voted for Brexit would be “gunning for blood if we don’t leave”.

That is not a death threat. “I am going to kill you,” is a death threat. This is colourful rhetoric. It is a warning of turbulent reactions should they persist – and possibly an accurate prediction, but it is not even close to a death threat and in claiming that it is, these people are doing exactly the same with the term as they have with racism. It has become so debased, it is meaningless.

I don’t doubt that Rayner has received many unpleasant tweets – it’s the nature of both the inanity of Twitter and her public role. It goes with the territory. But they are only words and she is not obliged to read them. I very much doubt the others are death threats either.

The prime minister has come under pressure to tone down his language when debating Brexit, having recently made routine use of rhetoric more commonly associated with war; referring to “betrayal” and terming the Benn Act, which requires him to seek an extension in the absence of a deal, the “surrender bill”.

It is a surrender bill. In saying so, he merely stated a fact. And if we were facing a war, Lord help us, because fighting on the beaches with people who are upset over a few words doesn’t bode well at all.