Freedom of speech and the expression of our own opinions without fear of censor or reprisal is one of the defining characteristics of a free society.
The ability to articulate reasoned arguments was the cornerstone of the ancient Greek civilisation and this tradition of artful rhetoric remains a hallmark of any great civlisation.
In the footsteps of great thinkers like Plato and Cicero and walks the hefty plod of Jon Gaunt, Sun columnist and voice of the common man.
Gaunty, clearly inspired by those ancient masters, has honed his debating skills. His chief weapon is the rhetorical question.
The rhetorical question is an art form. The answer to the question must be so obvious to us that we cannot help but agree. We are swept along with the argument.
It is a skill Gaunty is working on, with mixed success.
For example from his article on 07/02/08 on disgraced Tory MP Derek Conway. “But forgive me, isn’t he just like the disgraced Lib Dem MP Mark Oaten, who performed a sex act with a rent boy too disgusing to write about in a family newspaper?”
Ignoring his bizarre claim that the Sun is a family newspaper, one would not find it hard to say well Gaunty there probably is quite a big difference between an MP who uses tax payers funds to pay his family for little or no work and an MP with unorthodox sexual practices. Whatever the relative morality of either misdemeanour, they are not the same.
Here is another from 29/02/08. “Can anyone really convince us that animals like [Levi] Bellfield, Steve Wright and Mark Dixie deserve more rights than a rabid dog?”
Again the relative merits of Gaunty’s argument are not my complaint. It is more that a complex argument on whether capital punishment is an acceptable form of state justice in the most extreme cases is reduced to a simple rhetorical, isn’t the answer bleeding obvious question in the hands of the great thinker Gaunty. The answer to your question is yes probably if you give me a minute of your time Jon. I’m not sure this is his intention.
Gaunty is definitely trying with this technique, but is he improving? Here is a more recent example from 13/03/08 in response to Margaret Hodge’s complaint that some people from different backgrounds feel uncomfortable when attending the Proms.
“Do they Margaret? Well some survivors of child abuse feel ill at ease about you ignoring the pleas of the abused when you were head of Islington council.”
Close again Gaunty but not quite. Previous Gaunty questions provoked a “not really Jon” response when attempting to gain our unequivocal support. This not only misses “not really” territory bu lands smack bang in “bafflement” country. What Jon? How are the two things related? What has Mrs Hodge’s previous employment nearly 20 years ago to do with this debate of national identity and access to the arts? It began as a rhetorical question but has become just an attempt to snow-blind the reader. We see the word child abuse, its linked to Mrs Hodge, we hate Mrs Hodge, everything she says is wrong. We are Pavlov’s dogs.
Sometimes Gaunty forgets the question in his rhetorical device but the outcome is equally baffling. In a way it is a streamlining of the ancient art.
From 28/02/08 on his favourite subject of “Immigration-R-Us” Britain. “To wrap yourself in the Union Flag and try to protect your homeland from an unwanted invasion like our forefathers did in 1940 is NOT racist.”
Er yes it is Jon. To compare an influx of foreign workers to an internationally recognised attempt to invade and remove the sovereign power of another state is racist. But in Gaunty’s world it is not some much the reasoning behind what you say but the impact of how you say it. The ancient Greeks were slow to pick up on this.
