Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1509248
SOMETHING tells me we might need to update all existing dic- tionaries, to reflect how the mean- ing of certain words seems to be changing, even as we speak (quite literally, this time). Take 'outrage', for instance: which the first random online dic- tionary I found, defines as: "an ex- tremely strong reaction of anger, shock, or indignation." Now: like all good dictionary definitions, this one is sufficient- ly vague to account for a certain 'flexibility', in the way the word is actually used. For example: it would certainly be no exaggeration to assert that Mal- ta (and indeed the rest of the world) was 'outraged', by the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2017. Likewise, there was undeniably an outpour of 'anger and indignation' (though not necessarily 'shock') at the more recent Benefit Schemes/ Driving Licences scandals. But while both those sentiments can justifiably be described as 'outrage'… I think we can all safe- ly agree that the former reaction was 'extremely stronger' (in every sense of the word), than the latter; and also, that there was infinite- ly MORE to actually be 'angry, shocked, and indignant' about, back in 2017. And this also means that – sub- consciously, at least – we all rec- ognise that 'outrage' itself comes in all sorts different shapes, sizes, and colours… depending on (and, more importantly, PROPOR- TIONAL TO) the nature of what- ever is causing it, in the first place. Nor is this the only connotation that we 'take for granted', when using that word. We can also in- stinctively tell the difference be- tween 'outrage' on a purely per- sonal level… and outrage on a 'nationwide' scale. Again, both the above examples certainly qualify as 'nationwide': albeit to different degrees. But the personal sensation of 'an- ger, shock, and indignation', that might arise among INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE (as a rule, when con- fronted by something that some- how challenges, or ridicules, their own most cherished beliefs)… that is – or should be – a different matter altogether. Because this point, we have crossed a significant threshold, that is just no longer 'accounted' for, by the above definition. To put that another way: last I looked, it was only ever the na- tionwide – rather than the purely personal – 'outrages', that actual- ly got themselves 'reported in the press'… (and even then: for the very simple reason that those are the sort of 'outrages' that actually have CONSEQUENCES, for the rest of society.) So again, we find ourselves fac- ing same old question of 'degree'. How 'consequential' does an out- rage actually have to be, before it can be considered newsworthy enough to even report? Well… take a look at these snip- pets from this week's papers, and see for yourselves: "Shock as popular singer links disability to 'original sin' in TV in- terview" "Phyllisienne Brincat sparked outrage, as she said that illness and disabilities stem from the original sin of Adam" "Phyllisienne Brincat's claims slammed as 'atrocious', 'disgust- ing' and 'hurtful'." And… OK, fair enough. There certainly WAS a lot of 'outrage', at Brincat's outspoken expression of what seem to be her own, personal religious beliefs (to which – unless there's something I'm not quite seeing, in all this – she is fully en- titled, according to the Universal Charter of Human Rights). But then again: what 'degree' of outrage are we talking about here, exactly? Reason I ask is that – and I freely admit that this is just a generalisation, based on my own (somewhat restricted) view of 'public opinion' – I'm seeing just as many comments 'defending' Phyllisienne Brincat for express- ing those views, as 'condemning' her for the same reason. In fact, you could almost say that the vast majority of public reac- tions, so far – with a few excep- tions I'll come to in a sec – some- how managed to do both those things, simultaneously. And rightly so, I might add: be- cause it is perfectly possible to dis- agree - and vehemently, too! - with any given opinion, or belief… and yet, also defend the right of other people to both hold down, and ex- press, that very same view. (And not just because 'Voltaire said so', by the way; but because I happen to be doing it myself, right now!) In this particular case, however… there are other reasons to suspect that at least some of all this 'out- rage', is actually misplaced. Let's start with the specific context, within which this 'Born Again Christian Singer' [Sorry, Ms Brincat, but I've given up on typing out your full name, every time…] actually said those 'offen- sive, hurtful' remarks. This is from our own report: "In an episode [of chat-show 'Popo- lin'] that featured debates on religion, the show's host, Quin- ton Scerri questioned Brincat, a self-described devout Christian, about what she [had] stated while cameras weren't rolling concern- ing a connection between disease and original sin. "Brincat reiterated her claim that, in accordance with the Bible, mankind was doomed when Ad- am and Eve introduced sin into the earth, and that illness occurs due to this form of sin." Now: a few operative words/ phrases immediately leap to the eye, there. Starting with – dare I say it – the name of Quinton Scerri's chat- show itself: 'Popolin'. (I mean… honestly, though: what the hell did they even expect, when openly in- viting every 'Tom, Dick, and Hen- rietta' out there, to just blurt out their private opinions, in public?!)' But then, there's also: 'what she stated while cameras weren't roll- ing' (so… if you don't mind me asking… why make her repeat it while the cameras WERE rolling: unless your intention was precise- ly to CREATE the sort of 'outrage', that you would afterwards be so 'scandalised' about?) And lastly: 'Brincat REITERAT- ED her claim that…' (Ah! So this is something she's said before, right? And oh, look! There was another 'outrage' the last time, too! My, what a coincidence…) In any case: I could go on, but… let's face it, folks. We all already knew EXACTLY what Ms Brin- cat's beliefs were going to be, long before she was even asked the first time. And they're not just 'her' beliefs, by the way: it's what ALL Born-Again Christians - and probably quite a few other de- nominations I've never even heard of - also believe (and are usually quite happy to tell you so, to your face: especially, if you're the one actually ASKING them to...) maltatoday | SUNDAY • 8 OCTOBER 2023 10 OPINION Brincat's opinions might be a load of BS… but so was the ensuing 'outrage' Raphael Vassallo Phyllisienne Brincat sparked outrage, as she said that illness and disabilities stem from the original sin of Adam (Photo: TVM)