The right place, time and way for use of four-letter words
"Word" is one of them, as indeed are "blob", "slob" and "knob" but I have a couple of others in mind, neither of which I use, save in the context of telling a story. Here are two of the stories.
Years ago, in Timaru, there was a Dunedin-born barber called Ernest Firkin who plied his trade for almost 40 years from about 1905. An entertainer and raconteur, he became something of a haircutting legend in his shop near the Excelsior Hotel. He sold the business in 1935 to my grandfather who was not a barber and kept Ernest on as the real heart of the place. Grandad held the shop for only four years and then set up a transport business and the new barber shop owner, Syd Burns, also retained the services of Ernest Firkin.
When Grandad talked, always among male-only company, of his days owning a hairdressing/tobacconist shop my young years would be flapping as he described how any Timaruvian whose hair was offensively long was told to, "Go and get a Firkin haircut".
"Ah," I thought, "that simply means patronising Mr Firkin when you needed a bit off the top and short back and sides."
In later times, having been introduced to crude language at secondary school, I realised that Grandad's tale was a great piece of punning and let out a much-delayed guffaw. It still makes me chuckle.
Even more enjoyable was the story from Australian politics. You need to know that Australia's National Party began in the 1920s as the Australian Country Party which became the National Country Party in 1975 until the present name was adopted in 1982.
It seems that before 1975, during a time when the Country Party was in power, the Labour Opposition under Gough Whitlam were launching yet another spirited attack on the government and its policies. An incensed government MP Winston Turnbull broke through the clamour by proudly proclaiming, "I'm a Country member!" Whitlam interjected with, "I remember".
That superb and subtle play on words was lost on Turnbull and years later Gough Whitlam recalled, "Turnbull could not understand why, for the first time in all the years he had been speaking in the House, there was instant and loud applause from both sides."
What I enjoy about those two stories is that the naughty four-letter words have been introduced with great effect without ever using them. A feat of subtlety and wit obviously beyond the ability of today's politicians and rabble-rousers. Of course, during my time in army training and public bar drinking I've heard those words used to saturation point, usually by people who are actually unaware that they are saying them. Harmless, really, in such environments, but in places like Parliament or a mixed-sex gathering they simply mark the speaker as ignorant, oafish and to be avoided.
Parliament has long had its naughty four-letter words and MPs are instantly ejected from the House when they use them. "Lied", "liar" and "lies" are absolutely forbidden when applied to another member but the fact that members do not always tell the truth can be indicated with "unfactual", "out of touch with reality" and "economical with the truth" and other euphemisms.
Happily, I'm able to avoid the kind of people who descended to using the four-letter word which had the House reeling in shock recently but, less happily, there's another four-letter word which assaults my ears at every turn. I'll even spell it out.
L.I.K.E.
It seems that no-one under 40 is able to open their mouth without dribbling a flood of "likes".
"It was like pretty tough up front," the rugby player tells the media.
"They were, like, screwing the scrum half the time and we were, like, struggling a bit."
This saturation of speech with "like" offends me more than the odd bit of crudity. Where will it end? Are we yet to witness a man of the cloth sermonising with the wedding feast at Cana as his theme? He will have swotted up his Bible, especially John 2:1-12, and be ready to tell the tale in a way his audience will appreciate.
"And so, dear brethren, like, on the third day there was, like, a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus was also, like, invited. Then, like, the wine ran out and the mother of Jesus said to him, like, 'They have no wine.' Jesus was able, like, to change water into wine and it was, like, a miracle."
In fact, it was a miracle, like it or not.
It will also take a miracle, it seems, to rid us of that constant use of "like" as nothing more than a prop to assist the slow working of dull minds.
— Jim Sullivan is a Patearoa writer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Space Bill debate: I think it's gonna be a long, long time
Dunedin Labour MP Rachel Brooking speaking in the house earlier in the year. Photo: Parliament TV Rachel Brooking gets plenty of time speaking in the House on her main portfolio responsibilities. However the Dunedin Labour MP seldom gets the opportunity to put her party Space spokeswoman astronaut helmet on ... at least not until this week, when the government unexpectedly took urgency to push through all stages of the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill. It is rare for a government to push through an entire law change in 24 hours — pandemic safety requirements or Budget-critical law changes are recent occasions. Security is another reason for haste, and Space Minister Judith Collins said that law change was needed to manage "risks to the national interest posed by the misuse of ground-based space infrastructure". All very James Bond. She later expanded on that, saying that during the past five years "there have been several deceptive efforts by foreign actors to establish and/or use ground-based space infrastructure in New Zealand to harm our national security." Eek! It turns out that the existing law does a good job of covering things happening at high altitude or in actual orbit, but a rubbish job of ensuring that the terrestrial operators of that high tech were authorised, risks were properly assessed, and that enforcement powers were available when needed. "By introducing a clear and modern framework for ground-based infrastructure, we are enforcing New Zealand's reputation as a responsible spacefaring nation," Ms Collins concluded ... and who wouldn't want to live in one of those nations? Certainly not Ms Brooking, who agreed that this country's ventures to infinity and beyond — especially those which emanate from nearby Awarua — needed to be regulated so that they were in the national interest. But ... and there is always a but ... she was not happy that the law change to protect "ground-based infrastructure" such as satellite tracking stations and telemetry systems was rocketing through Parliament. "I understand there may have been some prior consultation on aspects of it, but in general nobody has been having any public discussion about this Bill, and so there may be parts of it that have inadvertent, unintended consequences," she said. "So we do want to go through, in the committee stage, and take it seriously so that we all understand the Bill as best as we can. And I hope the minister is of that view." Given that "taking it seriously" entailed debate taking up all of Tuesday and a decent chunk of Wednesday, Ms Collins' view may have steadily become less favourable as things progressed. What Ms Brooking wanted — and given the circumstances it seemed a not unreasonable request— was a post-enactment review of the law. Her proposed amendment to add one was ruled out of order, but Associate Defence Minister Chris Penk (subbing for Ms Collins) left that "thoughtful suggestion" firmly anchored to the launch pad: "The Minister for Space feels — and I, in her place, am happy to relay but also support the notion — that we don't need to specify a mandated review mechanism, be it in front of the intelligence and security committee or, indeed, the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee as per the original proposal." Thus stymied, Ms Brooking moved into fresh fields of inquiry, such as the Bill conferring the minister with the authority to stop providing electricity or internet services to any offending space infrastructure: "are there any examples of that sort of thing happening anywhere else in the world?" she wondered. Mr Penk said the idea, essentially, was to "buy a bit of time" while someone figured out what to do next. Options which the legislation said, "may include, without limitation," — which offers quite the toolbox to utilise. "It's deliberately not excluding the range of conditions or actions that might be taken — noting, of course, that in this highly technical realm and with developing technology, it might well be the case that there are conditions or actions that might be necessary in the future that we're not able to contemplate now," he added, opening the possibility of all kinds of science fiction ideas being placed in a future Space Minister's hands. Which sounds preposterous — but so, too, and not too long ago, did the idea of New Zealand having a space industry. Hence, eventually, the Bill became law. Hard quiz You know that Tuesday was a big day because Dunedin Green list MP Francisco Hernandez had dug out a tie. He had to wait a long time to display his sartorial splendour, but eventually he got to ask Q12 — just his second primary question in the House — to the Minister of Universities, on the establishment of the new Waikato medical school. As it turned out, the minister was not in the building, so Mr Hernandez instead quizzed Health Minister Simeon Brown — which, one suspects, Mr Hernandez was quite pleased by. It was a good quizzing too, as Mr Hernandez asked pertinent questions such as: will it build a strong, more diverse work force, as claimed; will it generate new doctors faster than the proposal to increase class sizes at Otago and Auckland universities, and — quite frankly — just why does the government think building a new medical school is a good idea when there are two perfectly good ones already, which have the capacity and willingness to expand their rolls? The answers were not that pertinent sadly, Mr Brown favouring sloganeering — such as "we're getting on with it and we're delivering"; "this is a great day for New Zealand"; and "Just say yes. Get on the side of the positive news this is for our country, rather than keeping on complaining." However, keeping on complaining is exactly what Mr Hernadez is likely do. Firstly, about the still unreleased business case which underpinned the decision — which the government said on Monday would be proactively released, and which as of late yesterday was still not public. And secondly, when it finally does see the light of day — and it should have done when the post-Cabinet announcement was made — if the arguments in it do not seem to back up a final decision which has huge ramifications for the University of Otago.
Otago Daily Times
13 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
US 'will sell so much' beef to Australia after relaxed restrictions: Trump
The United States will sell "so much" beef to Australia, US President Donald Trump said today after Canberra relaxed import restrictions. He added that other countries that refused US beef products were on notice. Australia on Thursday said it would loosen biosecurity rules for US beef, something analysts predicted would not significantly increase US shipments because Australia is a major beef producer and exporter whose prices are much lower. "We are going to sell so much to Australia because this is undeniable and irrefutable Proof that US Beef is the Safest and Best in the entire World," Trump said in a post on Truth Social. "The other Countries that refuse our magnificent Beef are ON NOTICE," the post continued. Trump has attempted to renegotiate trade deals with numerous countries he says have taken advantage of the United States – a characterisation many economists dispute. "For decades, Australia imposed unjustified barriers on US beef," US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement, calling Australia's decision a "major milestone in lowering trade barriers and securing market access for US farmers and ranchers." Australia is not a significant importer of beef, but the United States is, and a production slump is forcing it to step up purchases. Last year, Australia shipped almost 400,000 metric tons of beef worth $US2.9 billion ($NZ4.8 billion) to the United States, with just 269 tons of US product moving the other way. Australian officials say the relaxation of restrictions was not part of any trade negotiations but the result of a years-long assessment of US biosecurity practices. Canberra has restricted US beef imports since 2003 due to concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease. Since 2019, it has allowed in meat from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the US but few suppliers were able to prove that their cattle had not been in Canada and Mexico. On Wednesday, Australia's agriculture ministry said US cattle traceability and control systems had improved enough that Australia could accept beef from cattle born in Canada or Mexico and slaughtered in the United States. The decision has caused some concern in Australia, where biosecurity is seen as essential to prevent diseases and pests from ravaging the farm sector. "We need to know if [the government] is sacrificing our high biosecurity standards just so Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can obtain a meeting with US President Donald Trump," shadow agriculture minister David Littleproud said in a statement. Australia, which imports more from the US than it exports, faces a 10% across-the-board US tariff, as well 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium. Trump has also threatened to impose a 200% tariff on pharmaceuticals. Asked whether the change would help achieve a trade deal, Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell said: "I'm not too sure." "We haven't done this in order to entice the Americans into a trade agreement," he said. "We think that they should do that anyway."
Scoop
17 hours ago
- Scoop
Space, Spies, Stalking, And Extra Sittings
, Editor: The House The House took urgency on Tuesday evening which extended Tuesday's sitting until lunchtime Wednesday, then it returned on Thursday morning - that time as an extended sitting. As a result, most select committees are not meeting this week. Some have had to cancel their plans or squeeze some work in at lunchtime. With a few exceptions - and excepting bills that committees are given special permission to consider outside normal rules - Select Committees and the House cannot sit at the same time. Spare a thought for submitters and those who schedule them, who have had their plans upended again by urgency. The opposition did ask the Leader of the House last Thursday whether there would be urgency this week but was told to "wait and see". Last minute reveals of urgency are not unusual. Extended sittings (like Thursday morning) are signposted a week or two in advance, but usually little warning is given for urgency. Bills under urgency Tuesday's urgency was aimed at two bills - one relating to space and the other about international crime cooperation. The Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill isn't so much about space as it is about the ground bases for satellites or other extra-terrestrial objects. The Minister for Space, Judith Collins was the bill's sponsor. "This bill introduces a new authorisation regime for ground-based space infrastructure. Until now, these activities have not been subject to a dedicated regulatory framework." The reason for the bill, revealed in the second reading debate, upped the interest. "During the past five years, there have been several deceptive efforts by foreign actors to establish and/or use ground-based space infrastructure in New Zealand to harm our national security. They have deliberately disguised their affiliations to foreign militaries and misrepresented their intentions. To date, these risks have been managed through non-regulatory measures, including relying on the goodwill of ground-based infrastructure operators. These measures are no longer enough." That sounds like the pitch for a thriller just begging to be written. This was a bill that the parties largely agreed on. They even agreed that urgency was reasonable, but opposition speakers complained about the push-push pace of urgency after the Committee Stage, as governing-party MPs worked to abbreviate what Labour's Rachel Brooking called "very civil, thoughtful debates." The pace really started to drag once the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill was the focus. Its sponsor, Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith said the bill "aligns New Zealand's laws with the requirements of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, also known as the Budapest Convention. The Budapest Convention is the first binding international treaty on cyber-crime, and it aligns members' national laws relating to computer-related offences, improves investigative techniques, and streamlines evidence sharing." Labour supported the bill but played hardball in the Committee Stage, concerned about the possibility of the convention leading to New Zealand accidentally helping countries that don't share our values control their citizens. Duncan Webb put it like this. "We need to be vigilant that we are not being unwittingly used to further either political ends or to allow a foreign state to pursue a proceeding against something that might be a crime in a foreign nation, but it certainly isn't a crime in New Zealand and shouldn't be something for which criminal sanction follows." The opposition made the Committee Stage of the Budapest bill last through most of the rest of Wednesday. The government's original plan was to pass it through all remaining stages, but late on Wednesday evening, they abandoned it after the Committee Stage and moved on to their other priorities. The Budapest Convention Bill was left with just a third reading to complete. Those were not the only interesting bills under discussion this week. Three other bills are of particular interest, relating to Health, Secondary Legislation, and Stalking. Other key bills - Health Tuesday saw the first reading of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill which will now be considered by the Health Select Committee. Among its measures, that bill enacts health targets, and also alters or removes Māori consultation and obligations from the health administration. The Minister of Health, Simeon Brown described his bill succinctly. "This bill is about cutting through bureaucracy, restoring accountability, and most importantly, putting patients first." Opposition MPs had numerous gripes including this one from Dr. Tracey McLellan, regarding bringing Health New Zealand under the public service obligation for staff neutrality. "That is a chilling thing to do. Frontline health workers who have a professional obligation, an ethical and a legal obligation to call out things that they see in their professional practice. It is not political, it is professional, and they should not, in any way, shape, or form, have this hanging over them, this concept of-the misuse of-public service neutrality." Other key bills - Regulation Also on Tuesday, the Legislation Amendment Bill had a first reading and now heads to the Justice Committee for public feedback. The Legislation Amendment Bill has been in development for a few years, and among its aims are making secondary legislation (e.g. regulations) more easily accessible and more likely to be pruned once obsolete. Secondary legislation includes all of the various kinds of laws that don't come directly from a piece of legislation but from power that legislation delegates to ministers, ministries, agencies, councils etc. There is much more secondary legislation than primary legislation but it isn't as easy to search or access. Primary legislation is all stored on a legislation website managed by the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO); currently secondary legislation is not. In debate, Labour's Camilla Belich observed that, "the main big change will be the single point of access that it will allow to secondary legislation. The point of the work that we do is to try and make sure that when either primary legislation or secondary legislation has an impact on people's lives, they have access to that. It shouldn't be something which is hidden away and it shouldn't be something which is difficult to find." Don't confuse the Legislation Amendment Bill with ACT's Regulatory Standards Bill which is also going through parliament and which appears to be trying to do something rather different. The Regulatory Standards Bill has influenced the shape of the Legislation Amendment Bill though, which Opposition MPs were unhappy with in debate, despite supporting the wider effort. Other key bills - Stalking The Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill had its second reading late on Wednesday. It creates a new offence specific to stalking and harassment and the myriad forms that these can take. It includes indirect harassment like undermining reputation, opportunities or relationships. The bill itself is a fascinating read as an example of how much cleverness is required to effectively draft law for crime that is, by definition, quite nebulous. Policy staff at Justice and legal drafters at PCO may have taken to heart the idiom 'to catch a criminal, you have to think like one'. National minister Erica Stanford outlined changes made to the bill as a result of public feedback to the Select Committee. "To be convicted of the new offence, the prosecution will need to prove the person engaged in a pattern of behaviour towards their victim. The committee recommended a broader definition for the pattern of behaviour. The offence will now require two specified acts within two years, rather than three specified acts within one year. This broadens the pattern of behaviour by capturing fewer acts across a longer time frame. I agree that this change will better address strategies such as anniversary-based stalking..." "A further recommendation made by the committee was to add doxing to the list of "specified act". Doxing is the publication of personal information such as addresses or contact details, including whether a stalker claims to be their victim. It encourages third parties to contact, threaten, and intimidate the victim…" "The committee also added two further important amendments to the bill. Firstly, to allow the courts to order the destruction of intimate visual to allow a court to make restraining [orders], firearm prohibition [orders], and Harmful Digital Communications Act orders, where a defendant is discharged without convictions." One more for the road - Espionage There are other bills of note on the Order Paper that the government would have hoped to progress, but progress this week has been slow. Opposition MPs have taken their time working through bills in the committee of the whole House, whether they support them or not. This will likely annoy the government, but thoroughly testing bills is the job of all MPs in the House. That sluggish pace meant the second reading of the Parliament Bill also slipped down the Order Paper (along with the third reading of the Budapest Convention Bill). One bill the House may reach is worth noting. The Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill would be a second espionage-related bill for the week. This one hopes to plug gaps in the law around things like treason, espionage and even incitement to mutiny. *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
