Where we discuss Jacopus de Varagine, John Terry’s Sausage, Maradona’s love of Talcum Powder, the PN’s JS List as well as public figures and their private parts.
Around the year 1260 the Bishop of Genoa, Jacopus de Varagine compiled a book called the Legenda Aurea (The Golden Legend). Initially this soon-to-be a bestseller was entitled Legenda Sanctorum (The Stories of Saints) but some early marketing guru decided that the Golden Legend would be more attractive – in any case it would gain in popularity over the following two centuries under the more popular name of Legenda Aurea.
We have for a long time been obsessed by the lives of other people – humans are by nature curious and it is inevitable that we prefer to be engrossed with the happenings in the lives of others. The lives of saints were often seen as role models for the mere mortals who needed a compass and guide to live out their lives in the best way to merit eternal salvation.
Peeking into the life of saints meant peeking into the best way to live and behave in order to obtain the key to the pearly gates. I’m not sure if the Legenda Aurea came with a warning label such as “Do Not Try This At Home” or “Cave Peccator”: the kind of thing that would inform the reader that certain feats like speaking to deities or performing the gestis miraculis sanctorum should only be attempted under adult supervision. In any case society has evolved in such a way as to shift its voyeurist conception of idealist role models elsewhere.
John Terry’s Sausage
Former England captain John Terry would not qualify for so little as a footnote in Jacopus de Varagine’s magnum opus, yet notwithstanding the fact that de Varagine’s book was a best-seller for centuries there have probably been more miles of paper wasted on the Terry Saga in the last week than for all the reprints of the Legenda Aurea.
According to some appreciators of the world’s greatest game, John Terry is a sans pareil in the footballing world – one of the greatest defenders ever to have graced the hallowed turf of the major stadia of the globe. John Terry’s former best friend Wayne Bridge probably does not hold Terry in such high esteem. Frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr Bridge is preparing to castrate John Terry with a rusty knife in the tunnel during the run-up to the next Chelsea v Man City showdown.
The media song and dance behind this hate affair began the day it was made public that John Terry had shared the same bed with Mr Bridge’s former partner Vanessa Perroncel. Most news items describe Vanessa Perroncel as a lingerie model and “former nightclub hostess” as though it would have made an ounce of a difference if she were the daughter of the fishmonger at the London Borough Market. Terry, a married man with kids, had an affair with Vanessa, the ex-partner of Bridge (and mother of Bridge’s three year old son). Let the record also show that Terry and Wayne were best of chums for quite some time and were even known to share their family outings when V & W were still a couple.
Now. This script worthy of most soaps on TV happened to two superfamous footballers, one of whom happened to be captain of the England football team. Let us remember that the England football team (and maybe one or two premier league clubs) are the only idiots in the footballing world who give two hoots about which of the twentytwo arms on the pitch has a special band wrapped around it indicating that the bearer deserves the appellative “Captain” and will, when the situation so warrants, be the first of the eleven to lift a cup of joy to the skies.
Private Parts
Ever since the ways of football have trodden down the mercenary path of commercial involvement the institution of the captain has been washed aside along with fair play, common sense and Juventus’ allure of invincibility. So we suddenly had a very private affair that had absolutely nowt to do with the way Terry or Bridge kick a ball being catapulted into the limelight and forcing a visibly embarassed Capello to take the ultimate measure of withdrawing the captaincy from the cheating bastard (not for diving but for cavorting hors marriage with his best friend’s ex).
Capello had to scribble a few words of explanation mumbling something about “the best for the team”. The baying hound of public voyeurs were given the symbolic head on a plate and the illusion that justice had been served. In actual fact the only negative consequence Terry can draw out of the affair in footballing terms actually has a 1/18 possibility of happening. That’s the ratio of England World Cup wins and in the highly unlikely event of 1966 being repeated it will not be Terry who will be lifting the trophy gleefully but (probably) Rio – I missed a drug test by mistake – Ferdinand. How’s that for poetic justice?
Truth be told we did not need to know about Terry’s extra-marital cavorting at all. Whatever moral horse you may ride – whether you are for a hippy lovefest free for all or for the ultimate sanctity of the institute of marriage – the goings on in the Terry and Bridge households was the last place you could go about heaping judgemental considerations and all that. Yes, Terry IS a public figure. Yes, his behaviour on the pitch deserves the utmost scrutiny. Yes, if like Adrian Mutu or Francesco Flachi he dabbled with performance enhancing drugs then disciplinary measures are called for.
His public face stops there though and much as it may be intriguing to some members of the public to look into the whereabouts of Terry and his sausage i don’t quite see the link between his private affairs and his status on the football field. The Army of Moral Tosh that yelled for his head and clapped themselves stupid once Capello stripped the libertine of his armband would do well to note that football players are by their very nature “naughty”. They are the last people we should be looking at in order to replace the role models provided by Jacopus eight centuries ago.
Public Figures
And hands up anyone who did not get the innuendo on the sausage business earlier in these paragraphs. Just checking – if you don’t get sausage then you surely will not understand “talcum powder” – it’s waaay more sophisticated. Diego Armando Maradona was a fervent admirer of varieties of talcum powder. So was his fellow attacker Caniggia and I shall forever rue the lack of medical scrutiny on that hot summer of nineteen-ninety when the talcum-enamoured duo stole a quick goal in the eightieth minute in Turin and eliminated Brasil in the process.
Maradona is larger than life. Drug troubles, marital infidelity and more have meant that he will, like other footballers who crossed the line to stardom, forever be in the public limelight. Romario, Best and Beckham are just three others of what are destined to be a long list of footballers who don’t just hog the headlines for their footballing antics. We should not however confuse the urge of the pink press to bring such “private” antics to light with some imagined duty of these footballers to be a role model to society.
The rules and laws relating to public figures and their behaviour are there for a reason. That is why these rules and laws will regulate magistrates, judges, politicians and other public officers in a rigorous manner. It is not, as many wrongly have assumed, because they are supposed to be perfect role models of society but rather because their private life must be such as not to impinge in any way on the performance of their public duty. There is no shadow of doubt that – to take the most banal of examples – a judge who consumes drugs in his private life is ill-placed to sit in judgement on dealers when in public office.
On another level, politicians like Berlusconi would not get into trouble for the simple fact of lying with a prostitute but rather for the fact that they may thenceforth be in a precarious position of being blackmailed by persons in possession of the very information (starting with the prostitute/call-girl herself). The judgement is less of a moral than a practical, legal one. Persons in a public office constantly make decisions in the name of the people who have entrusted them with the public office. They must conduct their private lives in such a way as to ensure that it does not effect their public performance or cannot be used against them in order to derail and render illicit the performance of their public duty.
The “JS” List
Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday, MP Evarist Bartolo had some serious – lets call them allegations – to make about the nationalist party and the considerations that are made for awarding of contracts by the government. Mr Bartolo said that the PN had what he called “the JS list”, which included contractors who were given public contracts and then would, in turn, contribute financially to the PN coffers. You did not need to read between the lines to see the link between party financing and governmental decision making that is being alleged.
Given the current general smutfest that is being engaged in with the excuse of “scrutiny of public individuals” it would be a pity were these allegations on the financial conduct of one of the main parties not to be followed up. In most cases, situations that have been persisting for a long time (in criminal terms it would be a continuing offence) suddenly (and with no explanation) are subjected to “scrutiny”. For “scrutiny” read a sudden urge to probe into not just the subject under examination but also to fire ancillary spinoff barrages at persons not in the least involved in the acts and actions of the very public persons who should (rightly) be answerable for any actions that might have consequences on their public acts.
As I mentioned earlier, public officers should be answerable for their actions in private that might impinge on their public decision making. No doubt at all. That is why J’accuse was among the many who questioned a minister’s use of a private jet to fly to London to see a football match. A report, a carefully drafted article pointing out the inconsistency of the action with his public duties and a red light to the relevant authorities are not only warranted but necessary in such circumstances.
Do note that a two week orgy of pandering to the voyeurist needs of today’s population is not an equal and proportionate measure that satisfies the need to ensure that the public officers’ ability to stand up to scrutiny has not been compromised. Smutfests are no solution unless the aim is not really the scrutiny and control of the public persona’s integrity but rather some personal revenge.
Disclosure
J’accuse has absolutely no interest in the personal revenge aspect of the current bonfire of anger that is now being justified with the drawing of the curtains of public scrutiny. It’s a bit late for that. The private behaviour of public persons CAN impinge on their decision making – there is no doubt about that. Bloggers and journalists forming part of the fourth estate will tread very carefully when performing what can be described as their duty to present facts that could have such a consequence.
It is one thing presenting the facts to the relevant authorities and querying those directly involved (preferably by a Commission established under the rule of law) and another stretching the story to paparazzi limit while going for the extended version of the events and presenting it to the baying voyeurist rabble. The service performed to the public by requesting the scrutiny within the appropriate fora (or forums if you prefer) can soon go all pete tong when such service is tainted by what can be perceived as personal vendettas, private interests of the journalists themselves and long lasting chips and rivalries.
This gets worse when it becomes blatantly evident that such information as has been exposed has long been known but is only now being used because of whatever private reasons the exposer has. The public service element will then slip even further out of sight to all but the most fervent adulators and voyeuristas.
Whether it is allegations of magisterial interests intertwining with political stakes and commercial investments or allegations on party interests (as well as that of individual party candidates) merging indiscriminately with that of commercial operators – all these allegations need to be treated within the limits of the law and under the impartial eye of the law. Either that or we are fanning the flames for the Revolution of the Voyeuristas who will attack the politicians with their smut magazines and silly gossip pages. I for one know which solution I prefer.
There’s something called a “Permanent Commission against Corruption” (for the Judiciary there is also the Commission for the Administration of Justice). Here’s to hoping they get busy. Fast.
J’accuse is running smoothly at www.jacquesrenezammit.com/jaccuse. Feel free to drop by and tell us whether you think Captainships are really outdated.
This article and accompanying Bertoon appear in today’s edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.
