From the desk of Roland Rocchiccioli

CHILDREN retaliated, chanting: “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me!” Patently, times have changed and the use of barbative language has become de rigueur — most notably in sport.

Euphemistically categorised as ‘slagging’ it was thought clever — the coarser, the better. It was a deliberate means of distracting the opponent. “All’s fair in love and sport” was the pathetic explanation. The banter was summarily dismissed as harmless and not meant to be taken seriously.

The etymology of faggot is Middle English — in the sense of a bundle of sticks for fuel, sometimes used for the burning of witches and heretics: from Old French fagot; Italian fagotto; based on Greek phakelos — bundle. Its semantic evolution in North America is imprecise; however, in the period 1914-30 faggot became an ugly, pejorative epithet to describe a homosexual.

Shakespeare writes in Romeo and Juliet: “That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” While the Montagues are traditionally the enemy of her family, Juliet contends Romeo’s name, Montague, is unimportant; ultimately it is the person who matters. Her naïve logic culminates in a double youth suicide! The pen is mightier than the sword. Words have the power to excoriate. ‘FAGGOT’ is outlawed in today’s broad society, and its application in verbal discourse is problematic. Classified grossly offensive it is consciously brandished as a psychological weapon. It has the power to provoke a consequence which is impossible to quantify. Only those living under a stone would be oblivious. Reacting to the recent homophobic taunt with an unacceptable retaliatory volley of racist invective targeting size, skin tone, and parental matrimonial status at birth, would generate a gargantuan, metaphorical tsunami of censure.

Even allowing for stunted emotional intelligence, it is difficult to accept experienced, elite sportsmen misunderstand the force of the word, ‘faggot’. The epithet is not a slip-of the tongue — a word which slides effortlessly into civilised conversation. It is a pejorative applied with unambiguous exactitude, and designed to create maximum emotional damage. The offending AFL player is not a victim. He created the furore, knowingly.

Cognisant of racial sensibilities, the brand names of cheese, liquorice, and flour, were discarded. It is hubristic to expect an inviolable steel-ring of protection while hurling homophobic slurs. By deduction, the epithet infers homosexuality, or lesbianism, is in their limited judgment an undesirable state-of-being; also, it posits, however wanting their scholastic acumen and universal perspective, they cannot envision a more degrading insult.

It would be remiss to dismiss the epithet as unintended without recalling homosexuality was classified criminal in Australia until 1997. Accident of birth notwithstanding — and homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice — they were, theoretically, illegal. Some were ‘detained’ because they were judged to “look like a faggot”. Generations lived in despair, hiding, and misery. It destroyed families; thwarted careers; and resulted in targeted murder and suicide.

Talent comes with responsibility. Celebrity is a parasite which lives in any carcass and exacerbated by a discernible absence of firing neurons; an insidious syndrome guaranteed to foster unhealthy self-aggrandisement; and a delusional notion of invincibility. It emboldens our ugly and ignorant traits. Homophobia is a ‘wicked’ challenge. Offending linguists beware: they who play at silly games often win silly prizes!

Roland can be heard with Brett Macdonald radio 3BA — Monday 10.40am. Contact: [email protected].