The exchange in parliament over the management of the Rock Ape population has brought to the fore a worrying trait that has been noticeable for years in the local political debate, and that is the impoverishment and devaluation of the English Language. This has been much in evidence in the production of mind-numbing press releases that political parties and other leading organisations regurgitate with consummate ease; also in many of the letters one has the misfortune to have had to read in local newspapers over the years, as the Spaniards would say ‘gajes del oficio.’ A trait perpetuated by the media which in recent years has seen a decline in quality control standards not helped by an influx of intruders and gatecrashers into the profession, whose limitations as wordsmiths have been all too painfully exposed.

The idea that words are like amorphous pieces of rubber that can be stretched to fit into templates of convenience and political machination at anybody’s whim, that meanings of words are interchangeable like the bricks that can be used to build walls, that all of this is insignificant in the general scheme of political and personal expediency, is to negate the very essence, richness and importance of language.

Regrettably this appalling trend surfaced in a place where it should not be unreasonable to demand that adequate linguistic standards are maintained at all times, and where casual disregard for the meaning of words in the common usage that sensible people apply to them is forcefully rebutted; especially when the outrage is compounded by a deliberate attempt to use a term such as ‘extermination’ to score cheap political points. There must be a zero tolerance policy in respect of this regardless of which side of the political divide it may come from.

The Speaker, in part rightly, declared that it was not up to parliament to adjudicate on the meaning of words, however it would not be amiss if its rules were to ensure that orthodox use of language at all times in the manner understood by reasonable people, formed the basis of all parliamentary exchanges.

Parliamentary debate does not preclude the use of subterfuge in the furtherance of one’s cause, yet when this is done at the expense of the rigour in the use of language that one expects from the elected representatives of our city, it is wholly unadvisable, unpalatable and unacceptable.

Perhaps it would not be unfair to say that we hit a low point or nadir in this unfortunate drift which shows no sign of abatement, during the aforementioned Government-Opposition clash. Why an elected politician should insist on asking the question: “What has been the cost of the extermination of Barbary Macaques in each of the financial years since 2007?” which, besides the clumsy formulation that betrays a notorious lack of grasp of the meaning of the term ‘extermination’ is grounded on a demonstrably false premise (as a leisurely stroll around many of Gibraltar’s residential areas – let alone the Apes Den – can easily ascertain), encapsulates a style of doing politics far removed from the constructive and creative spirit that should be pulsating at its core.

But rather than accept the mistake what is even more remarkable is that the elected member in question should descend to the preposterous by interjecting that the term referred to the extermination of one ape, that he should later attempt to hoodwink the public journeying to the centre of the earth to claim that his dictionaries and research vindicated the stand he was taking and that this proved that his use of the term in the context that he was using it was correct.

Not content with that and obviously in a sign of unease, he subsequently issued a press release where he no longer uses the term ‘extermination’ but ‘killing’, launches into a tirade against Caruana accusing him thus: “the semblance of power he thinks he enjoys is going rather accutely (sic) to his head,” and weaves a specious argument about semantic circuses which requires gullibility of Guinness Book of Records proportions – or political adherence of similar magnitude – to swallow.

The Honourable Member’s obstinacy had already been exposed in the previous session when Minister Britto corrected the use of the term pointing out that ‘extermination’ conveys finality and totality that could not by any stretch of the imagination be seriously argued in this case.

It is interesting to note, as the Speaker himself picked up in his comments, that there was a question in the order paper by the same member referring to the culling of seagulls yet when it came to the ape management issue, he resorted to the far more powerful and emotive term ‘exterminate’ with its hideous resonances of genocide and Nazism, implying if nothing else an element of hierarchical order in the Honourable Member’s consideration of the animal world. No doubt overplaying the symbolism these apes evoke, this modern day St Francis of Assisi aspired to provoke a public reaction in the knowledge of how deeply ingrained the ape as cultural icon is present in the collective unconscious.

The control of packs of wild apes when these become unmanageable, wander into our residential areas and hassle, pester and exasperate an increasing number of persons is a perfectly legitimate practice for any democratic government to carry out. This is as utterly tedious a fact as it is straightforward. There are many incidents that have been recorded where people have suffered the nuisance element of these animals. It is doubtful that if a politician lived in an area where he was forced to keep his windows shut in summer for fear of one of these primates jumping into his living room, perhaps even scaring small children, that he would be making such an impassioned appeal against culling.

While the Government should ensure that the flow of reasonable information requested by the Opposition benches remains healthy and endeavour to resist any temptation to wriggle out of this responsibility by any of the multitude of devices it can at any point resort to, it is understandable for the Chief Minister to refuse to answer a question worded in such terms. Ape culls have become a sensitive issue and Gibraltar stands to gain nothing by publicising the fact that it is culling a few dozen creatures at periodic intervals. Perhaps what the Government could do is give the information to the Opposition on a confidential basis – if they were prepared to receive it on those terms – thus avoid providing the ammunition with which animal rights activists in the continent can then tarnish Gibraltar’s good name to their heart’s content, as we have seen happen every time this issue is aired publicly.

None of this has anything to do with ideology, or political sympathies or proclivities toward any colour. Had the actors been different across the floor of the house, had the roles been reversed across the floor of the house, had the parties faced each other from the opposite sides of the floor, the merits and demerits of the arguments heard and performances witnessed would remain unchanged.