The teaching of rhetoric teaches us the difference between “loquens” (the one who speaks) and “eloquens” (the one who speaks well and in an ethical manner). Unfortunately, good habits are lost with the modernization of language.
In these times, oh how confusing, the language, which is ultimately just a muscle and thus needs to always be exercised, and many declarations (often unnecessary) have given and continue to give rise to (too often) fallacious controversies.
Example…
Act 1: Interviewed by a public television channel as part of an investigative report following the July 14th attack, the Nice Public Prosecutor has, or is said to have claimed:
“There are approximately sixty cases that have been handled by the Nice prosecution office since the July 14th drama, which more or less concern radicalization or terrorism. So, essentially these are cases of threats or glorification of terrorism, threats with references to terrorism or glorification of this terrorism with people who are quite often immediately referred here to the court, before the criminal court and sentenced to sometimes very significant penalties.”
Act 2: Christian Estrosi, first deputy in charge of Security and Philippe Pradal, Mayor of Nice, express their outrage:
“We have just learned from the press that several attack plots, aimed at sporting events, schools, or places of worship, have allegedly been thwarted on the French Riviera since July 14th.”
According to these same media, 515 people in the department are said to be radicalized or on the path to radicalization, 70 to 80 cases related to terrorism or violent radicalization have allegedly been processed by the Nice prosecution office in the past 2 months, and 4 to 5 attacks have allegedly been prevented in the department, targeting places of worship, sporting events, and schools.”
Before stigmatizing, “none of this information has been transmitted to the concerned officials by the state services. How is it possible that such arrests take place without us being informed?”
In the crosshairs, though not named, is Adolphe Colrat, the prefect of Alpes-Maritimes, representing the State.
The conclusion strikes like a sentence: “When the security of the French is at stake, it is the responsibility of the State and its representatives to implement the necessary means for the best possible efficiency. We ask a simple question: How can we work together when no information is shared?”
The condemnation is clear.
Act 3:
The Public Prosecutor denies and mentions a “over-interpretation” of his words. “I am not aware of any attack plot on the Côte d’Azur,” corrects Jean-Michel Prêtre.
What should we do? Laugh or cry?
