Anonymous Hoodlums and Literary Larrikins,

Te Aroha News, Volume XXVII, Issue 43378, 26 September 1908, Page 2

Anonymous Hoodlums and Literary Larrikins,

(Contributed Article.)

After an interval of comparative peace the heathens are again raging furiously in the correspondence columns of. the local press. As a general rule it is foolish in a civilised correspondent. to . engage in epistolary warfare with barbarous opponents. Usually he wins, but for the sake of winning in such warfare it is not worth while putting up with the noises and the smells that arise from the enemy. The certainty of victory never quite reconciled British soldiers or sailors to an encounter with pirates armed with stinkpots. The purpose of this article is not to enter into a controversy with any individual hoodlum. It is rather to call attention in the interests of. decency to the harrying of inoffensive and respectable people and to the degradation of the public conscience by the barbaric methods of the literary larrikin. He observes none of the conditions of civilised warfare. He shows respect neither to age nor to sex. To him there is no distinction between combatants and non combatants, and to be defenceless is to invite his most ferocious attack.

It is probable that the anonymous personal attacks that appear from time to time in the columns of the press are made by a comparatively small gang, sheltered by many abases. Small as the gang is, the din that it raises makes Te Aroha notorious, and gives it a reputation for quarrelsomeness and vindictiveness that the majority of its citizens by no means deserve. What are the outstanding features of the # anonymous correspondence which forms the chief weapon of the gang f Wliat, indeed, but the illiteracy and vulgarity of the writers, the falseness of their accusations, the imputation of despicable motives to their victims, and, masquerading in the guise of public spirit, a malevolent desire to rent private spite ? As used by these creatures a column in the press which should be a vehicle for the intelligent discussion of questions of public importance or of intrinsic interest becomes rather a secure retreat whence, screened by anonymity, the literary sniper with powder of spite fires bullets of abuse. There is no objection to anonymous correspondence merely because it is anonymous. It is the abuse of the thing by the dastardly miscreant who merely seeks a safe means of publicly paying a private grudge that provokes disgust. In the nature of things men hold contrary opinions on topics of general interest. And if opinions are strongly held they are likely to be strongly expressed. But strength of opinion is not synonymous with spite, nor strength of expression w’th abuse. To multiply examples of the nasty uses to which cads put their pens would be easy. Three or four illustrations could be culled from the correspondence of the past fortnight. And in reflecting on the events of the past few years, one can recall similar illustrations ad infinitum ad nauseam in municipal matters, in in ecclesiastical matters, in educational matters and in political matters. In the public interest it is sometimes needful to speak strongly and to publish disagreeable truths. But in the cas-s under review there is absolutely no question of public interest. Is it not scandalous that a man or a woman, peaceable, industrious, honourable, should be pilloried as might be a rogue or a vagabond ? Is it justfiiable that a person of known integrity should be vilified with iinI punity ? Is it to be supposed that j sensitiveness to abuse is in inverse ratio to probity of character ? Or| is the literary larrikin a philanthropist in disguise, who assumes that human character can be refined only by slander ?

It is not only one man or one woman in Te Aroha who has been bespattered with literary slops. Nearly every person who holds or has held a public or semi-public position has at one time or another suffered either directly or indirectly. One cannot help regretting that persons whose present position and past record are a guarantee, if not of their wisdom at least of their integrity, should be in constant danger of becoming the butt of any misbegotten knave upon whom a paternal government has bestowed just enongli education to enable him to misuse a pen. Some amusement may be obtained by observing the nom dtt plume under which the literary larrikin shrouds his pestiferous personality. So please you, he is “ Vigilant,” or “ Pro Bono Publico,” or “ Churchman,” or “ Truth ” ; or maybe he evades the responsibility for his nastiness under a “ What People Say.” Also it is curious to observe the same larrikin bobbing up under a series of aliases. Possibly in a country so devoted to experimental legislation as New Zealand it might be enacted that a nom <h plume must always correctly describe the character of him who assumes it. A nasty letter might perhaps lose some of its sting were it signed “A Notorious Liar,” “An Unmitigated Bounder,” “ A Malicious Backbiter,” or “A Prurient ScandalMonger.” The epistolary efforts of the anonymons hoodlum are demoralising, not only to other hoodlums, but also to persons having pretensions to respectability. Unless a man is strictly on his guard, the frequent presentation to his mind of low ideals of base motives, in explanation of the actions of his fellows is bound to lower his moral tone, to obscure his ethical outlook. His sense of that fair play which one likes to believe characteristic of British people becomes dulled. He grows callous, and is only amused, or at best merely indiffereut, when upon opening his local repository of contemporary wisdom, he finds that vituperation is being showered upon some respectable citizen by an anonymous skunk, whom, met in the open, he would pass a good forty feet to windward.

The suppression of the literary larrikin is not easy. His hide is abnormally thick and he is utterly unscrupulous. One cannot help sympathising with the man upon whom devolves the duty of squelching him. But when one considers the nature of the beast; his attacks upon the good name of his victims, the paiu he inflicts upon sensitive minds, his demoralising influence upon thoughtless and illinformed people ; one cannot. help wishing that he were put on the list of noxious vermin. Better, however, than the interference of some Government inspector would be the creation among the clean section of the people of a demand strong enough and insistent enough to secure his suppression. Decent people might do worse than join in a crusade to exterminate anonymous hoodlums and literary larrikins.