Page 239 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 239
the analysis of insulting practices – sticks and stones
in the croatian parliament 239
ali Ministarstvo pravosuđa se ne očituje o toj strani s etičkog i političkog gl-
edišta [...]. (4/36, 4. rujna 2003.)
B. D. (SocLib): Ladies and gentlemen, if you are a person against whom a doz-
en criminal charges have been filed, if you alone in your interviews give statements in-
dicating that you have committed those crimes, apart for those criminal charg-
es, what would you do? Go to the President’s yacht, well, that’s a new one. Or on the
gunboat. Confess without repentance, get absolution. Not only that, but still be
able to make a deal and do business in another country, and all the while, Croatian
politics is silent, the political parties are silent, the media talk about it, but
the Ministry of Justice does not give any statements about this from either
an ethical or political standpoint [...]. (4/36, September 4, 2003)
4.2.2. The Formulation of Insults as Questions Rather Than as Statements
Another recurring mitigation strategy of Croatian MPs is to use
questions rather than statements. They serve to introduce “ready-made
assumptions and prejudicial ideas“ (Ilie, 2004:59). Quite often they are
in the form of repetitious Wh-questions, which are often rhetorical be-
cause the answer is obvious, insulting or incriminating.
(8) K. M. (HSLS): Hoće li temeljem ovoga zakona kazneno odgovarati
primjerice Brodogradilište Viktor Lenac i donedavni predsjednik uprave
gospodin Vrhovnik zbog obmanjivanja Vlade o poslovnim rezultatima te
tvrtke? Pa je onda obmanuta Vlada toj tvrtki izdala 60 milijuna ili 60-tak
milijuna dolara državnih jamstava. Hoće li odgovarati Riječka banka? Hoće li
primjerice odgovarati Hrvatski fond za privatizaciju koji je evidentno zloupo-
rabom ovlasti recimo gospodinu Štroku omogućio vlasništvo nad Otokom
života? Ili će pak ovaj zakon pogoditi neke sitnije ribe i ribice koje ne plivaju u onom
pravcu koji se vladajućima sviđa (4/36, 4. rujna 2003)
K. M. (SocLib): Will, for example, shipyard Viktor Lenac and its, till recent
CEO Mr. Vrhovnik, be held criminally liable due to misleading the Govern-
ment about the business results of the company? And then that misled gov-
ernment issued 60 million, or 60-odd million dollars of government loan
guarantees to that company. Will Riječka banka be held accountable? Will, for
instance, Croatian Privatisation Fund, also be accountable, which by abuse of
authority enabled Mr. Štrok to become a proprietor of Island of Life? Or will
this legislation catch some smaller fish and fishes that do not swim in the direction suit-
able to the ruling party? (4/36, September 4, 2003)
This is an example of an insult in the form of multiple, multi-lay-
ered wh-questions. We can argue that they are fallacious, as they con-
tain more questions piled together in an apparently single question (Ilie,
in the croatian parliament 239
ali Ministarstvo pravosuđa se ne očituje o toj strani s etičkog i političkog gl-
edišta [...]. (4/36, 4. rujna 2003.)
B. D. (SocLib): Ladies and gentlemen, if you are a person against whom a doz-
en criminal charges have been filed, if you alone in your interviews give statements in-
dicating that you have committed those crimes, apart for those criminal charg-
es, what would you do? Go to the President’s yacht, well, that’s a new one. Or on the
gunboat. Confess without repentance, get absolution. Not only that, but still be
able to make a deal and do business in another country, and all the while, Croatian
politics is silent, the political parties are silent, the media talk about it, but
the Ministry of Justice does not give any statements about this from either
an ethical or political standpoint [...]. (4/36, September 4, 2003)
4.2.2. The Formulation of Insults as Questions Rather Than as Statements
Another recurring mitigation strategy of Croatian MPs is to use
questions rather than statements. They serve to introduce “ready-made
assumptions and prejudicial ideas“ (Ilie, 2004:59). Quite often they are
in the form of repetitious Wh-questions, which are often rhetorical be-
cause the answer is obvious, insulting or incriminating.
(8) K. M. (HSLS): Hoće li temeljem ovoga zakona kazneno odgovarati
primjerice Brodogradilište Viktor Lenac i donedavni predsjednik uprave
gospodin Vrhovnik zbog obmanjivanja Vlade o poslovnim rezultatima te
tvrtke? Pa je onda obmanuta Vlada toj tvrtki izdala 60 milijuna ili 60-tak
milijuna dolara državnih jamstava. Hoće li odgovarati Riječka banka? Hoće li
primjerice odgovarati Hrvatski fond za privatizaciju koji je evidentno zloupo-
rabom ovlasti recimo gospodinu Štroku omogućio vlasništvo nad Otokom
života? Ili će pak ovaj zakon pogoditi neke sitnije ribe i ribice koje ne plivaju u onom
pravcu koji se vladajućima sviđa (4/36, 4. rujna 2003)
K. M. (SocLib): Will, for example, shipyard Viktor Lenac and its, till recent
CEO Mr. Vrhovnik, be held criminally liable due to misleading the Govern-
ment about the business results of the company? And then that misled gov-
ernment issued 60 million, or 60-odd million dollars of government loan
guarantees to that company. Will Riječka banka be held accountable? Will, for
instance, Croatian Privatisation Fund, also be accountable, which by abuse of
authority enabled Mr. Štrok to become a proprietor of Island of Life? Or will
this legislation catch some smaller fish and fishes that do not swim in the direction suit-
able to the ruling party? (4/36, September 4, 2003)
This is an example of an insult in the form of multiple, multi-lay-
ered wh-questions. We can argue that they are fallacious, as they con-
tain more questions piled together in an apparently single question (Ilie,
