Blasphemy

Blasphemy (pronounced blas-fuh-mee)

(1) Impious or profane utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.

(2) An act of cursing or reviling God.

(3) In Judaism, pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (the Hebrew name of God transliterated in four letters as YHWH or JHVH and articulated as Yahweh or Jehovah) in the original (and then forbidden) manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.

(4) In theology, the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.

(5) Irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless etc.

(6) In law, also called blasphemous libel, the crime committed if a person insults, offends, or vilifies the deity, Christ, or the Christian religion (now, in many jurisdictions effectively, if not technically, almost extinct although prosecutions continue in some countries (Malaysian, Mauritania, Bangladesh, Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt etc).

1175-1225: From the Middle English blasfemye & blasphemie, from the early thirteenth century Old French blasfemie (blasphemy), from the Ecclesiastical Latin blasphēmia, from the Ancient Greek βλασφημία (blasphēmía) (speaking ill, impious speech, slander; profanity), from βλασφημέω (blasphēméō) (to slander).  The origin of the first element of the word is uncertain, possibly related to blaptikos (hurtful) although blax (slack (in body and mind) or stupid) is an alternative and some etymologists suggest as link with the root of the Latin malus (bad, unpleasant), from the primitive Indo-European root mel-.  Phēmē (utterance) is from the primitive Indo-European root bha- (to speak, tell, say).  The medieval Church Latin was blasphemare, which in Late Latin also meant "revile, reproach", hence the sense of blame which was picked up by both Canon and secular law.  In the Old Testament, the word actually applied to a more specific crime, against the reverence for Jehovah as ruler of the Jews, comparable to treason.  Blasphemy, blasphemer & blasphemousness are nouns, blaspheme, blasphemed & blaspheming are verbs, blasphemous is an adjective and blasphemously is an adverb; the noun plural is blasphemies.

Blasphemy and attempted blasphemy

Lindsay Lohan in Aqua drawstring silk shirt, vest & blouse with silver crown of thorns accessory (actually a necklace) by Belgian designer Ann Demeulemeester (b 1959), Purple magazine, Spring Summer 2010 edition.  In the west, if it involves Christianity, it's difficult now to be blasphemous.  There was a time, not that long ago, when the "crown of thorns" alone would have been enough to offend and if not, adopting a "crucifixion pose" would certainly have done it.  By the twenty-first century, such things attract barely a comment, even reverend and right reverend gentlemen now silent.

In Australia, although there’s been no successful prosecution for a hundred-odd years, the common law crime of blasphemy technically still exists in some Australian states and territories; abolished by statute only in Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia (the so-called “code states” which (beginning with Queensland in 1899) adopted a codified system of criminal law) and by common law in Victoria.  Where it exists, it operates not as a general law to prevent vilifying or inciting hatred against people on the basis of their religion but is a specific, special legal layer protecting God and Christian doctrine from non-deferential commentary and Christian religious sensibilities from offence.  In Australia, the crime of blasphemy protects only Christianity; it remains lawful to blaspheme against other religions although other laws do offer some protection in some circumstances.  Blasphemy can be committed by speech, writing, art or other form of communication; the old technical distinctions do not apply.

Cardinal George Pell performing a ritual.

In 1997, while Archbishop of Melbourne, Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023) lodged a writ in the Supreme Court of Victoria seeking a an injunction preventing the National Gallery of Victoria (NGV) from displaying a work of art, the argument being the work was blasphemous.  Despite the archbishop’s efforts, the Supreme Court declined injunctive relief, the judge noting that as a point of law,  in Australia, the crime of blasphemy no longer existed.  While the ruling of the Victorian Supreme Court applies only within state boundaries, it would almost certainly be found persuasive by courts in other Australian states.  That obviously extends only to secular law and the Roman Catholic Church is not restricted from dealing with charges of blasphemy under its own rules but its sanctions are limited to stuff like denying blasphemers Holy Communion or, ultimately, excommunication.  The days are gone of blasphemers being burned at the stake after some days of enduing the most horrible tortures.

The Christian churches have, since the Enlightenment, become something of a target for those seeking some form of "shock-value" to draw attention to their product (fashion line, music video, political campaign et al) but in the West, the utility of the approach has in recent years been devalued as societies have become increasingly secular and any growth in observance has tended to be non-Christian.  Even in the US where, unlike Europe and the rest of the English-speaking world, religiosity is still demographically significant, the Supreme Court (USSC) has taken a "black-letter law" view of the First Amendment to the constitution which provides (1) that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise and (2) protects freedom of speech, the press and assembly.  This has operated to mean people generally (within the limits of other laws) have the right to practice religion, not practice it at all or say what they wish about religion (limited only by other laws such as defamation).  As a general principle, in the West, the offence of blasphemy no longer exists except perhaps as an abstraction in English constitutional law in certain matters pertaining to the office of sovereign and the Church of England but no its doubtful any modern secular court would handle such things as offences of blasphemy and given the nature of the contemporary church, probably no ecclesiastical tribunal would ant to explore the idea.  Modern Anglicans don't mind being accused of heresy but quake in fright at the idea they might be thought "non-inclusive".

Elsewhere, blasphemy seems alive and well.  It's a most sensitive issue in Pakistan which has a Muslim majority (97%) population although the blasphemy laws still in use were introduced in 1860 under the Raj, the British creating the offence to supress the religious and communal violence between the Hindus and Muslims (the areas which now constitute Pakistan and Bangladesh then part of India).  The Pakistan Penal Code was later amended by military ruler General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1924-1988; President of Pakistan 1977-1988) and disrespecting Prophet Muhammed or desecrating the Holy Quran are capital offences punishable by death.  However, although the death penalty has occasions been imposed by courts, it seems none of the sentences have been carried out (although executions have happened in what are essentially blasphemy cases but the convictions have been recorded as "terrorism), but thousands of convicted blasphemers remain in prison and there's much to suggest there are many instances of what is a form of "protective custody" sheltering people from what would likely be a deadly retribution.  There have been thousands of formal complaints over recent decades and dozens of killings, many before the cases reached court and, contrary to what seems to be the impression in the West, Christians are not the most frequent targets (although their cases do attract the most publicity), most of the accused being from the minority sects of Islam.   Judicial authorities admit the laws are widely misused as a device with which to pursue personal vendettas or exert leverage in commercial disputes but judges need to be cautious, one high court judge in 1997 murdered in his chambers after acquitting two Christians accused of blasphemy; the accused murderer was acquitted because no witness was prepared to provide evidence for the prosecution.

Modern capitalism can also be blasphemous in Pakistan.  As part of the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) "Belt & Road" project, the Chinese-funded Dasu hydropower project in north-western Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province is under construction and the senior engineer (a Chinese national) was accused of blasphemy after commenting on the “slow pace of work” during the holy month of Ramadan, when Muslims fast from dawn to sunset.  According to a police official (who agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity), “...the labourers said they were fasting but denied that work had slowed down, which led to an exchange of heated words” with the supervisor and “...later, the labourers accused the engineer of making blasphemous remarks”.  This induced a protest by some 400 members of the local population, one of who filed a written complaint.  The police later issued a statement confirming a “...Chinese national has been taken to a safe place as a precautionary measure”.  It's expected the CCP will arranged to have the engineer recalled to China and replaced with one who has undergone what would in the West be called "culturally appropriate training.

Indonesia is the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation and in 2023, a court imposed a two year sentence on a 33 year old woman who was convicted of blasphemy because she posted on TikTok a clip of the reciting a Muslim prayer before eating some crispy pork skin.  According to the Holy Quran, flesh from pigs is regarded as haram (from the Arabic: حَرَام, (ḥarām) (forbidden) and thus under Islamic law not permissible as food for Muslims.  The offence alone might have attracted some sanction but the fact it amassed literally millions of views on the social platform was regarded as exacerbatory on the basis it “spread information that was intended to incite hate or individual or group enmity based on religion”.  In additional to the custodial sentence, the court ordered her to pay a fine of 250 million rupiah (US$16,249.59).  The significance of the use of social media has been cited as one of the reasons that in recent years there has been an increase in blasphemy cases in the country, something which has impacted Indonesia’s reputation for moderation, more matters coming to the attention of those most anxious to ensure a strict interpretation of Islamic law is maintained.  In recent years notable cases have included (1) charges of both blasphemy and hate speech against the head of an Islamic boarding school which permitted men and women to pray alongside each other and women to  preach become preachers, (2) arrests after a chain of bars ran a promotion offering free beer (also haram) for patrons named Mohammed and (3) an 18-month jail sentence imposed on ethnic Chinese Buddhist woman convicted of blasphemy because it was alleged she said a nearby mosque’s loudspeakers were too loud.

There are complaints Indonesia's blasphemy laws are being co-opted to target minority groups and dissenters and that this contravenes certain international obligations in relation to respect and protection for freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, freedom of opinion and expression but not even senior politicians are exempt: in 2017 a former governor of Jakarta (a Christian) received a two year sentence for blasphemy and even some of those who admitted the charges probably were "politically motivated", nevertheless agreed his words were "blasphemous against Islam" and the sentence should stand although, in a most unusual manoeuvre, the prosecutor's office appeal the verdict on the basis it was too severe and the one year sentence they had requested was more appropriate.  The Supreme Court rejected the appeal.

The matter of blasphemy has of late been much discussed in Sweden following some instances of Quran burning as a protest against Islam (definitely haram in this context although many imams do list "respectful, ceremonial burning" as an acceptable way of handling the destruction of severely damaged copies of the Quran).  Swedish law has neither a statute which explicitly prohibits the burning or desecration of the Quran (or any other other religious texts) or any blasphemy laws.  Given Sweden's reputation for tolerance and moderation, it surprises many that as late as the nineteenth century blasphemy was considered a serious crime in Swedish law and in some circumstances a capital offence and repeal wasn't sudden, the wording gradually relaxed in line with the country's increasing secularization and by 1970, when the last reference was removed from the books, there hadn't been a prosecution for decades and most probably assumed the laws had long ago been repealed.  For all sorts of reasons however, the Quaran burning is not thought helpful and the authorities would rather those with a axe to grind would just write letters to the editor.  The police have indicated that if necessary they'll used the nation's hate speech laws which prohibits incitement against groups of people based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity.

Heresy

Heresy (pronounced her-uh-see)

(1) Opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system.

(2) The maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.

(3) In Roman Catholic canon law, the wilful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.

(4) Dissent, iconoclasm, dissension.

1175–1225: From Middle English heresie from Old French heresie and Late Latin haeresis (school of thought, philosophical sect) derived from the Greek haíresis (act of choosing, derivative of haireîn (to choose)).  Source of the Greek was haireisthai (take, seize), middle voice of hairein (to choose) of unknown origin but likely derived from the primitive ser (to seize), thought also to be the root of both the Hittite šaru and the Welsh herw, both best translated as “booty".  The modern meaning emerged from the use by early Christian writers who used the literal translation from the Latin (sect or doctrine) to convey their disapproval of unorthodox thoughts or ideas.  The Greek word was used in the New Testament in reference to the Sadducees, Pharisees, and even the Christians, as sects of Judaism, but in English bibles it usually is translated as sect.   The meaning "religious belief opposed to the orthodox doctrines of the Church" evolved in Late Latin and was adopted for non-religious use as early as the late fourteenth century.

The Church of England Rejects Heresy Courts Proposal

Lindsay Lohan offering salvation to a heretic, (Machete (2010)).  The revolver is a Smith & Wesson Model 500 (8.38" barrel; .50 Magnum load)

In mid-1999, in a rare moment of clarity, the Church of England flirted, after a gap of one-hundred and fifty years, with the re-introduction of heresy trials to deal with clergy accused of deviation in matters of doctrine or ritual.  The last heresy trial was in 1847, when the Bishop of Exeter (Henry Phillpotts (1778–1869; Anglican Bishop of Exeter 1830-1869) accused the Reverend George Cornelius Gorham (1787–1857) of being unsound on the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration", Mr Gorham not agreeing a person was cleansed of original sin at baptism and born again into Christ.  Although the Court of Arches agreed with the bishop, on appeal, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council overturned the ruling which caused a (very Anglican) controversy about whether a secular court should be able to rule on matters of doctrine (as opposed to law or procedure).  Since then clergy and bishops have been (more or less) free to deviate from doctrine without punishment and the Right Reverend David Jenkins (1925-2016), a former Bishop of Durham (1984-1994), famously raised a few eyebrows when he discussed his heterodoxic view on the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Christ.  The new disciplinary procedure for clergy was to include offences against "doctrine, ritual and the ceremonial" because those who profess atheism or deny the doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation “should be disciplined”.

Heretic crooked Hillary Clinton being burned at the stake (digitally altered image).

Although not as well known as other inquisitions, in England, in the sixteenth century Reformation during the reign of Henry VIII (1491–1547; King of England (and Ireland after 1541) 1509-1547), about 60 heretics were executed.  Heresy laws were repealed in 1547, but reintroduced in 1554 by Mary I (1516–1558; Queen of England and Ireland 1553-1558 & Queen of Spain 1556-1558), under whom about 290 heretics were burned at the stake after the restoration of papal jurisdiction.  Executions of some 180 religious opponents continued under Elizabeth I (1533–1603; Queen of England & Ireland 1558-1603) but on grounds of treason rather than heresy although the offence remained on the books.  To the condemned, it must have seemed a tiresome technical distinction.  The last execution of a "heretic" in England occurred in 1612 although technically that was for the offence of blasphemy.  Puritanical, if not quite to the end but certainly for as long as they could, there was one later execution in Scotland in 1697 when Thomas Aikenhead (circa 1676-1697) was accused, inter alia, of denying the doctrine of the Trinity.  In a example of Scottish judicial modernization, Mr Aikenhead was hanged rather than burned at the stake although they retained blasphemy as a capital offence until 1825. 

Unfortunately, after mulling over things for half-a–decade, the General Synod of the Church of England rejected the revival of a heresy court and didn’t, even more regrettably, consider bringing back burnings at the stake.  It seems there were fears the court could be used to enforce a traditionalist view, targeting clergy, who for example, support same-sex marriages or gay clergy, both now apparently matters of greater theological importance than a belief in the resurrection.  That does seem strange given it’s the central tenet of Christianity but that’s clearly become view from both the General Synod and Lambeth Palace.  In an address to the synod, displaying his flair for simultaneously changing the subject and answering a different question than the one asked, then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams (b 1950; Archbishop of Canterbury 2002-2012), said it was important for the church “…to be able to speak out against issues like Apartheid.  The question I think we ought to be asking is whether this does or does not serve the integrity or credibility of the church in the long run.  I believe that such a measure can serve the integrity and credibility of the church if we do indeed step back in this way.  It is over twenty years since the World Alliance of Reform Churches declared that the theological justification for Apartheid was a heresy.  It would be, I think a very incredible and inadequate Christian church which did not have the resource to say something like that.”

Pope Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) and Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023) discuss the fate of heretics.

Quash

Quash (pronounced kwosh)

(1) To put down or suppress completely; quell; subdue; used usually in a military or paramilitary context.

(2) To make void, annul, or set aside (a law, indictment, decision etc); to reject (an indictment, writ, etc) as invalid.

(3) To crush or dash to pieces (obsolete and thought possibly an imperfect echoic of squash).

(4) In the civil procedure rules of US courts (as motion to quash), a specific request that asks the court to render the decision of a previous lower court ruling invalid.  It is similar to a motion to dismiss, except it asks the court to nullify a previous ruling rather than the current filing.

Circa 1275: From the Middle English quaschen, quasshen, cwessen, & quassen (to smash, break, overcome, suppress) from the Old French quasser, in part from the Latin quassāre (to shake), present active infinitive of quassō, frequentative of quatere (to shake) and in part from the Late Latin cassāre (to annul), a derivative of the Latin cassus (empty, void) under the influence of the Alatin cassō (I annul), from the Latin quatiō (I shake).  Ultimate root was the primitive Indo-European kweht- (to shake), the source also of the words pasta, paste, pastiche, pastry; cognate with Spanish quejar (to complain).  Similar to some degree are suppress, squash, repress, crush, quell, invalidate, annul, revoke, reverse, veto, void, undo, vacate, squelch, repeal, overrule, rescind, scrunch, annihilate and subdue.  Regarding quash and squash, the verb quash is now used to describe the crushing of something in a nonphysical sense whereas squash is applied when an object is physically crushed but both were for hundreds of years used in both senses, quash losing its physical sense only in the twentieth century.  Urban Dictionary also lists a number of non-standard meanings.  Quash & quashed are verbs, quasher is a noun, quashing is a noun & verb and quashable is an adjective; the most common noun plural is quashings.

In the matter of Cardinal Pell

Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023): On appeal, the prosecution not having proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction was quashed.

Quash means to nullify, void or declare invalid and is a procedure used in both criminal and civil cases when irregularities or procedural defects are found.  In a unanimous (7-0) judgment (Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12)) quashing Cardinal Pell’s conviction (Pell v The Queen [2019] VSCA 186), the High Court set aside the verdict and substituted an acquittal; in a legal sense it is now as if the original verdict never happened.  What the court did was declare existing law and provide what are not exactly parameters but are more than guidelines.  If nothing else, it’s likely the judgment will cause trial judges more precisely to instruct juries about reasonable doubt:

(1) The accused on trial in a serious criminal matter is presumed to be innocent.

(2) The accused may but is not obliged to offer a defense; it is incumbent upon the prosecution (almost always the state) to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused.

There’s nothing controversial about those positions, they’ve well known and have for centuries been accepted orthodoxies for the administration of criminal law in common law jurisdictions.  What the Pell judgment did was draw attention to other orthodoxies not as widely known:

(3) A jury is presumed to be comprised of reasonable people who impartially will assess the evidence (contested facts) presented; matters of contested facts are subjective and for the jury.

(4) It is the responsibility of the judge accurately and lucidly to instruct the jury on such matters of law which may be relevant to their consideration of matters of fact; matters of law are objective and for the judge.

Reasonable people on juries are thus required to decide if there is a reasonable doubt the prosecution’s case has proven guilt.  Reasonable doubt went back a long way but the phrase “reasonable person” was defined by English courts in negligence cases, an attempt to provide an example of the “the average man” or “the man in the street”.  Descriptions by judges vary but usually mean something like a “…reasonably intelligent and impartial person unversed in legal esoteric” (Jones v US, DC Court of Appeals), sketched rather more poetically by an English judge as “the man on the Clapham omnibus” (“a bloke on the Hornsby train” in Australian parlance).

(5) In exercising their subjective judgment to determine if the prosecution has proven their case beyond reasonable doubt, the jury is required to decide this on the objective basis of reasonable doubt detailed in the judge’s direction or summing up.

(6) If a court of appeal found a jury, acting reasonably, on the basis of the evidence presented, should have found reasonable doubt of guilt, the judge(s) can order the conviction quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered instead.

Not only verdicts can be quashed.  If within their jurisdiction, a judge can quash a warrant or order.

Probe

Probe (pronounced prohb)

(1) To search into or examine thoroughly; question closely; an investigation, especially by a legislative committee, of suspected illegal activity.

(2) To examine or explore with or as if with a probe; the act of probing.

(3) A slender surgical instrument for exploring the depth or direction of a wound, sinus, or the like.

(4) In aerospace, an unmanned exploration spacecraft.

(5) A projecting, pipe-like device on a receiving aircraft used to make connection with and receive fuel from a tanker aircraft during refuelling in flight.

(6) A device, attached by cord to an oven that can be inserted into food so the oven shuts off when the desired internal temperature of the food is reached.

(7) In biochemistry, any identifiable substance that is used to detect, isolate, or identify another substance, as a labelled strand of DNA that hybridizes with its complementary RNA or a monoclonal antibody that combines with a specific protein.

(8) In electronics, a lead connecting to or containing a measuring or monitoring circuit used for testing; a conductor inserted into a waveguide or cavity resonator to provide coupling to an external circuit

1555–1565: From the Medieval Latin proba (examination (“test” in Late Latin)), derivative of probāre (to test, examine, prove), from probus (good).  The Spanish tienta (a surgeon's probe) came from tentar (try, test).  The dual meanings in Latin ((1) instrument for exploring wounds etc and (2) an examination) persist in English.  The sense "act of probing" is from 1890, from the verb; the figurative sense of "penetrating investigation" is from 1903.  The use to describe a "small, unmanned exploratory spacecraft" is attested from 1953; unrelated to this is the curious popularity of aliens subjecting humans to examinations with anal probes in stories of alien abduction.  Probe is a noun & verb, probing & probed are verbs, probeable is an adjective and probingly is an adverb; the noun plural is probes.

The Voyager 1 space probe launched by NASA in 1977.

Originally (with companion probe Voyager 2) a twelve-year mission, it’s expected to remain a functional scientific instrument until 2025 and is now some 24 billion km (15 billion miles) away, the most distant human-made object from Earth (only our radio waves have travelled further).  There are some who claim the probes have already reached inter-stellar space while other astronomers  maintain the edge of our solar system extends much further than was once thought and they're travelling still through a sort of cosmic limbo.  The Voyager probes, even after they're long inert, may continue their journeys for thousands or millions of years because, although the universe is a violent, destructive swirl, there is vast distance between threatening stuff.

Of the many inconsistencies in English spelling, none must be seem more mystifying to anyone learning the language than those words affected by the “mute e rule”: the inflections and derivatives formed from words ending in a “silent e”.  The question always is: to e or not to e?  Deciding whether to retain or omit the last letter is easier than once it was because dictionaries seem now to be more consistent in their approach, presumably one of the benefits of their shift to becoming on-line resources although, for historic reasons, we seem stuck with what seem ancient, arbitrary decisions such as ageing and icing continuing in peaceful co-existence.  So, there are words where centuries of particular spellings have become entrenched that to suggest a change would be absurd and that means any rule would have both examples which conform and those which defy.  Henry Fowler (1858–1933) in his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) acknowledged the impossibility of constructing a rule of absolute validity but as a guide offered (1) an indicative rule and (2) a guide to the exceptions.  The (1) rule was “when a suffix is added to a word ending in a mute e, the mute e should be dropped before a vowel but not before a consonant”.  The condition for (2) an exception was “the mute e should be kept even before a vowel if it is needed to indicate the soft sound of a preceding g or c or to distinguish a word from another with the same spelling”.  Probe is such an exception because if one has a probe, it’s helpful to know if something (or someone according to those who have been abducted by aliens) is probeable and that adjective can’t be spelled “probable” because that has another meaning.

The Mazda MX-6-based Ford Probe (1988-1997, left) and the car it was once mooted to replace, the long-serving “Fox” Mustang (1978-1993).

A competent, inoffensive coupé, the Ford Probe would probably have existed for a decade as a moderate success and then, having been discontinued without a direct replacement, been soon forgotten, had it not been for the furore which ensued when the idea surfaced it might be the company’s replacement for the Mustang.  In 1987, by means of a “controlled leak” the pro-Mustang faction (the beer drinkers) within the corporation let it be known Ford was planning to replace the Mustang with a modified version of a Mazda (championed by the chardonnay faction).  The reaction was vociferous & voluminous, Ford’s mailbox (and in 1987 mail came in envelopes with stamps attached) soon overflowing with complaints, the idea of a front-wheel-drive (FWD) Mustang anathematic, the absence of a V8 apparently beyond comprehension (although the Mustang II had suffered that fate in 1973-1975).  They also put their money where their poison pens were because the previously moribund sales of Mustangs suddenly spiked, the thought that this might be the last chance to buy a “proper” rear-wheel-drive (RWD), V8 powered Mustang enough to push the thing back up the sales chart.  The flow of letters and cash proved enough to persuade Ford and the platform was reprieved, the Mustang surviving to this day as a unique and highly profitable niche.  The Mazda co-project however was well advanced so the decision was taken to proceed and offer both and, badged as the Ford Probe, the modified Mazda lasted a decade-odd and it’s doubtful it cannibalized much of the Mustang’s market, its competition the other mid-sized, FWD Japanese coupés which had become popular.  A typical Japanese product, well engineered with a high build-quality, the Probe was a success (though it never realised Ford’s hopes in overseas markets) and when production ended, the only reason it wasn’t replaced was because the demographic buying the things had shifted to other segments, notably the sports utility vehicles (SUV) which would soon dominate.

1969 M-505 Adams Brothers Probe 16 (Durango 95)

The still controversial film A Clockwork Orange (1971) was based on the dystopian 1962 novel of the same name by Anthony Burgess (1917–1993).  At the time shocking in its depiction of violence, it's set some time in the future and as part of the verisimilitude the car used in the "driving scene" was a M-505 Adams Brothers Probe 16, one of three built.  Only 34 inches (864 mm) high (the prototype was 5 inches (125 mm) lower!), it emerged from the studios of the designers of the quirky Marcos sports cars which were idiosyncratic even by the standards of the cottage industry of low-volume sports cars which flourished in the UK until the early 1970s.  Although utterly impractical (passengers entered and exited through a sliding glass roof) it certainly looked futuristic but performance was disappointing because of the limited power. To create the mid-engined Probe, the designers used the engine and gearbox from the modest Austin 1800, moving the FWD package amidships, an approach later adopted by a number of manufacturers.  Had it been built using the mechanicals from the contemporary Cadillac Eldorado (which improbably had a 472 cubic inch (7.7 litre) V8 driving the front wheels through a chain-drive transaxle), assuming such a thing could be made to fit, it would have offered performance to match the promise of the looks.  In the film, the Probe was given the name “Durango 95” a name which seems to have chosen for no particular reason although the “95” may have been an allusion to 1995, decades away when the book was written.  Although A Clockwork Orange is perhaps not something with which manufacturers would like their products to be associated, many have since used the Durango name for a variety of purposes.

Newspaper headline writers like the word “probe”.  Within the industry, short, punchy words like “probe”, “jab”, “fix”, “bid” et al are part of a subset of English called “headline language”.

Driving scene in A Clockwork Orange (1971): 1969 M-505 Adams Brothers Probe 16 (Durango 95).

Regalia

Regalia (pronounced ri-gey-lee-uh or ri-geyl-yuh)

(1) The emblems, symbols, or paraphernalia indicative of royalty or any other sovereign status; such as a crown, orb, sceptre or sword.

(2) The decorations, insignia, or ceremonial clothes of any office or order.

(3) A casual term for fancy, or dressy clothing; finery.

(4) Royal rights, prerogatives and privileges actually enjoyed by any sovereign, regardless of his title (emperor, grand duke etc).

(5) Sumptuous food (obsolete except in the odd literary novel).

(6) A large cigar of the finest quality (obsolete except in the odd literary novel). 

1530–1540: From the Medieval Latin rēgālia (royal privileges; things pertaining to a king), noun use of neuter plural of the Latin rēgālis (regal).  The word stems from the Latin substantivation of the adjective rēgālis, itself from rex (king).  Regalia is a Latin plurale tantum (plural as such, plural only) word that has different definitions. In one ancient (but now rare) definition, it refers to the exclusive privileges of a sovereign, a concept which remains codified in Scots law as Inter regalia (something inherently that belongs to the sovereign) and this may include property, privileges, or prerogatives.  The term is a direct borrowing from the Latin inter (among) and regalia (things of the king).  In Scots law, the division is between (1) regalia majora (major regalia), which are inseparable from the person of the sovereign and (2) regalia minora (minor regalia), which may be conveyed to a subject.  The word originally referred to the formal dress of a sovereign, but is now used of any type of elaborate formal dress or accessories and is applied especially to academic and ecclesiastical robes.  Although regalia is a Latin plurale tantum (plural as such, plural only) which, in the grammar of Latin is a noun (in any specific sense) that has no singular form (eg scissors) in most usage, in Modern English, it’s sometimes used in the singular: regale.  Further to complicate, the plural form of the grammatical descriptor is pluralia tantum.  Regalia is a noun and regalian is an adjective; the noun plural is regalias.

Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023) in ecclesiastical regalia (left) and a deconstruction of the layers (right).  The nature of the garments' layers assumed significance in the matter of the cardinal's trial on charges of sexual abuse of a minor, a discussion about the ease and speed with with "accessibility" was physically possible (within the constraints of time and place) being among the evidence offered in defense.

In his original trial the cardinal was convicted, the verdict upheld on appeal to a full bench of the Court of Appeal.  However, upon final appeal to the High Court of Australia (HCA), the conviction was quashed, the judges ruling that the Crown had not beyond reasonable doubt proved the acts alleged happened as described, in the circumstances, in the place and at the time mentioned in the indictment.  Quash means to nullify, void or declare invalid and is a procedure used in both criminal and civil cases when irregularities or procedural defects are found.  In a unanimous (7-0) judgment (Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12)) quashing Cardinal Pell’s conviction in the Supreme Court of Victoria (Pell v The Queen [2019] VSCA 186), the High Court set aside the verdict and substituted an acquittal; in a legal sense it is now as if the original verdict never happened. 

Lindsay Lohan being adorned with prom queen regalia (Mean Girls (2004)).

Crook

Crook (pronounced krook)

(1) A bent or curved implement, piece, appendage, etc; hook.

(2) The hooked part of anything.

(3) An instrument or implement having a bent or curved part, as a shepherd's staff hooked at one end or the crosier of a bishop or abbot.

(4) A bend or curve; a bent or curved part; a curving piece or portion of something).

(5) In slang, a person who steals, lies, cheats or does other dishonest or illegal things; a criminal; to steal, cheat, or swindle; an artifice; a trick; a contrivance.

(6) To bend; curve; a bend or curve.

(7) In slang, sick; unwell; feeble (Australia & New Zealand).

(8) In slang, out of order; functioning improperly; unsatisfactory; disappointing (Australia & New Zealand).

(9) In etiquette (as “to crook the knee”), a bending of the knee; a genuflection.

(10) A lock or curl of hair (obsolete).

(11) In structural engineering, a support beam consisting of a post with a cross-beam resting upon it; a bracket or truss consisting of a vertical piece, a horizontal piece, and a strut.

(12) A specialized staff with a semi-circular bend (called “the hook”) at one end and used by shepherds to control their flocks (a small scale version of which (as the “pothhook”) is used in cooking to suspend a pot over a heat-source.

(13) In the traditional Christian churches, a bishop's standard staff of office, the shape of which emulates those historically used by shepherds, an allusion to the idea of Christ’s relationship to his followers as that of “a shepherd of his flock”, mentions in several passages in scripture including John 10:11 (I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep) and Psalm 23:1 (The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want).

(14) In music, a small tube, usually curved, applied to a trumpet, horn etc to change its pitch or key.

1125-1175: From the Middle English croke & crok (hook-shaped instrument or weapon; tool or utensil consisting of or having as an essential component a hook or curved piece of metal), from the Old English crōc (hook, bend, crook (although the very existence of crōc in Old English is contested by some), from the Proto-Germanic krōkaz (bend, hook), from the primitive Indo-European greg- (tracery, basket, bend).  It was cognate with Old Norse krokr & krāka (hook), the Dutch kreuk (a bend, fold; wrinkle), the Middle Low German kroke & krake (fold, wrinkle), the Danish krog (crook, hook), the Swedish krok (crook, hook), the Icelandic krókur (hook) and the Old High German krācho (hooked tool).    Crook is a noun, verb & adjective, crooks is a verb; crooked is a verb & adjective, crooking is a noun & verb, crooker & crookest are adjectives, crookedly is a adverb and crookedness is a noun; the noun plural is crooks.

Lindsay Lohan with crooked Harvey Weinstein (b 1952).

Crooked (bent, curved, in a bent shape) emerged in the early thirteenth century, the past-participle adjective from the verb crook and the figurative sense of “dishonest, false, treacherous, not straight in conduct; To turn from the path of rectitude; to pervert; to misapply; to twist” was from the same era, the familiar synonyms including rogue, villain, swindler, racketeer, scoundrel, robber, cheat, shyster, knave, pilferer and shark.  In that sense it was from the Middle English crooken, croken & crokien, from the Old English crōcian, from the Proto-West Germanic krōkōn (to bend, wrinkle) and was developed from the noun.  It was cognate with the Dutch kreuken (to crease, rumple) and the German Low German kröken (to bend, offend, suppress).

Leading the flock: Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023) with his bishop's crook.

The use in the slang of Australia, New Zealand emerged in the nineteenth century and was use variously to convey (1) something or the conduct of someone held to be unsatisfactory or not up to standard, (2) feeling ill or (3) annoyed, angry; upset (as in “to be crook about” or “to go crook at”), the comparative being crooker, the superlative crookest.  The sense of “a swindler” was a creation of late nineteenth century US English and developed from the earlier figurative use as “dishonest, crooked in conduct”, documented since at least the early 1700s, these notions ultimately derived from the use of crook in Middle English to describe a “dishonest trick”, a form prevalent in waring against the means to which the Devil would resort to tempt.  In idiomatic use, “arm in crook” describes two people walking arm-in-arm (ie the arms linked in the crook of the elbow) and “by hook or by crook” means “by any means necessary” although the origin of this has always puzzled etymologists.

Crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013).

Crooked Hillary Clinton gained, however unhappily, the most memorable of the monikers Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) applied so effectively in his campaigns first to secure the Republican nomination and then win the 2016 presidential election.  It was a novel approach to electioneering but there had before been crookedness in the oval office, some of the conduct in the nineteen century truly scandalous and one of Richard Nixon’s not unjustified complaints about life was he and his administration being subject to a level of scrutiny never inflicted on his (Democratic Party) predecessors.  That was illustrated during one of Nixon’s few happy moments during the Watergate scandal when on 26 September 1973 when his speechwriter Pat Buchanan (b 1938) appeared before a congressional committee investigating the manner.  The committee had taken some delight in conducting lengthy sessions during which various Republican Party figures were questioned but as Buchanan produced the facts and figures documenting decades of dirty tricks and actual illegalities by successive Democrat administrations, committee counsel Sam Dash (1925–2004) got him “…off the stand as quickly as possible”.  So crooked Hillary was part of a long political tradition and the label stuck so well to her because it according with the perceptions of many although, in fairness, there were plenty who’d done worse and suffered less. Presumably, crooked Hillary is watching with interest to see if any branch of the US justice system succeeds in declaring Donald Trump crooked.  One way on another, she could be waiting for some time.  

Richard Nixon (1913–1994, US president 1969-1974) & Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973, US president 1963-1969), the White House, 1968.

Warren Harding (1865–1923, US president 1921-1923).

Unfairly or not, Warren Harding is now often called crooked, primarily because of the link with the "Teapot Dome" scandal which occurred under his administration but he wasn’t personally implicated.  However, Teapot Dome was one of many scandals on his watch so his reputation suffered.  He dropped dead while still in office, probably a good career move.  The 1964 US presidential election in which the candidates were the incumbent Democrat Lyndon Johnson and the Republican Barry Goldwater (1909-1998) was characterized as a contest between “a crook and a kook”, LBJ famously crooked in his business and political dealings in Texas and Barry, probably unfairly, characterised by his opponents as unhinged from time-to time.  The electorate was apparently sanguine about the character traits of the two and, given the choice on election day, voted for the crook, LBJ enjoying one of the biggest landslide victories in history.

Richard Nixon with Checkers (1952-1964), Washington, 1959.  Sometime during the Watergate scandal (if not before) Nixon may have reflected on the remark attributed to Frederick the Great (Frederick II (1712–1786, Prussian king 1740-1786) ): "The more I know of the character of men, the more I appreciate the company of dogs".

Already a national figure for this and that, Richard Nixon added to his notoriety by denying crookedness in his "Checkers speech", made in 1952, refuting allegations of impropriety which had threatened his place on the Republican ticket as General Dwight Eisenhower’s (1890–1969, US president 1953-1961) running mate in that year’s election.  Though not uncriticised, at the time and since, the “Checkers speech” worked and Nixon’s political career survived but two decades later, another speech with the same purpose failed to hold back the Watergate tide.  Held in Florida’s Disney's Contemporary Resort, it was at the 1973 press conference Nixon declared “…in all of my years of public life I have never obstructed justice... People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook.”  Little more than a year later, facing impeachment and removal from office, Nixon resigned although, to be fair, when he said “I’m not a crook”, he wasn’t speaking of the Watergate affair and aspects of his legacy, like that of his predecessors, needs to be assessed separately from his crookedness.