The Corrupt Use Of Political Language

I hardly know what to write these days. With the world engulfed in darkness, everything seems too big to address. Perhaps sticking closer to home, dealing with smaller issues that may be amenable to correction, is the best course. We'll see.

It has probably not escaped your attention that language, especially language coming from outside the arena of politics, has become debased. Every question is met with an anodyne, political answer that adeptly, if not transparently, evades anything resembling a truthful response. It is one that models what our politicians are eminently skilled at. The following is one such example.

The Durham police, already being investigated for corruption, finds itself embroiled in yet another instance of the law's subversion:

Chris Kirkpatrick, deputy chief of the Durham police, was allegedly driving his unmarked vehicle through a school zone in June when he was stopped for speeding. 

The next day, Kirkpatrick was stopped again, this time for allegedly travelling more than 50 km/h over the speed limit — an offence that, according to the Highway Traffic Act, should lead to a charge of stunt driving, a license suspension and the immediate impounding of the driver’s vehicle.

Both times he was let off, according to an internal complaint made by a Durham cop and shared with the Star. 

What is interesting about this case is the 'followup' after the Durham police chief referred this corruption to its police services board, which then had the Peel police investigate. The problem is that after Peel filed its report with the Durham board, there was no public report, just ....... silence, followed by the usual political use of language.

The mayor of Ajax, Shaun Collier, is the chair of the civilian board, but refused to answer any questions about the report. 

Collier did not respond to followup questions sent earlier this month by email, including why the board, a civilian body intended to represent the public’s interests, had not made public the findings of the Peel police investigation.

In August, the police board sent the Star a general statement, attributed to Collier, that did not address the specific allegations against Kirkpatrick, but said all allegations against police are investigated “with the firm objective of ensuring accountability.” [All emphases mine]

The statement continues: “All members of the DRPS are expected to be exemplary in their behaviour, and this is especially true of leaders of the organization. If misconduct does occur, regardless of the member’s rank, appropriate action will be taken.”

Such obfuscation has not gone unnoticed:

The police board’s refusal to make public the investigation into Kirkpatrick illustrates the “significant gaps in our police accountability framework,” said Danardo Jones, a law professor at the University of Windsor. 

One of the main purposes of a civilian police board is to promote accountability and transparency within the police service, Jones said, so a police board operating with “this veil of secrecy … is obviously problematic.” 

Instances of contempt for the public, and concealment of wrongdoing amongst the guardians of public safety,, are never pretty to bear witness to. Equally troubling is the use of language that does nothing to illuminate the truth but instead betrays deep disdain for the people they, in theory, serve. 

Words, Words, Words

As a retired English teacher and a lifelong lover of books, I have always been fascinated by words, both what they actually mean and how they are used to influence and manipulate. As the years have gone by, I have become especially interested in the political uses and abuses of language along the lines described in George Orwell's seminal essay, Politics and the English Language, the latter of which I would explore every year with my senior classes.

As I noted in an earlier post, the power of language to curb liberty and undermine free and critical thought is something we are witness to on a regular basis, and it is only by being familiar with these techniques that we can, to some extent, guard against them and recognize perversions of truth when they occur.

Orwell was well-aware of these dangers when he wrote his essay 56 years ago, and the problem has become so extensive that many of us almost automatically tune out when politicians or other 'leaders' open their mouths.

In Ontario, we are currently witness to a barrage of demagoguery and euphemisms from the McGuinty government in its battles against teachers and doctors. Take, for example, Education Minister Laurel Broten, whose government insists on a two-year pay freeze for teachers and the elimination of the retirement gratuity that exists in lieu of any post-retirement benefits. When she says she is choosing full day kindergarten and smaller elementary class sizes over teachers' paycheques, she is awakening latent public antipathy against 'greedy teachers', a pretty obvious subtext of her public pronouncements.

When she says, “I am asking the unions and the teachers to come to the table and work with us,” insisting she is “not negotiating in the media,” that is precisely what she is doing, of course.

And then there is her strange use of the word 'negotiation', which denotes a give and take to arrive at a reasonable solution. However, in this context, since she and McGuinty have made clear there is to be no give, only take, (OSSTF, for example, did offer to accept a two-year-wage freeze but not the end of the gratuity) 'negotiate' becomes a euphemism for saving the government the political embarrassment of having to strip away collective bargaining rights at some political cost to the party.

The same, of course, applies to the 'negotiations' the province is conducting with doctors. When Health Minister Deb Matthews says she’s disappointed that the OMA rejected her offer, what she is really saying, since the word 'offer' is a euphemism for 'ultimatum', is that she is sorry that the medical profession has not capitulated to her government's demands. That negotiation is not possible is attested to by the fact that she and McGuinty rejected the OMA's offer of a pay freeze.

No matter where we might stand on the direction being taken by the McGuinty government, it is imperative that all of us recognize and decry tactics that take us further and further from a healthy state of democracy.

Harper's Orwellian Use of Language

One of the greatest pleasures I derived as a teacher was doing a unit on language as part of the Grade 12 English course that I regularly taught. At the beginning of that unit, we read George Orwell's seminal essay, Politics and the English Language, which offered a trenchant, if at times challenging analysis of how language can be used to curb freedom and undermine free and critical thought. It was a theme that later formed the basis of his most popular novel, 1984.

After further study which included exploring fallacies of logic, I would give students an assignment requiring them to analyze the misuse of language and logic in our society today, which invariably led them to look at the pronouncements our politicians make. I was reminded of those times yesterday morning as I read Heather Mallick's amusing yet perceptive column in The Toronto Star on the Harper Government's manipulation of language. I would encourage everyone to read it.