Saying What They Mean

It has become a cliché: whenever the government further encroaches on our freedom, right wing blogger will criticise the move, and describe it as Orwellian and/or part of the slow move towards the dystopia of 1984. But like many a cliché, it also happens to be true. But I’m not going to hark on about any particular policy and how it will take us toward the nightmare Orwell wrote about – though not doubt the opportunity will arise before too long.

However, as I was re-reading the book last night, something struck me. An essential part of the dystopia presented by Orwell is the corruption of language. Newspeak represents a simplification of the English language to minimise the likelihood of independent thought. And we have something similar in society today. In order to make the slow erosion on freedom in the Western world appear less threatening, language is corrupted and contorted to make what should be concerning instead appear neutral or even welcoming.

Take the Patriot Act in the US – the onslaught against civil liberties that occurred after the murders of 9/11. It is utterly audacious to claim that to be patriotic you have to support a power grab by the state. Yet by titling the act in that way, the proponents of the Act could claim anyone who does not directly support it is in some way a traitor to the nation.

Likewise, in this country we have a whole host of misleading titles for repressive legislation. Take “42 days detention”. We all know what that means – the state can imprison and interrogate you without charge for 42 days. Yet the use of the word “detention” is interesting. It doesn’t really capture the horror of being imprisoned – without charge – for 42 days. “Detention” makes it sound like a punishment at school; nothing more sinister than that dealing with unruly kids. The reality – of spending 42 days in a cell whilst facing interrogation from the authorities, is very different from the way the government describes it.

Then we hear phrases like “stop and search”. Who could object to that? But what stop and search fails to capture is the humiliation of being stopped in a public place by a policeman and being searched. It fails to capture just how intimidating that could be. And it also fails to show the undertones of racial profiling that occurs with “stop and search.”

We hear about “CCTV cameras”, when “spy cameras” would be a far more accurate description. After all, they record everything. Not just the crimes they are designed to prevent. They spy on the innocent, guilty and everyone inbetween. The term “CCTV cameras” really fails to capture that.

And the *wonderful* phrase “war on terror”; a phrase that seems stuck on the lips of everyone seeking political power in this day and age. But what exactly are we fighting? Terror? What is that? I’d support a war on terrorists, but increasingly the war on terror looks like a war on the freedoms that politicians suppose terrorists use to commit atrocities. But that description is less catchy, isn’t it? And more likely to provoke criticisms.

Which is the point. These neutral terms are designed to stifle debate and minimise the potential criticisms from those who value freedom. “42 days detention” is simply selling “42 days imprisonment at the hands of the state without charge” in a nicer way.

I’m sure some people will agree with me; others will denounce the definitions above as hysterical. Fine. But think about what you read and what the terms used are actually telling you. We need to question more, rather than blindly accepting the

I started on a cliché, so I’ll end on one as well – the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And part of that vigilance is making sure that we are able to see through the bullshit terms that those who wish to expand the state use to hide their true intentions.