EU to make the word 'Gullible' illegal (if you believe BBC Leicester)
A friend was on BBC Leicester briefly on Thursday (25 minutes in). You can tell how well it went if I tell you she was described as a ‘full-on feminist’.
The story is laughable. To help translation the EU is going to try and use non-gender specific language where possible. So they’ll be talking about police officers or firefighters instead of policemen or firemen. You might think that makes sense if you’re translating stuff into languages which already have grammatical genders where gendered content might cause confusion. This has caused Tory MEPs Roger Helmers and Chris Heaton-Harris to throw their toys out of the pram. It’s political correctness gone mad. Umm… why? Do they really need to know if they can have homosexual relationships with police officers? Are they seriously going to argue that arrest warrants should only be granted between member states if there’s a sufficient number of breasts in the area? I can see there are times when gender would matter. For instance in the case of rape, it’s reasonable to specify that the victim should have the option to give her statement to a policewoman. Still, most of the time the gender is, or else should be, irrelevant. I can’t see what you lose by dropping men in favour of something gender-neutral. Then again, if I were a more insecure man I might think differently.
Perhaps the two iambs in artificial compared to the spondee of man-made is going to wreck the poetry that is the hallmark of an EU directive.
Sadly, it looks like the Conservatives are pinning their hopes on ripping off Douglas Adams for the forthcoming European elections. They’re hoping the superficial flaws in their arguments will hide the fundamental flaws in their arguments. You’d think the June 2009 elections would be an open-goal. OLAF, the EU’s anti-corruption office is a farce spending its time investigating those who highlight corruption. It’s possible that overseeing the EU might be a bit too much like hard work. Instead it’s easier to pretend words like ‘Mister’, ‘Miss’ and ‘Gullible’ are being made illegal. To be fair to Helmers and Heaton-Harris, BBC Leicester swallowed the last one completely. They cheerfully primed the public to speak there branes on the subject.
Most ironically, it shows the Euro-tories have gone native. They’re either ignorant of English culture or, worse, anti-English. How so? Well, it comes down to this man-made versus artificial debate. It’s time to appeal to the ultimate authority on the English language, Shakespeare – who invented a lot of it. What words would Shakespeare use if he were writing an EU directive?
He might use the word artificial. Gloucester in Henry VI part III talks of his cheek wet by artificial tears. It also appears in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet amongst others. In contrast he never used the ugly ‘man-made’. Yet Helmers and Heaton-Harris would have the EU cast out the language of Shakespeare rather than corrupt officials. The bard had the best end for them.
Exit, pursued by a bear.The Winter’s Tale. Act 3, Scene 3, Line 58
If you want to know why even UK based Conservatives are happier with political correctness, here’s a video from Stewart Lee.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K21e7po1Sro]
| Print article | This entry was posted by Alun on 5th of April, 2009 at 7:41 pm, and is filed under Politics. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 1 year ago
I for one oppose the genderization of the word “man”. “Man” is the English equivalent of the Latin “humanus” and should, in my opinion, go back to meaning such. After all, woman is just “wife-man”. Then again, I’d also like to see wer making a comeback. And let’s start spelling wife “wyf” and make it to mean was woman means today. Surely that would solve all our problems, would it not?
Chris Weimer
somewhat tongue in cheek
about 1 year ago
I can agree with both Chris and Ross that there isn’t necessarily sexism intended in chairman. I’ve never seen the word “Gerwoman” used in cold blood either. On the other hand language evolves, and if you want to translate accurately . In the case policeman, if that means men or women, and policewoman means female police officer, then what word do we use to say ‘male police officer’? Or do we define women as exceptions to normality? Again, I doubt either Chris or Ross would say that’s their intent. On the other hand using ‘man’ means the language doesn’t give much clue as to whether it’s an inclusive man or lazy thought. That’s a problem when it comes to translation.
Regarding the gullibility, here I disagree with Ross. I don’t think EU-English will be THE election issue. What I think is that this demonstration of the tone of the election, which will be fought on foreigner-bashing rather than fact. My scepticism comes from the fact that the last EU style guide I saw actively endorsed words like fisherman. Here’s Roger Helmer’s site where he complains about MEPs being prevented from using the word ‘man-made’, though he has no link to the booklet. And here’s a site where the EU says the guide is voluntary and for staff, not MEPs. From the outside it looks like either Helmers and Heaton-Harris are not really on top of the job, or else they’re assuming the electorate is gullible. I could be wrong and I’ll be delighted to vote Conservative if I am.
It’s frustrating because I can’t vote Labour because I think the Iraq war was illegal. You shouldn’t vote for a party that makes stuff up for political gain, else you get the government you deserve.
about 1 year ago
Hi Alun,
First it is good to have a bit of debate.
I have to say that I don’t think this highlights the tone of a coming political debate, or the attitude of the modern Conservative party.
It would not surprise me if there is a fair bit of institution-bashing though. Being sceptical of the EU, and much of it’s bureaucracy is reaction against a set of political ideas, not about a dislike of people. It is those foreign people who vote in the way I would, given a chance, and save us from the march to federalisation (vive la France, Denmark, the Netherlands, and most recently Ireland for that). I won’t be bashing them for that.
As a party that strongly believes in free-trade I would say that we embrace an open world, and that free trade has a lot to do with supporting other countries. Certainly I wish the EU would do a lot more to allow free trade into Europe from developing countries, and not dump subsidised goods on them, destroying their domestic industries.
The saddest thing is that EU democracy is so hollow. We elect MEPs and send them to Brussels and Strasbourg and many people think they have a democratic EU.
I think in frustration more than anything else they end up protesting over measures like this because it reminds them they are just an appendage of a bureaucracy. The real power is vested elsewhere, far from what we will be voting for on June 4th.
about 1 year ago
I’ve got a copy of the booklet [PDF], and it looks Helmer’s objections are a bit contrived. It’s certainly not a ban on MEPs using gendered language. What it looks like to me is a clumsy attempt to make the EU institutionally polite. I think there could be a good point made about cost and necessity, but hooking it onto ‘political correctness gone mad’ looks like a poor attempt at a clichéd soundbite.
On the plus side I have noted that it’s been Conservatives who’ve been responding. That has to count for something, so I’m not ruling out voting Conservative this summer.
What comes out from reading the book is that the BBC Radio Leicester piece was lousy in reporting the story. The nonsense about not being able to acknowledge you have a husband or wife simply isn’t in here – nor is it in the complaints by the MEPs. I’ve been following some of the complaints about poor science reporting by the media. It’s interesting to see that even someone whose story was reported sympathetically can have reasonable grounds to be miffed.
about 1 year ago
Hi Alun,
In my limited experience of reporting, by either print or broadcast media, I have been very disatisfied with the process. If there is anything positive it is a Jennifer has said to me, that the internet will allow rapid response to poor reporting.
Maybe the internet will bring about a true free market in reporting and the invisible hand concept Adam Smith suggested works for prices will operate. That may be just convoluted thinking though. I have just spent 3 hours on an email to the Co-op on the eco-town and I am perhaps past my best.
What it does show though is that the media most often report a simplified message. This may be where Roger has come from.
Personally I think the argument about cost is true, and I have some doubt how helpful regularly changing definitions is. Recently I received something that redefines the language around disability (I think that word may even be incorrect now) and tells us not to use the term carer for someone who looks after someone.
I have seen two generations almost unable to engage in reasonable discussion over race as the terms have been redefined several times in the older generations lifetime. This actually happened in my family. There was no intent other than to communicate but somehow that was not possible.
Generally I would hope a code of conduct that covers respect and equality to all should suffice. What do you think?
about 1 year ago
I only recently learnt the origin of the word man, and think it would be no bad thing to teach it so that people understsand that phrases like policeman or chairman are not necessarily gender specific, though I have found lots of women who are angered by being called “chair” and insist on chairman (and not chairperson).
I had heard that woman was not as suggested wife-man but means more man with a womb.
But I would say to Alun that you have taken a rather contrived item to draw a lot of meaning into what the Conservative MEPs have said. I don’t think anyone was reported extensively enough for us to really know what their true perspective is.
I doubt the Conservative Party euro strategy will run this as a the headline issue. To suggest otherwise would imagine your readers are particularly gullible.