Words Used To Confound

The Canadian language is dying. It didn’t get that way because it became too refined or scholastic for the average citizen but because it became an inane version of its former self. Words without power become shells that merely hold ideological axioms that seek to instantly answer every question with party approval and without thought.Consider the sheer confusion around the federal government’s decision to shelve that Canadian component of the Kyoto Protocol. Read some background here. Cabinet members have confirmed, then denied, then confirmed again that they will let it go. It is their reasoning for abandoning the commitment that reveals how political vocabulary has become the stuff of ideology. Listen to Environment Minister Peter Kent’s own reasoning: “I am neither confirming nor denying,” that the feds are pulling out, but added, “Kyoto is in the past.” In other words, no confirmation but it’s done. That kind of wording is meant to minimize opposition. It now seems likely that the decision will be announced just prior to Christmas, when they hope no one is listening.The minister also stated he is looking for a solution in which all countries will do their part before Canada signs on to any new deal. In other words, our role isn’t about leading but following.The issue here is not about Kyoto itself but the language that’s used to confound citizens. Not even that, these words are used to intentionally minimize our response. Not said are some other pressing realities. What little is left of environmental credibility for Canada will be washed away internationally if this deal is cancelled. Other countries have been trying for years to coordinate some kind of global framework for dealing with the looming environmental catastrophe and they have stayed on with Kyoto, despite its difficulties. Canada is about to lose those partnerships. Moreover, with no international law guiding future emissions if Kyoto fails, this country will be one of the leaders guiding the world into a lawless future – hardly a badge of honour.To get all this accomplished with a minimum of fuss, words – confusing and veiled meanings – have been used to keep us in the dark. This happens all the time, and when they are employed to excuse an MP for sleeping during House proceedings, we are meant to just laugh it off - and we will. We were told it was because that particular member had been in a car crash a few days earlier and that this was the cause for his nodding off. Yet in my brief sojourn in the House, I caught him napping on some other occasions before the crash. But it doesn’t matter, right? You’re content with the alibi, correct? We accept such tomfoolery not because we believe the excuse but because we dismiss it for its very facetiousness.  As Rick Mercer said on his rant last night, in most other jobs the MP would have caused a huge controversy. But, no, not in the House of Commons.But this sleepy episode pales in comparison to a world operating with no global laws on environmental degradation. Whatever your opinion on climate change, we all know something is happening, and to not have a mechanism in place to deal with the consequences is just foolish governing.To accomplish this fateful decision the government chose to use baffling definitions to prompt us to just turn away, which we likely will. But it doesn’t change the reality that we as citizens, despite our distractions, are not being dealt with straight-up by our representatives. Sadly our children will pay the price for this bafflegab.Let me put this plainly. The reason Kyoto is not being accepted is because it was a Liberal initiative – as was the Kelowna Accord, the gun registry and our progressive influence at the UN. It wasn’t that these things were good or bad in themselves, for such things can be debated. It was rather that they were brought forward during Liberal times and the present government has been counting the years until they can not only decapitate Liberals themselves but the very protocols that the Chretien/Martin governments signed. This never was about policy, but punishment for the years the Conservatives spent in opposition. Majority power is now theirs and it’s payback time. If the Liberals or NDP continue the practice, then the circle of strife will continue until someone governs above it.To accomplish all this the misuse of language was the key strategy. Politicians have been good at this for decades; it’s now an art form with sinister consequences. The only answer to all of this is not to demand that they tell the truth but that we reclaim the language of citizenship. We have become the victims of political intrigue and ideology, and at times we have permitted ourselves to further it.  True, authentic, powerful public language is gone, only to be replaced by code words, veiled threats and increasingly empty rhetoric. When traditional languages disappear, so do culture and meaning. Eventually the people themselves disappear, separated from what once made them human and distinct. As Noam Chomsky states, “All over the place there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.” This is the antithesis of good citizenship, and the only way to get it back is to recover that most coveted possession we lost – our transparent language of progressive thought, even if we have to wrestle it away from a government who should treat us with more respect.