Photo by David Vasilliev / The Phoenix News
“[Language] becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts,” George Orwell propounds in his renowned essay “Politics and the English Language”. While reading the UBCSUO Facebook page regarding the pro-life supporters’ activities around campus in early October, their words seemed to be very much accurate. Some comments on the union’s post are perfect cases of popular patterns of thought that I notice quite often with politically tense events, that I believe need a brief wringing. My wish is for any position to avoid dogmatic sayings that rest solely on emotion and promote more critically viable arguments.
Consider Michelle Jorgensen, who writes “the choices are to be assaulted by what some people would call violent sexual imagery or child pornography…” This is an extraordinarily flagrant claim. Here we have 2 distinct corruptions of which to address. How on earth is being confronted by a dissenting opinion equivalent to what is here called “assault”? The comparison of seeing posters you do not approve of with being physically beaten seems wrong, and in effect reduces the ability for the word assault to carry its required seriousness. If we are to ever strive towards an egalitarian society, we absolutely must be tolerant of others. This means allowing for dissent, to do otherwise is petty—wrong opinions needn’t be censured with hyperbole. Secondly, there is a scary perversion in the claim that an aborted fetus is violently sexual or equitable to child pornography. I sincerely hope this is laughed off by the average reader as doing nothing but trivializing the coercive and disgusting practice of this morally indefensible act. The irony of course, is that Jorgensen puts forth that straw man in mockery, as if it were “theirs” (those who support the pro-life position), but uses it in her defense as to why they should be silenced.
“Freedom of Speech does not extend to hate crimes, and the imagery and the insinuations on the written signs are certainly hate crimes… these “protesters” – they are terrorists,” Naythan Walsh asserts. I would advise that of course speech does not extend to act. Surely this is not a crime then, I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant hate speech. I ask, if this was his minority voice that was receiving censure, would he accept it? Free speech includes presumed hate speech and liberty does not just work for your stance; it is by its very nature opposed to all illegitimate authority. What, then, is implied with this want to quiet other’s expression but authority manifest? Observe the right for a different opinion, and if you disagree, make the better argument. Lastly, to state that they are terrorists is hollow and his appeal to authority by the Canadian government’s definition does not even apply here on a closer reading. To be intimidated with the pictures of what you are defending seems to be missing certain grounding in the conversation, one which should not be clouded by feelings, accept reality, and still be a defensible stance.
This empty rhetoric takes great effort to reduce, as nuance is hard. I am optimistic however; we can always strive to root out the degeneracy between language and thought and I again hear Orwell: “the point is that the process is reversible.”