The English language is quite a wonder. Often confusing, disorientating and sometimes even nonsense, it's no wonder communication breakdowns can be credited with so many problems.
It doesn't help some words are meant to be confusing, words that are supposed to indicate one thing but in fact may mean something else entirely. There surely could be a book written about code words, and an entire chapter could be devoted to the word diversity.
What does diversity mean? One dictionary defines it as “dissimilitude.” The same dictionary says “diverse” means essentially different, or distinct. Typed into Wikipedia, a mirage of suggestions come up, from biodiversity to multiculturalism, with subcategories in finance, marketing and politics. It can mean many things to many people, but its use is always rhetorical.
So when people tell me diversity is so great, I kind of scratch my head and wonder what they’re really saying. To not favour the term is almost a sin in some circles. Sometimes, the word and the fawning praise for it masks serious issues and is used to quash debate. To be not in favour of diversity is to be a monster, some might say. Yet, proponents of it are unable to give any definition other than a wishy washy program for political correctness and a liberal immigration policy. In some cases, it’s a word used to stifle serious talk on complicated issues.
By far though, the worst code word offender is "social justice," the swan song for those who eagerly await the opportunity to stomp on real freedoms in the name of group rights. In the name of social justice, the worst of the worst crimes against humanity can be permitted, it's all in who is interpreting what "justice" is to be meted out.
These days, even "human rights" is misused, like the so called human rights commissions which have taken away the right to free speech, and in many cases have limited the rights of employers and job creators.
Fortunately, a Canadian Human Rights Act amendment brought forward by MP Brian Storseth became one step closer to passing this week, but that still leaves similar anti-freedom legislation in the provinces, which have been less eager to act.
To get deeper in the quagmire, just take a look at the rhetoric surrounding the 2012 Alberta budget. It’s as if politicians cannot speak clearly any more, and must muddy even something that should be all about numbers. Instead, the budget is “investing in people,” “advancing world-leading resource stewardship” and “honouring Alberta’s communities.”
Well, OK, investing in people actually means putting taxpayer dollars into departments, the results of which are unknown. Advancing “world leading resource stewardship” must mean something about oil, this is Alberta after all. Honouring communities refers to tourism, parks and recreation, municipal funding and, here’s another one, “Safe Communities.” It’s as if the inventors of this word play actually thought the community would be safer by naming the organization that way.
What I would give for the government to invest in a translator to cut the granola and get to the point. But code words are the order of the day, leaving the public to grapple with the real world meaning.
