A rose by any other name would still be 'illegal' if it arrived by boat apparently

“But Rabbit, I wasn’t going to eat it. I was just going to taste it!”

Just like that… With a deft piece of linguistic sleight of hand Winnie the Pooh attempts to have his ‘hunny’ and eat it too, by muddling the meaning of a word we all thought was pretty clear. We’ve all done it though; smoking without ‘inhaling’, kissing without ‘cheating’. Words are so flexible these days, why not bend their meaning a little?

Semantics is becoming increasingly de rigueur in Australian politics too. Words, stripped of their everyday meanings are being teased into increasingly bizarre shapes to defend or justify the whims of po-faced pollies.

‘Entitlements’ has been all the rage for the last few weeks, as politicians attempt to tease out exactly when and where it’s appropriate to be campaigning; on the ski slopes, at a wedding, a triathlon? Now ‘Illegal’ has jumped out of the dictionary, with the government this week seeking to ‘clarify’ their position on asylum seekers arriving by boat.

George Orwell, a contemporary of A. A. Milne, was quite the critic of language such as that used by Winnie the Pooh above. Orwell believed in clarity of speech over language that sought to conceal or deny meaning. The author of works such as ‘Animal Farm’ (think Winnie the Pooh but fascist) and ‘1984’, his writing has left us a legacy of caution against institutional surveillance, doublespeak and control.

In considering Pooh’s vernacular use of ‘taste’ as a means to eat the forbidden ‘hunny’ Orwell would observe:

“... modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug.”

To put it another way; Winnie the Pooh is lying, and passing it off as the truth.

What then of the government’s edict that must refer to seekers of asylum, arrival by boat as ‘illegal’?

Their position that asylum seeker boat arrivals are ‘illegal’ is entirely consistent with their statements in opposition. It’s a wonder anyone’s surprised, they’ve been singing this tune for a while. Yet consistency of use is a meagre standard for truth, ask anyone who’s tried to quit smoking about ‘the last one’.

The government’s use of ‘illegal’ relies on the use of the term in Article 31.1 Of the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the text of which states:

The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Have a think about this… It doesn’t say all asylum seeker boat arrivals are illegal, it’s basically saying that if you are illegal the government isn’t allowed to penalise you. Sure that controversial word ‘illegal’ is invoked, but that doesn’t accord it general application.

Critics of the government’s use of the term ‘illegal’ question which law refugee arrivals are supposedly breaking. Their point: that illegal means against the law. This is the common meaning of the word.

So far the government have not indicated which law is being broken.

So what though? It doesn’t change the fact that people are arriving. It doesn’t change the fact that they are being settled offshore. It doesn’t even change the fact that the bulk of these arrivals are found to be genuine refugees. So why are the government so worried about what word is being used?

The government are worried about the words because these words help shape the way the Australian public (that’s you!) think about asylum seekers arriving by boat.

The process is quick, sometimes even unconscious: nobody wants to lock up innocent people who have suffered poverty and starvation. That’s just cruel right?! But if someone is ‘illegal’ that must mean they are a criminal, and we lock up criminals

George Orwell was particularly suspicious of politicians use of language...

“Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

So let’s define our terms here, because clarity is extremely important. Next time an overweight bear tries to get you to believe he’s all innocent don’t trust him straight away. Listen, then look at his actions and ask what is really behind the words he’s using.