Doublespeak..Nineteen-eighty-four

When I was twenty, George Orwell's "1984" seemed like a time so far distant, it wasn't worth contemplating. The story was just as difficult to comprehend.

Occasionally,I am reminded of it. A couple of weeks ago Council adopted two policies, as required by the province,to support legislation for the prevention of violence and harassment in the workplace. The theme of the novel came back to haunt me.

I thought Council should take time to consider the policies prior to adoption.The Mayor invited the CAO to provide input. The CAO noted the policies had been in place since March.

The staff report noted an alternative to the recommendation was for Council" to provide comments on the policies and programs as presented and refer back to staff for amendments or further consultation as so directed"

That's not what happened. The policies and programs were adopted holus bolus.No need for Council to worry our pretty little heads about things that staff have in hand.

"Nineteen-eighty-four" is a novel about "an oligarchical collectivist society".A film was made of the book. It was entitled "Doublespeak"

The problem I have with the policies to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace is the language . I find it threatening, intimidating, fraught with potential for misinterpretation,harm and harassment.

At one point, it appears to suggest, despite the alternative provided in the staff report, no negative comment can be made about the policies.

Just by writing about the report,I may be in breach of town policies to prohibit violence and harassment in the workplace.

I've read the report several times. I don't always trust my first reaction.

It's not clear if the language used is from the actual legislation. Not that any assurance can be obtained there. I'm convinced there's an army of thousands of gremlins at Queen's Park whose main purpose is to create mounds of verbiage destined specifically to create legal problems for municipalities bound to implement their cockamamie legislation.

The language is disturbing. Potential for misinterpretation even more so. But the part that might be most helpful to particular municipal employees. which might have been useful to discuss will slide under the radar once again.

Two firefighters were recently killed. They entered a building and the blazing roof collapsed on them immediately.

Firefighters work in crews with one in charge. I waited to hear if they were ordered to enter the building.Was there an indication of lives needing to be saved.

Several years ago, seven firefighters were killed in a warehouse fire in the west-end of Toronto. It was the second fire in days with the same circumstances. Two warehouses stored gigantic rolls of absorbent paper. The men were ordered to place ladders against the sodden giants. The tissue collapsed. They ran to the rear of the building. There was no escape.

Firefighters came from world-wide to the funeral to honour their bravery.

The new legislation provides for huge fines and even incarceration if greivous harm harm or death results from disregard for safety.

The second conference I attended as a relatively new councillor, was a firefighter's conference.

A speaker advised the majority of injuries and death suffered by firefighters are the result of not following safety rules.He didn't mention following orders of the heirarchy.

I thought there was at least one aspect of the beefed-up health and safety and violence in the workplace legislation that was relevant and could stand some scrutiny by those of us, by virtue of adopting the program and policies,who will now be held responsible for employee safety on penalty of massive fines and possibly incarceration.

But Council decided it was not to be. It was more important to give it the rubber stamp efficaciously.

Time doesn't need to be wasted on  serious deliberation.


I