Political Correctness versus Clarity

The propensity of political correctness to sacrifice brevity at the altar of public opinion has been the cause of both mirth and consternation for years. From office behaviour to social interactions, the spoken or written word is scrutinised mercilessly for any hint of transgressions, with instant repercussions, if any, are discovered. That begs the question of whether political correctness can coexist with plain English. Recently, a senior woman lawyer objected to the use of the word ‘keep’ by the Supreme Court when pronouncing on an aspect of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The learned judges’ choice of outmoded words for companions usually described in more on-trend, gender-neutral terms as ‘significant other’ or ‘partner’ could be understood, if not condoned, as they may not be au courant with popular parlance; but consider the consequences of their succumbing to political correctness. ‘Keep’, ‘concubine’ and ‘mistress’, derogatory as they may sound, have a certain succinctness and specificity which can only be helpful as the purpose of law is to be precise. The real challenge is to find alternative words that can maintain that exactitude without being long-winded. In fact, this week’s move by Scotland Yard to change the name of its Vice Squad to Serious Crime Directorate 9: Human Exploitation and Organised Crime Command (SCD9) is a pointer to the dangers of political correctness.

The new term hardly exudes the peremptory clarity of the older four letter word that famously stopped bad guys in their tracks, and inspired countless heroic TV serials. The new nomenclature has all the chutzpah of a Soviet-style administrative department. If our judges can reconcile these apparently contradictory demands, it could be a very significant intervention.