urv citizenship dossier 2010-11

8/8/2019 Urv Citizenship Dossier 2010-11

1/23

CITIZENSHIP

PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

Dr Angela Jackson

UNIVERSITY OF ROVIRA & VIRGILITARRAGONA

2010-2011


2/23

2

CITIZENSHIP: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

Aims

Through history, film, literature and current affairs, this course aims to raise key

issues relating to the subject of citizenship. The main recurring themes throughout the

course are:

Equality

Freedom

Rights and Responsibilities

The Perils of Complacency

Preparation

Students should readNineteen Eighty-FourbyGeorge Orwell (1945).

It is available in English on line at www.george-orwell.org/1984/0.html

Students should also read the extracts in the Course Dossier.

Lectures

Lectures will highlight certain aspects of the historical context of citizenship and

illustrate these through the analysis of scenes from films and the texts in the Course

Dossier. Extracts from the following films will be shown during the lectures:

Uncle Toms Cabin (1927)

The International Brigaders Among Us (2010)Bend it Like Beckham (2002)

Life of Brian (1979)

1984 (1984)

Assessment

Course marks will be based on a final written assessment carried out in class.


3/23

3

SESSION ONE:

Introduction

What is citizenship?

Historical Concepts of Equality.

Radical Idealism

Text A: The Levellers: The Agreement of the People, 1649

Revolution

Text B: The American Declaration of Independence, 1776

SlaveryText C: Appendix to Uncle Toms Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe, 1852

Film: Uncle Toms Cabin (1927)

SESSION TWO:

Fighting for Freedom

The Womens Movement in Britain

Text D: Petition of the Mistresses of Dulwich High School, 1884

The Spanish Civil War

Text E: Miguel Unamuno and Milln Astray, 1936

Film: The International Brigaders Among Us (2010)

SESSION THREE:

Rights and Responsibilities

Cultural Diversity in Britain

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/glance/uk-snapshots.aspTest questions for those wishing to become British citizens at:

http://www.lifeintheuktest.gov.uk/htmlsite/self_10.html

http://www.ukcitizenshiptest.co.uk/?trackid=002509

Text F: Women who escape forced marriages, 2010

Film:Bend it Like Beckham (2002)

Restrictions on freedom

Text G: The limits to freedom of speech, 2007.

Text H: Curtains for play after Sikh theatre protests (2004)

Text I: Religious leaders call for end to legal euthanasia (2009)

Film: Life of Brian (1979)


4/23

4

SESSION FOUR

The Perils of Complacency

Big Brother is watching you?

Text J: Newspeak, fromNineteen Eighty-FourbyGeorge Orwell, (1945)

Text K: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Film: 1984 (1984 version with John Hurt and Richard Burton).

Assessment


5/23

5

COURSE TEXTS

TEXT A: THE AGREEMENT OF THE PEOPLE, 1649

TheAgreement of the People was the principal constitutional manifesto issued by the

Levellers in England. It was intended to be signed by all those who wished to enjoy

rights of citizenship. TheAgreementdeveloped over several versions between

October 1647 and May 1649.

A Levellers view:

How ridiculous it is, that one man should have 3 or 4,000 sheep, while his neighbourgoes all in tatter, with not a coat to put on his back. Why should one man have his barnfull of corn and another mans family be pained with hunger? We should take moneyfrom everyone who earns more than 100 a year, and give it to those who have nothing.Every man should have a say in the government. The smallest he should have a voice aswell as the greatest he.

In the spring of 1649 many Levellers met together at Putney, south of London. For

several days they sat and argued about what kind of government England should have.

They all agreed that England should be a republic, but not about much else. They

were especially interested in whether people should be allowed to follow different

religions. They also disagreed about what rights the people should have. Eventually

they wrote down their decisions. They called their proposals The Agreement of the

People.


6/23

6

A fully developed version of theAgreement of the People was published in May

1649. Its proposals included:

The right to vote for all men over the age of 21 (excepting servants, beggarsand Royalists)

No army officer, treasurer or lawyer could be an MP (to prevent conflict ofinterest)

Annual elections to Parliament with MPs serving one term only Equality of all persons before the law Trials should be heard before 12 jurymen, freely chosen by their community

No-one could be punished for refusing to testify against themselves incriminal cases

The law should proceed in English and cases should not extend longer than sixmonths

The death penalty to be applied only in cases of murder Abolition of imprisonment for debt Tithes should be abolished and parishioners have the right to choose their

ministers

Taxation in proportion to real or personal property Abolition of military conscription, monopolies and excise taxes

This version was published after the Leveller leaders Lilburne, Overton, Walwyn and

Prince had been imprisoned by order of the Council of State and a few weeks before

the suppression of the Army Levellers at Burford, after which the Leveller movement

was effectively finished.


7/23

7

TEXT B: DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, 1776

The opening of the American Declaration of Independence written by Thomas

Jefferson in 1776, states as follows:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created

equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the

Pursuit of Happiness.

No document in American history can compare with the Declaration of Independence

in the place that it holds in the minds and hearts of American citizens. It is in many

ways the root document of that democracy. Not only did the declaration represent a

milestone in the history of the United States of America, it also turned the political

philosophies of 18th century Europe into real political practice.


8/23

8

TEXT C: HARRIET BEECHER STOWE, Uncle Toms Cabin, 1852

From Chapter XLV, Concluding Remarks

The writer has given only a faint shadow, a dim picture, of the anguish and despair

that are, at this very moment, riving thousands of hearts, shattering thousands of

families and driving a helpless and sensitive race to frenzy and despair. There are

those living who know the mothers whom this accursed traffic has driven to the

murder of their children, and themselves seeking in death a shelter from woes more

dreaded than death. Nothing of tragedy can be written, can be spoken, can be

conceived, that equals the frightful reality of scenes daily and hourly acting on our

shores, beneath the shadow of American law and the shadow of the cross of Christ!

And now, men and women of American, is this a thing to be trifled with,

apologized for, and passed over in silence? Farmers of Massachusetts, of New

Hampshire, of Vermont, of Connecticut, who read this book by the blaze of your

winter-evening fire; strong hearted, generous sailors and ship owners of Maine is

this a thing for you to countenance and encourage? Brave and generous men of New

York, farmers of rich and joyous Ohio, and ye of the wide prairie states, answer: is

this a thing for you to protect and countenance?


9/23

9

And you, mothers of America you who have learned by the cradles of your own

children to love and feel for all mankind by the sacred love you bear your child; by

your joy in his beautiful spotless infancy; by the motherly pity and tenderness with

which you guide his growing years; by the anxieties of his education; by the prayers

you breathe for his souls eternal good I beseech you, pity the mother who has all

your affections, and not one legal right to protect, guide, or educate the child of her

bosom! By the sick hour of your child; by those dying eyes, which you can never

forget; by those last cries that wrung your heart when you could neither help nor save;

by the desolation of that empty cradle, that silent nursery I beseech you, pity those

mothers that are constantly made childless by the American slave-trade! And, say,

mothers of America, is this a thing to be defended, sympathized with, passed over in

silence?


10/23

10

TEXT D: Petition of the Mistresses of Dulwich High School - 3 November 1884.

To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Great Britain and Irelandin Parliament assembled.The humble petition of the undersigned the Head Mistress

and Assistant Mistresses of the Dulwich High School, Sheweth [Shows]:

That a measure is now before Parliament for extending the franchise to all men

householders in the United Kingdom.

That by this Bill two millions of the least educated section of the Community will be

added to the electorate, while educated and intelligent women, who are head of

households are excluded from the operation of the Bill although they contributeequally with men to the taxation of the Country.

That among the persons so excluded are women landowners, who form one seventh of

the land proprietors of the country; women of means and position living on their own

property, schoolmistresses and other teachers, women farmers, merchants

manufacturers and shopkeepers besides large number of self-supporting women

engaged in other occupations. They believe that the claim of these householders for

admission within the pale of the Constitution is as reasonable as that of the County

householders and that they would be at least equal in general and political intelligence

to the great body of agricultural and other labourers who are to be enfranchised by the

Government Bill.

That the injustice of excluding women householders from representation would be

greatly intensified by the operation of the new service franchise, under which the

servants of a Lady, living in houses for which she paid rent and taxes, would have the

vote in right of the occupation of those houses while she herself though the head of

the household would have no vote.

Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that in any measure which may be submitted

to your Right Honourable House, for amending the Law relating to the Representation

of the People, your Lordships will make such provisions as shall seem expedient forthe exercise of the Franchise by duly qualified women.


11/23

11

TEXT E: UNAMUNO AND MILLN ASTRAY, 1936

Milln-Astray is perhaps best remembered for a heated argument with Miguel de

Unamuno, the Basque writer and philosopher, on October 12, 1936. The celebrationof the Dia de la Raza had brought together a politically diverse crowd at the

University of Salamanca, including Enrique Pla y Deniel, the Archbishop of

Salamanca, and Carmen Polo Martnez-Valds, the wife of Franco, and Milln-Astray

himself.

According to the British historian Hugh Thomas in The Spanish Civil War(1961), theaffair began with an impassioned speech by the Falangist writer Jos Mara Pemn.

After this, Professor Francisco Maldonado decried Catalonia and the Basque Country

as "cancers on the body of the nation," adding that "Fascism, the healer of Spain, will

know how to exterminate them, cutting into the live flesh, like a determined surgeon

free from false sentimentalism."

From somewhere in the auditorium, someone cried out the motto "Viva la Muerte!"As was his habit, Milln-Astray responded with "Espaa!"; the crowd replied with

"Una!"He repeated "Espaa!"; the crowd then replied "Grande!"A third time,Milln-Astray shouted "Espaa!"; the crowd responded "Libre!"This was a common

Falangist cheer. Later, a group of uniformed Falangists entered, saluting the portrait

of Franco that hung on the wall.

On the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War,

Milln Astray was recruited by General

Francisco Franco to join his staff in Seville.

Soon afterwards he was placed in charge of the

Nationalist propaganda operation.


12/23

12

Unamuno, who was presiding over the meeting, rose up slowly and addressed the

crowd: "You are waiting for my words. You know me well, and know I cannot remain

silent for long. Sometimes, to remain silent is to lie, since silence can be interpreted as

assent. I want to comment on the so-called speech of Professor Maldonado, who iswith us here. I will ignore the personal offence to the Basques and Catalonians. I

myself, as you know, was born in Bilbao. The Bishop," Unamuno gestured to the

Archbishop of Salamanca, "Whether you like it or not, is Catalan, born in Barcelona.

But now I have heard this insensible and necrophilous oath, "Viva la Muerte!", and I,having spent my life writing paradoxes that have provoked the ire of those who do not

understand what I have written, and being an expert in this matter, find this ridiculous

paradox repellent. General Milln-Astray is an invalid. There is no need for us to say

this with whispered tones. He is an invalid of war. So was Cervantes. But

unfortunately, Spain today has too many invalids. And, if God does not help us, soon

it will have very many more. It torments me to think that General Milln-Astray could

dictate the norms of the psychology of the masses. An invalid, who lacks the spiritualgreatness of Cervantes, hopes to find relief by adding to the number of invalids

around him."

Irritated, Milln-Astray responded: "Muera la inteligencia! Viva la Muerte!"

("Death to intelligence! Long live death!"), provoking applause from the Falangists.

Pemn, in an effort to calm the crowd, exclaimed "No! Viva la inteligencia!Mueran los malos intelectuales!"("No! Long live intelligence! Death to the bad

intellectuals!")

Unamuno, unfazed, continued: "This is the temple of intelligence, and I am its high

priest. You are profaning its sacred domain. You will succeed, because you have

enough brute force. But you will not convince. In order to convince it is necessary to

persuade, and to persuade you will need something that you lack: reason and right in

the struggle. I see it is useless to ask you to think of Spain. I have spoken." Milln-

Astray, controlling himself, shouted "Take the lady's arm!" Unamuno took Carmen

Polo by the arm and left in her protection.

Unamuno's quote "Venceris, pero no convenceris"("You will succeed, but you will

not convince") was, paradoxically, the slogan of the Salamanca municipality

protesting the devolution from the Archive of the Spanish Civil War to the Catalan

Government of Catalan documentation seized during the war by the fascist forces.Unamuno's heirs publicly decried this use.

Miguel de Unamuno, 1864-1936Essayist, novelist, poet, playwright and philosopher.

Rector of the University of Salamanca.


13/23


14/23

14

'It's partly because there's more awareness out there,' she says. 'The previous

generation was reluctant to talk about forced marriage for fear of bringing shame on

the family, but kids today know more about their rights, and they know there are

people they can go to for help.'

Not that it makes Pinkie's job any easier. She still suffers the heartbreak of returningwith girls to pick up possessions from their family homes, where not even the police

escort can stem the flow of invective from the parents. She's still forced to juggle 14

residents and their children between three staff members, as well as negotiating

budget limitations and legal obstacles to her clients' wellbeing.

The common thread in all cases is this concept of izzat - the honour that the daughter

must uphold. The reputation of the family rests on her ability to make a good marriage

and that reputation can be dented by rumours about her behaviour, even if those

rumours are unfounded. Concerns about the phenomenon of honour killings

eventually led to the creation of the Forced Marriage Unit [FMU] in 2005.' 'It's

important to understand the difference between forced and arranged marriages,' saysHenricson-Bell, the joint head of the FMU. 'We're not clamping down on the cultural

practice of families introducing sons and daughters to potential partners and letting

nature run its course that's fine. What we're talking about are human-rights

violations. Teachers we talk to freely admit that a few years ago they'd watch whole

swathes of their classroom go abroad on summer holidays to get married, but they

never said anything because they believed it would be culturally inappropriate. That's

not the case anymore. It's everyone's responsibility.'

As a joint effort between the Home and Foreign Offices, the FMU regularly mobilises

overseas units in countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh to rescue and return

British citizens who have been taken abroad for forced marriages. The team

responded to almost 1,700 calls in 2009 and assisted in 240 cases, 88 of them in

Britain.

Yet some, like Jasvinder Sanghera, believe there's still much to be done. She's

lobbying David Cameron to make good on his electoral promise to criminalise forced

marriage (the statutory guidelines of the 2008 Forced Marriage Civil Protection Act

carry no penalty to enforce implementation, and the affiliated protection orders can

lead to under-age victims being returned to their families, which she says is 'very

worrying'). Others claim that victims are still falling into gaps between government

policy and practice.


15/23

15

TEXT G: THE LIMITS TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH

26/11/2007

The debate at the Oxford Union featuring BNP leader Nick Griffin and historianDavid Irving highlights fundamental questions about the limits to free speech.

Some protestors called for the debate to be cancelled, both because it might offend

people and because it could stir up racial hatred. But there are others who think people

should be allowed to say whatever they think - regardless of the offence it might

cause, and even if there is a potential threat to public order. For some anti-fascist

campaigners like Donna Guthrie, the fact that David Irving's views are offensive to

large numbers of people is enough to prevent him from speaking.

"Irving is a Holocaust denier, and giving him a platform is an insult to the millions

who were murdered by the Nazis."

Ms Guthrie - National Campaigner for the group Unite Against Fascism - said there

had also been a rise in racial attacks whenever Nick Griffin's BNP party gained seats

on local councils. She added: "Free speech is not uncontrolled. Speech does not

happen in a vacuum. We know that when a fascist organisation speaks, there are real

consequences."

In Britain there are laws protecting our right to free speech. But they are so hedged

with qualifications that there is still plenty of room for arguments. British citizens are

covered by the European Convention on Human Rights which states: "Everyone has

the right to freedom of expression." But it adds that governments can restrict free

speech for, among other reasons, in the interests of national security, preserving

public safety and for the prevention of disorder or crime. For libertarians like Brendan

O'Neill, editor of the anti-censorship website Spiked, the convention does not go

nearly far enough in protecting his right to say whatever he likes. He said that those

who try to censor debate because it might stir up trouble were under-estimating the

intelligence of the audience.

"I believe that there should be no limits at all on free speech," he said. "No-one hasthe right not to be offended: that is the essence of a free society."

"The only time free speech should be restricted is if there is a clear and imminentdanger of violence," he said,

"Otherwise, even if what is being said might be defined as inflammatory then we still

should not censor it," he said. "People are not attack dogs - they are not automatically

going to become violent if they hear controversial things."

"Rather, these views should be expressed and challenged. Otherwise these horrible

ideas will not be defeated, but will survive and fester underground."


16/23

16

Jonathan Heawood, English director of the worldwide association of writers, Pen,

opposed a ban on the debate - but admitted it was a difficult issue, given the views of

the two speakers.

"We don't take the position of 'anything goes' when it comes to free speech. There are

sometimes legitimate arguments about legal issues and national security."

"However, although Irving's views about the Holocaust are an extremely distorted

version of history, it is hard to maintain that they directly incite racial hatred."

Gay rights activist Peter Tatchell counters this with the example of Hitler and the rise

of the Nazi party in Germany before the Second World War. In a piece entitled: "Do

fascists have a right to free speech?" he writes: "It is possible that if there had been no

free speech for Hitler and the Nazi Party in Germany during the early 1920s... they

may not have grown in strength and influence.

"Denying them an opportunity to propagandise, gain respectability and enter thepolitical mainstream might have thwarted their rise to power. Tens of millions of lives

may have been saved if the free speech of Nazis had been suppressed early on."

He added: "In extreme circumstances, there should be intolerance of intolerance.

Otherwise some people can use free speech and their human rights to undermine the

human rights of others."


17/23

17

TEXT H:CURTAINS FOR PLAY AFTER SIKH THEATRE PROTESTS

Daily Mail,20 December 2004

Theatre producers in Birmingham have decided to end a controversial play for

security and safety reasons after it sparked a mini-riot among demonstrators whobelieved it demeaned the Sikh religion. A performance of Behzti - a black comedy

depicting murder and sex abuse taking place in a fictional Sikh temple - was running

at the Birmingham Rep.

Stuart Rogers, executive director of the Birmingham Repertory Theatre, said the

venue had been left with no alternative but to end its run of Behzti because of a

genuine threat to the safety of theatre-goers. Speaking at a press conference at the city

centre playhouse, he said: "It is now clear that we cannot guarantee the safety of our

audiences. Very reluctantly, therefore, we have decided to end the current run of the

play purely on safety grounds.

The decision came after police met community leaders and theatre officials to discuss

the disorder which forced Saturday's production of the play to be cancelled. The Rep

had been urged not to abandon the play despite the violence, which saw the city centre

building stormed by Sikhs who damaged doors, set off fire alarms and attacked

backstage equipment. Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris has claimed the protests

against Behzti were "exacerbated" by proposals for laws to ban incitement to religious

hatred. Saturday's disorder was also condemned by the Rep, but the play itself came

under fire from Birmingham's Roman Catholic Archbishop, who described it as

offensive to all faiths.

In a statement, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols said: "In recent weeks the Sikh

community has acted in a reasonable and measured way in representing their deep

concerns to the Birmingham Repertory Theatre. I regret that the Repertory Theatre, in

the interests of the common good, has not been more responsive.

"Such a deliberate, even if fictional, violation of the sacred place of the Sikh religion

demeans the sacred places of every religion."

But Dr Harris, an honorary associate of the National Secular Society, blamed the

Government's plans to ban incitement of religious hatred for fanning the flames of the

furore surrounding the play. The MP claimed: "While any offence caused by a play ora novel is regrettable, it is vital for free speech and the future of our creative arts that

this production is not closed on the basis of protests or intense lobbying.


18/23

18

TEXT I: RELIGIOUS LEADERS CALL FOR END TO 'LEGALEUTHANASIA'

The Telegraph,28 June 2009

Three of Britain's most senior religious leaders have joined forces in a rare bid to stop

a Lords amendment that they fear would pave the way to "legalising euthanasia". Dr

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, argues that there are moves to

legalise euthanasia by the back door.

Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury; Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop

of Westminster, and Sir Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, have come together for the

first time to urge peers to reject proposals that would allow families to help loved

ones to die abroad free from the threat of prosecution. In a joint letter to The Daily

Telegraph, they wrote that this legal change "would surely put vulnerable people at

serious risk, especially sick people who are anxious about the burden their illness maybe placing on others".

It is the first time since his installation last month that the new Archbishop of

Westminster has publicly joined with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chief

Rabbi to intervene in a legislative matter.

Lord Falconer, the former Lord Chancellor, made the proposal to drop the threat of

prosecution to those accompanying the terminally ill to die abroad, in an amendment

to the Coroners and Justice Bill last month. It could be debated in the Lords as early

tomorrow.

In their letter, the clerics also criticised legislators for trying to legalise euthanasia by

the back door. They wrote: "This amendment would mark a shift in British law

towards legalising euthanasia. We do not believe that such a fundamental change in

the law should be sought by way of an amendment to an already complex Bill. It

should be rejected."

Under British law assisting a suicide carries a sentence of up to 14 years. To date at

least 115 Britons have travelled to Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, to die

at the Dignitas clinic in Zurich. Some 800 more are on the clinic's waiting list.

Decisions on whether to bring charges on assisted suicides matters are taken on acase-by-case basis and so far no Briton who has accompanied a dying friend or

relative to Dignitas has been prosecuted.

Those who object to any softening of Britain's euthanasia laws take this as evidence

that the current law works well to deter assisted suicide, with one saying the law had

"a stern face and a kind heart". But others argue that the law forces terminally ill

people to travel abroad to die earlier than is medically necessary, as well as causing

"real distress" to their loved-ones.

Dr Peter Saunders, director of the campaign group Care Not Killing, said if the law

were changed then vulnerable terminally ill people might feel pressured to endingtheir own lives for financial or emotional reasons.


19/23

19

"We think that the current law works well, it has a stern face and a kind heart," he

said. "We see Lord Falconer's amendment as an attempt to legalise assisted euthanasia

by stealth to get the principle established. The next step would be say 'We need to

change the law here as well now'," he warned.

However, euthanasia supporters keenly supported Lord Falconer's amendment. SarahWootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said: "At least 115 Britons have

travelled abroad to die, and many more look set to follow them. This is despite a law

which threatens anybody who accompanies them with prosecution and imprisonment

of up to 14 years.

"This law causes real distress to those contemplating travelling abroad to die and their

loved ones, and in reality does very little to protect against abuse."

She stressed that Lord Falconer's proposal "introduces upfront safeguards which state

that immunity from prosecution only applies to those that accompany a terminally ill

adult, who is competent to make the decision and has set out their wishes in adeclaration witnessed by an independent person."

Debbie Purdy, 46, a multiple sclerosis sufferer who has been seeking to clarify the

law to enable her husband Omar Puente to take her to Switzerland without the threat

of prosecution, said the current law protected neither the terminally ill nor their

families.

"My right to control my own life is surely something the Lords should be defending,"

she argued. "What Lord Falconer is trying to do is to bring reality to the law."

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: "The

UK's religious leaders continue heartlessly to seek to impose their dogma by law

against the majority."


20/23

20

TEXT J:NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR

By George Orwell

By 2050earlier, probablyall real knowledge of Oldspeak will havedisappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer ,Shakespeare, Milton, Byron they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, notmerely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what theyused to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans willchange. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the conceptof freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. Infact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means notthinkingnot needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.

Extracts from The Principles Of Newspeak

Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the

ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. In the year 1984 there was not as

yet anyone who used Newspeak as his sole means of communication, either in speechor writing. The leading articles in the Times were written in it, but this was a tour de


21/23

21

force which could only be carried out by a specialist. It was expected that Newspeak

would have finally superseded Oldspeak (or Standard English, as we should call it) by

about the year 2050. Meanwhile it gained ground steadily, all Party members tending

to use Newspeak words and grammatical constructions more and more in their

everyday speech. The version in use in 1984, and embodied in the Ninth and Tenth

Editions of the Newspeak Dictionary, was a provisional one, and contained manysuperfluous words and archaic formations which were due to be suppressed later. It is

with the final, perfected version, as embodied in the Eleventh Edition of the

Dictionary, that we are concerned here.

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the

world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other

modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted

once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought - that is, a thought

diverging from the principles of Ingsoc - should be literally unthinkable, at least so far

as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact

and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properlywish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of

arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of newwords, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as

remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings

whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it

could only be used in such statements as " This dog is free from lice " or " This field

is free from weeds ". It could not be used in its old sense of " politically free " or "

intellectually free " since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as

concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression

of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself,

and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was

designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was

indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.

As we have already seen in the case of the word free, words which had once borne

a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only

with the undesirable meanings purged out of them. Countless other words such as

honour, justice, morality, internationalism, democracy, science, and religion had

simply ceased to exist. A few blanket words covered them, and, in covering them,

abolished them. All words grouping themselves round the concepts of liberty and

equality, for instance, were contained in the single word crimethink, while all wordsgrouping themselves round the concepts of objectivity and rationalism were contained

in the single word oldthink. Greater precision would have been dangerous. What was

required in a Party member was an outlook similar to that of the ancient Hebrew who

knew, without knowing much else, that all nations other than his own worshipped

false gods. He did not need to know that these gods were called Baal, Osiris,

Moloch, Ashtaroth, and the like : probably the less he knew about them the better for

his orthodoxy. He knew Jehovah and the commandments of Jehovah: he knew,

therefore, that all gods with other names or other attributes were false gods. In

somewhat the same way, the party member knew what constituted right conduct, and

in exceedingly vague, generalized terms he knew what kinds of departure from it were

possible.


22/23

22

The name of every organization, or body of people, or doctrine, or country, or

institution, or public building, was invariably cut down into the familiar shape; that is,

a single easily pronounced word with the smallest number of syllables that would

preserve the original derivation. In the Ministry of Truth, for example, the Records

Department, in which Winston Smith worked, was called Recdep, the Fiction

Department was called Ficdep, the Teleprogrammes Department was called Teledep,and so on. This was not done solely with the object of saving time. Even in the early

decades of the twentieth century, telescoped words and phrases had been one of the

characteristic features of political language; and it had been noticed that the tendency

to use abbreviations of this kind was most marked in totalitarian countries and

totalitarian organizations. Examples were such words as Nazi, Gestapo, Comintern,

Inprecorr, Agitprop.

In the beginning the practice had been adopted as it were instinctively, but in

Newspeak it was used with a conscious purpose. It was perceived that in thus

abbreviating a name one narrowed and subtly altered its meaning, by cutting out most

of the associations that would otherwise cling to it. The words CommunistInternational, for instance, call up a composite picture of universal human

brotherhood, red flags, barricades, Karl Marx, and the Paris Commune. The wordComintern, on the other hand, suggests merely a tightly-knit organization and a well-

defined body of doctrine. It refers to something almost as easily recognized, and as

limited in purpose, as a chair or a table. Comintern is a word that can be uttered

almost without taking thought, whereas Communist International is a phrase over

which one is obliged to linger at least momentarily. In the same way, the associations

called up by a word like Minitrue are fewer and more controllable than those called

up by Ministry of Truth. This accounted not only for the habit of abbreviating

whenever possible, but also for the almost exaggerated care that was taken to make

every word easily pronounceable.

Relative to our own, the Newspeak vocabulary was tiny, and new ways of reducing

it were constantly being devised. Newspeak, indeed, differed from most all other

languages in that its vocabulary grew smaller instead of larger every year. Each

reduction was a gain, since the smaller the area of choice, the smaller the temptation

to take thought.

In 1984, when Oldspeak was still the normal means of communication, the danger

theoretically existed that in using Newspeak words one might remember their original

meanings. In practice it was not difficult for any person well grounded in doublethinkto avoid doing this, but within a couple of generations even the possibility of such a

lapse would have vanished. A person growing up with Newspeak as his sole language

would no more know that equal had once had the secondary meaning of " politically

equal ", or that free had once meant " intellectually free ", than for instance, a person

who had never heard of chess would be aware of the secondary meanings attaching to

queen and rook. There would be many crimes and errors which it would be beyond

his power to commit, simply because they were nameless and therefore unimaginable.

And it was to be foreseen that with the passage of time the distinguishing

characteristics of Newspeak would become more and more pronounced - its words

growing fewer and fewer, their meanings more and more rigid, and the chance of

putting them to improper uses always diminishing.


23/23

23

TEXT K: UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (UDHR)

The list that follows was created after World War Two. It was adopted by the UN

General Assembly in 1948.

1. All human beings are free and equal in dignity and rights.2. All people are entitled to rights without distinction based on race, colour, sex,

language, religion, opinion, origin, property, birth or residency.

3. Right to life, liberty and security of person.4. Freedom from slavery.5. Freedom from torture.6. Right to be treated equally by the law.7. Right to equal protection by the law.8. Right for all to effective remedy by competent tribunal.9. Freedom from arbitrary arrest.10.Right to fair public hearing by independent tribunal.11.Right to presumption of innocence until proven guilty at public trial with all

guarantees necessary for defence.12.Right to privacy in home, family and correspondence.13.Freedom of movement in your own country and the right to leave and return to

any countries.

14.Right to political asylum in other countries.15.Right to nationality16.Right to marriage and family and to equals rights of men and women during

and after marriage.

17.Right to own property.18.Freedom of thought and conscience and religion.19.Freedom of opinion and expression and to see, receive and impart information.20.Freedom of association and assembly.21.Right to take part in and select government.22.Right to social security and realisation of economic, social and cultural rights.23.Right to work, to equal pay for equal work and to form and join trade unions.24.Right to reasonable hours of work and paid holidays.25.Right to adequate living standard for self and family, including food, housing,

clothing, medical care and social security.

26.Right to education.27.

Right to participate in cultural life and to protect intellectual property rights.28.Right to social and international order permitting these freedoms to berealised.

29.Each person has responsibilities to the community and others as essential for ademocratic society.

30.Repression in the name of rights is unacceptable.

urv citizenship dossier 2010-11

Documents