Terminology from George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 often gets thrown around in politics. For instance, it’s not unusual to hear those on the Left claim the state’s monopoly of public surveillance, such as the cameras in London or homeland security bills in the USA, are signs of a looming Big Brother. It’s also not unusual to hear those on Right alluding to thoughtcrime whenever they’re being accused of human rights violations.

But perhaps the doubleplusgood thinkers of them all are the Ministers of the Conservative Party of Canada. While not specifically using the terminology with any particular proficiency, these parliamentarians recently exemplified their understanding of the novel in what can only be described as a textbook case of espousing doublethink. In the novel, doublethink means to accept and believe information (espoused by the state) that one rationally knows to be contradictory. The case in point? Copenhagen.

Once upon a time there was a quaint little climate summit in the quaint little country of Denmark. Statesmen, and stateswomen, from all over the world came to negotiate an accord that would hopefully save the planet’s environment from spinning wildly out of control into the fiery depths of hell. Canada, as the sovereign country occupying the world’s second largest land mass, would naturally have a lot invested in the crisis, as its vast territory covers an array of starkly different ecosystems, including that of the Arctic, where Canada’s iconic polar bear has recently been seeing less seal than Heidi Klum on a weekend.

To highlight its interests, Canada sent none other than its de facto head of state, Stephen “Badlands” Harper, and his most recent “environment” minister Jim “F. McMurray” Prentice. And the boys did not disappoint. Rest assured, when Badlands and McMurray get together they’re a regular Tango and Cash, a Kurri and Gretzky, a Sonny and Cher, and needless to say, they got ‘er done. Indeed, Badlands felt “very comfortable” with the outcome of the summit, and McMurray came home gushing, saying the consequential accord was “an excellent accord, and is good for the environment and good for Canada”.

Nice. I love it when stuff is good for Canada!

But hang on… according to most news agencies, the world leaders left Denmark with an agreement not to agree on anything binding or environmentally prosperous.

Confused? I know I was…

How can an accord with a moot outcome (at best) be good for the environment or Canada? Wouldn’t an accord with binding targets be plusgood? It was a head scratcher to be sure; almost seemed like the PM and the viro minister were boasting the opposite of what really happened, in a most doublethinky kind of way. Luckily, McMurray was ready to qualify his points on the CBC. He said the reason it was good for Canada was that Canada was able to:

“…achieve certain, key, Canadian objectives”.

Nice. I love it when we reach our certain, key, Canadian objectives!

But hang on… what exactly were those objectives? One would hope they would be to protect the environment and reduce emissions, right?

McMurray, what’s it all about, dog?

“…to protect the environment and reduce emissions”.

Nice. I love it when we’re ethical like that.

But hang on… if Canada is a sovereign country and is genuinely concerned about protecting the environment and reducing emissions then why does it need an international summit? Why doesn’t it just set ambitious targets on its own? Heck, we’ve got a Parliament, we can do anything we want! We could pass a motion calling for Fridays to be “Naked Fridays” from now on, if we really wanted to.

Badlands, you’re the head of the gov, what are we waiting for?

“If the Americans don’t act, it will severely limit our ability to act, but if the Americans do act it is absolutely essential that we act in concert with them”

Nice. Concerts are awesome.

But hang on… that doesn’t sound like a sovereign decision. In fact, isn’t it the exact opposite? Doesn’t it mean we’re just turning the keys over? A total puppet? The 51st state?

Iggy, you’re the head of the opposition, help me out!!

“We can’t have Canadian policy on such a crucial issue entirely dependent on what happens in the United States. This is Canada, this is an issue of Canadian sovereignty”

Thank you! That’s what I thought. And hang on, if Badlands and F. McMurray were really so successful at achieving those “certain, key, Canadian objectives” through negotiation, why did Canada win the Fossil of the Year Award, dedicated to the country that most frequently and fervently tried to barricade negotiations at the summit? Could it be that when McMurray talks about achieving “all of the negotiating objectives we set out going over to Copenhagen”, he really means that he and Badlands were able to achieve not negotiating anything at all?

“Good for the planet, in terms of reducing emissions”

hang on, McMurray! Just hold your horses! Good for the planet? Reducing emissions? But there were no binding targets for emissions in the accord and the world leaders of the planet couldn’t seem to agree on anything! Plenty of countries didn’t even sign on. So isn’t the accord kind of sketchy and inconsequential? Badlands, you’re supposedly a world leader, what do you have to say for yourself?

“Comprehensive and realistic.”

Hmm…

It seemed this doublethink riddle was growing more doublethinky by the minute. But if this really was an example of doublethink there was one question that begged attention:

Why?

Why was the government of a liberal country trying to misinform its citizens? Perhaps Orwell himself could shed some light on a state’s reasoning for partaking in doublethink:

George, what’s the point, bro?

“to tell deliberate lies… to forget any fact that has become inconvenient”

I see… I guess when your power base is centered in a province that fuels its economy by an environmentally degrading industry, the scientific fact of climate change by way of human industry becomes a bit of an inconvenient truth, doesn’t it?

Whatever. It’s a lot to get one’s head around. I guess that’s why we have elected guys like Badlands and F. McMurray to do our thinking and talking for us. After all, they get ‘er done, giving us, the citizens of this country, a chance to focus on more pressing matters…

like Naked Fridays.

-from Montreal, this has been handsome and affable reporter, Erik Anderson.

Related posts:

1. Copenhagen COP15: Not the Climate Change Summit We Were Hoping to Reach It’s finally the end of the Copenhagen climate change summit....
2. Stephen Harper Declines the Opportunity for Canadian Leadership on Climate Change at the Commonwealth Summit At the recently concluded Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM)...
3. A Strong Stance on Climate Change in Copenhagen Could Lead Stephen Harper to a Majority The Copenhagen summit is a hot topic for conversation. Recent...
4. Conservative and Liberals vs. the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen With less than 40 days remaining before the governments of...
5. If the Developing Countries Walk Out of the Climate Summit in Copenhagen, the Deniers Win I interviewed Elizabeth May yesterday on my “Climate Change Reality...

Tags: 1984, climate change, copenhagen, Environment, george orwell, stephen harper

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 2nd, 2010 at 5:37 pm and is filed under Canada and the World, Environment, Humorous. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.