|
The problems arise
in legislation, in the communications produced by government departments, and
in the courts. Consider this point from a tongue-in-cheek article by an
Australian journalist covering the vote counting in Florida after the 2000 US
election:
It doesn't matter
if it's Super League [a reference to a major piece of protracted
very public litigation over the running of Rugby League in Australia] or
a national election, judges are the most unsatisfactory people to decide life's
big questions [By the way, that's going too far even for me!]
because it's so hard to work out what they are saying. All of the key
decisions in this election, at whatever level, have been followed by universal
blank looks. "Has he finished yet? Does that mean we won or lost?"38
The point was made
more formally by Hon. A M Omar MP, Minister of Justice, Republic of South
Africa, in March 1995:
Clear, simple
communication is … an absolute and critical necessity for democracy.
People have a right to understand the laws that govern them, to understand
court proceedings in matters that affect them, to understand what government is
doing in their name.39
At first glance, it
may be a little odd to think about the voice of the brand of a State, of an
entire nation. But South Africa has given us a good place to start. The South
African Constitution contains a Bill of Rights, which includes the statement
that:
This Bill of
Rights is a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. It enshrines the rights
of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human
dignity, equality and freedom.40
Those are inspiring
brand values for any nation: "dignity, equality and freedom".
The challenge is to
make the style of legislation live up to these inspiring ideals. One way to do
that is to ensure that legislation is inclusive. As Phil Knight, Professor
Joseph Kimble, and I said in a 1995 report to the South African Minister of
Justice:
Most importantly,
plain language allows people to visualize themselves as subjects of the law,
and to imagine themselves in the circumstances with which the law deals. This
ability to place or imagine oneself within the law is an important distinction
between a system of justice and a regime of enforced order.41
|
38
|
MALCOLM KNOX
Shonky votes? It could never happen in Australia, THE SYDNEY MORNING
HERALD Saturday 16 December 2000, at 20. |
|
39
|
At a plain
language conference in Cape Town sponsored by the Plain English Campaign
(United Kingdom) in March 1995, quoted by PHIL KNIGHT, PROF. JOSEPH KIMBLE, and
CHRISTOPHER BALMFORD in TOWARDS PLAIN LANGUAGE LEGISLATION: A DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT ON LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING, A MODEL REVISION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION BILL in the authors' covering letter. The model was prepared in May
1995 as a demonstration of plain-language principles at the request of Hon. A M
Omar MP, Minister of Justice, Republic of South Africa. |
|
40
|
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, Chapter 2
Bill of Rights, section 7(1). |
|
41 |
See Knight,
Kimble, and Balmford, supra note 39 at 3. |
|
