Fulfilling Orwell’s Hellish vision

Posted: February 23, 2005

by WILLIAM E. SARACINO

Deliberative body?

Fulfilling Orwell’s Hellish vision

Fabian Nunez seems bent on leading California’s lower house to its lowest level yet.

William E. Saracino is a member of California Political Review’s editorial board.

Printer Friendly version

In a little-noticed move during December’s California Assembly organizational session, Speaker Fabian Nunez and fellow Democrats adopted sweeping changes to Assembly Rules. These new rules ought to give Republicans and anyone concerned about free speech and open debate a deep sense of foreboding.

Republican Assembly members and staff were given five minutes prior to their caucus to review 94 pages of proposed rules, all without the benefits of italics, underlines, or cross- outs to indicate the myriad changes sought by majority Democrats. Republicans had contacted the Democrat leadership fully one month earlier to discuss any proposed rules changes. Their requests brought only silence ... until the new rules appeared.

In a new section (108.1), the Rules now provide that “... Members of the Assembly shall conduct themselves in accordance with the rules of decorum specified in Sections 120 to 126, inclusive, of Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure.” Sounds innocuous enough. Mason’s Manual is the definitive source for procedural questions in most legislative bodies. So when the official rules of a legislative body invoke the language of Mason’s, it’s as good as if they were written into the rules themselves.

The cause for alarm is Section 123 of Mason’s Manual, entitled, “Disorderly Words.” It deals with the question of whether the use of any given word or phrase by a member is in violation of the rules and subject to a vote of the body, in this case the Assembly. The actual language of Mason’s Paragraph 4, Section 123, is:

The question of whether the words are disorderly is then submitted to the body. If the body is satisfied that the words are not disorderly, no further proceeding is necessary. If the words are found disorderly, the member using them should be permitted to explain and apologize to the body, but if the member refuses to apologize, the presiding officer may censure the member or the body may choose to act in the case.

As Hamlet said, “There’s the rub.” If a Democrat objects to the use by a Republican of a term such as “illegal alien,” “homosexual marriage,” “Communist tyranny,” whatever — as they frequently have — any member may invoke Assembly Rules and Mason’s Section 123. The Assembly will then vote on whether or not use of the term is permissible.

So any Democrat can object to the use of any particular language by a Republican, and a simple majority of Assembly Democrats (with all so-called “moderate Democrats” or those in vulnerable districts conveniently abstaining) can demand that the Republican apologize and recant his words — or be censured.

This is Speaker Nunez’ definition of “bipartisanship” and “full and fair debate.”

It’s an old story with leftists of course, pretending to be champions of unpopular ideas and free speech while in reality being first to censor and punish those whose ideas differ from theirs. Any conservative graduate of a major — or minor for that matter — American university in the past 20 years can testify to the left’s stultifying intolerance known unapologetically as “political correctness” — a phrase straight from Stalin’s lips to your ears.

The Fabian Nunez-led Assembly Democrats are simply putting the old communist’s ideas into action. Only “approved” and “correct” ideas can be heard. In such an Orwellian landscape deeply held religious, social, and political views can — no, will — be turned into censured “hate speech” by a simple majority vote of a punitive, intolerant left-wing majority. Principled policy opposition to, say, illegal immigration — let alone taxpayer- funded entitlements for those who violate state and federal law — can officially be deemed racist by an act of 41 Assembly members. So can any other idea or view the majority finds inconvenient. Why argue the merits of an idea when you can declare it “hateful” and censure anyone who espouses it?

Thomas Jefferson, a founder of Nunez’ political party, wouldn’t recognize these “Democrat” thought police. But George Orwell would: today’s would-be heirs of the hellish tyrannies he wrote about.

The Assembly calendar may say 2005, but it’s actually 1984. Big Brother Fabian is watching.

CPRSearch

Advanced Search