Words matter, as a member of the audience at a recent talk called “What’s Wrong with People with Names?” pointed out.
A recent event at the University of Dundee examining the issues with nominators sparked a lively Q&A session. One of the most insightful questioners pointed out that government documents frequently use the words “included” and “inclusion.” But when it comes to children, “inclusion” is never used. These seemingly similar words have a big difference.
“Inclusion” means to incorporate into a group or class, and the direction is inward. “Inclusion” means that (almost) everything is within the scope of consideration, including both extremes and the middle ground. For families who are on the margins of society because of religious or moral beliefs, race, culture, disability, or chance, the differences can be very significant.
Inclusive policies must accommodate the diverse characteristics, capabilities, traits and preferences of human beings. They must change and adapt to individual choices. The fixed point in an inclusive system is the individual, and the system must be flexible. It must give.
The SHANNARI index is the Government’s awkward acronym, an attempt to whitewash the inconvenient fact that the Scottish Government cannot define wellbeing, and does not use the word inclusive – the ‘I’ in SHANARRI stands for included.
When a person is included in a government scheme, there is an implication that he or she must at least comply with it. Government is an entity that demands loyalty, or at least acquiescence, and therefore does not lend itself to a relationship based on voluntariness. Being included in a government scheme is not the same as choosing to be included. Whether it is HMRC, ATVOD or DVLA, the experience of governments tells us a simple truth: what individuals voluntarily choose does not matter in the eyes of these huge organisations. Being included, therefore, is not about being given options or choices as it would be if coming from a private citizen. Rather, being included by the state means that choices are reduced, requirements are met and lines are drawn. The fixed point here is the government and it is the individual who has to be flexible and move with the system.
The scariest thing about the designated person system is that it targets every child. Even if the child, the mother, and the father all speak out loud and clear that they don't want this to happen, the information will be stored, collated, and shared. Either way, it's going to happen. There is an apocalyptic edge to this, and it will never stop. There is no opt-out, no choice, and ultimately no freedom. There is no freedom to be left alone, and no freedom not to be targeted.
And for a nation, the most fundamental freedom, and one that is increasingly being restricted and limited, is the freedom to be left alone. We must be vigilant about the language chosen by governments of all forms, and be on the alert for any signs of new attacks on this most fundamental right.
