Refute

Refute (pronounced ri-fyoot)

(1) To prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.

(2) To prove (a person) to be in error.

(3) To deny the truth or correctness of something (non-standard).

1505–1515: From the Middle English verb refute (in the sense of the now obsolete “refuse or reject someone or something”), from the sixteenth century Middle French réfuter, from the Old French refuite, from refuir (to flee), from the Latin refūtāre (to check, suppress, rebut, disprove; to repress, repel, resist, oppose), the construct being re- (back) + -fūtāre (to beat; drive back; rebut, disprove; repress, repel, resist, oppose), from the primitive Indo-European bhau- (to strike).  Refutable is an adjective, refuter & refutability are nouns, refutably is an adverb and the verbs (used with object) are refuted & refuting.

The meaning "prove someone wrong, prove someone to be in error, disprove and overthrow by argument or countervailing proof" dated from the 1540s, the use extended to disproving abstractions, statements, opinions etc late in the sixteenth century.  The adjective irrefutable (incapable of being disproved) emerged in the 1610s, from the Late Latin irrefutabilis (irrefutable), the construct being in- (not, opposite of) + refutabilis (refutable), from refūtāre, the derived forms in English including irrefutably & irrefutability  The noun refutation dates from the 1540s and was from the French refutacion (act of disproving; the overthrowing of an argument by countervailing argument or proof”), from the sixteenth century réfutation and directly from the Latin refutationem (nominative refutatio) (disproof of a claim or argument), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of refūtāre.  According to recent text searches of the documents digitized in recent years, the most frequently used form in Latin was refūtō (oppose, resist, rebut).

The re- prefix is from the Middle English re-, from the circa 1200 Old French re-, from the Latin re- & red- (back; anew; again; against), from the primitive Indo-European wre & wret- (again), a metathetic alteration of wert- (to turn).  It displaced the native English ed- & eft-.  A hyphen is not normally included in words formed using this prefix, except when the absence of a hyphen would (1) make the meaning unclear, (2) when the word with which the prefix is combined begins with a capital letter, (3) when the word with which the is combined with begins with another “re”, (4) when the word with which the prefix is combined with begins with “e”, (5) when the word formed is identical in form to another word in which re- does not have any of the senses listed above.  As late as the early twentieth century, the dieresis was sometimes used instead of a hyphen (eg reemerge) but this is now rare except when demanded for historic authenticity or if there’s an attempt deliberately to affect the archaic.  Re- may (and has) been applied to almost any verb and previously irregular constructions appear regularly in informal use; the exception is all forms of “be” and the modal verbs (can, should etc).  Although it seems certain the origin of the Latin re- is the primitive Indo-European wre & wret- (which has a parallel in Umbrian re-), beyond that it’s uncertain and while it seems always to have conveyed the general sense of "back" or "backwards", there were instances where the precise was unclear and the prolific productivity in Classical Latin tended make things obscure.  The Latin prefix rĕ- was from the Proto-Italic wre (again) and had a parallel in the Umbrian re- but the etymology was always murky.   In use, there was usually at least the hint of the sense "back" or "backwards" but so widely was in used in Classical Latin and beyond that the exact meaning is sometimes not clear.  Etymologists suggest the origin lies either in (1) a metathesis (the transposition of sounds or letters in a word) of the primitive Indo-European wert- (to turn) or (2) the primitive Indo-European ure- (back), which was related to the Proto-Slavic rakъ (in the sense of “looking backwards”).

The correct meaning of refute is “proving something to be incorrect” and using the word to mean “denying something is correct” is wrong.  Meanings do shift in English and alternatives can replace or run in parallel with the original and while this can sometimes baffle or annoy even native speakers, it’s just part of the way the language works, the battles waged by persistent pedants usually Sisyphean (nobody for example now uses decimate as would a Roman centurion).  However, there are cases where an insistence the original meaning be maintained (or at least understood) is helpful and refute is a good example because when used wrongly (to mean “deny”), it can lead some to conclude something as actually been proved incorrect, rather than just asserted as such.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

Refute is also sometimes confused with rebut.  Rebuttal is a term from the rules of formal debate which refers to a reply although, like refutation, the word has taken on the informal and disputed meaning of denial.  In law, rebuttal also has a technical meaning in court procedure in nations with common law systems.  The rebuttal is evidence or arguments introduced to counter, disprove, or contradict the opposing party's evidence or argument, either at trial or in a reply brief and specific rules apply:  Rebuttal evidence may address only those matters raised in evidence rebutted and new subjects may not be canvassed although the rules do (almost uniquely) permit new witnesses to be called and new evidence to be produced, provided they serve to rebut the prior evidence.  In courts, rules are strictly enforced but politics and public discourse generally, what’s described as a rebuttal can be something quite discursive and follow a direction guided not at all by relevance.

news.com.au 2020: There was a time when Rupert Murdoch would have been on the phone to the editor, telling him to correct an erroneous use of "refute".

Etymologists note the argument there is some historic justification for use of refute in both ways because no distinction existed in the original Latin refūtō (oppose, resist, rebut) and Romans and others did use the word in both senses.  However, at the time of its sixteen century origins in English, refute meant “proving something to be incorrect” and nothing else.  Indeed, as early as the 1610s, the adjective irrefutable (incapable of being disproved), was in circulation (as were the related forms irrefutably & irrefutability), the point being it’s possible for things not to be able to be proved wrong but it’s impossible for them to be denied, however implausible may be the denial.  Documented instances of the erroneous use of refute appear to have been rare until recent years and there have been suggestions this is indicative of a decline in the literacy of journalists but it’s far from certain the standards of such folk were ever consistently high and it’s at least as likely the increasing misuse is a consequence of the extinction of the sub-editor (a species of linguistically competent text-checkers), journalists’ raw drafts now appearing substantially un-edited in print and on-line.  Those seeking an alternative to deny should instead use repudiate which means “to reject or refuse to acknowledge”, but without the implication of justification.

Deny, deny, deny

Mr Barilaro preparing pasta sheets.

For students of politics as theatre, John Barilaro (b 1971; member of the New South Wales (NSW, Australia) Legislative Assembly (Monaro) 2011-2021; cabinet minister 2014-2021 and Leader of the National Party (ex-Country Party) and thus deputy premier of NSW 2016-2021) has proved the gift who keeps giving.  Once famous only for his home-made lasagna (about which nobody has ever said a bad word), of late Mr Barilaro seems constantly to have been in the spotlight.  Some of the interest has been in his participation in internecine spats between the Nationals and their Liberal Party coalition partners but more dramatic was the use of a special squad of the NSW Police Force to conduct a raid on a house in connection with a defamation action Mr Barilaro had begun against the operator of a Youtube channel.  The specialist police squad used was the Fixated Persons Investigations Unit (FPIU), assembled after the Lindt Café siege (December 2014) in Sydney to investigate intelligence which suggested acts of violence or terrorism were being planned.  Whether the use such a unit in mid-2021 to stage an armed assault on the home of an employee of the channel to secure his arrest attracted some comment.  Resource allocation is of course a matter for the commissioner of police and it must be difficult to assess the competing matters of the hurt feelings of a ruling-party politician against the many women (some of whom are now dead) who, without success, sought the assistance of police to protect them from violent ex-partners.  Ultimately, the defamation matter was settled in a manner (as a former Emperor of Japan might have put it) “…not necessarily to Mr Barilaro’s advantage”.

Mr Barilaro preparing lasagna.

Still, a year later, things seemed to be looking up when Mr Barilaro, having resigned from parliament, had been appointed the state’s trade commissioner for the Americas, a position based in New York City which included a Manhattan apartment, a salary around US$400,000 (reports differ) and an expense account of another US$70,000.  Unfortunately, the good fortune quickly subsided as the circumstances of (1) the establishment of the position, (2) the re-location of the position from the west to the east coast, (3) the treatment of a another person apparently offered the position and (4) the circumstances under which Mr Barilaro was appointed began to be discussed.  Mr Barilaro announced he would, in the circumstances, not be taking up the appointment but, politicians sniffing governmental blood, the upper house of parliament convened an enquiry to attempt to determine the usual things such ad-hoc tribunals seek to find out: (1) Who did what and when and (2) who knew what and when.  By the time Mr Barilaro appeared before the enquiry on 8 August 2022, the growing scandal had already claimed one ministerial scalp although commentators seemed divided over whether Stuart Ayres’ (b 1980; deputy leader of the NSW Liberal Party 2021-2022) resignation should be thought a thing necessitated by his actions or the attempted cover-up.  Given that, just about everyone except those in the NSW government were looking forward to Mr Barilaro’s appearance and, as a set-piece of a politician trying to extricate himself for a sticky situation and reframe the narrative, his three hour performance didn’t disappoint.

Mr Barilaro serving lasagna.

He began by saying he wished he never applied for the job, later adding that he’d endured had been “unbearable… (and) what can only be described as a personal hell" and that while he was of course "disappointed" the process hadn't been "as clean as it should have been", the important point was that he was “the victim of that, not the perpetrator".  His opening remarks actually set the tone nicely, Mr Barilaro denying he sought any "special treatment" and that had he known then what he knows now, he would never have “walked into what was a shitshow”.  He also rejected suggestions he had “fast-tracked” a cabinet submission about the trade commissioner roles so he could apply for one, the submission in question being one which would have made the jobs ministerial appointments rather than positions advertised and filled in the usual manner in accordance with the regulations of the NSW public service.  The submission was proposed and passed in seven working days.  It was then put to him that the change was “fast tracked” because he well knew then-NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian would have to resign because of enquiries by the ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption) about an unrelated matter.  "I will absolutely refute that disgusting slur and accusation" Mr Barilaro answered, adding “You're making me out to be corrupt”.

Mr Barilaro plating lasagna.

That was of course a denial, the matter of whether allegations of corruption or procedural impropriety have been refuted something which will be decided later and Mr Barilaro should be given credit for the forthright manner of his denials, unlike one of his referees for the job (Arthur Sinodinos, b 1957; Liberal Party functionary and minister variously 2007-2019; Australian ambassador to the US since 2019) whose appearance before the ICAC in 2014 became famous for the frequency with which phrases like “I don’t recall” and “I don’t remember” were his only answers to tiresome questions.  Fortunately, the ICAC handed down no adverse findings and his memory recovered sufficiently for him to be appointed ambassador to the US in 2019 so there's that.  Mr Barilaro will again appear before the enquiry on 12 August.

Privilege

Privilege (pronounced priv-lij (U) or priv-uh-lij (non-U))

(1) A special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities; the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities; to exempt from certain obligations; a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most.

(2) Any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government.

(3) An expression of pleasure.

(4) In the equity markets, an option to buy or sell stock at a stipulated price for a limited period of time, including puts, calls, spreads, and straddles (a now rare nineteenth century innovation).

(5) In ecclesiastical law, an exemption, granted by popes, from certain laws; a use dating from the eighth century, now restricted mostly to historic references.

(6) In law, a common law doctrine that protects certain communications from being used as evidence in court, most familiar as attorney-client privilege (often misunderstood because the privilege is held by the client and not the lawyer) and executive privilege which can protect presidential and cabinet discussions and documents from scrutiny.

(7) In computing, access to or the ability to execute certain actions which may selectively be granted or denied to users.

(8) As “white privilege”, an expression which encapsulates the idea of the (institutional) advantage white people enjoy as cluster of preferential treatment and opportunities in society beyond (the structural) defined in law; one of the core components of critical race theory (CRT).

(9) To bring or put into a condition of privilege or exemption from evil or danger; to exempt; to deliver (archaic).

1125-1175: From the Middle English privilegen (and the earlier privilegie) from the Anglo-Norman privilege, from the Old French privilege, from the Latin prīvilēgium (ordinance or law against or in favor of an individual).  The Middle English privilegen was from the Middle French privilegier which, like the Medieval Latin prīvilēgiāre was from the Latin prīvilēgium, the construct in Latin being from prīvus (private) + lēx or lēg- (law).  Middle English also had the late fourteenth century pravilege (an evil law or privilege), from the Medieval Latin pravilegium, a play on privilegium by substitution of pravus (wrong, bad).  The alternative spellings priviledg & priviledge are long obsolete.  Synonyms include freelage, immunity, prerogative, right, advantage, foredeal & franchise, (a UK dialectal form); the plural is privileges.

The verb privilege was from the late fourteenth century privilegen (endow (someone) with a special right, grace, power, etc.; to invest with a privilege), from the noun and the thirteenth century Old French privilegier, from the Medieval Latin privilegare, from the Classical Latin privilegium.  The verb disprivilege (deprive (someone) of privilege) was a technical legal term first used in the 1610s; it’s rare but still exists.  The adjective privileged emerged in the late fourteenth century and applied to things; by the mid-1400s it described “persons enjoying certain privileges or immunities"; the past-participle adjective from verb privilege.  The mid-twelfth century meaning of "grant, commission" (which existed earlier in Old English but was referenced with a Latin word), came from the early twelfth century Old French privilege (right, priority, privilege) and directly from the Latin privilegium (law applying to one person, bill of law in favor of or against an individual) which in the post-Augustine era came to be restricted to mean "an ordinance in favor of an individual".  Typically this meant the exemption of one individual from the operation of a law.  In the eleventh century, although it had existed in ecclesiastical law since the eighth, this was a notable aspect of the way the Church exercised power, the privilege a "power or prerogative associated with a certain social or religious position".  The meaning "advantage granted, special right or favor granted to a person or group, a right, immunity, benefit, or advantage enjoyed by a person or body of persons beyond the common advantages of other individuals" is emerged in English during the mid-fourteenth century and had by the late 1300s begun to be used in the legal language of the courts as a general expression of "legal immunity or exemption".  Thus a concept which began in secular Roman civil law was refined in Church law to the point where it was formalized as an exemption or license granted by the Pope, or special immunity or advantage (as freedom of speech) granted to persons in authority or in office before being adopted in modern secular law as an expression of concepts as diverse as (1) general equality of all under the law, (2) basic rights common to all (habeas corpus, suffrage, protest, voting etc) & (3) defined exemptions for certain groups or individuals in certain circumstances from the otherwise prevailing rules.

Golf without clubs.  Donald Trump in discussion on the links, Virginia, September 2022.

On the internet (a most reliable source), it's being suggested Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) had taken to meeting his lawyers on the golf course because he thinks he's there less likely to be overheard or bugged.  He clearly doesn't frequent birdwatching circles or he'd know about the parabolic microphones which can capture birdsong from a distance of 50 m (165 feet) and beyond.  Sympathetic publications suggested the meetings on his Virginia course were either (1) to discuss the planning permission required for proposed upgrades or (2) in connection with arrangements being made to host an event for the Saudi Arabia-backed LIV tournament.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December, 2011.

The common law doctrine of attorney-client privilege dates from medieval England and may at least in certain circumstances have been acknowledged as early as the fifteenth century but certainly between the sixteenth and eighteenth it became entrenched.  The way it operates is to prevent a court or other organ of the state from compelling the content or nature of communications between a lawyer and client to be disclosed.  Upon the lawyer this rule is almost absolute rule (except in cases such as (1) the fraud exception or (2) a lawyer being sued by their previous client and not suspending the privilege would adversely affect the defence) but, because the privilege is held by the client (not the lawyer), a client can waive the privilege.  This has the interesting consequence that a lawyer cannot unilaterally reveal privileged information, even if they believe it's in the client’s best interest or they are no longer representing the client, something by definition rare although there were instances at the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946).

In the US, there are two types of legal professional privilege (1) the attorney-client privilege and (2) the work product doctrine.  The attorney-client privilege has ancient origins in English common law and in familiar throughout the English-speaking world.  Essentially, it exists to protect the right of an individual to communicate with their lawyer without concern the state (or others) might compel either to disclose the discussions.  The legal rationale for attorney-client privilege is that, as a matter of public policy, justice depends on a lawyer being fully informed by their client and the privilege is generally absolute, applying broadly in both litigation and non-litigation contexts; it may be asserted in all proceedings in which testimony may be compelled, including civil, criminal, administrative, regulatory and disciplinary proceeding.  The work product doctrine is another basis by which US courts may provide protection from disclosure for certain materials created in the context of attorney-client relations. The doctrine is relatively new, having originated in a Supreme Court ruling (Hickman v Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510–11 (1947)) which held an adverse party generally may not discover or compel disclosure of written or oral materials prepared by or for an attorney in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial; the presumption of non-disclosure is a rebuttable one.

Canon Law and the Pauline Privilege

Depiction of St Paul in stained glass window, St Edmund's Church, Bungay, Suffolk, England.

In Roman Catholic Canon Law, the Pauline Privilege constitutes an exception to the church's general rules governing marriage, rules grounded in sacramental theology.  It is one of the few examples in the legal code where a specific law is taken directly from sacred scripture, ie from the words of Saint Paul himself.  Canon Law starts with the general principle that a marriage, once ratum et consummatum (ratified and consummated), cannot be dissolved by any human power, or by any cause other than death.  The notion, impressive rates of divorce notwithstanding, survives to this day in the marriage rituals of many denominations in the words “…what God has joined together let no man tear asunder.”   

In other words, a marriage is truly indissoluble if (1) it has been celebrated with a valid marriage rite and (2) the spouses have subsequently engaged in a "conjugal act, apt for the generation of offspring".  If condition (1) is missing or defective in some substantive way, the marriage may be annulled, since it was never proper to begin with.  If condition (2) is missing the marriage is ratum sed non consummatum (ratified but not consummated) or ratum et non consummatum (ratified and not consummated) and the Pope has the power to dissolve it.  Otherwise, a marriage ends only with the death of one of the spouses.

This is an ancient position of the church, originally based on teachings in the Old Testament and was not revised by the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II; 1962-1965).  However, a loophole exists because of a couple of passages in the New Testament which conflict with canon law.  In Saint Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, John mentions:

To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.  If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.  For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband...

But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.   (1 Corinthians 7:12-15)

So, Saint Paul asserts, in a particular set of circumstances, a ratified but not consummated marriage can be dissolved and he acknowledges that this isn't coming from God but rather, from Paul himself.  According to Paul, the overall indissolubility of marriage has a loophole: if two unbaptized people are married, and one of them is subsequently baptized, the marriage can be ended  if the other spouse both (1) remains unbaptized and (2) "desires to separate" from his or her spouse.  As codified, the loophole found its way into Church law as canon 1143.  It states that a marriage of two unbaptized persons is dissolved when one of the spouses is baptized and enters a new marriage, if the unbaptized spouse departs. There are a number of criteria, all of which must be present, for this privilege to apply but its exercise hinges on the word departs.  Firstly, the Pauline Privilege is relevant only if one of the spouses becomes a Christian and the other does not.  In other words, if both spouses are baptized after their marriage, and they then want to separate and remarry, they cannot do so under canon 1143.

Secondly, the privilege can be applied if the unbaptized spouse is either unwilling to continue living with the newly baptized spouse, or if the unbaptized spouse is not willing to do so without "offense to the Creator." In other words, if the unbaptized spouse is so antagonistic toward the Christian faith of the newly baptized husband or wife that they cannot live together in peace, this constitutes "departing" for the purposes of canon 1143.  The canon lawyers therefore widened the loophole somewhat, deciding a departure need not be a physical decampment but remained otherwise rigid: the Pauline Privilege cannot be invoked if it’s the baptized spouse who "departs." So long as the unbaptized spouse is willing to remain in the marriage, and is not hostile to the Christian faith of the other spouse, the marriage cannot be dissolved other than by death.  Thirdly, the newly baptized spouse must want to enter into a new marriage. Unless and until this happens, he or she remains married to the unbaptized.

Canon Law §§ 1143-1147 codifies the process and instances can be handled on the diocesan level with the Holy See apparently now content to retain only a (seldom exercised) power of veto.  The Pauline Privilege does not apply when either of the partners was a Christian at the time of marriage and differs from annulment because it dissolves a valid natural (but not sacramental) marriage whereas an annulment declares that a marriage was invalid from the beginning.  Regarding the often desired annulments, on paper, little changed in the modern age until 2015 when Pope Francis issued two motu proprio (literally “on his own impulse”; essentially the law-making mechanism available to absolute monarchs as the royal decree): Mitis iudex dominus Iesus (Reform to the Canons of the Code of Canon that pertain to the marriage nullity cases) and Mitis et misericors Iesus (Reform of the canons of the Code of Canons of Eastern Churches pertaining to cases regarding the nullity of marriage) which changed canon law, simplifying the annulment process.  Those who thought this a harbinger of something radical were however disappointed; it appears the pope’s intervention did little more than reflect the position taken in recent decades by so many bishops more anxious to retain bums on pews and coins in the plate than preserve unhappy marriages.  Shortly after the decrees were issued, better to help sinners consider their position, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, issued a clarification, noting the Church “…does not decree the annulment of a legally valid marriage, but rather declares the nullity of a legally invalid marriage”.

Quango

Quango (pronounced kwang-go)

A semi-public advisory and administrative body supported by the government and having most of its members appointed by the government.

1967, an acronym, cited usually as as...

Qu(asi)-a(utonomous)-n(on-)g(overnmental)-o(rganization)

...and in the occasional historic reference...

Qu(asi)-a(utonomous)-n(ational-)g(overnmental)-o(rganization)

Whether the correct form is QUANGO or Quango hands on which spelling one prefers.  It's certainly an acronym but sometimes such constructs become words such as radar (RA(dio)-D(etection)-A(nd)-R(anging).  As early as World War II (1939-1945), "radar" was in use as a common noun (thus losing all capitalization) at that at a time when many details of the technology remained state secrets although, because big masts and antennae dotted along the coast were impossible to conceal, the existence of the system was well-known.  Pleasingly, quango spawned some non-standard derivatives such as quangocracy and quangocrat.

The concept of the quango is most often used in the UK but exists also in most developed economies such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the US and other English-speaking countries. Many countries with other language traditions have Quangos but tend not to use the term although in the English-speaking world, foreign Quangos may be referred to thus.  A quango is a hybrid form of organization, with elements of both non-government organizations (NGOs) and public sector bodies and typically an organization to which a government has devolved power, but which is still partly controlled and in most cases at least substantially financed by some organ of the state.  Despite the public positions of some, quangos are popular with politicians (of the left & right) because, properly structured, they can be used to execute a political agenda while permitting politicians to attempt to absolve themselves of responsibility for anything unpopular.

The term qango was created in 1967 by Alan Pifer (1921-2005) of the (nominally not politically aligned) Carnegie Foundation, in an essay on the independence and accountability of public-funded bodies incorporated in the private sector.  It describes an ostensibly non-governmental organization performing governmental functions, often in receipt of funding or other state support.  The growth in the number of Quangos over recent decades has been well documented but rarely exactly quantified; in many states where research has been undertaken, a not uncommon finding was that when attempting to define a definitive list, it was difficult to be certain just how many were functionally extant.  The core of the problem appeared to be that some quangos technically still exist in that while they have never formerly been dis-established, it may have been years since they were active.  In 2005, Dan Lewis, author of The Essential Guide to Quangos, claimed that the UK had 529 quangos, many of which were useless and duplicated the work of others.  A Cabinet Office report in 2009 found 766 although that may have represented a decline given there many have been 790 in 2008 although that was a decline from the 827 counted in 2007 but unfortunately, the notion there was ever a Bread Board or Cheese Board seems apocryphal.  Periodically, governments do cull or merge quangos but its inherently a Sisyphean task because (1) the well-documented phenomenon of bureaucratic inertia means organizations tend to remain or expand even if they've outlived their usefulness, (2) politicians are tempted often to add to the numbers because of the need to maintain lucrative dumping grounds for colleagues who are proving tiresome but can't otherwise be disposed of or (3) if a problem can be solved only by electorally unpopular measures, it's a good trick to create or afforce a quango onto which things can be dumped.  

Woolsack

Woolsack (pronounced woo l-sak)

(1) A sack intended to carry wool (sometimes wool-sack).

(2) The speaker’s chair in the House of Lords, one of a number of cloth-covered seats or divans, stuffed with wool, once used also by law lords, but best known as the seat of the Lord Chancellor and now the Lord Speaker.

(3) A reference to the historic Lord Chancellor's office.

(4) The historic name for the modern Australian wool bale.

1250-1300: Middle English compound word wool + sack.  Wool came from the Middle English wolle, from Old English wull, from Proto-Germanic wullō (cognate with the Saterland Frisian wulle, the Low German wull, the Dutch wol, German wolle and Norwegian ull.  All are thought derived from the primitive hwĺ̥hneh, thought also to have influenced the Welsh gwlân, the Latin lāna, the Lithuanian vìlna, the Russian во́лос (vólos), the Balau влас and the Albanian lesh.  All meant variously “wool, hair, fleece”.

Sack was from the Middle English sak (bag, sackcloth) from the Old English sacc (sack, bag) and sæcc (sackcloth, sacking), both from the Proto-Germanic sakkuz (sack), from the Classical Latin saccus (large bag), derived from the Ancient Greek σάκκος ((sákkos (bag of coarse cloth)).  Ultimate source is though Semitic, possibly Phoenician.  Word was cognate with the Dutch zak, the German Sack, the Swedish säck, the Hebrew שַׂק‎ ((śaq, sack, sackcloth)), the Aramaic סַקָּא‎, the Classical Syriac ܣܩܐ‎, Ge'ez ሠቅ (śäḳ), the Akkadian saqqu and the Egyptian sꜣgꜣ (to gather together).  There are sack factions among the etymologists.  Some suggest sack was originally Egyptian, a nominal derivative of sꜣq that also yielded the Coptic sok and made its way into Greek by way of a Semitic intermediary.  Others reject this view on the technical grounds that an originally Egyptian word would be expected to yield the Hebrew סַק rather than שַׂק (only they understand this stuff).  This faction posits the Coptic and Greek words are both borrowings from Semitic, with the Coptic word perhaps developing via Egyptian sꜣgꜣ.

The Horsesack

The Woolsack is the seat of the Lord Speaker in the House of Lords, the UK’s upper house although until the constitutional reforms of the twenty-first century, that was the role of the lord chancellor, an office dating at least from the Norman Conquest though references to the title appear as early as 605.  The New Labour government attempted in 2003 to abolish the office but a review determined it couldn’t be done without an act of Parliament and that was a distraction the government at the time preferred not to inflict on itself.  Instead, enabling legislation providing for the creation of the office of Lord Speaker and a redefinition of the role of lord chancellor was drafted in 2004 and, after a few squabbles, received royal assent a year later with the structural changes effected by 2006.

The Lord Chancellor (once styled as Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain) is in the UK’s order of precedence, the highest-ranking among the extant Great Officers of State, out-ranked only by certain royal personages and the Archbishop of Canterbury.  A lord chancellor is appointed by the sovereign on the advice of the prime-minister and before the acts of union which made them constituent parts of Great Britain, there were separate lord chancellors for the Kingdom of England (including the Principality of Wales) and the Kingdom of Scotland, the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland disestablished in 1922, consequent upon the Anglo-Irish Treaty (1921) which granted Ireland a considerable autonomy which in the years to come would evolve into independence.  That the office of Lord Chancellor for Ireland existed as early as the twelfth century seems certain but whether this was something distinct from the English office is unclear and the oldest surviving records which verify a separate Irish office date from the thirteenth century.  For centuries the Irish appointee was a clergyman, usually English and while lay chancellors tended to be the rule after the Reformation (no cleric appointed after 1665), Irish-born appointments were rare before the mid-1800s.

Emulated woolsack: A pregnant Lindsay Lohan in Sandro Ona sack dress, April 2023.  Historically, crocheted garments were fashioned from wool but the outer fabric of Sandro's Ono was 100% cotton (the lining 62% viscose & 38% polyamide) illustrating what's possible with modern techniques.

Today, as minister for justice, the Lord Chancellor sits in cabinet and is responsible for the administration and independence of the courts.  In this detail things differ from the Australian practice because in the UK, both the attorney-general and solicitor-general sit in parliament, although, by modern convention, the former now does not attend cabinet except when summoned to provide advice.  New Labour’s constitutional changes not only moved the roll of presiding over the Lords to the newly-created lord speaker but also ended the lord chancellor’s roll as head of the judiciary in England and Wales and presiding judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court, these duties assumed respectively by the lord chief justice and the chancellor of the High Court.  The rationale of the changes in 2005 was to give constitutional effect to the separation of powers (in the British context a division between the legislature & executive (which passes and administers the laws) and the judiciary (which interprets and enforces the laws).  In practice, the distinction had for many years been observed but structurally, it looked very murky, the lord chancellor as a cabinet member belonging to (1) the executive, on the Woolsack as presiding officer in the Lords belonging to (2) the legislature and as a judge in the chancery division, belonging to (3) the judiciary, ruling on laws he or she had earlier participated in passing.

It was the fourteenth century Edward III (1312–1377; King of England 1327-1377) who commanded his Lord Chancellor, when in council, should sit on the wool bale which became known as The Woolsack, the king wishing to draw attention to the crucial importance of the wool trade to the economy of medieval England.  In 1938, to symbolize imperial unity, the Lords directed the Woolsack be re-stuffed with wool from throughout the empire at which point it was discovered the Woolsack was actually stuffed with horsehair.  Even when re-stuffed, because of the construction, some horsehair had to be added to ensure structural integrity, one Lord Chancellor, (Quintin Hogg, 1907–2001 who first entered parliament in 1938, Lord Chancellor 1970-1974 & 1979–1987), noting in 1986 that “wise Victorian ancestors” were responsible for the substitution.

As a body, the House of Lords was once thought a dignified place where deliberations were thoughtful and the freedom from electoral contests meant the place was less constrained by the rancour and political clatter which characterized the House of Commons although their lordships could be realists, one lamenting the prime minister seemed to think them "a bunch or disreputable old gentlemen".  It's certainly not the place it was.  That Gordon Brown (b 1951; UK prime-minister 2007-2010) in 2008 cynically ennobled a figure Peter Mandelson (b 1953) was an indication of what standards had descended to in the twenty-first century; Boris Johnson's (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022) resignation honours list (which would once have been thought scandalous) attracted amusement rather than scorn.  It's also an institution rarely thought conspicuous for efficiency.  When selecting the two British judges to sit among the eight on the bench of the IMT (International Military Tribunal) for the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) there had been a bit of a squabble in the upper reaches of the state.  The attorney-general had to the prime minister insisted they “should be persons of high legal standing and experience” and with that the FO (Foreign Office) concurred, emphasizing they needed to be “as senior as their American counterparts and that first-class men were needed given the international importance of the trial and its probable impact on international law.”  However, the Lord Chancellor’s office “preferred to believe that imminent appointments to the ICJ (International Court of Justice) at the Hague were of greater importance, and were reluctant to spare a Lord of Appeal on the grounds that without him legal business in the House of Lords would grind to halt.”  That thought appealed to someone at the FO who commented tartly: “that business there is surely often rather leisurely.”

Mean

Mean (pronounced meen)

(1) To have or convey a particular idea; connote, denote, import, intend, signify.

(2) To have in mind as a goal or purpose; aim, contemplate, design, intend, plan, project, propose, purpose, target.

(3) Characterized by intense ill will or spite; black, despiteful, evil, hateful, malevolent, malicious, malign, malignant, nasty, poisonous, spiteful, venomous, vicious, wicked, bitchy.

(4) Having or proceeding from low moral standards; base, ignoble, low, low-down, sordid, squalid, vile.

(5) Ungenerously or pettily reluctant to spend money; cheap, close, close-fisted, costive, hard-fisted, miserly, niggard, niggardly, parsimonious, penny-pinching, penurious, petty, pinching, stingy, tight, tight-fisted.

(6) Of low or lower quality; common, inferior, low-grade, low-quality, mediocre, second-class, second-rate, shabby, substandard.

(7) Of little distinction; humble, lowly, simple.

(8) Lacking high station or birth, baseborn, common, declassed, humble, ignoble, lowly, plebeian, unwashed, vulgar; base.

(9) Affected or tending to be affected with minor health problems; ailing indisposed, low, off-color, rocky, sickly; under the weather (now rare).

(10) So objectionable as to deserve condemnation; abhorrent, abominable, antipathetic, contemptible, despicable, detestable, disgusting, filthy, foul, infamous, loathsome, lousy, low, nasty, nefarious, obnoxious, odious, repugnant, rotten, shabby, vile, wretched.

(11) Having or showing a bad temper, cantankerous, crabbed, cranky, cross, disagreeable, fretful, grouchy, grumpy, ill-tempered, irascible, irritable, nasty, peevish, petulant, querulous, snappish, snappy, surly, testy, ugly, waspish.

(12) In mathematics, something, as a type, number, quantity, or degree that represents a midpoint between extremes on a scale of valuation; average, median, medium, norm, par.

(13) In the plural (as means), that by which something is accomplished or some end achieved.

(14) In the plural (as means) all things, such as money, property or goods having economic value.

(15) In statistics, the expected value (the mathematical expectation).

(16) In music, the middle part of three-part polyphonic music; now specifically, the alto part in polyphonic music (or an alto instrument); now only of historic or academic interest.

As a verb:

Pre 900: From the Middle English mēnen (to intend; remember; lament; comfort), from the Old English mǣnan (to mean, signify; lament; intend to do something) from the Proto-West Germanic menjojanan & mainijan, from the Proto-Germanic mainijaną (to mean, think; lament), from the primitive Indo-European meyn- (to think), or alternatively perhaps from the primitive Indo-European meino- (opinion, intent) & meyno-, an extended form of the primitive Indo-European mey- (source also of Old Church Slavonic meniti (to think, have an opinion), the Old Irish mian (wish, desire) & the Welsh mwyn (enjoyment)).  It was related to the Old Saxon mēnian (to intend) and cognate with the West Frisian miene (to deem, think) the Old Frisian mēna (to signify), the Dutch menen (to believe, think, mean), the Middle Dutch menen (to think, intend), the German meinen (to think, mean, believe) and the Old Saxon mēnian.  The Indo-European cognates included the Old Irish mían (wish, desire) and the Polish mienić (to signify, believe).  It was related to the modern moan.  The present participle was meaning and the simple past and past participle was meant although the now obsolete meaned was once a standard spelling.

The transitive (to convey (a given sense); to signify, or indicate (an object or idea) or, of a word, symbol etc (to have reference to, to signify), was documented as early as the eighth century.  The transitive, usually in passive (to intend (something) for a given purpose or fate; to predestine was from the sixteenth century. The transitive (to have conviction in (something said or expressed) or to be sincere in (what one says) is from the eighteenth century.  The transitive (to cause or produce (a given result) or to bring about (a given result) is from the nineteenth century.  The synonyms included convey, signify & indicate.  The annoying (and frequently redundant) conversational question “You know what I mean?” is not recent, attested since 1834.

As an adjective:

Pre 900: From the Middle English mēne (shared by all, common, general), a variant of imene & imeane (held or shared in common), from the Old English mǣne & gemǣne (common, public, general, universal, mutual), from the Proto-West Germanic gamainī, from the Proto-Germanic gamainiz (common; possessed jointly) and related to the Proto-West Germanic & the Old High German gimeini (common, mean, nasty) and the Latin commūnis (common (originally with no pejorative sense (as in shared, general))) from the Old Latin comoinem and cognate with the Danish gemen, the West Frisian mien (general, universal), the Gothic gamains, (common, unclean), the Dutch gemeen (common, mean), the German gemein (common), the Gothic gamains (in common) and the primitive Indo-European mey- (to change, exchange, share).  The comparative was meaner and the superlative, meanest

The sense of “common or general” is long obsolete.  What endured was “common or low origin, grade, or quality; low in quality or degree; inferior; poor; shabby; without dignity of mind; destitute of honor; low-minded; spiritless; base; of little value or worth; worthy of little or no regard; contemptible; despicable.  The sense of parsimonious, ungenerous or stingy is known throughout the English-speaking world but tends to be less prevalent in the US because of the dominance of the other meaning.  The meaning “cruel or malicious has survived but is now less common.  The colloquial form meaning “accomplished with great skill; deft; well-executed is used also in the negative with the same effect: (1) She rolls a mean joint and (2) she’s no mean roller of a joint.  However, to say (3) she’s mean with the weed in her joints has the opposite meaning so in that context anyway, the meaning of mean needs carefully to be deconstructed.  This inverted sense of mean as "remarkably good" appears not to have existed prior to circa 1900.  The derived forms from the adjectival sense include (and some are less common than others) bemean, meandom, meanie, meanness, mean streak & meany.

The pejorative sense of "without dignity of mind, destitute of honor, low-minded" dates from the 1660s; the specific sense of "stingy, niggardly" noted since 1755 whereas the weaker sense of "disobliging, pettily offensive" didn’t emerge until 1839, originally as American English slang.  This evolution in meaning was influenced by the coincidence in form with mean in the sense of "middle, middling," which also was used in disparaging senses.

As a noun:

1300–1350: From the Middle English meene, mene & meine, from the Middle French meen & mean, a variant of meien, from the Old French moien & meien (from which French gained moyen), from the Latin mediānus (middle, in the middle; median (in context)) from the Latin medius (middle).It was cognate with mid, and in the musical sense, the cognate was the Italian mezzano.  A doublet of median and mizzen.

A specific meaning of mean (in the sense of middle) was “middling; intermediate; moderately good, tolerable” which is long obsolete.  The sense of “a method or course of action used to achieve some result”, now used almost exclusively in the plural, is from the fourteenth century.  The sense of something which is intermediate or in the middle; an intermediate value or range of values (a medium) is from the fourteenth century although the use of mean (in the singular) meaning “an intermediate step or intermediate steps” is obsolete.  Originally from the fifteenth century, the use in music is now of historical or academic interest.  It referred to the middle part of three-part polyphonic music; now specifically, the alto part in polyphonic music (or an alto instrument).  In statistics, since the fifteenth century, mean is simply understood as the average of a set of values, calculated by summing them together and dividing by the number of terms (the arithmetic mean).  In mathematics a mean can be (1) any function of multiple variables that satisfies certain properties and yields a number representative of its arguments, (2) the number so yielded (a measure of central tendency) or (3) either of the two numbers in the middle of a conventionally presented proportion.

In mathematics and statistics, the mean is what is informally called “the average”, the sum of a set of values divided by the number (count) of those values.  The median is the middle number in a set of values when those values are arranged from smallest to largest, while the mode of a set of values is the most frequently repeated value in the set.

Mean is one of those words which pepper English; one word, one spelling, one pronunciation, yet a dozen or more meanings.  Mean however doesn’t come close to the top ten words in English with the most meanings, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) list is below but the editors caution by the time the next edition of the OED is released in 2037, for some there could be more meanings still; the influencing of computing has apparently already added several dozen to “run”.

Run: 645 definitions

Set: 430 definitions

Go: 368 definitions

Take: 343 definitions

Stand: 334 definitions

Get: 289 definitions

Turn: 288 definitions

Put: 268 definitions

Fall: 264 definitions

Strike: 250 definitions

Kimberley Kitching (1970–2022) was an Australian Labor Party (ALP) Senator for Victoria (2016-2022) who died from a heart attack in March 2022 at the age of 52.  Her death gained instant attention because in the days prior, two prominent sportsmen had also suffered heart attacks at the same age (one of them fatal) and there was the inevitable speculation about the possible involvement of the mysterious long-COVID or vaccinations.  No connection with either has yet been established.  One connection quickly made was with a triumvirate of female politicians, the ALP’s senate leadership group who were quickly dubbed “the mean girls”, a reference to 2004 Lindsay Lohan movie in which the eponymous girls were the “plastics” three self-obsessed school students whose lives were consumed by material superficialities and plotting & scheming against others.  

The mean girls (2022), left to right: Penny Wong (b 1968; cabinet minister in the Rudd / Gillard /Rudd governments 2007-2013, senator for South Australia since 2002), Katy Gallagher (b 1970; chief minister of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) 2011-2014, senator for the ACT 2015-2018 & since 2019) & Kristina Keneally (b 1968; premier of New South Wales 2009-2011, senator for New South Wales since February 2018).

The mean girls (2004), left to right: Karen Smith (Amanda Seyfried (b 1985)), Regina George (Rachel McAdams (b 1978) & Gretchen Wieners (Lacey Chabert (b 1982)).

Allegations the mean girls had bullied the late senator emerged just hours after her death and on social media there was little reluctance to link the events.  In a carefully-worded statement, Senators Gallagher, Keneally & Wong responded to what they described as “hurtful statements” denying they had bullied Senator Kitching and that other assertions were “similarly inaccurate” although they did concede “robust contests and interactions” were frequent in politics.  Senator Wong did admit to having made one unfortunate comment to Senator Kitching two years earlier and that, after it came to public attention, she had apologized.  Her office later expanded on this, issuing a statement saying “Senator Wong understood that apology was accepted.  The comments that have been reported do not reflect Senator Wong's views, as those who know her would understand, and she deeply regrets pain these reports have caused.”  Rather than discuss the suggestions of bullying, most (ie the usual suspects) focused on the use of a “gender-tainted lexicon”, sexist language clearly thought the greater sin.  Interestingly, the trio had previously been known as “the angels”, a reference to the 1970s television show Charlie's Angels which featured three admirably decorative young ladies being sent by their male controller to solve crimes; the implication of course being the “mean girls” tolerated as long as they did the bidding of the leader of the opposition.  “Misogyny, sexism, every day in every way...” as Julia Gillard (b 1961; Australian prime minister 2010-2013) might have again remarked but at least the pop-culture reference was updated for later generations and it could have been worse: they might have been labelled "the good, the bad and the ugly".

In the thoughtful eulogy delivered at her funeral, Senator Kitching’s husband, Andrew Landeryou (b 1969; colorful ALP identity), referred on several occasions to the “unpleasantness” she had faced in the Senate, praising the moral courage his wife had displayed during her six years in the senate and her genuinely substantive contribution to public life, contrasting her with the “useful idiots, obedient nudniks and bland time-servers” so often seen sitting for decades on parliamentary benches.  “The simple truth of it is that Kimberley’s political and moral judgment was vastly superior to the small number who opposed her internally” he said, adding that “… of course, there’s a lot I could say about the unpleasantness of a cantankerous cabal - not all of them in parliament - that was aimed at Kimba, and the intensity of it did baffle and hurt her.”  Perhaps generously, he added he “…did not blame any one person or any one meeting for her death”, thought to be a reference to a recent meeting of the ALP’s Right faction at which her pre-selection for an electable Senate spot at the next election was reportedly threatened. 

Senators Gallagher, Keneally & Wong all attended the funeral as did the leader of the ALP and opposition leader Anthony Albanese (b 1963; leader of the opposition since 2019 and variously a minister or deputy prime-minister in the Rudd / Gillard / Rudd governments 2007-2013).  Mr Albanese rejected calls for an inquiry into claims of bullying, saying he had received “no complaints at any time” from Senator Kitching regarding bullies within the party and sought to shut down any further questions on the matter, saying they were disrespectful to Senator Kitching.  In saying that he certainly caught the spirit of the moment, none of the mainstream media making anything but the most oblique of references to the late senator’s colorful and sometimes controversial history as an ALP factional player and trade union operative but quite how long lasts the convention of not speaking ill of the dead will soon be revealed.

Mr Albanese wanting to kill the story is understandable and if he’s sure he has plausible deniability of prior knowledge it’s a reasonable tactic but it’s at least possible the best thing to do might have been to admit (1) all political parties have factions, (2) inter-faction bullying is the way business is done, (3) intra-faction bullying is endemic, (4) women and men are both victims and perpetrators but women tend to suffer more, (5) ‘twas ever thus and (6) it shall forever be thus.

Mr Albanese had used the “I know nothing” defense before and that too attracted a popular-culture comparison.  In 2013, ALP politician Craig Thomson (b 1964; former trade union official, member of parliament for the division of Dobell (NSW) 2007-2013, for the Australian Labor Party (ALP) until 2012, as an independent thereafter) was facing accusations of fraud, committed while a trade union official including the use of a union-issued credit card to pay for the services of prostitutes.  His legal problems have since worsened including further charges of fraud and domestic violence.

In 2013, in the midst of the scandal, Mr Albanese, then deputy prime-minister, and Mr Thomson were photographed having a couple of beers at Sydney’s Bavarian Bier Café.  It attracted some attention, even from within the party, one ALP luminary thinking it strange an ALP deputy prime minister should meet for a drink with someone accused of fraud and who the party had expelled from membership, labeling the meeting as “completely indefensible."  It was of interest too to the Liberal Party opposition which floated the idea that what was discussed over a few beers was a deal in case the ALP needed Mr Thomson's vote in another hung parliament, one spokesman framing things as "Fake Kevin Rudd (Kevin Rudd. b 1957; prime minister of Australia 2007-2010 & 2013) says, on the one hand, we're cleaning things up and, on the other hand, he is doing secret deals to try and run a minority government now and into the future."

Like Mr Albanese, Mr Rudd claimed to know nothing about his deputy’s meeting with Mr Thomson or its purpose.  Asked to comment, Mr Rudd said it was not his business who his deputy decided to drink with, saying he did “many things in life but supervising the drinking activities of my ministerial colleagues is not one of them."  "And who they choose to sit down with" he added.  Later, detailed questions were sent to Mr Rudd’s office which declined to comment about whether Mr Rudd knew beforehand of the meeting or if he had asked what had been discussed.  A spokesman said Mr Rudd had “nothing further to add.”  Mr Thomson insisted it was an innocent drink after the two former party colleagues ran into each other and there was no discussion of any political deals or of Mr Thomson returning to the ALP. "I'm not wooable" Mr Thomson was quoted as saying adding, “It was a completely innocent beer.  There is no conspiracy theory here.”

Mr Albanese said Mr Thomson was not a close friend of his but added that he often ran into colleagues at bars and that it was just “…a personal chat, that's all. No big deal."  That didn’t impress the Liberal Party’s then leader in the Senate, Senator Eric Abetz (b 1958; senator for Tasmania since 1994, minister in various Coalition governments 2001-2015) who questioned how the pair could drink together given Mr Thomson's legal team was suing the LP, claiming the NSW ALP state secretary Sam Dastyari (b 1983; senator for NSW 2013-2018 before resigning in the midst of a Chinese-related donations scandal) had pledged to pay his legal costs.  "What is the deputy prime minister doing consorting in a Sydney bar with disgraced MP Craig Thomson at the Mr Thomson's lawyer is suing the NSW ALP?” Senator Abetz asked, presumably rhetorically.

Sydney Daily Telegraph, front page, Thursday 8 August 2013.

The Sydney tabloid The Daily Telegraph took the “I know nothing” excuses of Albanese and Rudd to their front page, the trope being the Hogan’s Heroes TV show produced by US network CBS between 1965-1971, one of the signature lines from which was “I know nothing” by Kommandant Colonel Clink’s slow-witted but affable Sergeant of the Guard, Hans Schultz.  Technically it worked but tropes and memes do rely on the material used registering in the public consciousness and that can be difficult when using a forty year old TV show no longer in widespread syndication.  For the Telegraph’s readers, mostly of an older demographic, it probably did register but some research might have been necessary for younger people, many of whom receive news only through social media feeds. 

For the same reason Donald Trump was disappointed his jibe about Pete Buttigieg (b 1982; contender for Democratic Party nomination for 2020 US presidential election, US secretary of transportation since 2021) and the absurdity of imagining Americans would vote for “Alfred E Neuman”, didn’t resonate.  It was just too long ago and too few knew about Mad magazine.  While there was quite a resemblance, and decades before it would have been a good line, in 2020 Buttigieg could dismiss it a “...must be a generational thing”.  By contrast, the mean girls line worked as well as it did because the film it references is both much more recent and, having hardly dated, retains an ongoing appeal.