Privy

Privy (pronounced priv-ee)

(1) Participating in the knowledge of something private or secret (usually as the phrase “privy to”).

(2) Private; assigned to private uses; exclusive; not public; one's own.

(3) Belonging or pertaining to some particular person (in or with reference to constitutional law, especially as applied to a sovereign).

(4) Secret, concealed, hidden, or secluded; acting or done in secret (archaic).

(5) In law (usually of contractual matters, a person participating directly in or having a derivative interest in a legal transaction.

(6) A toilet, lavatory, loo (mostly obsolete and tended to be applied to outside structures (also as outhouse)).

(7) Of or relating to one person only (archaic).

1175–1225: From the Middle English pryvy & prive (secret, concealed, not made known in public), from the Old French privé (close friend (adjective) & private place (noun), from the Latin prīvātus (private; deprived), the perfect passive participle of prīvō (I bereave, deprive; I free, release).  The adjectival form came first in the sense of something "secret, concealed, not made known in public", the noun forming later to describe places secluded or deliberately hidden" a direct use of the Old French privé (friendly, intimate; a private place) from the Latin prīvātus.  The now familiar phrase “privy to” (participating something a secret to most others) is from the late fourteenth century.  The phrase Privy member (organ of sex; the genitals) was from the late thirteenth century.

A privy.

The sense of the noun privy meaning "latrine, outdoor toilet in a small shed (outhouse) dates from circa 1200, from Old French privé & privee used in the same sense, the meaning in French literally "private place, the noun derived from the adjective.  Historically, the outdoor facilities for urination and defecation were differentiated by being either open (latrine) or enclosed (privy).  Privy (the spelling privie is obsolete) is a noun & adjective, privier & priviest are adjectives, privily (the spellings prively, priuely, pryvely & pryuely long obsolete) is an adverb and priviness is a verb; the noun plural is privies.  A privy chamber was the private apartment of a royal residence in England, analogous with places like the pope's apartment in the Vatican, the flat in 10 Downing Street or the residence in the White House.  In the English (and later the UK's) monarchy, the term privy chamber referred nominally to the place but more broadly to the sovereign’s private office and staff.  In an age when the authority of kings and queens was greater than now, the privy chamber was the most influential department in the royal household and thereby the system of government.  In the sixteenth century, as the role and extent of government expanded, the Privy Chamber came to be understood as a political institution, something distinct from the king's apartment (loosely referred to as the bedchamber).  In that way, the privy chamber became the outer chamber (often styled as the "presence chamber" or "chamber of the presence) although historians have noted that the key to influence lay in access to the bedchamber.  The privy purse was literally a ceremonial bag carried at ceremonies by the keeper of the privy purse (it’s not clear of ever it was used to carry cash or indeed anything) and the phrase is still use to refer to (1) the British monarch's private income from various sources, (2) the net total of the monies available to the monarch for private or personal expenses (as distinct from what's incurred in the discharge of official duty as head of state et al) and (3) the official and the office which acts as comptroller of the monarch's finances.

Privy to secrets: Deconstructed, Mean Girls (2004) was about who was privy to secrets and who was not.

In England, the term Privy Council emerged circa 1300 in a general sense and the familiar use to describe the organ of government dates from the late fourteenth century although, reflecting the court practice of the age, it was originally styled (using the French word order) as consaile priue and existed as a group of advisors to the monarch who were summoned or not at his pleasure.  That evolved to a system in which those summoned were those supporting the government of the day and that is essentially the present form although those no longer in favor don’t cease to be privy councilors; they are just not summonsed.  In practice, the advisory body is now the cabinet (all of whom will be privy councilors) although larger assemblies of the Privy Council are sometimes convened for constitution or ceremonial occasions such as the recent proclamation of King Charles III as monarch.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) in session.

The historic judicial functions of the King-in-Council are now performed by Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC). The JCPC consists of senior judges appointed as Privy Councillors: predominantly Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom although senior judges from the Commonwealth can still be appointed. The Privy Council formerly acted as the High Court of Appeal for the entire British Empire (other than for the United Kingdom itself) and continues to hear judicial appeals from some other independent Commonwealth countries, as well as Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories.  Although the Privy Council’s decisions are mostly not binding on the UK’s domestic courts, the rulings are held to be extremely persuasive as other respected tribunals (US Supreme Court, Supreme Court of Canada et al) are regarded.  One quirk of the Australian Constitution is that, the 1986 Australia Acts notwithstanding, the High Court can issue a certificate referring certain cases to the council but none has been granted for a century and the court has long made clear there’ll be no more.  As a bit of a relic of English constitutional history and the established church, in the United Kingdom, the Privy Council retains appellant jurisdiction some domestic matters:

(1) Appeals from the Arches Court of Canterbury and the Chancery Court of York in non-doctrinal faculty causes

(2) Appeals from the High Court of Chivalry.

(3) Appeals from the Court of Admiralty of the Cinque Ports and Admiralty prize courts.

(4) Appeals from the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

(5) Disputes under the House of Commons Disqualification Act, essentially a role similar to that the High Court of Australia discharges as the Commonwealth’s Court of Disputed Returns.

The JCPC (always referred to as “the Board”) was long noted (and much admired) for handing down single judgments without dissenting opinions; a fine example of judicial clarity and efficiency that other courts showed no inclination to follow.  Unfortunately, in recent decades, multiple opinions have been allowed.

Looking the other way while the Supreme Leader is engaged.

The Supreme Leader, mid-engagement.

The statesman who has done most to advance privy design is Kim Jong-un (Kim III, b 1983; Supreme Leader of the DPRK (North Korea) since 2011).  On the rare occasions the Supreme Leader leaves the DPRK (traveling usually by train), included in his inventory is a customized state limousine (either a Mercedes Maybach S62 or a Mercedes Maybach S600 Pullman), said by some to include a "built-in toilet".  No photographic evidence of the convenient installation seems to have appeared but the "information" has appeared on the internet so users regard it vested with whatever veracity seem appropriate.  Apparently, it's easy to tell when the Great Leader is relieving himself inside his mobile privy because the security detail always discreetly looks away from the car.  Other than the rumored privy plumbing, the cars are distinguished from the standard models by a longer wheelbase, an armored floor and laminated windows, all features designed to withstand attacks by firearms or explosives & bullets.  It's further claimed (un-named) "diplomatic sources" have confirmed the DPRK's security agencies (there are several, all of which also monitor and investigate each other) had the vehicles commissioned to prevent foreign spies from taking stool or urine samples which could be analyzed to allow Kim Jong-un's state of his health to be determined.  The Supreme Leader is probably right to take precautions because several sources have reported the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has made more than one attempt to collect his fecal samples (nice work if you can get it).  Quite how the DPRK obtains their fleets of Mercedes-Benz has been the subject of speculation because the sanctions imposed by the EU (European Union) and others should prevent such transactions so either there's been some sanction-busting (a long and lucrative tradition) or the Supreme Leader has resorted to buying used cars, a thing analysts think most improbable. 

Within the borders of the DPRK, the logistics are simpler, the Supreme Leader always provided with a portable privy for his exclusive use, at all times under military guard to ensure no others intrude.  It's believed whenever he leaves the privy, recalling an old DPRK adversary, he utters the words "I shall return".

Druid

Druid (proniunced droo-id)

(1) A member of a pre-Christian religious order which existed among the ancient Celts of Gaul, Britain and Ireland (sometimes with initial capital).

(2) A member of any of several modern movements which have attempted to revive (what they claim to be) druidism.

1555–1565: From the Latin druis (feminine druias; plural druidae), from the Gaulish Druides (and replacing the sixteenth century French druide).  In the Old Irish druí was the nominative, druid (wizard) the dative & accusative and druad the plural.  from the Celtic compound dru-wid- (strong seer), from the Old Celtic derwos (true), from the primitive Indo-European root deru- (tree (especially oak)) + wid- (to know), from the primitive Indo-European root weid- (to see).  The meaning in the Old Celtic was thus literally "they who know the oak" which some etymologists have suggested may be an allusion to divination from mistletoe but probably was understood as something like “those able to divine (know) the truth.  In the Anglo-Saxon too, there was an identical word meaning both "tree" and "truth"; that was treow.

The adoption in English came via Latin rather than directly from Celtic although in the Old English there was dry (magician) which, though unattested, has always been thought likely from the Old Irish druí from which Modern Irish and Gaelic gained draoi, genitive druadh (magician, sorcerer).  Related forms are the nouns druidity & druidism and the adjectives druidic, druidical, (the alleged) druidistic & druidic (of or pertaining to druids or druidry (which dates from 1773)).

The feminine form druidess (female druid; druidic prophetess or priestess (plural druidesses)) was actually coined as late as 1755; prior to that druid had been used when speaking of box sexes.  Despite the similarity in spelling and a speculative etymological link, the female proper name Drusilla (diminutive of Drusus and a frequent surname in the gens Livia) is derived from the earlier Drausus which, although of uncertain origin, may be from a Celtic word meaning literally "strong" (thus the possible connection with the Old Celtic dru- which meant both "oak & "strong".

Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire, England.  Despite the popular association, archaeologists believe there's no basis for the medieval myth Stonehenge was built by druids, the construction pre-dating them by many centuries.  In medieval histories, there was not a little "making stuff up", even some of what were passed-off as myths from antiquity were creations of the time.

The class structure of ancient Celtic society was not untypical, the four major strata, like the Indian caste system, organized in four groups (1) peasants and artisans, (2) warriors, (3) the ruling classes and (4), the druids although, unlike in India where the Brahmin priestly caste sit atop the hierarchy, among the Celts, it was the kings and chieftains who enjoyed primacy.  That much is certain but the rest of what constitutes druidic history is mostly a mix of the writings classical Greek & Roman authors, medieval writers with varied relationships to scholarship and the work of modern anthropologists who have examined the archaeological record.  Given the time which has passed, the evidence is not only patchy but limited in scope.  Although the Romans & Greeks had encountered the Celts in the wars of earlier centuries earlier, it was only in the first century BC their historians began, sometimes impressionistically, sometimes more systematically, to observe their cultures and customs.

Among the earliest observers was the Syrian stoic polymath Posidonius (circa 135-circa 51 BC) although none of his text survives, except in referenced by later writers, notably the Greek geographer Strabo (circa 64 BC-circa 24 AD) who credited Posidonius as his primary source.  Contemporary to Posidonius, though perhaps less reliable was Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) who devoted some pages to a description of "the barbarians" in Commentarii de Bello Gallico (Commentaries on the Gallic War), his vivid recollections of the conflict.  Written as a third-person narrative in which Caesar describes the battles and political intrigue of the conflict, it too shows evidence of the legacy of what was created by Posidonius but the Roman general certainly had many first-hand experiences with the Celts, both as opponents and allies, some (notably the Aedui), serving in his army.  Obviously astute in the practice of politics as well as military matters, Caesar suggested druidism had probably originated in Britain and from there spread to the Gauls but although he had the advantage of being there at the time, he offered no documentary evidence and scholars and historians have long speculated on their origins.  What's more solid is his description of their place in society.  He wrote that they seemed a secretive but learned group who enjoyed certain privileges among the Celtic population, exempted from taxation and military service and acting as judges, deciding cases and setting penalties.  Unlike most in the tribal-based culture, they appeared to enjoy freedom of passage through any territories.

He found one aspect most curious.  Although a partially literate society, the Celts using both Greek and Roman script (depending on the state of conquest), the druids had never committed their learning and traditions to writing, remarkable given it apparently took over twenty years fully to be schooled in the philosophy, divination, poetry, healing, religious rites and spells that was druidic knowledge.  That knowledge therefore existed almost entirely in the collective memory of the living druids, its transmission oral except for a few inscriptions found in sacred sites such as shrines and sanctuaries.  There may have been some philosophical basis for that or it may have been just a restrictive trade practice designed to maintain closed shop, Caesar observing the Gauls were a most religious people but they always had to wait for the druids to perform the necessary rituals or sacrifices.  The exclusivity of the trade and the secrecy of its protocols was sound business practice and one that can be identified in religions and other institutions over the centuries.  There are both similarities with and differences between Celtic and other religious traditions.  The Celts didn’t build temples to their gods, the druids practicing their worship in the open air in places they described as sacred, often a space with some geographically distinct identity such as a grove or the shores of a lakes although, as Caesar noted, a sacred spot could be anywhere a druid nominated, a kind of ad-hoc consecration; another practical advantage of having no written record to contradict the assertion.  As later writers confirmed, the Gauls believed in an immortal soul but rather than a conception of heaven & hell or any other afterlife, they believed that upon death, it passed to another body after death, an eschatology of reincarnation.

Druids, gathered for the annual summer solstice ceremonies, Stonehenge, June 2019.

The lack of historic documents means it's impossible exactly to describe any exact sense of an internal druidical structure or indeed any indication whether it was static or essentially unchanging.  Caesar said that in Gaul there were three groups: the druidae, vates or uatis & bardi (which existed in Ireland as the druidh, filidh & baird) but whether these were exact organization divisions or simply a description of traditions or disciplines is unknown and all druids seem to have been required to learn all the skills to permit them to function as teachers, philosophers, physicians, priests, seers and sorcerers.  It was certainly a wide job-description which ranged from teaching the children of the nobility to performing human ritual sacrifice but the fundamental role (and the one which gave the druids their mystique and legitimacy) was that which appears in the institutional structure of the clergy in so many religions: the druids were the priests who would communicate with the gods on behalf of the Celtic people and thus mediate their relationship with the gods.  However, although the name was shared, what is often casually referred to as druidism wasn't monolithic and there are Irish and Welsh texts which mention druids as teachers, healers, seers and wizards, but not as priests and certainly not following the Gallic druids tradition of prayer, Irish myths suggesting druids were sorcerers and wizards rather than priests.  More is actually known about the druids of the Partholonians, Nemedians, Milesians & Fomorians because, unlike those in Gaul and Britain, there were no rules against writing.

Modern interest in the druids focuses mostly on their magic, sorcery and spells.  Over the centuries, there's been much imaginative speculation about their nature and purpose in Gaul, something inevitable because unlike in what survives in the Irish and Welsh record, there's scant evidence.  In the Irish & Welsh literature, classical authors found mentions of magic and witchcraft although the details were vague, it’s clear ancient druids were much concerned with healing and divination, like the shamans or medicine men who gathered herbs and poultice to ward off evil spirits.  There was also practical medicine, the natural scientist Pliny the Elder (29-79 AD) writing that druids held the mistletoe and oak trees as sacred, the former cultivated and with great ceremony on the sixth day of the moon; as part of the ritual, a golden sickle was used carefully to cut the mistletoes, the druid garbed in a full-length white cloak.  A bit of a cure-all in the druidic medicine cabinet, mistletoe was said to be able to heal all illness and disease, act as the antidote to any poison and impart fecundity to barren cattle.  In the medieval Irish histories, the vista of arboreal sacredness and utility is wider spread, ash trees (often called rowan and quicken), the yew, the apple and the hazel all listed.

For the professional historian, the druids are difficult subjects because nobody will ever know how much truth lies in so many ancient and medieval writings.  The speculations, exaggerations and general mischief-making however probably accounts for much of the interest in druidism and it long predates both the revival of paganism and the weird world of the new age.  The haziness means it can by anyone be constructed to be what they wish it to be and there are many societies to join if one wishes to become a druid although those lured by the attraction of ritual human sacrifice will these days have to join a more accommodating religion.

A Converted British Family Sheltering a Christian Missionary from the Persecution of the Druids, oil on canvas by William Holman Hunt (1827-1910), Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

William Holman Hunt's 1860 painting was at the time of its exhibition sometimes referred to as A Converted British Family Sheltering a Christian Priest from the Persecution of the Druids by those who liked the whiff of popery that "priest" seemed to summon.  The depiction is of a family of ancient Britons in their humble hovel, concealing and tending to the wounds of a Christian missionary, injuries inflicted presumably by the pagan Celtic Druids, seen outside pursuing another fleeing missionary at the urging of the white-robed Druid priest.  The artist always remained convinced this early work was one of his finest but it was much criticized on both compositional and representational grounds.

As a work, it's indicative of the disapproval of paganism among Victorian Christians which even some historians tended to dismiss as something which, except for the odd deranged heretic, vanished wherever Christianity arrived which wasn't true; paganism in Europe enduring in places for centuries and even enjoying spasmodic revivals after Christianization.  The first country outside of the Roman Empire to embrace Christianity was Armenia in the fourth century and the last, Lithuania in the fifteenth so the two systems co-existed for a millennium.  In England, despite what Roman church's publicity machine taught to generations, paganism was not eradiated by the mission of Saint Augustine of Canterbury (circa 520-604) in 597 but by the ninth century conversion of Danelaw (the central and eastern regions of England where the way and laws of the Danes were practiced) and the killing of Eric Bloodaxe ((Eric Haraldsson (also known as Eirik fratrum interfector), circa 885-954; of Norwegian origin and variously (and apparently briefly) several times King of Norway and twice of Northumbria (circa 947–948 and 952–954)) in York in 954.  Beyond England however, paganism lived on as the dominant social order in Viking Scandinavia and the more remote regions of the British Isles until well into the twelfth century and in Prussia, it wouldn't be until the later fourteenth century crusades of the Teutonic Knights that Christendom finally prevailed.

Skank

Skank (pronounced skangk)

(1) In the slang of certain classes, rhythmically to dance in a loose-limbed manner.

(2) In the pejorative slang of certain classes, a woman thought unattractive and disreputable, especially one with an air of tawdry promiscuity.

(3) Any substance that is particularly foul, unhygienic or unpleasant (obsolete).

(4) A slovenly style of dress, possibly imitative of dishevelled heroin addicts (obsolete).

(5) To steal from; to swindle (obsolete).

1965: Origin uncertain though much speculation.  The sense of an "unattractive woman" and usually one of loose virtue first noted in 1965, thought most probably descended from the 1920s skag in this sense, possibly by means of an imperfect echoic.  The verbal meaning "dance to reggae music" is from 1976 and almost certainly not the same word.  Etymologists suggest it’s most likely a compound construct of some kind, either a blend of skeevy (unattractive) + rank (dirty, smelly) or, more improbably, scold +‎ brank (Middle English meaning frolicsome and often lascivious conduct).  All agree that despite the similarities, the Danish skank (cognate with English shank) used as a noun in Swedish since 1635, is unrelated, a noun is based on the older, now obsolete adjectives skank and skink (limping, lame on one leg).  Skank is a noun & verb, skanker is a noun, skanked & skanking are verbs, skanky, skankier & skankiest are adjectives; the noun plural is skanks.  Despite the existence of the noun skanker and the frequent use of the form as a slur against women, there’s no evidence of skankee) and despite what seems an obvious need, there's no acceptance of the adjective skankish as a standard word.  For one pondering on a group of skanks, should one feel the need to rate them, the comparative is skankier and the superlative skankiest.  

One of Mark’s many moments

Mark Latham.

Australian politician Mark Latham (b 1961; leader of the Australian Federal Labor Party and Her Majesty's loyal opposition 2003-2005), once described Murdoch press legal commentator, The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen (b 1966; by Barry Goldwater out of Ayn Rand) as a “shanky ho”.  Later he claimed he didn’t, at the time, know what it meant, blaming a woman for putting him up to it.  In his youth, it must have been a remarkably sheltered life; apparently the only soul to grow up in Sydney’s western suburbs without learning what ‘skanky ho’ means.  He should have got out more.

According to Latham, a woman who was an advisor to fellow Labor parliamentarian Carmen Lawrence (b 1948; Premier of Western Australia 1990-1993) challenged him to describe Albrechtsen as “a skanky-ho who must die.”  Ms Albrechtsen excites much hatred among women of the left; they think she's feminism’s equivalent of a class traitor.

Ms Janet Albrechtesen

Although claiming he had no idea what ‘skanky ho’ meant, he anyway took the bait, later admitting not being able to say no to a challenge was “…my problem.”   So, first chance he got, he went into parliament and “…described dirty Janet as a skanky ho who will die in a ditch to defend the Liberal Party” which wasn’t quite what was suggested but close enough to be in the spirit of the bet.  Perhaps fortunately, the speech into which the line was interpolated was in the debate about a financial sector legislation amendment bill so the handful of people listening (or pretending to) probably had no more idea than him what ‘skanky ho’ meant.

Actually, ‘skanky ho’ appears in the Hansard, the record of proceedings, only because, in a mistake Latham described as “…hopeless…” he said “shanky ho” and felt obliged to correct the record.  That made things worse because, as he admitted, it was “…maybe not a smart move, as it turns out this is the equivalent of calling someone a filthy piece of rugby hot-box.  Outrageous when you think about it…”  That wasn’t exactly a mea culpa but by Latham’s standards, it came close.  In probably Australia's most remarkable political transformation since former Labor prime-minister Billy Hughes (1862–1952; prime minister of Australia 1915-1923) washed up decades later as attorney-general in a conservative cabinet, Mr Latham now sits in the New South Wales (NSW) Legislative Council (the state's upper house), in 2019 winning a seat for Pauline Hanson's One Nation and gaining re-election in 2023.  One Nation is a difficult political party to describe in the usual language of political science but most seem to settle on "right-wing populist" although much of its (somewhat fluid) philosophy seems often remote from both traditional conservatism and neo-liberalism.  It's probably best understood as the brand and personal platform of Pauline Hanson (b 1954), its identity (and likely its future) as tied to her as the now defunct Kadima was to old Ariel Sharon (1928–2014; prime minister of Israel 2001-2006).

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 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 is 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) 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.

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.