Juno News - May 16, 2020


How to analyze text on a deeper level


Episode Stats


Length

12 minutes

Words per minute

191.90895

Word count

2,462

Sentence count

110

Harmful content

Hate speech

5

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

In this episode, we continue our analysis of the Holy text by looking at the words used and why they are used. In order to do so, you need to ask yourself two questions: 1) What is the author trying to tell me? 2) Why did they choose these words? 3) What are the reasons why they were chosen? 4) Why do they have a double meaning?

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 You know how to read, but today I want to share with you a little trick that I use to
00:00:09.780 help analyze text on a bit of a deeper level.
00:00:12.520 In order to do that, you're going to have to ask yourself two questions.
00:00:15.520 First, what else is the author trying to tell me?
00:00:18.620 And second, why would the author pick these particular words?
00:00:22.320 In English, the average word has between two or three different synonyms, and many words
00:00:26.260 have a double meaning.
00:00:27.260 So for example, the word ear could mean my ear, or it could mean an ear of corn.
00:00:32.440 Now I learned this trick from reading the Bible.
00:00:34.620 You see, if you're a believer and you're reading holy text, then you're often faced
00:00:38.520 with the question, why are these particular words here?
00:00:41.220 Why is this sentence here?
00:00:42.720 And so you have to read in a different way because you're basically trying to justify
00:00:45.760 why these particular words were chosen.
00:00:48.840 Now you can use the same method when you're reading almost any text, and today I want to
00:00:52.420 talk a little bit about the charter, sort of continuing from where we left off in the previous
00:00:56.260 two videos, and hopefully address some of the questions that you guys have below.
00:01:00.700 So first, I want to start off right here.
00:01:02.880 This is the word Lech Lecha. 0.90
00:01:05.100 This is from when God tells Abraham to leave his home, leave his family, and go to a land 0.60
00:01:10.400 that he will show him.
00:01:11.720 The words that he particularly chooses are Lech Lecha, which is basically a repeat of the 0.93
00:01:16.400 same word.
00:01:17.400 It's go, go for yourself.
00:01:20.020 And the question really is, why does God need to say go for yourself?
00:01:24.160 Why couldn't he just say go?
00:01:25.820 So this is one example, and I don't really want to turn this into a Bible class, but
00:01:30.160 this is one example of why you have to analyze the particular words, and there's a lot of
00:01:35.460 meaning in the go for yourself as opposed to just go.
00:01:39.340 The second example that I want to pull up is one that you're probably familiar with, and
00:01:42.540 it's the parable of the mustard seed.
00:01:44.780 So if you have no idea about anything to do with mustard seeds, then the entire parable
00:01:49.000 makes no sense, really the whole story hinges on understanding mustard seed because it's
00:01:54.040 a very small seed, but it grows into a much, much larger plant, probably a two to three
00:01:57.780 meter plant.
00:01:58.900 And so you're reading this text in a different way because you're looking at the particular
00:02:04.060 words because the words are often very loaded and the choice was often deliberate.
00:02:08.980 And that's really something you have to keep in mind.
00:02:10.480 A lot of times people write and they don't necessarily feel it's deliberate, but even if it's not intentionally
00:02:16.600 or consciously deliberate, there may be some sort of a hidden message or underlying bias
00:02:20.840 that you can pick up from why they made these particular word choices.
00:02:25.060 So what does this have to do with the Charter, the Constitution Act?
00:02:28.500 So pulling this back up, I want to point you to section 4.2.
00:02:33.240 This is again, this is the Constitution Act 1982.
00:02:36.020 This is the Charter.
00:02:37.600 And so here, number four, for example, and it talks about the demand to hold elections every
00:02:43.100 five years so that no legislature can sit for more than five years in the House of Commons.
00:02:47.500 And here we have number two.
00:02:49.020 In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, the House may be continued
00:02:54.540 by Parliament and basically they can sit for longer than five because of these things.
00:02:58.320 And so here you have two words that you really need to look at.
00:03:01.740 There's the question, in a time of real or apprehended war.
00:03:05.420 So you should stop and say, wait, why did they not just say war?
00:03:10.060 And so we look at the two words, real is, I guess you can imagine a real war, a hot war
00:03:15.080 as they would call it.
00:03:17.000 But apprehended, well, the meaning apprehend right down here, to become aware of, to perceive
00:03:23.780 or to understand.
00:03:24.780 So you say, well, how do you not understand that you're in a war?
00:03:28.040 And the answer again, if real is a hot war, then perhaps apprehended could be used to say
00:03:32.820 a cold war.
00:03:34.380 Now I don't really know if you could justify not having elections because of a cold war,
00:03:39.680 or if there's some other sort of apprehended understanding of war that you could pull
00:03:43.700 out.
00:03:44.700 But there are definitely reasons why you may want to say, okay, there is, it's not necessarily
00:03:49.240 a real war yet because we haven't entered into a hot war phase.
00:03:52.200 You know, perhaps this is Germany, 1939, 1940.
00:03:56.700 You know, the British call it the Boer War, B-O-R, like the boring war.
00:04:03.180 And the Germans called it the Sitzkrieg because no one was doing anything for the first part
00:04:06.840 of the war.
00:04:08.380 And so, you know, there may be some sort of perceived war where you don't understand and
00:04:12.140 there's definitely wiggle room, but it's important to note the words.
00:04:15.400 So again, a real or apprehended war, you should really ask the question, why does it not just
00:04:19.440 say war?
00:04:21.440 Another place that you can look at is the LGBTQ rights that were read into the charter.
00:04:26.600 And so what do I mean read into the charter?
00:04:28.840 Now if you go to section 15, it does not say anything about sexual orientation.
00:04:35.180 So it talks about how everyone is equal before the law and it does list sex as one of the
00:04:40.040 ways that you cannot be discriminated against, but it doesn't say explicitly sexual orientation.
00:04:46.220 Now the courts decided in the Supreme Court case here, Egan versus Canada, they decided that
00:04:53.040 section 15 should also include this because that's really what it meant.
00:04:58.600 And so it's, um, the Supreme Court held that although sexual orientation is not listed as
00:05:03.840 a ground for discrimination in section 15 of the charter, it constitutes an equivalent
00:05:07.140 ground.
00:05:08.140 So it's basically, it's equivalent to all these other ones in there that a person shouldn't
00:05:11.280 be discriminated because of their sexual orientation.
00:05:14.280 And that is really a consequence of the fact that it was written in 1982.
00:05:18.100 And so obviously you have maybe some other grounds on a text, especially as you're talking
00:05:22.820 about a text that is much, much, much older.
00:05:25.000 So you could talk about the Bible or you could talk about the declaration of independence in
00:05:28.400 the United States, the constitution.
00:05:30.000 Um, you can talk about the charter again, even because it was the 80, it was 1982.
00:05:34.460 And although it's not that long ago, it is, it was a very different world in 82.
00:05:38.320 And so you have, um, sort of different words, different word choices, maybe words left out because
00:05:44.740 the way that the thing is written and looking at the particular words are very, very important.
00:05:50.480 Now there's two things that, two sort of competing ideas that people have when you're talking
00:05:55.520 about, um, legalistic texts and specifically with the constitution, you guys may have heard
00:05:59.900 this before, but I want to go over them again.
00:06:02.000 So the first one is what is called the living tree doctrine.
00:06:05.700 And this is what we in Canada have as a charter.
00:06:09.000 And so the doctrine basically states that the charter is like a living tree and it is constantly
00:06:14.380 open to interpretation.
00:06:16.540 And because it's organic, it must be read in a progressive manner and adapted to changing
00:06:20.800 times.
00:06:21.800 So just like the LGBTQ rights that were read in, if you will, they weren't added into the
00:06:26.460 charter.
00:06:27.460 So they didn't go in, add, um, sexual orientation as a protected, protected status or anything
00:06:31.540 that you, you can't be discriminated against, but they basically read it in.
00:06:34.960 And so they're understanding that section 15, again, if it were, you know, if it were written
00:06:39.480 today, it would include such things as, um, sexual orientation.
00:06:43.620 And so LGBTQ rights are obviously protected and defended.
00:06:47.000 And that was really what the intent of the thing was to, to not allow discrimination.
00:06:51.160 So that's one, that's the living tree document and the LGBT rights, uh, LGBTQ rights is just, 0.93
00:06:57.240 I think the, the most, um, the most obvious example of where something is read in, where
00:07:02.320 it was rightfully, you know, people, people were rightfully protected from being discriminated
00:07:06.100 against by the sexual orientation.
00:07:07.880 Um, but it simply wasn't in there because of the times, then you have the originalism.
00:07:12.880 And this is often what you hear, um, people discussing the second amendment in the United
00:07:17.560 States talking about the right to bear arms, the militia, the right to protect you from
00:07:22.320 tyranny.
00:07:23.320 And this basically says that the, um, statements in the constitution or the document should be
00:07:28.260 interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors, um, or the people present at
00:07:32.860 the time.
00:07:33.860 At the time, maybe kind of like Shakespeare would use a particular sentence structure or
00:07:38.180 particular form, then we should try and understand what did Shakespeare mean?
00:07:42.260 What did the people writing the constitution mean?
00:07:43.960 What did the people writing the charter mean?
00:07:45.780 What did they mean?
00:07:47.260 And that's what we need to understand because it's not just what we understand the words
00:07:51.840 today.
00:07:52.460 It's also what they meant.
00:07:54.320 So we need to keep that in mind.
00:07:56.680 And really, although one is called originalism and one is the living tree, they're both basically
00:08:01.680 sets of interpretation or a lens with which you interpret a document.
00:08:06.500 Now, again, this is really important when you're talking about legal cases, because oftentimes
00:08:10.420 it is the meaning of a word that really makes or breaks a case.
00:08:14.260 And it's also important when you're reading a text.
00:08:16.700 So I do want to look at perhaps on another video, some media stories, and we'll try and
00:08:21.740 go through them together.
00:08:22.760 See if we can't pick up some of the biases or understand why a particular word was chosen.
00:08:26.860 There's definitely a lot regarding the assault-style rifle ban.
00:08:32.740 I mean, I'm sure just saying that is super loaded.
00:08:35.180 I'm sure many of you are just as angry by that word choice as I am.
00:08:39.020 But that's really important to analyze the legal text.
00:08:42.300 And especially, again, now with COVID, there's many articles about COVID that have sort of
00:08:47.640 a bias.
00:08:48.380 They're trying to push one way or another, push a particular opinion one way or another.
00:08:52.060 And so these tools don't necessarily just provide a useful analysis on legal text, but
00:09:00.120 for any sort of media or really any document they're trying to read, because ultimately
00:09:05.900 the author is choosing particular words for a particular reason.
00:09:10.380 It may be subconscious.
00:09:11.700 They may not be in trying to intentionally push anything, but this is what it is.
00:09:15.980 Now, back to the Charter, the issue when you're talking about rights or when you're talking
00:09:23.200 about a legalistic document between the two is that there has to be some sort of balance
00:09:28.440 between the Living Tree Doctrine and the Originalism Doctrine.
00:09:34.440 Now, if you go and look at the Charter, there might be something that you can change or that
00:09:39.660 will get changed that will eventually cause the document to not stand for its original intent.
00:09:45.320 So, for example, the Equality Rights, you can start picking apart different words, and
00:09:49.780 you might say that some of these words actually don't mean this, and so suddenly, you know,
00:09:55.960 equal protection, well, what does that mean?
00:09:57.680 They, you know, they're getting similar protection.
00:09:59.180 It's not exactly the same, but it's but of equal benefit.
00:10:01.900 And so therefore, because the equal protection and it's not really the exact same, but the
00:10:07.240 benefit is the same, it's, you know, it's really actually the same.
00:10:11.400 And so therefore, we can change anything we want.
00:10:12.940 Whereas, again, the originalist point of view would say, no, you have to understand it as
00:10:18.200 how they meant it.
00:10:19.300 And so that's important, again, because these documents provide a shared frame of reference
00:10:24.880 for us all to understand how these rights work or how these laws are supposed to work.
00:10:29.060 And so you do have to have this sort of balance.
00:10:31.300 And it's really the same with the Bible.
00:10:32.900 Going back to the Bible, you have to understand what the original intent was.
00:10:37.560 But because we're not riding donkeys, we're not all having fields in the way that maybe
00:10:42.340 everyone did back at the time that the Bible was written, then you have to understand what
00:10:47.100 is the intent.
00:10:48.140 So when it talks about, you know, people having to repay a neighbor, or when it talks about,
00:10:53.000 you know, what to do if you injure someone else's donkey or someone's animal, things like
00:10:56.680 this.
00:10:57.600 You know, there's a particular line I'm thinking of, that if you see your enemy's donkey overburden, 0.90
00:11:03.700 you still have to help them.
00:11:04.580 Now, the intent is that you should prevent animal cruelty, but it's not a suicidal document
00:11:09.540 that you should then go and help your enemies in the middle of wartime, simply because of,
00:11:14.660 you know, some desire to have friendship.
00:11:17.300 Now, again, that's something that is up for debate.
00:11:19.600 It's something that you need to read, something you need to understand the different points
00:11:22.060 of view.
00:11:22.680 But the point is, look at the words.
00:11:24.720 We really have to analyze the different word choices and think, why did the authors pick
00:11:28.920 these type of words?
00:11:29.980 And that will really give us a way to understand the documents and the text that we're reading.
00:11:33.800 So I do want to tackle some of the questions.
00:11:35.840 I know some of you had a lot of thoughts about rights.
00:11:40.660 I'm talking about the rights as they are both de facto and du jour, because they are both
00:11:44.560 in reality and other countries perceive us and the charter to be the law of the land.
00:11:49.360 So if you have any questions about the sort of extraneous stuff, if any of you have been
00:11:53.820 reading the comments, then just please let me know and we can tackle that at another time.
00:11:57.940 But other than that, let's think if we can find some texts, pull them apart, and see
00:12:03.360 if we can reveal some biases maybe that's a little bit more hidden than average.
00:12:06.840 So for True North, I'm Sam Ashkenazi.
00:12:09.040 Don't forget to subscribe.
00:12:10.140 There's a lot of great work being done by a lot of my fellow contributors.
00:12:13.320 So definitely check them out.
00:12:14.540 Subscribe and continue watching this channel for more great information.
00:12:18.060 Thanks a lot and have yourself a great day.
00:12:19.760 Thank you.