If you could permanently ban a word from general usage, which one would it be? Why?

No word should be banned or abolished. Every word has its place in a language. English has benefited greatly from the influx of non-English words. They bring a new level of complexity and meaning into the English-speaking world.

For instance, the Anglophone nations have become familiar with the word apartheid. The latter, from the Afrikaans language, means apartness or separateness. But this direct translation does not do justice to the underlying concept of apartheid. We now know that apartheid means legalised racial segregation, an entire system of laws and rules that enforce a system of racial discrimination.

The long and stubborn struggle of black South Africans, and their nonblack allies, exposed the true meaning of this word, and what it means. Those who opposed apartheid were not objecting to the word itself, but to the underlying ideology it represented.

Today, there are those, such as Elon Musk and his white South African brethren, who speak glowingly if not openly about the days when apartheid ruled the roost in South Africa. Now it may be that he is simply nostalgic; we all have memories of the past we like to hang on to. However, Musk is not simply being a sentimental person, he is openly advocating an ideology with which he agrees.

There is a German word with which we should all learn, if we want to understand what US President Donald Trump and his MAGA cult are attempting to achieve in the United States – Gleichschaltung. Simply put, it means synchronisation or coordination. What does that involve?

It means a political and legal system of total control over all aspects of US society; policy making, education, legal structures, decision-making, education, science, economic institutions – all aligned with the goals of the Trump-Epstein MAGA cult. There is no single English word that encapsulates the Trump-Epstein class enforcing its vision on the entire society, but the Germans who experienced the original Gleichschaltung under Hitler can attest to the accuracy of that word.

Let’s use it in the English speaking countries.

In the aftermath of the December 2024 Bondi terrorist attack in Sydney, there is an ongoing debate about new hate speech laws adopted by the Australian federal government. What words constitute hate speech is a large question, and I do not want to engage in a huge, evolving legalistic discussion here, otherwise this blog article will become excessively lengthy.

This debate however, does highlight the importance of defining what words we should include in our policy discussions. I have not directly read the new hate speech laws, but relied on the scrutiny of these laws by legal experts and scholars. So I freely admit that my opinion is second hand, but I think I can contribute something important here.

Do not ban the phrase globalise the intifada. It is definitely not antisemitic.

The perpetrators of the Bondi killings were motivated by a psychopathological hatred of Jews, and indeed of all those who disagreed with their ISIS-fundamentalist ideology. The phrase globalise the intifada is not based on a psychopathic hatred of any religious or ethnic group. The word intifada means uprising, or rise up and sweep away.

The Palestinian movement has called for an intifada, an uprising against the injustices inflicted by the Israeli form of apartheid in the occupied Palestinian Territories. They are asking for solidarity and support from non-Palestinian people. It is a call for political pressure on the West Jerusalem government, and its supporters including the United States, to dismantle the occupation of Palestinian lands.

There have been two intifadas actually; from 1987 to 1993, Palestinians in the occupied territories rose up in defence of their homeland. Again in the period 2000 – 2005, a second intifada erupted. Israeli forces retreated from Gaza in the years following, but have maintained a tight grip over the movement of people and goods in that territory since then.

No, it is not a call for the mass murder of Jews. No, it is not a demand for unrestrained mass violence against Jewish communities. No, it is not a call for terrorist atrocities. No, it is not a demand to burn down synagogues across the world.

It is a call for political action to oppose Zionism and its political project in Palestine. Do not maliciously slander the supporters of the Palestine cause as unhinged, psychopathic antisemites and bloodthirsty murderers. The phrase globalise the intifada is a concise expression of Palestinian aspirations for an independent state.

If you want to criticise those words, please do so. Do not misrepresent its meaning and distort it as a call for violence or mass murder of any ethnic or religious group.

Rather than banning words, let’s confront their meanings, and openly discuss how they contribute to the improvement of the community in which we live.