Justin Trudeau: Boulevard of ‘brokenist’ dreams: Justin Trudeau’s tryst with parliamentary language | World news

Justin Trudeau, the Canadian Prime Minister, recently made headlines when he coined the term “brokenist” during a parliamentary session. This unusual choice of words was his attempt to criticize the opposition’s approach to the country’s policies and economy. However, the term sparked widespread ridicule both inside and outside Parliament, with many questioning its validity and meaning. The incident draws attention to the broader issue of parliamentary language and what is appropriate or inappropriate, often called “unparliamentary,” speech in legislative assemblies.

What is parliamentary and Unparliamentary Language?
Parliamentary language refers to the decorum expected of members during debates and discussions within legislative assemblies. It includes the tone, phrasing, and general respect owed to fellow members and the institution itself. While members are expected to engage in heated debates, the language used must maintain a certain level of dignity and respect and refrain from personal attacks or derogatory comments.
Unparliamentary language, on the other hand, refers to terms, phrases or expressions that are considered inappropriate in parliamentary discourse. These usually include accusations of dishonesty, insults or any form of derogatory language directed towards other members. The definition of what constitutes unparliamentary language may vary considerably from country to country, but the underlying principle remains the same: it is language that disrupts the dignity and decorum of parliamentary proceedings.
In Canada’s House of Commons, the Speaker has the power to determine whether certain language crosses the line. While there is no comprehensive list of banned words, precedent and the discretion of the Speaker’s Guide determine whether a term should be withdrawn or apologized for. In Trudeau’s case, while the term was not declared unparliamentary, it was criticized for being vague and not contributing meaningfully to the debate.
Justin Trudeau’s “Brokenist”: An Example of Modern Political Language

The term “brokenist” emerged during a heated session in which Justin Trudeau sought to highlight the perceived negativity and obstructionism of the opposition, particularly the Conservative Party, under its leader. Pierre Poilievre. Trudeau’s use of the term seemed to suggest that the opposition was focusing too much on portraying Canada as “broken”, a theme Poilievre had used repeatedly in his criticism of Trudeau’s government.
Although Trudeau likely intended “brokenist” to be shorthand for this negativity, the unusual nature of the word drew widespread ridicule. Media outlets and social media users were quick to pounce on the tricky wording, and the opposition took advantage of the moment and used it to portray Trudeau as outrageous. Despite this ridicule, the incident also opened a broader conversation about the evolving nature of political language and the fine line between clever rhetoric and confusing jargon.
Parliamentary insults: a history of creative (and unparliamentary) language
While “brokenist” may have been intended as a subtle political joke, parliaments around the world have seen much more overt and offensive language over the years. In many legislative assemblies, MPs have made insults and accusations that push the boundaries of parliamentary etiquette.
In Britain, for example, some notable non-parliamentary terms include ‘liar’, ‘scoundrel’ and ‘hypocrite’, all of which have been retired in the House of Commons. A famous example of a creative parliamentary insult came from Winston Churchillwho, rather than outright calling someone a liar, famously used the phrase ‘terminological inaccuracy’ to avoid breaking parliamentary rules and still made his point.
Canada has also had its share of colorful language in parliament. In 1971, then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (Justin Trudeau’s father) famously uttered the words “fuddle duddle” when accused of blasphemy during a heated argument. The phrase has since become part of Canadian political folklore, illustrating how even veiled insults can capture the public’s imagination.
Other terms that have been declared unparliamentary in Canada include “liar,” “racist,” “scuzzball” and “traitor.” Despite the strict regulations, MPs have often found creative ways to push the boundaries of what is acceptable, using indirect insults or puns to convey their contempt for opponents.
The evolution of language in democracies

The use of language in democratic institutions has always been an important part of political strategy. From ancient Athens to modern-day parliaments, rhetoric has played a crucial role in shaping public opinion and influencing policy. However, as societies and cultures evolve, the language used by their representatives also changes.
In the early days of parliamentary democracy, debates were often characterized by formal, sometimes archaic language. Insults were disguised and speakers relied heavily on metaphors and euphemism to avoid directly insulting their opponents. However, as politics became more accessible and the media took on a greater role in disseminating parliamentary proceedings, language in the legislature became more direct and sometimes abrasive.
In the 20th and 21st centuries, political language has continued to evolve, influenced by the rise of mass media, social media and a general shift towards more informal forms of communication. Although insults and accusations have always been part of parliamentary life, the way they are expressed has changed. Politicians now use sound bites and slogans more often, knowing their words will be repeated on television, radio and social media platforms.
However, this greater visibility comes with a greater risk of backlash. As Justin Trudeau discovered with his use of “brokenist,” the line between clever political rhetoric and confusing jargon can be thin. In today’s media-saturated world, even the smallest verbal misstep can quickly become a viral moment, overshadowing the substance of the debate.