How can ‘sanction' mean two opposing things?
Sir Keir Starmer said 'he could 'not imagine' the circumstances in which he would sanction a new referendum' on Scottish independence, the Times reported the other day. The Mirror said Amazon 'has agreed to sanction businesses that boost their star ratings with bogus reviews'.
So we find sanction being used with completely opposite meanings: 'give permission' and 'enact a penalty to enforce obedience to a law'. The latter sense was extended after the first world war to cover economic or military action against a state as a coercive measure. That is the use we daily find applied to action, or the lack of it, against Russia.
The diverging meanings both go back to the Latin noun sanctio, deriving from the verb sancire 'to render sacred', hence 'inviolable'. Such a sanctio came to mean a decree, as in that obscure beast of history, the pragmatic sanction, which looks neither pragmatic or like a sanction.
The phrase had a good run for its money, though, labelling a decree attributed to St Louis of France against the Papacy in 1268 and a decree by Charles III of Spain in 1759, granting the crown of the Two Sicilies to his son. I would describe as an anxiety dream the thought of having to write about either.
Here, pragmatic meant 'to do with affairs of state', a development of the ancient Greek word that, via Latin, also gives us practical. In English pragmatic acquired the meaning 'practical' only in the mid 19th century, allowing the Americans C.S. Peirce and William James to harness pragmatism to describe a kind of philosophy.
As for sanction, it is now also deployed to label the removal or reduction of social benefits. In February this year, 5.5 per cent of claimants were being sanctioned. There is, too, the architect of Dublin's Heuston station (often misprinted as Euston station): Sancton Wood (often misprinted as Sanction Wood).
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
42 minutes ago
- NBC News
Israeli military conducts airstrikes on Iran
The Israeli military has begun airstrikes against Iran, two U.S. officials said Thursday evening, a dramatic escalation that increased the chances of an all-out war between the countries and expanding the long-running regional conflict. There is no U.S. involvement or assistance, the officials said. Israel confirmed it had launched a strike on Iran, and declared a state of emergency early Friday local time. "Following the State of Israel's pre-emptive strike against Iran, a missile and drone attack against the State of Israel and its civilian population is expected in the immediate future," Israel's Defense Minister Israel Katz said in a statement early Friday local time. The move appeared to be a significant break with the Trump administration, which has been in talks with Tehran on a possible nuclear deal and argued against such a step. Israel became more serious about attacking Iran as negotiations between the United States and Iran appeared closer to a preliminary agreement that included provisions about uranium enrichment that Israel views as unacceptable. A big worry for the U.S. is Iran retaliating against American personnel or assets in the region. Officials earlier announced the voluntary departure of nonessential employees, and the Defense Department announced the voluntary departure of military families from across the U.S. Central Command area of operations. The Trump administration had ordered all embassies within striking distance of Iran's missiles, aircraft and other assets (including missions in the Middle East, Northern Africa and Eastern Europe) to send cables with assessments about danger and about measures to mitigate risks to Americans and U.S. infrastructure, two sources told NBC News this week. Earlier this week, the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, formally found that Iran isn't complying with its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Badenoch to call for end to oil and gas windfall tax and ban on new licences
Designed to fund interventions to bring down household bills, the policy has been criticised by those in the industry. Speaking at the Scottish Conservative conference in Edinburgh on Friday, Mrs Badenoch is expected to tout the oil and gas sector, accusing the UK Government of 'killing' it, claiming 'renewing our party and our country means standing up for our oil and gas industry'. She will add: 'When the oil and gas windfall tax, the energy profits levy, was brought in, the oil price was near a historic high, at the exact time as energy bills for the British people were sky-rocketing. 'But there is no longer a windfall to tax. It has long gone. And the longer this regressive tax on one of our most successful industries remains, the more damaging it becomes. 'Labour have extended and increased this tax. They are killing this industry.' If the measure remains in place to 2030 as intended, Mrs Badenoch will say 'there will be no industry left to tax'. She will add: 'So, today, I say enough. Labour must remove the energy profits levy. Labour must speed up the process of replacing it with a system that rewards success and incentivises investment. 'Because we shouldn't have this energy profits levy at all. 'We must scrap the ban on new licences. 'We must overturn the ban on supporting oil and gas technology exports. Kemi Badenoch will say the energy profits levy should end (PA) 'And we must champion our own industry. 'We must let this great British, great Scottish industry thrive, grow and create jobs – ensuring our energy security for generations to come, driving growth and making this country richer in the process.' Mrs Badenoch will address her first Scottish party conference as leader on Friday while her counterpart north of the border Russell Findlay will deliver his inaugural address on Saturday. Responding to Mrs Badenoch, Simon Francis of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition said her comments were 'out of touch', adding: 'Even with the windfall tax in place, the energy industry made over £115 billion in profits in 2024 alone. 'Meanwhile, average household energy bills remain hundreds and hundreds of pounds higher than they were before the energy crisis started. 'While the Government is right to be consulting on reform of the windfall tax, maintaining a profits levy could help fund home upgrades and a social tariff which would bring down energy bills for the most vulnerable in society.' SNP MSP Kevin Stewart said: 'The Tories wrecked our economy, presided over soaring household bills and ripped Scotland from the EU against our will. 'And now they're lurching further to the right as they haemorrhage votes to Nigel Farage. 'This weekend will be an important reminder of how Westminster has failed Scotland. Only the SNP is offering hope and a brighter future as an independent nation.' Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie said: 'While the Tories and SNP let energy workers down by failing to plan for the future, Scottish Labour is committed to taking action towards reaching net zero, creating jobs and cutting energy bills. 'The Tories are on the side of oil and gas giants rather than working Scots, but Scottish Labour will work with the UK Government and use devolved powers to deliver a just transition for the industry. 'With Kemi Badenoch desperately attempting to rally the few remaining Scottish Tories, it seems like it won't be long until they can fit all of their MSPs in a single taxi.'
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Richard Hermer's campaign against Britain
Five years ago, the man who is now Lord Hermer gave an interview to the Times. The then QC was asked how he'd want to be remembered. The answer he gave was curious. 'The world will be a better place,' he said, 'when privileged men like me stop seeking a place in history.' I'm not sure who Lord Hermer thinks should be seeking a place in history, though I assume he was just paying lip service to the spirit of 2020 and wanted to be read to mean that in future most of the running should be done by underprivileged transsexuals. While I cannot agree on the substance, I can agree on one specific. The world would certainly be a much better place if people like Lord Hermer stopped seeking historic roles. For although he is now the Attorney General of England and Wales, there is little to suggest that his noble lordship has any love for this country. Indeed, he appears to have spent his career defending anyone who literally wants to attack us. In their recent efforts to explain the Attorney General's unfortunate list of past clients, Hermer's defenders claim that as a barrister he had to obey the 'cab-rank' rules of the job. It was for this reason, they say, that Hermer spent his career defending such clients as Gerry Adams and almost every variety of Islamic terrorist. Yet the claim is demonstrably daft. To have represented one al-Qaeda terrorist might be a duty, but to represent at least five would seem to be a habit. Never mind that your other clients include the families of Isis members and so on.
