Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense

The odd phrase, “Honi soit qui mal y pense,” appears on the British royal coats of arms, on the pound coin and other places across England and the rest of Great Britain. It means, roughly, “Shame on you if you think bad thoughts about this.”

The phrase dates back 700 years or so, when English kings all spoke French. Edward III is credited with saying it first, but the circumstances are obscure. American don’t need to worry about English history. But that phrase has value for us as well as for the English.

Shame and dishonor have an appropriate place in any moral society. it is right and proper — even necessary — to condemn wrong behavior. And if a person does something shameful, they should feel ashamed. But no one should cast shame on right behavior just because it doesn’t suit them.

Consider the current discussion in the US over statehood for the District of Columbia.

View fullsize

The people living in the District of Columbia are (mostly) American citizens, and are thereby entitled to the same representation in Congress as other American citizens. They do not have it. They vote for the president, but they do not have congressional representation. They have instead a delegate, who has limited rights and cannot vote on final passage of legislation. Clearly, citizens living in the District are not fairly represented. A nation that revolted over “Taxation Without Representation” should not tolerate exactly that form of injustice, but it has done so for 230 years.

The District of Columbia was set aside in the Constitution as a national government center — apart from all the states. It is one of the many things the founders set up in the Constitution without thinking of the consequences. Did they imagine the District of Columbia would remain unpopulated? Did they intend to deprive District residents of representation?

The most likely answer is, they didn’t think it through carefully at all.

But that leave us in 2022 to fix the mistake and give the citizens living in the District the rights they deserve. And the discussion has led to a great deal of unkind and dishonest “mal y pense” talk.

Here’s just one example. Conservative writer George F. Will discussed DC statehood in The Washington Post in a column titled, “The Anti-Constitutional DC Statehood Pretense.” Will begins:

The Democratic-controlled Congress will soon try to transform part of the District of Columbia, which today is about one-eighteenth the size of Rhode Island but 18.9 percent larger than Denver International Airport, into a state. This will involve theatrical and constitutional difficulties.

The Democrats’ theatrical challenge will be to keep straight faces while insisting that their motivation is altruistic.

That last sentence shows Will’s intention to cast doubt and shame on the DC statehood effort. He implies that the other side — in this case, Democrats — support DC statehood only because that would benefit the Democrat Party in future elections.

There are plenty of similar comments in other publications about various proposals for DC statehood. Some recommend keeping the current boundaries of the district, and making DC the 51st state with two new US senators and a proportional share of the 435 House of Representatives (which would be a single member). Other proposals call for redrawing the District to include only the government center and reverting the rest of the District to the state of Maryland. That way, people living in what is now the District would in future be represented by Maryland’s two senators and by a House member who would be nominally from Maryland.

Either of those proposals would solve the current injustice. But one would benefit the Democrat Party (since most of the people living in DC are very liberal Democrat voters), and the other would not.

Will, and others like him, insist that his political opponents support DC statehood only because it would benefit their political party. He insists that they are motivated only by their own gain, and not at all by desire to fix an injustice. Democrats, meanwhile, insist that anyone who doesn’t back their plan are determined to keep DC residents down.

In short, both sides are determined to think the worst of the other side — and determined that the other side can’t possibly want to do the right thing because it is right. In this case, extending political representation cannot possibly be neutral. If DC residents are allowed to vote for Congress, the party they prefer will benefit. That cannot be avoided.

What could be avoided is rancorous accusations from both political parties — that the other side is only acting for its benefit and is not concerned about fairness.

Shame on them both!