ABSTRACT
This chapter presents two extracts that tackle arguments for and against reform of legal language from a practical, campaigning perspective. The two extracts are arguments against plain English drafting valid and the legitimacy conferred by ordinary language. In the UK, an organisation called the Plain English Campaign describes itself as 'fighting for crystal-clear communication since 1979', a fight that consists of 'attacking the use of jargon in various industries'. Legal language has been a major focus of their campaign. Second extract is also concerned with whether people, as plain English campaigners put it, need to understand their rights in order to have rights. It comes from an extended critique of legal language and interpretation in Peter Goodrich's 1986 book Reading the Law. Goodrich focuses on the claim often made that common-law systems work largely through 'ordinary language' that is accessible to those governed by the law, and that this adds significantly to the legitimacy of the legal system.
