19/09: compulsory languages
If one truly believes that the authorities cannot force one to learn a language, one cannot accept Article Three of the Constitution
Article Three of the Spanish Constitution states: "Castilian is the official Spanish language of the State. All Spaniards have the duty to know it." The statement is unambiguous. From such a starting point, how is it possible that people and parties that claim to be in favour of the Constitution and that do not believe that the article ought to be amended, simultaneously argue that are against the compulsory use or legal imposition of any language?
If one truly believes that the authorities cannot force one to learn a language, one cannot accept Article Three of the Constitution. If one agrees with it, one must accept it is true for every language; otherwise one is saying it is a legitimate obligation for some languages, but not for others. It gets tiresome pointing this out.
Nevertheless, here we go again. Inés Arrimadas, representing an essentially pro-constitution party, said that languages have two enemies, those who forbid them and those who impose them. It sounds like a perfect soundbite. Meanwhile, during campaigning in the Basque country, the socialist party, which also sees itself as pro-constitutional, has taken to making videos opposing the obligation to be able speak Basque in certain jobs. As if Spanish wasn’t compulsory. Can’t they see the contradiction? No, they cannot, because the obligation to speak Spanish is so banal that it has become invisible to them.
