Is it a breach of human rights to require someone who wants to live in England to learn English?
link to story
I think not.
I live in France (as many of you already know) and I am totally at ease with the 5th Republic's 2nd Article which says, simply "The language of France is French".
There isn't an equivalent in the UK sadly, (if not only because the UK doesn't have a Constitution) but I do feel nonetheless that the UK Government is right to have expectations about aspiring resident's dealings with it's citizens and officialdom.
For example, I can't expect to go into the local Prefecture to register a car or my local Marie to talk about collection of my rubbish and demand that the fonctionaire speak to me in English, Urdu, Spanish or any other language for that matter. The fonctionaire may well speak English sufficiently fluently to understand what I want to say in my mother tongue but why should they when the 2nd Art. says "The language of France is French"?
I'm not being anti-immigration here; after all, I am an 'immigrant' in my host Country but I do believe that you should respect the traditions of where you want to live and simply learn the language.
As for the fact Mr Chapti is 59 and not able to learn English because of his age is irrelevant IMHO. I'm 60 and I'm constantly improving my French language skills. It's just a matter of will.
I would say that the same applies in the UK G. If someone goes to a Local Authority (Is that similar to a Prefecture?) they will be helped in as much that if they can get across to the person what they want i.e. it could be that they wanted to complain about their bin collection, then they would be handed a leaflet in their own language (if it was a common one.....including Welsh!!!!). That is it. The onus is on the customer to be understood by the LA. For example they could bring a friend or a translator. When there is a legal requirement to provide a translator then the LA will provide a translator, e.g. under PACE interview.
I didn't know about the new rules. Do they apply to a multi-billionairre buying a football team? Or does money get around this rule?
Dave_Notts
Effectively the counsel for the the UK spouse is saying that it is indirect discrimination to require him to speak English.
Quite honestly this is another example of Human Rights Act being distorted out of all proportions, it is important to remember that the reason that the HRA came into existence at all was because of the atrocities in WW2, and at the time it was put together it could not have possibly been within the foresight of the lawmakers that it would be used in this way.
It is not unreasonable to expect a person applying for citizenship to have a basic grasp of the language of their host country, and it cannot be allowed to be tantamount to breaching the Right to A Family Life aspect of the HRA to require it, solely on the grounds that the Indian based spouse has not had the opportunity to learn English.
If there is any case to answer, it is a case for the Indian authorities who have precluded the Indian based spouse from learning English - given that a basic grasp of the language is required for immigration.
... Oh... hang on... there are millions of native Indians who can speak better English than an Old Etonian - so that cannot be true.
It might be the case that the Indian based spouse simply could not be arsed to learn it, and the UK based spouse is looking for an easy option by trying to break a new legal loophole.
It cannot be allowed to happen - if you find an exception for one rule in immigration then you can make a case for others, to argue otherwise truly is discrimination.
If the lady in question wants a family life, go and move back to india to be with her husband.
He only wants to come here because he's getting old and wants the use of the benifits system/health service.
And the wifes claim is being funded by the tax payer.
The countrys turned into a joke, and I despair for the future of it.
You want to live here? You speak English. Obviously people who are in reality unable to speak Engish will need some support. But being to lazy to learn it isn't being unable. The deaf, dumb and those with severe motor problems will need support. But otherwise - mentally get off your lazy arse and LEARN THE LANGUAGE.
I work in Germany on and off and speak enough to get by (fed, transport, housed, shagged) but we have managers who spend minimum 3 months livign there and rely 100% on their secretaries (who are German or English but always bi-lingual) for all dealings with German speakers. Frankly it's embarassing and, if I were their boss, I would give them 3 months to learn the lingo (before they go abroad) and then show them the door.
One of the regular tips all holiday brochures, guides and travel companies mention is trying to learn a little of the language of the country that you are visiting. OK you are only going for a few weeks usually, however the local population appreciate you've at least tried to make an effort, however poorly/faulteringly, and they'll usually try and be patient and help you. (Just like we do with visitors to the UK).
Obviously moving to another country is different, as you'll be spending your life there with another culture, laws, social norms, and language. Therefore it's gonna be pretty imperative that you at least try and learn the local language and customs, so think about where you are going to live and work.
For most of the UK, then english will be fine, however for some parts of the country it's probably useful to try and learn, 'please', 'thank you', 'hello' and 'goodbye' in the local language, e.g. parts of Wales it'll be welsh and parts of Scotland it'll be Gaelic so as to get by/on with your new friends and neighbours.
GnV is quite right concerning the French. This is the one language that has replaced the multiple local languages that were spoken, probably the major one that survives being Basque although french is the official language for virtually everything. Try living in France and not learning french and you'll really struggle, the same being true for many countries in Europe never mind further afield.
Surely if they just shout loudly in their own language, everybody will understand?
It is wrong to enforce a law demanding that immigrants learn English.
what timescale would such a law use ?
why is it wrong ..... because when we call upon other nations to fight in the British Army we do not insist on thier ability to speak English and quite rightly so.
Indians died in thier thousands fighting for Britain during the 2nd world war, especially in Italian campaign.
Very few Ghurkas speak English but fight for us in Afghanistan and fought for us in the Falklands Campaign and every other war for countless years.
the Polish were our first allies during the Crimean war.
American Indians helped us during the war of independance.
There are countless cases of Foreign Nationals fighting for this country it would be wrong of us to have a rule for one scenario and not another.
I spent many years as a migrant worker in Switzerland and I did not have to learn the language (though I did) I spent 6 years living in Germany as a British Soldier on NATO duties but did not have to learn the language (i did but again personal choice)
The ramifications of such a law could be bad.
we have politicians in the welsh office who dont speak welsh !
Poor analogy I think Mids? Taking just one of them, a British Army base in Germany is essentially a closed English speaking community, in which there is no expectation that you'd need to know how to speak German to do what's required of you and get by. It's apples and oranges.
As for Wales, given that English is still the de facto official language, pretty much all Welsh speakers being equally, if not more fluent in English, there's no requirement that anyone, politicians included, actually speak Welsh to be able to fully and actively participate either. The only requirement as of last year is that the Welsh language be recognised as a second, equal official language, and services be provided for speakers of it.
N x x x ;)
ok ...... but asking them to die for Britain no matter how good thier command of the British Language is ?
will we refuse the help of the Ghurkas because most of them cannot speak English ? are we going to disband them and send them home ?
If we need the help of our Commonwealth Countries in times of conflict (last called upon in 1982 to assist with the Falklands Campaign) will we insist they only send forces that can speak English or will we once again welcome thier help to put thier lives at risk for us whilst pointing out that they are not welcome here in peacefull circumstances unless they speak English
Are we arguing that dying (for any cause) is less of a challenge than learning a langauge? OK in practical terms it takes no effort to get shot. But I'm talking about percieved value. I'm not sure th Ghurkas don't speak English anyway. Their commanding officers are generally English, and using translators in the field isn;t always possible.
Let's turn this around - A person will die for this country but won't learn it's language? That doesn't make sense.
There is of course a much better reason for not shopping at Asda ..... they're owned by Walmart a notoriously oppressive employer
of course any one who thinks they are being mis treated by there employers can get help and information from this link.
:thumbup:
You will of course also have noted that Walmart is the U.S. arm of the cororation where the employment laws are somewhat different...obviously you read of the disproportionate number of lawsuits brought against them for breaking those laws , you also I'm sure read of their breeches of the U.S. child labour laws , and their use of third world sweat shops as suppliers
Walmart are to many the unacceptable face of capitalism ,that they are entering U.K. markets should ring alarm bells in all our heads