The Daily Telegraph is defending the new legal requirement that I criticized a couple of days ago and which obliges immigrants to have 'a basic command of the [English] language'. If the paper's arguments are anything to go by, the case for this new requirement is a poor one.
First, it invokes 'the rights of the wider community' against those of the individual. This is a question-begging move. Unless just anything can be justified by appealing to the rights of the community, it needs to be shown how the community at large or some members of it are harmed by individuals being left free to know and speak the languages they want to. Let's face it, most people living in a country in which English is the main spoken language will have a reasonable practical command of it, so that compelling or penalizing those who don't needs further justification in a liberal society than a generic appeal to collective rights.
Second, the only argument here remotely resembling a serious attempt at justification is this: integration. The Telegraph claims that 'generational integration' isn't taking place to the extent desirable. But if 'generational' provides the relevant context, then most of those who need, for that purpose, to learn English will do so - in schools. So why can people like Rashida Chapti's husband not be left to make their own decisions about their linguistic competences - subject, of course, to whatever encouraging influences anyone else might try to direct their way?
Third, the Telegraph appears to want to teach its readers the true meaning of the expression 'begging the question' - and, on that score at least, good for them - by begging the question a second time:
Being required to learn a language can smack of coercion. There are many Britons living overseas who would take umbrage at such a suggestion. Yet it is the law of the land and should be obeyed.
The law of the land in a democratic country should generally be obeyed, but if you're hoping to establish that a particular law is a good one, this won't do.
Fourth, and last, there's the following: 'if people settling in this country do not share its language, how can they fully participate in its democracy?' But many of those who are already citizens of this country don't fully participate in its democracy, and there seems to be no thought, as yet, of coercing them to do so. Why pick on a husband wanting to join his wife and suchlike?
