You might have seen last week’s furore over a certain Rashida Chapti.
For those who didn’t, here’s a recap. Mrs Chapti has launched a legal battle over the UK’s decision not to allow her husband, currently living in India, to join her to live in the UK. Such is the potency of Theresa May’s new law banning immigrants who don’t speak our native tongue that Mr Chapti has been prevented from checking in to the UK.
Not taking it lying down, Mrs Chapti – who doesn’t speak much English herself despite being here for six years - proceeded to then fight this ‘racist rule’ in court by claiming that learning English was an infringement of her and her husband’s human rights to a private and family life.
As we say in English, what a load of codswallop!
Learning the language is such a chore that if she and her husband win their battle, she says it won’t be on their to do list.
In their eyes, it’s not necessary as he can get a job as a machinist – apparently being able to communicate effectively in a workplace isn’t that necessary!
It probably is quite easy these days to work in a country without muttering a single word of the country’s language of choice (one such person worked in McDonalds on London’s Oxford Street and bluntly said ‘no English’ to a friend of mine), but that does not make it right.
It is this poor attitude that angers me the most. Who gave her ‘the right’ to choose not to? And how on earth is learning a language an infringement of ‘private and family life’? Last time I checked it was a necessity.
The message is clear, whatever language it is in, that learning the lingo is vital. Not just because of fitting in, integration, being able to work and so on, but also out of respect.
The likes of Salou and Marbella have been ruined by this lack of respect. Years of holidaying and retired Brits taking up residence for sun, sea and sand have left the towns shadows of themselves. The lack of effort and will to even attempt an ‘hola’ or ‘gracias’ has resulted in these artificial and unnatural Little Britains.
Eastenders is shown on the telly, bars and pubs serve English grub and signs only feature English.
It saddens me that people can think so poorly of a country that they refuse to participate fully in the things that make it different from another.
Of course everyone has the right to follow whichever creed or cultural practices but this shouldn’t be to the detriment of others. The cultures of the aforementioned Spanish towns on the Costa Dorada have been left to wither and die as waves of disrespectful tourists refuse to attempt to fit in.
Speaking the lingo is the first step to integration. How can this woman not see this? Is she inadvertently suggesting that she seeks not to connect with the country that welcomed her into its community?
She says that it is too expensive, and impractical for a man his age - 57 - to master English. But older people are quite capable of acquiring new skills and languages. Of course it will be difficult, but if your heart is set on something then you will strive to achieve it at all costs. You’re not written off at 57.
What is really stopping him? I’d be happy to send over a copy of the Rosetta Stone or an English-made-easy book if it will help.
Language should not be seen as optional and I am glad that this government has recognised this.
It isn’t discriminatory to ask a migrant to learn their new country’s language, it’s just common sense. This legislation will help new citizens to settle in and aid wider integration. Anything that works towards this aim should be applauded, not shunned.
So, sorry Rashida Chapti, I’m with the government on this one.
Comments
Michael Reed / August 03 2011 2:31pm
Should the government be enacting legislation that forces people into respectful behaviour? Sounds a bit top-down socialist to me.
Not that I'm saying that people shouldn't be compelled to learn the language. Apart from anything else, there's the cost in terms of services when it comes to working with citizens who can't speak English. I dare say that there are also legal and health and safety aspects. Not to mention the benefits situation for people who will struggle to stay in employment. I'd say that those were more pragmatic and reasonable areas for the government to push on.
Chris / August 04 2011 4:19pm
Leaving aside the language debate for a moment, there is another element issue which the media seems reluctant to engage with. I listened to an interview with Mrs Chapti (conducted through an interpreter, natch) in which it emerged that the husband has been living in a remote village in India for many years and she visits a few times per year. Doesn't sound like much of a marriage to me (arranged perhaps?), and if she has been content to live apart till now, I think she rather undermines her own claim to the 'right' to a family life in the UK. Now, as he approaches retirement, he suddenly wants to come to the UK. Why, if they are so desparate to be together, does she not go and live in India? Surely it can't have anything to do with expectations around long term care through the NHS, taxpayer-funded housing, state pension and other benefits??
Michael Hall / August 06 2011 2:52pm
The question is not whether it is desirable or necessary for workers to be able speak the language of their employer and fellow workers - which in a factory in Leicester could mean Gujarati. It is whether UK citizens and others with the right of abode in the UK should be allowed to bring their spouses to live with them here without having first learnt English. There is no law that says that we cannot live in France or Spain without having learnt the languages of those countries. I fully expect Rashida Chapti to win her case - see my blog http://michaeljameshall.wordpress.com.
Robert the crip / August 08 2011 10:46am
I mean most these people live in a tribal area within the UK, most work in local shops or resturunts owned by the local person from her country she does not need to speak English, and the one's who are not working do not need to speak English as the government has now got languges across the world. In my area we closed the local benefits office for the English British, and then decided we needed a benefits office for Polish people and people speaking Urdu.
It caused a lot of anger in my area