Or why you too should hate the “human rights” or the parody featured in the conventions that the world governments create amongst themselves. This is section 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.
That’s all very nice, but on the WikiPedia page, look at what France did after signing it in 1980:
France put out a reservation on article 27, in the name of republican universalism, noting the fact that, being “one and indivisible” as a republic, ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious minorities have no more and no less rights than their fellow citizens: indeed France does not “profile” people by racial categories, etc.
Oh yes, we all have the same “rights,” so obviously ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious minorities have no right to have their own cultural life, to practice their own religion, or their own language, beyond the one they share with the other citizens. All the state has to do is say everyone must speak the same language, the French language, vulnerable minorities and powerful majorities, to make believe it’s all nice, universalist and equalitarian. “It’s the same language! Why would minorities have more of a right to practice their language than the rest of the population?”
Of course, for those who already speak French, and wish only to speak French, such a command is absolutement harmless. But for those who do not yet speak French, for those who learn French, or probably the majority of cases, for those who speak French fluently, but would like to practice another language with people from their community, because it’s nice, because it makes you think of your country, because it’s part of the roots you have, that command is absolutely unjust and unfounded. And I dare say no one gives a fuck and speaks whatever he likes. That republicans, those hypocritical fascists who want to enslave everyone whilst looking innocent, cannot do much about this.
Let’s not forget that long after the birth of the French Academy, under the parisian monarchy, long after fascist republican universalism, and all the nationalist endeavors to destroy local cultures and dialects through the wonderful universal-fascist-one-size-fits-all mandatory education, much of the “French,” whom the National Front today would call French natives, did not have French as mother tongue:
Even in a country like France, which had secular political borders and where norms for good speaking had been elaborated over the centuries, only half of the French had the French language as mother tongue in 1900. The others spoke innumerable variants of roman languages and dialects; in Britanny, Alsace and Lorraine, the celtic and germanic languages prevailed.
The French language for a long time was only the language of central power, projected, imposed on society, first by monarchy, then by the republic. Which Eric Besson justified so in his book “For the Nation”:
“Our Nation could only be built by this centralizing power, sometimes exterior to the Nation itself, that imposed itself and imposed its law.”
Of course the centralizing power was exterior to the “Nation” only once in a while (I suppose Eric means, under monarchy it was); it isn’t like the “Republic” today is just another irresponsible, minority creature from Paris, ruling over thousands of communities through regular lying campaigns we elsewhere call elections. The fact that millions are deluded by them does not mean that reality is such as the one displayed by the centralizing power during those campaigns. But what’s really awesome, is the confusion between the “Nation,” a state creature, and the actual French society against which the state struggled. Why? To build the “Nation!” Against her will, for her own good!
Equality of “rights” and “duties” as arbitrarily dictated by the republic to all citizens is insufficient compensation for the destruction of the natural rights that belong to all, including ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities that exist in the “Nation.” The “Nation” is no natural community. And, the freedom to join or leave a community is the necessary condition of its authenticity. As France lives under the republican state, the French have no choice in that matter, unless they are ready to exile themselves, to another state where they will find similar belonging obligations, that will make even sincere wishes null and void. Foreigners must thus wait decades before being naturalised; it’s a sort of very long hazing.
The “Nation” is no natural community, and it isn’t a mono-cultural, mono-linguistic, mono-religious community either. The fact is, under pretext of universalism, the most numerous community, or that group sufficiently numerous of communities, with a sufficient disdain for a minority community, can impose norms and obligations that seem objective, but could be worked out to result in the oppression of the minority community, all the while sparing the more numerous community or gathering of communities. Mandatory French language is an exemple I’ve already presented. Secularism is another, that harms muslims more than christians and obviously atheists. Easy for them to speak of equality before the law, when they are not suffering from the law’s oppression.