Why language law & policy – the case of Belgium

1. Why language law & policy – the case of Belgium Prof. Matthias E. Storme Aalst 15 June 2015 European Alliance Seminar

2. Low countries (Benelux) - languages

3. ‘Flanders’ • Different meanings of ‘Flanders’ – historical / actual-political • Belgian population 2014: • Flanders 6,41 mio (6,01 Belgian citizens) • Wallonia 3,50 mio (3,30 Belgian citizens) • Brussels 1,16 mio (only 0,77 Belgian citizens!) • German community 75,000

4. Brussels – ‘demographic change’

5. Brussels 2006 / 2012 Languages spoken at home • Brussels 2006 • 57 % French • 9 % Dutch and French • 7 % Dutch • 11 % French and foreign • 16 % foreign language • In 2012, 5,4 % Dutch only households plus 14,1 % Dutch and another language. French only households were only 33,6 % anymore. Foreign language households have increased to more than 30 %.

6. Language regulation - history • de facto Frenchification of central government in 18th century • Official Frenchification after French occupation in 1795 (république une et indivisible ….) • Reunification with the Netherlands 1815-1830 • Belgian Constitution 1831: use of languages officially ‘free’ - language use can only be regulated for government acts (including justice) • Central government, justice: only French • What did freedom of language mean ? Freedom not to understand any other language than French • E.g. Cour de cassation 12 May 1873: forbidding to plead in Dutch in Court • Dutch de facto forbidden at school

7. Language regulation • Slow emancipation movement • Linked to romantic/identity movement + democratic movement • Universal suffrage 1893 > formal equality 1898 • Only in 1930 Dutch at the university • 1931 Deal: territoriality or personality ? • Linguistic ‘border’ fixed 1963

8. Linguistic zones today

9. Language regulation • Regulation of the language itself ? • There is an official spelling/orthography (but nof further regulation of the language itself) • Jurisdiction transferred to the ‘Taalunie’ (1980 international Treaty) for the Netherlands, Flanders, Suriname (parliamentary assembly, council of ministers) • Scope of language regulation today: • Public administration incl. justice • In some border communities individual « facilities » • Territorial jurisdiction often not mandatory > choice of defendant • Schools: ‘recognised schools’ in the language of the region, but private schooling allowed; exemption from exam for some foreign schools • Universities: danger of anglicisation • Social/industrial relations: CJEU 16 Apil 2013 in Las • ‘Effort to learn’ required for some social benefits esp. housing. • No regulation of business names, market use, etc….

10. Switzerland – linguistic zones

11. Territoriality – Geographic background • See already evolution of language in Brussels supra. • “Small” language is a very relative notion, as for Dutch: • 23 mio native speakers (+ 6 mio Afrikaans) • 8 / 25 in EU • In international perspective still a big language 50/3000, but 4th on Wikipedia, 6th in the Calvet study, 10th on internet use, 11th source language for tranlations (6th target language) • But unfortunately surrounded by the big 3: French, English, German • And in Belgium strongly handicapped by the political context. • > High level but low status

12. Speaking foreign languages

13. Raeding foreign languages: EN

14. Average knowledge of languages

15. Territoriality – challenges • Large-scale immigration – different types of immigration: • rich expats can afford not to understand the language of the land • poor migrants try to adapt more or less • internal francophone claim culture (‘human right to be served in French’) • Ironic reversal of the notion of tolerance – comp. situation in Spain

16. Territoriality – challenges • Conflict with “free movement” principles ? • ECJ in Groener on obligation to learn gaelic in Ireland: AG Darmon: “a minority language cannot be preserved without the adoption of voluntary and obligatory measures . Any minority phenomenon in whatever field cannot usually survive if appropriate measures are not taken” • ECJ in Las: legitimate but disproportionate: Dutch may be imposed, translation in other languages not forbidden • Danger of (other) human rights • Right of a defendant in criminal proceedings to translation in Court: yes • Right to private use: yes • But no right to be administered in any and every language; no human right not to understand the language of the land

17. CoE Minorities Convention • Refused by France, Turkey, Belgium (Flanders) • For partly different reasons • Some other instruments less problematic, eg • UNESCO Convention Protection Diversity of Cultural Expressions • Barcelona Declaration on linguistic rights 1996 • Why is it problematic for Flanders ? In principle and in practice • In principle, as to the concept: Belgium has developed a much stronger protection of minorities by granting each of the national ‘minorities’ an autonomous region with far reaching competences, thus guaranteeing them a territory where they can develop and be at home. That on the other hand precisely requires that they refrain from claiming minority rights in the other territories • In practice: if Flanders would be an independent country, ratification would be much less ‘risky’. We have very bad experiences with the way national and some international Courts are very unilaterally ‘informed’ …