I just read an online debate about the extent by which the Catalan government intends to impose at least fifty percent of the programming of the theaters is offered in the vernacular of this autonomous region, which has caused a major upset in the group of businessmen concerned. As always, some speak of freedom of choice and trade, and more to protect a language in itself, they say, ignored forty years of Franco regime could not survive. Someone, referring to the graffiti appeared on the walls of cinemas most reluctant to lose money ( "marginalizes the cinema Aquest català!" ) compared with Nazi signs from the thirties to the door of establishments run by Jews ( "Resist the Germans! Jews Do not buy in stores!" ). And some commentators criticized the exaggerated comparison. It is true that is forceful but also timely: the matches we would be much more obvious if not for the fact that we only know, horror, historical implications of the two situations compared.
is not the same say "So and so is Nazi that" the Nazis began doing things like making Fulano ". Nor is equal say "this is a Nazi nationalist" (which may be descriptive) that "all nationalists are nazis" (which is unfair.) However, the important thing here is that the graffiti on the door of film adds nothing to the democratic debate or any debate, it can only be to intimidate, coerce, pointing to that should be excluded from the community, that deserves public censure or perhaps punishment. In this rule of law for judges, but the author of the graffiti the rule of law does not care, because he only aspire to achieve is a country forged around a distinctive and exclusive: the language he and his men have decided that the territory itself in living with others who do not speak or think like him. The painted facade is indeed a fascist. And the Catalan authorities do not prevent or condemn, but instead encourage this type of behavior, are fellow travelers of fascism and political leaders of any aggression resulting from this state of affairs. Not all nationalists are fascists, but to me it seems to me that all nationalism involves a germ without the fundamentalist and totalitarian that its meaning can not acquire or hold, and that too often results in taxation or violence in any of its forms and intensities. The imposition on the cinemas of the obligation to provide the customer contained in a particular language-like pre-labeled in the same belongs to a totalitarian conception of how things should be: "Reality is wrong, so cambiémosla" .
Imagine a country where social diversity lies not in the language, but in religion, as indeed happens in many places such as Bosnia-Herzegovina and Germany. A true democrat in that country establish a secular state and religious freedom that allows each citizen (or each dealer, or each consumer) choose to manifest religion or engage in private life. In contrast, a religious nationalist legislate that every library should contain at least fifty percent of Lutheran books, or private television salute to spectators at least half of the morning with a Muslim prayer, or that more companies ten employees at least half of these were Catholics. Ie associate the concept confusing, if not false, which is often called collective or national identity with one of the social traits or cultural mind-religion or, rather, one of the religions, and consider the preservation, promotion and after the imposition of the single most important trait that individual freedom to buy, study or work without the same freedom conditions and effectiveness (communicative, educational, commercial, etc.).. legislate religious nationalist ad hoc, it devoted considerable resources to public and civil servants would also create an affine and a network of patronage as widely as possible, directly dependent on the prosperity of business relating to religion, all accompanied by a " religious policy "that would end up imposing on governments, schools, media and all services under the pretext of protecting the collective identity, encroaching on the public sphere and the private ... Religion is or may be an important element of free individual personality, a cultural trait passed down from parents to children belonging to both the private sphere and for which, as it seems to many Westerners since 1789, the powers of the State should be limited to guarantee freedom of exercise. The difference between understanding or not understanding this premise is that unfortunately there has been between Germany and Bosnia. O between Germany 2010 and 1935. Or, in the germinal stage, between respecting freedom of others and paint the front of the cinema with veiled coercion.
Well, the state intervention that seems unimaginable and never tolerate in favor of a religion we have meekly accepted in recent decades in much of Spain when it came to that invention sociolinguistic of "native languages" , To the astonishment of other European countries, scorn us, deterioration of our freedom and breach of the economy, to the point now threaten our existence and promote public protests with increasing frequency ... I suspect, however, that the latter is a sign of change. In our country there today a new policy option radically committed to freedom and, therefore, very critical of nationalism, whether linguistic or otherwise, and there are also citizens who want to vent that suffer extremely poor democracy: a system stuck in clientelism, mediocrity and prejudice. Unfair and boring shake the tyranny of language is only one of the tasks ahead, but certainly not least, on the road to democratic regeneration. Digital Journalist .
