Also, what I find particularly pernicious about the link the Minister makes between English proficiency and belonging – and it’s one successive Immigration Ministers have spoken to – is that it denies and seeks to hide the structural disadvantaging of many groups in Australia due to their particular identity and socioeconomic status behind the fantasy that it’s just about being able to speak a named language: “English”. This kind of thinking blames the individual for their lack of opportunity to acquire what is really a high status form of Australian English rather than acknowledging the multiple ways that minoritised identities are kept in their place – away from power codes and away from centres of power. There are many excellent people working in this space, suggesting ways to create a more socially inclusive society, and seeking to scapegoat migrants with low English language proficiency is not one of them, in my view.

Never mind my preferred choice of Esperanto! I’m cool with the language of Shakespeare! But, if common ground is impossible among anglophiles it becomes a question of placating the implacable here if even the English language is ruled out as a vehicle for making peace: Once a civil war, or any war, has started in the Balkans or anywhere, David’s comment about the impotence of a common language (as distinct from a global auxlang yet to be adopted and taught to all kids from an early age) vis-a-vis stopping said war(s) is valid. To draw his conclusion about an international auxlang, without any expanding, is to draw a long bow if you’ll pardon the militaristic terminology.

“No doubt you are aware that in the past ages a common language shared by various nations created a spirit of interdependence and solidarity among them. For instance, one thousand three hundred years ago [writing shortly before WW1]there were very many divergent nationalities in the Orient. There were Copts in Egypt, Syrians in Syria, Assyrians in Musel, Babylonians in Bagdad along the river Mesopotamia. There existed between these nations divergence of opinion and hatred, but as they were slowly brought near to one another, finding common interests, they made the Arabic language a common vehicle of speech among them. The study of this common language by all made them as one nation. We know very well today that the Assyrians are not Arabs, that the Copts, Syrians, Chaldeans and Egyptians are not Arabs. Each one of these nations belongs to its own sphere of nationality, but, as they all began to study the Arabic language, making it a vehicle of intercommunication, today, they are all considered as one. They are so united that it is impossible to break this indissoluble bond. Today in Syria there are many religious sects, such as Orthodox, Mussulman, the Dorzi, Nestorians and so on. As they all speak Arabic they are considered as one; if you ask any one of them, he will say – I am an Arab, though in reality he is not. Some of them are Greeks, others are Jews etc. In short, there are many different nations and religions in the Orient that are united through the benefit of a common language. In the world of existence an international auxiliary language is the greatest bond to unite the people… Just as in the Orient a common language created common interests between the various nations, likewise, in this age a universal auxiliary language would unite all the people of the world. The purpose of my remarks is, that, in the world of humanity, the greatest influence which will work for unity and harmony among the nations is the teaching of a universal language. Every intelligent man will bear testimony to this and there is no further need of argument or evidence.” Sir Abdul-Baha Abbas KBE (Knighted by Field Marshall Allenby for services in Palestine fighting famine in WW1), Esperanto banquet, Hotel Moderne, Paris.

The greatest instrument for promoting harmony and understanding is the officially agreed upon adopting in sensible stages of an international auxlang that is taught in all the schools of the world from the age of six or seven.

I’m afraid that wouldn’t do much. The presence of a common language has not stopped a single civil war or the murderousness of the collapse of Yugoslavia. International auxlangs have all sorts of benefits, but world peace is not one of them.

All the “media siloing” (people only using news sources they already agree with) in the US is in English.

thanks Niru. Yes, I agree his comments are potentially dangerous, more so because they come from a government minister.

The greatest instrument for promoting harmony and understanding is the officially agreed upon adopting in sensible stages of an international auxlang that is taught in all the schools of the world from the age of six or seven. The League of Nations nearly pulled it off (with only 50 member states) at the height of the Spanish flu pandemic! (Free essay available) That Germany was not invited, the USSR joined very late and the USA avoided the League altogether hindered the adoption of an auxlang in 1920, and again in 1921, and then things spiralled way out of control politically, first in Ethiopia and Manchuria and then in the Rhineland, all the way to 1939. As the English language is extremely popular at this time no reason exists as to why it may not be adopted very soon in that historic role. The lessons of history indicate that there is no other solution than for nation states to ask the UN itself (not UNESCO) to seriously start consultations on the process of selecting a planetary auxlang for all kids.