When linguistic contempt enters public life
Thanks to a newspaper articleLe PoherPublished a few days ago, Yes Breizh learned of an incident that occurred recently during a town council meeting in Carhaix, where a councillor was mocked for speaking in Breton.
Such behaviour, aside from being discourteous and unnecessarily aggressive, raises an unfortunately recurring question: can we, in a Republic whose motto is ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’, tolerate an elected official publicly ridiculing another elected official simply for using the historical language of Brittany, which is still spoken by several tens of thousands of people?
Admittedly, it would be possible to describe this incident as anecdotal, but on the contrary, it reveals deep tensions surrounding the place of so-called «minority» languages in France, and particularly in Brittany, but also a broader contradiction in our way of thinking about linguistic issues.
An attack on the fundamental rules of democratic debate
But first let's come back to the question of respect between elected representatives (and more generally between people with a mandate in an association, trade union or company).
In a deliberative assembly, the right to speak is a fundamental right. Making a mockery of it is tantamount to denying the legitimacy of the speaker.
The fact that this mockery is aimed at a younger elected representative involved in cultural promotion reinforces the unease. Political criticism is legitimate, personal mockery is not.
When it targets a woman in a public context, it can also be perceived as a form of everyday sexism, which is still far too prevalent in political life.
But beyond the person, it is the language itself that is being targeted. And this is where the elected official's contemptuous and discourteous gesture takes on a societal and political dimension.
Breton, a living and legitimate language
Must we reiterate the obvious: Breton is not a folkloric fantasy, but a living language, carried by speakers, associations, schools, and even elected officials.
The mocked elected official has dedicated part of her life to the study and transmission of Breton, to the point of making it an object of academic research.
In this context, to mock a speech in Breton is not only to scorn an elected representative, but also to deny the cultural, educational and scientific work that accompanies this language.
At a deeper level, this reflects a still highly centralised and hegemonic (if not insecure) vision of the French Republic, where linguistic diversity is still perceived as a threat rather than an asset.
A French contradiction: defending French elsewhere, but not here
This is where the situation becomes paradoxical.
Those who vigorously denounce the use of Breton in the name of linguistic unity are often the same ones who worry, sometimes rightly, about the decline of French elsewhere in the world.
In Quebec, for example, French is seen as threatened by the dominance of English in a largely English-speaking North American environment. Some analysts even speak of constant pressure from English, to the point where the survival of French is regularly debated.
In this context, Quebec's language protection policies are often defended in France as legitimate, even necessary.
So how do you justify supporting the defence of French in Quebec while rejecting the defence of Breton in Brittany?
A universal logic: minority languages in danger
The Breton case is in fact part of a global problem. UNESCO has long been warning of the gradual disappearance of minority languages, often replaced by dominant languages.
In Tibet, for example, the Tibetan language is regularly described as weakened by the increasing use of Mandarin in education and administration. This type of situation is often denounced in Europe as a form of cultural erasure.
Here again, the contradiction is striking: we condemn the marginalisation of Tibetan in the face of Chinese, we worry about the decline of French in the face of English, but we tolerate and even encourage the disappearance of Breton in the face of French.
What does the whistling politician think?
An implicit hierarchy of languages
Behind these contradictions lies an implicit hierarchy: some languages are «noble», worthy of being defended, while others are incidental, folkloric or even useless.
French deserves to be protected. Breton, on the other hand, would be tolerable... on condition that it remains discreet and increasingly in the minority.
This vision is problematic, because it is based on a utilitarian conception of language: a language is only worth its economic or political weight.
A language is above all a vector of culture, memory and identity. Its disappearance is not just linguistic, it is also symbolic.
The danger of cultural Jacobinism
The attitude denounced at Carhaix is therefore part of a well-known French tradition: the linguistic Jacobinism that inspired the 20th century.e century a good number of dictatorial regimes with nationalist tendencies (Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, communist Russia, etc.).
Today, these policies are officially a thing of the past. Yet certain reflexes remain.
Mocking an elected official because she speaks Breton perpetuates this sectarian and anti-democratic logic. It suggests there is only room for one language in public spaces. This is dangerous: why not then question the relevance of only one political viewpoint?
A question of consistency and respect
Contemporary reality points in the opposite direction. Europe increasingly values multilingualism, and many countries recognise several official languages without fearing for their unity and cohesion (e.g., Switzerland with 4 official languages!).
The Carhaix session incident therefore goes far beyond the local level.
It raises a simple question: do we want to defend languages only when they concern us, or are we capable of adopting a coherent position? If we consider it legitimate to protect French in Quebec, then it must be just as legitimate to protect Breton in Brittany. If we condemn China's efforts to undermine the Tibetan language, then why should we in France show ourselves to be just as Chinese in promoting the weakening of Brittany?.
Yes Breizh has recently undertaken a thorough review of this subject, drawing on numerous European examples. Within this framework, Yes Breizh will very soon put forward concrete proposals for elected officials, candidates, associations, trade unions, and businesses to move beyond the stage of complaints and achieve tangible results.
In conclusion: Breton, a struggle with universal reach?
The attitude of the elected representative who mocked his colleague is not only inappropriate: it reveals a deeper problem.
It shows that the language issue remains a sensitive and often misunderstood subject in France. It also reveals an inconsistency in the way we defend - or don't defend - languages.
But defending minority languages is not a narrow identity-based battle. It's a universal battle, touching on cultural diversity, democracy and respect for individuals.
Respecting a language means respecting those who speak it.
And in a democratic assembly, that should be the basis.
Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o (1938-2025) was a major Kenyan writer, essayist and intellectual. A world figure in postcolonial thought, he was a lifelong defender of African languages and their place in literature, education and public life. After initially writing in English, he chose to publish in Kikuyu, his mother tongue, making the language issue a central cultural and political battle.
Join Yes Breizh.
Join one of our local groups.
Create or integrate a Think Tank.
Support Yes Breizh with a donation.
