Protester holding a sign at “Stop the Coup” protest next to The Cenotaph, Bristol City Centre. Photo: Jack Fifield.
The word ‘prorogue’
has been enjoying its time in the spotlight this week, and many, not least
angry protesters, have expertly deduced that the word ‘prorogue’ looks like the
words ‘pro rogue’. This begs the question: are these words actually related?
To start my investigation, I turned to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).
As an historical dictionary, the
OED doesn’t prioritize modern meanings over historical meanings; this can be
seen by the fact that the modern UK sense isn’t stated until last in the OED’s
entry “b. intransitive. Of a legislative
assembly, etc.: to discontinue sittings for a period of time or until the next
session.”
As many angry demonstrators holding
signs such as “Boris Johnson is a pro rogue” or “Liar Johnson put the ‘ROGUE’
in ‘PRO-ROGUE’” (pictured) over the last few weeks have pointed out, at first
glance, the word ‘prorogue’ looks and sounds like a combination of the prefix
“pro-” (before something) and the adjective ‘rogue’ (unpredictable, dishonest,
etc.).
The “pro” in “prorogue” is not a shortening of “professional”, with the OED confirming that, much more simply, in this case, it is the prefix discussed above, in the sense of “Forward, onward, in a course or in time”; this leads us to “rogue”, surely this is just the word “rogue”?
Going back to Latin via the
route of Anglo-Norman and Middle French, we get to rogāre, to ask, according the OED, and we are
directed to “see rogation n.”, with multiple senses including the acts of begging and of making a
formal request.
Turning to the origin of the word ‘rogue’, the OED tells us that the earliest recorded sense is “An idle vagrant, a vagabond; one of a group or class of such people. Now archaic or historical.”, but admits that the origin is unknown, suggesting that it may be related to “roger n.”, an obsolete word for a beggar pretending to be from Oxford or Cambridge, with the OED telling us that some have suggested that this was actually pronounced like the word “rogue” instead of the name “roger”, but that there is no supporting evidence for any of this, or that the words are even related, and that “an etymological connection with the family of classical Latin rogāre (see rogation n.) is unlikely.”, bringing us full circle.
So, it would seem that,
whilst the OED is of the opinion that a connection between ‘prorogue’ and
‘rogue’ is unlikely, there are some similar senses for both words relating to
the acts of begging or asking, meaning that there could be some connection
along the line. For now, this case remains unsolved.
16:02. A Facebook message asking me to “guarantee to not leak
details” and telling me that I will be taken “to the location”. No, this
isn’t an episode of 24, this is what happens when a student-organized
husting is cancelled at the last minute by administrators at UWE.
Derya Khalilpour, president of the UWE Debating Society,
pulls up in his car at the agreed meeting spot just outside of Frenchay Campus,
and signals to me to get in. As we start to drive, I meet treasurer of the
society, James Pearson, who chuckles when I ask to where we are driving — I
still don’t know where we are going. I’m told we’re going to a hotel in the
centre, but I’ll have to wait until later until I find out the exact location.
If you think that this sounds clandestine in nature, you’d be right;
as I would later find out, I would make up just a sixth of those in
attendance, including Carl Benjamin as the sole speaker, and his
assistant.
As we drive to the centre, I ask Khalilpour about how it got
to this point. He tells me that the proper procedures were followed for
inviting external speakers to the university campus, with plans submitted to
the Students’ Union prior to the deadline of fourteen days in advance, and
everything was approved up until three days before the event. As the university
did not have the contact details of the society, Khalilpour was informed of the
cancellation around the same time as the public statement went live.
The logo
Having predicted something like this would happen, Khalilpour knew
now was the time to go rogue. As we’re driving in the car, Pearson is
frantically editing a logo for the new page he is setting up to stream
the event, it’s the UWE Debating Society’s logo, but with the colours
inverted and the word “NOT” superimposed: the disgruntlement towards the
university is palpable.
Khalilpour tells me that the UWE Debating Society is an
“incredibly diverse society, politically”, and that many don’t know what
people’s politics are.
I ask Khalilpour what he thinks of Green party candidate Carla
Denyer’s call to boycott the original hustings: “[she] should respect us
as a debating society to uphold platforming. If she believes the
propagation of the views that [Benjamin] holds would be detrimental to
society then she, by dropping out, has given him a larger platform — now
we are also exclusively platforming Carl [Benjamin].”
The event
After some trouble navigating Bristol’s new Temple Gate and
the associated roadworks, we arrive at the Mercure Bristol Grand Hotel. Eight
chairs have been laid out for the event, enough for seven speakers and the
chair, but everyone knows only Benjamin will be in attendance.
Benjamin arrives at 18:42 with his assistant in tow. They
set up their own camera separate to that of the “Not UWE Debating Society” to
film the event.
Benjamin introduces himself, stating that UKIP are “the only
Brexit party that are an actual party”, and that the manifesto “hit[s] all the
major notes, subjects that my activism does revolve around”, he explains his
disagreement with the manifesto’s pledge to reinvigorate the coal industry,
proposing increased use of nuclear power, and concludes his introduction with a
speech concerning Article 13 and internet liberties, probably the only two
points that even I can agree with.
Views on Islam
What came next was much more sinister.
Benjamin said he thinks that there is too much
“pussy-footing around” in European Parliament, and that an MEP should use the
“minute or so on the floor to raise issues that are not being talked about in
the direct way that need to be spoken about”.
Benjamin then launched in to a seven-and-a-half minute tirade
on his views of Islam, including the supposed high prevalence of “abaya”, a
traditionally Muslim dress, commenting that he thinks it’s “the wrong message
to send that this is the kind of Islam we want in Britain”. When asked how to
stem the proliferation of Islamic terrorism, he stated that the “British state
is going to have to choose a form of Islam that it finds socially compatible
with the country”, with certain types “prohibited from being taught in mosques”.
When questioned as to how this was compatible with Benjamin’s own descriptions
of himself as a “free speech activist” and “civil libertarian”, he was quick to
deflect, saying that he would still wish to allow this in private reading, just
not in mosques.
Benjamin then praised the oppressive state of Saudi Arabia,
where women only recently gained the ability to legally drive, saying that “in
every mosque in Saudi Arabia, they have cameras to monitor the Imams themselves
to make sure they’re not teaching anything that would be considered
revolutionary, if it’s good enough for Saudi Arabia then […] I think that could
only benefit everyone”. Despite attempts by Khalilpour to steer the discussion
back on track, Benjamin was quick to return to discussion on Islam, referring
to the “indigenous population” of the UK at one point in his answer.
At one point, Benjamin stated that the Liberal Democrats had
been subverted by socialists and associated the party’s notion of equality to
communism; despite this, I asked him afterwards, were he a Remainer, which
party he would be a member of, he said the Liberal Democrats, presumably due to
his perception of himself as a liberal.
Benjamin continued the interview criticizing censorship
online, saying “I think censorship radicalizes people” seemingly unable to see
the irony between his criticism of the erasure of freedom of speech and freedom
of expression and his calls to ban certain types of religious teaching and
dress.
After calling LGBT rights a “political issue”, Benjamin was
asked if there was anything that social justice movements had achieved that he
agreed with, to which he responded “what have they achieved? Well, they’ve
achieved a great deal of censorship”. Benjamin is clearly unable to identify
with the plight of anyone beyond himself: due to the suspension of his Twitter
account, he believes that he is subject to censorship. If Benjamin had been
able to come up with an answer, he may have mentioned same-sex marriage, legalized
in 2014, surely a milestone contribution to Benjamin’s earlier assertion that
there is “no difference between the rights of a gay man and a straight man in
this country”.
Asked whether “students engaging politically is a positive
thing”, Benjamin said he thought “students should get on with their studies”,
after an incredulous look by Khalilpour, Benjamin redoubled saying “I’m
serious, you don’t need to be involved in politics, you don’t know what you’re
talking about, you’re like twenty-one years old, I’m thirty-nine and I still
don’t know what I’m talking about.” “You’ve been fed half a narrative from your
Marxist professor and you’ve been given a bunch of false information that’s led
you to believe everything you disagree with is fascism, and you just don’t
know, just get on with your studies”.
Well, at least Benjamin got one thing right: he doesn’t know
what he’s talking about. Of course, when turn out is lower, right-leaning
parties succeed at a higher rate, so as young people are one of the groups that
turns out to vote in the lowest numbers, of course he would be appear more than
happy to see them disenfranchised.
I queried Benjamin on his views about the recent
story where a man covered his face and received a £90 fine, and whether he
thought that the man had a right to cover his face. His response: “of course he
did”, when I asked why he would restrict the rights of a Muslim woman to cover
her face with a burqa, and its impact on civil liberties he seemed unfazed,
saying that it was not a contradiction, and that we already restrict what
people can wear in certain places, and that “we do have to compromise in
certain regards”, saying that a ban “doesn’t have to be restricted to any one
religion”, and that it could be restricted to certain places.
The “Not UWE Debating Society”, as an independent group of
students, could not use society funds could for any of the re-organized event,
so it looked like they would be out-of-pocket. After the event was over, with
questioning complete, Benjamin became aware of this, and offered to cover the
cost of the hotel room booking. From my point of view this seemed to be an
offer to a group of students out of kindness, rather than a conflict of
interest; this would not have been necessary had the original husting gone
ahead as planned.
My final thoughts
Benjamin seemed more concerned with opinions relating to
Islam and censorship online than on his party’s Brexit strategy, but this is to
be expected considering that a recent YouGov/The Times poll puts UKIP at 3%,
below even that of Change UK (5%). Clearly Brexit is not helping them remain
relevant, so why not try something else? His assertions that students should
not be involved in politics, that LGBT rights are a political issue, and his
inability to find a single good achievement of the social justice movement show
that Benjamin is either unable or unwilling to see outside of his bubble,
despite criticizing others for the same. There are many legitimate reasons for
leaving the European Union, even if I may disagree with it, but it received
little attention from Benjamin in the entire hour he was given to talk with no
opposing candidates.
Had the original husting gone ahead, Benjamin would have had
to contend with the opposing candidates, but due to the withdrawal of support by
UWE, he had nothing but a chairman and a woefully inexperienced student
journalist in myself to contend with. This constitutes a failure by the university.
Luckily, if the polling is correct, Benjamin’s views, like UKIP, will one day be dead in the water.
It is here that I’d like to urge people to vote in the
upcoming European Parliament elections in order to help keep people like
Benjamin from gaining office. With a more proportional voting system than
General Elections, your vote really does make a difference, and tactical voting
is not as necessary.
The Green Party’s Carla Denyer refused request for comment.
This article was updated at 14:11 on the 15th March 2019. MindGeek do not own 90% of ‘tube’ websites, as a previous version of this article quoted, however do have multiple high profile sites in their portfolio, including RedTube, Pornhub, YouPorn, and Brazzers. I apologize for this error.
With the planned introduction of compulsory age verification for viewing pornography in the United Kingdom, which will require adults to provide sensitive documentation such as passports, credit cards, and driving licenses in order to view perfectly legal pornography, I interview Myles Jackman, an obscenity lawyer and former UWE student, known for his successful defence in the landmark R v Peacock case, he was also the first acting solicitor allowed to live-tweet from a trial, and was awarded the Law Society’s Junior Lawyer of the Year Excellence Award in 2012 for his work. In the interview, I ask Mr. Jackman for his opinions on the effectiveness of the upcoming age verification methods; their potential impacts on LGBT rights, civil liberties, freedom of expression; how Brexit might have an effect; and how UWE students can seek to replicate his success.
Introduction
Jackman: Theoretically, age verification is going to be applied for adult content consumed in the UK from the 1st of April. In reality, what we’re hearing from the frontline is there may be a few weeks’ delay on that. But, it’s already been delayed for over a year, because we have repeatedly raised privacy and security concerns about the system. In other words, there is significant risk that everyone’s private sexual details could be leaked, hacked, or otherwise breached and put in the public domain. MindGeek have estimated that 25 million adults will sign up from the UK to age verification in the first month alone, so we’re talking about essentially half of the adult population.
What would you say to those who are worried about their children potentially accessing pornography, do you think this verification will help?
Jackman: No, they’re really pretty useless, because they can be gotten around with Tor, proxies, VPNs, etc. very easily. They’re not difficult to circumvent for people who are tech-literate. So, as usual this is a measure intended to improve things, which will only target people for whom it wasn’t a problem in the first place, effectively.
There’s also the next issue: should we be deferring having conversations with our children from our own parental responsibility to that of the state. In other words, this is just seen as an easy victory for government and some kind of magic bullet for parents, but it’s not. Even its proponents say it won’t be more than seventy per cent effective — and that’s the absolute highest amount they expect to be caught by age verification.
Do you think that the introduction of porn filters could lead to clandestine websites appearing that may have access to more extreme, and potentially illegal, material?
Jackman: Yeah, that’s a serious risk. There’s a risk of cyberfraud – people who don’t know which sites they’re going to being asked to give their details, there’ll be cyber blackmail: “oh no, you’ve just put your details in to our weird sex website, give us £500 or we’ll release your details to the public”. That sort of thing. So, there’s going to be an arch swing in that kind of behaviour.
How can we, as individuals, resist these intrusions on our civil liberties?
Jackman: The easiest thing to do is not to comply by using proxies, Tor, and VPNs, and then to protest against the unnecessary introduction of this system.
Do you think that these pornography filters are incompatible with freedom of expression?
Jackman: They are going to have a significant impact on the free speech ecosystem. For those smaller providers who can’t afford age verification, or who think that it’s too much of a practical hassle for them to have to maintain, say a very small text-based erotica website, we therefore will see a massive reduction in the number of active websites on the internet relating to adult sexuality. And unfortunately, alternative sexual communities, such as LGBTQ, BDSM, sex workers, etc. are likely to be hit the most, and disproportionately.
What impact, if any, do you think the upcoming pornography filters will have on LGBT rights and wellbeing?
Jackman: When the actual filter was first introduced, it filtered out loads of LGBTQ advice sites, so for younger adults who want information about safer sexual practices, these were just hidden, and that was a massive mistake. It’s a perfect example of where the protect the children logic goes wrong.
What impact do you think that Brexit will have on the rights and civil liberties of UK citizens?
Jackman: Have you got any easy question?! Just kidding. Brexit itself is pretty difficult to call anyway, let alone trying to establish the outcome on civil liberties. Let’s assume that Brexit occurs, it’s really difficult to tell what the impact will be on the adult industry. For example, because GDP is likely to be hit by 9%, will there be less payment for pornography as people are literally tightening their purse strings. Or, will people be in desperate need of recreation, and therefore consumption won’t be hit. There is an issue for production, if money isn’t put in to the system to pay for the porn, then no-one will be manufacturing apart from the very big corporate sites. That has an impact on free speech, because for those people who wish to consume that material, they may be denied their right to receive it because it’s not being manufactured.
What impact do you think there will be on human rights in general, considering that the Conservatives wanted to repeal the Human Rights Act, which we can’t do until we’re out of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)?
Jackman: With adequacy agreements in place for GDPR, that might be sufficient [on privacy and security issues]. But there are so many human rights issues, both digital and real-world that are so difficult to ascertain. I would imagine that privacy and security of data are significantly at risk in event of a no-deal Brexit.
Do you think that the UK is seeing a regression in the breadth of rights and liberties afforded to its citizens?
Jackman: Yes.
What is your opinion on the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), do you think that it should instead be optional to be rated, rather than compulsory, similar to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) in the United States?
Jackman: It’s somewhat confusing that what is ultimately formed as a trade body should become the prima facie censor for the internet. The same problem [that arthouse film producers face] exists for porn, for indie producers it’s very expensive to get rated. The BBFC saying ‘oh no, just send us your porn and we’ll tell you if it’s legal or not’, and that may have a cost implication for producers that is unrealistic. We’re still not really in receipt of realistic guidance on the type of material that the BBFC will consider legitimate, although we do have a change in the Obscene Publications Act guidelines under the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] as to what kind of material may now be legal.
What advice do you have for UWE students who want to replicate your success?
Jackman: Identify an area of law that you’re passionate about, create a brand and say something interesting, and believe in yourself.
[End of interview.]
This interview was transcribed from a recording of an interview conducted over the phone. Whilst all efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, there may be some errors in transcription, for which I apologize.
With the recent legalization of cannabis in Canada, it’s
time for politicians in the UK to wake up and smell the kush.
Countries and areas that have legalized cannabis have
already seen plenty of success. Since legalization in 2014, cannabis sales in
Colorado have brought in over US$900-million in tax revenue [1], even though
Colorado’s sales tax rate is a meagre 2.9% — tiny compared to the UK’s standard
VAT rate of 20%. Scaled up to the larger population of the UK, and with the
generally-higher tax rates found in our country, cannabis would provide an
extremely large amount of untapped tax revenue that is currently wasted on the
black market.
Currently, cannabis is often easier for young people to
obtain than alcohol. As drug dealers do not discriminate on the basis of age,
there is no protection against the use of cannabis by younger people whose bodies
are still developing, meaning the criminalization of cannabis is making it even
easier to obtain for those who are most at risk from its use.
With the current situation of illicit cannabis consumption,
adult consumers are also exposed to unnecessary health risks.
Firstly, there is a chance that the cannabis has been in
some way tainted from the pure product that would be guaranteed if sold under
regulated conditions. Whilst it is unlikely that cannabis is intentionally
laced, the possibility for unintentional lacing with the use of improper
pesticides is all too real.
Furthermore, with the introduction of legal cannabis comes
the advantage of the free market, and the innovation that entails. No longer
will consumers feel limited to purely smoking cannabis; cannabis-infused food
such as brownies or even gummy bears will become commonplace, reducing the risk
to health that smoking entails, such as lung cancer and heart problems. This
has already been seen in legal markets.
Legalization of cannabis would only make it safer than it currently is, an impressive feat considering that even now cannabis is safer than alcohol; in 2012, 5.9% of global deaths were attributed to alcohol [2], compared to zero deaths ever caused by overdosing on cannabis [3]; according to David Schmader’s Weed: The User’s Guide, it “would require ingestion of fifteen hundred pounds in fifteen minutes — a physical impossibility for any human, even Snoop Dogg” to overdose on cannabis [3].
Cannabis’ legal status makes it the perfect gateway drug
Cannabis is sometimes called a “gateway drug” – proponents
of this term say that cannabis opens the floodgates for users to try harder,
more dangerous drugs. Looking at the statistics, it is true that most people
who have tried illegal drugs have tried cannabis first.
However, this is manufactured by the status of cannabis being illegal. As drug dealers tend to diversify their operations to make more money, they offer harder drugs to their customers, providing a connection and opening the door to someone who was exclusively a cannabis user to start using harder drugs. Of course, with the safety record cannabis has relative to alcohol and some other drugs, it is no wonder that many may then question their views on the danger of other illegal drugs, even though they can be much less safe. If cannabis were legalized, this link between buyer and seller would be non-existent.
Personal liberty
With little evidence that there is good reason to ban
cannabis, it is a deprivation of liberty to arbitrarily restrict what people
can or cannot choose to do in their free time. Just as most people would agree
that people should be allowed to enjoy a beer on the weekend free of
restriction, so too should an adult be allowed to consume cannabis if they so
choose.
Keeping it in the family
In 2016, the United Kingdom was the world’s largest producer
of legal cannabis, [4, p. 43] but cannabis remains
illegal for legal consumption in the United Kingdom. It is of note that Paul
Kenward, husband of drugs minister Victoria Atkins, operates Britain’s largest
legal cannabis farm [5].
Victoria Atkins has previously declared her opposition to the legalization of
cannabis, despite her family directly profiting from its production in the
currently tightly regulated market.
Conclusion
The United Kingdom has a tendency with this sort of thing to wait for others to take the lead before dipping its toes in. Others, such as Canada and many US states, have led; the positive evidence is there; the time for politicians to act is now.
Home Secretary Sajid Javid recently said in an interview with The Times,
“If you have supported terrorist organisations abroad I will not
hesitate to prevent your return.” This approach is counterproductive and
dangerous to the UK’s fight against radicalization and terrorism.
If
we do not allow those, such as Shamima Begum, who have left their life
in the UK to commit terroristic acts to return to face the full
consequences of their actions, we are effectively deciding to pawn off
our radicalized citizens to other countries that are ill-equipped to
cope with those that have been radicalized, meaning that dangerous
terrorists are left to roam the streets to commit further atrocities. In
doing so, we are losing any opportunity we may have to deradicalize
these people; this undermines our legal system.
With
the news that Shamima Begum has given birth, revoking her British
citizenship would have the knock-on effect of exposing her child to
radicalisation, and the potential for physical and mental harm.
Revoking
the citizenship of those who commit heinous acts desolidifies the
concept of British citizenship. By not guaranteeing the future
citizenship of those who have legally obtained it, we are saying that
British citizenship is a fluid concept, with the potential for any
British citizen to be subject to exile. This sets a dangerous precedent,
that could, in the future, be used by any government-of-the-day to kick
out those with whom it does not agree.
Doing
so also fails to take in to account any responsibility of the United
Kingdom for the prevention of radicalization of its citizens. Shamima
Begum was radicalized on UK soil, in a UK school. To revoke her
citizenship would be to absolve UK authorities of their responsibility
to prevent the radicalization of its citizens, as they can simply revoke
their citizenship status in the future, dumping the problem somewhere
else.
Another
option available to the government is to issue a Temporary Exclusion
Order to Begum, preventing her return dependent on conditions imposed.
By erecting obstacles to Begum’s return, the UK government runs the risk
of exposing her, her child, and innocent people who come in to contact
with Begum to further radicalization, and potential harm. Instead, Ms.
Begum’s return should be encouraged, so that she can face the full
consequences of her actions in accordance with UK law, and to guarantee
the safety and wellbeing of her child.
From
certain reports, Ms. Begum seems unrepentant for her actions. Whilst
many may point to this as a reason to keep her out of the UK, I believe
that this simply solidifies how important it is for her to return. By
keeping someone with this mindset free in other countries, we are
risking more lives and imposing danger on others, creating opportunities
for Daesh to have a resurgence in popularity from those displaced.
As liberal democracies, there are many values that countries
such as the UK and the USA are expected to uphold. What we consider to be basic
rights and freedoms, such as the rule of law, civil rights, and political
freedoms, are merely fantasy for many across the globe.
However, in recent history, we have seen that even so-called
liberal democracies, such as as the United States, can toss the very same
rights they claim to uphold out of the window using loopholes and by abusing
their position as world superpowers. This can be seen within the last decade at
Guantanamo Bay, where President Bush vetoed legislation banning the CIA from
using torture, allowing them to carry out practises such as waterboarding
unimpeded.
Torture is often portrayed as something that is necessary
for the survival of the nation, or even democracy itself, in some popular
media. Whilst watching 24, an action
show from Fox, I was surprised to see how often torture was positively
portrayed. Often, there would be a time-limited situation where evidence
obtained by using ‘enhanced interrogation’, a euphemism for torture favoured
even by President Bush’s administration, would be used to save the day from yet
another terrorist.
But is there any truth in the effectiveness of torture?
The answer may surprise you.
According to respected academics in the field, such as Shane
O’Mara, intelligence gained from torture is so unreliable that it’s often
useless. People will often say whatever they think will make the torture stop.
So why is it portrayed as effective in some media? Could it
be that the people behind shows such as 24
have a political agenda that they want us to subscribe to? I think it’s
possible. It is important to remember that whilst our ‘all-American’ heroes
such as 24’s Jack Bauer aren’t real, there are very real people, at multiple
levels, making decisions behind the fictional actions he takes. This would
appear to make sense, considering the airing of the original season of 24 coincided closely with the beginning
of the War on Terror.
Could it be that these forms of entertainment are nothing
more than jingoistic propaganda?
With recent news that torture is being carried out in ‘re-education
camps’ in China’s Xinjiang province against Muslims, it’s more important than
ever for countries to take a hard stance against its use.
With China fast becoming the next global superpower, there
needs to be an effective and rigorous way to police the use of torture
worldwide, with sanctions applied to those countries that support its use. As
we have seen that even so-called liberal democracies will use torture, despite
its unreliability and immorality, this needs to be an internationally
co-ordinated effort.
If we don’t stamp out the use of this abhorrent practice
now, we could see it on the rise sooner than you might think.
If you’ve got children, you’ll probably have
been told that raising them bilingual will be a useful advantage, with
the potential of facilitating many opportunities throughout life that
monolinguals don’t have access to. However, this has not always been
the accepted point of view. Throughout history, bilingualism has been
historically seen as a handicap by the west, often akin to a mental
handicap; many researchers claimed that being bilingual slowed the
minds of children and that they would never be able to achieve the same
level of intelligence as their monolingual counterparts (Kaplan, 2016).
For the purposes of this report, ‘bilingualism’ and ‘multilingualism’
will both mean ‘a person who speaks several languages’, rather than the
more restrictive ‘a person who speaks two languages’. This report seeks
to debunk the myth that bilingualism has negative effects on
intelligence levels in speakers.
A paradigm shift
So, why
the shift in attitudes? How could bilingualism go from universal
ridicule, with warnings of childhood retardation and split
personalities, to something regarded as so important that UNESCO has
said that bilingualism should be encouraged “at all levels of
education” (UNESCO, 02 November 2001). The answer may lie in the
definition of intellectualism. What may be considered an example of
intelligence in one context, may be considered quite the opposite in a
different context; as earlier studies on bilingualism’s effects on
intelligence failed to take this in to account, they may have falsely
attributed a lack of intelligence to bilingualism that may have been
caused due to bias or a failing of the study itself (Hakuta and Suben,
1985).
It was not until the mid-twentieth century that this shift
in attitudes towards the intelligence of bilinguals started to take
place; a study by Elizabeth Peal and Wallace Lambert compared
French-English bilinguals in Canada with monolinguals with a multitude
of tests, and showed that the bilinguals scored higher on IQ tests than
their monolingual counterparts (Grosjean, 2012). So, why the change?
You’d be hard-pressed to find many reasonable academics or teachers that
would claim that bilingualism is anything but an advantage. The change
is due to the way the studies were realised, with failings to control
for variables such as socioeconomic factors, including class (Kaplan,
2016). These variables were controlled in Peal and Lambert’s study
(Kaplan, 2016).
Size of the lexicon
One interpretation of
the definition of ‘intelligence’ within bilingual children is the rate
of language acquisition; an assumption could be made that a more
limited vocabulary is a symptom of low intelligence. A common thought is
that bilinguals acquire language at a lower rate than monolinguals
(Grosjean, 2012). However, as bilingual children begin the important
language-acquisition-events, such as the ‘babbling’ process and first
word process, amongst others, at the same time as their monolingual
counterparts (Grosjean, 2012), this is clearly a misconception. This
would seem in stark contrast to the notion of a lowered intelligence
level.
This is not to say, however, that this is considered a
universal truth amongst the academic community. Some studies have
concluded that bilinguals control a smaller vocabulary in each
respective language than monolinguals have in one language (Bialystok,
2009), but, whether it is appropriate to consider a more limited
vocabulary as lower intelligence could be considered a matter of
opinion. Despite this, most recent academic research would support the
claim that bilingualism does not impede intelligence (Kaplan, 2016).
Bilingualism and its positive cognitive effects
It
is undeniable that language and intelligence are closely linked. As
language-speakers grow older, they may find that their cognitive
functions begin to slow, word recollection starts to falter, and faster
speech becomes increasingly unintelligible (Grosjean, 2012). However,
according to recent studies, elderly bilingual speakers show a later
onset of cognitive slowing associated with ageing, with multilingual
speakers having the highest cognitive ability measured when compared against a group of monolingual speakers (Kavé et al.,
2008). This would provide further evidence to put into doubt the
findings of studies of the early twentieth century that stated that
bilinguals have lower cognitive ability when compared with their monolingual counterparts.
Conclusion
In
conclusion, from combining the failures by academics to implement
proper control methods within their studies to control for socioeconomic
and other external factors (Kaplan, 2016), with the fact that many
American studies were influenced by heavy nationalistic and racial
biases within researchers (Hakuta and Suben, 1985), and the fact that
modern research shows evidence contrary to earlier studies – that
bilinguals actually have a higher cognitive ability than monolinguals (Kavé et al.,
2008), I find the notion that bilingualism can impede cognitive
development to be largely fallacious, based mostly on failings and
biases of researchers at the time.
References:
Bialystok, E. (2009) Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 12 (1), pp.3.
Grosjean, F. (2012) Bilingual: Life and Reality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Hakuta, K. and Suben, J. (1985) Bilingualism and Cognitive Development. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 6 (March 1985), pp.35.
Kaplan, A. (2016) Women talk more than men: And Other Myths about Language Explained. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kavé, G., Eyal, N., Shorek, A. and Cohen-Mansfield, J. (2008) Multilingualism and cognitive state in the oldest old. Psychology and Aging. 23 (1), pp.70.
