Last Friday, one of the committees of the Galician Parliament unanimously approved a text with a striking detail.<\/p>\n
This text was presented by the Galician Nationalist Bloc (BNG),<\/strong> a far-left separatist coalition allied with EH Bildu, in the 6th Committee on Industry, Energy, Trade, and Tourism. The text, a non-binding motion in the committee, was supported by all 15 members present on that committee<\/strong>, namely those belonging to the Popular Party (PP), the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE), and the BNG.<\/p>\n The BNG's proposal concerns the development of the Muras industrial park (Lugo). The most striking aspect is that the approved text refers to the Galician government as \"Xunta de Galiza,\" using an unofficial toponym<\/strong> that the aforementioned separatist coalition employs to refer to this Spanish autonomous community. In fact, I know that this is a common practice of the BNG in the Galician Parliament.<\/strong><\/p>\n It is worth remembering that the 1981 Statute of Autonomy refers to this community as \"Galicia,\"<\/strong> both in its Spanish<\/a> and Galician versions<\/a>. There is no reference to \"Galiza\" anywhere in the Statute. However, the BNG presented a text with an unofficial toponym in the Galician Parliament, and both the PP and the PSOE supported it<\/strong>. This text was then published on the Parliament's official website using that unofficial toponym.<\/p>\n It so happens that the PP, the PSOE, and the BNG support the exclusion of Spanish from Galician toponymy<\/strong>, an exclusion approved by the Parliament of Galicia in 1983<\/a> that contradicts Article 5.4 of the Statute of this community, which states: \"No one may be discriminated against on the grounds of language<\/strong>.\"<\/em> Through this exclusion, the official language used by approximately half of Galicians was left without official recognition in place names, as if it were a foreign language. A clear discrimination that continues today.<\/strong><\/p>\n Interestingly, those who advocate for the exclusion of Spanish from toponymy often invoke respect for official place names<\/strong> to reject the use of Spanish place names even in unofficial texts. It's worth remembering that the use of Spanish place names when using Spanish is a practice supported by the Royal Spanish Academy<\/a>: \"Except in official texts, where it is mandatory to use the Galician place name as the only official name approved by the Spanish Parliament, in texts written in Spanish, it is appropriate to use the place name in that language<\/strong>.\"<\/em><\/p>\n However, when the BNG uses an unofficial toponym instead of the name \"Galicia\" in an official text<\/strong> \u2014specifically in a non-binding motion presented in the Galician Parliament\u2014 the PP and the PSOE support it<\/strong>. What would have happened if that text had included a toponym in Spanish? It's not hard to imagine. In 2021, the Galician government, then presided over by Alberto N\u00fa\u00f1ez Feij\u00f3o (PP)<\/strong>, criticized a private company for using the Spanish toponym \"La Toja\"<\/a> to organize a forum on that Galician island. It is the same Popular Party that last week had no qualms about supporting a text that refers to Galicia as \"Galiza\".<\/p>\n ---<\/p>\n
\n