Voici une correction du sujet d’anglais du concours commun des IEP 2016. L’épreuve de langue est aujourd’hui la plus sélective de toutes. Les élèves passent beaucoup de temps à réviser l’histoire et la question contemporaine, et négligent trop souvent à tort le sujet de langue. Le sujet de cette année, en anglais, n’était pas le plus dur. Il était en tout cas plus facile que celui de l’année précédente. Son thème n’a pas été une surprise pour un élève qui a régulièrement lu la presse anglophone. Au sein de notre prépa, nos professeurs s’attèlent à faire le plus de revues de presse possible, afin que les candidats se présentent le jour du concours en connaissant chaque thématique et le vocabulaire qui va avec.
Ce corrigé a été concocté par Pauline Archinard, professeur agrégée enseignant à l’université Paul Valéry de Montpellier, et Fabien Fréguin (le chouchou des élèves), professeur certifié au lycée du Sacré Cœur à Aix-en-Provence et chargé d’enseignement pour Aix-Marseille Université. Nous les remercions d’avoir produit le corrigé du sujet dans les heures qui ont suivi le concours, afin que tous puissent l’avoir dès le lendemain.
Sujet d’anglais du concours commun des IEP 2016
Voici le sujet tout d’abord, avec des liens vous permettant de mieux comprendre le contenu.
Donald Trump will not be barred from Britain despite Muslims outburst
The Guardian, Dec 2015
Petition calling for US presidential candidate to be denied entry to UK on grounds of hate speech racks up nearly 360,000 signatures in 24 hours.
The government has signalled it will not refuse the US presidential candidate Donald Trump entry to Britain following his controversial comments about Muslims, despite a petition calling for a ban gathering more than 360,000 signatures in just over 24 hours. At the height of its popularity on Wednesday afternoon, the petition, which calls for Trump to be stopped from entering Britain on the grounds of hate speech, was racking up more than 30,000 signatures an hour, according to parliament’s petitions website.
Parliament considers all petitions that receive more than 100,000 signatures for a debate. The petition to ban Trump, which became open for signatures at 4.39pm Tuesday, had been signed by 360,0090 people by midnight on Wednesday. It says: “The signatories believe Donald J Trump should be banned from UK entry. The UK has banned entry to many individuals for hate speech. The same principles should apply to everyone who wishes to enter the UK. “If the United Kingdom is to continue applying the ‘unacceptable behaviour’ criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful.”
The petition comes after Trump was widely criticised for saying on Monday that Muslims should be banned from entering the US. He said in a speech following a mass shooting committed by a Muslim couple in San Bernardino, California, last weekend: “We need a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States while we figure out what the hell is going on. We are out of control.”
On Tuesday, there was widespread condemnation of Trump’s comments, including from fellow Republican presidential contenders. And later comments from the presidential hopeful in a radio interview that there were districts of London and Paris so “radicalised” that they were off limits to police led to further angry rebuttals from UK politicians and the police.
The London Metropolitan police said Trump “could not be more wrong”, while the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said: “London has a proud history of tolerance and diversity and to suggest there are areas where police officers cannot go because of radicalisation is simply ridiculous.” The UK chancellor, George Osborne, said on Wednesday it was best to combat Donald Trump through robust democratic debate and not to try to ban him from the UK on the grounds that his remarks incited racial hatred. Speaking at prime minister’s questions, Osborne said Trump’s views “flew in the face of the founding principles of the American founding fathers”, adding that those principles had been an inspiration all round the world.
He continued: “The best way to defeat nonsense like this is to engage in robust and democratic debate, and to make it clear his views are not welcome.” Osborne’s aides said the previous occasions when foreigners had been banned from the UK reflected moments when individuals had been repeatedly convicted of race hate crimes, and this did not apply to Trump. A Downing Street spokesman said there were no known plans for Trump to visit the UK, so suggestions of a ban from Britain were hypothetical. He added the remarks should be seen in the context of an internal Republican election campaign. Jon Trickett, the shadow communities secretary, praised Osborne’s remarks as clear and straightforward. He said it was “entirely inappropriate to suggest every follower of one of the world’s great religions has to be suspected of terrorism”. He added it was “wrong, divisive, dangerous and may speed up the radicalisation of individuals”. Although he said it was interesting that so many people had called for a ban, Trickett said he preferred staging a debate, rather than imposing travel bans.
The home secretary can decide to exclude a person from the UK if it is believed that an “individual’s presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good”, according to government guidance. In effect, that usually means people seen to be preaching hate or inciting extremism. However, individuals can also be blocked on the grounds of their criminal records. People previously banned from Britain include Mike Tyson, over his rape conviction, Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, the controversial French comedian accused of antisemitism, and Stephen Donald Black, founder of the white-supremacist website Stormfront.
Correction du sujet d’anglais du concours commun des IEP 2016
Voici désormais la correction.
Why was a petition signed to ban Donald Trump from entering the UK ?
The petitioners believe Trump should be banned from entering the UK on account of the candidate’s contreversial comments on Muslims because they say this falls in the category of « hate speech » which is one of the criteria defining « unacceptable behaviour » used on other occasions for barring entry to the country.
What did UK Chancellor Osborne mean when he said Trump’s views « flew in the face of the founding principles of the American Founding Fathers » ? (l.37-38)
The Chancellor was refering to the Freedom of Speech and religion as enshrined in the First Amendment to the US constitution (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, 1791). Toleration is one of the pillars of the US democracy and therefore calling for members of a specific religion (here Muslims) to be barred from entering the US territory runs counter to this constitutional fact and to US history since its inception.
When can a person be excluded from entering the UK according to the text ?
There are two main cases : first, when a person is considered as being a threat to the country’s law and order, mainly when they are proponents of extremist or hateful ideas ; second, when a person has a criminal record. This had led to the recent banning of antisemitic or white-supremacist people, among others.
- a) explosion = outburst
- b) refuse = denied
- c) obtain = racks up
- d) peak = height
- e) candidate = contender
- f) objection = rebuttals
- g) unequivocal = straightforward
- h) contributive = conducive
Definition of free speech :
Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one’s opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. « Speech » is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations.
Preamble to the UDHR :
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.
Amnesty International’s position on Free Speech :
Free speech is the right to say whatever you like about whatever you like, whenever you like, right? Wrong. « Free speech is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means. »
Free speech and the right to freedom of expression applies to ideas of all kinds including those that may be deeply offensive. But it comes with responsibilities and we believe it can be legitimately restricted.
When free speech can be restricted
You might not expect us to say this, but in certain circumstances free speech and freedom of expression can be restricted.
Governments have an obligation to prohibit hate speech and incitement. And restrictions can also be justified if they protect specific public interest or the rights and reputations of others. Any restrictions on free speech and freedom of expression must be set out in laws that must in turn be clear and concise so everyone can understand them. People imposing the restrictions (whether they are governments, employers or anyone else) must be able to demonstrate the need for them, and they must be proportionate.
All of this has to be backed up by safeguards to stop the abuse of these restrictions and incorporate a proper appeals process.
…and when it can’t
Restrictions that do not comply with all these conditions violate freedom of expression.
We consider people put in prison solely for exercising their right to free speech to be prisoners of conscience.
Quotes on Free Speech
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. »
[Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”