Freedom of choice

You step into a shoe shop. You notice a pair of boots, and pick them up for a look. Then you suddenly notice a label on it: "For sale to Russians only". You ask for the store manager and complain, "How can you limit this item to Russians? What if locals want to buy this too?"

The manager replies, "You wouldn’t want to buy it anyway, why are you complaining?"

(If you happen to be Russian, please replace "Russians" with "Africans".)

Now replace
"a shoe shop" with "your workplace"
"a pair of boots" with "a few colleagues"
"pick it up for a look" with "join them".

Replace the label with the colleagues speaking a language that you are not familiar with. Imagine that when you ask them to not continually do so, they say, "You wouldn't want to join this discussion anyway, why are you complaining?"

This store manager’s response is akin to saying "We speak Mandarin because you don’t want to join our discussion anyway."

This is a common response that I hear when I ask people to speak in a common language that everyone can understand. They tend to justify their actions by claiming that they know what others want. But how do you justify taking away someone's freedom of choice? If you are the one deciding, it means that you are actually not allowing the person to join your conversation. It is not that person who decides that they do not want to join your conversation.

There is a huge difference between blocking someone from entering, and leaving an open door so that they can enter if they wish.