Aligned language models fail under two independent pressures: the structural jailbreak class recently formalized as Involuntary In-Context Learning (IICL), which reframes a harmful request as the final missing cell of a data-labeling task completed by pattern rather than judged as content; and the erosion of safety alignment outside English. A natural hypothesis is that these compound. We test it directly. Using a deterministic IICL operator and a StrongREJECT-style rubric judge, we red-team two Google Gemini models on two benchmarks, a 30 general-harm behaviours from HarmBench and 30 financial-abuse behaviours from FinProof, each under a single-shot baseline and under IICL in four languages (English, Spanish, Hindi, Arabic). First, IICL generalizes to a second provider and is worse in finance: it lifts attack success from <=6.7% to 80-90% on HarmBench and 97-100% on FinProof, an order of magnitude above the <=24% its introducing study reported on OpenAI's GPT-5.4. Second, against the hypothesis, forcing the IICL output into a non-English language does not stack the two weaknesses, it attenuates the attack. Eleven of twelve non-English conditions score below their English baseline (sign test, p~0.003), the lone exception a ceiling tie near 100%; on the stronger model's financial set Arabic collapses from 100% to 33%. We attribute this to a relevance curse: once structure has unlocked compliance, the models produce lower-quality harmful content in lower-resource languages, which a substance-grading judge scores as partial. The pattern replicates under an independent non-Google judge (Cohen's kappa=0.86, 377 paired verdicts), and 76.6% of non-English responses were verified in-language. Jailbreak vulnerabilities are therefore not additive; the dominant residual risk is the English structural attack, most acute for financial abuse, not a multilingual one.