“Since the Committee was unable to reach consensus..”
I mapped out the background to this last night, including why Sinn Féin continue to maintain that May 2008 was a commitment to a deadline rather than the target date the St Andrew’s Agreement describes, but as expected the Assembly and Executive Review Committee has failed to agree on a date for requesting the devolution of policing and justice powers. I’m assuming the Assembly debate has ended, but there isn’t a record of the vote yet. Adds The full debate and resolution of the Assembly to accept the report is here – Interestingly the report was also commended to the House by the deputy chairman of the committee, Sinn Féin MLA, Raymond McCartney. – From the Committee’s report
Issue 5: Timing of the devolution of policing and justice matters
68. The political parties represented on the Committee had different views on the timing of devolution of policing and justice matters, and given those diverse opinions, the Committee was unable to reach consensus on this issue.69. Since the Committee was unable to reach consensus on the timing of devolution of policing and justice matters, and this report includes recommendations about further political negotiations, the Committee was unable to reach a conclusion as to whether the Assembly will make a request for the transfer of policing and justice matters before 1 May 2008.
Recommendation 41
The Committee recommends that the political parties commit to further discussions to agree when a request might be made for the devolution of policing and justice matters.
The Irish Times report notes that it isn’t the only issue they failed to agree on
While the British and Irish Governments will be disappointed but not surprised that the committee has been unable to agree to the transfer by May 1st, they will take heart from the report’s call for more talks.
Officials in London and Dublin will also take comfort that committee members were able to agree on some of the mechanics of policing and justice devolution.
MLAs considered four ministerial models for a single policing and justice department.
These were:
A department with a single minister in charge;
Two ministers of joint and equal standing running the department;
A policing and justice department with a minister and junior minister at the helm, with the positions rotated;
A department with a minister and deputy minister nominated by an MLA and drawn from the two largest parties from the unionist and nationalist traditions.However, they were unable to settle on a preferred model and arrangements for choosing a minister or ministers and called for the talks to resolve these issues.
Adds Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Shaun Woodward, MP, is optimistic..
Shaun Woodward said: “Progress is being made on the devolution of policing and justice.
“Our polling makes it clear that the majority of people in Northern Ireland want this to happen and the Chief Constable, the person responsible for delivering policing on the ground, has also said that powers should be devolved.
“I welcome the publication of the Committee report and the debate in the Assembly.
“The report contains clear decisions about structures and what powers will be devolved.
“It also calls on political parties to meet to discuss outstanding issues to complete devolution and the Government stands ready to facilitate these talks.”
That would be this poll..
It is a cop out of epic proportions.
A committee sits for months and months and decides nothing, any one of us could have written such a report in minutes.
Agree to transfer all of the non contentious functions
Say you need more discussion on anything anyone objected to
Say you need more discussion on the model
Say you need more discussion on the number of ministers
Continue to say you need further discussion on anything that anyone raised any issue with.
How exactly are they going to find a solution if they cant even agree in a small group behind closed doors.
Shock horror
Another committee that can’t decide anyhting.
Another motion that got republican’s no where.
Another ploy to get your last vote, promised a lot , but delivered nothing.
Another load of bull shit.
Irish language Act DUP says No
Long Kesh stadium DUP says No
Devolving policing and justice DUP says No
Some things never, never, never change.
How would any one expect the DUP to behave especially when it has been gifted with a permanent veto.
The Dup will have no fear of a Sinn Féin veto. Unionists in reality have what they want Republicans signed up to and administering british rule in this state.
They would gladly forego a soccer stadium every week of the year. Think about it.
The comments made by Adams today were very unhelpful.
He pointed out that republicans could as an act of retaliation veto the building of a stadium in east Belfast.
You use your veto to hurt me politically and I can do the same to hurt you seems to be the best he can do.
The unionists gave good reasons for not agreeing the transfer of powers while Adams simply tried to get political revenge.
What a way to lead a party. No wonder some think his days of leadership are drawing to a close if this is the best he can do.
Ulsterfan
I’m no Sinn Fein fan but in case you hadn’t noticed, most of the blocking by veto to date has come from the DUP – Irish Language Act, P&J;, and possibly the Maze.
That’s the problem with this mandatory coalition. In truth it hasn’t delivered anything – any decisions requiring genuine leadership have been deferred to a 12 month review. The only MLA who has tackled anything with real courage is Margaret Ritchie.
Personally, I’m not bothered about an Irish Language act. However, the DUP have pandered to their backwoodsmen on this issue and are now doing so on P&J;. This new reported rejection of the Maze is a clear response to the Dromore result.
If the DUP want to use their veto to block anything Nationalists are in favour of then they can hardly complain when they get the same in response.
Personally, I find it all a bit childish. However, you need to realise that the days of “croppie lie down” are over. It was the DUP/Unionist MLAs who started throwing their veto around.
I don’t support Sinn Fein but, until Unionist MLAs start playing with a straight bat, I see no reason why Nationalists shouldn’t reciprocate with the same tactics as Unionists.
Billy
Unionists at least give reasons for their opposition to these proposals while SF simply do it out of spite.
That is the difference in approach
I am not a unionist, but I really don’t see why Sinn Fein should be allowed to get their way on such ridiculous ideas as :
- putting a stadium at the Maze, a barely-accessible location with bad transport links and no infrastructure, just so that they can jerk off to a hunger strike memorial
- the stupid Irish Language Act, supported mainly by people who barely speak a word of it. I note that Sinn Fein newssheets in North Belfast are not half written in Irish. They are written in 90% English because that is the only language that most of the SF electorate can actually read. Why force it on everyone else ?
- on the issue of Policing and Justice powers, the parties should be having talks about it. Neither the DUP position (freeze it for a while) or the SF position (the British should go over their heads) are really sensible.
- don’t forget the nonsense over the 11+!
There are entirely justifiable reasons to oppose SF’s ideas. I am not saying that the DUP are not playing politics, but even if they are, it’s hardly as if SF are above doing the same themselves.
Billy
“That’s the problem with this mandatory coalition”
No, it’s a problem you get community designation and parallel consent. And if you are a defender of the status quo then it’s not actually a problem
Ulsterfan
Unionists at least give reasons for their opposition to these proposals while SF simply do it out of spite.
I suppose SECTARIANISM is as good a reason as any, it beats spite as you see it hands down.
cut the bull
There is no evidence to suggest the motive is sectarian on the part of Unionists . Please follow the arguments they make.
You are bereft of reasons to counteract the accusations made against SF.
No sectarian Unionist motive? Run that past me again! The whole movement/people/politic/tribe is solely based on supremacist sectarianism. The public statements of unionism’s most “liberal” spokesmen would be illegal if addressed against people of a different colour. Ulsterfan – just finished Moloney’s Paisley book – I freely admit to limited knowledge of Ulster Unionism – trouble is the more I learn the worse it gets – the whole thing is based on hate.
dewi:
The whole movement/people/politic/tribe is solely based on supremacist sectarianism.
Yes, and where you have a government consisting of two halves, both of which have the above characteristics, it’s not hard to see how you run into problems. Republicanism is also based on supremacist sectarianism, but it’s a different kind of supremacy – a self-righteous, holier than thou kind.
I’m no Sinn Fein fan but …
I don’t support Sinn Fein but …
Interesting the number of times Billy begins his posts with such remarks …
Dewi
No sectarian Unionist motive? Run that past me again! The whole movement/people/politic/tribe is solely based on supremacist sectarianism. The public statements of unionism’s most “liberal” spokesmen would be illegal if addressed against people of a different colour. Ulsterfan – just finished Moloney’s Paisley book – I freely admit to limited knowledge of Ulster Unionism – trouble is the more I learn the worse it gets – the whole thing is based on hate.
From reading the above, it would unfortunately seem from such sectarian demonising that the hatred is emanating from yourself.
“The whole movement/people/politic/tribe is solely based on supremacist sectarianism”
Reading that again, it’s incredible that someone would make such an overtly sectarian remark. Such blanket slurs against entire groups of people are normally associated with racists and other such bigots.
Ulsterfan
The argued existance of an IRA army council, is the reason DUP claim it wont support the devolution of policing and justice.
The same DUP regularly name certain MLA’s and Ministers as members of that army council.By DUP standards these people are fit to govern this state but are not fit to over see policing and justice. Strange logic.
The Irish language Act. The DUP will not support this because it calims the language has been politicised. Whoopy doo, what drivel.
This is a direlection of juty on behalf of Edwin Poots, who is doing his best to put a cultural strangle hold on the Irish culture through his failure to support the Irish Language Act.
“The Irish culture”
What does this mean?
Willowfield,
in relation to your point to Dewi about his comments “The whole Movement/people/politic/tribe is solely based on supremacist sectarianism”
Lets assume for a moment that a large part of Unioinst ideology is based on what it does not like/it hates ie ROI and Catholics.(There is after all a large amount of evidence to back this up.) Are you saying that it is sectarian to point this out?
Please dont reply with the “Nationalists are just as bad” – lets examine the validity of the statement in it’s own right.
Willowfield,
Language, music, dance, sport, art, writing, story telling, our being.
Dewi
Before pontificating on matters where on your own admission your knowledge is scant it would be best to acquire some first hand information and not rely on what some author had to say. This in itself makes your arguments very unconvincing.
Keep on learning and some day you may see the light.
cut the bull
Please give an example during the past 2 years where a sectarian remark was made by any Unionist Politician when debating ILA the Maze and the related subjects.
Cut the bull
So “the Irish culture” means “language, music, dance, sport, art, writing, story telling, our being”. Gaelic language, then, by your own definition is only a small part of it. So how is Poots trying to put a “cultural strangle hold [sic]” on “the Irish culture” by not bringing forward an Irish language bill, given that his department spends millions on other means of promoting the Irish language, not to mention music, dance, sport, art, writing and story-telling (I’m not clear what it spends on “our being”)?
Sammy Mc Nally
Lets [sic] assume for a moment that a large part of Unioinst [sic] ideology is based on what it does not like/it hates ie ROI and Catholics.(There is after all a large amount of evidence to back this up.) Are you saying that it is sectarian to point this out?
It’s sectarian and quasi-racist to demonise an entire people with a blanket and unfounded accusation that they are “solely based on supremacist sectarianism”.
Such a comment is outrageous and reveals a nasty visceral prejudice, not unlike the kind of remarks one expects to hear from Nick Griffin about the Islamic community.
Willowfield by the way you still havent answered one of my previous posts about Winifred Carney.
I read up on her she was born in Bangor and raised on the AShore rd in North Belfast. She was secretary of the Textile Workers union and helped James Connolly when he was in Belfast to campaign for better pay and woking conditions for mill workers.
She also campaigned for the rights of women to vote.
She joined the Irish Citizen Army rising to the rank of Adjutant General and took part in the 1916 rising positioned within the GPO.
She contested the 1918 Dáil Éireann elections in the Victoria ward in East Belfast.
She married George McBride a former member of the UVF.
Now would you agree that as she has a strong conection with Counties Antrim and Down and played a vital part in shaping the history of this city and Ireland. Would she in your view be a suitable person to have a commemorative statue of her placed in the grounds of the Assembly
language is one of the main parts of any culture now dont be silly
language is one of the main parts of any culture now dont be silly
I’m not being silly.
I ask again, removing the word “small”: If “the Irish culture” means “language, music, dance, sport, art, writing, story telling, our being”. Gaelic language, then, by your own definition is only a part of it. So how is Poots trying to put a “cultural strangle hold [sic]” on “the Irish culture” by not bringing forward an Irish language bill, given that his department spends millions on other means of promoting the Irish language, not to mention music, dance, sport, art, writing and story-telling (I’m not clear what it spends on “our being”)?
Willowfield by the way you still havent [sic] answered one of my previous posts about Winifred Carney.
I did. Try looking on the relevant thread.
Was that an answer. I’ve heard of No, No, No, now its So,So,So.
Ulsterfan
Did you need to impose a two year time frame on your question?
I ask a third time.
If “the Irish culture” means “language, music, dance, sport, art, writing, story telling, our being”. Gaelic language, then, by your own definition is only a part of it. So how is Poots trying to put a “cultural strangle hold [sic]” on “the Irish culture” by not bringing forward an Irish language bill, given that his department spends millions on other means of promoting the Irish language, not to mention music, dance, sport, art, writing and story-telling (I’m not clear what it spends on “our being”)?
Willows me old mucker,
“It’s sectarian and quasi-racist to demonise an entire people with a blanket and unfounded accusation that they are “solely based on supremacist sectarianism”. ”
You appear to have missed the point here – I was asking you the question that IF it were true that Unionist ideology was “solely based on supremacist sectarianism” would it not be have been reasonable for Dewi to point this out?
Having established that we can then examine the evidence to back the contention up as there are various aspects of Unionists’ behaviour which many may feel is consistent with Dewi’s statement.
I would contend that it is neither “sectarian” not “quasi-racist” to make his remarks provided they are based on study of, and inderstanding of, the relevant facts.
I’m tempted to answer SO but that would only be silly would it not?
The Irish Language Act is aimed at giving the Irish Language an equal status with the Enlgish language in this state through legislation.
It would safe guard the rights of those who are educated through Irish, those who use it as their first language to coduct their affairs through the Medium of Irish.
It would provide through legislation workers in places such as courts,post offices, banks, the Housing executive and all government departments, who would have the ability to speak Irish and work with and provide a service to Irish speakers.
Willowfield, your tiresome pedantry really does jar after a while. Language is an integral part of any culture, and well you know it. Edwin Poots is totally against the Irish language, seeing it as a Republican tool, wielded against his brand of Unionism. His objection to it is based on sectarianism and bigotry, and it is only your own blinkers which refuse to let you acknowledge that. Why are some people so afraid of this language? The Act itself won’t force anyone to speak or learn the language, it only safeguards it. I look forward to your usual dissection of this type of paragraph, complete with the usual – no it isn’t. Absolute rubbish. Prove it. Retract that scurrilous insult immediately! Yah-de-yah-de-yah.
As for the comment made earlier by another poster about showing when anyone in the Assembly has made a sectarian remark against the ILA etc, a quick glance at the Hansard notes on David McNarry’s failed bid to ban Irish from the Assembly will show that he feels ‘sickened to his stomach’ whenever he hears Irish being spoken. Can this be taken as anything other than bigotted/sectarian?
I suppose I can take it, that I will not be getting a logical answer to the Winifred Carney question.
Sammy McNally
You appear to have missed the point here – I was asking you the question that IF it were true that Unionist ideology was “solely based on supremacist sectarianism” would it not be have been reasonable for Dewi to point this out?
You weren’t asking me that question and so I haven’t missed the point: your question was whether it was sectarian for Dewi to make his accusation based on the assumed premise that “a large part of Unioinst [sic] ideology is based on what it does not like/it hates”. The answer to that question is yes, since – even if “a large part of Unioinst [sic] ideology is based on what it does not like/it hates” – as is the case of every “ideology”, Dewi is engaging in a blanket and unfounded demonisation of an entire people.
Now, to answer your latest question – if it were true that unionist “ideology” was “solely based on supremacist sectarianism” would it not be have been reasonable for Dewi to point this out? – it would not have been unreasonable for Dewi to point this out, but then Dewi was not merely pointing that out: he was also demonising in blanket terms an entire people based on his perception of an “ideology”, defined in his terms, his perception of their relationship to that “ideology”, and his assumption of some kind of uniform sectarian attitude held by every single person whom he considers to be a unionist. It was no different to, say, demonising in blanket terms the entire Pakistani population of Britain because he believed Islam to be a religion based on supremacist sectarianism.
Of course, it is disingenuous on your part to separate the reasoning of Dewi’s outrageous statement from its premise, because the premise (that unionism is “solely based on supremacist sectarianism”) is as much an essential part of the statement as the reasoning (“therefore the entire unionist people is “solely based on supremacist sectarianism”).
In summary, BOTH the premise and the reasoning in Dewi’s statement are disgraceful, disgusting, sectarian and quasi-racist slurs.
CUT THE BULL
The Irish Language Act is aimed at giving the Irish Language an equal status with the Enlgish language in this state through legislation.
There is no Irish Language Act. There is not even an Irish language bill. Therefore we do not know what the aim of such an Act is.
It would safe guard [sic] the rights of those who are educated through Irish, those who use it as their first language to coduct their affairs through the Medium [sic] of Irish. It would provide through legislation workers in places such as courts,post offices, banks, the Housing executive and all government departments, who would have the ability to speak Irish and work with and provide a service to Irish speakers.
How do you know?
Now, please answer the question. This is now the FOURTH time of asking!
If “the Irish culture” means “language, music, dance, sport, art, writing, story telling, our being”. Gaelic language, then, by your own definition is only a part of it. So how is Poots trying to put a “cultural strangle hold [sic]” on “the Irish culture” by not bringing forward an Irish language bill, given that his department spends millions on other means of promoting the Irish language, not to mention music, dance, sport, art, writing and story-telling (I’m not clear what it spends on “our being”)?
I suppose I can take it, that I will not be getting a logical answer to the Winifred Carney question.
I already told you that I have answered your questions on the relevant thread. If you wish to reopen that discussion, you are entirely at liberty so to do. But please do so on the relevant thread.
SEIMI
Language is an integral part of any culture, and well you know it.
And?
Edwin Poots is totally against the Irish language, seeing it as a Republican tool, wielded against his brand of Unionism. His objection to it is based on sectarianism and bigotry, and it is only your own blinkers which refuse to let you acknowledge that. Why are some people so afraid of this language? The Act itself won’t force anyone to speak or learn the language, it only safeguards it.
Even if we were to accept what you say to be true, it doesn’t explain how – if “the Irish culture” means “language, music, dance, sport, art, writing, story telling, our being” – Poots is trying to put a “cultural strangle hold [sic]” on “the Irish culture” by not bringing forward an Irish language bill.
If he were trying to put such a stranglehold on “the Irish culture”, why does he fund to the tune of millions not only the Gaelic language, but music, dance, sport, art, writing and story-telling?
Even if we were to accept what you say to be true, it doesn’t explain how – if “the Irish culture” means “language, music, dance, sport, art, writing, story telling, our being” – Poots is trying to put a “cultural strangle hold [sic]” on “the Irish culture” by not bringing forward an Irish language bill.
Are you saying you don’t accept what I say? If not, what is your argument to the contrary?
Poots’ refusal to even consider the Act effectively places obstacles in the way of the development of the language. Are you for or against this? And please don’t rhyme off the usual stuff about costs etc. Poots’ figures are based on the Free States expenditure on the language, amongst other things, and are therefore grossy over-inflated.
Do you agree that Poots’ refusal to entertain the irish language is based on his own personal, and his party’s sectarian, boigotted attitude towards the indigineous language of this country and should therefore be condemned? Or will you come off with another diatribe about ‘NI is part of the UK, English is the official language’?
And by the way, Poots himself does not administer any money to Irish language projects. His department does, as is its remit, and even then, it isn’t that much. Don’t try to make out that he is some benevolent uncle, lovingly handing over his change to the doting nieces and nephews, even the slightly worrying Gaelic one.
Are you saying you don’t accept what I say?
Not entirely.
If not, what is your argument to the contrary?
I don’t believe that he is “totally against” the Gaelic language. I believe that he has a visceral suspicion and fear of it, but I do believe he is content to tolerate it at a certain level.
I also don’t believe that his objection to Gaelic is entirely based on sectarianism and bigotry: I think he has valid and genuine political objections to the promotion of the Gaelic language, which he perceives, not unreasonably, as being partly for the purpose of undermining Northern Ireland’s British identity.
It is also not true that “only my own blinkers” refuse to let me acknowledge what you say.
Poots’ refusal to even consider the Act effectively places obstacles in the way of the development of the language.
Poots cannot “consider” an Act. An Act can only be passed by the Assembly. Poots can only consider bringing forward a bill. And he did consider a bill: a draft bill was published and after a period of consultation he gave a statement to the Assembly about it. The outcome of his consideration may not have been to your liking, but that does not mean that he did not consider it.
Are you for or against this?
For or against what? I’m for the preservation of the Gaelic language. I’m against pointless legislation which is more about advancing Irish nationalism than about preserving the language.
Do you agree that Poots’ refusal to entertain the irish language is based on his own personal, and his party’s sectarian, boigotted attitude towards the indigineous language of this country and should therefore be condemned? Or will you come off with another diatribe about ‘NI is part of the UK, English is the official language’?
I believe that part of Poots’ opposition to Gaelic is based on his personal prejudices.
And by the way, Poots himself does not administer any money to Irish language projects. His department does, as is its remit, and even then, it isn’t that much.
Er, Poots is the minister responsible for his department! We live in a democracy: departments do not function independently of ministers!
Don’t try to make out that he is some benevolent uncle, lovingly handing over his change to the doting nieces and nephews, even the slightly worrying Gaelic one.
Not a problem: I have no intention of doing do.
Now … I’ll make the point again … Even if we were to accept what you say about Poots to be true, it doesn’t explain how – if “the Irish culture” means “language, music, dance, sport, art, writing, story telling, our being” – Poots is trying to put a “cultural strangle hold [sic]” on “the Irish culture” by not bringing forward an Irish language bill. Does it?
Willows,
so we are agreed that “it would not have been unreasonable for Dewi” to point out that Unionist ideology was solely based on supremacist sectarianism – provided it was true.
As there is considerable body of evidence to back this up this contention it would serve you better to address this (Dewi’s) substantive point rather than simply launching into stream of verbal abuse.
Now … I’ll make the point again … Even if we were to accept what you say about Poots to be true, it doesn’t explain how – if “the Irish culture” means “language, music, dance, sport, art, writing, story telling, our being” – Poots is trying to put a “cultural strangle hold [sic]” on “the Irish culture” by not bringing forward an Irish language bill. Does it?
You didn’t ask me this, nor did I make the comment. However, as I said earlier, language is an integral part of any culture. Therefore refusing to consider the Act is an impediment to the language’s development and preservation, and therefore is a blow to part of the culture. As Culture minister, he is in a position to do an enormous amount of good for his party’s image amongst the Irish speaking community (note I did not say nationalists or Republicans) by moving positively on this matter. He has refused to do this, instead resorting to the usual ‘Republicans have hijacked the Irish language issue’ comments. I actually agree that this has happened to a certain degree. This does not, however, take away from the fact that the Irish language is being attacked, by all elements of unionism, and by Poots and his party in particular. Sammy Wilson’s triumphalist comments yesterday show this yet again. I was raised speaking Irish as my first language, and have passed this gift on to my own children, and I find it’s treatment at the hands of politicians to be sickening.
‘I also don’t believe that his objection to Gaelic is entirely based on sectarianism and bigotry: I think he has valid and genuine political objections to the promotion of the Gaelic language, which he perceives, not unreasonably, as being partly for the purpose of undermining Northern Ireland’s British identity.’
I’m afraid I find this staement totally laughable, as the vast majority of irish speakers learn and speak the language for the love of the language and to celebrate their Irishness. Celebrating your identity does not automatically mean you undermine another. I have no problem with someone saying they are British. That is their choice. Why is my choice of identity not respected in the same way?
‘And he did consider a bill: a draft bill was published and after a period of consultation he gave a statement to the Assembly about it. The outcome of his consideration may not have been to your liking, but that does not mean that he did not consider it.’
His answer was no and was always going to be no. The reason why? because of his aversion, through sectarianism, bigotry or whatever, to the language and his pre-conceptions about it’s users.
Sammy McNally
so we are agreed that “it would not have been unreasonable for Dewi” to point out that Unionist ideology was solely based on supremacist sectarianism – provided it was [sic] true.
I can’t think of any circumstances where it would be unreasonable to point out the truth.
As there is considerable body of evidence to back this up this contention it would serve you better to address this (Dewi’s) substantive point rather than simply launching into stream of verbal abuse.
1. I don’t think that there is a considerable body of evidence to back up the contention that “unionist ideology” is “based solely on supremacist sectarianism”. Certainly Dewi did not provide any.
2. I didn’t “simply launch into a stream of verbal use”: I justifiably and reasonably expressed shock and disdain at outrageous, sectarian and quasi-racist comments made by Dewi.
Even if it were true – which it is not – that “unionist ideology” is “based solely on supremacist sectarianism”, that is not to what I was objecting. I was objecting to his conflation of this belief into a blanket condemnation of an entire people. As I pointed out, this would be no different to a Nick-Griffin-style blanket demonisation of the Islamic population based on a belief that Islam is a religion “based on supremacist sectarianism”.
I must restate that your response to my condemnation of Dewi’s sectarianism and quasi-racism has been disingenuous.
Seimi
You didn’t ask me this, nor did I make the comment.
No – but you did respond in such a way as to give the impression that you disagreed with the point I was making.
However, as I said earlier, language is an integral part of any culture. Therefore refusing to consider the Act is an impediment to the language’s development and preservation, and therefore is a blow to part of the culture.
But he didn’t refuse to consider the “Act”, therefore – by your own reasoning – there was no impediment to the language’s development and preservation, and no blow to part of the culture.
And – again – even if there had been a “blow” to “part of the culture”, it does not follow that Poots is trying to put a “cultural strangle hold [sic]” on “the Irish culture” generally. And, indeed, his actions in other cultural spheres would indicate the opposite.
As Culture minister, he is in a position to do an enormous amount of good for his party’s image amongst the Irish speaking community (note I did not say nationalists or Republicans) by moving positively on this matter. He has refused to do this, instead resorting to the usual ‘Republicans have hijacked the Irish language issue’ comments. I actually agree that this has happened to a certain degree. This does not, however, take away from the fact that the Irish language is being attacked, by all elements of unionism, and by Poots and his party in particular. Sammy Wilson’s triumphalist comments yesterday show this yet again. I was raised speaking Irish as my first language, and have passed this gift on to my own children, and I find it’s [sic] treatment at the hands of politicians to be sickening.
Opting not to bring forward an Irish language bill is hardly an “attack” and it is not true to say that Gaelic is being attacked “by all elements of unionism”.
‘I also don’t believe that his objection to Gaelic is entirely based on sectarianism and bigotry: I think he has valid and genuine political objections to the promotion of the Gaelic language, which he perceives, not unreasonably, as being partly for the purpose of undermining Northern Ireland’s British identity.’
I’m afraid I find this staement totally laughable, as the vast majority of irish speakers learn and speak the language for the love of the language and to celebrate their Irishness. Celebrating your identity does not automatically mean you undermine another. I have no problem with someone saying they are British. That is their choice. Why is my choice of identity not respected in the same way?
The vast majority of Gaelic-speakers may well learn it for the love of the language, but that does not alter the fact that Irish nationalists are promoting it for the purpose of undermining Northern Ireland’s British identity.
His answer was no and was always going to be no.
Probably, but he still considered it and you said that he didn’t.
The reason why? because of his aversion, through sectarianism, bigotry or whatever, to the language and his pre-conceptions about it’s [sic] users.
As I said above, that’s only part of the reason. He had genuine and not unreasonable political objections, too.
PS. I hope your Gaelic grammar is better than your English grammar.
willowfield
You dont answer questions by saying So.
That is not an answer.
The Irish language is possibly the strongest aspect of the Irish culture for those who being educated in Irish schools.
Refusing to consider bringing about legislation which would treat the Irish language and those who speak it on an equal basis with those citizens who speak and are educated through the English language, has a negative knock on effect on other aspects of Irish culture.This in effect is strangling Irish culture by stealth
This is particularly felt among chidren who are being educated in Irish language schools and adults who have been educated in those schools.
Its as if they are some how children of a lesser God and their language is irrelevant.
Willows,
“1. I don’t think that there is a considerable body of evidence to back up the contention that “unionist ideology” is “based solely on supremacist sectarianism”. Certainly Dewi did not provide any. ”
Most modern histories of Non Iron will provide you with this ( including the book to which Dewi referred ) Do you not consider the fact that Unioinsts could elect an Anti-Catholic cleric as their main leader as further evidence?
“outrageous, sectarian and quasi-racist comments made by Dewi”
which comments are these?
CUT THE BULL
The Irish language is possibly the strongest aspect of the Irish culture for those who being educated in Irish schools.
And by your own reasoning, possibly not. And presumably not for those – the vast, vast majority – NOT being educated in Gaelic-language schools.
Refusing to consider bringing about legislation which would treat the Irish language and those who speak it on an equal basis with those citizens who speak and are educated through the English language, has a negative knock on effect on other aspects of Irish culture.This in effect is strangling Irish culture by stealth
He didn’t refuse to consider bringing legislation about, therefore – by your own reasoning – he is not “strangling Irish culture by stealth”. (By the way, everyone in NI is already treated equally, even if they speak Gaelic, so you are being a bit alarmist.)
But you’re missing the point completely. You’ve already conceded that “the Irish culture” is far more than the Gaelic language, so how on earth could the mere absence of an Irish Language Act mean the “strangling” of Irish culture?
It seems to me that you are conflating “the Irish culture” with the Gaelic language, or perhaps the “Gaelic culture”. That betrays a rather exclusive and unpleasant understanding of Irishness.
SAMMY McNALLY
Most modern histories of Non Iron will provide you with this
They won’t.
Do you not consider the fact that Unioinsts could elect an Anti-Catholic cleric as their main leader as further evidence?
No. It does not follow that because some unionists elected at one time an anti-Catholic cleric as their main leader that therefore “unionist ideology” is “based solely on supremacist sectarianism”.
which comments are these?
Those which demonised all unionists as “being based solely on supremacist sectarianism”.
Dewi on unionists: “The whole movement/people/politic/tribe is solely based on supremacist sectarianism”
They should be gassed for the vermin they are. At the very least re-education camps.
“Do you not consider the fact that Unioinsts could elect an Anti-Catholic cleric as their main leader as further evidence?”
Remind me again of the history of Anti-British violence the leaders of main Nationalist party have been involved in and what this might say of that electorate?…..
‘The vast majority of Gaelic-speakers may well learn it for the love of the language, but that does not alter the fact that Irish nationalists are promoting it for the purpose of undermining Northern Ireland’s British identity.’
Have you any proof of this ‘fact’? Isn’t this exactly the type of blanket condemnation that you are arguing so vehemently against with other posters?
‘PS. I hope your Gaelic grammar is better than your English grammar.’
Typical. Your arguments are so weak you have to resort to personal comments. This type of comment really does show you for what you are willowfield. Petty, very petty.
Please give an example during the past 2 years where a sectarian remark was made by any Unionist Politician when debating ILA the Maze and the related subjects.
Donaldson: “If you vote TUV Dromore will end up like Drogheda”
If someone said “Vote Labour or Birmingham will end up like Bangladesh” then there would be ructions.
I was over the top in generalising my diatribe. Apologies – I should have referred to “mainstream political representatives” rather than the whole people – sorry again.
Dewi
I was over the top in generalising my diatribe. Apologies – I should have referred to “mainstream political representatives” rather than the whole people – sorry again.
I am glad you have apologised for your outrageous and obnoxious comments.
But even dismissing “mainstream [unionist] political representatives” as “being based solely on supremacist sectarianism” is a scurrilous generalisation.
Seimi
Have you any proof of this ‘fact’? Isn’t this exactly the type of blanket condemnation that you are arguing so vehemently against with other posters?
It is not a “fact”: it is an observation on my part and it is based, at least partly, on comments by Irish nationalists. It is not a “blanket condemnation”: it is an observation; and I do not condemn Irish nationalists, or anyone else, for pursuing their goals, so long as they do so responsibly and peacefully. Equally, I do not condemn unionists for seeking to stymie the achievement of those goals, so long as they do so responsibly and peacefully.
Typical.
Of what?
Your arguments are so weak you have to resort to personal comments.
My arguments aren’t weak: far from it. Show me which arguments you claim to be weak. And I am not “resorting” to personal comments: I get irritated by childish and/or lazy grammatical errors and do not apologise for pointing them out. I don’t think there is any excuse for an educated person not to know that the possessive form of “its” does not take an apostrophe!
I will then re-paste your own words.
‘The vast majority of Gaelic-speakers may well learn it for the love of the language, but that does not alter the fact that Irish nationalists are promoting it for the purpose of undermining Northern Ireland’s British identity.’
Can you see where you said it was a ‘fact’? I can. You may say that it is an ‘observation’, however you stated it was a fact.
Also, this ‘observation’ of yours is based, at least partly, on comments by Irish nationalists. How many Irish nationalists would this be? All of them? And did they all say ‘I speak Irish to undermine the British identity of Northern Ireland’?
Your arguments are based on pedantry and the picking apart of others’ words. Yet you conveniently ignore your own statements.
I also make no apologies for my English grammar. And I certainly don’t want or need or appreciate somebody correcting me on it. So don’t do it. Your comment on my grammar was not included in order to keep the flow of any argument going. It was included as a personal one against me and I really can’t stand petty-minded people who engage in that sort of thing. Now, will you apologise?
“But even dismissing “mainstream [unionist] political representatives” as “being based solely on supremacist sectarianism” is a scurrilous generalisation”
Generalisation – yes, but a fairly accurate one.
Scurrilous – as in “expressing offensive reproach” – yes again, so ?
Seimi
Can you see where you said it was a ‘fact’? I can. You may say that it is an ‘observation’, however you stated it was a fact.
Well, it is the fact as I observe it.
Also, this ‘observation’ of yours is based, at least partly, on comments by Irish nationalists. How many Irish nationalists would this be? All of them? And did they all say ‘I speak Irish to undermine the British identity of Northern Ireland’?
No, not all of them, but those involved in the Provisional movement which now leads nationalism.
I also make no apologies for my English grammar.
That is an unfortunate indictment on the sloppy attitude of many today and, indeed, of the inadequacies of our schools. I will apologise for the way in which I pointed out your grammatical errors, but not for pointing them out (someone has to try and maintain standards).
Dewi
Generalisation – yes, but a fairly accurate one.
It’s not fairly accurate.
Scurrilous – as in “expressing offensive reproach” – yes again, so ?
As in “untrue or unfair, insulting and designed to damage a person’s reputation”.