“two challenges and a serious suggestion” offered to Ulster GAA by Dr Norman Hamilton
It’s hard to predict where a Presbyterian minister will pop up next. The latest nationalist foray was conducted this afternoon by former moderator Dr Norman Hamilton who had accepted an invitation to address the Ulster GAA at their Club and Community Development Conference in Armagh City Hotel (the scene of last week’s UUP conference).
Back on 10 January when he was still moderator, Hamilton met with the Ulster GAA in Armagh.
The meeting during which the news of Michaela McAreavey’s death came through – though we were unaware at the time of the cruel and tragic circumstances. The news changed the course of that meeting, for we were able to pray for the family in the quietness of that room. Then just a few months later I was privileged to meet Constable Ronan Kerr’s family at his funeral in Beragh after his brutal murder a few days earlier.
As he started his address, Hamilton identified himself as a “Christian pastor”.
My core identity is as a follower of Jesus Christ – however poorly I may carry that through. I come not as an armchair politician, or community activist, or social commentator, but as someone trying to bring my best understanding of where the teaching of both the Bible and of Jesus himself would take us on the often complex issues facing us all in Ireland today.
It’s a very measured address, that is sensitive to the listener and often seemed to pre-empt the emotional reaction its words could engender in those in the room.
You have asked me to offer some challenges to you … I am very conscious that the road of challenge is a two way street – for whenever a challenge is accepted and met, that of itself brings back a challenge to the person or group who asked the original question. The response creates a challenge in reverse – and that is healthy, because the two way dialogue leads to much better relationships and understanding.
Hamilton’s first challenge was around how the use of the Irish language could be “de-footballed”.
He started off by acknowledging that “the Irish language is a key expression of Irish culture, history and that Irish medium schools have a valued place in our educational system” before noting its value with a Presbyterian context.
It may surprise you to know that as far back as the 1830s all students for the Presbyterian ministry in Ulster were required to be competent in the Irish language. And in today’s world, I would actually expect native Irish speakers to do business in Irish, to have everyday conversation in Irish, to have radio and TV programmes in Irish. This greatly enriches the cultural traditions of the island. I do not want to see the Irish language relegated to the back benches.
Hamilton suggested that at times the use of Irish “switches off and even antagonises very many – maybe even a majority of the unionist population here in the North”.
It is not always wise to use a right to its fullest extent if in doing so we increase resistance to that right. It is not always wise to press for something, however desirable, if in doing so we devalue what it stands for in the eyes of others.
He went on to state that “a second set of street signs in Irish” can be seen as staking “an exclusivist claim for territory in a way that flags also do”. He questioned why a government department would send him “a bi-lingual letter in Irish as well as in English … paid for by the taxpayer, that the sender knows I cannot read?”
I want it [Irish] to be properly valued – not just by those who speak it – but by those of us who do not speak it.
Hamilton looked at the development of the Welsh language, which he claimed was “no longer a political rugby ball”. Instead, “the focus is on giving people the opportunity to learn it and on encouraging them to do so”. Welsh was “no longer the preserve of nationalist politics”.
Having invited the GAA to consider how to help remove partisan politics out of the Irish language, he went on to talk about the “building of a truly shared society”.
Hamilton praised the GAA’s “sense of place – your emphasis on the local and the ‘parish’”. He achnowledged “first rate work” done by the GAA “at local level with young people as well as promoting community spirit and work through local clubs and local activities”. He commented that churches too operated at a parish level and shared a “strong sense of local place and local pride”.
… in general we still struggle as to how to share our sense of community, our own perspectives, hopes, fears and needs with those outside our own tradition and our own immediate area – wherever we live and whatever our background. We are reasonably good at building what the sociologists call ‘bonding capital’ – connecting with people rather like ourselves – but as a society we have not really learned to build ‘bridging capital’ – connecting well with people who are not like us.
This problem was more “than education programmes alone can deliver”, worthy though they be.
… there is still a huge gap between how you in the GAA see yourselves and your work, and how it is seen and understood by those outside the GAA community. There are many reasons for this, but please do not underestimate that to be properly understood in wider society and to be properly responsive to wider society is going to be a very long haul.
I want therefore to make a serious suggestion for your consideration that might well help with this. That you take the initiative to set up a structured forum for dialogue with the civic society of the unionist community. In such a forum, we could stand in each other’s shoes; we could learn to talk well together; we could address the perceptions of the other, share some hopes, work though some real fears, as well as build some substantial personal and some very much needed public relationships.
Hamilton finished with the challenge of “how to help shape the coming decade of centenaries so that we all benefit from the events and anniversary events”.
And there is an increasing urgency to figure out how to mark anniversaries well. The urgency behind the commemorations debate is that by 2018 we will be in a situation of 50 years on since 1968. This brings us into a new and exceedingly difficult round of anniversaries in which many people who experienced those events will be still alive.
That fact alone makes them immensely important, for every year after 2018 will be the fiftieth anniversary of an atrocity – another 30 consecutive years of anniversaries after 2018. We must talk about this now – and we must – absolutely must get our upcoming anniversaries acknowledged and remembered in a way that properly honours the past, but does not trap us into wanting to or trying to re-run it. Democracy at the beginning of the 21st century is very different to democracy at the beginning of the 20th century.
It is, I think, very important to remember that the history of Northern Ireland and the history of the Irish Republic did not begin with the struggles over partition. There is a shared and often tortured history involving us all.
There are also myths to be dispelled, and unknown and even uncomfortable facts to be allowed to surface and to be properly interpreted. For example, it came as a real surprise to me to know that the Ulster Covenant was signed not only in Belfast and Edinburgh, but by 2000 men in Dublin as well.
Hamilton quoted James Craig who while famous for referring to “a protestant government for a protestant people” also said “I, myself, laid down the principle, to which I still adhere, that I was Prime Minister not of one section of the community but of all, and that as far as I possibly could I was going to see that fair play was meted out to all classes and creeds without any favour whatever on my part.”
It seems to me to very important to find some big overarching ideas that will enable us to properly remember the past, and, at the same time, help shape our thinking for the present and our hopes and plans for the future. It is beyond question that our forefathers took what they believed were the right courses of action in their day and generation – in that climactic period from 1912 – 1922. They took a variety of positions as to what good citizenship meant to them in their time.
But democracy has moved on recognisably since then – not least in the aftermath of much war and much pain. For the Unionist community, good citizenship 100 years ago meant that they signed the Ulster Covenant. By 1998 good citizenship to the majority of citizens on this island meant that both the Unionist and nationalist/republican electorate voted for the implementation of the Belfast / Good Friday Agreement.
Commending the GAA’s visible commitment to shared future and citing the examples of their involvement in Constable Kerr’s funeral and the Queen’s visit to Croke Park, Hamilton went on to remind his audience about the GAA’s “clear policy of showing respect for the different cultural and political identities that exist in our community”. A respect that includes “people’s right to express their cultural and national identity in line with that Good Friday Agreement” as well as “the right of the GAA to be an Irish Cultural, Community and Sporting organisation”.
… those of us to whom a shared future matters are already in the business of re-defining active citizenship in a new way for our time and generation – basing it on mutuality, respect, consensus and with rigorous, but non confrontational debate about the values we wish to see upheld in our democratic systems for the up and coming generations.
I also want to suggest that those of us with clear Christian and Biblical convictions ought to be part of that debate, not least because our shared Christian heritage goes back over 1600 years to St Patrick and his ministry here in Ireland. A shared future is but one facet of what the Bible teaches on the importance of restored relationships.
The GAA’s active involvement in shaping centenary anniversaries and how the past is remembered could turn it into a “decade of citizenship” and “years of healing some of the wounds of the past”.
Norman Hamilton will be on Sunday Sequence tomorrow, and the GAA will respond to his address.
Photo by Moochin Photoman
Topic: Politics, Society and Culture, Sport
Region: Ireland, Northern Ireland
“Could – or should – the GAA help depoliticise the use of the Irish language?”
How?
By ordering it to be removed it from their shirts, club names etc?
That would “depoliticise” it?
No, of course not. Maybe individual members of the organisation, if so concerned, could put more pressure on their political representatives to do that particular job. But it’s politicians who, by and large, “politicise” and “depoliticise” cultural stuff and the Irish Language is most certainly no exception in that regard.
Do the GAA need to address the gap between their perception of themselves and the perception of unionists?
Here’s a part of a quote from Livingstone of the ATN and the late, much-lamented, Daily Ireland fame:
“…the stark fact is that the Irish team doesn’t need Rangers fans, Prods, unionists, or whatever you want to call them.”
The “Irish” team in this case being the Republic’s football team.
Ok, crudely put but not any the less true for that. And it’s exactly the same for the GAA in Ulster, they don’t need “Rangers fans, Prods, unionists, or whatever you want to call them” to continue to prosper. They don’t even need them to continue to get govt funding because under the cultural diktat of the Peace Process what one side gets (eg the Orange Order) the other must surely also qualify for.
Do they want the prods, that’s the more tricky question.
If they do, then they don’t need cosy chats with Dr Hamilton to already know exactly the main reason puts off some becomes more actively involved: the close identification (without any kind of censor from HQ) of a few clubs and tournaments with the republican terror campaign.
But that “some”, although including myself, is a minority of Unionists I know- most couldn’t care less how their local team or county performs. So forcing certain clubs and individuals to change their ethos/prejudice for the sake of a very uncertain return is a very risky business indeed. Objectively then it’s probably not worth the hassle… whether it is morally is a diferent question.
Can the GAA play a part in making the decade of centenaries a positive experience for all of society?
Again, the GAA, to this outsider anyway, appears more of a loose collection of pretty independent units rather than an all-powerful central management committee setting out the rules of conduct.
Saying that, it could, as I mentioned earlier, pull up those clubs who play the provo and ethno-nat card too provocatively but I don’t think they really got that much to lose in terms of alienating their core support-base if they don’t.
To elevate Irish gaelic to the status of the official first language and expect equivalence with English would be similar to the elevation of Anglo Saxon to the same position within the UK.
I think we can all imagine what section of the UK would call for that.
The preservation and study of Anglo Saxon is fine. To use it to divide is not. The same is true of gaelic Irish.
@Congal Claen,
The point is not elevate the Irish language in the North of Ireland to the status of “official first language” but to the recognise its status as being that of co-equal with the English language in that region of Ireland (English being the de facto “official first language” of the UK).
Both languages can, and should, co-exist in the north-east of the country on an equal “official” footing. One as the indigenous tongue, the other as a newer but now adopted and assimilated foreign tongue. Yes, of course, both languages carry ethno-national connotations with them but Nationalists can speak English just as Unionists can speak Irish. And do so, in both cases.
I’m not sure what your point is with “Anglo-Saxon”? Modern English is a hybrid of various Anglo-Saxon dialects with mixtures from other languages, primarily Norman-French. It is the “official” language of the UK for all practical purposes, in governance, law, society, education and business.
The Welsh and Scottish languages are effectively co-official with the English language in Wales and Scotland under recent regional and Westminster statues so there is no impediment (except discrimination) to implement similar equality legislation in the North of Ireland.
ASF
““Official bilingualism” and a multilingual society are different”
You are indeed correct. The distinction is that official bilingualism enables a job creation scheme at public expense. Whereas a Lithuanian who appears before the courts may require the services of a translator in the interests of justice, an Irish speaker may demand such a service solely in the interests of point scoring and providing a handy little earner for someone who shares his linguistic enthusiasm.
Congal
You keep trying to get someone to bite with this silliness, but all that happens is that people keep telling you how silly you are.
Turgon
Whatever.
An Sionnach Fionn
I stand to be corrected here, but you can already have bilingual street signs. I guess the point is that they’re only put up where the local people consent to them – is that not your real problem?
@Old Mortality,
With respect, that is not an argument it is a prejudice.
An Irish speaker might ask for a translation service in an English speaking court if he or she felt more comfortable communicating in their native language. Though, of course, in fact they couldn’t since their language is banned from use in British courts under a 270 year old law – that is a British law in Ireland.
If the Irish speaking community or the Irish population as whole in the North of Ireland is to be on a level footing with the English speaking community or the British population as a whole, such equality can only come through official recognition and legislation. The North of Ireland is, to use the cliché, “shared space”. That means the recognition of two separate, but equal, traditions and the sharing of the institutions and resources of the “state” accordingly.
@Ulidian,
I don’t have a “real problem” as you put it beyond a simple request for equality and respect. Looking at the counter-arguments being put forward here the problem seems to be with that request.
I would advocate official bilingualism across the north-east of Ireland in order to recognise and accommodate the two communities there and their diverse traditions and cultures.
If your point is that street signs, or any other public signage, should reflect the wishes of the local community, then would you be happy with “Londonderry” being officially recognised as “Derry” to reflect local feeling?
Would you accept parts of Belfast, or Armagh or Tyrone, having road signs and notices in the Irish language only while other areas had equivalent signs in the English language only? That is the logic of the point you have made.
carl marks: unionisn and unionists would be taken seriously in this if for example they instead of insisting on the right to walk wherever they wanted waving flags and following what are in fact sectarian bands, they would stick to the areas where they are welcome or perhaps recognise the feelings of local residents who object to such displays.
Actually, I don’t have a flag, or a sash, nor do I belong to a band or follow one about the place. And you, very, very, nearly got the point, but not quite. How do you feel about shoving your rights in someone’s face? And how do you feel when they do the same to you?
An Sionnach Fionn: However, the word is “voluntarily”. There is no free will for Irish speakers in the context of being second class citizens – even in a “shared space”.
I missed the place where Hamilton suggested anything other than voluntary self-restraint. Could you point it out to me please?
And I’m not sure even what your second sentence means. People who speak Irish in public usually seem very pleased with themselves. And why not – everyone assumes they are at least bilingual.
@Reader,
You’re quoting me somewhat out of context. One may speak in another language with a non-speaker if one chose’s to do so (or have the ability to do so), out of common courtesy and respect, but in most other contexts the right to use one’s own language in one’s own country must surely be recognised.
Dr. Hamilton’s argument seems to be that Irish speakers should not use their language because it offends those from the British ethnic minority in Ireland who object to any form of ‘indigenous expression”, including language. In other words you can be Irish just don’t be Irish around here. There is no “voluntary” nature in that. Further, the intolerance towards Irish speakers has been institutionalised for decades (or rather, centuries) rendering them, as I said, second class citizens.
My argument is that from mutual recognition grows mutual respect and tolerance. Respect us and we will respect you. Whether the British community in the north-east of Ireland like it or not they share that region, and this island, with a community with a very different identity and culture, one that many wish to freely express and promote.
I have no wish to force the British minority in Ireland to speak Irish. In return they should have no desire to make the Irish majority in Ireland, or any part of that majority, speak English.
That is why “official bilingualism” exists. To accommodate more than one population or ethnicity or nationality. If the British Unionist community were really interested in the long term survival of “Northern Ireland” would it not behove them to make it as welcoming and comfortable place for all its inhabitants?
@fitzjameshorse1745
You seem to under the mistaken impression that the “residents of Ardoyne” have a right to forbid the Orange Order from walking through a particular roundabout. This is an error. All have a right to process on a public highway other than by specific restriction of the Crown.
The duty on the residents of Ardoyne to tolerate an Orange Parade is no different from that of a Bangladeshi in Tower Hamlets to tolerate the EDL, an investment banker walking down Threadneedle Street to tolerate someone carrying a placard saying “Banker’s greed stole my local library” or for Iris Robinson to tolerate a Gay Pride procession. It is the duty we all have at all times in a public place not to impede or assault those exercising their lawful use of a public space. That includes a right to profess and express opinions with which we strongly disagree.
The duty that Ardoyne residents have not to assault or impede an Orange march are no different from those that Shankill residents have not to assault or impede someone walking up the Shankill in a Celtic top. There is no such thing as a right of “residents” to impede the lawful use of public space open to all British citizens on the grounds that someone is doing so while wearing unusual clothes and playing a flute. Such a “right” simply does not exist.
Where Crown servants such as the Parades Commission or the Metropolitan Police restrict the use of the public space they are doing so in the name of the Queen’s peace which is a duty to all citizens whether they lie on Ardoyne Road, Twaddell Avenue or Penny Lane, Liverpool, the buck ultimately stopping at the Houses of Westminster to which all have an equal right of influence. The guy on Ardoyne Road has no more right to forbid an Orange march at the roundabout than the guy on Twaddell Avenue or even the guy on Penny Lane. That right rests with the Crown and whoever they have delegated that power to.
Bilingual street signs are very different. An Orange march is an exercise of the right to freedom of assembly by private citizens. Equivalent to a private citizen standing in the street and speaking Irish into a loudhailer. A DOE workman taking down a monolingual sign and replacing it with a bilingual sign is acting as a servant of the Crown and must therefore be subject to all the restrictions of permission to which citizens are entitled to ask of the government. A particular street does not have a “right” to either a bilingual or monolingual street sign. That is the right of the Crown. If the Falls Road had a legally erected bilingual street sign and I was to throw paint over it the resulting court case would be “Regina versus unicorn” not “Falls Road residents versus unicorn”, since I would be impeding the Crown’s right to put it there. Falls Road residents do not have such a right for me to impede.
@carl marks
I’m not sure why you don’t see the distinction. A person has a right to stand outside the Student Union on the public street with a t-shirt or placard with Irish emblazoned on it but the Student’s Union does not have a right to bilingual toilet signs since as a workplace it has a duty to provide a neutral working environment under law.
The distinction is that the former is personal and private while the latter is collective and public. We are allowed to be racist or politically partisan in choosing our friends or marriage partners or who we attend a public demonstration alongside but we are not permitted to be racist or politically partisan in choosing our employees or choosing who can be a customer in our pub or shop because there we have a duty to the public at large to be fair and neutral.
An Orange march is like the guy standing in the street with Gaelic on his shirt speaking Gaelic to his friend standing beside him. A bilingual toilet is like Harland and Wolff hanging up pictures of the Queen.
unicorn, reader et al
This pre-occupation with rights and entitlements and the exercise of them is conspicuously narrow and more than somewhat tiresome to read. Other approaches should be taken into consideration, whether in relation to the Irish language, to orange marching and so forth.
Ethically speaking, aspects of utilitarianism, rights, common good theory, virtue, fairness and/or justice can and should be blended here in order to bring some perspective to these matters, I’d suggest. In summary:
(i) consider what benefits and what harms will each course of action produce, and which alternative will lead to the best overall consequences.
(ii) consider what moral rights do the affected parties have, and which course of action best respects those rights.
(iii) consider which course of action treats everybody the same, except where there is a morally justifiable reason not to, and does not show favouritism or discrimination.
(iv) consider which course of action advances the common (that’s common, people) good.
(v) (no sniggering…) which course of action develops moral virtues?
Answering each of these questions won’t provide an automatic solution to these (ultimately moral) problems but it would however help identify most of the important ethical considerations and enable a more robust framework for debating them and, willingness permitting, solutioning them politically. Like I say, talking solely about very narrowly defined rights and entitlements to the exclusion of any other considerations is intellectually weak – or incurious, to say the very least of it – and ethically unsound.
@ An Sionnach Fionn
“Roman Catholics have the right to vote in the North of Ireland: but they shouldn’t exercise that right if it annoys others. Black men and women have the right to equality in South Africa: but they shouldn’t exercise that right if annoys others. Gay men and women have the right to live gay lifestyles: but they shouldn’t exercise that right if annoys others. And so on and so forth.”
Orangemen have the right to walk down a road, but they shouldn’t exercise that right if it annoys others.
Is that the sort of thing we’re talking about?
@unicorn,
How is the Irish language any less “neutral” than the English language? If we accept your point that the use of a language on public signage would violate those legal restrictions placing an onus on employers in the North of Ireland to provide a “neutral working environment” then it obviously follows that an argument can be made against the English language too.
How is a person standing on a public street wearing an Irish language tee-shirt or holding an Irish language placard “personal and private” and therefore acceptable but Irish language signs and notices on that street are not acceptable?
Bilingual signage would most certainly not fall under any rational form of legislation designed to prevent workplace intimidation or discrimination. Does it do so in Wales or Scotland?
A bilingual toilet (or rather the signage on it!) is like Harland and Wolff hanging up pictures of the Queen of England AND the President of Ireland. It’s called equality. If you don’t want pictures of either head of state in the workplace fair enough. But then apply that “logic” to the area of language rights and get rid of the English language too.
As it is, the exclusive use of the English language in public spaces is no more than the equivalent of those with an Irish identity and citizenship being confronted with pictures of the Queen of England every day across the north-eastern part of Ireland.
Is that “neutral”?
@Harry Flashman,
Orangemen have the right to walk down the road so as long as they do so within the law and with due respect and cognizance of the wishes of local communities. In principal I have no objection to Orange marches anywhere in Ireland. The Orange Order, for good or for ill, is part of the cultural identity of the British ethnic minority in this nation and we must accommodate that identity if we are to progress towards the peaceful reintegration of the north-east with the rest of the national territory. It will mean difficult, perhaps painful, compromises for all involved.
If the price to pay for swapping the present system of institutionalised discrimination in the North of Ireland to one of official bilingualism involves the Orange Order marching down the Garvaghy Road then they are welcome to do so.
“If the price to pay for swapping the present system of institutionalised discrimination in the North of Ireland to one of official bilingualism involves the Orange Order marching down the Garvaghy Road then they are welcome to do so.”
If you don’t get your bilingual signs then the Orangies don’t get to walk down the street, I see.
Oh and by the way this statement is absolute twaddle;
“If we accept your point that the use of a language on public signage would violate those legal restrictions placing an onus on employers in the North of Ireland to provide a “neutral working environment” then it obviously follows that an argument can be made against the English language too.”
English in Northern Ireland (unlike in genuinely bi-lingual societies like Quebec) is the lingua franca. Everyone speaks it and everyone is fluent in it and everyone uses it every single day. To use English on signs is perfectly neutral and non-contentious.
To use English on public signage is a matter of common sense and practical functionality, to use Irish on signs is a political gesture, it in no way adds to the functionality of the sign and solves no practical problem other than satisfying a political need.
To raise a language understood by only a miniscule amount of people and who speak English anyway to the same level as English cannot be regarded as neutral or egalitarian.
I have by the way no objection to the use of the Irish language but let us at least stop losing the run of ourselves. Let us not insult each other’s intelligence by pretending that English and Irish have equal status and if you cannot have one then you shouldn’t have the other.
That’s plain nonsense.
Harry, yours would be well and good if there wasn’t a history of discrimination against the language. And not just Irish, but Scottish as well. Dewi can chime in re Welsh and if anyone has lost their Breton, you too can chime in. Maybe it is “urban legend”, but I once heard that if you were caught speaking Breton at school, that they tied a wooden shoe on a string around your neck. Some tried the same here, except it wasn’t a wooden shoe on a string around the neck but a mouthful of lye soap, to be administered to our Injun friends.
So, Harry, when does the conquest well and truly end? And since Turgon and some others are all for repentance and atonement, how does one repent and atone for the destruction of the language? You might start with something like this (note, the following is a pdf file)(and see item (4) of the findings and might I report that you and some others stand accused of the same):
http://www.nabe.org/files/NALanguagesActs.pdf
And, Harry, drop the “political” and sub in its place “human” and “spiritual”.
The loss of the Irish language, and it is lost to all intents and purposes, is a cultural tragedy but it will not be reversed by adding, often made-up, Irish words to perfectly comprehensible public signage.
To do so is simply a political gesture, and yes I make no apology for using the term “political” for that is what it is.
We are supposed to be going the way of neutralising Northern Ireland’s public spaces, nothing offensive to anyone’s eye must be tolerated in the new dispensation.
Like I say I have no objection to Irish but you can’t have it both ways. I had no problem with the historic honorific title of “Royal” in the name of the local police force but it wound a lot of people up so it had to go, same with Royal Crests in the courtrooms, pictures of the Queen in British government owned factories doing contract work for the British government were a no-no.
Fair enough, the get-alongers want a bland neutral public space, no culture anywhere, so be it; then no bi-lingual signage.
This is eye-wateringly tedious zero sum game silliness all the hell over again.
The slightest bit of imagination or maturity here would result in some form of meaningful and sustainable trade-off. One of many thousands of possible permutations by way of example: agree to voluntarily end contentious orange parades and ‘in return’ back away from unnecessary mandatory use of Irish in aspects of public life where it’s not needed or valuable and instead invest a proportion of the money saved (e.g. from routine Stormont bilingualism) to fund politically neutral Irish language programs accessible to all and at a cost the local taxpayer is content to support. Nobody either needs or benefits from street signs in Irish (I refuse to believe that anyone’s genuinely offended by them but let’s float above that and concentrate on requirement and public good rather than ‘me me me’ preference/want/right/entitlement for the moment) or addressing comments in Irish in the assembly, nobody actually needs or benefits from contentious orange parades. Thus, SF’s ‘ownership’ for the language piece falls away and the issue of the promotion of (sic) language is depoliticized (the language in itself apolitical per se), orangeism retains its rights and what’s left of its dignity but exercises them in a respectful manner to its, as it were, heart’s content. Nobody loses and we all move the hell on up the evolutionary road a mile or two, appropriate to the century we live in. Bloody sickening to hear this endless whine whine whine about rights and entitlements as if it’s the only possible basis upon which anyone can ever claim to be able to exercise a choice over whether we do or don’t do what we believe we’re allowed to and whatever the hell we like whenever we like. Adulthood requires just a little more discernment than that.
Remarkably sensible post there nun.
Harry, reasonable posts but; there are bilingual signs in parts of Wales (English and Welsh ) and Brittany (French and Breton) where everyone can speak the dominant language and it is ‘non-contentious’. It’s a matter of respect.
I think unionists are barking up the wrong tree long-term in making it as difficult as possible to have Irish as well as English on the signs, and then complaining that Irish on signs is marking the area as republican. All it’s doing is pushing Irish into only the more republican ghettos, breeding resentment, and making unionists more likely to associate the language with republicanism.
Maybe we should just have Gaelic signs on streets where the majority of the residents are fluent in Gaelic?
Now if only I could get the contract for installing English only signs…
Congal Claen
If you’re thinking of installing the signs then that may prove to be some form of, ahem, sign of some inability to achieve or maintain erection my dear boy.
Consult a competent physician in early course.
Cheers Nun,
I’ll bow to your superior knowledge on the subject. Pun intended!
ASF
“That means the recognition of two separate, but equal, traditions and the sharing of the institutions and resources of the “state” accordingly.”
Which must mean additional public expenditure, so reinforcing my view that the principal object of Irish language activism is to insert its paws deeper into the public purse.
Harry,
With regard to the Irish Language you seem to be utterly ignorant.
More often than not the Irish printed on the sign is the original place name, While the English translation is usually meaningless, to anyone with a basic understanding of Irish there is an immense amount of information about the history, geography, geology and especially the ecology of an area contained within an Irish place name.
I speak Irish every day of the week. I have chatted about family, friends, the weather, nature, told ghost stories, read bedtime stories in Irish. I worked in a factory in west Galway for a number of years exclusively through Irish, I even opened a bank account through Irish but I can honestly say I have never had a political conversation in this “political language”
The Irish language may be dead to you but it is not to me and many like me. In South Armagh, South Down, Belfast, The sperrin region and other regions there are strong Irish speaking communities alive today under the radar. The claim that people only use Irish as a political tool is a self fulfilling myth. It didn’t start with the GAA or Irish on road signs and won’t end with it.
Congal Claen
Careful with that punning now, wouldn’t want it becoming ahem, ‘habit-ual’.
heres a suggestion, if you can not stop the games officials, refs and linesmen, from being battered black and blue, by player and fans alike, best to wrap it up.
‘Street-signs’
Given that the ban on the Irish language has been abolished and is unlikely to be reinstated, this debate is a little academic.
Directional signs are another matter, given Sinn Féin’s support for the continuation of a ban (in direct contradiction to Scotland and Wales), this is likely to remain to case.
You could tear down every bilingual sign in the North and I assure all, it would do nothing to calm (the majority of) unionist’s detestation of Irish and would do absolutely nothing for a shared future.
No Gaels, no shared future, I think that is an axiom.
I’m not a big fan of the gaa but I do enjoy watching the game on the tele. It is obvious that the gaa is more than just a sporting association and that is the bit that I struggle with. The first time I watched the game was in the 80′s when channel Four screened the final from Croke park. I can’t remember who was playing or indeed won the match, but I do remember the speech made by the president of the gaa after the game. His speech was political and nationalistic. He spoke about the “artificial border” on the island of Ireland and so on. I didn’t watch it again until two years ago.
It’s not the game unionists dislike (well this one anyway) it’s the added on bits ie grounds named after members of killer gangs, the need to prove yourselves as irish by playing the soldiers song and flying the tricolour at games. Can you only be irish if you embrace these things?
While I believe the gaa is moving in the right direction, I’m not sure that they really want unionists to part of their orginisation. I would love to see a number of clubs being started in unionist areas to play the game. Hopefully they wouldn’t be named after a dead loyalist killer. I wouldn’t want them to be under the control of the gaa as I don’t believe unionism and the gaa are compatible. Maybe this is the way forward.
[...] for their national language and culture (but then our Anglophone elites have their own ready-made allies to rely [...]
Unfortunately we seen to be getting nowhere here. The Irish community in the North of Ireland asks for the recognition of its identity, culture and language, and equality with those it shares the region with. The British community refuses. Even those who one presumes would style themselves as “Liberal Unionists” seem incapable of moving beyond the “Pale” mentality.
Frankly, I find it depressing.
So I’ll finish with a sample list of nations in Europe with State-recognised linguistic, ethnic or national communities, and where bilingualism or multilingualism is legislated for in public and/or private services:
Austria, one official language, German. Croatian, Hungarian and Slovenian official regional languages.
Belgium, three official languages: Dutch, French and German.
Czech Republic, one official language, Czech. Polish official regional language.
Finland, two official languages, Finnish and Swedish. Sami official regional language.
Germany, one official language, German. Low Saxon, Frisian, Romany official regional languages.
Italy, one official language, Italian. German, French, Slovene, Ladin, Sardu, Friuli, Occitan official regional languages.
Kosovo, two official languages, Albanian and Serbian. Turkish, Bosnian, Roma official regional languages.
Luxembourg, three official languages, Luxembourgish, French and German.
Malta, two official languages, Maltese and English.
The Netherlands, two official languages, Dutch and Frisian. Low Saxon and Limburgish official regional languages.
Portugal, one official language, Portuguese. Mirandese official regional language.
Romania, one official language, Romanian. Hungarian and seven other languages official regional languages.
Slovenia, one official language, Solvene. Italian and Hungarian official regional languages.
Spain, one official language, Spanish. Basque, Galician, Valencian, Catalan and Aranese official regional languages.
Sweden, one official language, Swedish. Finnish, Meänkieli, Romani and Sami official regional languages.
Switzerland, four official languages, German, French, Italian and Romansh.
If much of Europe can live with multilingual societies and communities, provisioned and protected by the states they share, why can’t we?
The Irish community in the North of Ireland asks for the recognition of its identity, culture and language, and equality with those it shares the region with.
Does it ever consider that its opposition to unionist culture etc might be counterproductive in that regard?
Decimus
You’d need to define what you mean by unionist culture in order for anyone to offer a semi-informed response to that.
You’d need to define what you mean by unionist culture in order for anyone to offer a semi-informed response to that.
I was thinking specifically of the Orange element of unionist culture which appears to be under constant attack from republicans. Except when they are standing for Presidencies of course.
So the term unionist culture is, you’d admit, inappropriate without that substantial qualification. It would also be nice also if you’d accept that it isn’t only Irish republicans, nationalists or catholics who don’t hold the orange order in high esteem.
I have no problem with accepting that. The point that I am attempting to make is that if people want their culture to be accepted and tolerated then it might be an idea for them to accept and tolerate the culture of others.
Decimus
I am not in any way belittled, demeaned, diminished, offended or embarassed by the Irish language. I can’t say the same about orangeism. There simply isn’t any equivalance.
I am not in any way belittled, demeaned, diminished, offended or embarassed by the Irish language. I can’t say the same about orangeism.
There simply isn’t any equivalance.
That is your opinion, and I’m sure it is very important to you, but I can’t see how it has any relevance to the point that I am making.