Thursday, June 07, 2007
4,000 responses to Irish Language legislation…
The Newsletter reports up to 4,000 responses from the public to proposed legislation on the Irish langauge. In a previous round of consultation, most of it favourable, and very little from unionist objectors.
In a previous round of consultation, the department received 688 letters, 1,376 postcards and a petition signed by 2,500 people. It found 93 per cent of respondents in favour of the legislation – as unionists failed to voice opposition in any significant number.
They later report that that pattern is expected to remain the same for this latest consultation.
In the meantime, Francie Brolly has complained that although he can put oral questions to ministers within the chamber of the Assembly in Irish, the same does not apply to written questions. According to the Newsletter, “there are also not the resources to embark on such translation”.
Mick Fealty @ 09:46 AM
its quite interesting to read some of the other letters in the Newsletter regarding the Irish language. The attitude seems to be that Britishness by definition excludes Irishness!
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 11:47 AMI thought it was disgusting that very young children were dragged into this as a stunt when Francie Brolly and Primary school children from Turf Lodge picketted the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6723049.stm
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 12:11 PMAny time ”The Newsletter reports” precedes an item on the Irish language, it should be taken with a measure of caution. It’s little wonder that unionists have a negative attitude to the Irish language given the misinformation peddled by the Unionst press and politicians, particularly the Newsletter.
For instance, in a report carried following the publication of the first consultation document on 13 December, the Newsletter ran a big headline over a story about the purported cost of Irish language translation in the north.
According to the Newsletter report, this was ÂŁ18m!
This figure was taken from the consultation document by the reporter and relied on by the editor, Darwin Templeton, in his leader decrying the Irish Language Act campaign as too costly etc etc.
This was a deliberate misrepresentation by the Newsletter of the figures because the ÂŁ18m referred to actually covered all the costs down to the Irish language in the Government estimates over the past three years.
It included, for instance, ÂŁ12m spent by the Department of Education on educating schoolchildren, a sum which would have to be paid anyhow whether the children were being taught in English or in Irish.
It double counted ÂŁ3m which is being provided by the UK government Exchequer directly to the Irish Language Broadcast Fund.
There were other discrepancies also in the account given by the Newsletter I never saw a correction or an attempt to balance this misreportage with a view from the Irish language community, from an organisation such as POBAL, in the Newsletter. If you want balanced reporting about the Irish Language Act campaign, with views from all sides, including Irish speakers who are against the Act, you need to get your copy of Lá Nua.Now as then, the Newsletter has a vague grasp of the figures.
The second consultation, which was organised as an effort to give those against a second bite at the cherry, ended on Tuesday. The first consultation ended and there were over 600 detailed responses and of these, 93% were in favour. Lá Nua has reported that there were two significant lodgements of responses on Monday night and Tuesday afternoon.
On Monday night approximately 1,200 negative responses were lodged while the following day, 5,000+ positive responses were delivered to DCAL. The first figure may have been included in the Newsletter tally but the second definitely wasn’t.This is the numbers game without a doubt but this is the avenue which has been forced upon the Irish language community in the north due to the negative soundings being emitted by the Unionist controlled media and the Unionist Parties.
David McNarry’s contribution - his allegation that this is all part of a SF plot to ‘green’ the province is risible. Should the Irish language not be part of Irish culture in this part of Ireland? Should it not be supported by the state given that Irish speakers, through their taxes, provide financial support for the state even if they don’t give it full political allegiance? This is of course the same David McNarry who during the height of Drumcree in the late 90s said that the Orange Order could bring the ‘province’ to a standstill if they wouldn’t be allowed down the Garvaghy Road. I wonder how much that intervention and what followed cost the tax payer? As far as I know, the protest at Broadcasting House didn’t stop traffic and we’re still living in a state purporting to have democratic values.
The participation of schoolchildren in the protest is commendable. Practical civics I’d call it. The Unionist/loyalist equivalent? Look no further than the pipe bombers of children at Holycross…Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 01:54 PMGot this story on Google News, quoting Slugger as the source. Address for Slugger is given as “Wimborne, Dorset, Ireland”. Now I might just have persuaded phil that he will lose Cornwall in the final shake-up, but Dorset is pushing it.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 02:02 PMOilibhear - should Anna Lo be able to table questions and expect answers in Chinese ? Chinese taxpayers etc etc etc
“The participation of schoolchildren in the protest is commendable. Practical civics I’d call it.”
Politicising very young children is commendable ? I’m not sure what you mean about Holy cross - are you saying that the plan is for these Turf Lodge Children to throw pipe bombs if they don’t get their way ?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 02:19 PMMaggot
“Oilibhear - should Anna Lo be able to table questions and expect answers in Chinese ?”
Irish has been spoken here in Ulster for thousands of years, much longer than English or Scots or Polish or Chinese.
It is a part of our traditional Ulster heritage. Chinese isn’t, and Chinese isn’t in any danger of disappearing off the face of the earth as a spoken language (though Ms Lo’s particular dialect potentially could).
“Chinese taxpayers etc etc etc”
That’s already happening in a small way - Chinese ratepayers - I’ve seen Chinese and Arabic on RCA leaflets, I’ve never seen Irish. Why should Ulster’s unique linguistic culture be ignored when we are making allowances for the linguistic culture of foreigners?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 02:46 PMMaggot, Chinese isn’t an indegeous language of Ulster. I’m not aware that the Gaels are demanding that China implement an Irish language. They want one in their own country were the language has been neglected for so long. And i suspect the cost of implementing the Act is only an excuse for many people objecting to it!
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 02:50 PMMaggot
“Oilibhear - should Anna Lo be able to table questions and expect answers in Chinese ? Chinese taxpayers etc etc etc”
That’s a matter for Anna Lo. As far as I know, this isn’t an issue she has picked up, so let’s not waste time on this meaningless hypothetical - especially when there’s an actual, live issue at hand. (Or would you be trying to detract from that live issue by some classic passive-aggressive mendacity?)
“Politicising very young children is commendable?”
The young children are directly affected by this issue. They may not have chosen to become a political football, but that’s the situation they find themselves in. I think it’s commendable that they would take part in promotion of the Irish language. I would want my children to grow up with a love and attachment to the Irish language. It’s an unambiguously positive thing. For Irish language enthusiasts (including the children in our naoiscoils and bunscoils) it’s about love. It’s not about hate.
What’s unionist opposition about? Is it about love?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 02:51 PMobviously that should be where not were
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 02:53 PMLongevity of use and non-use isn’t mentioned Ulster McNulty. The point was however made about taxpayers having rights.
“Irish has been spoken here in Ulster for thousands of years”
so the call isn’t for standardised Irish but Uladh Irish or one of the ancient Irish dialects ? That will so lease comhaltas Uladh members - if there are any still alive ;)
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 02:53 PMBP
“What’s unionist opposition about? Is it about love?”
It’s similar but the inverse of the Orangemen’s attitude to catholicism - we don’t hate the Irish language but we hate the poor sinners who speak it.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 03:00 PM“Maggot, Chinese isn’t an indegeous language of Ulster.”
So what ? Chinese is widely spoken by Ulster taxpayers - How racist of you to deny these people their rights!
The Traveller language is thought to be the oldest language on this island - should it also be accorded he same rights and facilities?
( whoops - naughty me - mentioning travellers - oppressed by everybody )This is SF playing politics, shit stirring. Hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of pounds will be wasted - money that should go to schools, hospitals and social services.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 03:01 PMMaybe it should be called Gaelic instead of Irish as it is here in Scotland/Alba. Gaelic-ness probably predates Irishness.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 03:02 PM“So what ? Chinese is widely spoken by Ulster taxpayers - How racist of you to deny these people their rights!”
I don’t believe i am denying the Chinese their rights to a Chinese language act in the way certain members of Ulster society seem determine to deny the Gaels their rights.
The Chinese representatives are entitled to propose such a Chinese language act.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 03:12 PMIain
“Maybe it should be called Gaelic instead of Irish as it is here in Scotland/Alba. Gaelic-ness probably predates Irishness.”
Why not get your own name? What about “Scottish”?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 03:14 PM“That’s already happening in a small way - Chinese ratepayers - I’ve seen Chinese and Arabic on RCA leaflets, I’ve never seen Irish. Why should Ulster’s unique linguistic culture be ignored when we are making allowances for the linguistic culture of foreigners?”
Leaving aside your basic ignorance of language needs of minority ethnic communities. The RCA do provide information in Irish.
http://www.lpsni.gov.uk/irish_translation-3.htm
http://www.lpsni.gov.uk/information_about_your_rate_bill.pdfPosted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 03:14 PMBilly - how many six year olds will follow question and answers from the Assembly, let alone follow then in Irish ?
For myself, I’d be quite happy to see more money set aside for Irish language education in schools and for adult education - where it might actually acheive something useful.
Iain - the Gaelic vs Irish takes you into very dangerous waters. When Standardised Irish was invented the Ulster dialect was largely excluded because .... it is contaminated by Scottish.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 03:25 PM“The Unionist/loyalist equivalent? Look no further than the pipe bombers of children at Holycross…”
Almost made it to the end with no sweeping generalisation and demonisation of the Unionist community.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 03:37 PM“the Gaelic vs Irish takes you into very dangerous waters. When Standardised Irish was invented the Ulster dialect was largely excluded because .... it is contaminated by Scottish”
Presumably Donegal Irish (this would be strictly speaking Ulster Irish too) will be likewise ‘contaminated’ by Scottish yet it seems to be tolerated by the irish. in fact, they even refer to it as Irish. i’m not aware of any form of Irish that would be indigenous to Northern Ireland (geographically) still existing, though you can correct me on this.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 03:41 PMPaying for translators etc. in Stormont is a waste of money - aren’t we supposed to be reducing our dependency on the public sector, not increasing it.
Instead the funding should go into capital projects - boosting the Gaelic Quarter so it might attract some visitors, and create a centre of excellence so that those rich Southerners will come to study the language here.
Spending the money translating car tax leaflets, road signs and assembly questions is misdirected political nonsense and will do the language far less favours than a thriving Gaelic Quarter or college.
Same goes for Ulster Scots btw.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 03:44 PMUnionist
“It’s similar but the inverse of the Orangemen’s attitude to catholicism - we don’t hate the Irish language but we hate the poor sinners who speak it.”
Very good! I would suggest though, that the strategy for unionists should be to get involved with the Irish language. If you perceive it to be a republican thing, get involved and pollute the republican purity of it! The Shinners would have kittens!
“how many six year olds will follow question and answers from the Assembly, let alone follow then in Irish?”
What’s that got to do with anything? You think “politics” is something that happens on TV, or that happens in one big room up at Stormont? Politics is happening all around us, all the time. Political debates and decisions affect our lives every day - not least when it comes to education. Even six-year-olds understand that.
“For myself, I’d be quite happy to see more money set aside for Irish language education in schools and for adult education - where it might actually acheive something useful.”
Good for you! I’m somewhat surprised to hear you say that though - you come across quite differently.
“the Gaelic vs Irish takes you into very dangerous waters. When Standardised Irish was invented the Ulster dialect was largely excluded because .... it is contaminated by Scottish.”
Hang on a sec. I recognise you. You don’t by any chance go by a couple of other names, do you Maggot? (Initials MR, DofS and ME, by any chance?)
Because there’s only one person on this island who plays that old “standardised Irish” canard, but by God he plays it often. (Regardless of how many times his assumptions and skewed history are demonstrated to be bogus.)
If that’s you, good to see you, you old so-and-so! If not, I know someone you’d get on famously with!
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 03:55 PMDK
Have to say I’d largely agree with that. The future for the Irish language is to make it sexy. (As has happened down south.) Translating civil service documents and car tax stickers is worthy but boring.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 03:57 PMIain - do you realise that there is such a thing as “standardised Irish” and that there is resentment that it is in danger of destroying the Ulster Gaelic ?
e.g. from the letters page of the Irish news in January 2004, by Sean O Cearnaigh, Belfast
“ the Dublin government adopted the Munster dialect as a substitute for the spoken tongue in the rest of the country.
This is easily proved, especially in the case of
Ulster Irish.The latter was always under pressure from the south from the foundation of the Gaelic League in 1893.
In the end, Ulster was forced to set up its own defence council in 1924, in the form of Comhaltas Uladh, which from then on led the fight for the survival of Irish in Ulster until it finally capitulated in 1948.”
In fact all is NOT rosy in the Donegal Gaeltacht -some people are unhappy at the damage being done to their dialect.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 03:58 PM“Good for you! I’m somewhat surprised to hear you say that though - you come across quite differently.”
Thats because your preconceptions prevent you seeing what I’m getting at - he’s unionist, he must be anti-Irish. As it happens I’m listening to some Irish language as I write.
I’ve only posted here as Maggot - discovered the place, lurked a few weeks and bit the bullet. sorry!
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 04:06 PMMaggot
“That’s because your preconceptions prevent you seeing what I’m getting at - he’s unionist, he must be anti-Irish.”
Ah, now you’re preconceptions are coming to the fore!
“As it happens I’m listening to some Irish language as I write.”
Maith go leor!
“I’ve only posted here as Maggot - discovered the place, lurked a few weeks and bit the bullet. sorry!”
Ah, I could’ve sworn you were someone else!
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 04:25 PM
