Wednesday, September 12, 2007
How to make Unionists comfortable with Irish
An interesting remark from SF’s Francie Brolly on Monday during question time:
I do not accept that the rights of Irish speakers should be subject to consultation.
I have to say, that makes me feel an awful lot better about the impending Irish Language legislation. He continued:
A right is a right.
Indeed it is, the right to life for example is not negotiable. Any “right” to speak Irish is in no way infringed in Northern Ireland, if it were Brolly might have a point. As it is, his comments only serve to cement the feeling amongst Unionists that this is not a rights issue, but a cultural warfare issue.
Michael Shilliday @ 10:21 AM
“As it is, his comments only serve to cement the feeling amongst Unionists that this is not a rights issue, but a cultural warfare issue.”
Well, you’re right, for some in Sinn Fein and for some unionists it is a “cultural warfare issue” - you people are still firmly stuck in grand old days of yore.
For Irish speakers it’s a linguistic issue.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 11:19 AMI think that for the vast majority of Irish speakers (and yes even Sinn Fein members) its actually a cultural welfare issue.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 11:22 AMUlster McNulty,
Fair enough, now could you explain for me exactly what would be in an Irish Language Act that will benefit society that is not currently provided for?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 11:29 AMHow many of those at the forefront of this campiagn are fluent Irish speakers? Some are but...we can rule out Gerry Adams for a start....
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 11:36 AMHe confuses rights and freedoms. Those that want to learn Irish Gaelic have that freedom conversly those that do not wish to learn it also have that equal freedom.
In the Human Rights Act 1998, Schedule 1, Part I, Article 9 the Freedom of thought, conscience and religion are set out.
1
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2
Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 11:37 AMIn the same token Article 2 of the first protocol has a right to education:
No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.Thus it seems this MLA wishs not only to reframe the ECHR but also the constitutional HRA 1998!
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 11:41 AMI am surprised someone at SF headquarters hasn’t taken Francie aside and advised him to be more circumspect in his comments around rights and the ILA. He is providing some very juicy quotes on the inviolabity of rights.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 11:45 AM“Fair enough, now could you explain for me exactly what would be in an Irish Language Act that will benefit society that is not currently provided for?”
I’m not an advocate of an “Irish Language Act”, but one benefit might be a degree of official recognition.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 11:51 AM“a cultural warfare issue”
I think you’re strring the pot a little with your inflammatory language, Michael.
Irish speakers simply want to be able to deal with civil administration, North and South, through the medium of Irish and send their kis to an Irish language school. That for me is the nub of the issue. Nobody is trying to engage in “warfare”.
Out of interest, would those Unionists opposed to an Irish language act feel more comfortable if the Irish government were to pick up the tab for translation of official documents and paying the salaries of translators in the assembly - ie essentially pay for the operation of the Language Act, including perhaps giving grants to Irish language schools?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 11:53 AM‘kids’ not ‘kis’
Fingers on the Alt-Tab buttons again as the boss is back from his holidays and wandering about the place :-)
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 11:55 AMUM
“one benefit might be a degree of official recognition.”
Like having public bodies charged with its development - which already happens
Like state support for the language - which already happens
Like recognition under the appropriate international rights document - which already happensIt is not a year zero situation for the Irish language in NI.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 11:58 AMCormac,
Why should tax payers shell out massive amounts so that people who can speak English perfectly well, have the option to deal with the state in Irish? What is the benefit to society?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 12:08 PMMichael Shilliday, far from ‘exposing’ the Irish Language Act as a ‘cultural warfare’ issue on the part of Sinn Féin, has merely underlined the antagonistic - and anachronistic - position of his own party, the Ulster “Simply British” Unionist Party vis a vis recognition and respect for the Irish identity within the north.
It’s not a question of funding. After all the Electoral Office last week issued forms in a number of languages, Irish, Cantonese, Ulster Scots, included, so people can register to vote in their preferrred language. The total cost for the provision of forms in 10 languages, simple English, for the benefit of Ulster Unionists, included: £1500.
It reminds me, also, of the question asked by Roy Beggs in Westminster a few years ago which showed of all the education sectors getting per capita funding, the Irish Medium sector was the least provided for. Yet, according to a Department of Education commissioned report, the sector provides the best results. (Interesting how Roy Beggs kept his mouth shut after getting that particular answer, in December 2004, and didn’t run off to the Newsletter to complain about the underfunding of the Irish medium sector!).
It’s purely and simply a question about Unionist cultural insecurity. The thought for some Uninoists of having a resurgent Irish identity within their former fiefdom has sent them into a panic, they fret about the revitalisation of Irish language as if its a threat to them. They want footballers born in Derry to swear allegiance to their football team rather than allow them play with their preferred team. They have no interest in making Northern Ireland work for all, just for themselves. They have yet to realise that this is not 1921-1972, this is 2007.
That’s their problem of course. They need to get over it. The Irish Language Act is a way of helping them. They should get over it - it’s like the line from Seán Ó Riordáin, the Irish language poet: níl laistigh d’aon daoirse ach saoirse ón daoirse sin.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 12:09 PM“"a cultural warfare issue”
I think you’re strring the pot a little with your inflammatory language, Michael. “
Nah, he’s right. Unionists see stopping any expansion of Irish/Gaelic culture as holy cultural warfare to protect the Britishness of NI.
FD
“It is not a year zero situation for the Irish language in NI.”
Then you could do a Gordon brown and prose legislation that consolidates all that and present it as new. You could put forward proposals for an ILA that is fair short of what SF and the SDLP are demanding and frame the debate in your terms.
I would guess that a lot of Nationalists and Republicans want the Irish Language protected, don’t want it to die, feel a bit guilty about not knowing more of it and want to see it more visible but are open to sensible arguments on costs, scope, etc. I’d be in that camp, and it’s not like I’m an SDLP voter. As the DUP have decided to make it totemic and do the normal Unionist PR job, you are pushing all those people to the Irish Language Activist position, just in reaction to Unionism’s unreasonableness.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 12:15 PM“What is the benefit to society?”
Well, Irish language enthusiasts will certainly argue that it benefits them!
Doesn’t diversity and the happiness of a small but significant group of your fellow citizens benefit society? And if you’re not paying for it and the Irish government step in, what’s the harm?
Unless it’s Irishness itself that obviously makes you feel so uncomfortable, resulting in you using words like “warfare” to describe support for the Irish language?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 12:21 PMOf course it does, but do you have any concept of how expensive what you are proposing will be?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 12:26 PMNot very expensive at all really and take it from me I am Canadian and already live in an officially bilingual country
I mean its not like you have a big country, phase it in over 2 or 3 years with realistic goals and no harm no foul
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 12:31 PMMike
Good to see you actually starting a thread which doesn’t attack the DUP on something the UU’s had already signed up to. Your learning!
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 12:34 PM“do you have any concept of how expensive what you are proposing will be?”
Well, we in the South don’t seem to mind paying for translation sevices here, so why not also fund translation and other services in the North?
If that were the case (and it really is a big ‘if’) I am just wondering what your obejctions would then be?
ie do you object solely from the point of view of cost?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 12:35 PMAnd In Canada bilingualism is a total nightmare, infact it doesn’t really work in the way that it should. Also, Canada has a population of in excess of 30 million, there are around 6 million Francophones. Thats a minority of around 20%. We’re a population of below 2 million, with a 10% linguistic minority, all of whom speak English.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 12:36 PMOh and why should Sinn Fein tone down their rhetoric?
To make it more palatable to unionists? Lets face it will never be palatable to them so why bother playing to the cheap seats when you can play to your target audience. I mean honestly does paisley do anything to make his views more republican friendly?
Didnt think so! So why arent you on here saying paisley should shut up and try being nicer to the republicans? Because it all goes to your superiority complex and your belief that republicans should lay down like good lap dogs and be happy with the scraps they beg off the table. Used to happen when you had the ruc terror squads and the b special hooligans but I hope republicans never lay down again. Its time for them to ascert their rights and freedoms and take all the control they can
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 12:40 PMfd
“...which already happens”
You may be right and those measures may be perfectly fine - but that doesn’t fully explain your apparent opposition to an ILA. What do you think of the Gaelic language Act and Welsh language Act in GB, do you think the same result could be achieved with the measures you highlight above? If you are not opposed to the acts in Scotland or Wales why are you opposed to an act in Northern Ireland?
“It is not a year zero situation for the Irish language in NI.”It’s been year zero for Irish in Northern Ireland for half a century, give or take, with the deaths of the last native speakers. As long as parents don’t pass Irish to their children it is year zero. Whatever measures we are talking about here should be about building critical mass.
Michael Shilliday
“Why should tax payers shell out massive amounts so that people who can speak English perfectly well, have the option to deal with the state in Irish? What is the benefit to society?
The benefit to society is that they can deal with the state in Irish.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 12:41 PMLOL thanks Michael for telling me how my country works!
so Canada is too big for you, How about we break it down to my wee province. Manitoba has a population of approximately 1.3 million with a minority languge population of less than 10% who all speak english and we are still bilingual! so tell me how I am wrong again
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 12:44 PMBut you’re not really bilingual. The only actually bilingual province is Quebec, because there are actually a lot of people there who don’t speak English. Paying lip service to bilingualism is expensive and unnecessary elsewhere.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 12:48 PMany and all students in Manitoba can opt to take French in school and most of us do. I wouldnt claim to be bilingual but I can get by, and we do not just pay lip service to bilingualism. All packaging must be in english and french, all government services are available in english and french and increasingly street signs are also in english and french though as far as place names go they are the same in e/f just whether it says rue or street or both
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 12:56 PM
