British language rights for British citizens

Le Colm Ó Broin

Tá tuairisc ag Gaelscéal  an tseachtain seo go bhfuil Dominic Ó Brolcháin ón SDLP ag iarraidh ar an Tánaiste, Éamonn Gilmore ceist Acht na Gaeilge a thógáil le rialtas na Breataine.

Gaelscéal na seachtaine seo - príomhscéal ag díriú ar iarrachtaí RTÉ chun Nuacht TG4 agus Nuacht RnaG a chomhnascadh

Bhuail Ó Brolcháin le Gilmore i mBaile Átha Cliath agus dúirt sé ina dhiaidh go bhfuil dualgas ar Rialtas na Breataine Acht Gaeilge a “bhrú chun tosaigh” faoi Chomhaontú Chill Rimhinn.

Níl mórán seans ann áfach go gcuirfidh Westminster acht i bhfeidhm beag beann ar Stormont.

Tá reachtaíocht teanga diúltaithe ag an DUP iliomad uair mar sin tá an cuma ar an scéal nach bhfuil cumhacht ar bith ag Sinn Féin agus an SDLP maidir leis an cheist seo.

Má dhiúltaíonn an DUP ‘straitéis’ Ghaeilge an mbeidh siad in ann aon rud a dhéanamh faoi?

Ní mór cuimhniú nach bhfuil pobal na Gaeilge i dTuaisceart Éireann ag lorg níos mó cearta teanga ná mar atá ag daoine i gceantair eile sa Ríocht Aontaithe cheana féin.

Gaelscéal reports this week that the SDLP’s Dominic Ó Brolcháin has called on the Tánaiste, Éamonn Gilmore to raise the issue of an Irish Language Acht with the British government.

 Ó Brolcháin met Gilmore in Dublin and said afterwards that there was an obligation on the British Government to implement an act under the St Andrews Agreement.

 It seems unlikely that Westminster will be willing to go over the heads of Stormont on this one, and given the DUP’s oft-stated opposition to language legislation this leaves Sinn Féin and the SDLP looking rather powerless.

 If the DUP blocks an Irish language ‘strategy’ is there anything they can really do about it?

 It is worth recalling that Irish speakers in Northern Ireland are not looking for any more language rights than people in other parts of the United Kingdom have already.

 

 

 

 

  • galloglaigh

    Na Lodger that doesn’t work for me. Try actually reading about history, and not reading what suits your narrow victim and cul-de-sac mentality. The Earls didn’t own the land, the people did. They were dispossessed by planters, regardless of the Earls. That’s why 1641 happened. And to be fair, 1641 was a two sided affair that Orange Chronicle historians fail to recognise. It’s a bit like current day loyalists, who see themselves (and are seen by sections of the unionist community, including the Orange Order) as good paramilitaries, and republicans as terrorists. Ask Willie McCrea!

  • Barnshee

    GG
    “”Try actually reading about history, and not reading what suits your narrow victim and cul-de-sac mentality”

    Take your own advice

    Discover how the “Irish” were slavers long before the “English”(a chap Patrick ring a bell?)

    Highlight how a local (gay) thug invited the Norman thug “Strongbow” to “help” him take over and then whinged when “Strongbow” helped himself

    Confirm the continued stupidity of the locals who then call in more English to sort out the AFM “Strongbow”

    Continue your study to examine how “Irish” support of England`s enemies (Spain,France, Rome,deposed English Monarchs) produced more and more English retribution (–Cromwell .the Plantation)

    Bring you studies up to date with an examination of the causes of the relative survival rates of the populations of

    (1) Non Roman Catholics in the Republic of Ireland
    (2) Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland

    “Try actually reading about history, and not reading what suits your narrow victim and cul-de-sac mentality” –Indeed

  • galloglaigh

    BS

    I’ve a degree in Irish history. My reading has been quite extensive, and continues to this day. I addressed one of the above issues before, but for some reason you failed to reply. That’s common for the conversations between you and I: You run away and hide when proven wrong. You’re not alone in that, so don’t worry about it 🙂 🙂 🙂

  • Barnshee

    GG

    Claptrap dressed up remains claptrap
    My family`s history is entirely typical of the Protestant experience after partition in the ROI.

    The fact that you can produce a few current “uncle toms ” in the NEW ROI from an irrelevant rump (who make up some 2% of the population) is- er irrelevant when compared the wholesale discrimination and worst conducted by the ROI against my relations

    Exactly where was I proved wrong?

    I see you address “one of the above issues”

    “Irish” history is almost wholly a reflection of its relationship with its next door neighbour. It is a mess of the absence of a national unity and a tribal cackhanded “leadership” continually backing the wrong horses. This associated with support of the enemies of the English crown produced English reaction (Plantation,Cromwell etc), and the mess associated with partition that now exists

    In short the Irish played with the big boys and got burned,sticking a hand in the fire and then blaming the fire for the burn. It is hard to resist the thought that the wounds of the “irish” are largely self inflicted

    Happy to help you with the facts of “irish” history any time

    PS If you want to see a people REALLY shit upon by the English try Scottish History

  • galloglaigh

    is entirely typical of the Protestant experience after partition in the ROI

    Yes but without proof, it remains to be seen as the truth. On the other hand, where the proof of similar experiences does exist, it points to the minority in N.Ireland, who were forced to remain part of the British colonial people, through the barrel of James Craig’s gun.

    As for the rest of your BS about reactionary reaction, aye dead on. I’ll tell you what I told The Lodger: Your BS is fooling no one but yourself. The poor planters were attacked by people they stole land from, and that’s why we are the people etc. etc.

    Utter Bull Shit BS!

  • galloglaigh

    *Yes but without proof, it remains to be seen as your truth has yet to be proven…

  • Barnshee

    “The poor planters were attacked by people they stole land from, and that’s why we are the people etc. etc.”

    Where do I concur with that?

    The Crown foisted the planters and the subsequent quarrels and division on Ireland -I am simply pointing out why. If you wish to dispute the facts or the chronology please do so.

    PS

    Did you know the the Roman Catholic Mary Tudor was at the “planting” long before James and Co and that Co Antrim was “privately” planted by the existing “Irish Earls”

    Try
    Ballymoney: An Illustrated History and Companion
    by S.Alexander Blair, Jack Wilkinson

    Always happy to provide the facts of “irish “history

    PPS Proof -The proof of the pudding is in the eating

  • galloglaigh

    Yes I’m aware of the facts. It’s funny that after the Maryian, and other Plantations, the new settlers became as Irish as their neighbours. Why not try and make Ireland more loyal to a Protestant throne, by throwing sectarianism into the bucket – The Ulster Plantation. The Ulster Plantation ensured loyalty to a religion and not a Crown.

    But you’ve still yet to prove that the Provisional government did what the Northern Ireland government did – vis~a~vis the persecution and discrimination against their minority Irish community. I won’t hold my breath 🙂

    A turd is a turd, whether you eat it or not!

  • Barnshee

    Try as a sampler —watch for understatement of the bigotry involved

    http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html

    In a speech in 2010, Martin Mansergh observed how “post independence . . . notwithstanding vestiges of a more idealistic and inclusive republicanism, there was a concerted effort to create a homogeneous 26-county society, in which there would be no challenge to the hegemony of the church”.

    This ethos also affected ideas of Irishness. In 1961, RH Cathcart, headmaster of Raphoe Royal School, Co Donegal, at his annual speech day, observed how Home Rule movement founder Isaac Butt had attended the school, but now people were being told that to be really Irish you had to be Catholic.

    Southern members of the Orange Order continued to hold demonstrations in Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan in the 1920s. These stopped in the early 1930s because of attacks by republicans and parades were relegated to the remote coastal area of Rossnowlagh, Co Donegal.

    For southern Protestants, by the middle of the 20th century, the main cause of the decline in their numbers was the Ne Temere decree of the Catholic Church, which required children of a mixed marriage to be brought up as Catholics. By 1991, nearly a quarter of all married persons from the Protestant community were in mixed marriages. By 1991, Protestant numbers had collapsed to just over 3 per cent of the population. From 1977 to 1992 only one Protestant TD was elected to the Dáil. At this stage there was concern that the Protestant community in the South might disappear
    here has been much debate on the treatment of Protestants in the south post-1921.

    The stark fact is that their numbers fell every decade until the 1990s. In 2002, Protestant numbers stood at 146,226 compared to 327,179 in 1911. By way of contrast, the Catholic community in Northern Ireland in 2001 numbered 737,412 compared to 430,161 in the same six counties in 1911.

    The “cherished” children of the state all but disappeared whilst those being discriminated against so terribly er effectively doubled
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0312/1224313151612.html

  • sonofstrongbow

    Banshee,

    You are of course correct. The new Republic was indeed a feckin freezing place for Protestants.

    Ne Temere may be looked upon benevolently as a religious denomination looking after its own. However in the Republic it became a means to ensure that the population moved quickly, and forceably in some cases, to become what the constitution demanded: a Catholic country that afforded a ‘special’ place for the Catholic Church in the running of the state.

    The Tilson v Tilson case in the early 1950s, heard by the Irish Chief Justice, gave Ne Temere the force of the civil law. I cannot think of any similar situation occurring in Northern Ireland, and here I note the sometimes deeply shameful sectarian pronouncements by leading unionist politicians, which, rightly should be condemned, but they differ markedly in weight from the findings of a judge sitting in court.

    It is interesting to also remember that whereas the Protestant population in the Republic reduced significantly the Catholic population north of the border grew. Now I’m aware of the Northern Nationalist’s predilection for traveling miles to be offended but to go to live somewhere as a ‘second-class citizen’ just for the joy of victim hood? That would be astounding.

  • The Lodger

    “Na Lodger that doesn’t work for me. Try actually reading about history, and not reading what suits your narrow victim and cul-de-sac mentality. The Earls didn’t own the land, the people did.”

    galloglaigh,

    I do try to read about history and what I have read is that the planters were supposed to replace the native Irish on the land, but in practise they did not. Hence the ease with which the native Irish were able to go around sticking pikes into little babies etc.

    As for the ownership of the land I would be grateful if you would elaborate on that a bit. Are you suggesting that if a gaelic Earl did not want to see Seamus O’Friggery on a certain piece of land then there was nothing he could do about it? Define please this ownership you refer to.

    “That’s why 1641 happened.”

    It is chilling even today to read someone attempting to justify the genocide which occurred in 1641. I expect that the same sort of casual, idiotic logic was applied by the scumbag who parked a car bomb beside a little girl who was cleaning her father’s shop window.