Can you restrict residency based on Irish-language fluency?

ReefBreak

I've pasted the article from one of the papers below. I think other papers have also reported it. I'm pretty sure this is against the most basic EU laws that permit the free movement of labour and capital. Perhaps another example of the over-zealous Gaelic Gestapo?

---

From http://www.unison.ie/irish_inde
pendent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1213391&issue_id=11123 :

Watch your language if you want an apartment in the Gaeltacht

HOUSE hunters in Connemara will have to brush up on their Irish if they want to buy or rent a new apartment.

If they meet standards on Irish, including a 30-minute interview to see if they are fluent enough, they will be able to buy an apartment in the new €10m complex in Spiddal, Co Galway.

It is all part of a language condition in the planning permission for the development which is aimed at ensuring that most of the apartments go to Irish-speakers in the Gaeltacht.

The condition, which is the first of its kind in the country, will also affect tenants, who will not be allowed to rent the flats if they don't speak Irish.

The restriction, which will affect 18 apartments in the complex, will remain in force for the next 10 years and will be monitored by Galway County Council.

However, 11 further apartments will be open to all buyers.

The developers of the complex, who were initially reluctant to implement the condition, reached a compromise with the council last week.

This followed a long-standing disagreement.

Late last year the council imposed the condition in an effort to protect the linguistic and cultural heritage of the area.

The clause, which is in accordance with the Co Galway Development Plan, states that any development in the Gaeltacht which would have a negative impact on the language would be refused.

A legal agreement, restricting the complex for the exclusive use of Irish speakers, should have been reached between the council and the builders before work commenced on the project.

However, the owner of the development, John Foye, began work before reaching such an agreement.

The council then issued a warning to the builder but the work continued on the site.

The language clause was finally agreed to after an Irish organisation, Comhdhail Naisiunta na Gaeilge, threatened to take a High Court injunction to halt the building work if the clause was not adhered to.

While this is the first time the rule has been invoked, a similar clause is due to affect developments in the Carraroe, Spiddal and Barna areas.

seamus

A perfect example of where county councils are allowed to run rife and openly abuse and discriminate in the planning/buying market.

I understand their POV, but at the end of the day, insisting that one speaks a language is as xenophobic and nannyish as you can get.

Will they insist next that those who fail to speak Irish when ordering something in the bar, get 20 lashes with the whip?

:rolleyes:

Sleipnir

I think they should only let people buy apartments there if they are white.



not really. Just making a point

bonkey

Originally posted by seamus
but at the end of the day, insisting that one speaks a language is as xenophobic and nannyish as you can get.

So if you were a landlord in, say, Dublin...you'd have no problem whatsoever with tenants who didn't speak a word of English?

You wouldn't have a problem dealing with them if all they spoke was, say, Mandarin?

I assume you wouldn't, given that to do so would be as xenophobic and nannyish as you can get, right ???

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by ReefBreak
II'm pretty sure this is against the most basic EU laws that premit the free movement of labour and capital.

I don't think so. I believe that minority heritages such as Irish is classified as (and/or the Gaeltacht region in general) get some amount of leeway here in order to protect them.

I could, of course, be completely wrong.

jc

Sleipnir

Point taken but this isn't some racist landlord refusing to rent to foreigners.

This is a County Council saying
"You have the money, in fact you have everything you need to purchase a property. However you didn't pay attention in school therefore we won't sell it to you"

What if you were from the area, had saved up the deposit for 5 years and could actually afford a place here only to find that because you went to school in another part of the country or a different country you can't buy it.

I'd be fairly put out.
The point is, if you can prevent people buying property based on what language they speak, why can't you prevent them buying a property because the buyer is a woman? Or gay?

dahamsta

Originally posted by bonkey
So if you were a landlord in, say, Dublin...you'd have no problem whatsoever with tenants who didn't speak a word of English?

You wouldn't have a problem dealing with them if all they spoke was, say, Mandarin?

I assume you wouldn't, given that to do so would be as xenophobic and nannyish as you can get, right ???

This is something that bugs me. I know it sounds xenophobic, but I hate that immigrants come to Ireland and make hardly any attempt to learn the language. Even worse, I hate that employers give them jobs without attempting to teach them. For example, I went to a wedding in Inchydoney Hotel last year and half of the staff could hardly speak english. Ridiculous.

adam

seamus

Originally posted by bonkey
So if you were a landlord in, say, Dublin...you'd have no problem whatsoever with tenants who didn't speak a word of English?

You wouldn't have a problem dealing with them if all they spoke was, say, Mandarin?

I assume you wouldn't, given that to do so would be as xenophobic and nannyish as you can get, right ???

jc

Well frankly, yes it would be annoying, and if I was in that situation, I can't say that I wouldn't err on the side of English-speaking people. Off-topic, but I'd prefer asian lodgers to Irish lodgers. Landlords are free to choose whomever they want, it's their property after all.

It's a slightly different situation though. The planning permission expressly states these restrictions, not the landlords. If it was individual landlords stating, "I don't want any foreigners", well, we'd be annoyed, but who are we to force them to take lodgers against their will? What if DCC decided tomorrow that they'd would only offer planning permission on the understanding that all residents would have a certain fluency in English, to preserve the English-Speaking Irishness of Dublin? Would they be allowed? Would they ****!

What if landlords in this area want to take a certain lodger, but they fail Irish fluency test? Is it right that we should tell them they have to take someone else that they didn't want?

ChipZilla

Who'd want to live in a €10m apartment complex with a bunch of beardy, cardigan-wearing Gaelgoiri anyway?

bonkey

Originally posted by seamus
Well frankly, yes it would be annoying, and if I was in that situation, I can't say that I wouldn't err on the side of English-speaking people.

Which is a round-about way of saying that you would insist that they speak your language, or at least that you can see this happening in some cases.

It's a slightly different situation though. The planning permission expressly states these restrictions, not the landlords.

Ah. I see. So when the individual does it, its not xenophobic, but when the body does it, it is.

That sounds like double-standards to me. I accept that the landlord isn't nannying anyone, but if insistence that they speak your language is xenophobic, then the landlord is equally as xenophobic in insisting his tenants be able to speak the local tongue as the CC would be in requiring the same.

What if DCC decided tomorrow that they'd would only offer planning permission on the understanding that all residents would have a certain fluency in English, to preserve the English-Speaking Irishness of Dublin? Would they be allowed? Would they ****!

About 10 or 15 years ago (I think), there was talk of building a tourist centre somewhere in the Burren, and the amount of red tape which had to be gone through in order to protect a rare, valued and irreplaceable resource was staggering.

By your logic, thats completely unfair - after all you'd never be allowed place the same restrictions on building something in Dublin. But I'm sure you can see why it was the case in the Burren, and why it would be the case in any other similarly precious area which we were seeking to preserve.

Or do you think that it should be as easy to build, say, a new housing estate somewhere amidst the Lakes of Killarney as, say, on the outskirts of Dublin?

In fact, the conclusion of your logic seems to be that there shouldn't actually be any form of control on what you can build where, and/or what restrictions can be put on it. Thats all just nannying, which is clearly bad from what you're saying.

The Gaeltacht is an equally rare, valued, and irreplaceable resource, and just as CO2 emissions from increased traffic would threaten the Burren and a housing estate would spoil (not just threaten to) the natural beauty of the Lakes, so too would a significant increase of non-Irish-speakers in the Gaeltacht (particulrly in one of its few reasonably successful towns) threaten the Gaeltacht.

jc

seamus

Originally posted by bonkey
Ah. I see. So when the individual does it, its not xenophobic, but when the body does it, it is.

That's not what I said. It is perfectly xenophobic of the individual, but the individual isn't representative of us, the country. The county councils and local Government are though. While we must accept xenophobia existing at an individual level, because it's out of our control, we don't have to accept it at a governmental level.

By your logic, thats completely unfair - after all you'd never be allowed place the same restrictions on building something in Dublin. But I'm sure you can see why it was the case in the Burren, and why it would be the case in any other similarly precious area which we were seeking to preserve.

Or do you think that it should be as easy to build, say, a new housing estate somewhere amidst the Lakes of Killarney as, say, on the outskirts of Dublin?

In fact, the conclusion of your logic seems to be that there shouldn't actually be any form of control on what you can build where, and/or what restrictions can be put on it. Thats all just nannying, which is clearly bad from what you're saying.

The Gaeltacht is an equally rare, valued, and irreplaceable resource, and just as CO2 emissions from increased traffic would threaten the Burren and a housing estate would spoil (not just threaten to) the natural beauty of the Lakes, so too would a significant increase of non-Irish-speakers in the Gaeltacht (particulrly in one of its few reasonably successful towns) threaten the Gaeltacht.

Then we are going to have to agree to disagree. IMO, you're comparing apples and oranges. I don't regard the Gaeltacht as something which requires protection for posterity or heritage. If it dies, it dies. I wouldn't like to think that the Government would do its damndest to prohibit mass migration from the Gaeltacht areas, something which would have an equally devastating effect on the number of Irish speakers (although obviously a much less likely scenario).

In a perfectly hypocritical opinion, I wouldn't have much of an issue with concessions for those who do speak Irish, or who agree to take classes, and make an effort. At least then you're not stopping anyone from living there. Although the preservation of Gaeltacht areas is a non-issue for me, the majority might feel otherwise.

Raskolnikov

Originally posted by bonkey
I believe that minority heritages such as Irish is classified as (and/or the Gaeltacht region in general) get some amount of leeway here in order to protect them.

Classified as a minority in the country but a majority in the Connemara region.

I don't see why people are getting so upset about this, if you move to the US or Canada they expect a certain degree of fluency in English and French if you move to Quebec before you're even considered. Likewise, if you move to the Gaelteacht then surely it's not not unreasonable to expect you to have some degree of fluency in Irish?

ishmael whale

http://www.europarl.eu.int/charter/default_en.htm
‘The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights sets out in a single text, for the first time in the European Union's history, the whole range of civil, political, economic and social rights of European citizens and all persons resident in the EU.’

“Article 21
Non-discrimination
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.”

Or as (some) people say in Spiddal

“Airteagal 21
Neamhidirdhealú
1. Tá toirmiscthe aon idirdhealú arna bhunú ar aon bhonn amhail gnéas, cine, dath, tionscnamh eitneach nó sóisialta, airíonna géiniteacha, teanga, reiligiún nó creideamh, tuairimí polaitiúla nó eile, ballraíocht i mionlach náisiúnta, maoin, breith, míchumas, aois nó treoshuíomh gnéasach.”

This would seem to clearly rule out the Irish language requirement. Obviously there must be some qualification to this Article. Otherwise you’d have blind surgeons and legless firemen. But clearly an Irish language requirement would be an impediment to, say, a person moving here from Germany to take up residence in Ireland.

Hobbes

Listening on the radio this morning about this.

I think it is a good idea considering the area in question is in the Gaeltacht region. It would be a bit pointless moving in people who are for the most part destroy the Gaeltacht. The only other option is start making more people speak Irish, or your going to see the end of the Irish language sooner.

* Note: I don't speak Irish at all.

As for the EU, the Maastrict treaty had a provision in it that stopped Germans from buying houses in another country (think it was holland, I forget).

So its not like this isn't new to the EU.

bonkey

Originally posted by seamus
That's not what I said. It is perfectly xenophobic of the individual, but the individual isn't representative of us, the country.

Fair enough. I'm surprised you see it as xenophobic. Personally, I would have said that it was simple business acumen not to enter into a contract with people he is unable to communicate with. For a start...how do you actually sign the contract? What language is the contract written in?

I don't regard the Gaeltacht as something which requires protection for posterity or heritage.

OK - lets try this again...

If it were such a place, then does that mitigate the protectionist measure being taken?

Whether or not you consider that it is such a place is not the issue. Its whether or not those who passed the law made it on the basis of it being a resource to be protected, or made it on the basis that htey are being xenophobic.

What you think has absolutely no bearing on the logic that they applied, and - at best - your disagreement is clearly not with teh method taken, but rather the reasoning why that method was taken.

In other words, its not xenophobic, and its not nannying.
Its neither of these things unless the reasoning behind it was xenophobic or nannying in nature. It wasn't - it was protectionist, and it was brought about by those who have a responsibility to protect the language.


If that doesn't sway you, I'd ask how it is xenophobic when 11 of the 29 apartments will be open to all buyers.

In a perfectly hypocritical opinion, I wouldn't have much of an issue with concessions for those who do speak Irish, or who agree to take classes, and make an effort.

So you, as a tax-payer, would be willing to pay for people to learn Irish if they were living there, but don't care if the language dies out or not? Thats counter-intuitive, surely.

Or do you think the money for your suggestion would be stumped up by the constructor???

Although the preservation of Gaeltacht areas is a non-issue for me, the majority might feel otherwise.

Its far from a non-issue, judging from what you've written here. You're somewhat actively against it given that you see the steps being taken in the name of preservation as xenophobic, and have said that you couldn't care less if it lives or dies and that the government shouldn't be going to any heroic measures to save it.

jc

seamus

Originally posted by bonkey
Fair enough. I'm surprised you see it as xenophobic. Personally, I would have said that it was simple business acumen not to enter into a contract with people he is unable to communicate with. For a start...how do you actually sign the contract? What language is the contract written in?

The offical language of the country. If the can't read it, that's their problem, they probably shouldn't sign it (and maybe it could be ruled as invalid because one party was incapable of understanding it) but it's not a reason to deny them the home.

OK - lets try this again...

If it were such a place, then does that mitigate the protectionist measure being taken?

Whether or not you consider that it is such a place is not the issue. Its whether or not those who passed the law made it on the basis of it being a resource to be protected, or made it on the basis that htey are being xenophobic.

What you think has absolutely no bearing on the logic that they applied, and - at best - your disagreement is clearly not with teh method taken, but rather the reasoning why that method was taken.

In other words, its not xenophobic, and its not nannying.
Its neither of these things unless the reasoning behind it was xenophobic or nannying in nature. It wasn't - it was protectionist, and it was brought about by those who have a responsibility to protect the language.

Obviously some wires have gotten crossed here (and they're probably mine). I don't have a problem with the reason behind it. I have a problem with the method. As I said, I can see their POV, and wouldn't really have an issue with encouraging those who wish to move in, to speak Irish. I feel that imposing such a restriction is excessively protective, to the point of being xenophobic.

If that doesn't sway you, I'd ask how it is xenophobic when 11 of the 29 apartments will be open to all buyers.

You're still denying potential buyers from having the apartments.

So you, as a tax-payer, would be willing to pay for people to learn Irish if they were living there, but don't care if the language dies out or not? Thats counter-intuitive, surely.

Not necessarily. I can see why certain areas are under protection orders, and people are prevented from changing them, but I couldn't really give a toss if someone built a nice big house for themselves where before they had a ramshackle cottage. But I've no issue with my tax going towards that upkeep, because I know that it does make some, or most people in the country happy. Other people's tax go towards paying for things which benefit me, but which they're fairly neutral or apathetic towards, so why shouldn't my tax do the same?

oscarBravo

Originally posted by ishmael whale
But clearly an Irish language requirement would be an impediment to, say, a person moving here from Germany to take up residence in Ireland.

Nope - only to such a person taking up residence in a designated building in a Gaeltacht area.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Nope - only to such a person taking up residence in a designated building in a Gaeltacht area.

Originally posted by Hobbes
As for the EU, the Maastrict treaty had a provision in it that stopped Germans from buying houses in another country (think it was holland, I forget).

So its not like this isn't new to the EU.

Extract from Maastricht protocols:

“DESIRING to settle certain particular problems relating to Denmark,
HAVING AGREED UPON the following provision, which shall be annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Treaty, Denmark may maintain the existing legislation on the acquisition of second homes.”

In the Maastricht Treaty, Denmark won a permanent restriction on the purchase of second homes by EU nationals in an effort to prevent Germans from buying up the Danish seaside. I think Malta obtained a similar exemption on entry.

It’s not a restriction on EU nationals moving to Denmark to live and work, it seems to predate Maastricht and it has a specific exemption in the treaty. The business in Spiddal seems to be a new requirement, it might prevent an EU national from moving there to live and seems to have no exemption given in any EU treaty (unless someone can enlighten us on this).

Hobbes

Originally posted by ishmael whale
it might prevent an EU national from moving there to live and seems to have no exemption given in any EU treaty (unless someone can enlighten us on this).

I dont see how it could prevent them. They could get an Irish lawyer to help them, then learn Irish when they move into that area.

Should I expect people in Germany to speak English for me? Or that all documents, etc should be translated to English for me just so I can move there?

mike65

I just hope all the Irish speakers are happy together and that Irish-speaking regions don't become ghettos due to laws like this.

Mike.

ChipZilla

As I already said, why would a non-Irish-speaking person want to live there anyway? If you weren't speaking the lingo, the locals would avoid you like you had a bad dose of herpes.

Fu*k the lot of 'em. They're a dying breed anyway... Let them enjoy their little enclave while they can.

spongebob

Originally posted by ReefBreak
I'm pretty sure this is against the most basic EU laws that permit the free movement of labour and capital. Perhaps another example of the over-zealous Gaelic Gestapo?
.

I totally agree with the premise except that Galway County Council have made a complete balls of it and should be brought to the High Court to get their asses kicked.

M

arcadegame2004

I don't really agree with this, unless the State is prepared to alter the way Irish is taught in secondary schools. I recall Irish being rammed down my throat back then (I am 24). FAR too much emphasis is being placed on stories, poetry, and nouns. Far too little effort is invested in teaching students conversational Irish. No wonder Irish-speaking is in freefall.

Champ

FAR too much emphasis is being placed on stories, poetry, and nouns.

I think thats why they're using aural exams; both tapes and human examiners to try to address the balance. I became reasonably good at speaking Irish; though never could rise up to Honours standard; which is probably a good indication of the skill level you really need to effectively speak the language.

Plus once i left second level; i became really rusty having no motivation to keep up the skill.

Dancing duck

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I don't really agree with this, unless the State is prepared to alter the way Irish is taught in secondary schools. I recall Irish being rammed down my throat back then (I am 24). FAR too much emphasis is being placed on stories, poetry, and nouns. Far too little effort is invested in teaching students conversational Irish. No wonder Irish-speaking is in freefall.

They're getting desperate, latest statistics show that only roughly 33% of Gaeltacht dwellers speak Irish on a daily basis. Hundreds of millions have been thrown at these areas in a bid to keep the natives speaking as Gaeilge. Grants are given for speaking Irish, for trying to speak Irish, for building a house in the area, for setting up a business in the area, for teaching your workers Irish, for keeping students, and for keeping tourists. The result has been an unmitigated failure; the creation of a virtual Gaeltacht that exists primarily in the minds of those who attempt to administrate it; Dublin-based bureaucrats.

Now they're trying to act against this, but like arcadegame said, what they really need to do to breathe some life back into it, is to change how it's being taught in the schools, which is at the moment, badly.

You're saying who wants to live in the Gaeltacht when they can't speak the lingo, but believe me, it's happening. Was there for June and there were English living and working right there in Conemara, an hour and half from Galway and staring blankly at anyone speaking Irish and just answering 'cheers' to everything.

giveth

Likewise, if you move to the Gaelteacht then surely it's not not unreasonable to expect you to have some degree of fluency in Irish?

The BIG difference is that I am a citizen of ireland, and if Galway council have their way, I will not be allowed to live in certain areas of MY country.

Dancing duck

Originally posted by Champ
I think thats why they're using aural exams; both tapes and human examiners to try to address the balance. I became reasonably good at speaking Irish; though never could rise up to Honours standard; which is probably a good indication of the skill level you really need to effectively speak the language.

See, that's the thing, the classrooms are full of people who couldn't even tell you with confidence a few things about their area, or their school, or their life, but they're doing the Honours paper and course because all you have to do (and all you're told to do) is go home each day and stare at a couple of pages full of words you don't know the meaning of, until you know it off by heart, and are able to reproduce it an exam.

Yes the aurals and orals make sure that those genuinely good at the language don't go unnoticed, and do get the better results, but these parts too can be completed successfully by doing nothing but study, with or without an aptitude, or love for the language.

The sooner the education board realises we already do English as a school subject and therefore experience the joys of studying and commenting on poetry, stories etc. etc. the better

And the poems and stories are far more pointless in Irish than in English since very few have the vocabulary to convey their opinions on these types of things in Irish (sure aren't we still mastering conversational basics) and the only point of studying these things in English is to do just that (appreciate and differentiate).

The (majority) of Irish teachers do nothing in secondary schools these days but translate pages of notes to be learnt off, and it's not by their own choice (they're teaching the language because they hold it in some esteem) but because the length and direction of the curriculum allows them to do nothing else.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by giveth
The BIG difference is that I am a citizen of ireland, and if Galway council have their way, I will not be allowed to live in certain areas of MY country.

Are you allowed to live in Phoenix Park?

giveth

Are you allowed to live in Phoenix Park?

Oh come on! Irish fluency tests would restrict my ability to live in LARGE AREAS of cork, Kerry, Galway, Donegal, etc.

bonkey

Originally posted by giveth
Oh come on! Irish fluency tests would restrict my ability to live in LARGE AREAS of cork, Kerry, Galway, Donegal, etc.

At present, they would restrict your ability to live in 18 of 29 apartments in a complex in Spiddal. Thats a lot smaller than Phoenix Park, but its apparently enough to get up in arms about!

Regarding the teaching of Irish....I don't want to go too far down a sidetrack, but my experience (having attended schools in a number of towns) was that wherever the teacher was enthusiastic about Irish, the standard was vastly superior to where the teacher was actually giving students the attitude (or at least agreeing with it when a student expressed it) that Irish was a waste of time but a mandatory one so there was no choice. I know that all bar one of my cousins in Dublin each had an identical experience - a teacher saying "I know you don't like learning this, I know I don't like teaching this, and I know it will never be of any use to any of us, but its a requirement and we have to do it".

You can improve the syllabus all you like, but while attitudes like that persist amongst those teaching the language in Primary level, you're doomed before you begin. By the time you get to secondary, where a teacher who has chosen to specialise in Irish may be more enthusiastic, every single student will be too far gone down the Apathy Way for it to make a difference.

I agree the syllabus needs modification, but only as part of the solution....and I have no idea how the government can deal with teacher's attitudes....

jc

Dancing duck

Originally posted by bonkey

Regarding the teaching of Irish....I don't want to go too far down a sidetrack, but my experience (having attended schools in a number of towns) was that wherever the teacher was enthusiastic about Irish, the standard was vastly superior to where the teacher was actually giving students the attitude (or at least agreeing with it when a student expressed it) that Irish was a waste of time but a mandatory one so there was no choice. I know that all bar one of my cousins in Dublin each had an identical experience - a teacher saying "I know you don't like learning this, I know I don't like teaching this, and I know it will never be of any use to any of us, but its a requirement and we have to do it".

I agree the syllabus needs modification, but only as part of the solution....and I have no idea how the government can deal with teacher's attitudes....

jc

I've never heard of an Irish teacher who said that 'Irish was a waste of time but a mandatory one so there was no choice'. From my experiences the teachers of Irish are more frustrated by its current state of affairs than the students are. We assume they actually have a firm grasp of the language, and yet they are expected to act as monkeys for the government continuing on with this points system, year after year after year.

The parts of the syllabus they can make personal imput on, they usually do; the essays, the culturally enlightening 'history of Irish'. But they know they have no choice but to dictate the bog standard poems and the like, and so of course they're going to admit this when asked.
In case people have forgotten, the entire 5th year and part of 6th year is spent getting through the poems and short stories alone. There is virtually no interaction or discussion on these, just translate, learn, reiterate. This entire section makes up only say 15% of the marks on the actual exam papers yet takes up the majority of the 'teaching' time and huge quantities of study time for the student.
You'd think with languages the system wouldn't still make you rely almost entirely on your memory, but alas, it does.

I know plenty of people with a genuine love for the language and what it represents, and still they may not do the higher paper just because their memory and their time limitations do not allow.
I know this could be said for most of the other subjects, but I think the Irish syllabus is most in need of restoration.