Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Is Irish a dead language?
Options
Comments
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Not exactly, electing politicians to make unpopular decisions for the benifit of the nation is a cornerstone of modern representative democracy.
Maybe, it's hard to say what's really going on in Kenny's mind. On the one end he say's he will make Irish a compulsory subject as part of his manifesto and on the other a member of his party emailed Deise to say that Irish may not be made optional for several generations! Yet Enda has never made a statement either way on the issue. Perhaps because he's afraid of rocking the boat with Labour.
Absolutely, but the thing is the majority of people have elected Fine Gael-Labour, therefore how would be it representative for them to make this particular decision? They could burn all the bondholders, they could say that was them making an unpopular decision for the benefit of the country (don't take me up on whether that is or isn't a good idea - it's just an example!), but I don't think it would representative of what they were elected to do.
I have no idea what Enda's thinking, but what's happened either way is both that Fine Gael and Labour have been forced to comprise as neither of them received a full mandate to implement their policies - is that not the nature of our democracy?0 -
They said "after a review" that that means nothing, a "review" can last as long as is politically desirable for the politician. It's impossible to read between the lines on somthing like this becuase theres to many factors. I really think Labour are the ones preventing the introduction of optional irish atm. Maybe not even intentionally but Finn Gael are unlikely to do anything that could potentially piss them off.deise go deo wrote: »Well if he made a statement to the effect of the E-mail I got then I doubt any boat would be rocked as it would fit labor's policy just fine.
It seams with politicians you really need to read between the lines, he said they will make Irish optional, but the fine print was, after a thorough review of the curriculum'
It was there in black and white as part of their election manifesto, I believe I pointed it out a few times, some people just did not want to believe it though.
Well sure there would, if it was done the way your saying. But everything can be done in stages. First the OLA could be declared unconstitutional because it restricts the powers granted to the government under article 8.3 of the constitution, then the rest (who's funding I believe comes under Foras na Gaeilge, correct me if I'm wrong) could slowly have it's funding cut under the heading of "targeting over-representative waste in the Irish language sector to protect front line services".deise go deo wrote: »Anyway, we are talking about the position of Irish in the state, not just about education system.
If you think there would be no major protest at the government repealing the OLA, Scraping the twenty year plan and closing the office of the Language commissiner and Udaras na Gaelthachta and TG4 and RnaG as well as various newspapers as Gaeilge, then you have your head truly buried.
The protests, which I'm sure there will be, will die out fairly quick and nobody will remember it by 2016.0 -
But governments are elected with a mandate for five years, and in those five years conditions change so it's unreasonable to expect them to stick with the same policies they ran on during the election.Absolutely, but the thing is the majority of people have elected Fine Gael-Labour, therefore how would be it representative for them to make this particular decision? They could burn all the bondholders, they could say that was them making an unpopular decision for the benefit of the country (don't take me up on whether that is or isn't a good idea - it's just an example!), but I don't think it would representative of what they were elected to do.
I have no idea what Enda's thinking, but what's happened either way is both that Fine Gael and Labour have been forced to comprise as neither of them received a full mandate to implement their policies - is that not the nature of our democracy?
Yep, Fine Gael (a party in favour of optional irish) didn't get their overall mandate so they had to jump into bed with Labour (a party not in favour of optional irish) to get enough seats to make up a government. So now optional irish seems to be off the table, for now at least.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »They said "after a review" that that means nothing, a "review" can last as long as is politically desirable for the politician. It's impossible to read between the lines on somthing like this becuase theres to many factors. I really think Labour are the ones preventing the introduction of optional irish atm. Maybe not even intentionally but Finn Gael are unlikely to do anything that could potentially piss them off.
But that is why it is significant that a FG TD published an expected time frame on his website before the election. The only estimate of how long it would take from FG is a generation or two, You seem to want to believe that FG want to make Irish optional quickly, the evidence that exists points in another direction however.Well sure there would, if it was done the way your saying. But everything can be done in stages. First the OLA could be declared unconstitutional because it restricts the powers granted to the government under article 8.3 of the constitution, then the rest (who's funding I believe comes under Foras na Gaeilge, correct me if I'm wrong) could slowly have it's funding cut under the heading of "targeting over-representative waste in the Irish language sector to protect front line services".
The protests, which I'm sure there will be, will die out fairly quick and nobody will remember it by 2016.
There was over 1000 people out protesting on a monday morning over FG's plan to make Irish optional. Believe me if the OLA is declared unconstutional there will be major protests. not that it will ever happen, The OLA is not uncionstitutional.:rolleyes:Provision may, however, be made by law for the exclusive use of either of the said languages for any one or more official purposes, either throughout the State or in any part thereof.
Think about it, The Official languages act is exactly the kind of provision envisaged under this article. Just because it is the wrong way in your eyes does not make it unconstitutional.
As for the rest, some of them are part funded by Foras na Gaeilge.
Others such as TG4(Which predates Foras na Gaeilge) are not funded by it.
But really there is nothing to suggest that the Governmant or any political party in the state have any interest in doing what you propose.0 -
The only statement made was by a FG TD, in the middle of a general election campaign, in an area where the idea was un-popular. Yet despite the fact it was costing him votes, Enda never actually came out and made a statment either way.deise go deo wrote: »But that is why it is significant that a FG TD published an expected time frame on his website before the election. The only estimate of how long it would take from FG is a generation or two, You seem to want to believe that FG want to make Irish optional quickly, the evidence that exists points in another direction however.
You know, sarcastic smily faces don't make your point more valid. A government with the desire could press that the OLA is uncionstitutional because it restricts the powers granted to it under Article 8.3. Forcing the issue of bilingual bus signs in Dublin is a case in point.deise go deo wrote: »There was over 1000 people out protesting on a monday morning over FG's plan to make Irish optional. Believe me if the OLA is declared unconstutional there will be major protests. not that it will ever happen, The OLA is not uncionstitutional.:rolleyes:
Think about it, The Official languages act is exactly the kind of provision envisaged under this article. Just because it is the wrong way in your eyes does not make it unconstitutional.
But it shows how easily it can be done when there is a desire to do it. And proves Irish's position in society is on shaky ground. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it wasn't.deise go deo wrote: »But really there is nothing to suggest that the Governmant or any political party in the state have any interest in doing what you propose.0 -
Advertisement
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »T A government with the desire could press that the OLA is uncionstitutional because it restricts the powers granted to it under Article 8.3. Forcing the issue of bilingual bus signs in Dublin is a case in point.
.
It would be ridiculous and highly suspect legally for the Government to seek to have the OLA declared unconstitutional. The Act enjoys a presumption of constitutionality. The Attorney General would have to go to the High Court and argue that a Act passed by the Oireachtais and purporting to do something which the Supreme Court is a constitutional imperative is unconstitutional. The easier and more legally sound thing to do would be to amend or repeal the Act in whole or in part.0 -
Exactly, even without going through the wasted process you described the government could just come out and say the act is unconstitutional and needs to be reformed. This would give them an excuse to carry through the reforms I mentioned earlier. Kind of like what happened with the blasphemy law.It would be ridiculous and highly suspect legally for the Government to seek to have the OLA declared unconstitutional. The Act enjoys a presumption of constitutionality. The Attorney General would have to go to the High Court and argue that a Act passed by the Oireachtais and purporting to do something which the Supreme Court is a constitutional imperative is unconstitutional. The easier and more legally sound thing to do would be to amend or repeal the Act in whole or in part.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »The only statement made was by a FG TD, in the middle of a general election campaign, in an area where the idea was un-popular. Yet despite the fact it was costing him votes, Enda never actually came out and made a statment either way.
Which was a mistake on his part, or at least the TD I was in contact implyed as much.You know, sarcastic smily faces don't make your point more valid. A government with the desire could press that the OLA is uncionstitutional because it restricts the powers granted to it under Article 8.3. Forcing the issue of bilingual bus signs in Dublin is a case in point.
It does not restrict the powers granted under Article 8.3 Article 8.3 grants the government the power to introduce legislation allowing them to use one or the other of the official languages exclusively on a particular thing in a given area of the state, or throughout the state.
This is what the OLA does, and the OLA does not prevent them from doing the same again at any other point.
The Government could of course press for the OLA to be declared unconstutional, but the Supream Court would never actually deam the OLA unconstutional becasue it simple is not.But it shows how easily it can be done when there is a desire to do it. And proves Irish's position in society is on shaky ground. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it wasn't.
No it dosent, How is not party in the state having an interest in doing what you suggest shaky ground? Yhis happening is not within the realms or rational expectation, there is nothing to suggest it will happen, so no The Position of Irish is on very firm Ground by any measure.Exactly, even without going through the wasted process you described the government could just come out and say the act is unconstitutional and needs to be reformed. This would give them an excuse to carry through the reforms I mentioned earlier. Kind of like what happened with the blasphemy law.
No it can not. The government does not have the authority to just come out and deam a piece of legislation to be unconstitutional. That is the role of the supream count.
You are just making up stuff at this stage.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »You know, sarcastic smily faces don't make your point more valid. A government with the desire could press that the OLA is uncionstitutional because it restricts the powers granted to it under Article 8.3. Forcing the issue of bilingual bus signs in Dublin is a case in point.
This is a circular argument. The government made a clear decision to legally provide for the availability of certain services in Irish. It's not as if this was something that was forced upon them - it was a measure that came from the top down. It is their wont, therefore, to implement this legislation precisely under the powers conferred onto them by Article 8.3. Article 8.3 doesn't permit County Councils to override the government on these issues, no matter how you read it. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.0 -
At that rate I'd be up for ditching Irish all together, really don't like the tokenism of "Dia dhaoibh a dhaoine uaisle, and now for the actual speech in English" but anyway different strokes and all that.
Glad to actually hear someone directly state an opinion on this. Would also love to see it being put in front of the people in a referendum.deise go deo wrote: »Thats fine, but do you think that the figures are sufficently close to justify the cost af holding a referendum?
I honestly do not, I think there would be a massive turnout of those in favor of the language, and only a tiny amount of people opposed to it enough to actually go out and vote for such a change.
Now I would welcome someone from the Pro-change side to step up and put their money where their mouth is so to speak and actually campaign for a referendum.
I have suggested several times that an online petition would be a good starting place as if there is a large body in favor of this then it should be relativly straight forward to demonstrate it.(and it would be relativly cheep and simple to set up)
I would have no problem with being proven wrong, If there is a large body of people in favor of change then I would welcome a referendum, but until there is such a campaign for constutional reform, I think holding a referendum on the issue would be wastful.
Why hold a referendum that no one seems to want?Why do we have elections if we could just have referendums on every subject?
Think about the following referendum questions and their answers:
Income tax to be reduced to 15% - YES
Old Age pension to be increased to €300 - YES
Free health care for everyone - YES
VAT to be reduced to 10% - YES
No property tax - YES
Free education at a school and college of your choosing - YES
Preserve the status of Irish - YES
Of course a referendum on all of those topics would deliver a YES vote. That is why we elect politicians to take the hard decisions. Just like divorce and abortion, it is unfortunate that a change in the status of Irish needs a referendum because the majority will vote on sentimentality (people should stay married, all babies should be cherished, Irish is a good thing) rather than on the reality of the cost to individuals and to society.Oasis_Dublin wrote: »Surely that's a tiny bit condescending towards the citizens of Ireland? If people vote to keep Irish in its rightful position within the constitution, then surely their opinion should be respected. Similarly, if politicians are elected to represent their constituents, a majority of whom favour protecting the language, then surely the politician should act on the wishes of his/her constituents. If the majority are to be ignored then why bother holding elections and referenda at all?deise go deo wrote: »Is it not obvious? Godge knows that his opinion is in the minority, therefore the majority is stupid and he is right.;)and here was me thinking the people were sovereign, obviously they need a "paternal hand" guiding them as they can't be trusted to make non-sentimental decisions :rolleyes:
VAT, pensions, property tax, free education, free healthcare are not part of our constitution. The status of the Irish language is and as a result any changes can only be made by referendum. While we are it we might as well roll in a couple of other constitutional amendments such as:
* Reducing number of TD's to 100
* Implementing list system (along with single seat constituencies)
* Legalise abortion
* Legalise Gay marriage
* Abolish blasphemy and other limits on freedom of speech
* Remove the preamble
* Allow for politicians to be impeached
Heck perhaps we need a new constitution after allIwasfrozen wrote: »Guys, aren't we missing something here? Removing Irish from the constitution is not necessary to remove it as a compulsory subject, or to provide services entirely through english. The government could just employ the powers directed to it through article 8.3 of the current consitution which says:
Problem solved, no need for a referendum.
The above quotes are an example of the shifting goalposts. The first post (faobhar) in the series makes no reference to constitutional change, rather a referendum on the status of Irish. The second post (deise go deo) does mention the Constitution but also talks about an on-line petition. I then point out that on a range of motherhood and apple pie issues, the public would vote in a non-binding way in a certain direction which is why we have a representative democracy and not referenda on every issue. In order to shoot that down, the goalposts shift to me thinking the majority is stupid (deise go deo) or condescending towards them (Oasis) which is attacking the poster rather than the argument or to constitutional referenda only (dubhthach) which is not where the debate started.
(iwasfrozen) gets the point that we don't need a referendum to change the status of Irish. Under the Constitution as it currently stands, the Government could legislate that Irish is secondary and that there is no need to provide any service in Irish. If that happened we would be back to the start of the debate with (faobhar) and others who would be jumping up and down for a referendum on the status of Irish which would obviously be non-binding but as I point out would be like motherhood and apple pie. Back to where we started.
This debate is going round and round in circles and is not worth contributing any more to. The one lesson I am taking away is the desperation from some at all costs to protect the status of Irish. Desperation is only needed when something is in a desperate state.
Enjoy yourselves moving goalposts, I may look in again in a few months to make sure nothing has changed.
P.S. If Oasis thinks I am being condescending to the Irish people, you should look at the record of the Irish people - a big mess on abortion before you even think about the two referenda in one year on Lisbon with two different results. The Irish record on referenda is not very good.0 -
Advertisement
-
(iwasfrozen) gets the point that we don't need a referendum to change the status of Irish. Under the Constitution as it currently stands, the Government could legislate that Irish is secondary and that there is no need to provide any service in Irish. If that happened we would be back to the start of the debate with (faobhar) and others who would be jumping up and down for a referendum on the status of Irish which would obviously be non-binding but as I point out would be like motherhood and apple pie. Back to where we started.
The government could legislate to the effect that Irish would be made a second class language in the state, but that would not provoke calls for a referendum, it would provoke protest.
I would like you to expand on what you mean by the term 'non-binding'. Are you saying that a majority can be ignored if you disagree with their motives? I suppose the majority has no right to do wrong?
I dont see what goalpost shifting has taken place. You came out with a list of things that are not constitutional issues and as such there would not be a referendum on them, claiming that the majority would choose the easy option regardless of the consequences. The relevant thing is that when the people were given a choice, they did not take the options you suggest, they did not choose Parties like the ULA with populist but flawed policy's, they choose FG/Labor.
The people are sovereign, that is why referenda are called, you might not like it, but you will just have to live with it.If Oasis thinks I am being condescending to the Irish people, you should look at the record of the Irish people - a big mess on abortion before you even think about the two referenda in one year on Lisbon with two different results. The Irish record on referenda is not very good.
Irish record on referenda is not good? By comparasion with?0 -
Just saw a poll over on Facebook in which 64819 people voted. Out of that 37309 people voted for keeping Irish compulsory for Leaving Cert and 27510 voted against. Most of my friends are secondary school students and i was happy to see that most of them who voted, voted for keeping Irish compulsory.
My friends who voted against it are those who I know myself are lazy students.0 -
deise go deo wrote: »The government could legislate to the effect that Irish would be made a second class language in the state, but that would not provoke calls for a referendum, it would provoke protest.
I would like you to expand on what you mean by the term 'non-binding'. Are you saying that a majority can be ignored if you disagree with their motives? I suppose the majority has no right to do wrong?
I dont see what goalpost shifting has taken place. You came out with a list of things that are not constitutional issues and as such there would not be a referendum on them, claiming that the majority would choose the easy option regardless of the consequences. The relevant thing is that when the people were given a choice, they did not take the options you suggest, they did not choose Parties like the ULA with populist but flawed policy's, they choose FG/Labor.
The people are sovereign, that is why referenda are called, you might not like it, but you will just have to live with it.
Irish record on referenda is not good? By comparasion with?
There are numerous politicians out there - Shane Ross being among the loudest - calling for a referendum on the bank bailout. Where is the constitutional issue in that? The original post I quoted did not mention the constitution so to bring it in later was shifting the goalposts. It is similar to the way that people first argued to keep Irish compulsory and then when it was pointed out that it was the only compulsory subject, they tried to argue that it wasn't compulsory at all.
Non-binding referenda would allow the use of a preferendum system as previously seen in Switzerland, Sweden and Australia. It would be interesting to see how people would vote in order of preference to the following options:
1: Irish as the primary language of the state with English reduced to a secondary position
2: Full bilingual status for Irish with every public service and every document provided in Irish, including compulsory Irish for schooling
3: Current status quo with Irish compulsory at Leaving Certificate and OLA requiring lots of services to be provided in Irish regardless of demand
4: Reduced service in Irish to save money with Irish becoming optional at Leaving Certificate and proposals such as bilingual bus stop information signs being dropped
5: Ceremonial retention of Irish together with significantly reduced required education in Irish focusing on cultural heritage importance of Irish and basic communication
6: Abolition of all government support for Irish
I would suspect that number 3 could come out on top in first preferences but that 4, 5 and 6 combined could have majority support. Such a preferendum could be used to inform government policy. In fact, if I could figure out how to set up a poll on boards.ie, it might be worth doing for an exercise to see how this community would vote. As someone said, the people are sovereign.0 -
There are numerous politicians out there - Shane Ross being among the loudest - calling for a referendum on the bank bailout. Where is the constitutional issue in that? The original post I quoted did not mention the constitution so to bring it in later was shifting the goalposts.
Considering that this thread is about the Irish language, and the talk about a referendum was originally about the place of Irish n the constitution then I think bringing the constitution into it, the original topic in the line of discussion is perfectly acceptable.It is similar to the way that people first argued to keep Irish compulsory and then when it was pointed out that it was the only compulsory subject, they tried to argue that it wasn't compulsory at all.
Trying to say there is only one compulsory subject means having to use a very specific and odd definition of compulsory. A Definition I believe is being used not because it has any merit in its self but because it suits those using it best.a referendum on the status of Irish which would obviously be non-binding
Why would it obviously be non-binding? I don't recall a referendum like this being held before.In fact, if I could figure out how to set up a poll on boards.ie, it might be worth doing for an exercise to see how this community would vote. As someone said, the people are sovereign.
You just select the poll option when starting a new thread. Politics dosent allow poll though.
As for the people being soverign, boards.ie is not a soverign community, nor is it proportionally representative of the Irish people;)0 -
deise go deo wrote: »
Trying to say there is only one compulsory subject means having to use a very specific and odd definition of compulsory. A Definition I believe is being used not because it has any merit in its self but because it suits those using it best.
Trying to shift the goalposts again.
Desprate measures for a desperate state.:)0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »People don't generally take to the streets to protest against somthing that doesn't really afftect them though. Sure if you remove Irish as a mandatory subject you will have various isolated protests by the same old lobby groups like we did the last time the issue was raised during the general election but these would soon die down and would be well out of the public mind by the next general election in 2016.
Same with reducing waste in the public service like the duplication of certain documents, which I can see many people applauding.
That's a load of poo. Third level students took to the streets before Christmas to protest against the removal of compulsion even though they had all left Secondary School. No need to read anything else.0 -
The above quotes are an example of the shifting goalposts. The first post (faobhar) in the series makes no reference to constitutional change, rather a referendum on the status of Irish. The second post (deise go deo) does mention the Constitution but also talks about an on-line petition. I then point out that on a range of motherhood and apple pie issues, the public would vote in a non-binding way in a certain direction which is why we have a representative democracy and not referenda on every issue. In order to shoot that down, the goalposts shift to me thinking the majority is stupid (deise go deo) or condescending towards them (Oasis) which is attacking the poster rather than the argument or to constitutional referenda only (dubhthach) which is not where the debate started.
(iwasfrozen) gets the point that we don't need a referendum to change the status of Irish. Under the Constitution as it currently stands, the Government could legislate that Irish is secondary and that there is no need to provide any service in Irish. If that happened we would be back to the start of the debate with (faobhar) and others who would be jumping up and down for a referendum on the status of Irish which would obviously be non-binding but as I point out would be like motherhood and apple pie. Back to where we started.
This debate is going round and round in circles and is not worth contributing any more to. The one lesson I am taking away is the desperation from some at all costs to protect the status of Irish. Desperation is only needed when something is in a desperate state.
Enjoy yourselves moving goalposts, I may look in again in a few months to make sure nothing has changed.
P.S. If Oasis thinks I am being condescending to the Irish people, you should look at the record of the Irish people - a big mess on abortion before you even think about the two referenda in one year on Lisbon with two different results. The Irish record on referenda is not very good.
There has been no movement of goalposts on my part. Don't lump me together with others and then dismiss my view in one fell swoop.
The position cannot be removed without referendum. The other post is clearly mistaken. The Irish record on referenda is not very good because you don't agree with the results. I dare say that is not reason enough to dismiss the majority wishes of the Irish people. Thanks for your apparently considered opinion.0 -
The above quotes are an example of the shifting goalposts. The first post (faobhar) in the series makes no reference to constitutional change, rather a referendum on the status of Irish.
If you can explain to me how a referendum does not initiate constitutional change then I will reply to the remainder of your points.
If you want to talk about shifting goalposts then I will be happy to draw on a plethora of examples from the 'anti-compulsory Irish' brigade.0 -
Third level students join organisations whose Main Aim they disagree with.Oasis_Dublin wrote: »That's a load of poo. Third level students took to the streets before Christmas to protest against the removal of compulsion even though they had all left Secondary School. No need to read anything else.
Every day millions of Irish people take to the streets and speak English.
We support Irish as long as this means someone else speaks it and we don't have to. That's Ireland for you.0 -
cyclopath2001 wrote: »Third level students join organisations whose Main Aim they disagree with.
No they don't, Third Level students Form their own Cumann Gaelach's(Irish Society's)
Such as:
UCD
Trinity Collage
DCU
UL
They set out their own aims, In any dealings I have had with CnaG one of the consistent things has been that they never tell you what to do, they ask you to join in voluntarily in an event or campaign they run.
Out of the membership of the Cumann Gaelach I am involved in, there are only four involved in the branch of CnaG we set up.Every day millions of Irish people take to the streets and speak English.
We support Irish as long as this means someone else speaks it and we don't have to. That's Ireland for you.
Every day tens of thousands take to the streets and speak Irish. Whats your point?
I support Irish and I do my best to speak it as often as possible.;)0 -
Advertisement
-
Very few relative to the total number of students studying Irish in the country. Besides who are we kidding those kids are more then likely Irish teachers in training who have a vested interest in Irish remaining compuslory.Oasis_Dublin wrote: »There has been no movement of goalposts on my part. Don't lump me together with others and then dismiss my view in one fell swoop.
The position cannot be removed without referendum. The other post is clearly mistaken. The Irish record on referenda is not very good because you don't agree with the results. I dare say that is not reason enough to dismiss the majority wishes of the Irish people. Thanks for your apparently considered opinion.
Look I'm not saying there won't be protests but the protests will be isolated and won't damage the governments prospects in 2016.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Very few relative to the total number of students studying Irish in the country. Besides who are we kidding those kids are more then likely Irish teachers in training who have a vested interest in Irish remaining compuslory.
Look I'm not saying there won't be protests but the protests will be isolated and won't damage the governments prospects in 2016.
I'm sorry, but as someone who has seen how these things are organised I can say that if the government took an action like the one you are suggesting there will be MASSIVE protests.
There are thousands of people involved in Cumann Gaelachs across the Country, Tens of thousands more either in Gaelscoils or Gaelchoileastes and their familys.
More people again involved in the various organisations for promoting the Language.
That is before you get onto the thousands who actually do have a 'vested interest' in the language, not to mention the Tens of thousands in the Gaelthacht Communities who will also come out and protest against such a move that would make their language less even than a second class language in their own country.
I think you vastly underestimate the amount of support the language has, and just how motivitated and well organised it is.
And it wont just be protestes, everything that can be done to put pressure on the government will be done.
-Emailing TD's directly on the issue
-A Media Campaign
-Famous People who are interested in the language comming out to condem the Government for their actions.
Again, the government is not interested in doing what you propose, the amount of support for the language and the oppisition they would face is more than enough to give them pause, and that is if they did want to do what you are suggesting, which there is no reason to believe is the case.:)0 -
I know the governments not interested in doing it, it's the nature of politicians never to do doing anything to rock the boat. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, or that it won't happen in the future. I mearly wished to show how easy these policies would be to implement given the constitutional position. Irish is on shaky ground, it would only take one government with a will for change to cut the huge wastages Irish creates in our public sector, education included.deise go deo wrote: »I'm sorry, but as someone who has seen how these things are organised I can say that if the government took an action like the one you are suggesting there will be MASSIVE protests.
There are thousands of people involved in Cumann Gaelachs across the Country, Tens of thousands more either in Gaelscoils or Gaelchoileastes and their familys.
More people again involved in the various organisations for promoting the Language.
That is before you get onto the thousands who actually do have a 'vested interest' in the language, not to mention the Tens of thousands in the Gaelthacht Communities who will also come out and protest against such a move that would make their language less even than a second class language in their own country.
I think you vastly underestimate the amount of support the language has, and just how motivitated and well organised it is.
And it wont just be protestes, everything that can be done to put pressure on the government will be done.
-Emailing TD's directly on the issue
-A Media Campaign
-Famous People who are interested in the language comming out to condem the Government for their actions.
Again, the government is not interested in doing what you propose, the amount of support for the language and the oppisition they would face is more than enough to give them pause, and that is if they did want to do what you are suggesting, which there is no reason to believe is the case.:)
Of course the problem is that only people who have an active vested interest in certain policies ever bother to lobby the government for anything. It is for this reason that thousands of Irish students continue to suffer from forced Irish language education at the hands of their own govenrment, students mind that by and large don't have a vote and therefore don't have a voice.
So there you have it Deise, thousands of students forced to endure thousands of hours of Irish education each because a small powerful group including celebs have a vested interest in maintaining the status que. While their own government doesn't care about them becuase they can't vote.
How about instead of think about what's best for the Irish language we start to think about what's best for students instead? Or do the machiavellians of the Irish language lobby consider means justifiable by the ends?0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »I know the governments not interested in doing it, it's the nature of politicians never to do doing anything to rock the boat. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, or that it won't happen in the future. I mearly wished to show how easy these policies would be to implement given the constitutional position. Irish is on shaky ground, it would only take one government with a will for change to cut the huge wastages Irish creates in our public sector, education included.
Of course the problem is that only people who have an active vested interest in certain policies ever bother to lobby the government for anything. It is for this reason that thousands of Irish students continue to suffer from forced Irish language education at the hands of their own govenrment, students mind that by and large don't have a vote and therefore don't have a voice.
So there you have it Deise, thousands of students forced to endure thousands of hours of Irish education each because a small powerful group including celebs have a vested interest in maintaining the status que. While their own government doesn't care about them becuase they can't vote.
How about instead of think about what's best for the Irish language we start to think about what's best for students instead? Or do the machiavellians of the Irish language lobby consider means justifiable by the ends?
Simple answer to that one though, isn't there? Why don't people start lobbying the government on a large scale to end compulsory Irish?
I'm sure there's plenty of opposition out there, all those thousands of students who have been forced to sit through thousands of hours of Irish do get the vote not so long afterwards, they do become parents and they do send children of their own back into the education system.0 -
Because the people who are effected don't have a vote/voice and the people who aren't afftected are indiferent/have some vauge support for Irish.Simple answer to that one though, isn't there? Why don't people start lobbying the government on a large scale to end compulsory Irish?
But by that stage they are by and large indifferent because it no longer affects their everyday lives. They may even develop some vauge nationalistic support for the compulsory teaching of the language. We can see this in poll results were adults who would have done anything to advoid doing Irish for the leaving cert now support it's status.I'm sure there's plenty of opposition out there, all those thousands of students who have been forced to sit through thousands of hours of Irish do get the vote not so long afterwards, they do become parents and they do send children of their own back into the education system.
The only way to solve this is for the government to stop doing what's popular and start doing what's right.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »So there you have it Deise, thousands of students forced to endure thousands of hours of Irish education each because a small powerful group including celebs have a vested interest in maintaining the status que. While their own government doesn't care about them becuase they can't vote.
thousands of hours is abit of an exageration. It adds up to about 1,388 hours over 13 years. This is just enough to give someone a basic knowledge of a language going by international best practises, to be a fluent speaker you need at least 5,000 hours of language contact.
I'd also think ye mistaken by arguing that it's only a small clique that support the language. There are plenty of people out there who have no connections to any language movement but who support it. I'm one of those myself. As for students if you asked them most of them wouldn't want to do most of subjects they have to "endure" I know I would have preferred if I didn't have to "endure" 5 years of French, a language which I can hardly string two words together in.0 -
thousands of hours is abit of an exageration. It adds up to about 1,388 hours over 13 years. This is just enough to give someone a basic knowledge of a language going by international best practises, to be a fluent speaker you need at least 5,000 hours of language contact.
I'd also think ye mistaken by arguing that it's only a small clique that support the language. There are plenty of people out there who have no connections to any language movement but who support it. I'm one of those myself. As for students if you asked them most of them wouldn't want to do most of subjects they have to "endure" I know I would have preferred if I didn't have to "endure" 5 years of French, a language which I can hardly string two words together in.
I do Geography every day and I have no interest. However, I know that it does have a relevance and it does lead to jobs that can benefit society, therefore I have no problem with it being taught.
I don't like Irish, but I wouldn't have a problem if it benefited just .0000000001% of society, but it doesn't. And it doesn't benefit ME, so why should I have to learn it?0 -
How did you work that out?thousands of hours is abit of an exageration. It adds up to about 1,388 hours over 13 years. This is just enough to give someone a basic knowledge of a language going by international best practises, to be a fluent speaker you need at least 5,000 hours of language contact.
Oh I have no doubt that there is quite a few adults who support irish reamining mandatory in school. I've said so in my post but these people don't have to do it. They'd rather pass of the responsibility of learning Irish, ironically something they claim to support, while simultaneously refusing to learn it themselves because "sure we have no time." Not considering the amount of time currently being taken up by irish in secondary schools that could be diverted to more practical studies.I'd also think ye mistaken by arguing that it's only a small clique that support the language. There are plenty of people out there who have no connections to any language movement but who support it. I'm one of those myself. As for students if you asked them most of them wouldn't want to do most of subjects they have to "endure" I know I would have preferred if I didn't have to "endure" 5 years of French, a language which I can hardly string two words together in.
Despite your dislike of French at least those who master it have gained something, they have mastered a modern European language, can now speak to approx 120 millon extra people in their native language and can now live and work in perhaps Europe's most beautiful country. Which is something considering Europe is imo the most beautiful continent in the world. A person who spends the effort to master Irish gains none of that, indeed apart from looking good on one's cv, Irish doesn't do much at all.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Because the people who are effected don't have a vote/voice and the people who aren't afftected are indiferent/have some vauge support for Irish.
But by that stage they are by and large indifferent because it no longer affects their everyday lives. They may even develop some vauge nationalistic support for the compulsory teaching of the language. We can see this in poll results were adults who would have done anything to advoid doing Irish for the leaving cert now support it's status.
The only way to solve this is for the government to stop doing what's popular and start doing what's right.
If we were to follow that logic through, should schoolchildren be consulted on other matters which directly affect them, such as the child benefit allowance, academic standards or the legal drinking age? Remember too that some of the loudest voices in the argument for compulsory Irish have come from those who are already inside that system (the students themselves).
And is it not something of a contravention of representative democracy to claim that the government should not do what the people want but rather what a minority think is good for them? (And isn't that a rather perverse inversion of the argument often leveled against the so-called 'Irish language lobby'?)
Also, I think its reductive to claim that some people have 'a vague nationalistic support' for the teaching of Irish. I imagine it would be more correct that people may support the language but that they equally feel it is necessary to improve the standards of its teaching so as ensure Irish's future as a viable spoken language and a culturally distinctive element of our society.0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement