Irish Language Commissioner resigns

Dannyboy83

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No that's not the one. Go on look again it's just two paragraphs below the one you quoted. Article 8.3

8.3 is here

3. Exclusive use shall be made of the Irish language for all official purposes throughout the State or in any part thereof. However, by law, concurrent use may be made of both official languages for any one or more official purposes, either throughout the State or in any part thereof, though the superior position of the Irish language must be demonstrated.”

It means by law, there is no obligation to use Irish only, but recognition of the fact that an individual may choose to do so if the capacity is available.

Iwasfrozen

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

8.3 is here


It means by law, there is no obligation to use Irish only, but recognition of the fact that an individual may choose to do so if the capacity is available.

Most of that is right but the last bit isn't. Here's the proper quote:

"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."

Source

Hence there is no constitutional right of the individual to conduct his business with the guards in Irish. The right that does exist is statutory as admitted by the old commissioner himself.

An Coilean

View wrote: »

Out of curiousity, which article of the constitution states you have a right to conduct your business through Irish? Particularly in a part of the state that clearly is not Irish speaking and hasn't been for decades if not centuries?

Also, is there an article that gives English speakers the right to conduct their business, not with the Garda Siochana, but with the correct officially-translated-into-English named version of our policing service? I ask because no doubt English speakers can then hang around while the Gardaí rebrand themselves into English every time someone requests it...

Article 8. Several Supreme court Judgements have made it clear that Irish people have a clear constitutional right to use Irish when conducting their business with the state.

An Coilean

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I don't know the full details of the story, but I assume the person was handcuffed for a public order offence?

If it is demonstrated that the individual has a working knowledge of English, would they not be guilty of a public order offence under Section 8 - specifically, "Failure to comply with the direction of a member of An Garda Siochana" ?

Well the Gardaí acknologed that the fault was with them and have since endevoured to improve their practices to ensure that it does not happen again, so no, i'd say not.

Choosing to speak Irish with the Gardaí is not an offence.

HansHolzel

If some dope of a guard hasn't enough Irish to say "Go dtí an stáisiún linn" (with or without the application of handcuffs to the pesky native), he or she deserves to be addressed in Latin, a more apposite tongue for legal matters, n'est-ce pas?

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Most of that is right but the last bit isn't. Here's the proper quote:

"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."

Source

Hence there is no constitutional right of the individual to conduct his business with the guards in Irish. The right that does exist is statutory as admitted by the old commissioner himself.

Perhaps you misread. It says that provision may be made. Has such provision been made?

The answer is no.

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

Perhaps you misread. It says that provision may be made. Has such provision been made?

The answer is no.

Perhaps you misread, no right is given however if a statutory right is given provision may be made for the constitution to overrule the statutory right.

Where is the supreme court ruling on the guards?

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Perhaps you misread, no right is given however if a statutory right is given provision may be made for the constitution to overrule the statutory right.

Would you like to take another whack at this, what you are trying to say is about as clear as mud.

I can go and find the Supreme Court quote that does indeed say that Irish people have a clear constitutional right to use Irish when conducting their business with the state.

An Coilean

http://antuairisceoir.com/2013/12/06/teip-an-gharda-siochana-aris/

Tá An Garda Síochána tar éis seirbhís Ghaeilge a dhiúltú do shaoránach arís agus go leor stró agus brú breise a chur ar an bhfear agus é ar an tslí go dtí ospidéal Beaumont, Baile Átha Cliath, i mí Iúil 2013, de réir fianaise curtha in iúl don chúirt i mBaile Átha Cliath inné, Déardaoin, 5 Nollaig 2013.
D’iarr an fear seirbhís Ghaeilge ón nGarda Síochána nuair a stopadh é agus dúirt an Garda leis go mbeadh air Béarla a labhairt leis mar gheall nach raibh Gaeilge ag an nGarda. Is teip iomlán é seo arís ar cheart gach saoránach plé leis an nGarda Síochána as Gaeilge más mian leis an saoránach

Speak of the Devil. Its happened again.
Man on his way to Boumount hospital last July was stopped by Gardaí and on requesting to conduct his business through Irish was told that he would have to speak English.
It seems that making the mistake once is not enough, hopefully we wont have to wait too much longer for Gardaí to learn that they dont get to decide which official language of the state members of the public get to speak.

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

Would you like to take another whack at this, what you are trying to say is about as clear as mud.

I can go and find the Supreme Court quote that does indeed say that Irish people have a clear constitutional right to use Irish when conducting their business with the state.

That would be useful. But define state.

An Coilean wrote: »

http://antuairisceoir.com/2013/12/06/teip-an-gharda-siochana-aris/



Speak of the Devil. Its happened again.
Man on his way to Boumount hospital last July was stopped by Gardaí and on requesting to conduct his business through Irish was told that he would have to speak English.
It seems that making the mistake once is not enough, hopefully we wont have to wait too much longer for Gardaí to learn that they dont get to decide which official language of the state members of the public get to speak.

Any chance of getting a version of that in our mother language?

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That would be useful. But define state.

A condition or mode of being, as with regard to circumstances: a state of confusion.2. A condition of being in a stage or form, as of structure, growth, or development: the fetal state.
3. A mental or emotional condition: in a manic state.
4. Informal A condition of excitement or distress.
5. Physics The condition of a physical system with regard to phase, form, composition, or structure: Ice is the solid state of water.
6. Social position or rank.
7. Ceremony; pomp: foreign leaders dining in state at the White House.
8. a. The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity.
b. The sphere of supreme civil power within a given polity: matters of state.

9. A specific mode of government: the socialist state.
10. A body politic, especially one constituting a nation: the states of Eastern Europe.
11. One of the more or less internally autonomous territorial and political units composing a federation under a sovereign government: the 48 contiguous states of the Union.
adj.1. Of or relating to a body politic or to an internally autonomous territorial or political unit constituting a federation under one government: a monarch dealing with state matters; the department that handles state security.
2. Owned and operated by a state: state universities.

tr.v. stat·ed, stat·ing, states To set forth in words; declare.

Any chance of getting a version of that in our mother language?

Nope, I have better things to be doing than acting as interperter for you.

View

An Coilean wrote: »

Article 8. Several Supreme court Judgements have made it clear that Irish people have a clear constitutional right to use Irish when conducting their business with the state.

And which judgments are these precisely?

In article 8.3 quoted above there is a clear "or any part thereof" clause not an "ALL parts thereof" clause.

This seems to be a case like that of voting where you are being "discriminated against" if the polling officers don't bring the ballot box around to your house so you can vote because you are too lazy to make your way to your local polling booth to cast your ballot.

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

A condition or mode of being, as with regard to circumstances: a state of confusion.2. A condition of being in a stage or form, as of structure, growth, or development: the fetal state.
3. A mental or emotional condition: in a manic state.
4. Informal A condition of excitement or distress.
5. Physics The condition of a physical system with regard to phase, form, composition, or structure: Ice is the solid state of water.
6. Social position or rank.
7. Ceremony; pomp: foreign leaders dining in state at the White House.
8. a. The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity.
b. The sphere of supreme civil power within a given polity: matters of state.

9. A specific mode of government: the socialist state.
10. A body politic, especially one constituting a nation: the states of Eastern Europe.
11. One of the more or less internally autonomous territorial and political units composing a federation under a sovereign government: the 48 contiguous states of the Union.
adj.1. Of or relating to a body politic or to an internally autonomous territorial or political unit constituting a federation under one government: a monarch dealing with state matters; the department that handles state security.
2. Owned and operated by a state: state universities.

tr.v. stat·ed, stat·ing, states To set forth in words; declare.

Right so a police force wouldn't be considered the state would it? Also you haven't provided those supreme court rulings you were talking about.

An Coilean wrote: »

Nope, I have better things to be doing than acting as interperter for you.

That's a shame because you already did. if you want to mobilise English speakers to your side you're going to need to make sure they can understand the problem.

Godge

An Coilean wrote: »

Well the Gardaí acknologed that the fault was with them and have since endevoured to improve their practices to ensure that it does not happen again, so no, i'd say not.

Choosing to speak Irish with the Gardaí is not an offence.

Yes, but when those Supreme Court judgments took place there was no Official Languages Act. The legal point that won those cases was the fact that the Dail had not made any enactments under Article 8.3.

Now that we have the OLA, Article 8.3 comes into play in any court case. The Dail has decided in which circumstances Irish can be used as set out in the OLA so the absolute right in Article 8.1 which could be limited by Article 8.3 has now been so limited. That changes the landscape for any litigation.

It could of course still be argued before the Supreme Court that some personal right under Articles 40-44 is being infringed by the OLA under Article 8.3 but when you get into conflicting articles in the Constitution, you get into tricky legal ground.

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Right so a police force wouldn't be considered the state would it? Also you haven't provided those supreme court rulings you were talking about.

It would certainly be considered an organ of the state.

Some Examples.

In 1934 Chief Justice Kennedy said:
"None of the organs of the State, legislative, executive or judicial may derogate from the pre-eminent status of the Irish language as the national language of the State without offending against the Constitutional position..."
Ó Foghludha v. McClean (1934) IR469

"It is my opinion that it is not possible (at least in the absence of law of the type envisaged in Article 8.3) to exclude Irish, which is the national language and at the same time the first official language of the State, from any part of the public discourse of the nation or from any official business of the State or from the official business of any of its members. Nor is it possible in these contexts to treat it in a manner which is less favourable than the way in which the second official language is treated. Neither is it possible to prevent those who are capable and desirous of using Irish in making their case or in communicating from so doing or to disadvantage them when so doing in any national or official context."
[Translation] Hardiman, J. – Judicial Review – Supreme Court. Ref : Ó Beoláin v. Fahy [2001] 2 I.R. 279

An Coilean

Godge wrote: »

Yes, but when those Supreme Court judgments took place there was no Official Languages Act. The legal point that won those cases was the fact that the Dail had not made any enactments under Article 8.3.

Now that we have the OLA, Article 8.3 comes into play in any court case. The Dail has decided in which circumstances Irish can be used as set out in the OLA so the absolute right in Article 8.1 which could be limited by Article 8.3 has now been so limited. That changes the landscape for any litigation.

It could of course still be argued before the Supreme Court that some personal right under Articles 40-44 is being infringed by the OLA under Article 8.3 but when you get into conflicting articles in the Constitution, you get into tricky legal ground.

There is nothing in the OLA that limits the right of an Irish citizen when dealing with the Gardaí through Irish.

Manach

Godge wrote: »

Yes, but when those Supreme Court judgments took place there was no Official Languages Act.

Thanks for rasing this. Neutral myself in this current debate but looking at the act: -link.
It places the Guards within the remit as a public body on whom the act has effect.

Godge

An Coilean wrote: »

There is nothing in the OLA that limits the right of an Irish citizen when dealing with the Gardaí through Irish.

Look at your own guote from the Hardiman judgement.

"It is my opinion that it is not possible (at least in the absence of law of the type envisaged in Article 8.3) to exclude Irish, which is the national language and at the same time the first official language of the State, from any part of the public discourse of the nation or from any official business of the State or from the official business of any of its members"

You see the bit in bold, Hardiman's judgement and all the others were done in the context of the absence of law of the type envisaged in Article 8.3. Now the OLA sets out when, how and where public bodies have to deal with members of the public through Irish, that is an Article 8.3 statute.

Can you point me to the part of the OLA that requires the gardai to conduct business in Irish.

To sum up

(1) It is not a crime to speak Irish to a garda. We all agree on that. It is not a crime to speak Russian to a garda.
(2) There is no obligation on the gardai to conduct everyday business through Irish. If someone disputes this, please show me the relevant section of the OLA.
(3) If a garda believes a crime may have been committed, and the person is unable because of language difficulties (be that Chinese, Russian or Irish language difficulties) to answer questions, why wouldn't they be brought down to the stations (in handcuffs if necessary if they resisted) until a suitable translator can be found?

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

It would certainly be considered an organ of the state.

Some Examples.

Godge is explaining in better detail exactly what I was saying earlier.

"no right is given however if a statutory right is given provision may be made for the constitution to overrule the statutory right."

Chips Lovell

Have we legislated ourselves into a situation whereby people can legally waste police time by refusing to speak a language they are conversant in?

Godge

Manach wrote: »

Thanks for rasing this. Neutral myself in this current debate but looking at the act: -link.
It places the Guards within the remit as a public body on whom the act has effect.

Correct, but that only allows the Minister to require a Section 11 plan. Here it is.

http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/eofficial%20languages%20ev.pdf

While it provides for those calling at garda stations to have their business conducted through Irish, it does not state anywhere that suspected criminals can have their business done through Irish.

So we have the OLA limiting Section 8.3 of the Constitution and we have the plan under the OLA limiting what the gardai have to do through Irish.

Godge

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Have we legislated ourselves into a situation whereby people can legally waste police time by refusing to speak a language they are conversant in?

No

An Coilean

Godge wrote: »

Look at your own guote from the Hardiman judgement.

You see the bit in bold, Hardiman's judgement and all the others were done in the context of the absence of law of the type envisaged in Article 8.3. Now the OLA sets out when, how and where public bodies have to deal with members of the public through Irish, that is an Article 8.3 statute.

Can you point me to the part of the OLA that requires the gardai to conduct business in Irish.

To sum up

(1) It is not a crime to speak Irish to a garda. We all agree on that. It is not a crime to speak Russian to a garda.
(2) There is no obligation on the gardai to conduct everyday business through Irish. If someone disputes this, please show me the relevant section of the OLA.
(3) If a garda believes a crime may have been committed, and the person is unable because of language difficulties (be that Chinese, Russian or Irish language difficulties) to answer questions, why wouldn't they be brought down to the stations (in handcuffs if necessary if they resisted) until a suitable translator can be found?

The state could legislate under 8.3 to limit the right of citizens to conduct thir business through Irish or English with the Gardaí, but they have not done so, there is nothing in the OLA that would have this effect.

There is an obligation on the Gardaí to facilitate Irish citizens to use their choice of Official language when conducting their business, this is clear from the constitution, and is reiterated in language scheem agreed under the OLA.

HansHolzel

Godge wrote: »

While it provides for those calling at garda stations to have their business conducted through Irish, it does not state anywhere that suspected criminals can have their business done through Irish.

What about involuntary calling at Garda stations while cuffed - for speaking Irish?

If some dope of a guard can't utter "Go dtí an stáisiún linn", it seems handcuffs amount to the lingua franca of choice.

An Coilean

Godge wrote: »

Correct, but that only allows the Minister to require a Section 11 plan. Here it is.

http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/eofficial%20languages%20ev.pdf

While it provides for those calling at garda stations to have their business conducted through Irish, it does not state anywhere that suspected criminals can have their business done through Irish.

So we have the OLA limiting Section 8.3 of the Constitution and we have the plan under the OLA limiting what the gardai have to do through Irish.

Did you read the scheme?

I quote directly from it:

An Garda Síochána recognises the right of citizens to conduct their business in Irish

Fairly clear cut.

Chips Lovell

I do wonder if these chaps who insisted on speaking to Guards in Irish would, if they found themselves phoning the police during a burglary or some other emergency, wait patiently on the phone until an Irish speaker is found.

An Coilean

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I do wonder if these chaps who insisted on speaking to Guards in Irish would, if they found themselves phoning the police during a burglary or some other emergency, wait patiently on the phone until an Irish speaker is found.

Bad enough to have your house burgled, to have Engish forced on you by the state on top of that because of a failure to provide a service that is fit for purpose in both official languages would only add insult to injury.
Members of the public have a right to recieve these services in their choice of official language, that members of the public may be in fear of being placed in greater danger due to their choice of language just highlights the importance of the Gardaí improving their ability to provide an effective service in Irish as well as in English.

HansHolzel

+ better buy a burglar alarm that goes off in English

expectationlost

Fianna Fail Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill launches High Court action to halt expenses probe
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/fianna-fail-senator-brian-domhnaill-launches-high-court-action-to-halt-expenses-probe-29732933.html

he wants orders requiring the case to be heard by a Commission comprising members who are bilingual and able to conduct and understand the proceedings without the assistance of an interpreter.

his right to speak in irish being used to delay scrutiny of his political finances

Chips Lovell

An Coilean wrote: »

Bad enough to have your house burgled, to have Engish forced on you by the state on top of that because of a failure to provide a service that is fit for purpose in both official languages would only add insult to injury.

Nobody's having English "forced" on them. These guys can speak English already and are simply refusing to. It's not like they're going off and having to learn a new language in order to call the police.

MadPat

An Coilean wrote: »

There is an obligation on the Gardaí to facilitate Irish citizens to use their choice of Official language when conducting their business, this is clear from the constitution, and is reiterated in language scheem agreed under the OLA.

Unfortunately, due to the unpopularity of Irish-speaking among the general population, it is impossible to ensure that there would be sufficient supply of Irish speaking officials in all possible situations to meet the demands of Irish speakers.

The language commissioner realised that he could not overcome the will of the public and that you cannot force people to speak Irish if they don't want to.

The OLA is just a law, but you cannot change reality just by passing laws.

View

An Coilean wrote: »

There is an obligation on the Gardaí to facilitate Irish citizens to use their choice of Official language when conducting their business, this is clear from the constitution, and is reiterated in language scheem agreed under the OLA.

And no doubt the Gardaí do so in Irish speaking or bi-lingual localities. That though is entirely different from doing so in locations where Irish hasn't been a spoken language for decades or even centuries.

The GFA formally recognised Ulster-Scots as the third language spoken on this island. Should the State therefore make it mandatory that the Gardai be expected to carry out their business in Ulster Scots in let's say Kerry on the off chance that an Ulster Scots speaker wants to deal with them in Ulster Scots?

Sand

View wrote: »

And no doubt the Gardaí do so in Irish speaking or bi-lingual localities. That though is entirely different from doing so in locations where Irish hasn't been a spoken language for decades or even centuries.

The GFA formally recognised Ulster-Scots as the third language spoken on this island. Should the State therefore make it mandatory that the Gardai be expected to carry out their business in Ulster Scots in let's say Kerry on the off chance that an Ulster Scots speaker wants to deal with them in Ulster Scots?

TBH, with a command of English and having viewed Trainspotting a couple of times the average Garda could just about manage conversational Ulster Scots.

MadPat

Sand wrote: »

TBH, with a command of English and having viewed Trainspotting a couple of times the average Garda could just about manage conversational Ulster Scots.

Ulster Scots is not really at issue since it's not mentioned in the constitution or the OLA.

The real question is whether or not it's possible (or realistic) to make all civil and public servants who might interact with the public speak Irish to a standard acceptable to Irish-speakers.

Imagine the offence caused if an English-speaking fireman shows up to put out a fire at the house of an incandescent Irish speaker.

Iwasfrozen

MadPat wrote: »

Ulster Scots is not really at issue since it's not mentioned in the constitution or the OLA.

The real question is whether or not it's possible (or realistic) to make all civil and public servants who might interact with the public speak Irish to a standard acceptable to Irish-speakers.

Imagine the offence caused if an English-speaking fireman shows up to put out a fire at the house of an incandescent Irish speaker.

Of course it's not possible. Irish speakers are a tiny % of the population. Do you want to station one Irish speaking guard/paramedic/fire man out in every local station/hospital in case they get a call out?

Hotblack Desiato

An Coilean wrote: »

It would certainly be considered an organ of the state.

Some Examples.

In 1934 Chief Justice Kennedy said:
"None of the organs of the State, legislative, executive or judicial may derogate from the pre-eminent status of the Irish language as the national language of the State without offending against the Constitutional position..."
Ó Foghludha v. McClean (1934) IR469

Of course the constitution being referred to there isn't the current one.

MadPat wrote: »

Imagine the offence caused if an English-speaking fireman shows up to put out a fire at the house of an incandescent Irish speaker.

Not literally incandescent, I hope!

hmmm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you want to station one Irish speaking guard/paramedic/fire man out in every local station/hospital in case they get a call out?

Yes, of course that's what the hardcore want. Their infatuation with the Irish language permeates every aspect of their lives, they seek out confrontation, they go to bed angry every night raging at the inability of the rest of us to conform to their ideals. What harm, half of them have atrocious Irish but that doesn't stop them. They'd happily cost this state billions, and happily take money from the police/health/education, just to force their infatuation down our throats.

The hardcore have always been the reason for the decline in Irish, and continue to be. There was some attempts to retake Irish from them a few years ago with the launch of TnaG and Irish speaking schools, but from where I stand that has largely failed as the hardcore re-established coercion as their primary strategy rather than assimilation. There is no attempt to keep Irish as a living language, and every attempt to force people to learn it and force people to use it.

Oakboy

Godge wrote: »

Or more ignorant, backward and lost in tradition.

It all depends on your point of view.

with such a ridiculous statement like that, there is only one person around here who is ignorant.

MadPat

Oakboy wrote: »

with such a ridiculous statement like that, there is only one person around here who is ignorant.

I read your posting twice and cannot detect any reasoning in it?

Why is is that when dealing with the public service, an Irish speaker claims his/her rights are infringed if they are served by an English-speaker, yet when dealing with shops, restaurants and anyone else, they don't?

Isn't it time Irish speakers learned to live in the same country as the rest of us, one where English is our common language?

Godge

An Coilean wrote: »

The state could legislate under 8.3 to limit the right of citizens to conduct thir business through Irish or English with the Gardaí, but they have not done so, there is nothing in the OLA that would have this effect.

There is an obligation on the Gardaí to facilitate Irish citizens to use their choice of Official language when conducting their business, this is clear from the constitution, and is reiterated in language scheem agreed under the OLA.

you are wrong on this.

The OLA is the Article 8.3 legislation and the schemes agreed under it set out the limits of any rights to do business through Irish.

Nowhere in the scheme is it said or can it be interpreted that a person stopped at the side of the road has a right to use Irish,

Yes, forms should be bilingual and efforts should be made for ordinary business (signing passport and car tax forms) to be conducted through Irish but that is all that is in the scheme and that is all that you are entitled to (unless of course you can demonstrate an Article 40-44 personal right issue).

An Coilean

ninja900 wrote: »

Of course the constitution being referred to there isn't the current one.

Thats is a valid point, the position of the Irish Language in the constitution was later enhanced.

An Coilean

Godge wrote: »

The OLA is the Article 8.3 legislation and the schemes agreed under it set out the limits of any rights to do business through Irish.

Article 8.3 allows the state to limit the use of the Irish Language for official business. For the OLA to do this it would actually have to specificly limit the right to use Irish in this case, can you point out where in the act the right to use Irish when dealing with the Gardaí is limited?
You are saying the OLA does this, show me what part of the OLA has the effect you are claiming it does.

Nowhere in the scheme is it said or can it be interpreted that a person stopped at the side of the road has a right to use Irish,

Yes, forms should be bilingual and efforts should be made for ordinary business (signing passport and car tax forms) to be conducted through Irish but that is all that is in the scheme and that is all that you are entitled to (unless of course you can demonstrate an Article 40-44 personal right issue).

You are quite clearly wrong, this exact thing came up two years ago and there was an official investigaion by the Office of An Coimisinéir Teanga which found that by failing to have an appropriate system in place to deal with members of the public at the road side through Irish, the Gardaí were in breach of their obligations with regard the language. (Arresting them and bringing them in handcuffs was not deemed to be an appropriate responce to those simplying wishing to comunicate in the first national language.)

You can deny this is the case all you want, but it really amounts to little more than you sticking your fingers in your ears shouting 'lalalalalalala I can't hear you'

MadPat

An Coilean wrote: »

...but it really amounts to little more than you sticking your fingers in your ears shouting 'lalalalalalala I can't hear you'

Or going on about laws which fly in the face of reality.

Mr.Micro

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I do wonder if these chaps who insisted on speaking to Guards in Irish would, if they found themselves phoning the police during a burglary or some other emergency, wait patiently on the phone until an Irish speaker is found.

Try calling an ambulance in Irish, lol.

Iwasfrozen

MadPat wrote: »

Why do you think the commissioner resigned?

He faced reality.

Reality is generally uncomfortable for the fanatic. I wish him the best in future employment.

MadPat

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Try calling an ambulance in Irish, lol.

The correct procedure is:

1: Irish-speaker calls an Ambulance.
2: Accepts treatment in English.
3: Once fully recovered, sues the HSE for abusing his/her language rights.

Godge

An Coilean wrote: »

Article 8.3 allows the state to limit the use of the Irish Language for official business. For the OLA to do this it would actually have to specificly limit the right to use Irish in this case, can you point out where in the act the right to use Irish when dealing with the Gardaí is limited?
You are saying the OLA does this, show me what part of the OLA has the effect you are claiming it does.'

read Section 6
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act/pub/0032/sec0006.html

read Section 8
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act/pub/0032/sec0008.html

Both of these sections contain explicit rights to use Irish. If the OLA was not Section 8.3 legislation, these provisions would not be necessary.

Now read Section 11

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act/pub/0032/sec0011.html


In particular, read this bit:

"the services which the public body proposes to provide—

(i) exclusively through the medium of the Irish language,

(ii) exclusively through the medium of the English language, and

(iii) through the medium of both the Irish and English languages,"

That is exactly what Section 8.3 is all about.

An Coilean wrote: »

You are quite clearly wrong, this exact thing came up two years ago and there was an official investigaion by the Office of An Coimisinéir Teanga which found that by failing to have an appropriate system in place to deal with members of the public at the road side through Irish, the Gardaí were in breach of their obligations with regard the language. (Arresting them and bringing them in handcuffs was not deemed to be an appropriate responce to those simplying wishing to comunicate in the first national language.)

You can deny this is the case all you want, but it really amounts to little more than you sticking your fingers in your ears shouting 'lalalalalalala I can't hear you'

I have seen the case (thanks for not providing a link - had to look for it myself) but that is only a report of the Commissioner. Has he done anything with it?

http://www.coimisineir.ie/downloads/2012_An_Garda__Siochana_english_version.pdf

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act/pub/0032/sec0026.html

An Coilean

Godge wrote: »

Now read Section 11

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act/pub/0032/sec0011.html


In particular, read this bit:

"the services which the public body proposes to provide—

(i) exclusively through the medium of the Irish language,

(ii) exclusively through the medium of the English language, and

(iii) through the medium of both the Irish and English languages,"

That is exactly what Section 8.3 is all about.

You left out a piece that is quite important:
b. the measures the body proposes to adopt to ensure that any services that are not provided by the body through the medium of the Irish language will be so provided

I have seen the case (thanks for not providing a link - had to look for it myself) but that is only a report of the Commissioner. Has he done anything with it?

The report outlines the investigation that was conducted by An Coimisinéir Teanga.

When dealing with complaints An Coimisinéir uses two different approches, firstly an informal procedure is used where by An Comisineir contacts the public body in question and seeks to reach a satisfactry agreement with them where by they acknolage any failings on their part and agree to correct them. This process is successfull most of the time.

Should a satisfactory agreement not be reached this way and there is still a case to be answered, then An Coimisinéir teanga must launch a formal investigation, as he did with the Gardaí in that particular case. This investigation is outlined in his report for 2012.
Having carried out the investigation he made several recomendations, outlined in his report. The public body then has a period of time to implement those recomendations. In this case, An Coimisinéir Teanga was satisfied that his recomendations were taken seriously by Garda Managment and that they were being implemented.
That was the end of the matter as far as that particular incident goes.

Godge

An Coilean wrote: »

The report outlines the investigation that was conducted by An Coimisinéir Teanga.

When dealing with complaints An Coimisinéir uses two different approches, firstly an informal procedure is used where by An Comisineir contacts the public body in question and seeks to reach a satisfactry agreement with them where by they acknolage any failings on their part and agree to correct them. This process is successfull most of the time.

Should a satisfactory agreement not be reached this way and there is still a case to be answered, then An Coimisinéir teanga must launch a formal investigation, as he did with the Gardaí in that particular case. This investigation is outlined in his report for 2012.
Having carried out the investigation he made several recomendations, outlined in his report. The public body then has a period of time to implement those recomendations. In this case, An Coimisinéir Teanga was satisfied that his recomendations were taken seriously by Garda Managment and that they were being implemented.
That was the end of the matter as far as that particular incident goes.

Hang on, the Commissioner says that people should have a right to be questioned in Irish by the side of the road, the scheme does not provide for this, the scheme is not amended (i.e. the Garda Commissioner ignores it), people are still convicted, the Commissioner is satisfied that his recommendations are taken seriously.

Well, either the Commissioner didn't really believe in his recommendation, or he is actually powerless to enforce. He does have the option of referring it to the Dail for public discussion but he probably didn't want to be laughed at in public.

An Coilean

Godge wrote: »

Hang on, the Commissioner says that people should have a right to be questioned in Irish by the side of the road, the scheme does not provide for this, the scheme is not amended (i.e. the Garda Commissioner ignores it), people are still convicted, the Commissioner is satisfied that his recommendations are taken seriously.

Well, either the Commissioner didn't really believe in his recommendation, or he is actually powerless to enforce. He does have the option of referring it to the Dail for public discussion but he probably didn't want to be laughed at in public.

It was found that the actions of the Gardaí in that particular incident were in breach of their language scheme. In terms of the aftermath of the investigation, in the months after it, the Gardaí were working on implementing the recomendations made by the investagation, and as such An Coimisinéir was satisified that his recomendations were being taken on board and that was that as far as that particular incident goes. You hardily would have expected him to take the matter further in the months after the investigation when it apeared that the Gardaí had taken his recomendations on board.

The more recent incident happened much later, news of it broke only a few days ago. I don't know if his office was made aware of it back when it happened or not(Though it would be surprising if it was not). The case it is related to is going through the courts at present, so its not at all surprising that he did not bring it up in public.
If his office was involved in the case, it will most likely be outlined in his report for 2013.