Irish Language Commissioner resigns

Grudaire

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

In fairness, it's probably unlikely your taxes are spent on providing services in English.

The money spent versus the number of taxpayers speaking it seems drastically out of sync, in favour of Irish speakers.

You're providing one small set of figures without absolutely any context. You don't provide rtes budget for comparison ffs!

Our taxes go into a big pot and are spent on everything, all services and nonsense. At the moment that includes interest on the bailout money.

Grudaire

MadPat wrote: »

• The OLA provides that Irish enthusiasts, not just native Irish speakers, must be faciliated in all services. The commissioner, before he resigned in frustration at not being able to facilitate people to speak Irish, was advancing this policy.

Fixed your post..

Let's be very clear here that the official languages act does not 'force' people to speak Irish. It is to ensure that Irish speakers are not 'forced' to speak English when dealing with the state.

There is a certain irony in your entire post that you see the OLA as an unjust attempt to 'force' people to speak Irish. Yet you see absolutely no issue with forcing people to speak English.

An Coilean

Grudaire wrote: »

There is a certain irony in your entire post that you see the OLA as an unjust attempt to 'force' people to speak Irish. Yet you see absolutely no issue with forcing people to speak English.

Not really Irony, Its just an example of English being construed to have a 'special status'. It is seen as the norm against which others are ranked as lesser. Those who hold such a view are convinced that not only does English have such a special status, but that this status is entirely correct and natural.
To such a point of view, it is not possible to 'force someone to speak English', speaking English is the norm, doing anything else is wrong, artificial and unnatural.

When one category is elevated as an unmarked norm, its power is more pervasive because it is masked. By being construed as both powerful and normative, its special status is naturalized and the effort required to achieve this status is rendered invisible and, when associated with language, inaudible. (Bucholtz 2001; Trechter andBucholtz 2001)

Marked and Unmarked are how the position of identity traits including language are ranked in relation to each other. Speaking English in Ireland would be an unmarked trait, speaking Polish for example would be a marked trait because it is highly asociated with a particular and easily identifiable group.
Markedness describes the process whereby some social categories gain a special, default status that contrasts with the identities of other groups, which are usually highly recognizable.
Speaking English in Ireland is seen by many to have such a special, default status which gives it a greater legitimacy than speaking Irish. Highlighting the disparity between their attitude to English with their attitude to Irish is not going to be effective, its not a case that they cannot see the unequal relationship, its that they approve of it, for them Irish is a lesser language and should be treated as such, indeed to them it would be wrong to treat Irish in the same way as the supposidly 'natural and legitimate social norm' that is English.

MadPat

Grudaire wrote: »

Let's be very clear here that the official languages act does not 'force' people to speak Irish.

It forces public officials to speak Irish when confronted by an Irish language enthusiast.

One wonders if Irish speakers complain about lack of Irish language service when they renew their Sky subscriptions or when they must interact with their English speaking neighbours?

An Coilean

MadPat wrote: »

It forces public officials to speak Irish when confronted by an Irish language enthusiast.

Not true, the law does not have any provision whereby individual staff members can be forced to speak Irish, or any other language. The law sets out obligations on public bodies or departments, not individuals.

spank_inferno

An Coilean wrote: »

Not true, the law does not have any provision whereby individual staff members can be forced to speak Irish, or any other language. The law sets out obligations on public bodies or departments, not individuals.

And departments are made up of individuals...

... Should those individuals be part of the 98.3% who don't speak Gaelic.... What then?

The public servant will look past the agitating gaelgoir & say: "Next!"

MadPat

An Coilean wrote: »

Not true, the law does not have any provision whereby individual staff members can be forced to speak Irish, or any other language. The law sets out obligations on public bodies or departments, not individuals.

You're being disingnuous. The law imposes obligations. People have to comply. Yet, private sector service providers have no such obligation put on them.

What if nobody volunteers to meet the demands of tenacious Irish enthusiast? What if an Irish enthusiast needs to discuss a specialised technical matter and is the relevant expert does not speak Irish? Or, if an Irish-speaking fire crew is not available to attend a fire at an Irish enthusiast's house? Would the Irish speaker suddenly lose his or her need to speak Irish?

There is something quite artificial about this 'language rights' argument.

An Coilean

spank_inferno wrote: »

And departments are made up of individuals...

... Should those individuals be part of the 98.3% who don't speak Gaelic.... What then?

The public servant will look past the agitating gaelgoir & say: "Next!"

Then the member of the public who wishes to excersise their right to avail of services in Irish and is not facilitated in this by the public body that has failed in its obligation to provided these services in Irish can make a complaint to the office of An Coimisinéir Teanga, who will first seek to resolve the issue informally, and if this is not successful, will launch a formal investigation which will make recomendations on what the public body will need to do to resolve the issue.

No individual members of staff are forced to speak Irish, but public bodies are held to account and required to fulfill their obligations under law.

An Coilean

MadPat wrote: »

You're being disingnuous.

Nope, the law has no provision to force any individual to speak Irish. This is simply the reality of the situation.

The law imposes obligations. People have to comply.

The public body has to comply, individuals are not forced to speak Irish.

Yet, private sector service providers have no such obligation put on them.

What relevance has that? An Coimisinéir Teanga is an office that was set up to monitor the OLA, an act that is concerned with the language dutys of public bodies. This is quite common in bilingual countries, it is less common that the state would try to regulate the general language duties of private companies through legilsation.

What if nobody volunteers to meet the demands of tenacious Irish enthusiast? What if an Irish enthusiast needs to discuss a specialised technical matter and is the relevant expert does not speak Irish? Or, if an Irish-speaking fire crew is not available to attend a fire at an Irish enthusiast's house? Would the Irish speaker suddenly lose his or her need to speak Irish?

Put the boot on the other foot, if the fire crew only had Irish, or were only willing to use Irish, would you suddenly loose your right to speak English? Would you send them away and let your house burn to the ground? Or would you just be pissed off but accept it in the situation and do what you could to work around it while still beliving that it was wrong and later seek change to prevent it happening again?

There is something quite artificial about this 'language rights' argument.

Why? Is there 'something quite artifical' about the obligation on the state to provide education? The familiy of the children could educate the child themselves, or the child could become 'self taught'.
The validity of a right is not dependant on there being no alternative to availing of that right.

Freedom is a right, it does not mean that you cannot live as a slave. Freedom is not a right because you cannot live as a slave, it is a right because you should not have to live as a slave. Using Irish is a right when conducting your business with the state, not because those seeking to avail of that right are unable to use English, but because they should not have to.

Dannyboy83

Grudaire wrote: »

You're providing one small set of figures without absolutely any context. You don't provide rtes budget for comparison ffs!

But you didn't raise the issue in comparison to RTE's budget. Elaborate on this if you wish - I'm interested to hear more regarding this.

Getting back to your original point - you raised the issue that your taxes were going to fund services in English, as follows:

Grudaire wrote:

If it is unfair that your taxes are sent on provision of services in Irish then why is it not unfair that my taxes are used to provide services in English?

Leaving aside the fact that a large percentage of taxpayers neither watch Irish broadcasting as Gaeilge nor English anyway, I'm showing you that you are mistaken in your assumption that Irish speakers are subsiding English language services.

Nothing could be further from the truth.
Here are some rough figures from 2006 showing the level of spending

TG4 - 28 million [2006 budget from google]
Udaras na Gaeltachta - 36 million [2006 budget from website]
Official Languages Act - 150m [1] *
EU translation for official language - 3.5 million [3, Irish Echo]
Grants to Irish Colleges - 3.61 million [2]
Grants to Ciste na Gaeilge - 2.6 million [2]
Foras Teanga - 14 million [2]
Language Commissioner - 0.5 million [2]
Administration Costs for Irish Language in Department of CARG - 8 million [2, 50% absorption of total]

Subtotal excluding Education - 246m

Teaching Irish in Primary Schools [3] - 483m
Teaching Irish in Secondary Schools [3] - 369.6m
Teaching Irish in Third Level [3] - 30.8 mllion

Subtotal for Education - 883.4 million
Total Annual State Expenditure on Gaeilge - 1129.4 million

Total spent per head of population: 287euro
Total spent per head of population aged 19-65: 482euro
Total excl. education per head: 62 euro
Total excl. education per head of population aged 19-65: 105euro

To put in perspective relative to other state expenditures:

Defence spending per head of population: 226euro approx
Dept. of Education spending per head of population: 1630euro approx
TV license: 155euro
Social welfare for disability per head of population: 41euro
Social welfare for old age pensions per head of population: 637euro

Now to perform a cursory examination of the success of the funding.

Estimated total annual funding for Irish language: 1129.4m
Number who speak Irish as first language: 12,000 estimated
Number who speak Irish daily 71,000 [exc. schoolkids]
Number who speak Irish daily in the Gealtacht: 24,000 aprox.
Number who speak Irish daily exc. Teachers + state employees: 40,000 approx.

Annual funding per Irish first language speakers: 94,116euro
Annual funding per daily-speakers: 15,907euro
Annual funding per daily-speakers exc. teachers + state employees: 28,235euro

Our taxes go into a big pot and are spent on everything, all services and nonsense. At the moment that includes interest on the bailout money.

Indeed.
But not all services are availed of, or more relevantly, funded proportionately.

Grudaire

spank_inferno wrote: »

And departments are made up of individuals...

... Should those individuals be part of the 98.3% who don't speak Gaelic.... What then?

The public servant will look past the agitating gaelgoir & say: "Next!"

But having Irish is a skill which can be learnt...

Requiring departments to have a single member with this skill is hardly outlandish!

An Coilean

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Nothing could be further from the truth.
Here are some rough figures from 2006 showing the level of spending

These figures are both massivly out of date and very poorly supported. Its largely a work of guesstimation, cherrypicking figures all of which are significantly out of date, and it would seem filling in the gaps with numbers picked out of thin air all to suit an adgenda.

Must try harder.

Carlos Orange

Grudaire wrote: »

But having Irish is a skill which can be learnt...

Remember kids,we aren't forcing anyone to speak Irish so we aren't forcing people to learn Irish either.

Grudaire wrote: »

Requiring departments to have a single member with this skill is hardly outlandish!

Even if people are happy to be dealt with over the phone 1 is hardly enough. Maybe if they were a robot who didn't need holidays or to sleep.

An Coilean

psinno wrote: »

Even if people are happy to be dealt with over the phone 1 is hardly enough. Maybe if they were a robot who didn't need holidays or to sleep.

You have a point, but as a general principle, at least one person is needed in each department to provide a service, if there is only one person, then that service might be found wanting, but at least there would be a service, which in the vast majority of cases would be a substantial improvement over current provision.

Grudaire

In general I'll assume that you figures are correct, but if you have any links please let me know!

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

But you didn't raise the issue in comparison to RTE's budget. Elaborate on this if you wish - I'm interested to hear more regarding this.

Well RTE has state support of €181m
And TG4 has state support of €32m

Now it's probably still relatively still slightly higher, but not a ridiculous amount

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Getting back to your original point - you raised the issue that your taxes were going to fund services in English, as follows:

Nothing could be further from the truth.
Here are some rough figures from 2006 showing the level of spending

Indeed.
But not all services are availed of, or more relevantly, funded proportionately.

I would argue that only taking 'daily' speakers is totally unfair, and that at the very least weekly speakers should be included as well.

It's interesting that so much of the budget is spent on education. If anything this shows how inefficiently the money is spent.

Grudaire

psinno wrote: »

Remember kids,we aren't forcing anyone to speak Irish so we aren't forcing people to learn Irish either.

Don't let bias cloud your argument...

We 'force' kids to go to school.
We 'force' public sector employees to use computers.
We 'force' council workers to shovel **** when the drains get blocked
We 'force' ESB workers to work in the cold and rain when the power goes out.

ffs it's a job

Carlos Orange

Grudaire wrote: »

Don't let bias cloud your argument...

We 'force' kids to go to school.
We 'force' public sector employees to use computers.
We 'force' council workers to shovel **** when the drains get blocked
We 'force' ESB workers to work in the cold and rain when the power goes out.

ffs it's a job

Then how about we just admit that people are being forced to speak Irish.

Carlos Orange

Grudaire wrote: »

Well RTE has state support of €181m
And TG4 has state support of €32m

Now it's probably still relatively still slightly higher, but not a ridiculous amount

Having 6 times the support for 50 - 100 times the people isn't slight.

Grudaire

psinno wrote: »

Having 6 times the support for 50 - 100 times the people isn't slight.

Making up numbers to sit your arguments..

Classic internet :pac:

Dannyboy83

Grudaire wrote: »

In general I'll assume that you figures are correct, but if you have any links please let me know!

The figures are given were out of date to be fair:
The bulk of the resources are still used with regard to compulsory Irish - €1 billion euro according to the 2013 figures.

The population of Irish speakers improved by 5,037 persons according to Census 2011

http://www.thejournal.ie/census-2011-1-77m-say-they-are-able-to-speak-irish-400442-Mar2012/
The number of people speaking Irish on a daily basis, who are not in school, increased by 5,037 persons since 2006 from 72,148 to 77,185, according to the data.

Well RTE has state support of €181m
And TG4 has state support of €32m

Now it's probably still relatively still slightly higher, but not a ridiculous amount

To be honest, I find the documentaries on TG4 to be the among the best of Irish programming, although I watch them with the sound muted, but I wouldn't begrudge them the funds they receive, as they are well used imo.

I would argue that only taking 'daily' speakers is totally unfair, and that at the very least weekly speakers should be included as well.

Fair comment and acknowledged, although it doesn't really alter the proportion that significantly.

It's interesting that so much of the budget is spent on education. If anything this shows how inefficiently the money is spent.

I agree with you.
I don't think most people even care about the proportion of spending.
It's just the fact that it's misallocated expenditure, squandered on forcing the language down the necks of children who grow up to despise it, instead of providing services.

I'm mostly in agreement with you.
The deprivation of our personal liberty is the both the moral and financial abomination.

Carlos Orange

Grudaire wrote: »

Making up numbers to sit your arguments..

Classic internet :pac:

Feel free to post credible numbers that put the audience ratio at 6:1.
Or not and make quips instead. Tis the internet after all.

Grudaire

Good post! :-)

Fair comment and acknowledged, although it doesn't really alter the proportion that significantly.

It would over double the number of speakers, presumably halving the spend per head..

http://www.thejournal.ie/census-2011-1-77m-say-they-are-able-to-speak-irish-400442-Mar2012/

Roughly 110k in the weekly category..

An Coilean

psinno wrote: »

Having 6 times the support for 50 - 100 times the people isn't slight.

TG4 is a single channel, and as such it should not be compared with the whole of RTÉ as it RTÉ is a multichannel organisation that also opperates in areas other than TV. To compare like with like you would need to compare it with another single channel.
For example, TG4 gets about 2.5% - 3% of the viewing audience, and gets about 32 million in public funding. RTÉ Two by comparrision has a budget of 83 million (53.5 million public money) and gets about 6% of the viweing audience.

Given such a comparrision, TG4 does not seem to be overfunded.
3% of viewing audience may seem small, but it compares quite well to competeing channels, 3E for example gets around 2%, BBC one has 4%, Sky 1 only has about 1.3% of the viewer share.

Carlos Orange

An Coilean wrote: »

TG4 is a single channel, and as such it should not be compared with the whole of RTÉ as it RTÉ is a multichannel organisation that also opperates in areas other than TV. To compare like with like you would need to compare it with another single channel.
For example, TG4 gets about 2.5% - 3% of the viewing audience, and gets about 32 million in public funding. RTÉ Two by comparrision has a budget of 83 million (53.5 million public money) and gets about 6% of the viweing audience.

Given such a comparrision, TG4 does not seem to be overfunded.
3% of viewing audience may seem small, but it compares quite well to competeing channels, 3E for example gets around 2%, BBC one has 4%, Sky 1 only has about 1.3% of the viewer share.

A comparison of viewing hours would seem more appropriate. Do you have those figures to hand.

An Coilean

psinno wrote: »

A comparison of viewing hours would seem more appropriate. Do you have those figures to hand.

Audience share is the only figures I have, though I'm not sure how divergent audience share and viewing hours are likely to be. You are really just measuring various aspects of the same thing. That audience share figures are available suggests that this is the metric the channels themselves think is relevent.

An Coilean

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

€1 billion euro according to the 2013 figures.

Do you have a source for this?

Iwasfrozen

Arguing about audience shares seems very petty. TG4 was originally set up in response to pirate Irish language programming. Remove all government funding if there is a demand for the station it will survive, if not it won't but either way we won't be arguing about it any more.

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Arguing about audience shares seems very petty. TG4 was originally set up in response to pirate Irish language programming. Remove all government funding if there is a demand for the station it will survive, if not it won't but either way we won't be arguing about it any more.

Why is it petty? If its being argued that a disproportinate amount of public money is being spent on Irish language broadcasting, then viewing figures are surely a relevant metric in assessing what is proportional, no?

Tell you what, when English language broadcasting, which clearly can stand on its own two feet, stops getting public money in this country, then we can talk about cutting Irish language broadcasting loose too. Until then, perhaps some of us could just get over the fact that for as long as the state deems that it is in the public interest to provide tax payers money for public service broadcasting in this state, Irish cannot be excluded from that remit.

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

Why is it petty? If its being argued that a disproportinate amount of public money is being spent on Irish language broadcasting, then viewing figures are surely a relevant metric in assessing what is proportional, no?

I wouldn't say so because many people who watch TG4 documentaries can't speak Irish and would enjoy the documentaries even more if they were in English. So viewing numbers are a pointless and petty argument to engage in.

An Coilean wrote: »

Tell you what, when English language broadcasting, which clearly can stand on its own two feet, stops getting public money in this country, then we can talk about cutting Irish language broadcasting loose too. Until then, perhaps some of us could just get over the fact that for as long as the state deems that it is in the public interest to provide tax payers money for public service broadcasting in this state, Irish cannot be excluded from that remit.

I would be happy with and would even support cutting all state financial support to RTE but I disagree with your proposition that the government must provide broadcasting services in both languages or none at all.

Cut all state support for Irish language broadcasting and end this silly experiment, TG4 will be forced to die or live by it's own merits but either way we won't be arguing about it any more.

Cee-Jay-Cee

He came to his senses and realised no one gives a flying fcuk about irish language bar a few people from the wilds of donegal (himself being one of those) and the arse end of Galway and Kerry.

If he had spent his time promoting the language and trying to get the dept of education to ditch the entire irish syllabus and concentrate on making irish interesting and teaching conversational irish then the language might survive but forcing children to learn irish poetry and read ridiculous ancient story books about peg fcuking Sayers is an absolute sure fire way of guaranteeing the demise of the language.

I sincerely hope his office remains vacated. He was a waste of time energy and money. He basically thrawled through all state department internal policies and picked holes in them in regards to the use of irish in that department.

He wasted taxpayers money by investigating complaints from people who can speak English perfectly well but when visiting some state organisation on business chose to speak irish and when the person they were speaking to couldn't respond in irish they complained about it rather than just speaking English in the first place.

Grudaire

CJC999 wrote: »

He came to his senses and realised no one gives a flying fcuk about irish language bar a few people from the wilds of donegal (himself being one of those) and the arse end of Galway and Kerry.

If he had spent his time promoting the language and trying to get the dept of education to ditch the entire irish syllabus and concentrate on making irish interesting and teaching conversational irish then the language might survive but forcing children to learn irish poetry and read ridiculous ancient story books about peg fcuking Sayers is an absolute sure fire way of guaranteeing the demise of the language.

...

I thought only pro Irish were bigoted zealots :rolleyes:

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Cut all state support for Irish language broadcasting and end this silly experiment, TG4 will be forced to die or live by it's own merits but either way we won't be arguing about it any more.

Silly experiment? A channel is a 'silly expriment' because it broadcasts material in Irish? Is that all you can come up with? If thats all those of us in favour have to argue against, we can relax.

What worries me is that you actually believe this tripe, if you do then I doubt its worth further discussion with you, it would be like talking to a creationist, no amount of discussion or reasoned debate is going to get through.

Of course maybe you don't, you might just be disengenious and unwilling to engage in a discussion because you don't have reasonable argument to put forward and are just in sound byte mode.
If in doubt, throw muck, make up sound bytes, misrepresent the facts and spread misinformation. Eventually some of it will stick.

Either way, you are right about one thing, its not worth talking about it any more, not with people who are only interested in soundbytes and soap boxing anyway. Slán.

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

Silly experiment? A channel is a 'silly expriment' because it broadcasts material in Irish? Is that all you can come up with? If thats all those of us in favour have to argue against, we can relax.

What worries me is that you actually believe this tripe, if you do then I doubt its worth further discussion with you, it would be like talking to a creationist, no amount of discussion or reasoned debate is going to get through.

Of course maybe you don't, you might just be disengenious and unwilling to engage in a discussion because you don't have reasonable argument to put forward and are just in sound byte mode.
If in doubt, throw muck, make up sound bytes, misrepresent the facts and spread misinformation. Eventually some of it will stick.

Either way, you are right about one thing, its not worth talking about it any more, not with people who are only interested in soundbytes and soap boxing anyway. Slán.

Let's be clear about this, you don't want to engage the expenditure debate because you believe money shouldn't come into the equation. You believe that the supposed benefits of state support of the language (which are subjective at best) are more important than non subjective concerns like expenditure.

But that's the problem that underlies your entire argument, the value of supporting Irish is subjective while the value of money is constant which means to some people the value spent on the language is well worth the cost while to others the cost exceeds the benefits. You would rather ignore this inconvenient fact and discuss only the supposed benefits of state support of the language without exploring it's true cost.

But I'm not going to debate you like that, every time you make a statement I and others who argue the same position as myself have to bring what you say back down to earth, ground it so we can see it's true value and cost to the country.

Dannyboy83

Grudaire wrote: »

I thought only pro Irish were bigoted zealots

I don't think it's bigotry, it's a natural reaction to the deprivation of personal liberty. If we used an Authoritarian system to prevent people speaking Irish rather than compelling them to speak it, I'm certain we would see equally earnest reactions.
Extremist actions cause extremist reactions.

I have mellowed somewhat and my opinions are more centrist and less absolute than what they once were, but my opinions, much like any other Irish person, were never tempered by a reaction to the Irish language - but as a reaction to the Authoritarian system which continues to underpinmine it.

Leaving the specific subject of the Irish language aside, the salient point is that Authoritarian systems have no basis in democratic societies and people will resist them in all their forms. Always have and always will.




There are clearly extremists on both sides of the issue.
You and I, are somewhere more in the middle, but it appears to me that people are becoming polarised on the issue, especially since the financial crisis started.

In the red corner, the educatee

Huge increase in number of students not sitting Irish - one in ten children exempt from studying language

MORE than 7,000 Leaving Cert students were exempt from sitting the Irish exam this year, Foinse can reveal.

In the blue corner, the educator & vested interests

http://www.learningireland.ie/Language_activists_blast_FG39s_plan_to_make_Irish_optional.html

Conradh na Gaeilge, the Irish language movement, warned that making Irish optional could cause a dramatic decline in the number of students taking the subject.

Julian de Spainn, general secretary of Conradh na Gaeilge, said the measure could de-motivate students right through the school system.

"You could have parents telling their children in second class in primary school not to worry about the subject, because they do not have to study it at the Leaving Cert. That attitude could spread through an entire class.''

(Parents telling their kids not to worry about it- they might even start to enjoy it, God Forbid! Myself any my brother could both understand before we had even done the junior cert that this was precisely the way it ought to be taught)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I don't think it's bigotry, it's a natural reaction to the deprivation of personal liberty. If we used an Authoritarian system to prevent people speaking Irish rather than compelling them to speak it, I'm certain we would see equally earnest reactions.
Extremist actions cause extremist reactions.

What do you mean "if"? We already use authoritarian system to COMPEL peopel to speak (well, try to speak) Irish!

Regarding the quote:

Conradh na Gaeilge, the Irish language movement, warned that making Irish optional could cause a dramatic decline in the number of students taking the subject.

Julian de Spainn, general secretary of Conradh na Gaeilge, said the measure could de-motivate students right through the school system.

De-motivate... yeah... What are you trying to say here, Julian? People are more likely to take interest in Irish if forced to speak it when they are teenagers...??

It probaly will casue a decline of some sort - but could SOMEONE PLEASE tell me how the decile will be averted by keeping Irish compulsory...??

Back on topic: the idea of having everthing in Irish (and a commissioner to ensure such a thing) is doing nothign to further the language as a spoken entity. It's preachign to the converted. No new people need apply. (Whether this is the goal of the endevaour, I do not know. They're not clear on such things.)

I'm going to bed. Good night.

MadPat

An Coilean wrote: »

The public body has to comply, individuals are not forced to speak Irish.

How does a public body comply if none of its staff wish to speak Irish?

An Coilean wrote: »

What relevance has that? An Coimisinéir Teanga is an office that was set up to monitor the OLA, an act that is concerned with the language dutys of public bodies. This is quite common in bilingual countries, it is less common that the state would try to regulate the general language duties of private companies through legilsation.

It is relevant as it demonstrates that the 'right' seems to depend on who the service provider is. For example if dealing with the ESB it exists and if dealing with Airtricity it does not exist. That's quite artificial.

We are no more bilingual than the UK. Comparing us to Belgium, Canada or Switzerland, true multi-lingual countries is both pretentious and preposterous.

Why? Is there 'something quite artifical' about the obligation on the state to provide education?

Education is necessary and a general common good. Speaking Irish is not.

because they should not have to.

Why should they not have to speak English? What's so bad about speaking it? We all do, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

Grudaire

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I don't think it's bigotry, it's a natural reaction to the deprivation of personal liberty. If we used an Authoritarian system to prevent people speaking Irish rather than compelling them to speak it, I'm certain we would see equally earnest reactions.
Extremist actions cause extremist reactions.

Have you read the post I quoted?

Grudaire

MadPat wrote: »

How does a public body comply if none of its staff wish to speak Irish?

...

Why should they not have to speak English? What's so bad about speaking it? We all do, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

Pat, I know you may be 'mad', but can you not see *any* irony in these two statements!?

The OLA is bad because it 'forces' people to use English...
But it makes sense to force people to speak English!?

Dannyboy83

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What do you mean "if"? We already use authoritarian system to COMPEL peopel to speak (well, try to speak) Irish!

I said "If we used an Authoritarian system to prevent people speaking Irish rather than compelling them to speak it, I'm certain we would see equally earnest reactions. "

It was late so you probably misunderstood.

An Coilean

MadPat wrote: »

Why should they not have to speak English?

Well, its a blunt question, so I will give a blunt answer.
This is Ireland. Thats why people should not have to speak English. This is a free society, or at least it should be, and the state should not be deciding what language its citizens can and cannot speak.
The Irish state forcing Irish people who are able to and want to speak Irish, to speak English would basicly be a continuation of a colonial project of to Anglacise the country.

Chips Lovell

An Coilean wrote: »

The Irish state forcing Irish people who are able to and want to speak Irish, to speak English would basicly be a continuation of a colonial project of to Anglacise the country.

Colonial? This is the kind of sentiment that mystifies me. That we need to speak a different language in order to be considered Irish?

An Coilean

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Colonial? This is the kind of sentiment that mystifies me. That we need to speak a different language in order to be considered Irish?

Not at all, you can choose to speak whatever language you want, but forcing Irish people to speak English was a colonial project started a long time ago to anglicise this country, it is a project that the Irish state should not be trying to continue.

Dannyboy83

Grudaire wrote: »

Have you read the post I quoted?

Certainly did.

As I said, it's an extremist reaction on one side of the debate.

There are plenty of examples of extremist reactions from the other side of the debate. I don't consider that individual's posts bigoted, it's just a person who is equally passionate and equally unwilling to consider any other argument.

Who really cares?
Cathal Brughas aren't sent to negotiate treatys, are they?
They just become a spectacle along the way.

Chips Lovell

You're assuming that the motivation is always the same. Practicality rather than "colonialism" is the main consideration these days.

Indeed, it's arguable that Hiberno-English is more central to the Irish identity than the Irish language is these days.

An Coilean

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You're assuming that the motivation is always the same. Practicality rather than "colonialism" is the main consideration these days.

If that were true, then you would expect that those opposed to the provision of services in Irish would do so on the grounds of practicality and would ground their arguments in that concept, but I have yet to see anyone put forward a reasoned argument that providing services in Irish is dificult or impossible. Indeed the event which sparked off this thread was the resignation of An Coimisinéir Teanga, who resigned not because the goals for which he was working were too dificult or indeed impossible to achieve, but because even the quite straightforward and virtually cost neutral steps that he had identified that could dramatically improve the provision of services in Irish were not being implemented.

Certainly the dificulty or otherwise of the thing is not the stumbeling block, its the political will to do it, whatever the motivation for not doing it, it does in the end represent a continuation of that same colonial policy of anglicasation.

Chips Lovell

To be honest, most of the objections I've seen are on the grounds of practicality. For example, the aforementioned incident of someone refusing to speak to a Guard in English. Or the cost of translating documents/signs etc into Irish when there is virtually zero demand for them.

An Coilean

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

To be honest, most of the objections I've seen are on the grounds of practicality. For example, the aforementioned incident of someone refusing to speak to a Guard in English. Or the cost of translating documents/signs etc into Irish when there is virtually zero demand for them.

But again, it is not particularly dificult, never mind impossible to provide these services in Irish. Opposition to it is not motivated by an inability to provide these services, its not about impracticallity because in many cases, it would be quite a simple and straightforward matter to provide them.
In any event, it is still in effect a continuation of a colonial project to anglacise this country, and the Irish state should not be engaging in it.

View

An Coilean wrote: »

This is Ireland. Thats why people should not have to speak English. This is a free society, or at least it should be, and the state should not be deciding what language its citizens can and cannot speak.
The Irish state forcing Irish people who are able to and want to speak Irish, to speak English would basicly be a continuation of a colonial project of to Anglacise the country.

So, out of curiousity, what are your views on Ulster-Scots, recognised as one of our languages in the Belfast agreement which is explicitly referenced in our constitution?

Should the law mandate that people in, let's say, Kerry be able to conduct their business with the State in Ulster-Scots?

Should the State spend 1-2billion a year on teaching all and sundry Ulster-Scots and providing public broadcasting in it?

Should all our road signs be tri-lingual?

Chips Lovell

It's not particularly difficult to have every Guard on the beat being able to speak Irish? Do you not think it's quite wasteful to have documents translated into Irish when there is no demand for them? Or impractical that road signs in Gaelic areas are all in Irish?

I know "colonial" is a loaded word, which makes it quite appealing to use, but the reality is that most Irish people are English-speaking. Unless you view someone who speaks English as automatically English, the colonial, "anglicisation" argument doesn't hold much water.

Dannyboy83

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I know "colonial" is a loaded word, which makes it quite appealing to use, but the reality is that most Irish people are English-speaking. Unless you view someone who speaks English automatically English, the colonial, "Anglicisation" argument doesn't hold much water.

It interesting the way the extremists consider it 'Anglicisation' - evidence of the slave mentality imho, but the rest of the world more accurately calls it 'Americanisation'.

Ask anyone in Europe or Asia what Anglicisation is and they won't have a clue.
Ask them what Americanisation is, and there is a very high probability they will understand.