Irish Language Commissioner resigns

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-01-2014 5:07pm

Grudaire wrote: »

Plenty of public servants have Irish. But there is a lack of systems to make services available in Irish.

Why make an argument based on 'reasonable statements' when facts are available?

Then what's the problem?

If you're conducting business with the State and wish to do so in Irish, and the employee you're dealing with speaks Irish, then the busines can be conducted in Irish, can't it?

An Coilean wrote: »

That is true, but there is no doubt but that the state is falling far short of what could be done to practically to increase service provision in Irish.

I'd agree with you here: but where they really need to put the funding and energy is into promotion and education.

NOT nit-picking about a service that is only available in one langauge and demanding that the energy and funding be spent there. Now that IS impractical if you want to encourage more speakers.

(Assuming you want to encourage more speakers, of course: you may not - in which case disregard the last sentence).

MadPat · 01-01-2014 6:11pm

An Coilean wrote: »

You need actual figures to 'do the math'. Given that your arguments thus far have been bereft of actual facts and figures, it seems quite unlikely that you have gotten around to doing the math yourself.

It's really a simple equation with one input: we live in an English-speaking country.

An Coilean wrote: »

The reality is that the state could make far better use of the resources it has to provide services in Irish.

This assumes that you can find sufficient volunteers to provide Irish language service in all interactions with the state or its companies. It also assumes that we do 't privitise more utilities who then would no longer be obliged to provide service in Irish when it is demanded.

The reason why the commissioner resigned is that he saw this was not possible

An Coilean · 01-01-2014 8:53pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Then what's the problem?

If you're conducting business with the State and wish to do so in Irish, and the employee you're dealing with speaks Irish, then the busines can be conducted in Irish, can't it?

The problem is that the state has no effective system in place to actually make effective use of the resources it has available to provide services in Irish. With the staff and resources it already has the state could provide a much better service in Irish than is being provided. Not a perfect service, but certainly much better than presently provided.

I'd agree with you here: but where they really need to put the funding and energy is into promotion and education.

NOT nit-picking about a service that is only available in one langauge and demanding that the energy and funding be spent there. Now that IS impractical if you want to encourage more speakers.

(Assuming you want to encourage more speakers, of course: you may not - in which case disregard the last sentence).

I would fundementally disagree.
Firstly its not an question of aditional funding. There are plenty of things that could be done to increase the range and quality of services provided in Irish that would require either no aditional funding at all, or only minor funding to be put in place.

I also disagree about your claim that what is needed is more focus on Promotion/Education. No doubt the Irish Language Organisations would welcome aditional funding, but in my opinion at least there are more than enough of them and they have enough funding.
As for the education system, it was recognised long ago that the education system is not capable, and never will be capable of reviving the Irish language on its own, the faith placed in the education system and abject lack of other measures to revive the language in the period following the foundation of the state is what resulted in the failure of the revival at that time.

The problem with relying on the education system is that it is simply not possible to become fluent in Irish (or any language) in your ordaniry English medium school. There is simply nowhere near enough time spent on the language to achieve fluency. With changes to the curriculum and structure of the subject (Which would not necessarily require aditional funding) you could achieve a better general outcome, but still not fluency.

You might ask whats the point then, but there is benefit to learning language, even if fluency is not achieved. (A quick google search on the benefits of second language learning will give any number of sources for this.) The importance of the education system in the revival is not to produce fluent Irish speakers, but to give people a good foundation in the language.

There are several reason that providing services in Irish is important, at the most basic level, Irish speakers have a right to them. This is Ireland and the state has no business requireing Irish speaking Irish citizens to speak English if they dont want to, this is not the 1700's. In terms of the revival of the language, services being available in Irish is also important, what determins what languages are learnt in a society is the status of the language. Services being available in Irish increases the status of the language and makes it more likely that people will learn that language.
Seeking services in Irish is part of the policy of normalising the language in society, if Irish is to have a future then it has to be used in all aspects of everyday life.
Not to mention that it would be a nonsensical contradiction if not hypocracy for the state to be promoting the learning and use of Irish while at the same time not faclitating its use when actually dealing with the state itself.

An Coilean · 01-01-2014 8:58pm

MadPat wrote: »

The reason why the commissioner resigned is that he saw this was not possible

Thats not the reason he gave for his resignation. Are you suggesting that he was lying? If so, what are you basing your allegations on?

RandomName2 · 01-01-2014 9:33pm

An Coilean wrote: »

The problem is that the state has no effective system in place to actually make effective use of the resources it has available to provide services in Irish. With the staff and resources it already has the state could provide a much better service in Irish than is being provided. Not a perfect service, but certainly much better than presently provided.

[...]
There are several reason that providing services in Irish is important, at the most basic level, Irish speakers have a right to them. This is Ireland and the state has no business requireing Irish speaking Irish citizens to speak English if they dont want to, this is not the 1700's. In terms of the revival of the language, services being available in Irish is also important, what determins what languages are learnt in a society is the status of the language. Services being available in Irish increases the status of the language and makes it more likely that people will learn that language.

Seeking services in Irish is part of the policy of normalising the language in society, if Irish is to have a future then it has to be used in all aspects of everyday life.

But why? Why the focus on attempting to make Gaeilge a regular feature of life in Ireland through apparati of the state instead of a private pursuit? If the answer is that the language would fail without state intervention, then doesn't it beg another question?

What you are talking about is the capacity to expect to be able to conduct affairs with state bodies through the medium of Gaeilge. I don't really see where you are coming from in terms of the "plenty of things that could be done to increase the range and quality of services". The only way to achieve this would be for the majority of civil servants to be fluent in Irish, or at least for such civil servants that are fluent to be evenly dispersed throughout the country to guarantee proximity to such speakers.

The way in which the state has attempted to guarantee the preponderance of Irish speakers throughout the country has been by making it mandatory in the education system. I can see the implied criticism from you that the state fell short in failing to make it mandatory that all subjects be conducted through Irish and that this inevitably led to a lack of fluency, which has consequently had a negative effect on attempts at "revival".

Notwithstanding that the language that is attempting to be revived is a far cry from the language which was once spoken by the majority of the population on the island, I would suggest that motivation rather than means would be the reason for people adopting it. And, by motivation, I don't mean the thinly disguised carrot and stick of children's programs on TG4 being translated into Irish (at our expense) and then presented without subtitles (learn Gaeilge or you won't understand a word). Instead, I mean something along the lines of original work being produced in Irish by people who have a preference for the language, as opposed to doing so due to government subsidy.

I mean, I understand the desire for people for independence (cultural and political), or ways for Ireland to distinguish itself from other Western countries, but there are more meaning ways other than specifically through the promotion of a distinct language

An Coilean · 01-01-2014 9:54pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

What you are talking about is the capacity to expect to be able to conduct affairs with state bodies through the medium of Gaeilge. I don't really see where you are coming from in terms of the "plenty of things that could be done to increase the range and quality of services". The only way to achieve this would be for the majority of civil servants to be fluent in Irish, or at least for such civil servants that are fluent to be evenly dispersed throughout the country to guarantee proximity to such speakers.

That is not true, its an area that I have taken an interest in lately and have been in contact with various people to discuss the issue, including An Coimisinéir Teanga. There is plenty that could be done to increase service provision in Irish. You would not need a majority of civil servants to have Irish, or anything close to it to provide a reasonably comprehencive service in Irish. Even at existing levels of staff with Irish, much more could be done to make effective use of them and provide a better service in Irish.

The way in which the state has attempted to guarantee the preponderance of Irish speakers throughout the country has been by making it mandatory in the education system. I can see the implied criticism from you that the state fell short in failing to make it mandatory that all subjects be conducted through Irish and that this inevitably led to a lack of fluency, which has consequently had a negative effect on attempts at "revival".

The criticism was of the concept that you could revive the language solely through the education system, the state did indeed initially try to make it manditory to teach all subjects through Irish. It was not a failure to put enough emphasis on the education system but rather an over reliance on the education system alone that lead to the failure of the revival at the time.

Notwithstanding that the language that is attempting to be revived is a far cry from the language which was once spoken by the majority of the population on the island, I would suggest that motivation rather than means would be the reason for people adopting it. And, by motivation, I don't mean the thinly disguised carrot and stick of children's programs on TG4 being translated into Irish (at our expense) and then presented without subtitles (learn Gaeilge or you won't understand a word). Instead, I mean something along the lines of original work being produced in Irish by people who have a preference for the language, as opposed to doing so due to government subsidy.

The English languge today is a far cry from the language known as English at the time that Irish was spoken by the majority of the population on the island, living languages change over time.

RandomName2 · 01-01-2014 10:00pm

An Coilean wrote: »

That is not true, its an area that I have taken an interest in lately and have been in contact with various people to discuss the issue, including An Coimisinéir Teanga. There is plenty that could be done to increase service provision in Irish. You would not need a majority of civil servants to have Irish, or anything close to it to provide a reasonably comprehencive service in Irish. Even at existing levels of staff with Irish, much more could be done to make effective use of them and provide a better service in Irish.

I fail to see what. Static services (signs, state papers, etc.) are all already available in Irish.

An Coilean wrote: »

The English languge today is a far cry from the language known as English at the time that Irish was spoken by the majority of the population on the island, living languages change over time.

Is something that needs to be revived, alive? Regardless, I don't think that the way in which English evolves is predominantly decided by civil servants paid to determine in what ways the language should evolve.

An Coilean · 01-01-2014 10:10pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

I fail to see what. Static services (signs, state papers, etc.) are all already available in Irish.

I doubt you are looking very hard. The vast majority of the services provide by the state remain inaccesible in Irish.
Even in very basic areas like signage and basic forms, coverage remains patchy in many areas. Don't get me wrong, there has been a substantial improvement over the last ten years, but the state is still only skirting around the edges, the main problems are still not being tackled, and that is why An Coimisinéir Teanga resigned, to highlight this lack of action. Doing nothing would have implied tacit acceptance of the lack of action on the part of the state.

Is something that needs to be revived, alive? Regardless, I don't think that the way in which English evolves is predominantly decided by civil servants paid to determine in what ways the language should evolve.

Semantics, Irish is very much alive. English is a bit of an oddball language (For an official language of a developed country) in its lack of an official standard, and the lack of official structures in determining standards has left it as a bit of a mess, French and German by comparrision have quite a strong involvement by the state in developing official standards of the language. Irish is certainly not unusual in this.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-01-2014 10:59pm

An Coilean wrote: »

The problem is that the state has no effective system in place to actually make effective use of the resources it has available to provide services in Irish. With the staff and resources it already has the state could provide a much better service in Irish than is being provided. Not a perfect service, but certainly much better than presently provided.

In fairness, my point was made to Gudaire, who disagreed with MadPat's statement that the problem is that the people in positions dealig with the public can't speak Irish. If he/she is right, and they can, then it seems that the problem is being exaggerated and the services are already in place in some cases.

Beyond that, I'll take your word for the above.

I would fundementally disagree.
Firstly its not an question of aditional funding. There are plenty of things that could be done to increase the range and quality of services provided in Irish that would require either no aditional funding at all, or only minor funding to be put in place.

I also disagree about your claim that what is needed is more focus on Promotion/Education. No doubt the Irish Language Organisations would welcome aditional funding, but in my opinion at least there are more than enough of them and they have enough funding.
As for the education system, it was recognised long ago that the education system is not capable, and never will be capable of reviving the Irish language on its own, the faith placed in the education system and abject lack of other measures to revive the language in the period following the foundation of the state is what resulted in the failure of the revival at that time.

When I say "education" I am not limiting this to the current education system. I'm talking about extra curricular activies for kids as well as evenign courses for adults. I also specified "promotion".

Another mistake you make is assuming "additional" funding - I never mentioned this and am talking about better use of the funding already provided.

There are several reason that providing services in Irish is important, at the most basic level, Irish speakers have a right to them. This is Ireland and the state has no business requireing Irish speaking Irish citizens to speak English if they dont want to, this is not the 1700's. In terms of the revival of the language, services being available in Irish is also important, what determins what languages are learnt in a society is the status of the language. Services being available in Irish increases the status of the language and makes it more likely that people will learn that language.
Seeking services in Irish is part of the policy of normalising the language in society, if Irish is to have a future then it has to be used in all aspects of everyday life.
Not to mention that it would be a nonsensical contradiction if not hypocracy for the state to be promoting the learning and use of Irish while at the same time not faclitating its use when actually dealing with the state itself.

None of this deals with the arguments I've made, except possibly on a funding level. If you think it's more important to provide Irish for people already speaking it and not on promotion it and bringing in new speakers of all ages, then so be it. I respectfully disagree.

An Coilean · 01-01-2014 11:40pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In fairness, my point was made to Gudaire, who disagreed with MadPat's statement that the problem is that the people in positions dealig with the public can't speak Irish. If he/she is right, and they can, then it seems that the problem is being exaggerated and the services are already in place in some cases.

Well, for my part I would actually agree with MadPats point on lack of staff with Irish, in so far that there is a lack of staff with Irish. Indeed, An Coimisinéir Teanga has made the same point. Its a dual problem really, there are a certain amount of existing staff that have Irish, but they are not being utilised effectivly to provide services in Irish. They could be used more effectivly, and if they were a much better level of service provision in Irish could be achieved. The next problem is a lack of staff. If existing staff were utilised more effectivly, a better service would be made available than is available at present, but even through a better service in Irish would be available, there would not be enough staff to provide a comprehencive service. The numbers of staff with Irish will need to be increased to achieve a comprehencive and good quality level of service provision in Irish, but this won't require aditional funding (nor would it require the level of Irish speakers to be brought up to anything like 50%). It can be achieved over a period of time through recruitment, with aditional services being provided as staffing levels with Irish improve.

When I say "education" I am not limiting this to the current education system. I'm talking about extra curricular activies for kids as well as evenign courses for adults. I also specified "promotion".

There are already evening classes all over the place for adults, and they are fairly well attended, there are also extra curricular activities for kids in Irish available in many areas. Im not saying that these could not be improved, just that its not likely to see a significant increase in uptake.
There are ways to promote greater uptake in these kind of things, but doing it is not really a question of funding.
As for promotion, I addressed that in saying that there are enough Irish Language Organisations, and they have enough funding in my opinion, unless there is something else that you have specifically in mind?

Another mistake you make is assuming "additional" funding - I never mentioned this and am talking about better use of the funding already provided.

As I read it, your point was essentially one that funding should be diverted from providing services in Irish and redirected to education? My point is that this is not needed, there is already more than enough funding available in the education sphere with regard Irish, improvements can and hopefully will be made in the education area, but these improvements are not dependant on funding being directed into them.

None of this deals with the arguments I've made, except possibly on a funding level. If you think it's more important to provide Irish for people already speaking it and not on promotion it and bringing in new speakers of all ages, then so be it. I respectfully disagree.

I think it is vital to provide more for those who have Irish. You can't have a situation where all effort goes into getting people to learn the language and then ignore them when they manage to do it.
At any rate, the Irish language has no lack of learners, ive heard it said that the Irish language has the highest ratio of learners to speakers of any language in the world. There are new speakers of all ages being brought in all the time, and there is already plenty of stuff available to help and encourage them. But any policy aimed at reviving the language has to take retention into account.

Whats the point of learning a language if all you can do with it is learn it?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 02-01-2014 12:05am

An Coilean wrote: »

Well, for my part I would actually agree with MadPats point on lack of staff with Irish, in so far that there is a lack of staff with Irish. Indeed, An Coimisinéir Teanga has made the same point. Its a dual problem really, there are a certain amount of existing staff that have Irish, but they are not being utilised effectivly to provide services in Irish. They could be used more effectivly, and if they were a much better level of service provision in Irish could be achieved. The next problem is a lack of staff. If existing staff were utilised more effectivly, a better service would be made available than is available at present, but even through a better service in Irish would be available, there would not be enough staff to provide a comprehencive service. The numbers of staff with Irish will need to be increased to achieve a comprehencive and good quality level of service provision in Irish, but this won't require aditional funding (nor would it require the level of Irish speakers to be brought up to anything like 50%). It can be achieved over a period of time through recruitment, with aditional services being provided as staffing levels with Irish improve.

Which is fair enough, thank you for clarifying. But if the number of Irish speaking civil servants IS too low, then we go back to MadPat's point about either forcing people to speak Irish, or sacking them.

There are already evening classes all over the place for adults, and they are fairly well attended, there are also extra curricular activities for kids in Irish available in many areas. Im not saying that these could not be improved, just that its not likely to see a significant increase in uptake.
There are ways to promote greater uptake in these kind of things, but doing it is not really a question of funding.
As for promotion, I addressed that in saying that there are enough Irish Language Organisations, and they have enough funding in my opinion, unless there is something else that you have specifically in mind?

Not really, as I'm not familair with the ILO or their how they distribute the funding.

The one thing I would recommend is making sure they make the langauge more aquireable and interesting to kids and to not fall into the trap of "preaching to the choir" and only concentrating on people who don;t speak Irish. Perhaps this is beign done already, as I said, I don't know.

As I read it, your point was essentially one that funding should be diverted from providing services in Irish and redirected to education? My point is that this is not needed, there is already more than enough funding available in the education sphere with regard Irish, improvements can and hopefully will be made in the education area, but these improvements are not dependant on funding being directed into them.

Again, fair enough. But if there is "more than enough" funding and it's being used wisely, then I'm not seeing the results. I'm back in Ireland frequently, I know a lot of parents and kids and I talk to them about this. From their feedback, though, it doesn;t seem all that much has changed.

Just an outsider observtion.

I think it is vital to provide more for those who have Irish. You can't have a situation where all effort goes into getting people to learn the language and then ignore them when they manage to do it.
At any rate, the Irish language has no lack of learners, ive heard it said that the Irish language has the highest ratio of learners to speakers of any language in the world. There are new speakers of all ages being brought in all the time, and there is already plenty of stuff available to help and encourage them. But any policy aimed at reviving the language has to take retention into account.

Whats the point of learning a language if all you can do with it is learn it?

Believe me, that last question gets asked a lot. But to most of us, there isn;t much we can or want to do with it.

As I've said many times: I have no problem with providing services for Irish speakers. As long as good government employees don't get fired or forced to learn it as part of their job against their will, and as long as you accept that there will be situations where it's simply not possible to provide the service in both langauges.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 02-01-2014 12:07am

An Coilean wrote: »

Well, for my part I would actually agree with MadPats point on lack of staff with Irish, in so far that there is a lack of staff with Irish. Indeed, An Coimisinéir Teanga has made the same point. Its a dual problem really, there are a certain amount of existing staff that have Irish, but they are not being utilised effectivly to provide services in Irish. They could be used more effectivly, and if they were a much better level of service provision in Irish could be achieved. The next problem is a lack of staff. If existing staff were utilised more effectivly, a better service would be made available than is available at present, but even through a better service in Irish would be available, there would not be enough staff to provide a comprehencive service. The numbers of staff with Irish will need to be increased to achieve a comprehencive and good quality level of service provision in Irish, but this won't require aditional funding (nor would it require the level of Irish speakers to be brought up to anything like 50%). It can be achieved over a period of time through recruitment, with aditional services being provided as staffing levels with Irish improve.

Which is fair enough, thank you for clarifying. But if the number of Irish speaking civil servants IS too low, then we go back to MadPat's point about not forcing people to speak Irish, or sacking them.

There are already evening classes all over the place for adults, and they are fairly well attended, there are also extra curricular activities for kids in Irish available in many areas. Im not saying that these could not be improved, just that its not likely to see a significant increase in uptake.
There are ways to promote greater uptake in these kind of things, but doing it is not really a question of funding.
As for promotion, I addressed that in saying that there are enough Irish Language Organisations, and they have enough funding in my opinion, unless there is something else that you have specifically in mind?

Not really, as I'm not familair with the ILO or their how they distribute the funding.

The one thing I would recommend is making sure they make the langauge more aquireable and interesting to kids and to not fall into the trap of "preaching to the choir" and only concentrating on people who don;t speak Irish. Perhaps this is beign done already, as I said, I don't know.

As I read it, your point was essentially one that funding should be diverted from providing services in Irish and redirected to education? My point is that this is not needed, there is already more than enough funding available in the education sphere with regard Irish, improvements can and hopefully will be made in the education area, but these improvements are not dependant on funding being directed into them.

Again, fair enough. But if there is "more than enough" funding and it's being used wisely, then I'm not seeing the results. I'm back in Ireland frequently, I know a lot of parents and kids and I talk to them about this. From their feedback, though, it doesn;t seem all that much has changed.

Just an outsider observtion.

I think it is vital to provide more for those who have Irish. You can't have a situation where all effort goes into getting people to learn the language and then ignore them when they manage to do it.
At any rate, the Irish language has no lack of learners, ive heard it said that the Irish language has the highest ratio of learners to speakers of any language in the world. There are new speakers of all ages being brought in all the time, and there is already plenty of stuff available to help and encourage them. But any policy aimed at reviving the language has to take retention into account.

Whats the point of learning a language if all you can do with it is learn it?

Believe me, that last question gets asked a lot. But to most of us, there isn;t much we can or want to do with it.

As I've said many times: I have no problem with providing services for Irish speakers. As long as good government employees don't get fired or forced to learn it as part of their job against their will, and as long as you accept that there will be situations where it's simply not possible to provide the service in both langauges.

You don't just have the right to choose an apt lanaguge to use when engageing with a State employee, you have a responsibility to choose an apt lanaguage too.

Grudaire · 02-01-2014 12:16am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In fairness, my point was made to Gudaire, who disagreed with MadPat's statement that the problem is that the people in positions dealig with the public can't speak Irish. If he/she is right, and they can, then it seems that the problem is being exaggerated and the services are already in place in some cases.

He said: "It is reasonable to say that the absence of services in Irish is because the people who provide the services don't speak Irish."

Nothing was said about people who deal with the public.. and I was referring to the civil service as a whole rather than those who deal with the public daily.

The problem isn't front end staff without Irish it's the fact that if someone requests to use Irish that there is no system to handle the request.
I can imagine emails going in circles because noone knows who is responsible for dealing with the request if the relevant small team doesn't have an Irish speaker.

An Coilean · 02-01-2014 12:25am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Which is fair enough, thank you for clarifying. But if the number of Irish speaking civil servants IS too low, then we go back to MadPat's point about not forcing people to speak Irish, or sacking them.

The proportion of Irish speakers is too low to provide a comprehencive level of service provision, and the level of Irish speakers will need to be increased, but doing this will not require forcing any existing staff to speak Irish against their will, nor will it see anyone being sacked. There has been an embargo on recruitment for quite a while now, and this embargo will be comming to an end this year. Recruitment will be starting again soon and it is through recruitment that the level of Irish speakers can be increased.

For example if we said that there is currently about 1.5% of staff with Irish, and we needed say 8% (baseless figure, just for example) to provide a decent level of services in Irish, then this can be achived by implementing a policy whereby certain jobs are identified that that will need an Irish speaker to provide aditional services in Irish and as recruitment happens over time, Irish speakers can be brought in to take on that role. Say over all, 10% - 15% of new staff have Irish. The levels of staff that have Irish will increase and services in Irish can be made available over time. No one forced to speak Irish, no one sacked.

Not really, as I'm not familair with the ILO or their how they distribute the funding.

The one thing I would recommend is making sure they make the langauge more aquireable and interesting to kids and to not fall into the trap of "preaching to the choir" and only concentrating on people who don;t speak Irish. Perhaps this is beign done already, as I said, I don't know.

Well its actually in a process of major reform at present.

The promotion of Irish is quite varied, it could probably be done better, but additional money is not needed to do it.

Again, fair enough. But if there is "more than enough" funding and it's being used wisely, then I'm not seeing the results. I'm back in Ireland frequently, I know a lot of parents and kids and I talk to them about this. From their feedback, though, it doesn;t seem all that much has changed.

The problem is that it is not being used all that wisely, though it should be said that the money is not really the issue, but how the curriculum is organised and the subject is structured.
You will struggle to find anyone on the proIrish side that would argue that value for money is currently being acheived.

As I've said many times: I have no problem with providing services for Irish speakers. As long as good government employees don't get fired or forced to learn it as part of their job against their will, and as long as you accept that there will be situations where it's simply not possible to provide the service in both langauges.

As outlined above, it can be done, and really would best be done through recruitment, no need for anyone to be forced to speak Irish, nor for anyone to be sacked.
As for there being certain situations where a services can not be provided, with any system there will be failures of the service, but this is what oversight and monitering are for, both to prevent such failures when possible, and to learn from them to ensure they dont happen, or at least happen less frequently.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 02-01-2014 12:37am

An Coilean wrote: »

The problem is that it is not being used all that wisely, though it should be said that the money is not really the issue, but how the curriculum is organised and the subject is structured.
You will struggle to find anyone on the proIrish side that would argue that value for money is currently being acheived.

The curriculum, I thought was under the remit of the Dept of Education?

Again, though, it's thinking inside the box.

As outlined above, it can be done, and really would best be done through recruitment, no need for anyone to be forced to speak Irish, nor for anyone to be sacked.
As for there being certain situations where a services can not be provided, with any system there will be failures of the service, but this is what oversight and monitering are for, both to prevent such failures when possible, and to learn from them to ensure they dont happen, or at least happen less frequently.

There won't be failure of the system, just failure to provide it in both langauges.

But, going back to the guard situation, that's a perfect example. Okay, it wasn't a serious situation or an emergency, but the potential is there for it to happen.

An Coilean · 02-01-2014 12:41am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The curriculum, I thought was under the remit of the Dept of Education?

Well, its kind of under the control of the NCCA/Dept of Ed./Minister of Ed.
Why?

There won't be failure of the system, just failure to provide it in both langauges.

Excluding a failure of the system, why would there be a failure to provide it in both languages?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 02-01-2014 12:51am

An Coilean wrote: »

Well, its kind of under the control of the NCCA/Dept of Ed./Minister of Ed.
Why?

Sounded like you were attributing it to the ILO. Perhaps my mistake.

Excluding a failure of the system, why would there be a failure to provide it in both languages?

You mentioned a failure of the system..?

Failure to provide it a service was ugent and the only skilled people available were monoligual, or the first person on the scene had no Irish.

I'd argue that Guards and any other emergency service should have the right to over-ride any request for Irish to be spoken where all parties spoke English, but only if the guard (or whoever) instigated the contact.

If an Irish person calls the guards and requests his issue to be delt with in Irish and is happy to wait, then so be it.

MadPat · 02-01-2014 4:56am

An Coilean wrote: »

but the state is still only skirting around the edges, the main problems are still not being tackled, and that is why An Coimisinéir Teanga resigned, to highlight this lack of action. Doing nothing would have implied tacit acceptance of the lack of action on the part of the state.
.

It was the Commissioner's job to secure compliance with the OLA either by persuasion or enforcement action. He failed to make progress, not due to any incompetance on his part but due to the Impossible task of rolling back the changes that have taken place in Irish society.

The only 'problems' are those created, in their own imagination, for themselves by Irish enthusiasts who have whipped themselves up into a frenzy of victimhood and delusions of oppression by a 'colonial project'.

An Coilean · 02-01-2014 11:13am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Sounded like you were attributing it to the ILO. Perhaps my mistake.

Nope, they are not responcible for it, they can however see that it is faulty and have suggested changes to make it more fit for purpose.

You mentioned a failure of the system..?

Failure to provide it a service was ugent and the only skilled people available were monoligual, or the first person on the scene had no Irish.

Well I would see this is a failue to have an apropriate system in place. It is not dificult to cater for the language needs of members of the public in such situations.
The incident where a member of the public was arrested as a result of choosing to conduct their business through Irish is an example of a failure to have an appropriate system in place to deal with such situations. It was found that this failure to have a system in place was at fault and that the Gardaí (as an organisation, not the individuals on the ground) failed in their duty to cater for the language choice of members of the public. It should be noted that the Gardaí are developing an appropriate procedure to deal with these situations in future.

I'd argue that Guards and any other emergency service should have the right to over-ride any request for Irish to be spoken where all parties spoke English, but only if the guard (or whoever) instigated the contact.

If an Irish person calls the guards and requests his issue to be delt with in Irish and is happy to wait, then so be it.

I would reject such an argument, such a position would be an unnecessary breach of the individual concerned's language rights.
Again, the state has no business telling its citizens when they can and cannot speak Irish or English. It is an obligation on the state to facilitate the use of both.
It is possible to put a system in place to cater for the language rights of members of the public in these situations, and that is what must be done. Failing to do so is not an unavoidable fact of reality, mainly because it is avoidable. As far as I am concerned, failing to provide such services in both languages is a failure of the system that should be corrected.

An Coilean · 02-01-2014 11:25am

MadPat wrote: »

It was the Commissioner's job to secure compliance with the OLA either by persuasion or enforcement action. He failed to make progress, not due to any incompetance on his part but due to the Impossible task of rolling back the changes that have taken place in Irish society.

The only 'problems' are those created, in their own imagination, for themselves by Irish enthusiasts who have whipped themselves up into a frenzy of victimhood and delusions of oppression by a 'colonial project'.

An Coimisinéir Teanga cannot exceed the authority given to him under the act, and cannot enforce compliance with measures that are not in the act, nor can he force the Department or the minister to do their job's more effectivly.

If the minister allows public bodies to go for years without agreeing a new language scheme, there is nothing an Coimisinéir can do about it, it is not in his remit. If the minister accepts a language scheme that is full of loopholes and promises on matters that have already been achieved, not to mention backwards steps as have become a feature lately, there is nothing An Coimisinéir can do about it, he cannot over rule the minister.

If the Government when it is reviewing the act, does nothing to tackle the main problems in the functioning of that act, and goes on to bring a new revised act through the Dáil that does not bring in any measure to tackle the failures and weaknesses in the act, that is not An Coimisinéirs fault, he cannot over rule the Government, but he can point out the fudge, the farce and the falsehood that its actions represent, and he can resign instead of going along with it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 02-01-2014 2:14pm

An Coilean wrote: »

Nope, they are not responcible for it, they can however see that it is faulty and have suggested changes to make it more fit for purpose.

As has everyone else to be fair

But this is the REAL area where the govenrment is failing the langauge, in my opinion: while intererst gruops can promote it, the government really has the first line in getting kidns interested in Irish and it seems to be doing little or nothing that produces results, despite, probbaly, getting good advice.

It's a seperate issue for the Commission though, I accept.

Well I would see this is a failue to have an apropriate system in place. It is not dificult to cater for the language needs of members of the public in such situations.
The incident where a member of the public was arrested as a result of choosing to conduct their business through Irish is an example of a failure to have an appropriate system in place to deal with such situations. It was found that this failure to have a system in place was at fault and that the Gardaí (as an organisation, not the individuals on the ground) failed in their duty to cater for the language choice of members of the public. It should be noted that the Gardaí are developing an appropriate procedure to deal with these situations in future.

I would reject such an argument, such a position would be an unnecessary breach of the individual concerned's language rights.
Again, the state has no business telling its citizens when they can and cannot speak Irish or English. It is an obligation on the state to facilitate the use of both.
It is possible to put a system in place to cater for the language rights of members of the public in these situations, and that is what must be done. Failing to do so is not an unavoidable fact of reality, mainly because it is avoidable. As far as I am concerned, failing to provide such services in both languages is a failure of the system that should be corrected.

It would be a failure of the system if people died or got away with committing crimes.

The incident with said guard was not, thankfully, an emergency. You've already stated that people shouldn't be sacked from State employment for not being able to speak Irish and (I think?) you said you accept that not every rank-and-file Guard should be expected to speak fluent Irish, so what then is the correct situation that does not result in wasting of police time?

(Granted, arresting him was harsh, but detaining him until the matter was resolved was nessecary)

_Kaiser_ · 02-01-2014 2:19pm

Ultimately it's very simple really..

We live in a country of finite resources and one where the overwhelming majority have decided that the Irish language no longer has any part to play in their day-to-day life.

You can try to counter that all you want with circular arguments and anecdotes of how many people you know personally that speak Irish, but those are the facts of the matter.

As such, if you want to retain your Irish and encourage your kids to speak it then by all means feel free to do so. What you are NOT free to do however is insist that your personal choice should be financed and supported by the rest of the country who have already rejected this idea.

If you don't like that, feel free to raise the issue with your local TD, community groups and so on. If the language really is such a benefit to our society you shouldn't have too much trouble finding like-minded people or convincing others - but nonsense like this smug "superior" attitude as expressed by several "enthusiasts" on this thread, or inferring that those who reject your ideal are somehow less Irish or less educated than you are only shows your "cause" as a desperate one, unsupported by any real facts or even willingness to properly engage with those you hope to convince.

In the end though we have a lot more serious problems with our civil/public service, roads, access to information in general etc than spending more (borrowed!) money facilitating a demand that barely registers.

As Mr Spock once put it... (in a society) "the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few"

MadPat · 02-01-2014 3:28pm

An Coilean wrote: »

.If the minister allows public bodies to go for years without agreeing a new language scheme, there is nothing an Coimisinéir can do about it, it is not in his remit. If the minister accepts a language scheme that is full of loopholes and promises on matters that have already been achieved, not to mention backwards steps as have become a feature lately, there is nothing An Coimisinéir can do about it, he cannot over rule the minister.

Perhaps the minister is more in touch with public attitudes towards Irish than the Commissioner was.

As I understand it, the commissioner is quite an enthusiast.

An Coilean · 02-01-2014 3:39pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

As has everyone else to be fair

I am sure there must be some people arguing for the current system within the department of education, though I have no idea how such an argument would go, I doubt however that such arguments are framed with the best interest of the language in mind.

But this is the REAL area where the govenrment is failing the langauge, in my opinion: while intererst gruops can promote it, the government really has the first line in getting kidns interested in Irish and it seems to be doing little or nothing that produces results, despite, probbaly, getting good advice.

It's a seperate issue for the Commission though, I accept.

An Coimisinéir Teanga has no role in the shaping of the education system, he has in the past suggested that the current system of education is not achieveing much and with regard Irish is not showing anykind of value for money, but bar making comments on it, the education system is outside of his remit.

It would be a failure of the system if people died or got away with committing crimes.

I think you are setting the bar a little low, it was found that by failing to put in place an appropriate system to deal with members of the public in Irish at the road side, the Gardaí as an organisation had failed in its commitment to facilitate the use of Irish. They are now developing an appropriate system.

The incident with said guard was not, thankfully, an emergency. You've already stated that people shouldn't be sacked from State employment for not being able to speak Irish and (I think?) you said you accept that not every rank-and-file Guard should be expected to speak fluent Irish, so what then is the correct situation that does not result in wasting of police time?

(Granted, arresting him was harsh, but detaining him until the matter was resolved was nessecary)

I would agree that they would need to be detained until the incident was resolved, this is true regardless of if the member of the public choose to speak English or Irish, but it was found in the investigation that the failure to have a system in place to deal with a member of the public at the roadside in Irish resulted in the individuals detention being far beyond what would be conisdered reasonable when compared with what the nature of their detention would have been had the choosen to speak English. This was considered to constitute a failure by the Gardaí as an organisation to fulfill their obligation to facilitate the use of both languages.

No people should not be sacked, and no it is not necessary to have all Gardaí fluent in Irish. As I said, the Gardaí are developing a system to allow them do deal with this kind of thing.
That system involves the issuing of flashcards, the identification of Fluent Irish speaking Gardaí in each Garda Devision, and an increase of the number of fluent Irish speaking Gardaí through their current recruitment program.
The first step, flashcards with basic phrases to all Gardaí, such as what is your name etc, allow the first garda on the scene to deal with the first steps of the process such as getting personal details. This may sound trivial, but the incident in question resulted because the Garda could not even ask What is your name? in Irish, and the individual was arrested for not giving their name.
The second step is for situations where something more than the information available on the flashcards is needed and the Garda on the scene does not have sufficient Irish. In such a situation the Garda at the scene can contact one of the identified fluent Gardaí in his devision, communication with this fleunt Garda over the phone would be sufficient in most circumstances (Such a system is used regularly for forighn languages in the UK), in situations where it is not sufficient, the fluent Irish speaking Garda can be requested to attend at the scene.
Those two steps taken together would virtually eliminate the problem of not being able to provide a service at the roadside in Irish.
The last step is to ensure a greater availability of Gardaí with fluent Irish accross the force so that step two can be implemented more effectivly, it is also to ensure that there are sufficient Gardaí to staff Gaeltacht areas with 100% fluent Irish speaking Gardaí.

Grudaire · 02-01-2014 3:40pm

Welcome back Kaiser.

MadPat wrote: »

Perhaps the minister is more in touch with public attitudes towards Irish than the Commissioner was.

As I understand it, the commissioner is quite an enthusiast.

Then the minister, as a TD, should change the legislation.

MadPat · 02-01-2014 3:48pm

Grudaire wrote: »

Then the minister, as a TD, should change the legislation.

He'll only do that if he knows he has public support for tougher measures enforcing Irish language compliance.

An Coilean · 02-01-2014 4:14pm

MadPat wrote: »

He'll only do that if he knows he has public support for tougher measures enforcing Irish language compliance.

Watch this space, there should be plenty of public support shown during the year for it.

MadPat · 02-01-2014 4:23pm

An Coilean wrote: »

Watch this space, there should be plenty of public support shown during the year for it.

Sounds like the masses are going to rise up, or just the usual relative handful of vociferous enthusiasts who don't care how much it costs or who suffers.

An Coilean · 02-01-2014 4:26pm

MadPat wrote: »

Sounds like the masses are going to rise up, or just the usual relative handful of vociferous enthusiasts who don't care how much it costs or who suffers.

How much does it cost, and who does suffer as a resut of services in Irish being provided? Facts and figures please, none of your vague nonsence.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 02-01-2014 4:29pm

An Coilean wrote: »

I am sure there must be some people arguing for the current system within the department of education, though I have no idea how such an argument would go, I doubt however that such arguments are framed with the best interest of the language in mind.

I would love to sit on some of thoese discussions!

I think you are setting the bar a little low, it was found that by failing to put in place an appropriate system to deal with members of the public in Irish at the road side, the Gardaí as an organisation had failed in its commitment to facilitate the use of Irish. They are now developing an appropriate system.

Doesn't really deal with the part of my post you quoted.

I would agree that they would need to be detained until the incident was resolved, this is true regardless of if the member of the public choose to speak English or Irish, but it was found in the investigation that the failure to have a system in place to deal with a member of the public at the roadside in Irish resulted in the individuals detention being far beyond what would be conisdered reasonable when compared with what the nature of their detention would have been had the choosen to speak English. This was considered to constitute a failure by the Gardaí as an organisation to fulfill their obligation to facilitate the use of both languages.

As I said, if the guy in question needed assistance and was willign to wait to be delt with in Irish, fine. He can speak English if not. The improtant thing is that he gets assisstance.

If the Guard needs assisstance, then said assisstance should be given. I believe, as citizens, we have a responsibilty to cooperate. This is not a case of the Gaelgior doing business with the State, this is the State having business with the citizen.

Point already made: the party that instigates the communication gets to choose the language or, if there is no common langauge, choose to wait on a translator.

No people should not be sacked, and no it is not necessary to have all Gardaí fluent in Irish. As I said, the Gardaí are developing a system to allow them do deal with this kind of thing.
That system involves the issuing of flashcards, the identification of Fluent Irish speaking Gardaí in each Garda Devision, and an increase of the number of fluent Irish speaking Gardaí through their current recruitment program.
The first step, flashcards with basic phrases to all Gardaí, such as what is your name etc, allow the first garda on the scene to deal with the first steps of the process such as getting personal details. This may sound trivial, but the incident in question resulted because the Garda could not even ask What is your name? in Irish, and the individual was arrested for not giving their name.
The second step is for situations where something more than the information available on the flashcards is needed and the Garda on the scene does not have sufficient Irish. In such a situation the Garda at the scene can contact one of the identified fluent Gardaí in his devision, communication with this fleunt Garda over the phone would be sufficient in most circumstances (Such a system is used regularly for forighn languages in the UK), in situations where it is not sufficient, the fluent Irish speaking Garda can be requested to attend at the scene.
Those two steps taken together would virtually eliminate the problem of not being able to provide a service at the roadside in Irish.
The last step is to ensure a greater availability of Gardaí with fluent Irish accross the force so that step two can be implemented more effectivly, it is also to ensure that there are sufficient Gardaí to staff Gaeltacht areas with 100% fluent Irish speaking Gardaí.

No matter what system you take, there wil lbe situations or emergencys where communication needs to be fast. And in English it all parties speak it.

If the first guard on the scene of an accident only speaks English, then English it's goign to be. No dicking about.

An Coilean · 02-01-2014 5:08pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I would love to sit on some of thoese discussions!

Would be interesting just to hear what the argument in favour of the status quo is.

Doesn't really deal with the part of my post you quoted.

You suggested that it is not a failure of the system unless someone dies or gets away with a crime, I diasgree, such a standard is way too low. (Think about it, under that defination Gardaí could be beating the crap out of people left right and center without that kind of behaviour being a failure of the system). I consider breaching peoples language rights to be a failure of the system, and that is what was found in the investigation.

If the Guard needs assisstance, then said assisstance should be given. I believe, as citizens, we have a responsibilty to cooperate. This is not a case of the Gaelgior doing business with the State, this is the State having business with the citizen.

I agree that people should be respectful of the Gardaí and co-operate with them, but not at the expence of their rights, they should not be required to accept a situation where the state is failing to live up to its responcibilities, simply for the sake of what is felt to be convienent to the system.

A good quote in reletion to this concept is from supreme court Justice Hardiman:
''The modern State necessarily imposes many onerous duties on citizens in relation to various aspects of life from tax compliance to planning law. Many of these duties are irksome, time consuming and expensive to comply with, but compliance is properly required.
Equally the State itself must comply with its obligations, particularly those enshrined in the Constitution and can no more be heard to complain that such compliance is irksome or onerous than can the individual citizen. In particular, the State cannot be heard to complain that its non-compliance over a period of decades have now rendered present compliance even more difficult".

Point already made: the party that instigates the communication gets to choose the language or, if there is no common langauge, choose to wait on a translator.

I disagree, the state should not be deciding what language members of the public get to speak, the state has an obligation to facilitate the use of either language.

No matter what system you take, there wil lbe situations or emergencys where communication needs to be fast. And in English it all parties speak it.

If the first guard on the scene of an accident only speaks English, then English it's goign to be. No dicking about.

I would not be so sure, certainly the posibility is no excuse to not put in place a system to try to cater for the use of both languages. Bilingual countries where not all citizens speak both(or all in the case of multilingual countries) languages manage to police themselves, it requires the implementation of policies to facilate the use of more than one language, and monetering of these systems so that if a failure does occure that it is learned from and the system is changed to try and prevent or make less frequent reoccourances of the same problem.

Dannyboy83 · 02-01-2014 5:34pm

MadPat wrote: »

Sounds like the masses are going to rise up, or just the usual relative handful of vociferous enthusiasts who don't care how much it costs or who suffers.

According to the IPSOS MRBI 50th Anniversary Poll, Most people are positively disposed towards Irish, there is definitely support for it -

“Would you personally like to see the Irish language used more widely in everyday life?

Yes: 58%

No: 31%

No Opinion: 11%

but only to a point.

Would you like to see it revived as the main language?

Yes: 27%

No: 61%

No Opinion: 12%”

The question then becomes a matter of opportunity cost.
Given that the Education bill for Irish is estimated at over €1 billion

The state can

fund good Irish language services by making Irish optional
Or retain compulsory Irish and take the political heat for "failing to react".

Given that Fine Gael are the party with the highest proportion of Irish speakers:

When the results on ability to speak the language are broken down by political party supporters, they show interesting differences. The proportion who can speak some Irish is lowest among Sinn Féin voters (75 per cent) and highest among Fine Gael voters (86 per cent). - See more at: http://www.gaelport.com/default.aspx?treeid=37&NewsItemID=8973#sthash.Yh0QLMd1.dpuf

And the government are under particular pressure to reform the education system

Instead, PayPal has been forced to 'import' employees from abroad -- 500, or half of those required -- at a far higher cost.

Global operations vice-president Louise Phelan warned that we need to focus on language skills here to protect our status as a European gateway.

She said Ireland suffered from a "deficiency" in workers with second languages.

And that current trends cannot be ignored

I believe that Optional Irish is going to reconsidered in line with the ongoing reforms in the education system.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 02-01-2014 5:45pm

An Coilean wrote: »

You suggested that it is not a failure of the system unless someone dies or gets away with a crime, I diasgree, such a standard is way too low. (Think about it, under that defination Gardaí could be beating the crap out of people left right and center without that kind of behaviour being a failure of the system). I consider breaching peoples language rights to be a failure of the system, and that is what was found in the investigation.

I'm talking soley in context of the topic, therefore yoru arguments are not relevant to my specirfic points.

I agree that people should be respectful of the Gardaí and co-operate with them, but not at the expence of their rights, they should not be required to accept a situation where the state is failing to live up to its responcibilities, simply for the sake of what is felt to be convienent to the system.

A good quote in reletion to this concept is from supreme court Justice Hardiman:
''The modern State necessarily imposes many onerous duties on citizens in relation to various aspects of life from tax compliance to planning law. Many of these duties are irksome, time consuming and expensive to comply with, but compliance is properly required.
Equally the State itself must comply with its obligations, particularly those enshrined in the Constitution and can no more be heard to complain that such compliance is irksome or onerous than can the individual citizen. In particular, the State cannot be heard to complain that its non-compliance over a period of decades have now rendered present compliance even more difficult".

I've highlighted the important but, which actually backfires on your argument. If you witness something and a Guard needs your help I would most certinaly file that under "compliance properly required." I'd even file routine traffic stops as "required."

I disagree, the state should not be deciding what language members of the public get to speak, the state has an obligation to facilitate the use of either language.

Again, Hardman made allowance for "compliance properly required."

The police can operate within constitutional boudaries while deciding the langauge if they suspect you may be breaking the law. It's called "failure to comply with an order of the Gardai."

Bearing in mind, they are not dictating the langauge. You are. And probably looking more suspicious by doing so.

I would not be so sure, certainly the posibility is no excuse to not put in place a system to try to cater for the use of both languages. Bilingual countries where not all citizens speak both(or all in the case of multilingual countries) languages manage to police themselves, it requires the implementation of policies to facilate the use of more than one language, and monetering of these systems so that if a failure does occure that it is learned from and the system is changed to try and prevent or make less frequent reoccourances of the same problem.

Not having a common langauge is one thing. Having a common langauge and one party declining to use it is a different scenario altogether.

What system would you put in place for the scenaio I've outlined, if not ensuring every cop spoke Irish? Bearing in mind it needs to at least be as fast as speaking English on the spot.

MadPat · 02-01-2014 5:57pm

An Coilean wrote: »

How much does it cost, and who does suffer as a resut of services in Irish being provided? Facts and figures please, none of your vague nonsence.

It's up to the Irish lobby to justify the cost of pandering to their nonsensical hobby. English speakers will suffer as resources are diverted. They are afflicted now because their language rights are considered inferior to those of Irish-speakers. But, no doubt, you've no sympathy for agents of a 'post-colonial project.

Grudaire · 02-01-2014 6:01pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The question then becomes a matter of opportunity cost.
Given that the Education bill for Irish is estimated at over €1 billion

Given that the total current spend of the department of education is ~€8.7bn I fail to see how the €1bn figure makes sense.
(In other words I can't see how €1bn would be saved by making Irish optional, and how Irish is over 12% of the budget given that University education and FÁS etc come under the education umbrella)

Note that I'm not particularly in favour of compulsary Irish education for the leaving cert, but I'd also like to see English become optional as well (to be truely fair)

MadPat · 02-01-2014 6:03pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

According to the IPSOS MRBI 50th Anniversary Poll, Most people are positively disposed towards Irish, there is definitely support for it -

'Most people' are positively disposed towards Mom and Apple Pie.

The true measure of support for the Irish language is how many people use it as their main language.

MadPat · 02-01-2014 6:05pm

Grudaire wrote: »

I'd also like to see English become optional as well (to be truely fair)

That would be a great mistake. Unlike Irish, English is at the core of our national identity and has been a great asset in our participation in the world.

An Coilean · 02-01-2014 6:15pm

MadPat wrote: »

It's up to the Irish lobby to justify the cost of pandering to their nonsensical hobby. English speakers will suffer as resources are diverted. They are afflicted now because their language rights are considered inferior to those of Irish-speakers. But, no doubt, you've no sympathy for agents of a 'post-colonial project.

You stated that there are costs, and that we in the pro Irish movement don't care about them. I am asking you what the cost is, what are you asking me to justify, exactly?
You say that we need to justify the cost, I accept that there is a cost, but you are using a vague cost argument as a stick to beat the Irish language movement with, and I want you to tell me what those costs are that you want me to justify. Put it this way, as far as I am concerned, the Irish lobby has justified the costs, so what are the costs specifically that you don't believe have been justified?

Again, you are saying that people suffer, and that we in the pro Irish movement dont care about this suffering.
Now you can't just leave it there, asserting that people are suffering is not enough, at least not if you want to be taken seriously, you are going to have to back up the assertion, who are these people and how do they suffer?

Grudaire · 02-01-2014 6:23pm

MadPat wrote: »

That would be a great mistake. Unlike Irish, English is at the core of our national identity and has been a great asset in our participation in the world.

Either:

You have a well tuned sense of sarcasm and irony
You are oblivious to irony
You are trolling the rest of us here

If it's the first one I'm impressed!

An Coilean · 02-01-2014 6:23pm

Grudaire wrote: »

Given that the total current spend of the department of education is ~€8.7bn I fail to see how the €1bn figure makes sense.
(In other words I can't see how €1bn would be saved by making Irish optional, and how Irish is over 12% of the budget given that University education and FÁS etc come under the education umbrella)

Note that I'm not particularly in favour of compulsary Irish education for the leaving cert, but I'd also like to see English become optional as well (to be truely fair)

It is estimated that 1bn is spent on Irish?
Could I not say that I estimate 1 million is spent on it?
Neither figure is given with any support, as such I would consider both estimates as an irrelevant number.
Lets see a figure that actually has something to back it up.

MadPat · 02-01-2014 6:32pm

An Coilean wrote: »

You stated that there are costs, and that we in the pro Irish movement don't care about them. I am asking you what the cost is, what are you asking me to justify, exactly?

The cost of providing services in the Irish language.

An Coilean wrote: »

Again, you are saying that people suffer, and that we in the pro Irish movement don't care about this suffering.

That's not surprising, given the lobby's stance on compulsory Irish.

One example is money being spent on providing services in Irish that could be put to better use, for example lowering waiting times in A&E instead of providing Irish language facilities.

Irish is not our common language, it should have a lesser status than English when it comes to essential services.

Dannyboy83 · 02-01-2014 6:38pm

MadPat wrote: »

'Most people' are positively disposed towards Mom and Apple Pie.

The true measure of support for the Irish language is how many people use it as their main language.

That might be over-simplifying it a bit, but I get your point.

I speak Polish reasonably well, I'm positively disposed towards it, it is the largest minority language in Ireland by far.
I would support services in Polish, if we could afford it, however - it will never displace Hiberno-English for obvious reasons.

But then again, I don't feel entitled to the taxpayer bankrolling my desires or demand state sponsored boondoggles. The language is sustained here organically. If I want luxuries, I pay for them.
So Yes, I do see your point.

An Coilean · 02-01-2014 6:42pm

MadPat wrote: »

The cost of providing services in the Irish language.

Yes, I got that, so what are these costs. As I said, I am happy that the costs that do exist are justified, so what are the specific costs that you feel are not justified.
You are saying that I dont care about the costs, and that they need to be justified, now obviously given that you have come to the conclusion that the have not been justified, you must at least know what they are. So tell me, what are they? How much are they? You want a justification for these costs, so tell me what these costs are. How much are they?

One example is money being spent on providing services in Irish that could be put to better use, for example lowering waiting times in A&E instead of providing Irish language facilities.

What money? What services? Lets see the specifics of your argument, should Gaelscoils be shut down and those kids just go uneducated to reduce waiting times in A&E?

MadPat · 02-01-2014 6:43pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I speak Polish reasonably well, I'm positively disposed towards it, it is the largest minority language in Ireland by far.

Indeed, it's more widely spoken in Ireland than Irish and the Polish community uses English so they can communicate with the state. They don't complain of any discrimination, for example with road-signage, even though we live in a democracy and they vastly out-number native Irish-speakers.

MadPat · 02-01-2014 6:48pm

An Coilean wrote: »

Yes, I got that, so what are these costs. As I said, I am happy that the costs that do exist are justified, so what are the specific costs that you feel are not justified.

We need to know what the costs will be before we can say if they are justified.

An Coilean · 02-01-2014 6:52pm

MadPat wrote: »

We need to know what the costs will be before we can say if they are justified.

Absoutly, so what are they?
I assume you know, you hardly went on a rant critising us for not caring about the costs when you don't even know what they are yourself.

And lets not forget about the suffering issue, you say that we are inflicting suffering and that we dont care, so lets hear the details of this acusation, what suffering are we Inflicting? What suffering, who is suffering?

MadPat · 02-01-2014 7:22pm

An Coilean wrote: »

Absoutly, so what are they?
I assume you know, you hardly went on a rant critising us for not caring about the costs when you don't even know what they are yourself.

If you don't know what the costs are, then you are irresponsible in advocating these changes.

An Coilean wrote: »

And lets not forget about the suffering issue, you say that we are inflicting suffering and that we dont care, so lets hear the details of this acusation, what suffering are we Inflicting? What suffering, who is suffering?

Irish itself is suffering from your policy of coercion.

An Coilean · 02-01-2014 7:27pm

MadPat wrote: »

If you don't know what the costs are, then you are irresponsible in advocating these changes.

The changes I have been advocating in this thread would be largely costless or would only need a minimal investment at the start to implement, if anything changes in the system to reorganise it to the end of better Irish language service peovision can be used as an oppertunity to change the system its self in some areas to make it more efficient.

Irish itself is suffering from your policy of coercion.

Obviously I disagree, and essentially you are acusing me of not caring about something I dont believe exists.
For the record I also don't care about the teapot floating around in saturn's rings for the same reason.

MadPat · 02-01-2014 7:47pm

An Coilean wrote: »

The changes I have been advocating in this thread would be largely costless or would only need a minimal investment at the start to implement, if anything changes in the system to reorganise it to the end of better Irish language service peovision can be used as an oppertunity to change the system its self in some areas to make it more efficient.

So you've done a costing? Now, we making progress. Please share it.

An Coilean wrote: »

Obviously I disagree, and essentially you are acusing me of not caring about something I dont believe exists.

Clearly you're in denial about the decline in use of the Irish language or the the responsibility the Irish language lobby has for this, due to their bigoted policies.

An Coilean · 02-01-2014 8:18pm

MadPat wrote: »

So you've done a costing? Now, we making progress. Please share it.

Ok, the main part of what I am talking is about identifing existing Irish speakers and making better use of them to provide services in Irish.
This is a matter or reorganising work practices, not an issue of aditional resources being required. Its about making more effective use of existing staff with Irish to provide services in Irish
Folowing on from this, where it is identified that aditional staff with Irish will be needed to provide a more comprehencive service in Irish, the level of staff with Irish can be increased over time through recruitment by identifying the areas where people with Irish are needed to provide a service in Irish and making this skill a requirement for filling those positions. For example, take an office with a team of 20 staff wh are providing service x. None of the team happen to have Irish, obviously a service x cannot be provided in Irish by a team that does not posess the necessary skill. This can be tackled by setting a requirement that say 2 of the 20 will need to have Irish, with this being implemented when new people are brought into the team as a result of a member of that team moveing off to a different area or retireing. Over a period of 10 years say 8 new people are brought in to replace people who move off to a different area or retire, of those 8, some are moved in from other parts of the organisation, and some are brought in through recruitment, as this is happening it can be managed that 2 of the new members of the team have Irish. Its a medium to long term process, but it allows service provision in Irish to be increased without increasing costs, or having an adverse effect on the organisation.

in two ways, you could move a the staff around within the organisation so that a member of staff in that office will have Irish, or you could set a requirement that when the time comes decide that when recruitment takes place to
I am not suggesting recruiting and aditional staff just to take on providing services in Irish, but rather that when new staff are being recruited anyway, Irish be a requirement for a portion of the positions, with those staff then used to increase the provision of services in Irish.
These two steps taken together can substantialy increase the range of services provided through Irish while only haveing a minimal associated cost, and over time allowing for savings to be made through more efficient practices. For example in the area of translating documents, when the staff are available, this can be done 'in house' which is substantially more cost effective than paying an outside company to do the translation which is what is commonly done currently in areas where the staff are not available to do it in house.

Clearly you're in denial about the decline in use of the Irish language or the the responsibility the Irish language lobby has for this, due to their bigoted policies.

So, lets take the period of the last 30 years, can you show that the Irish language has declined over that period, and that the Irish Language Lobby as you call it is responcible? If not, then you can hardily call my lack of beliefe in it to be a delusion with any credibility.

So, has Irish declined since the earily 1980's?

Irish Language Commissioner resigns

Comments