Irish Language Commissioner resigns

Dannyboy83

An Coilean wrote: »

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.

Is that apathy or are you adopting an extreme position & refusing to acknowledge the other side of the debate?


Here is an interesting report:
http://www.mayococo.ie/en/Services/OifignaGaeilge/Publications/PDFFile,15645,en.pdf

If you take the time to review the graphs provided, you will see that the general view of the language became much more favourable after leaving school.

change is needed, firstly in the attitude of the Department of Education and Science, and then in all aspects of the teaching of Irish in English-medium schools

"The history of the change in the State's policy towards teaching Irish has been far from even or adequate to meet the needs, or even satisfy the expectations of the Irish people over the past 40 years"

it was the support of voluntary organisations that "forced" on the Department of Education the parallel system of Irish-medium schools.

Of particular note, on Page IX, last paragraph

11,871 pupils were exempted from learning Irish to the level of Leaving certificate on the basis of certificates of a learning disability.
...
...
Nevertheless, over half of the exempted, numbering 6,341, were immediately able to overcome their inability to the extent that they were then able to go on and study one or more continental languages in addition to their English first language!

Apparently a new but not at all rare form of mental handicap has been discovered by the professional consultants - a language learning inability which applies only to one language - Irish!

Dannyboy83

An Coilean wrote: »

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

By what metric?

SEE PAGE 59
Table No. 4.2:
Occasional and more frequent use of the language, has declined by 5%, from 28% in 1988 to 23% in 2008.
http://www.mayococo.ie/en/Services/OifignaGaeilge/Publications/PDFFile,15645,en.pdf



The language's position in Irish society has declined by one at least one place according to Census 2011

Irish is third most used language in the country

Nearly 82,600 people speak Irish every day outside of school according to the first definitive results of the 2011 Census, making it the third most used language in the country.

An Coilean

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Is that apathy or are you adopting an extreme position & refusing to acknowledge the other side of the debate?

Neither.
Its not that I am refusing to acknolowdge the suggestion that the Irish Language movement has damaged the Irish Language, its just that I simply don't agree with it.

Here is an interesting report:
http://www.mayococo.ie/en/Services/OifignaGaeilge/Publications/PDFFile,15645,en.pdf

If you take the time to review the graphs provided, you will see that the general view of the language became much more favourable after leaving school.

And?

Of particular note, on Page IX, last paragraph

Again, whats your point?

Dannyboy83

An Coilean wrote: »

Neither.
Its not that I am refusing to acknolowdge the suggestion that the Irish Language movement has damaged the Irish Language, its just that I simply don't agree with it.

Well then you are directly contradicting yourself, because that is exactly what you stated.

You literally denied the existence of the policy of coercion

An Coilean wrote: »

MadPat wrote:

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.

You said 'Essentially I am not able to care because I don't believe a policy of coercion exists'

What did you intend to say?
You disagree the policy of coercion is damaging?

or you do not believe the phenomenon exists? (I presume you still refuse to acknowledge of existence of teapot orbiting Saturn, lol )

An Coilean

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

By what metric?

SEE PAGE 59
Table No. 4.2:
Occasional and more frequent use of the language, has declined by 5%, from 28% in 1988 to 23% in 2008.
http://www.mayococo.ie/en/Services/OifignaGaeilge/Publications/PDFFile,15645,en.pdf


The language's position in Irish society has declined by one at least one place according to Census 2011

From 28% of what to 23% of what? A decline in % does not mean a decline in overall numbers.
The population of the country increased from 3,443,405 in 1981 to 4,588,252 in 2011.
28% of 3,443,405 is 964,153
23% of 4,588,252 is 1,055,298

A decline of 5% but an increase of 90,000. Lies, dammed lies and statistics?

An Coilean

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

What did you intend to say?
You disagree the policy of coercion is damaging?

That would be it, I dont believe the Irish language movement in general, or the compulsory status of Irish in schools is damaging to the language.
(and I would still be quite sceptical of the teapot )

Dannyboy83

An Coilean wrote: »

From 28% of what to 23% of what? A decline in % does not mean a decline in overall numbers.
The population of the country increased from 3,443,405 in 1981 to 4,588,252 in 2011.
28% of 3,443,405 is 964,153
23% of 4,588,252 is 1,055,298

A decline of 5% but an increase of 90,000.

What are you doing here?

Lies, dammed lies and statistics?

Interesting.
Here is the front page of the report.

I would agree that the Irish Language Lobby regularly distort statistics in their favour.

But what motive do you think these individuals/organisations have to lie and distort the truth via statistics to their disfavour?

MadPat

An Coilean wrote: »

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....This can be tackled by setting a requirement that say 2 of the 20 will need to have Irish, with this being ...but it allows service provision in Irish to be increased without increasing costs, or having an adverse effect on the organisation.

So, organisation changes and a policy of affirmative discrimination in favour of Irish enthusiasts and you assume it to be cost-neutral but have no details to back this up.

Your point on translation is faulty as any legally binding or complex document in Irish would have to have a legally sound translation and this can only be done by a qualified translator who can certify the translation. An enthusiast could change the meaning of a sentence by choosing a wrong word or by mis-translating a tense. There's additional cost involved if not all the staff members collaborating on a document don't speak Irish, but the final recipient of document is destined for an Irish-speaker. Having just one language is plainly more efficient.

An Coilean wrote: »

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

The use of Irish as a first language has declined significantly in the Gaeltacht. I discount any part-time use as merely being hobby-speaking and tokenism. It's not the same thing as being a living, primary language. The Irish lobby inflates the numbers with part-timers and 'cupla-focal' campaigns. These are just a smoke screen behind which the use of Irish as a functional language declines.

An Coilean

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Where are you doing here?

I was pointing out that what you are pointing to as a decline in percentage terms since the 1980's could also be shown to be an increase in real terms.

Interesting.
Here is the front page of the report.

I would agree that the Irish Language Lobby regularly distort statistics in their favour.

But what motive do you think these individuals/organisations have to lie and distort the truth via statistics to their disfavour?

I think the problem is that you picked out one piece of analsys of available information(In this case a comparrision between a survey in 1988 and a similar survey in 2008) from a much larger body of work, obviously you picked that piece of analsys because it seemd to support a point you were trying to make, unfortunatly you did not think about it hard enough and the piece of information you used, if looked at more closely, does not necessarily back up the point you were trying to make.

Taken over all, that document could not be seen as being to the disfavour of the language. Though its interesting that you are accusing them of lieing, I don't see any falsehood in what was presented in the document, you just jumped your guns and used information from it because at a glance it seemed to back up your argument.

An Coilean

MadPat wrote: »

So, organisation changes and a policy of affirmative discrimination in favour of Irish enthusiasts and you assume it to be cost-neutral but have no details to back this up.

Speaking Irish is a skill that anyone can learn, requireing a skill for a job where it is intended that that skill will be part of fulfilling the job is not descrimination, affermative or otherwise.

I dont believe that there would be anything more than minimal cost if any with the policy I have described, perhaps you could describe where you think a cost may occure?

Your point on translation is faulty as any legally binding or complex document in Irish would have to have a legally sound translation and this can only be done by a qualified translator who can certify the translation.

True, but this is the case as it stands. I am not arguing for any aditional resources to be devoted to this.
The vast majority of services provided day in, day out are not particularly complicated or legally binding, and can be delivered by staff without a legal qualification, as the vast majority of services delivered through English are.

An enthusiast could change the meaning of a sentence by choosing a wrong word or by mis-translating a tense. There's additional cost involved if not all the staff members collaborating on a document don't speak Irish, but the final recipient of document is destined for an Irish-speaker. Having just one language is plainly more efficient.

Where would an aditional cost occure?

The use of Irish as a first language has declined significantly in the Gaeltacht.

Since the earily 1980s? Anything to back that up?

Dannyboy83

An Coilean wrote: »

I was pointing out that what you are pointing to as a decline in percentage terms since the 1980's could also be shown to be an increase in real terms.

hmmmmm, do you know what a sample set is?

I think the problem is that you picked out one piece of analsys of available information(In this case a comparrision between a survey in 1988 and a similar survey in 2008) from a much larger body of work, obviously you picked that piece of analsys because it seemd to support a point you were trying to make, unfortunatly you did not think about it hard enough and the piece of information you used, if looked at more closely, does not necessarily back up the point you were trying to make.

er... so you don't know what a sample set is then?
I take it you've never study statistics?

Though its interesting that you are accusing them of lieing, I don't see any falsehood in what was presented in the document,

Oh dear, I believe that's called an informal fallacy known as a strawman argument.

Allow me to quote you::)

An Coilean wrote:

A decline of 5% but an increase of 90,000. Lies, dammed lies and statistics?

Now, back to my question, what motive do you think these individuals/organisations have to lie ?

Or is this like the Saturn/Teapot phrase and you had intended Lies, dammed lies and statistics? to mean the exact opposite of what you implied?

Dannyboy83

An Coilean wrote: »

From 28% of what to 23% of what? A decline in % does not mean a decline in overall numbers.
The population of the country increased from 3,443,405 in 1981 to 4,588,252 in 2011.
28% of 3,443,405 is 964,153
23% of 4,588,252 is 1,055,298

A decline of 5% but an increase of 90,000. Lies, dammed lies and statistics?

U-TURNNNNN!!!!

An Coilean wrote: »

Taken over all, that document could not be seen as being to the disfavour of the language.
Though its interesting that you are accusing them of lieing, I don't see any falsehood in what was presented in the document, you just jumped your guns and used information from it because at a glance it seemed to back up your argument.

LOL, sorry, but I just had to quote this once again, your credibility went out the window with this beaut:pac:

I just don't understand why you'd bother?
This type of duplicity works in a spoken debate, but not in a written debate, you just need to scroll upward?!

Thanks for the laugh and good night:)

An Coilean

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Do you know what a sample set is?

No, I'v never formally studied statictics.
Perhaps you would care to elaborate?

Oh dear, I believe that's called an informal fallacy known as a strawman argument.

Allow me to quote you::)

Nope, you did clearly imply the writers of the document had lied.
I did not make the claim that the writers of the document were lieing, my reference to 'Lies, Dammed Lies and statistcs' was directed at you.
I percieved you to have taken a figure from that document and used it to make a point, ie that Irish has declined since the 80's. On closer examination it seems that the figure you were using does not actually back up the point you were making.

Now, back to my question, what motive do you think these individuals/organisations have to lie ?

Their having a motive to lie is somewhat dependant on their having lied in the first place, I do not see that they did, lets be clear, I am not suggesting that they lied.
I am suggesting that you took a figure you found in the report and used it to back up a point you were trying to make, and that this figure was found not to show what you were suggesting it showed.

An Coilean

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

U-TURNNNNN!!!!

LOL, sorry, but I just had to quote this once again, your credibility went out the window with this beaut:pac:

I just don't understand why you'd bother?
This type of duplicity works in a spoken debate, but not in a written debate, you just need to scroll upward?!

Thanks for the laugh and good night:)

Duplicity? Again, my reference to 'lies, dammed lies and statistics' was directed at you, not the writers of the document.
Lets not ignore that is was you that presented the figures to show that there was a decline in the language over the period in question, the writers of the document did not.
I stand by what I said, I dont see a falsehood in what the writers presented, I do however see a falsehood in how you atempted to use their figures.

MadPat

An Coilean wrote: »

Speaking Irish is a skill that anyone can learn, requireing a skill for a job where it is intended that that skill will be part of fulfilling the job

So you would have Irish made a requirement for emoployment in the public service?

An Coilean wrote: »

I dont believe that there would be anything more than minimal cost if any with the policy I have described, perhaps you could describe where you think a cost may occure?

You will believe what you want to believe. Cost would occur as given staff mobility policies, it would be necessary for all staff to have Irish or it would mean that Irish speakers could not be replaced. Then there would be the cost of ensuring that those who claim to speak Irish can do so at a satisfactory level compatible with the requirements of the job. Otherwise, Irish-speaking customers could complain that they were not receiving equal service to English-speakers. So, there would be a cost and it would be ongoing and there would also be an additional demand placed on monoglot English-speaking staff.

An Coilean wrote: »

The vast majority of services provided day in, day out are not particularly complicated or legally binding, and can be delivered by staff without a legal qualification, as the vast majority of services delivered through English are.

Until somebody sues and translations become contentious.

An Coilean wrote: »

Where would an aditional cost occure?

From the cost of obtaining certified translations.

It would be simpler and more efficient and accurate if public services were provided in English only. Introducing Irish just adds cost and complexity impacting the costs and quality of service for everyone.

An Coilean wrote: »

Since the earily 1980s? Anything to back that up?

This document discusses the problem of declining native use, at some length. It's really a part of the huge changes that have taken place in Irish society in the last 150 years.

An Coilean

MadPat wrote: »

So you would have Irish made a requirement for emoployment in the public service?

Nothing so blunt and ineffective as that, I would have services in Irish developed first through more effective use of existing staff, and then through a recruitment policy that would identify where additional staff are needed to provide aditional services, and making Irish a required skill for a portion of new staff to be recruited, with those newly recruited Irish speaking staff then used to provide aditional services in Irish.

You will believe what you want to believe. Cost would occur as given staff mobility policies, it would be necessary for all staff to have Irish or it would mean that Irish speakers could not be replaced. Then there would be the cost of ensuring that those who claim to speak Irish can do so at a satisfactory level compatible with the requirements of the job. Otherwise, Irish-speaking customers could complain that they were not receiving equal service to English-speakers. So, there would be a cost and it would be ongoing and there would also be an additional demand placed on monoglot English-speaking staff.

The same could be said of you.
It would not be necessary for all staff to have Irish, that argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
Irish speaking staff could be replaced with other Irish speaking staff, that is what the recruitment policy would be about, ensuring that there is sufficient staff to deliever services in Irish.
Recruitment always entails ensuring that the candidates have the skils that a re necessary for the job, the requirement to have Irish as a skill would fall into that and need not entail any noticable increase in costs.
What additional demand would be placed on English speaking staff?

Until somebody sues and translations become contentious.

Sue on what basis? If there is an issue with the quality of a services provided in Irish, the correct channel of redress is to bring it to the attention of An Coimisinéir Teanga.
You may be sure that not providing the service in Irish would be far more contentious.

From the cost of obtaining certified translations.

This cost already exists, the existing system has an over reliance on paying translators, much of the work can be carried out in house more cost effectivly.

It would be simpler and more efficient and accurate if public services were provided in English only. Introducing Irish just adds cost and complexity impacting the costs and quality of service for everyone.

Not when the policy of English only generates a public backlash against it.

This document discusses the problem of declining native use, at some length. It's really a part of the huge changes that have taken place in Irish society in the last 150 years.

Two issues, that document does not show a decline in Irish speaking in the Gaeltacht since the 1980's. It is also quite a bit out of date, there have been two censuses since, both of which have recorded increases in the number of daily Irish speakers in the Gaeltacht.

The study you linked to was based on figures from the 2002 census.
2002 census showed 33,789 daily Irish speakers in All Gaeltacht areas.
2006 census showed 36,848 daily Irish speakers in all Gaeltacht areas.
2011 census showed 38,139 daily Irish speakers in all Gaeltacht areas.

The 2006 census also showed that there were 23,866 Daily Irish speakers outside the education system in all Gaeltacht areas.
2011 census showed 23,621 for the same question.
A figure for this is not available for the 2002 census because that question was not asked before 2006.

Before 2002 frequency of use was not asked, the only metric was Irish speaking/non Irish speaking.
To get a sense of the period we are talking about, ie early 80's to now, here are the available comparable figures over the time span.
1981 Irish speaking in the Gaeltacht: 58,026
2002 Irish speaking in the Gaeltacht: 62,157
2006 Irish speaking in the Gaeltacht: 64,265
2011 Irish speaking in the Gaeltacht: 66,238

The document you linked to is talking about the decline of the % of Irish speakers reletive to Non Irish speakers in the Gaeltacht.
You can see that the criteria for catagory A, B, and C Gaeltacht is based on the percentage of the population of a given area that are Daily Irish speakers.
The number of daily Irish speakers has not been declining, the % of daily Irish speakers has, this is largely due to an influx of non Irish speakers into the Gaeltacht during the boom years.

nuac

INteresting debate there.

Fr McGréil has a very high reputation as a sociologist.

However I think his conclusions and recommendations are on the optimistic side.

I doubt if there is now any substantial support for the restoration of Irish as a working language.

The country cannot afford to provide Irish speaking civil servants and local government officials in all offices for small numbers outside na Gaeltachtaí seeking services in Irish. Where practicable services thru' Irish should be available to residents of Gaeltachtaí.

We still have to borrow substantial amounts each year to run this country. This cost must continue to be reduced.

An Coilean

nuac wrote: »

INteresting debate there.

Fr McGréil has a very high reputation as a sociologist.

However I think his conclusions and recommendations are on the optimistic side.

I doubt if there is now any substantial support for the restoration of Irish as a working language.

The country cannot afford to provide Irish speaking civil servants and local government officials in all offices for small numbers outside na Gaeltachtaí seeking services in Irish. Where practicable services thru' Irish should be available to residents of Gaeltachtaí.

We still have to borrow substantial amounts each year to run this country. This cost must continue to be reduced.

If you are recruiting staff anyway, which will happen over the next ten years, it does not cost anything extra to include Irish as a required skill for some of the positions you are going to recruit for.
This point has been made again and again by An Coimisinéir Teanga, the single biggest problem in providing services in Irish is lack of staff with the necessary skills to do so. This can be resolved over time through recruitment, and it does not cost anything more to recruit someone with Irish and English instead of someone who only has English.
Its not a question of additional resources, its not a question of not being able to afford it.

markpb

An Coilean wrote: »

If you are recruiting staff anyway, which will happen over the next ten years, it does not cost anything extra to include Irish as a required skill for some of the positions you are going to recruit for

But it does have a cost, just not a monetary one. If two people apply for the job, one is excellent but only speaks English and the other is average but speaks Irish, which one do you hire? The former will do a better, overall job, the latter a poorer job for everyone but a better job when dealing with Irish speakers. If everyone knows that Irish speakers are required by the public/civil service, wouldn't those that speak Irish feel they could command a better salary, just like people with other skillsets do? So maybe it will also have a financial impact.

If the pool of Irish speakers was bigger, this wouldn't be a problem but when it's as small as it is right now, it's going to be very hard to find good employees who also speak Irish.

An Coilean

markpb wrote: »

But it does have a cost, just not a monetary one. If two people apply for the job, one is excellent but only speaks English and the other is average but speaks Irish, which one do you hire? The former will do a better, overall job, the latter a poorer job for everyone but a better job when dealing with Irish speakers.

If the pool of Irish speakers was bigger, this wouldn't be a problem but when it's as small as it is right now, it's going to be very hard to find good employees who also speak Irish.

That would be why you dont have a recruitment process to fill just one position and reject anyone who does not have Irish.
You have a recruitment process for several jobs at the same time, some of which have an Irsh requirement, but most of which do not. The people who are really good, but do not have Irish can still be taken on as most of the jobs available do not require Irish, but some of them do so you still take in staff with Irish too.

Take current Garda recruitment as an example, I think they are going to be filling 300 positions, they have two panals, the general panal where everyone can apply, and the Irish language panal where only those with fluent Irish can apply.
Of the 300 they take on, perhaps up to 30 - 40 will come from the Irish panal, it could be slightly more or less depending on the quality of applicants on that panal, ie if they dont get enough suitable applicants on the Irish panal, then less will be taken from that panal, with more being taken on from the general panal instead.

MadPat

An Coilean wrote: »

Take current Garda recruitment as an example, I think they are going to be filling 300 positions, they have two panals, the general panal where everyone can apply, and the Irish language panal where only those with fluent Irish can apply.
Of the 300 they take on, perhaps up to 30 - 40 will come from the Irish panal, it could be slightly more or less depending on the quality of applicants on that panal, ie if they dont get enough suitable applicants on the Irish panal, then less will be taken from that panal, with more being taken on from the general panal instead.

So there's be a quota system for maintaining a percentage of Irish-speakers in all roles, with some promotional positions being reserved for Irish-speakers, then some kind of quality assurance system for guaranteeing that their Irish is good enough and that response times are equal for both English and Irish speakers. Then some kind of translation service so that English-speaking staff (including their superiors) can review Irish language material resulting from interactions with Irish-speaking members of the public.

How much will this extra administration cost?

Would it not be simpler to accept that everyone speaks English?

An Coilean

MadPat wrote: »

So there's be a quota system for maintaining a percentage of Irish-speakers in all roles, with some promotional positions being reserved for Irish-speakers, then some kind of quality assurance system for guaranteeing that their Irish is good enough and that response times are equal for both English and Irish speakers.

Thats the nub of it yes, recruitment and promotion proceadures are already well established and they take account of many different criteria and skill requirements, there is no reason to assume that adding an Irish requirement in some instances would have any adverse impact on the system, or result in anything more than a marginal increase in costs if even.
There is already a quality assurance system, its called the Office of an Coimisinéir Teanga.

Then some kind of translation service so that English-speaking staff (including their superiors) can review Irish language material resulting from interactions with Irish-speaking members of the public.

Why would staff with English need to deal with material in Irish when the whole point is that you have staff with Irish who are able to do it.

How much will this extra administration cost?

Little or nothing.

Would it not be simpler to accept that everyone speaks English?

No. Not without a referendum to remove the official status of Irish(Which would never get through anyway) and a serious backlash against any fool of a politition who tires to do it.

Dannyboy83

An Coilean wrote: »

Lol, sorry, but your back-pedalling there was cringe-worthy amusing, you have to admit?

An Coilean wrote: »

Lets not ignore that is was you that presented the figures to show that there was a decline in the language over the period in question, the writers of the document did not.

O RLY?

An Coilean wrote: »

Nope, you did clearly imply the writers of the document had lied.

On closer examination it seems that the figure you were using does not actually back up the point you were making.

LOL:rolleyes:, try to think rationally for a second here.

1. You asked for evidence that the language has declined since the early 1980s
   http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88268139&postcount=301
2. I provided the evidence. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88268588&postcount=303
3. Were I to claim the authors had then lied, it would negate my own evidence.

I even went so far as to question your assertion that a pro-Irish group were distorting the evidence to their disfavour.

dannyboy83 wrote:

An Coilean wrote: »

Lies, dammed lies and statistics?

I would agree that the Irish Language Lobby regularly distort statistics in their favour.
But what motive do you think these individuals/organisations have to lie and distort the truth via statistics to their disfavour?

An Coilean

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Sorry, I did not see that, Mea Culpa. I only looked at Pg 59, as that is the page you sent me too, what page is the above taken from?

My point was made in reference to the 'remarkable consistency' identified below.

oscarBravo

An Coilean wrote: »

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...

What a useful, rational, justifiable and necessary use of police time and resources.

...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)...

How often is such a system used for someone who is fluent in English, but who refuses to speak English to a police officer?

An Coilean

oscarBravo wrote: »

How often is such a system used for someone who is fluent in English, but who refuses to speak English to a police officer?

As often as such a situation arises, obviously.

MadPat

An Coilean wrote: »

Why would staff with English need to deal with material in Irish when the whole point is that you have staff with Irish who are able to do it.

The staff member's supervisor might need to approve a letter or decision before its issued. The staff member works as part of a team and they review each other's work?

What happens if in a publicy-owned hospital, an Irish-speaker needs to consult an oncologist but the only Irish-speaking specialist available is an orthopeadic surgeon? What if a government department wants to out-source work to a call-centre and the cheapest solution (at great saving to the taxpayer) is staffed by Indians with good English, but no Irish?

I can see nothing but costs and very few benefits, especially as once the long-hanging fruit of simple services has been dealt with, the language lobby will go after more lucrative positions.

oscarBravo

An Coilean wrote: »

As often as such a situation arises, obviously.

So if I got pulled over by the police in England and refused to speak English to them, insisting instead that they find an Irish language interpreter to talk to me, you don't think that that's an outrageous waste of police time?

Anticipating the objection that Irish isn't an official language of the UK, the point stands: if I refuse to talk to a police officer in a language in which I'm fluent, then the question of whether or not I have a right to deal with the police in Irish needs to be balanced against the fact that I am deliberately frustrating a police officer in the course of his or her duty by refusing to do something that I am perfectly capable of doing.

I mean, flash cards? Dear sweet jebus. It's like a Pat Shortt sketch, except that those who propose it are perfectly serious and don't see how ridiculous it is.

An Coilean

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if I got pulled over by the police in England and refused to speak English to them, insisting instead that they find an Irish language interpreter to talk to me, you don't think that that's an outrageous waste of police time?

Anticipating the objection that Irish isn't an official language of the UK, the point stands: if I refuse to talk to a police officer in a language in which I'm fluent, then the question of whether or not I have a right to deal with the police in Irish needs to be balanced against the fact that I am deliberately frustrating a police officer in the course of his or her duty by refusing to do something that I am perfectly capable of doing.

I would agree that a member of the public choosing to carry out their business in Irish could well result in a police officer being frustrated in carrying out their duty.

Now, i'm sure we can agree that we want to avoid a police officer being frustrated in the course of his or her duty.

You are putting the onus for avoiding this frustration on the member of the public, the rational you give for this is that avoiding the frustration is something the member of the public is perfectly capable of doing.

All well and good so far, however, your post above ignores that there is another element involved, namely that the member of the public is not the only party that can avoid a frustration being caused.

I said above that I can see that a member of the public choosing to carry out their business in Irish could well result in a police officer being frustrated in carrying out their duty, however that is not the full story, what we could add is that this would be the case if there is no system in place for facilitating that choice by a member of the public.

You seem determined to lay the blame for a frustration being caused at the feet of the member of the public for choosing to use Irish, and as said above, your rational is that they are capable of avoiding this frustration, but you could just as easily place the blame on the Gardaí as an organisation for failing to put in place a system to facilitate the use of Irish, which is something that they are capable of doing. (And to their credit, they are currently doing it)

I would argue that the balance you put forward between the right to use Irish and frustrating the police officer is a false one. Really it is a choice between putting the onus for avoiding the frustration of the police officer on the member of the public or on the Gardaí as an organisation.
Now as it is currently cunstrcted, the onus for avoiding a frustration is on the Gardaí as an organisation. So, why should that onus be shifted onto the member of the public?

I mean, flash cards? Dear sweet jebus. It's like a Pat Shortt sketch, except that those who propose it are perfectly serious and don't see how ridiculous it is.

You may well scoff, but had they been available in 2011, it is likely that a member of the public would not have been brougt to a Garda Station in handcuffs as a result of choosing to carry out their business in Irish.

From my point of view, the similarity to a Pat Shortt sketch lies in the fact that a Garda, educated in this country, and only recently finished their training in Tempelmore could not even ask 'Cad is ainm duit?
Further, despite having a clear obligation to facilitate the use of Irish, the Gardaí had no system in place to do this, and the Garda at the scene tried to convince the Irish speaker that they had no right to use Irish, despite it being the first official language of the state.

MadPat

An Coilean wrote: »

Further, despite having a clear obligation to facilitate the use of Irish, the Gardaí had no system in place to do this, and the Garda at the scene tried to convince the Irish speaker that they had no right to use Irish, despite it being the first official language of the state.

It might be the first official language, but in the real world it is not our first language.

Time for Irish enthusiasts to get real.

The Black Oil

IMO, a good chunk of the resentment that has built up towards Irish is precisely because of how debates like this are framed - wherein the language is essentially a sacred cow. Those who beat the 'right to' drum come across as far too prescriptive and as being incapable of seeing any daylight between the right and what is practical.

Gardai have crap cars, low morale, deteriorating working conditions (see the Emergency Services forum on here) and people want to upskill them with this nonsense?

Dannyboy83

An Coilean wrote: »

From my point of view, the similarity to a Pat Shortt sketch lies in the fact that a Garda, educated in this country, and only recently finished their training in Tempelmore could not even ask 'Cad is ainm duit?

But that's only odd to you. That is normal for most other people. The education system doesn't work.
This is what half the people in this thread have been trying to communicate to you for pages upon pages now.

You have had a wall of evidence presented to you and you are doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. This is no longer even a debate, people are taking bets on how long it will take you to crack.

I just don't understand what do you hope to achieve from this - how you can be so obdurate - You are refusing to see the world how it is, you only see what you would like it to see.

I'm not going to waste any more time on this thread because it has become so tedious now.

Slán.

An Coilean

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

But that's only odd to you. That is normal for most other people. The education system doesn't work.
This is what half the people in this thread have been trying to communicate to you for pages upon pages now.

You have had a wall of evidence presented to you and you are doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. This is no longer even a debate, people are taking bets on how long it will take you to crack.

I just don't understand what do you hope to achieve from this - how you can be so obdurate - You are refusing to see the world how it is, you only see what you would like it to see.

I'm not going to waste any more time on this thread because it has become so tedious now.

Slán.

I am refusing 'to see the world how it is'.

I'm not going to say anything else, I'll just leave that there to speak for itself.

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

I am refusing 'to see the world how it is'.

Yep.

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yep.

Dismissing the argument of the other side by accusing them of something like 'refusing to see the world how it is' shows a breath of arrogence that is only matched by the streak of ignorence that runes through it. Its laughable really.

What is the point of discussing an issue with someone who is willing to delude themselves into believing that they see the world as it really is and people who disagree with them don't?

Dannyboy83

An Coilean wrote: »

What is the point of discussing an issue with someone who is willing to delude themselves into believing that they see the world as it really is and people who disagree with them don't?

You can disagree with an opinion.

You cannot disagree with a fact, no matter how much it contradicts your opinion.


Slán leat.

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

Dismissing the argument of the other side by accusing them of something like 'refusing to see the world how it is' shows a breath of arrogence that is only matched by the streak of ignorence that runes through it. Its laughable really.

What is the point of discussing an issue with someone who is willing to delude themselves into believing that they see the world as it really is and people who disagree with them don't?

You won't accept this is an English speaking country. Your arguments are falling on deaf ears because you're trying to swim against the current.

Ó Cuirreáin had the same problem, the government isn't serious about Irish language revival. Maybe they were at one stage way back after independence but they aren't any more.

oscarBravo

An Coilean wrote: »

I would agree that a member of the public choosing to carry out their business in Irish could well result in a police officer being frustrated in carrying out their duty.

Now, i'm sure we can agree that we want to avoid a police officer being frustrated in the course of his or her duty.

You are putting the onus for avoiding this frustration on the member of the public, the rational you give for this is that avoiding the frustration is something the member of the public is perfectly capable of doing.

All well and good so far, however, your post above ignores that there is another element involved, namely that the member of the public is not the only party that can avoid a frustration being caused.

You were doing so well.

Here's the difference: the member of the public is in a position to avoid wasting police time and resources by doing something he is perfectly capable of doing with zero effort, expenditure or hassle. The member of the public chooses not to do so.

You're focused entirely on the "right" of the member of the public to refuse to co-operate in one of the official languages of the state, and to instead require that the state make a special effort to facilitate him in a way he could have facilitated it effortlessly.

I'm all for facilitating people with ways of doing things they can't otherwise do. I believe that the state should make public buildings wheelchair accessible, because there are people who have no way to access those buildings except in a wheelchair.

Irish speakers are not the equivalent of wheelchair users. They do have a choice; they can, metaphorically, walk on their own two feet by using English when dealing with the state.

Now, if someone wants to file their tax return in Irish, fair enough. But someone sitting on the side of the road refusing to co-operate with a police officer in a way that they're perfectly capable of doing because they have a "right" to deal with the police in a language other than English - that's just perverse.

As has been pointed out, the frustrating part of arguing with the Irish language lobby is their refusal to acknowledge the perversity of someone refusing to co-operate in a way that they're perfectly capable of effortlessly doing. They're making the job of the police more difficult than it already is, and even if the police had their Dora the Explorer systems in place to facilitate someone who was being an asshole in this way, they would still be making that job more difficult than necessary, and that's something I don't believe anyone has a moral right to do. They may have a constitutional right to be an asshole, but that doesn't make them not an asshole.

...you could just as easily place the blame on the Gardaí as an organisation for failing to put in place a system to facilitate the use of Irish, which is something that they are capable of doing.

The motorist in question was capable of speaking English. You're content to ignore capability when it suits you.

I would argue that the balance you put forward between the right to use Irish and frustrating the police officer is a false one. Really it is a choice between putting the onus for avoiding the frustration of the police officer on the member of the public or on the Gardaí as an organisation.
Now as it is currently cunstrcted, the onus for avoiding a frustration is on the Gardaí as an organisation. So, why should that onus be shifted onto the member of the public?

Because it's not an onus. It's not an effort. It's not a challenge, or an ordeal, or a difficulty, or any of the things that "onus" actually means. It's a choice.

For AGS, it's actually an onus. They have to put processes in place, train members, document procedures, and then implement them.

You're content to argue that the state should spent time, money and effort to implement procedures to facilitate someone who's being an asshole by refusing to communicate in a language in which he's fluent. You're dressing that up in the fancy party frock of constitutional rights, but that's what it boils down to. Why should the member of the public communicate with AGS in English? Because he can.

You may well scoff, but had they been available in 2011, it is likely that a member of the public would not have been brougt to a Garda Station in handcuffs as a result of choosing to carry out their business in Irish.

It's pretty much a certainty that the member of the public wouldn't have been brought to the station in handcuffs if he had chosen to carry out his business in English.

Should he have been cuffed? No. Should he have spoken English? Absolutely.

From my point of view, the similarity to a Pat Shortt sketch lies in the fact that a Garda, educated in this country, and only recently finished their training in Tempelmore could not even ask 'Cad is ainm duit?

That reductionist argument only works if the only business that needed to be transacted was the determination of the motorist's name. If you're satisfied that that's the only Irish that a Garda will ever need, then I'll agree that we should train them all in the use of that phrase, and we'll draw a line under the incident.

But I'm pretty sure you're being disingenuous, so your argument can safely be dismissed out of hand.

Further, despite having a clear obligation to facilitate the use of Irish, the Gardaí had no system in place to do this, and the Garda at the scene tried to convince the Irish speaker that they had no right to use Irish, despite it being the first official language of the state.

Sure, the Irish speaker had a constitutional right to waste police time and resources despite being in a position not to do so.

It doesn't seem to factor into your calculations that this sort of conscious assholery doesn't endear the Irish language lobby to the rest of us one little bit.

An Coilean

oscarBravo wrote: »

YHere's the difference: the member of the public is in a position to avoid wasting police time and resources by doing something he is perfectly capable of doing with zero effort, expenditure or hassle.

How much effort, expenditure or hassle would it have been for Rosa Parks to have just sat at the back of the bus? Was she just engaging in arseholery?

Of course you will howl that its not the same, but you are arguing that the state can ignore the rights of its citizens for convienence, i'm sure there were plenty of white people in Alabama at the time who felt the same.

oscarBravo

An Coilean wrote: »

Of course you will howl that its not the same...

Correct. It's not the same. It's not even close.

You are not being deprived of your human or civil rights by being asked to communicate in a language in which you are perfectly fluent. If you genuinely consider Irish language speakers to be on a par with American blacks in the 1960s, then we don't have the basis for a rational conversation.

And therein lies the problem: you're not interested in a rational conversation. The same stupidity that led to warning signs being posted in Irish at the top of a cliff will lead to flash cards to allow police officers to communicate in pidgin Irish with people with whom they could have a fluent conversation in English. In both cases, the Irish language lobby are satisfied that they are achieving something useful, while the rest of us wonder what the hell is going on in their heads, because it sure as hell doesn't look anything like logic or reason, and it most certainly doesn't look like anything calculated to make the Irish language look like anything other than a minority hobbyhorse.

If you want to save the Irish language, get people to want to speak it. If all you're interested in is pantomime, carry on: you're doing a stellar job.

Dannyboy83

^
Checkmate.

An Coilean

oscarBravo wrote: »

Correct. It's not the same. It's not even close.

Thats true, there are many many differences between both cases. For one, there was never any reasonable prospect that the Black community in the states, despite the seveer and repugnant descrimination they faced, would be destroyed as a minority group.

Irish speakers in Ireland however, despite being faced with much milder forms of descrimination are in a much more voulnerable position and the prospect is certainly there that the Irish speaking minority will be destroyed.
Irish speakers being compelled by the state both to learn and use English may yet constitute conditions that will lead to the destruction of the Irish speaking minority in Ireland.

The Black Oil

Oh please. There is no quality of life comparison.

oscarBravo

An Coilean wrote: »

...the prospect is certainly there that the Irish speaking minority will be destroyed.

Yes. Largely through the irrational behaviour of its lobbyists.

Irish speakers being compelled by the state both to learn and use English may yet constitute conditions that will lead to the destruction of the Irish speaking minority in Ireland.

Irish speakers are compelled by the fact of living in a de facto English-speaking country to learn and use English. The pretence that this isn't the case is what will lead to the destruction of the Irish language.

You don't have to believe that, but your refusal to countenance it will continue to ensure that it's true.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

An Coilean wrote: »

Thats true, there are many many differences between both cases. For one, there was never any reasonable prospect that the Black community in the states, despite the seveer and repugnant descrimination they faced, would be destroyed as a minority group.

Irish speakers in Ireland however, despite being faced with much milder forms of descrimination are in a much more voulnerable position and the prospect is certainly there that the Irish speaking minority will be destroyed.
Irish speakers being compelled by the state both to learn and use English may yet constitute conditions that will lead to the destruction of the Irish speaking minority in Ireland.

Seriously? The State is "forcing" you to learn English? I'm all for no subjects being "forced" on people - certain people, however, (you, specifcially) are in favour of the idea of languages being "forced" on poeple, but whatever...

But, don't learn English. See how far it gets you....

And don't argue the point on the fact that many coutnries "force" it's students to learn English... Especially not Scandanaivian countries, the Netherlands, Belgiuum,.... etc, etc,....

MadPat

An Coilean wrote: »

Irish speakers in Ireland however, despite being faced with much milder forms of descrimination are in a much more voulnerable position and the prospect is certainly there that the Irish speaking minority will be destroyed.
Irish speakers being compelled by the state both to learn and use English may yet constitute conditions that will lead to the destruction of the Irish speaking minority in Ireland.

Firstly, it should be pointed out that Irish speakers get many subsidies from the government. Secondly, we should note that the majority of 'Irish speakers' are in fact native English speakers who practice Irish as a hobby.

To compare Irish enthusiasts to oppressed Black Americans is an insult to the Black peoples very real ordeal and demonstrates just how out of touch and delusional the Irish lobby has become.

Speaking Irish is a very nice cultural activity. It is a relic of a past we no longer live in. It is not a way of life, a philosophy or religion.

PopePalpatine

MadPat wrote: »

Firstly, it should be pointed out that Irish speakers get many subsidies from the government. Secondly, we should note that the majority of 'Irish speakers' are in fact native English speakers who practice Irish as a hobby.

To compare Irish enthusiasts to oppressed Black Americans is an insult to the Black peoples very real ordeal and demonstrates just how out of touch and delusional the Irish lobby has become.

Speaking Irish is a very nice cultural activity. It is a relic of a past we no longer live in. It is not a way of life, a philosophy or religion.

TBH, the Irish language lobby are more like the minority white governments of Apartheid-era South Africa than black Americans before the 60s.

AerynSun

PopePalpatine wrote: »

TBH, the Irish language lobby are more like the minority white governments of Apartheid-era South Africa than black Americans before the 60s.

Erm, not quite. As I understand it, people promoting the Irish language are also generally trying to recover something of lost pre-Roman Catholic Irish culture (which would be a good thing, right?) - it is about recognising the value of something that's in danger of disappearing, and taking action to prevent it being lost.... Whereas in South Africa, imposing the use of Afrikaans on black students wasn't about recapturing anything that was about to be lost otherwise, it was an act of pure domination, intended to assert Afrikaner culture as superior to any of the local cultures that pre-dated the existence of Afrikanerdom in those places. Completely different. IMO.

PopePalpatine

Sorry Aeryn, I was thinking more in the terms of a minority having a very over-sized influence on the rest of society.

HansHolzel

Even the Brits in the 1980s made sure to know the meaning of seoinín