Irish Language Act in the North: Have Sinn Fein scored a major own goal?

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It has been brought into line with British Government guidelines, and to be flown no more than 18 days a year.

It was odd beforehand now it's on par with everywhere else.

And the world was supposed to end if they didn't get to fly it when they wanted.

Nobody even notices now.

Fr Tod Umptious

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

The current political situation means that it's going to be very hard to get a deal across the line. The DUP has very little interest in forming an executive because direct rule suits them as long as they hold the balance of power in Westminster.

The entire row meanwhile is typical petty Northern Ireland politics. The region is facing into one of the biggest economic upheavals it'll ever experience (Brexit) but what's the core sticking point? A language almost nobody speaks.

I wouldn't expect anything less of them.

Well said.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No I haven't forgotten it.

The IRA were simply not going to decommission until the deal was done and being acted on. The British knew that. They lost that particular battle of wills.

Better to lose a battle of wills than to be forced to give up all your weapons.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Get back to me when the loyal green lodge of saint Patrick's worshippers start banning its members from marrying people from non Christian religious denominations.

They did for centuries, non-Catholics had to convert. It has been relaxed slightly since. Here you go, apply for permission, but who says you will get it:

http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage-faqs/


"If a Catholic wants to marry a non-Catholic, how can they assure that the marriage is recognized by the Church?

In addition to meeting the criteria for a valid Catholic marriage (see question #3), the Catholic must seek permission from the local bishop to marry a non-Catholic. If the person is a non-Catholic Christian, this permission is called a “permission to enter into a mixed marriage.” If the person is a non-Christian, the permission is called a “dispensation from disparity of cult.” Those helping to prepare the couple for marriage can assist with the permission process."

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

As already said, and I have said last night, the common misconception (wilful ignorance imo) from the usual anti anything to do with Sinn Fein or republicanism as a whole, is that this is a Sinn Fein demand alone, it's not this act has the support of no less than 5 other mainstream party's from the north, 50/90 of its members.

The DUP are doing what they always do, but they will end up where they always end up, conceding regardless.

Civil rights.
GFA
RUC disbandment and restructured
North South institutions
Union flag being flown on certain days only.

All of which they foughht tooth and nail, but happened anyway.

Unionism is on a fast track into a cul de sac.

Yawn, nobody is really interested in an Irish language act, not even Sinn Fein to be honest. The language died out in the North in the mid-1970s when the last native speaker died. It was artificially regenerated afterwards, a bit like the way Ulster-Scots is being artificially regenerated now.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

They did for centuries, non-Catholics had to convert. It has been relaxed slightly since. Here you go, apply for permission, but who says you will get it:

http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage-faqs/


"If a Catholic wants to marry a non-Catholic, how can they assure that the marriage is recognized by the Church?

In addition to meeting the criteria for a valid Catholic marriage (see question #3), the Catholic must seek permission from the local bishop to marry a non-Catholic. If the person is a non-Catholic Christian, this permission is called a “permission to enter into a mixed marriage.” If the person is a non-Christian, the permission is called a “dispensation from disparity of cult.” Those helping to prepare the couple for marriage can assist with the permission process."





Yawn, nobody is really interested in an Irish language act, not even Sinn Fein to be honest. The language died out in the North in the mid-1970s when the last native speaker died. It was artificially regenerated afterwards, a bit like the way Ulster-Scots is being artificially regenerated now.

You and unionists are very interested in an ILA. In denying it because it might be a win for your boogeymen/women

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You and unionists are very interested in an ILA. In denying it because it might be a win for your boogeymen/women

That doesn't make any sense and I am not sure what you are trying to say.

I believe language acts, and I include the one in this State, are a complete waste of money, so perhaps that is why I am so blase about it. As usual, in an attempt to put down someone else's views, you question their motivation or lump them in with unionists/Brits/DUP/latest bogeyman.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense and I am not sure what you are trying to say.

I believe language acts, and I include the one in this State, are a complete waste of money, so perhaps that is why I am so blase about it. As usual, in an attempt to put down someone else's views, you question their motivation or lump them in with unionists/Brits/DUP/latest bogeyman.

Your entire argument since I first came across you has been in favour of unionism.
If the cap fits etc.

Many people believe a language act is important, you don't speak for everyone.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Your entire argument since I first came across you has been in favour of unionism.
If the cap fits etc.

Many people believe a language act is important, you don't speak for everyone.

I am a constitutional nationalist from Dublin who believes that unionists should be persuaded of the merits of a united Ireland, but that said united Ireland never deserved the spilling of a drop of blood and that those who spilled that blood (SF/IRA) should properly atone for what they did.

In that, I am fairly typical of people down here, with probably around 50% of normal people in agreement with me. Another 30%-40% don't care about a united Ireland and the rest are SF voters.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I feel they are all wasters, both SF and the DUP, and they do not adequately represent the people of Northern Ireland. If they did, they would stop being petty and work together to mitigate against the threats posed by Brexit. Too busy point scoring off each other than attempting to run Northern Ireland.

FrancieBrady

A constitutional nationalist who has never taken the side of nationalists on any issue on here. Colour me skeptical.

You couldn't resist a biased swipe while proclaiming it.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

I am a constitutional nationalist

A 'constitutional nationalist' who wants to disregard the tenets of GFA and insists that a super-majority (basically 2 unionist votes = 1 nationalist) be attained in the north before we get a United Ireland?

Dear oh dear, words can mean what you want them to these days.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A constitutional nationalist who has never taken the side of nationalists on any issue on here. Colour me skeptical.

You couldn't resist a biased swipe while proclaiming it.

Look, you are only interested in the auld personal swipe in an attempt to discredit my views.

I take that as a personal compliment in that you cannot refute any of my arguments without resorting to personal name-calling.

If you could stop labelling people for a few minutes, and put aside your prejudices to actually debate the issues, this could actually be a good forum.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A 'constitutional nationalist' who wants to disregard the tenets of GFA and insists that a super-majority (basically 2 unionist votes = 1 nationalist) be attained in the north before we get a United Ireland?

Dear oh dear, words can mean what you want them to these days.

I cannot set aside the GFA. However, like most people in the South, we will not vote for a united Ireland if it is based on a 50% plus 1 majority in the North. Unless there has been a significant winning of hearts and minds of unionists, a united Ireland is doomed to failure.

uck51js9zml2yt

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

'Tiocfaidh lmeans 'Our day will come' - It is a message of hope & optimism - it is about the future, not the past.

I was going to ask were you watching ML on the late late but your posting earlier in the day.
No one believes that line except SF rebels as the dear leader called them!

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Look, you are only interested in the auld personal swipe in an attempt to discredit my views.

I take that as a personal compliment in that you cannot refute any of my arguments without resorting to personal name-calling.

If you could stop labelling people for a few minutes, and put aside your prejudices to actually debate the issues, this could actually be a good forum.

Are you saying you have supported a nationalist position on here? I would be delighted to see where you did.

It wasn't a personal swipe, a statement of fact isn't one of those.
BTW you don't have a view on the ILA, you only know why you will not countenance one which has everything to do with your aformentioned constant support by default (conveniently) of unionist positions.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you saying you have supported a nationalist position on here? I would be delighted to see where you did.

It wasn't a personal swipe, a statement of fact isn't one of those.
BTW you don't have a view on the ILA, you only know why you will not countenance one which has everything to do with your aformentioned constant support by default (conveniently) of unionist positions.

Keep creating a bogeyman to avoid debating the issues.

Keep dismissing the views of those who disagree with you, especially when they are conveniently difficult to debate.

I support a united Ireland - that is sufficient as a nationalist position.

I oppose the ILA, north and south, that is a legitimate view, believe it or not. Irish is more or less a dead language, little different to Ulster-Scots.

Modern Irish culture has grown far beyond the Irish language, only those clinging on to old traditions fail to realise this.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Keep creating a bogeyman to avoid debating the issues.

Keep dismissing the views of those who disagree with you, especially when they are conveniently difficult to debate.

I support a united Ireland - that is sufficient as a nationalist position.

I oppose the ILA, north and south, that is a legitimate view, believe it or not. Irish is more or less a dead language, little different to Ulster-Scots.

Modern Irish culture has grown far beyond the Irish language, only those clinging on to old traditions fail to realise this.

I counter that by saying that Irish is far from dead. It may not be performing for a person who puts economics first but it is alive and functioning and needs support.

In the south there is a lazy attitude to it as there are enough active speakers and conservationists to keep it ticking over.

As an Irish person I believe we have to do everything to keep it alive and successive powerswaps between FG and FF and their failures in regard to it are not an excuse.

You of course keep claiming I have no arguments. Silly really.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I counter that by saying that Irish is far from dead. It may not be performing for a person who puts economics first but it is alive and functioning and needs support.

In the south there is a lazy attitude to it as there are enough active speakers and conservationists to keep it ticking over.

As an Irish person I believe we have to do everything to keep it alive and successive powerswaps between FG and FF and their failures in regard to it are not an excuse.

You of course keep claiming I have no arguments. Silly really.

Irish is a dead language, yes it should be preserved as a part of our heritage, but heritage is dead culture, not living culture.

The numbers of people claiming to speak Irish decrease with every census, the number of people actually speaking Irish decline even quicker.

I doubt that you could string more than a sentence or two together.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Irish is a dead language, yes it should be preserved as a part of our heritage, but heritage is dead culture, not living culture.

The numbers of people claiming to speak Irish decrease with every census, the number of people actually speaking Irish decline even quicker.

I doubt that you could string more than a sentence or two together.

Complete nonsense. I know more Irish speakers (considerably more) than I did ten years ago.

Head firmly in the sand stuff blanch. And even if right, all the more reason to protect and enshrine it with a functioning Act.
Dead language mo thóin.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

However, like most people in the South, we will not vote for a united Ireland if it is based on a 50% plus 1 majority in the North.

You most certainly do not speak for more than half the people of the south. Oh and support for a united Ireland is on the rise with young people so the number in favour will go higher.

Stop presenting your prejudices as truths.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

Irish is a dead language

I'll tell you where it's going to be very much alive.. in the north. I'd say within a generation the northeast will have the highest density of Irish speakers in Ireland, all thanks to the pettiness of the DUP and attitudes like yours.

Colonel Claptrap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And even if right, all the more reason to protect and enshrine it with a functioning Act.
Dead language mo thóin.

That's like saying more and more people are identifying as non-religious in the census so the obvious course of action is to protect and enshrine more religious laws in our schools and hospitals.

I'm genuinely struggling to grasp your reasoning.

The Irish language is not under attack in the south. People are just apathetic.

FrancieBrady

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

That's like saying more and more people are identifying as non-religious in the census so the obvious course of action is to protect and enshrine more religious laws in our schools and hospitals.

I'm genuinely struggling to grasp your reasoning.

The Irish language is not under attack in the south. People are just apathetic.

Equating a language and the cultural depth of it with a religious sect doesn't really work for me tbh.

Colonel Claptrap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Equating a language and the cultural depth of it with a religious sect doesn't really work for me tbh.

Well that clears that up then.

Junkyard Tom

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

I'm genuinely struggling to grasp your reasoning.

The Irish language was essentially beaten to within an inch of its life. Take a look at all the anti-Irish legislation that was used to suppress it in the north by Unionists.

An ILA offers protection from what happened in the past repeating itself and recognises the language as an important cultural aspect of the Irish nation.

This is fairly simple stuff.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I'm curious to know why SF didn't agree to a consolidated minorities language act. Granted that Scots Gaelic isn't a real language, but what would have been the downside of recognition of that also?

Seems to me that what's going on is point scoring on both sides instead of compromise.

Scots Gaelic is a dialect of Irish. Arlene only wants it because of the Scot part. She'd hate it otherwise.

Ulster Scots is the makey uppy one

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

In that, I am fairly typical of people down here, with probably around 50% of normal people in agreement with me. Another 30%-40% don't care about a united Ireland and the rest are SF voters.

Ummm bollocks

McMurphy

Tinsley Tinkling Sunset wrote: »

I was going to ask were you watching ML on the late late but your posting earlier in the day.
No one believes that line except SF rebels as the dear leader called them!

There's nothing to "believe" - it's a literal translation of a phrase that has been used for decades, has its meaning changed?

rockatansky

blanch152 wrote: »

.I doubt that you could string more than a sentence or two together.

Christ, your bitterness really knows no boundaries.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

I am a constitutional nationalist from Dublin who believes that unionists should be persuaded of the merits of a united Ireland, but that said united Ireland never deserved the spilling of a drop of blood and that those who spilled that blood (SF/IRA) should properly atone for what they did.

In that, I am fairly typical of people down here, with probably around 50% of normal people in agreement with me. Another 30%-40% don't care about a united Ireland and the rest are SF voters.

I bet you cowered under the bed with the curtains drawn during the centenary celebrations.


Thank God they only played with spud guns and water pistols back then.

jm08

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I'll tell you where it's going to be very much alive.. in the north. I'd say within a generation the northeast will have the highest density of Irish speakers in Ireland, all thanks to the pettiness of the DUP and attitudes like yours.

I agree. I see that the top 11 performing schools in NI (based on A level results) are all catholic schools that have Irish in their curriculum. Learning Irish doesn't seem to hold them back.

nuac

blanch152 wrote: »

Keep creating a bogeyman to avoid debating the issues.

Keep dismissing the views of those who disagree with you, especially when they are conveniently difficult to debate.

I support a united Ireland - that is sufficient as a nationalist position.

I oppose the ILA, north and south, that is a legitimate view, believe it or not. Irish is more or less a dead language, little different to Ulster-Scots.

Modern Irish culture has grown far beyond the Irish language, only those clinging on to old traditions fail to realise this.

Disagree with you there.

I have been at school and university with native Irish speakers. I speak Irish frequently in various situations.

It is an old language with a rich history.

Yes, modern Irish culture, especially music, has grown far and wide. So?

Ulster-Scots? You cannot be serious

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Keep creating a bogeyman to avoid debating the issues.

Keep dismissing the views of those who disagree with you, especially when they are conveniently difficult to debate.

I support a united Ireland - that is sufficient as a nationalist position.

I oppose the ILA, north and south, that is a legitimate view, believe it or not. Irish is more or less a dead language, little different to Ulster-Scots.

Modern Irish culture has grown far beyond the Irish language, only those clinging on to old traditions fail to realise this.

Ulster Scots isn't a language at all though - so there's a bit of a flaw in your argument there.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The Irish language was essentially beaten to within an inch of its life. Take a look at all the anti-Irish legislation that was used to suppress it in the north by Unionists.

An ILA offers protection from what happened in the past repeating itself and recognises the language as an important cultural aspect of the Irish nation.

This is fairly simple stuff.

The Irish language was dropped and forgotten by the people of the North. They didn't care for decades about it and it died out.

flutered

blanch152 wrote: »

The Irish language was dropped and forgotten by the people of the North. They didn't care for decades about it and it died out.

if it is dead how com the to ten performence schools in ni have it in their curriculum

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The Irish language was essentially beaten to within an inch of its life. Take a look at all the anti-Irish legislation that was used to suppress it in the north by Unionists.

An ILA offers protection from what happened in the past repeating itself and recognises the language as an important cultural aspect of the Irish nation.

This is fairly simple stuff.

The Irish language was dropped and forgotten by the people of the North. They didn't care for decades about it and it died out.

New poster here myself, so I don't know much of anyone's history....but out of curiosity, how much time did you spend living in the North, and when, to build such a deep understanding of the personal feelings and motivations of the entire population there?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

The Irish language was dropped and forgotten by the people of the North. They didn't care for decades about it and it died out.

This is completely false.

Irish has been taught as a lesson from the curriculum for decades, many clubs and societies provide Irish lessons on after school or evening sessions.

You are posting stuff with no substance or source to bolster it.

You've already been shown the results for the top 10 schools in the region, all of them have Irish as a subject.

This is purely a case of because SF (and 4 others, but you will have stopped reading at SF) want something - you feel obliged to oppose it, and invent spurious reasons for doing so.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

The Irish language was dropped and forgotten by the people of the North. They didn't care for decades about it and it died out.

This is either lies, ignorance or some combination of the two. The Irish language was suppressed in the north by the unionist/Protestant statelet.

You'll be all too familiar with these sentiments and supportive of these measures:

an assault on funding for teaching Gaelic was launched in 1921. Concurrent with the launch of this assault was the removal of the language question from the Northern Ireland census of 1926 ... Unionist politicians denounced support for “the so-called Irish language” as a waste of time and money. Gaelic was associated with political disloyalty, and dismissed as dead, dying, and as a “foreign language” ... A 1949 Northern Ireland law prohibiting the erection of street signs in Gaelic was not repealed until the 1990s

as.nyu.edu/PoliticsOfTheIrishLanguage.pdf

NIMAN

We had compulsory Irish when we got to 1st year in grammar school in Derry in 1980.
It was compulsory for 1st and 2nd year, optional after that.

Only a handful out of each class kept it on to 'O' Level, most couldn't wait to drop it.

Junkyard Tom

Fionn1952 wrote: »

New poster here myself ... how much time did you spend living in the North

You're a 'new poster' yet you're asking me how much time I spent in the north? How do you know I spent any time there at all?

jm08

NIMAN wrote: »

We had compulsory Irish when we got to 1st year in grammar school in Derry in 1980.
It was compulsory for 1st and 2nd year, optional after that.

Only a handful out of each class kept it on to 'O' Level, most couldn't wait to drop it.

Has that not more to do with how the subjects are more specialised after GCSE and most people only do 3 A Levels?

NIMAN

jm08 wrote: »

Has that not more to do with how the subjects are more specialised after GCSE and most people only do 3 A Levels?

No, iirc it was more because most of us hated it.

Latin was in there too as a subject. I think back in those days we associated Latin and Irish as something similar if I'm honest, and most of the school dropped them as soon as the first opportunity arose.

There wasn't the attention and interest around the Irish language back then as there is now.

Fionn1952

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

New poster here myself ... how much time did you spend living in the North

You're a 'new poster' yet you're asking me how much time I spent in the north? How do you know I spent any time there at all?

The question was directed at "Blanch", the last person on the quote tree, not you.

I assumed he had lived in The North since he insists on speaking on behalf of all the people there. Considering I grew up on the Northern side of the border, I found it very strange how little it reflected my own experience, and the reasons I suspect the language has suffered.

I've no idea where you have or haven't spent any time, nor why you seem to think this has anything to do with my being a new poster.

Junkyard Tom

Fionn1952 wrote: »

The question was directed at "Blanch", the last person on the quote tree, not you.

I thought you were addressing me, sorry about that!

FrancieBrady

I think the 'own goal' is very much against Arlene...again. She is being led not leading.

http://eamonnmallie.com/2018/02/new-light-shone-draft-agreement-eamonn-mallie/

Embarrassing.

Phoebas

jm08 wrote: »

I agree. I see that the top 11 performing schools in NI (based on A level results) are all catholic schools that have Irish in their curriculum. Learning Irish doesn't seem to hold them back.

That's a bit of a crude correlation. That list was based off GCSE and A-Level results - is Irish even an A-Level exam?

I don't think anyone involved in the study or the schools involved have cited Irish being on offer as any part of their success.
What was cited is the fact that they are all faith based.

Sean Rafferty, head of St Louis Grammar in Ballymena wrote:

"If you take a look at the top 11 schools they are all faith-based, and I think that says it all."

McMurphy

Phoebas wrote: »

That's a bit of a crude correlation. That list was based off GCSE and A-Level results - is Irish even an A-Level exam?

I don't think anyone involved in the study or the schools involved have cited Irish being on offer as any part of their success.
What was cited is the fact that they are all faith based.

Showing my age a bit here, but its close to 20 years since I sat my a levels, but 100% Irish was an option to sit.

I'm not sure these days, but Irish was compulsory as a subject until GCSE level (O level prev to that) and I for one couldn't wait to get away from it (hindsight is a wonderful thing).

From Saint Louis school website.



It's still an option for A level, I imagine someone wishing to teach it might find it useful qualification to use in college etc.

jm08

Phoebas wrote: »

That's a bit of a crude correlation. That list was based off GCSE and A-Level results - is Irish even an A-Level exam?

The point I was trying to make is that despite investment in Irish in catholic schools, it hasn't prevented them from being high achievers. In fact, the point could be made that learning Irish from a young age has made it easier for them to pick up other languages.

The problem for English speaking countries is that there is no huge need to learn another language because they will get by on English only. Learning another language also gives you insight into other nationalities and their culture and how their thought process works.

Irish is a beautiful descriptive language. If we lost the language, we lose part of our heritage. For instance, the name Dublin is meaningless if you don't know where it came from (dubh linn=blackpool) in comparison to London which there are many theories (such as place owned by Londinios).

Phoebas

jm08 wrote: »

The point I was trying to make is that despite investment in Irish in catholic schools, it hasn't prevented them from being high achievers.

There is no evidence that those schools' inclusion at the top of the league table had anything to do whatsoever with the fact that they have Irish on the curriculum.
Who knows - maybe they would have done even better if they weren't investing in the Irish language. We simply can't say either way.

jm08 wrote: »

In fact, the point could be made that learning Irish from a young age has made it easier for them to pick up other languages.

The problem for English speaking countries is that there is no huge need to learn another language because they will get by on English only. Learning another language also gives you insight into other nationalities and their culture and how their thought process works.

Irish is a beautiful descriptive language. If we lost the language, we lose part of our heritage. For instance, the name Dublin is meaningless if you don't know where it came from (dubh linn=blackpool) in comparison to London which there are many theories (such as place owned by Londinios).

I'd agree with that to some extent. There are plenty of good arguments for investing in the Irish language without inventing more.

recedite

So NI schools can and do teach Irish to A level standard.
The British state funds Irish language broadcasting.
Anybody who wants to learn and speak the language can do so freely.

Is it really a major inconvenience to shinners that they can't demand to have a court case heard as gaeilge?
State-funded translators provided for everybody, despite that fact that all involved would be back speaking English again in the pub afterwards. Wouldn't it just be a pointless waste of public money? Jobs for the boys/cousins.