Party Leaders As Gaeilge

yoshytoshy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Culture and politics are far from separate.

If that is the case ,it's more important that TD's be driven around in electric cars and cycle to work. Thats a better message than speaking as gaeilge.

Biggins

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Culture and politics are far from separate.

...But they should be like church and state.
Separate entities what should not mix - for the betterment of all fairly if we are to try combat isolationism and discrimination.

deise go deo

Biggins wrote: »

...But they should be like church and state.
Separate entities what should not mix - for the betterment of all fairly if we are to try combat isolationism and discrimination.

I disagree, I think it is quite important that the culture of the population inform political discourse, Laws and policy should reflect who we are as a people.
(As long as they don't infringe on people of other cultures living here)

Biggins

deise go deo wrote: »

Well 41% of the population reported a reasonable ability to use/understand Irish in the last census, So 33% of the debates seams fair(Given the probability of the level of ability being over reported in the census)

What we have is an option (Going on the three debates proposal) Of having 2 English and one Irish debate or having three English debates. So the question is why should Irish be excluded? Is there a need to have a third Debate in English at the expense of Irish?

Which is the more unfair? To only hold two instead of three debates in the case of English or to hold nothing in the case of Irish?

Given that there is no practical constraint (all the leaders can take part in such a debate) what is the justification for not holding a debate in Irish, The service will be provided in English, No one will have any reason to miss out on what the leaders have to say as they will say it in English, on two occasions, so why is holding a debate in Irish such a problem for people? (Not aimed at you specifically Biggins)

You raise some good points to be equally fair.

The percentage that was taken at the last census might be accurate but personally speaking (for a number of reasons) I suspect the percentage quoted in the census might actually be lower - but thats just an opinion, not fact.

I am more sure that a great deal of people are going to lose out.
...I'm pulling the thread off track and I apologise.

To go back to the original thought of the OP and thread, I'm not persuaded more so to vote FOR a politician just because he CAN speak Irish - and as such I'm NOT put off a politician just because they CAN'T speak Irish.

Biggins

deise go deo wrote: »

I disagree, I think it is quite important that the culture of the population inform political discourse, Laws and policy should reflect who we are as a people.
(As long as they don't infringe on people of other cultures living here)

I'd have to by retort, disagree. (I would, wouldn't I! I'm a pain in the ass!)

Culture already says who we are and part of that is speaking Irish - we don't need politics to tell us that much.
"Politics" as such is just another further process (amid possibly others) that uses the speaking of a language for party gain, propaganda and alternative helpful uses for just the game of so called politics.

PomBear

if a politician could barely speak English and mostly Irish, he'd be predominantly scathed, sad times

Oasis_Dublin

That's the bitter, failed students of Irish for you! For shame.

dubhthach

Personally I don't see what the problem is if for example there are 4 debates and 1 is held through Irish. If the leaders want to do that surely they have a right to do so. From a technological point of view surely it can be time-shifted by 2-5minutes in which case on the fly translation can be provided.

On a related note I see that TV3 have offered to host at least one such debate. It would probably be a good idea in such a case to have debates spread between the three channels. I don't see why RTÉ should have a monopoly on debates etc.

southsiderosie

deise go deo wrote: »

Well, this country for one, Irish is allowed in the Dáil and dosent cause any problems when it is used.

Except for the people who are supposed to absorb that information.

Irish is obviously not the working language of the Dail, and given the current linguistic capacity of the general population, it would cause problems if used in more than a symbolic fashion.

deise go deo wrote: »

In addition to Ireland, Wales, Stormount, the Scottish assembly, Switzerland, Belgium(I presume) and of course the EU parliament all allow more than one language to be used at any time.

Romansh is the native language of less that 1% of the Swiss population. Do you really think it makes sense to use it at a national level? There are more native Serbo-Croatian speakers in Switzerland than that.

Also, you cannot compare the EU parliament to a national parliament. Not to mention the fact that the working languages of the EU are officially English and French - the two most widely used and understood languages.

In most countries that are multi-national, there is generally an agreed-upon language that is used to conduct national-level business, with the logic being that the business of the national-level government should be conducted in a manner that includes the most people possible. In the US, we do not have an official national language and a significant percentage of the population is Spanish-speaking (and 100 years ago, German-speaking). Yet despite the multiple national cultures, there has to be a shared civic culture. Using a common language in the public sphere is an essential component of that.

If the business of the Dail is ever to be held fully in Irish, then Ireland needs the kinds of comprehensive language policies that places like Catalonia have. Until then, the people's business should be conducted in the primary language of the majority of the people - English.

southsiderosie

deise go deo wrote: »

There is this group called ETA who havent endeared the Basque population, or its language to the Spanish government, In that light its not surprising that there may be some hesitation in doing the Basque languages any favors in the Spanish parliament.

This is a pretty unbelievable statement. So then do you think the DUP is justified in blocking Irish language initiatives because of the IRA?

Catalans were not actively involved in sustained terrorist campaigns, yet their language is restricted as well. Conservatives in Spain have always been wary of regional languages and culture because they threaten the territorial integrity of the country. Socialists have been far more accommodating, and the current leader of the regional Basque government is a Socialist. But even they thought bringing regional languages into the national legislature was a step too far.

Basques can listen to regional languages on the radio, buy papers in their language, and consume political information in that language as well (much of it produced at the expense of the parties themselves). But the vast majority of Basques consume their news in Spanish, the language of business in the regional government is Spanish, and the largest regional newspaper by circulation is in Spanish. I think Basques have done an admirable job of restoring their language and culture while remaining outward-looking, modern societies, but politicians want to reach as wide of an audience as possible, and the best way to do that is to use Spanish. Things may be different in a generation, but for now that's reality.

deise go deo

southsiderosie wrote: »

This is a pretty unbelievable statement. So then do you think the DUP is justified in blocking Irish language initiatives because of the IRA?

No I dont, nor do i think that a ban on Minority languages in National parliaments is justified at all.

If the business of the Dail is ever to be held fully in Irish, then Ireland needs the kinds of comprehensive language policies that places like Catalonia have. Until then, the people's business should be conducted in the primary language of the majority of the people - English.

I dont know why you are bringing up the idea of all Dáil business being held in Irish, that is not the issue, The issue is that there is no justification in this day and age for minority languages to be banned from being spoken in our national parliament.

deise go deo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I dont understand the logic of it, Why do the population need to see their leaders debate the same issues 4 times in English? Is three times not enough? What harm will a separate debate through Irish do?

If it was a choice of having three debated in English or having Three debates in English and a debate in Irish why not have the debate in Irish, What possible reason could there be for excluding the Irish language from the political life of the country? Why is it than under no circumstances that there can be no room for Irish in the course of the debates?
This country has committed its self to a Bi-Lingual future, I think you need to start moving with the times.

Refusing to hold any debate in Irish for no practical reason is not only undemocratic but highly discriminatory.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

deise go deo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The issues would surly have ample oppertunity to be aired in 2 or even three English debates? What effect would holding an Irish debate have on that? A Translation could easily be provided, so Transparency is not even an issue.:rolleyes:

As stated above: Only a minuscule percentage of the population is sufficiently capable with Irish to follow a complex political debate in it. I can well understand why FF are the ones who came up with this proposal: If they are going to be grilled with tough questions, they naturally would prefer that proceedings be conducted in a language that the electorate cannot understand.

So where is the line? What % of the population would have to be capable of following such a debate before one could be held?

This country committed itself to a bilingual future 80 years ago. I'm not holding my breath.

Ha. The country made a few tockenistic gestures to make it look different from their predecessors 80 years ago, They wraped the green flag round themselves, but they never committed the country to being Bi-lingual not to mind actually do anything to achieve it.

Only in the last ten years have real steps been taken to make Bi-lingualism a reality in this country(With one or two small steps before that)

gandalf

Again as I stated earlier why should we consider having one of these debates in Irish because only 4% of the population use Irish in any meaningful fashion at all.

What will it tell us, great we will have a leader that can use a language that is no use at all to us on an International stage.

Whether a leader of the parties can speak Irish or not will not influence me at all in the way I vote. A leader who has a clear grasp of the economic quagmire the country is stuck in and who has a workable vision to pull us out of the mess will get my full attention.

A language that has been press ganged on the school children of this state since its formation with no real benefit is not worth the resources that we waste on it. Resources that are now in short supply. As a country we should be looking outward with languages that make us more competitive and will give our children an advantage in the workplace of tomorrow rather than inward with a language that is of very little relevance to the vast majority on this island.

P. Breathnach

gandalf wrote: »

Again as I stated earlier why should we consider having one of these debates in Irish because only 4% of the population use Irish in any meaningful fashion at all...

Because of that 4%.

Martin's proposal is that a debate be hosted on TG4. The thinking seems clear enough to me: there is a population group that actually uses Irish, and he wants to communicate with them. What's wrong with that?

As a matter of interest, both Martin and Kenny speak Irish reasonably well, but they are not really fluent, and they tend to make some errors. I haven't heard Gilmore speak Irish, so I cannot comment on his ability.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

deise go deo wrote: »

I dont know why you are bringing up the idea of all Dáil business being held in Irish, that is not the issue, The issue is that there is no justification in this day and age for minority languages to be banned from being spoken in our national parliament.

I don't think anyone has an issue with Irish being used in an opening statement or greeting. And in Ireland's case, I don't think the issue is really about Irish being formally banned. Rather, it is (should be) a case of pure common sense: you use the language that the most people will understand in any given context. When I lived in Spain and was with Americans, I spoke English. If I was in a group of Spaniards, I spoke Spanish. And if I was in "mixed" company, generally the group switched to the language which most of the people in the group could speak, out of common courtesy.

If a politician insists on giving speeches in the Dail in Irish, to me that is a signal that, regardless of the content of their speech, the most important message they want to get across is that they are speaking on the floor of the Dail in Irish. While there is room for symbolic gestures in politics, given that in this case the means are more important than the message, then the message should be relatively minor (or related to the means, i.e. about language policy). This is decidedly not the case when it comes to a general election debate, the content of which is far to important to be muddled by its delivery.

Lockstep

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I haven't heard Gilmore speak Irish, so I cannot comment on his ability.

Can't comment on his written Irish, but he can speak it very well.

deise go deo

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't think anyone has an issue with Irish being used in an opening statement or greeting. And in Ireland's case, I don't think the issue is really about Irish being formally banned. Rather, it is (should be) a case of pure common sense: you use the language that the most people will understand in any given context.

It very much is an issue of Irish being banned, if the leaders are prevented from holding a debate as Gaeilge, what else would you call it?

So a debate on TG4 should be in Irish then?

If a politician insists on giving speeches in the Dail in Irish, to me that is a signal that, regardless of the content of their speech, the most important message they want to get across is that they are speaking on the floor of the Dail in Irish. While there is room for symbolic gestures in politics, given that in this case the means are more important than the message, then the message should be relatively minor (or related to the means, i.e. about language policy). This is decidedly not the case when it comes to a general election debate, the content of which is far to important to be muddled by its delivery.

Yes, but what you are missing is why that message needs to be gotten across, It is quite important for the language to be heard in the Dáil, How can a state promote Bi-lingualism if it prevents it in its national parliament?



As for your slur on the Ability's of the Three Party leaders ability to speak Irish, All three are fluent Irish speakers, There would be no muddling in their delivery. It would be delivered fluently and coherently as Gaeilge.

We hold pre-election debates so that voters can grasp the parties' various stances on issues, and hopefully make more educated choices on polling day. Conducting debates in a language that excludes all but a minuscule percentage of the electorate defeats that goal.

A general election and the debates leading up to it are all about the countries future, The Irish language, its use and position in this country is an issue in this General election, given that all the parties have signed up to a bi-lingual future I can't think of anything more appropriate than a debate as Gaeilge.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

deise go deo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Indeed, that would be why there would be debates in English and Irish, not just English;)

sceptre

I've moved a chunk of recent posts to the "The status of Irish" thread in this forum. For those who have a problem understanding a moderator instruction and thread-topic regardless of its posted language, please try harder.

/mod

ardmacha

This thread has the usual proposition put forward by the neo-Cromwellian faction that Irish and its use is somehow opposed to economic competance or an international orientation. As per the news this morning the fastest growing European economies at present include Finland, a place where people speak Swedish and Finnish, which doesn't seem to have affected their ability to have economic success.

Ireland has two languages and the conduct a minimum of at least one leaders debate in each language is proper in a democratic society.

yoshytoshy

ardmacha wrote: »

As per the news this morning the fastest growing European economies at present include Finland, a place where people speak Swedish and Finnish, which doesn't seem to have affected their ability to have economic success.

It's just silly to compare Ireland with any non-english speaking countries. Finland always spoke finnish ,it's not getting in the way of business for them.

Translators only alienate the language further.

Leave the politics to the politicians.

dubhthach

yoshytoshy wrote: »

It's just silly to compare Ireland with any non-english speaking countries. Finland always spoke finnish ,it's not getting in the way of business for them.

Translators only alienate the language further.

Leave the politics to the politicians.

It's not about Finnish getting in the way it's about Swedish "getting in the way" (to use your words). In general the situation in Finland is very similar to here. There however the national language is the dominant one (94.5%) whereas Swedish is at 5.5% and is a leftover from Swedish colonial period (which was replaced by 100years of Russian rule). When you think about it those are similar percentages to situation of English and Irish in Ireland. At the beginning of 20th century the Swedish speaking population was around 14% -- comparable to Ireland which was 19% Irish speaking in 1901. However Finland is an officialy bilingual country (we paid lipservice for most of last 90 years).

With regards to politicians and parliament:

Governmental bilingualism

In terms of government services, bilingualism is obligatory throughout the country. In principle, every Swedish-speaking citizen is guaranteed to receive services in his or her language, as long as they involve institutions under the central government.

Constitutional and statutory provisions mean that the entire legislative process is bilingual. Bilingualism applies to debates in the Parliament in Helsinki and to the drafting and enactment of laws. However, because the number of Swedish-speaking members of Parliament is so small (about a dozen), Swedish is in fact little used. Reports from state commissions or ministerial committees are always published in Finnish, but with a summary in Swedish.

Sounds remarkably familiar doesn't it? Even down the bit of very few parliamentarians been competent enough in Swedish and thus rarity of debate in Swedish in Finish Parliament.

Education

Municipalities, regardless of whether they have bilingual or unilingual status, are required to provide instruction in Finnish and in Swedish. All children are entitled to attend schools in the language of their choice, at the kindergarten, primary, secondary and university levels. In most Swedish schools, the proportion of Finnish-speaking students is high, sometimes reaching 80% in the Helsinki area, and this can lead to pedagogical problem

Key difference I would think is here you don't have a right to send your children to an Irish medium school. If you are lucky to live near then you have an option but for example there are several counties in Ireland that do not even have Irish language secondary schools (Gaelcholáiste).

yoshytoshy

dubhthach wrote: »

It's not about Finnish getting in the way it's about Swedish "getting in the way" (to use your words). In general the situation in Finland is very similar to here. There however the national language is the dominant one (94.5%) whereas Swedish is at 5.5% and is a leftover from Swedish colonial period (which was replaced by 100years of Russian rule).

You're comparing our low percentage of irish speakers with finlands ,swedish speaking percentage ?

Theres more than the 5.5% of swedish speakers in Finland ,speaking swedish in the world. And the economic benefits are far more than the irish speaking ones.

There is no comparison.

dubhthach

Sorry but what exactly has "economic benefits" got to do with Party leaders having a debate in Irish? The Finns didn't enact legal rights to government services through Medium of Swedish for "Economic benefits". They did because 5%~ of their population use Swedish as their first language. All of that 5% can speak Finnish as well (plus no doubt most of them can also speak at least one other European language).

yoshytoshy

dubhthach wrote: »

Sorry but what exactly has "economic benefits" got to do with Party leaders having a debate in Irish? The Finns didn't enact legal rights to government services through Medium of Swedish for "Economic benefits". They did because 5%~ of their population use Swedish as their first language. All of that 5% can speak finish as well.

Sweden trades with Finland.

"Sorry but what exactly has "economic benefits" got to do with Party leaders having a debate in Irish?"

I'm all for irish speaking as long as it's providing a return. Politicians debating in Irish ,serves only people who speak Irish and does nothing for the country.

Politicians have some cheek to debate in Irish ,when there is places like the school in Cabra that have been left to rot for fiftheen years.

dubhthach

yoshytoshy wrote: »

Sweden trades with Finland.

"Sorry but what exactly has "economic benefits" got to do with Party leaders having a debate in Irish?"

I'm all for irish speaking as long as it's providing a return. Politicians debating in Irish ,serves only people who speak Irish and does nothing for the country.

Politicians have some cheek to debate in Irish ,when there is places like the school in Cabra that have been left to rot for fiftheen years.

Well Finland trading with Sweden is a valid reason for having Swedish as a subject in school. However I don't think it would be reason for having all Government services available in Swedish (including law making process) do you? For example the Netherlands does alot trade with Germany (like Sweden/Finland) and you will find alot of Dutch people learn German in school (along with English), however the Dutch government doesn't provide services in German (including the lawmaking process), so I don't think the Finns are using that logic. I think they allow Government services in Swedish because they have an autochthonous Swedish speaking minority.

The situation in Cabra is a disgrace however I don't see it's relevance to politicians talking in Irish. Surely the issue there is the Governement underspent for years on it's Capex (Capital expenditure) budget and then used the money to give tax-breaks to their mates in the building trade.