Scrap the Irish Language Commissioner

Iwasfrozen

Rubeter wrote: »

Yes and yes.

That's wonderful, and now I'm sure you will respect the right of myself and others not to speak the language, and by extension not have to pay for the upkeep of services in Irish?

opti0nal

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I don't think that's accurate as the funding for Irish lessons comes from the department of the education, at which point you're debating funding of primary schools and not that of pormotion of the Irish langauge.

Let's not put financial cost ahead of the human cost born by thousands of English-speaking children forced to learn Irish.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I also disagree with your definition of interferance. You could change the last word of that sentence to any subject and still have it stand and I don;t think an a la carte education system is a practciable idea.

Other languages are not compulsory, ballet is not compulsory. There is already an a-la-carte element to education. Just remove Irish as a core subject and facilitate Irish as an extra-curricular choice for those who wish to speak it. Problem solved.

Rubeter wrote:

The very fact that people can openly wish for and state these things is what democracy is all about.

True, but its a very different matter when crazy ideas are forced upon others.

Rubeter

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No, but I never said it wasn't. What I said was that their aim, "to reinstate the Irish language as the common tongue of Ireland" is undemocratic because it fails to take into account the will of everyone else.

So if say 60% of the Irish population wished to keep Irish compulsory in school and 40% wanted the learning of the language to be optional then it would be undemocratic for Iwasfrozen to set up an organisation with the main aim of removing this forced teaching of language on a large number of people.

Likeliness or unlikliness isn't relevant to the defiition of "democratic". Your next answer will be "42".

No it isn't, but neither was the question you asked which that was a reply to. Please keep up.

Rubeter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's wonderful, and now I'm sure you will respect the right of myself and others not to speak the language, and by extension not have to pay for the upkeep of services in Irish?

Speak whatever language you please, why should I care?

You nor anybody else gets to choose exactly how their tax money is divided up in government spending. What makes you so special? You must think you are very special because you couldn't possibly imagine it would be feasible for a government to divide up tax revenue so that each individual only pays for what they themselves want it to be spent on. Let alone the actual results of such a policy if it were even possible.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

opti0nal wrote: »

Let's not put financial cost ahead of the human cost born by thousands of English-speaking children forced to learn Irish.

Other languages are not compulsory, ballet is not compulsory. There is already an a-la-carte element to education. Just remove Irish as a core subject and facilitate Irish as an extra-curricular choice for those who wish to speak it. Problem solved.

True, but its a very different matter when crazy ideas are forced upon others.

1 - When you said "funding" you obviosuly meant financial cost.


2 - English, Maths, History, Geogrpahy and religion are throgh out 75% of education. Are these being forced upon children in violation of their human rights?

Rubeter wrote: »

So if say 60% of the Irish population wished to keep Irish compulsory in school and 40% wanted the learning of the language to be optional then it would be undemocratic for Iwasfrozen to set up an organisation with the main aim of removing this forced teaching of language on a large number of people.

No it isn't, but neither was the question you asked which that was a reply to. Please keep up.

1 - Yes, exactly. Democracy is bascially everyone gets a vote, majority wins. You're confusing democray with free speech.

2 - Then, why did you bring it up? You can't make a point, accept that it's not relevant and then blame the other person for not keeping up!



Both of you - stick to the defined terms.

Iwasfrozen

Rubeter wrote: »

Speak whatever language you please, why should I care?

You nor anybody else gets to choose exactly how their tax money is divided up in government spending. What makes you so special? You must think you are very special because you couldn't possibly imagine it would be feasible for a government to divide up tax revenue so that each individual only pays for what they themselves want it to be spent on. Let alone the actual results of such a policy if it were even possible.

No I don't think I'm special that's why we need to cut spending on the Irish language totally and cut taxes by the same amount. Then if people so wish they can resdistibute that money back into Irish. If they so choose.

opti0nal

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

2 - English, Maths, History, Geogrpahy and religion are throgh out 75% of education. Are these being forced upon children in violation of their human rights?

They all meet the needs of the child. Irish is far less important to the child and therefore choice should be allowed just as for other languages and 'nice-to-have' subjects.

The only Irish child a child might need is 'cupla focal'. That does not require 14 years of Irish lessons. A laminated card with phonetic spelling could be give to them as they leave school: Problem solved.

Rubeter

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

1 - Yes, exactly. Democracy is bascially everyone gets a vote, majority wins. You're confusing democray with free speech.

You actually believe it is undemocratic to want something other than what a majority wants? Holy crap, what are they teaching in schools these days.

2 - Then, why did you bring it up? You can't make a point, accept that it's not relevant and then blame the other person for not keeping up!

Me. I would absolutely love it if Ireland was a mainly Irish speaking country.
You. Nice. But are you prepared for the probabilty that other people will continue to say no thanks on such a level to make this pretty much impossible?
Me. Have a read of this post taking note of the words "incredibly unlikely" and have a guess as to what my answer to your question might be.
You. Likeliness or unlikliness isn't relevant to the defiition of "democratic". Your next answer will be "42".
Me. No it isn't, but neither was the question you asked which that was a reply to. Please keep up.
You. Then, why did you bring it up? You can't make a point, accept that it's not relevant and then blame the other person for not keeping up!

You are loosing the thread of the conversation.
If you can't follow a simple line of conversation coherently I have no interest in continuing with you. Bye.

Rubeter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No I don't think I'm special that's why we need to cut spending on the Irish language totally and cut taxes by the same amount. Then if people so wish they can resdistibute that money back into Irish. If they so choose.

Why only Irish why not everything else? What about me and the things I don't my money spent on?
See my point?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

opti0nal wrote: »

They all meet the needs of the child. Irish is far less important to the child and therefore choice should be allowed just as for other languages and 'nice-to-have' subjects.

The only Irish child a child might need is 'cupla focal'. That does not require 14 years of Irish lessons. A laminated card with phonetic spelling could be give to them as they leave school: Problem solved.

Religion is not a must-have subject. I could also put forward a case for History and Geography.

Rubeter wrote: »

You actually believe it is undemocratic to want something other than what a majority wants? Holy crap, what are they teaching in schools these days.

Me. I would absolutely love it if Ireland was a mainly Irish speaking country.
You. Nice. But are you prepared for the probabilty that other people will continue to say no thanks on such a level to make this pretty much impossible?
Me. Have a read of this post taking note of the words "incredibly unlikely" and have a guess as to what my answer to your question might be.

Here's where it goes arseways - you haven't aswered the question in the second quoted line, which is essentially a "yes" or "no" and I let you off the hook. Not up to me to guess.

It's not a case of what I believe, it's the factual definition of the word "democracy", which is the rule of majority.

opti0nal

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Religion is not a must-have subject. I could also put forward a case for History and Geography.

True, parents should be able to decide what if any religious formation a child receives. Just like language, it's a very personal imposition.

Maths History and Geography are important to numeracy and social knowledge. The argument for these to be core and compulsory is quite strong.

For English-speakers, Irish, on the other hand, has quite a weak argument, somewhere near ballet or knitting.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

opti0nal wrote: »

True, parents should be able to decide what if any religious formation a child receives. Just like language, it's a very personal imposition.

Maths History and Geography are important to numeracy and social knowledge. The argument for these to be core and compulsory is quite strong.

For English-speakers, Irish, on the other hand, has quite a weak argument, somewhere near ballet or knitting.

I could also put forward a case for Irish as being important for "social knowledge" if you can do so for history and geography. Even more so that inferring social knowledge onto a child is also interferance.

opti0nal

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I could also put forward a case for Irish as being important for "social knowledge" if you can do so for history and geography. Even more so that inferring social knowledge onto a child is also interferance.

But then we would enter into a debate, discussing the pros and cons of different ways of meeting the child's educational needs and which will have the most beneficial outcome.

This, of course, must begin with a mutual agreement that the needs of the child are paramount .

Arguing that Irish should be compulsory just because some other subjects are, is not a reasonable argument.

feargale

Rubeter wrote: »

Why only Irish why not everything else? What about me and the things I don't my money spent on?
See my point?

Rugby, GAA, Olympics, Abbey Theatre, Ballet, National Museum, Wexford Opera, Jeannie Johnson, Kilmainham Jail, Newgrange, Garden of Remembrance, National Gallery, National Monuments, Royal Irish Academy, the film industry, the acquisition of manuscripts of English language writers, knees-up for the Queen at Dublin Castle, etc etc etc, all loaded onto the price of my pint.

RandomName2

laoch na mona wrote: »

thats why its been [sic] abandoned [as] it is viewed as backwards and useless which stems from a colonial image of the speakers of irish

No, it is because it is useless. Well it isn't actually useless per se, but rather useless compared to learning other things.

BUt you are getting awfully close, in your posts, to equating being against the €250,000,000 being spent on Arts, Heritage and Gaelteacht as being colonialist racism. :mad:

laoch na mona wrote: »

ok to be practical i [,] as a person [,] have human rights[.] key to that is freedom of expression [,] which means i can chose to use a language which is connected to the culture i identify with

You could use Ancient Norse, Polish, or Japanese but it doesn't stop you being a dick if you know English, the Garda knows English, and you are deliberately using a language that the guy doesn't understand. Much worse, the person in question issued a formal complaint about it!

It would be like my being fluent in French, going to France, and insisting on speaking English (whether or not the people there speak English) because it's my culture!

feargale

opti0nal wrote: »

True, parents should be able to decide what if any religious formation a child receives. Just like language, it's a very personal imposition.

That's an interesting subject you've introduced. Would you see any parallels between the Irish language community and, say, the Church of Ireland community? Both are minorities. C. of I kids get special subventions to board at secondary schools because many of them, if they want to go to their own schools, must board. I don't hear many saying that's their choice so they should pay for it. Should Gaeilgeoiri not be treated on the same basis?

nesf

RandomName2 wrote: »

You could use Ancient Norse, Polish, or Japanese but it doesn't stop you being a dick if you know English, the Garda knows English, and you are deliberately using a language that the guy doesn't understand. Much worse, the person in question issued a formal complaint about it!

It would be like my being fluent in French, going to France, and insisting on speaking English (whether or not the people there speak English) because it's my culture!

Eh, no. You and I have a legal right to do business with the Government through Irish and English, no other language. Personally I think the guy was being a bit of a dick about it but it's got nothing to do it with it being "his culture" but because of how the law is as it stands.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

opti0nal wrote: »

But then we would enter into a debate, discussing the pros and cons of different ways of meeting the child's educational needs and which will have the most beneficial outcome.

This, of course, must begin with a mutual agreement that the needs of the child are paramount .

Arguing that Irish should be compulsory just because some other subjects are, is not a reasonable argument.

Indeed we do. Which is why neither you nor I select primary school subjects. And very few parents and going to have the kind of educational psychology tools to be able to choose for their child. In any case, an education is not
about what is merely useful or essential. The last thing you want for you kids is an education system that does not deal with expression and debate.

I have not argued the last line in your post.

RandomName2

nesf wrote: »

Eh, no. You and I have a legal right to do business with the Government through Irish and English, no other language. Personally I think the guy was being a bit of a dick about it but it's got nothing to do it with it being "his culture" but because of how the law is as it stands.

What about doing business with the Government through the medium of other officially recognised languages of EU member states? Is it purely down to that single line in the 1922 Irish Constitution concerning official languages?

opti0nal

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Indeed we do. Which is why neither you nor I select primary school subjects. And very few parents and going to have the kind of educational psychology tools to be able to choose for their child. In any case, an education is not
about what is merely useful or essential.

You seem to be saying 'the state knows best'?

What are the benefits, to the child, of being forced to learn Irish? Would it be more beneficial if the child and its parents had a choice of second language instead of having this choice forced on them by the state?

opti0nal

feargale wrote: »

That's an interesting subject you've introduced. Would you see any parallels between the Irish language community and, say, the Church of Ireland community? Both are minorities. C. of I kids get special subventions to board at secondary schools because many of them, if they want to go to their own schools, must board. I don't hear many saying that's their choice so they should pay for it. Should Gaeilgeoiri not be treated on the same basis?

For religion and language I favour choice. It's wrong to impose Irish on English speakers because this is more convenient for the establishment or because it reduces cost for Irish enthuisiasts.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

opti0nal wrote: »

You seem to be saying 'the state knows best'?

What are the benefits, to the child, of being forced to learn Irish? Would it be more beneficial if the child and its parents had a choice of second language instead of having this choice forced on them by the state?

Not nessecraily. But we live in a society where we've appointed them with that task, for better or for worse.

We're also drifitng off topic here. I'm not arguing whether or not one subject should be optional whereas one should be compulsory, I'm arguing that it's not "interferance" to have a compulsory subject.

If I was, I would argue (from an admittedly uninformed position, hence the use of the word "would") that young children have a need to feel that they belong in a "place" or have a "posiiton" within a society. A feeling that they belong. Irish, theoretically, does this - or at least, should. Once they hit secondary school, this is of less importance as the base will be established and they can explore other places and scenarios and choose one that fits their personality more.

Iwasfrozen

Rubeter wrote: »

Why only Irish why not everything else? What about me and the things I don't my money spent on?
See my point?

No I don't, by all means let's cut spending and taxes on everything. Fire away. Small Government is good government partly because it means small vocal minorities like yours can't boss everyone else around.

opti0nal

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

If I was, I would argue (from an admittedly uninformed position, hence the use of the word "would") that young children have a need to feel that they belong in a "place" or have a "posiiton" within a society. A feeling that they belong. Irish, theoretically, does this - or at least, should.

Or it might make them feel 'less Irish' or undermine their self-esteem because they are English-speakers who cannot speak 'our first national language'? Worse still, having guilt heaped on them because they are descended from Irish people who abandoned 'our native language' and collaborated with the English?

You have to admit that 14 years is grossly excessive when the outcome is 'cupla focal'.

Parents are allowed choose the religion of their children, why not the languages too?

nesf

RandomName2 wrote: »

What about doing business with the Government through the medium of other officially recognised languages of EU member states? Is it purely down to that single line in the 1922 Irish Constitution concerning official languages?

There's a few things that I can find (I'm not a legal person so I'm undoubtedly missing stuff):

The Official Languages Act 2003, amongst other things, requires public bodies in written communication to respond in Irish if they were written to in Irish. So if I send a letter into the Social Welfare in Irish they have to respond to Irish but there's no requirement on them to have Irish speaking staff to talk to me if I go in to meet them about something. Ditto the Revenue etc.

The Garda Síochána Act 2005 requires the Gardaí to put Gardaí in Gaeltacht regions who have enough Irish to do their business there through Irish when the need arises (from newspaper reports the Gardaí don't even manage this).

The final thing is that the Constitution says Irish is an official language alongside English which has a bunch of legal implications that I don't understand really.

So as far as I can make out there's no Act giving me a right to communicate the Gardaí through Irish but because of the Constitution I might be able to argue in court that I do have that right. That the 2005 Act requires the Gardaí to have Irish speaking Gardaí in certain areas gives some support to this perhaps? I'm not sure.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

opti0nal wrote: »

Or it might make them feel 'less Irish' or undermine their self-esteem because they are English-speakers who cannot speak 'our first national language'? Worse still, having guilt heaped on them because they are descended from Irish people who abandoned 'our native language' and collaborated with the English?

You have to admit that 14 years is grossly excessive when the outcome is 'cupla focal'.

Parents are allowed choose the religion of their children, why not the languages too?

Hey, i'm just putting it forward as a theory! Obviously, any idea that it (or anythign else for that matter) is a be-all or end-all and any isea that a child is not as good as another because he is not as "Irish" should be quashed immediately.

I completely accept the 14-years point. I'm all for it being optional at the start of secondary school.

But again - my point is that you can't appoint someone else to prepare an education system and then claim that they're interfeering when they do so.

opti0nal

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

.But again - my point is that you can't appoint someone else to prepare an education system and then claim that they're interfeering when they do so.

All education is interferance. The question is whether or not imposing Irish is justified. Just because we've allowed the state to do this for 80 years does not make it right. We should question the value and harm of what has been done. I believe any value is exceeded by the harm to the children and to the Irish language. It has, in effect, corrupted Irish by making it dependent on state imposition and it has harmed Irish by alienating so many people.

The OLA is an extension of this policy into the adult world. It's nothing to do with the rights of Irish speakers which are already protected by general rights of any citizen against racial, linguistic or cultural discrimination.

NUTLEY BOY

My biggest regret about Irish is the vast amount of time spent on it over 12 years at school. These were utterly wasted hours that could have been better spent on something else academically. Since leaving school Irish has never been of 5 seconds use to me in the real world. If Irish was an optional subject I would have dropped it even though it is a mandatory matriculation subject for NUI.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

opti0nal wrote: »

All education is interferance. The question is whether or not imposing Irish is justified. Just because we've allowed the state to do this for 80 years does not make it right. We should question the value and harm of what has been done. I believe any value is exceeded by the harm to the children and to the Irish language. It has, in effect, corrupted Irish by making it dependent on state imposition and it has harmed Irish by alienating so many people.

As kids get older, yes; but there is a practical element to it as well. Not always in practice, unfortunately. Beyond that, you're arguing into not only a different thread, but a different forum! Suggesting we leave that one there...

The OLA is an extension of this policy into the adult world. It's nothing to do with the rights of Irish speakers which are already protected by general rights of any citizen against racial, linguistic or cultural discrimination.

Not really, but expecting every scenario and encouter with a public official to be readily available to be delt with in a bilingual fashion is.

The problem with all these scenarios is the same: they work in theory, but people get up on their high horses and bastardise the hell out of them in order to make themselves opressed victims and heroes.

gnfnrhead

Personally, I think only English and Maths should be required after Junior Cert. Everything else being optional. Looking back at when I made my Leaving Cert choices, I picked Art, History and Geography. Not great options but I really liked Art and History. I wanted Physics as my third but it was in the same group as Art. Engineering was my fourth choice but also in with Art. As a result, I ended up with:

English, Irish, Maths, French, History, Geography, Art and Religion.

I'd have loved to be able to do:

English, Maths, French, History, Geography, Art, Physics and Engineering

but couldnt because I had to do Irish and Religion instead. Which set of subjects would be more useful in the long term? I'd hazard a guess that it's the first set.

Giving people that extra spot(s) to choose what subject they want to do is a hell of a lot more useful than forcing them to keep learning Irish.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

2 - English, Maths, History, Geogrpahy and religion are throgh out 75% of education. Are these being forced upon children in violation of their human rights?

History and Geography are optional after Junior Cert.