Scrap the Irish Language Commissioner

An Coilean

nesf wrote: »

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.

Under the Official Languages Act, all public bodies have to agree Language Schemes with the office of An Comisinéir Teanga. The Idea is that instead of trying to enforce full bilingualism across the board from day one, a plan that would not work, public bodies would develop their capacity to opperate bilingually over time moving from language scheme to language scheme in a step by step process. Language schemes are usually implemented over 3 or 4 years but once agreed the requirements remain in force even when the Scheme they came in under lapses.
The obligation on the Gardaí to facilitate anyone who wants to use Irish when conducting their business was agreed in a Language Scheme with an Comisinéir Teanga and the case in question was one of the Gardaí being in breach of their Language Scheme.

nesf

An Coilean wrote: »

Under the Official Languages Act, all public bodies have to agree Language Schemes with the office of An Comisinéir Teanga. The Idea is that instead of trying to enforce full bilingualism across the board from day one, a plan that would not work, public bodies would develop their capacity to opperate bilingually over time moving from language scheme to language scheme in a step by step process. Language schemes are usually implemented over 3 or 4 years but once agreed the requirements remain in force even when the Scheme they came in under lapses.
The obligation on the Gardaí to facilitate anyone who wants to use Irish when conducting their business was agreed in a Language Scheme with an Comisinéir Teanga and the case in question was one of the Gardaí being in breach of their Language Scheme.

3-4 years to have a bilingual service in place across the country? That's woefully overoptimistic. And that is written not oral interaction with each Public Body isn't it?

opti0nal

An Coilean wrote: »

Under the Official Languages Act, all public bodies have to agree Language Schemes with the office of An Comisinéir Teanga. The Idea is that instead of trying to enforce full bilingualism across the board from day one, a plan that would not work, public bodies would develop their capacity to opperate bilingually over time moving from language scheme to language scheme in a step by step procrss.

But why do this at all? Everyone speaks English. There would be no real need to do this, if Irish language enthusiasts would withdraw their unreasonable demands and cooperate with the rest of society.

Is it something to do with progressing towards the Main Aim?

Lord TSC

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Personally, I think only English and Maths should be required after Junior Cert.

As an aside, I disagree here. I'd rather that everything post JC was optional.

Realistically, what you need for every day life is achieved pre-Junior Cert. From an English perspective, you've got reading, writing, grammar etc down by that stage (or should; the Leaving Cert is not going to cover that again). You've learned how to write letters, CVs and so forth. Likewise in Math, you've got enough to get you through day to day life. The leaving cert curriculum then is based on further education in the subject, and as an English teacher I would argue the merits of the subject at a LC level by saying how it deals with critical analysis, which is a great skill to have, and vital if you go on to third level, but not always 100% nessecary if you decide to go down certain routes in life.

From my perspective, all subjects should be made optional after Junior Cert, and then it's up to the teachers of those subjects to promote the subject to students and give them a reason to study it. There's no point being a hypocrite and saying "Your subject is less important than mine, therefore mine should be mandatory because of course everyone will choose it".

An Coilean

nesf wrote: »

3-4 years to have a bilingual service in place across the country? That's woefully overoptimistic. And that is written not oral interaction with each Public Body isn't it?

No, A scheme lasts for 3-4 years, in their first scheme they set out what is already available in Irish and make some basic commitments to improve provision in certain areas, when that scheme is over those commitments remain in force and they move onto another scheme to build on the first and so on.

9959

An Coilean wrote: »

No, A scheme lasts for 3-4 years, in their first scheme they set out what is already available in Irish and make some basic commitments to improve provision in certain areas, when that scheme is over those commitments remain in force and they move onto another scheme to build on the first and so on.

What if they can't move on to the second scheme because of the obvious failures of the first scheme, whither the third 'scheme', not to mention the fourth 'scheme', or should that be 'scam'?

There's too much 'scheming' in this Irish language business, that's the problem, when will you realise that - in the words of John Lennon - "the scheme is over".

opti0nal

9959 wrote: »

What if they can't move on to the second scheme because of the obvious failures of the first scheme?

The Official Languages Act provides for penalties including fines and imprisonment for anyone who obstructs the Irish Language Commisioner. Failure is not an option.

'Success' of a scheme will be measured in terms of money spent and jobs given to Irish enthusiasts. It would be at least 10 years before the C&G will highlight the money wasted.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

opti0nal wrote: »

The Official Languages Act provides for penalties including fines and imprisonment for anyone who obstructs the Irish Language Commisioner.

Bit of a difference between a scheme failing and a scheme being intentionally blocked. Not to mention a scheme simply falling behind schedule.

opti0nal

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Bit of a difference between a scheme failing and a scheme being intentionally blocked. Not to mention a scheme simply falling behind schedule.

What it means is that Secretary Generals of departments will be at risk of imprisonment if they say they can't afford to comply. That would be obstructive.

The Language Commissioners office will be anxious to maintain momentum towards their main aim and won't want to waste time looking at business cases or cost-benefit analysis.

The best thing that can happen is the proposed closure of the Spiddal office and the merger of the function with the that of Equality Commissioner. This could lead to a more rational approach to the rights of Irish language enthusiasts.

This might explain the LC's aggressive attitude, as he probably knows that the OLA is unpopular and expensive and his quango is on the government/troika hit list.

An Coilean

opti0nal wrote: »

What it means is that Secretary Generals of departments will be at risk of imprisonment if they say they can't afford to comply. That would be obstructive.

The Language Commissioners office will be anxious to maintain momentum towards their main aim and won't want to waste time looking at business cases or cost-benefit analysis.

What is An Coimisinéir Teanga's 'Main Aim'?

You are casting spurious allegations around that have no basis in reality. The OLA has been in place for 10 years now, show me one case, just one, of what you describe above actually happening.

I'm sorry but it looks to me like your just making stuff up to suit your arguments.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

opti0nal wrote: »

What it means is that Secretary Generals of departments will be at risk of imprisonment if they say they can't afford to comply. That would be obstructive.

Incorrect. see below:

OLA 2003
17.—Where—

(a) a public body fails or refuses to prepare a draft scheme in accordance with a notice issued under section 11 or 15,

(b) after presentation by a public body of a draft scheme to the Minister for confirmation, the public body and the Minister are unable to agree the terms of the scheme, or

(c) after receipt by a public body of a notice of proposed amendments to a scheme, the public body and the Minister are unable to agree on any amendments,

the Minister shall report this failure, refusal or inability to each House of the Oireachtas.

It just states that each cases would be reported. Doesn't say anything about jail. Furthermore:

OLA 2003 Section 22
(4) A person who fails or refuses to comply with a requirement under this section or who hinders or obstructs the Commissioner in the performance of his or her functions under this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both.

Obstructing an investigation by the commission would do it, but that's not the same as not being able to afford to implement it.

The Language Commissioners office will be anxious to maintain momentum towards their main aim and won't want to waste time looking at business cases or cost-benefit analysis.

Are you sure you're not mixing up the main aim of CnaG with the LC? The LC aim is merely to observe and investigate, not promote.

The best thing that can happen is the proposed closure of the Spiddal office and the merger of the function with the that of Equality Commissioner. This could lead to a more rational approach to the rights of Irish language enthusiasts.

This might explain the LC's aggressive attitude, as he probably knows that the OLA is unpopular and expensive and his quango is on the government/troika hit list.

Wouldn't be a bad idea.

opti0nal

An Coilean wrote:

What is An Coimisinéir Teanga's 'Main Aim'?

To enforce the Official Languages Act to the fullest.

An Coilean wrote:

You are casting spurious allegations around that have no basis in reality. The OLA has been in place for 10 years now, show me one case, just one, of what you describe above actually happening.

There's nothing at all spurious about the existence of criminal sanctions for people who resist the Language Police. The fact these powers have not been used reflects the fact that this would cause a backlash that would precipitate popular demand for the abolition of the OLA. Nevertheless, the threat is very real: it's written in the law. What were they thinking of when they decided that it might be necessary to threaten people with jail in order to secure compliance with the OLA?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

It just states that each cases would be reported. Doesn't say anything about jail. Furthermore:...Obstructing an investigation by the commission would do it, but that's not the same as not being able to afford to implement it.

After receiving a report, the government would decide whether or not to use the powers of the act. Whether or not someone has obstructed the Irish Language Czar is all a down to the attitude of whoever is in power at the time.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Are you sure you're not mixing up the main aim of CnaG with the LC? The LC aim is merely to observe and investigate, not promote.

Check the Language Commissioner's website, it has an graphic advertisement on the bottom left of the front page for something called 'Bliain na Gaeilge'. BnaG appears to be a creature of CnaG as it operates from the same address and has the same CEO. The LC's links page contains a link to CnaG and other Irish language organizations.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

opti0nal wrote: »

After receiving a report, the government would decide whether or not to use the powers of the act. Whether or not someone has obstructed the Irish Language Czar is all a down to the attitude of whoever is in power at the time.

Ah now, you're getting as hysterical as AC now! There is no provision in that act for even the DPP to prosecute or jail anyone merely for a funding issue.

And saying it could happen is merely scaremongering. As I said, different forum.

Check the Language Commissioner's website, it has an graphic advertisement on the bottom left of the front page for something called 'Bliain na Gaeilge'. BnaG appears to be a creature of CnaG as it operates from the same address and has the same CEO. The LC's links page contains a link to CnaG and other Irish language organizations.

Firstly, this is massively circumstancial; secondly it does not even come close to addessing the point I raised that you replied to.

opti0nal

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Ah now, you're getting as hysterical as AC now! There is no provision in that act for even the DPP to prosecute or jail anyone merely for a funding issue.

So can you describe when those draconian powers would be used?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Firstly, this is massively circumstancial; secondly it does not even come close to addessing the point I raised that you replied to.

You said that the LC is not involved in Irish language promotion, I demonstrated that it has links to CnaG. I would not at all surprised if some of the staff are active members.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

opti0nal wrote: »

So can you describe when those draconian powers would be used?

You said that the LC is not involved in Irish language promotion, I demonstrated that it has links to CnaG. I would not at all surprised if some of the staff are active members.

1 - I said they could NOT be used in the way you suggested

2 - As i said - linking to an offshoot of a different organisation does not imply the same "main aim". Example: rte.ie has a link to the lotto - does this mean RTE are now a gambling organisation...??

Rubeter

opti0nal wrote: »

You said that the LC is not involved in Irish language promotion, I demonstrated that it has links to CnaG. I would not at all surprised if some of the staff are active members.

Oh my God!!!! :eek: There might actually be someone working for a government agency set up to ensure Irish speakers have access to services in their native language who is also a member of a voluntary organisation which promotes the language, what an outrageous situation. Why don't you report such a horrific situation (go on give someone a good laugh).

opti0nal

Rubeter wrote: »

Oh my God!!!! :eek: There might actually be someone working for a government agency set up to ensure Irish speakers have access to services in their native preferred language who is also a member of a voluntary organisation which promotes the language, what an outrageous situation. Why don't you report such a horrific situation (go on give someone a good laugh).

Fixed that for you.

What if a person, who is a government employee, participates in the activities of a voluntary organisation which criticises government policy on freedom of language choice (if that language is English) and lobbies voters to vote against a particular party?

The point at issue is that the Language Commissioner's office is not a dispassionate objective enforcer of a a piece of legislation.

Who funds CnaG?