Should removing the primacy of the Irish text be the first Constitutional reform?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Article 25 5. 4° says

In case of conflict between the texts of any copy of this Constitution enrolled under this section, the text in the national language shall prevail.

As we know, the native language of most Irish people in English. I'm not sure if any other democracy has it's Constitution written in a language which most of it's citizens are unable to communicate in.

It strike me as a particularly corrosive concept, that the authoritative version of laws would be one that the people bound by it do not understand. I think one effect of it is to create a barrier, which obstructs us from seeing the Constitution as a document that simply describes the rights and obligations that we agree to share in our political community.

I'd therefore say that the reversal of this Article is the first necessary reform. We need, at least, to be discussing the texts that actually govern our political life.

Any views?

Lingua Franca

For me at least the thanks and subsequent silence means "I agree".

Red Silurian

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Article 25 5. 4° says As we know, the native language of most Irish people in English. I'm not sure if any other democracy has it's Constitution written in a language which most of it's citizens are unable to communicate in.

It strike me as a particularly corrosive concept, that the authoritative version of laws would be one that the people bound by it do not understand. I think one effect of it is to create a barrier, which obstructs us from seeing the Constitution as a document that simply describes the rights and obligations that we agree to share in our political community.

I'd therefore say that the reversal of this Article is the first necessary reform. We need, at least, to be discussing the texts that actually govern our political life.

Any views?

My view... People should learn their (first) national language if they want to read their constitution

Sound fair?

oscarBravo

colmtheperson wrote: »

My view... People should learn their (first) national language if they want to read their constitution

Sound fair?

No. In fact, it's our de facto second national language by a vast margin.

Red Silurian

oscarBravo wrote: »

No. In fact, it's our de facto second national language by a vast margin.

Dev would probably disagree with you if he was still alive today...

Me, I was just giving an opinion!

Another opinion is perhaps if Irish were to be taught (and examined) properly in school then we would not have so much of a disinterest in the language

Ziphius

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Article 25 5. 4° says As we know, the native language of most Irish people in English. I'm not sure if any other democracy has it's Constitution written in a language which most of it's citizens are unable to communicate in.

Hindi in India, perhaps? Though it is the largest language in the country.

The Irish situation seems particularly bizarre. A tiny minority language is considered constitutionally superior to the actual language of the citizens.

SeanW

colmtheperson wrote: »

Dev would probably disagree with you if he was still alive today...

Ah, good old Dev. Rule by the bishops, comely maidens dancing at the crossroads, and the Irish language.

Some things should be left in the 1950s.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

colmtheperson wrote: »

<...> perhaps if Irish were to be taught (and examined) properly in school then we would not have so much of a disinterest in the language

That could be right, and I'd feel that discussion around that would be helped by a realistic provision in the Constitution. Bear in mind, I'm picking the amendment carefully. Initially at least, changing Article 25 5. 4° to give primacy to the English version of the Constitution would still leave Article 8 1. saying "The Irish language as the national language is the first official language." Now, I'll admit that there would be a discordance between an unchanged Article 8 and an amended Article 25. My point is that our national debate around Constitutional reform needs to be around a text we can all read. The discussion around what Constitutional status Irish should have, if any, needs to be around an English language text that we can all actually understand.

Now, what I'd feel is debate might well discover that (much as you say) what we might actually agree on is a need to improve Irish tuition, rather that agreeing on any need to give any language a Constitutional status at all. For instance, I don't think that the US Constitution makes any language an official language. Language doesn't particularly relate to what values we want to collectively espouse when defining our political rights and obligations.

So, conceivably, a proper debate would see us deleting Article 8 entirely.

Grudaire

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

So, conceivably, a proper debate would see us deleting Article 8 entirely.

The problem there is that there are two versions of the constitution - one in Irish and one in English - and they can/do differ, so ultimately one version must be 'right' and another must be 'wrong'!



I think I would be sad for that article to be removed. It would be a symbolic move away from the Irish language, and I would like to see things moving towards the language not away!

On a practical note what you say has merits though

WizardofOz

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Article 25 5. 4° says As we know, the native language of most Irish people in English. I'm not sure if any other democracy has it's Constitution written in a language which most of it's citizens are unable to communicate in.

It strike me as a particularly corrosive concept, that the authoritative version of laws would be one that the people bound by it do not understand. I think one effect of it is to create a barrier, which obstructs us from seeing the Constitution as a document that simply describes the rights and obligations that we agree to share in our political community.

I'd therefore say that the reversal of this Article is the first necessary reform. We need, at least, to be discussing the texts that actually govern our political life.

Any views?

Can I ask, if you moved to another European country and over time became a citizen of that same country would you not need to learn the language in order to understand the Constitution of that country? Why would it be any different here. The irish language is constantly being undermined as it is not considered a 'business' language. It is our native language so perhaps instead of wasting energy changing this Article more effort should be put into learning the language? I learned irish in primary and secondary school and glad of it to be honest, i get very little chance to practice or use it apart from watching TG4 but as far as text is concerned I get even less chance to use it,maybe I'll just go and read the Constitution in my native language Perhaps it would bring a new sense of national pride to people if they learned how to speak their native langauge? As you can probably guess I believe the way it is currently, is the way it should remain.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Cliste wrote: »

The problem there is that there are two versions of the constitution - one in Irish and one in English - and they can/do differ, so ultimately one version must be 'right' and another must be 'wrong'!

But bear in mind, it's Article 25 that states the primacy of the Irish text. What I'm saying is the starting point is to clearly state that the English version is the authoritative text. Deleting Article 8 (if that was what was agreed) would still leave an amended Article 25 stating that the English text is definitive.

WizardofOz wrote: »

Can I ask, if you moved to another European country and over time became a citizen of that same country would you not need to learn the language in order to understand the Constitution of that country? Why would it be any different here.

But the difference is that we haven't moved here. This is our native country, but the authoritative version of the Constitution is in a language that few of us can communicate in with fluency. We're not foreigners - that's half the point.

WizardofOz wrote: »

It is our native language ....

Well, no, for most of us it isn't. It's a language traditional to this part of the world, but the native language of most of us is English.

And the Constitution isn't really a tool for promoting social change. It's a document to set out the rights and obligations that we share. Within it';s framework, clearly anyone can advance an agenda for social change. But the political mechanisms should be neutral.

Zubeneschamali

Cliste wrote: »

The problem there is that there are two versions of the constitution - one in Irish and one in English - and they can/do differ, so ultimately one version must be 'right' and another must be 'wrong'!

Worse: the Constitution was drafted and written in English, then translated into Irish, and then the translation was declared authoritative. So any differences between them are actually errors in the Irish translation, but override the (original) English version!

Grudaire

Not necessarily. The wording of the constitution can lead to unforseen consequences (eg the abortion referendum). Just because it was drafted in English first doesn't mean that the Irish translation has picked up the wrong end of the stick as long as the Irish translation is done based on what they meant when drafting the constitution..

How often does the Irish and English versions deviate significantly anyway? I would have thought that there's only a few minor differences?

Paramite Pie

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It strike me as a particularly corrosive concept, that the authoritative version of laws would be one that the people bound by it do not understand.

All law in this country is interpreted and applied by the Courts anyways so I don't think there's a problem as the wording of legal jargon (even in English) is often very specific anyways and can be confusing to many of us.

That's why we have lawyers to defend us and to inform us of our rights.

I don't see a problem with the primacy of the Irish text to be honest.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Cliste wrote: »

How often does the Irish and English versions deviate significantly anyway?

The point is I can't tell you. Very few people in Ireland can tell you want the Irish version means.

Paramite Pie wrote: »

All law in this country is interpreted and applied by the Courts anyways so I don't think there's a problem as the wording of legal jargon (even in English) is often very specific anyways and can be confusing to many of us.

Ah, come on, there's a complete difference between understanding specific legal concepts and the text being in a language that few can actually understand. I'll give a concrete example, taking a matter of current debate.

Most Irish people cannot tell you at all what this says

Admhaíonn an Stát ceart na mbeo gan breith chun a mbeatha agus, ag féachaint go cuí do chomhcheart na máthar chun a beatha, ráthaíonn sé gan cur isteach lena dhlíthe ar an gceart sin agus ráthaíonn fós an ceart sin a chosaint is a shuíomh lena dhlíthe sa mhéid gur féidir é.

So it's quite simply impossible to have any conversation about it. However, most Irish people can read this

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Now, it might involve quite a bit of legal argument to decide how this applies to embryo research, or other exotic topics. But people can read that English text, understand that it's establishing a principle that prohibits abortion and understand if a doctor or lawyer says that abortion is only allowed where there's a real risk to the life of the mother, because they can read "equal right to life of the mother" for themselves. So you can have a real conversation. Should the unborn have an equal right to life? Maybe yes, maybe no, but at least everyone can discuss it on the same terms.

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I don't see a problem with the primacy of the Irish text to be honest.

I think it's reasonable for Irish language enthusiasts to make a case to retain the present situation. Clearly, I don't agree with that view, but it's not Stalinist Russia so people can advocate whatever position they wish.

However, I do regard it as unreasonable for supporters of the status quo to pretend that having the authoritative text of our Constitution in a language that few can understand is not creating a problem for someone. You can argue that some good outweighs the problem. But I'm afraid I think that pretending it's no big deal is just obtuse.

Robbo

I'd be in favour of it just to wind up the Freeman/Sovereign citizen nutbars who like to use it as a mechanism to re-translate everything back into English in order to make the bend the articles to their ends.

eire4

Not for me. I would rather see contiuned efforts at developing a more bi-lingual society.

antoobrien

Robbo wrote: »

I'd be in favour of it just to wind up the Freeman/Sovereign citizen nutbars who like to use it as a mechanism to re-translate everything back into English in order to make the bend the articles to their ends.

I'd leave it there after reading some of the judgements of the ECJ where they mentioning the effect of the different meaning of words in different languages on how certain laws/directives are interpreted and applied locally.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

antoobrien wrote: »

I'd leave it there after reading some of the judgements of the ECJ where they mentioning the effect of the different meaning of words in different languages on how certain laws/directives are interpreted and applied locally.

Have you a link to that material? I'd just be generally interested.

And I don't quite get your point. What exactly do you mean by "leave it there", and how would you see this help the situation in respect of the ECJ rulings?

antoobrien

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Have you a link to that material? I'd just be generally interested.

Here's one of them - see paragraph 46.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And I don't quite get your point. What exactly do you mean by "leave it there", and how would you see this help the situation in respect of the ECJ rulings?

Good training for the legal bods.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

antoobrien wrote: »

Good training for the legal bods.

Do you mean training in handling law where language conflict? Like most Irish people, I'd say my personal preference would be to avoid Irish and go straight to an international language. In this case, I'd say let the training be related to dealing with EU law - which is the actual challenge they have to meet. We don't need to turn the domestic legal system into a sandpit.

Does any single language have authority in the EU? If you reflect on it, I'm not sure there's any parallel.

antoobrien

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Do you mean training in handling law where language conflict? Like most Irish people, I'd say my personal preference would be to avoid Irish and go straight to an international language. In this case, I'd say let the training be related to dealing with EU law - which is the actual challenge they have to meet. We don't need to turn the domestic legal system into a sandpit.

Does any single language have authority in the EU? If you reflect on it, I'm not sure there's any parallel.

Which is precisely why we need to keep Irish, it makes training our people to think beyond a bastardised FrancoGerman language -the meaning of which changes at the whims of, well to be blunt, yokels - much easier.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

antoobrien wrote: »

Which is precisely why we need to keep Irish, it makes training our people to think beyond a bastardised FrancoGerman language -the meaning of which changes at the whims of, well to be blunt, yokels - much easier.

I'm afraid I don't follow the point at all. Also, I think you are confusing the formal status of Irish with its actual status. In practical terms, there's nothing to keep.

antoobrien

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't follow the point at all. Also, I think you are confusing the formal status of Irish with its actual status. In practical terms, there's nothing to keep.

I'd disagree with you there because I use Irish. There are plenty of people that would use it if they knew other people did two, a few of my friends only speak English when there's foreigners around.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

antoobrien wrote: »

I'd disagree with you there because I use Irish. There are plenty of people that would use it if they knew other people did two, a few of my friends only speak English when there's foreigners around.

Grand, but you are part of a tiny minority. If you can't recognise that, you're in such a state of delusion that no conversation is possible.

antoobrien

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand, but you are part of a tiny minority.

I dunno, none of us are from gaeltacht areas and it was surprising to find other people willing to talk a bit. Perhaps it's not as uncommon as we are lead to believe.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If you can't recognise that, you're in such a state of delusion that no conversation is possible.

Considering you can't see the blindingly obvious benefits to the fact that we have dual languages in a multi lingual legislative area, I'll take that as a compliment.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

antoobrien wrote: »

I dunno, none of us are from gaeltacht areas and it was surprising to find other people willing to talk a bit. Perhaps it's not as uncommon as we are lead to believe.

I'll leave that for others to take as they wish.

antoobrien wrote: »

Considering you can't see the blindingly obvious benefits to the fact that we have dual languages in a multi lingual legislative area, I'll take that as a compliment.

Ah, yeah, it's blindly obvious that the problems of managing a mult-lingual environment are reduced by introducing yet another language.

Leroy42

I think the OP has made a very good point. I also think that those that do speak Irish need to consider why the language has fallen to such a degree.

Despite constitutional protection, despite many millions are Euros invested in its teaching, despite the millions spent on dual printing of documentation, despite the requirement of all PS workers to have Irish in the past, despite selected areas being designated as Irish speaking and only Irish speaking. Despite all of this the language continues to be a minority only language.

Maybe when the constitution was being drafted there was a sense that Irish could be revived, that Ireland could revert to it's pre colonised state. Since we have now embraced globalisation surely we need to review this policy/ideology.

antoobrien

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, yeah, it's blindly obvious that the problems of managing a mult-lingual environment are reduced by introducing yet another language.

Ah but we are not introducing one are we, the dual language mandate precedes the formation of the state.

An Coilean

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Worse: the Constitution was drafted and written in English, then translated into Irish, and then the translation was declared authoritative. So any differences between them are actually errors in the Irish translation, but override the (original) English version!

There was a document written up some years ago where the process of how the constitution was originally drafted is described, and both versions of the constitution are gone into in minute detail and any differences and their implications are explained.

That the Irish version is not merely a translation of the English version, and the benefit of having both versions inform a decision when trying to decide what the spirit of the document is in a given case are clearly emphasised. The Constitution was not drafted in English first and then when a definitative English text was reached, translated into Irish, both versions were drafted in step with each other and the posibility that at least part of the English version is actually a translation from the Irish has also been suggested.

There is also the point that if the English text were made the authorative version, there would need to be several changes to correct mistakes that have been found in the English text that did not need to be changed until now as they were superceeded by the Irish verson which was accurate.

For example there is a year in the difference between the minimium age for a candidate for the presidency in the Irish and English texts, to recognise the English text as the authorative one would in effect mean a chance to the minimum age of a candidate. (From what is felt to be what was intended in the Irish text to what is considered an error in the English text it should be noted.)

Study of the Irish Text

GCU Flexible Demeanour

An Coilean wrote: »

The Constitution was not drafted in English first and then when a definitative English text was reached, translated into Irish, both versions were drafted in step with each other and the posibility that at least part of the English version is actually a translation from the Irish has also been suggested.

In fairness, I know this point is of fantastic interest to Irish language enthusiasts. But, in the real world, this is irrelevant. The drafting process wasn't something divinely inspired. A text was put to the people, in two languages. The only version most could read (overwhelmingly, in fact) was the English. And that's the same position to this day. The Constitution of Ireland, such as is and can be known to the overwhelming majority of the people to whom it applies, is the English version. It doesn't matter if the Irish version was translated into Latin to obtain Vatican clearance, before being translated again into English, or if it was found beside a burning bush. It is the only version that the overwhelming majority of Irish people are capable of reading.

An Coilean wrote: »

There is also the point that if the English text were made the authorative version, there would need to be several changes to correct mistakes that have been found in the English text that did not need to be changed until now as they were superceeded by the Irish verson which was accurate.

Again, you are displaying how this flawed idea of giving primacy to a language that most can't read disempowers the majority and lessens their capacity to be active citizens. The flaw with respect to the qualifying age for President is well-known. The point is that, if the English text has primacy, that would then be the definitive version.

You're sort of making my point for me. The basic law of the State shouldn't be written in a language that most can't understand.

Please make a case that demonstrates the benefit of the definitive text of the State being written in a language incomprehensible to most.

R P McMurphy

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'll leave that for others to take as they wish.Ah, yeah, it's blindly obvious that the problems of managing a mult-lingual environment are reduced by introducing yet another language.

Introducing?

An Coilean

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, I know this point is of fantastic interest to Irish language enthusiasts. But, in the real world, this is irrelevant. The drafting process wasn't something divinely inspired. A text was put to the people, in two languages. The only version most could read (overwhelmingly, in fact) was the English. And that's the same position to this day. The Constitution of Ireland, such as is and can be known to the overwhelming majority of the people to whom it applies, is the English version. It doesn't matter if the Irish version was translated into Latin to obtain Vatican clearance, before being translated again into English, or if it was found beside a burning bush. It is the only version that the overwhelming majority of Irish people are capable of reading. Again, you are displaying how this flawed idea of giving primacy to a language that most can't read disempowers the majority and lessens their capacity to be active citizens. The flaw with respect to the qualifying age for President is well-known. The point is that, if the English text has primacy, that would then be the definitive version.

You're sort of making my point for me. The basic law of the State shouldn't be written in a language that most can't understand.

Please make a case that demonstrates the benefit of the definitive text of the State being written in a language incomprehensible to most.

I am no more an Irish language enthusiasts than you are an English language enthusiasts.

Given that the study which goes through in detail the divergences between both texts and explains their implications exists and is freely available, then the text being in Irish and English is hardily a barrier to anyone interested in studying the constitution in any detail.

As for the merit in having a bilingual constitution, that is clear from reading the study provided. Bilingual drafting of legal documents, and having both versions inform decision making both reduces the scope for sticking to the letter of the law even while contradicting its spirit and is also quite helpful in getting a second insight into the document to help clarify the meaning of the text.

That the Irish version is divergent from the English text, and thus not a simple translation is important as it gives a greater scope for studying the meaning of the document as a whole.

You may be happy with unintended error or lack of clarity in one text being copperfastened as constitutional law, personally I am glad of the second insight afforded to decision makers by virtue of having two official texts.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Introducing?

I don't see the ambiguity. You'll appreciate, the point at issue is the contention that multi-lingual complexity is actually reduced if there are more languages. For myself, I can't see how that contention can be maintained.

An Coilean wrote: »

Given that the study which goes through in detail the divergences between both texts and explains their implications exists and is freely available, then the text being in Irish and English is hardily a barrier to anyone interested in studying the constitution in any detail.

Well, yes it is a barrier because few can assess for themselves if the study correctly sets out the implications of any particular Irish text.

This is the basic law of the State. I shouldn't need to rely a study, with no particular legal status, to achieve basic comprehension of what the text means. This quite clearly erects an additional, and unnecessary, barrier.

An Coilean wrote: »

Bilingual drafting of legal documents, and having both versions inform decision making both reduces the scope for sticking to the letter of the law even while contradicting its spirit and is also quite helpful in getting a second insight into the document to help clarify the meaning of the text.

But, sure, this argument falls immediately. The contents of the Irish text are unknown to the overwhelming majority of voters. It is simply meaningless to suggest they could ever better reflect the 'spirit' of their intentions, when the wording is incomprehensible to them.

Seriously. Think about it.

burnaby

The established practice of ramming Irish down our throats for the last 90 years has failed miserably - Irish is still a minority language, badly taught and significantly resented by pupils in our schools.

I suspect that if the relationship between the two official languages was reversed, Irish might become desirable, possibly even attractive to the majority. The current status of Irish does nothing to encourage interest in, use of or support for the language. The existence of so many linguistic zealots, such as the Irish Language Commissioner, who attempt to force use of the language, and government policies which generate artificial interest in the language, are completely counterproductive.

The constitution and laws of the land should of course be accessible to all citizens - isn't that why they are in both languages? The instances of anomalies / conflicts between the two versions are rare.

An Coilean

burnaby wrote: »

The existence of so many linguistic zealots, such as the Irish Language Commissioner, who attempt to force use of the language, and government policies which generate artificial interest in the language, are completely counterproductive.

You're doing poor Seán an injustice, one thing he could not be accused of is zelotry. He is a very clear thinking individual who has a strong grasp of what his role is and its limitations. He has done great work to further the availability of public services through Irish and has constantly highlighted the issue of value for money, of all the bodies involved in the promotion of Irish, An Coimisinéir is the one that I esteem most highly for the work that has been done.

He has also been involved in developing best practice at an international level and has taken a leading role in setting up a network of language commisioners from different countries so that they can maintain contact and help each other.

You talk of artifical interest, whatever that is, An Comisinéir gets involved when there is a complaint made by a member of the public about the absense or poor quality of a service in Irish, ie his job is to help members of the public to access services, he has neither the inclination nor the power to force Irish on anyone.

walrusgumble

SeanW wrote: »

Ah, good old Dev. Rule by the bishops, comely maidens dancing at the crossroads, and the Irish language.

Some things should be left in the 1950s.

The Constitution was drafted in 1937

This is the very same Constitution, which was cleverly drafted in a manner to be interpreted numberous ways and allowed the Supreme Court to interpret it, and give us the rights us as right to family planning, right to privacy and communication.......................... The fact that the Constitution is drafted in a way that amendment can be achieved with ease also stopped any of that nonsense in France about 3rd or 4th Republic artificial dressing nonsense.

It is the same Constitution that has actually greatly influenced many other Constitutions

Oh, and the Weimar Republic had more influence of the text than the Church, really. The Constitution as it stands is no where near as bad as what McQuaid wanted.

Oh course, all of that is way above your understanding and ability

Oh, many Irish people where still listening to the Bishops right up to the 1980's, what is their excuses?

Typical bland nonsense from posters that really haven't a clue

Irish is the first National Language of this State. It should be left alone. For those pathetically complaining about not understanding it, well, that is their loss and shortcomings. (Frankly a vast majority of the posters don't understand the English version never mind the Irish Version - so their complaints are moot)

The Constitution has been in place since 1937, we have had no major issues or conflict with the language so far, so why whinge now? Typical anti Irish nonsense .

petronius

No - I think it is vital as someone who is Irish to show respect to the language.
Our Constitution is one of the great success of the Nation, it protected democracy shortly after the foundation of our state, during a time when many countries lurched into despotic regimes either fascist or communist and pressures for such were coming from the Right wing (ACA/BlueShirts/FineGael) and from the left from left wing republicans and socialists!

At a time when jewish people were being persecuted in europe, it protected religious liberty and recognised the jewish community in the now removed Article 44.1.3.

Despite contempt shown to the constitution particularly in relation to recent EU referenda, and government. Not providing equal support for for and against sides in a referenda, and appointing a quango to articulate its view point when it is supposed to be impartial.

Our constitution is one of the oldest continually in operation of any republic in the world to vandalise it would be criminal. Amend it gradually if you see fit but dont mess with it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

walrusgumble wrote: »

Irish is the first National Language of this State.

I haven't suggested changing that. I've simply suggested that the Constitutional text should be in a language that people can actually understand.

Now, the fact that Irish people generally can't communicate in Irish might have implications for just how coherent it is for the Constitution to assert that Irish is the first national language. But that's a different discussion to the issue I'm raising here.

walrusgumble wrote: »

The Constitution has been in place since 1937, we have had no major issues or conflict with the language so far, so why whinge now?

Well, for the reasons I've set out. There are know incoherences between the two texts. We've certainly had problems with the coherence of our politics. I'd suggest that being able to discuss the basic rules and values of the State in a language we all understand would help to promote some sense of ownership.

I'm not sure that Irish language enthusiasts understand (or, even, could understand) the extent to which the Irish language is a barrier to real discussion. It's actually profoundly undemocratic when the binding version of a law isn't the text actually discussed by elected representatives, or the people at large, but a text drafted by an Irish language expert that few can read.

petronius wrote: »

No - I think it is vital as someone who is Irish to show respect to the language.

But "respect" doesn't mean "perpetuate an act of complete folly".

An Coilean

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd suggest that being able to discuss the basic rules and values of the State in a language we all understand would help to promote some sense of ownership.

The constitution is easily available in English and the areas where the Irish version diverges from the English version ane few, generaly insignificant and have been studied in detail, and a full explination of them is available for people who dont have Irish.

Would you care to explain where the supposed barrier to discussion is? I can see none.
The vast majority of citizens have no need for or interest in a forensic examination of the constitution, however if they do so wish, the tools are there to do so with or without Irish.

This whole argument comes accross as a fairly lame attemt to deminish the status of the language with little rational for doing so.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

An Coilean wrote: »

The constitution is easily available in English and the areas where the Irish version diverges from the English version ane few, generaly insignificant and have been studied in detail, and a full explination of them is available for people who dont have Irish.

But the whole point is that none of that can be substantiated by someone without a command of the Irish language. We shouldn't need to have Irish language enthusiasts assuring us that we've no need to worry about any differences in the Irish text. The text should simply be transparent.

An Coilean wrote: »

This whole argument comes accross as a fairly lame attemt to deminish the status of the language with little rational for doing so.

It could only come across like that to an Irish language enthusiast, anxious for their hobby to retain its official "status" regardless of the consequences for anything else. The absence of any rationale for the current "status" of Irish is evident from the silence that followed my earlier point.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Please make a case that demonstrates the benefit of the definitive text of the State[edit]'s laws being written in a language incomprehensible to most.

Can I suggest that no such case exists.

An Coilean

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But the whole point is that none of that can be substantiated by someone without a command of the Irish language.

If it was a blog or indeed a post on boards, that might be a fair point, but its not, its a study carried out by people far more qualified to analyse the constitution and determin the implications arising from the text than the readership it is aimed at. If its not good enough for you, well thats fine, but that is no argument that it is not good enough.

We shouldn't need to have Irish language enthusiasts assuring us that we've no need to worry about any differences in the Irish text. The text should simply be transparent.

It is transparent, the English version is as easily available as the Irish version, in the few cases where there are divergance between both versions there is a study that sets out what they are and their implications.
You are grasping at straws at this stage.

It could only come across like that to an Irish language enthusiast, anxious for their hobby to retain its official "status" regardless of the consequences for anything else.

Could you name one consequence?

You claimed that there is a barrier to discussion on the constitution.
The reality is that it is easily available in English. That covers 99.9% of what any citizen needs to know about the constitution. For the other .1% where there is divergance between both texts, there is a study that goes through them and explains what it is and what it means.
Would you care to explain where the supposed barrier to discussion is?

The absence of any rationale for the current "status" of Irish is evident from the silence that followed my earlier point.Can I suggest that no such case exists.

The rational is obvious, Irish is the native language of Ireland.
The language was and is one of the central planks of the national concept, one of the central reasons that we have a country or a constitution at all.
The movement to restore that language was the direct forerunner to the movement which established the state and most of the leaders involved in founding the state were involved in the movement to restore the language.

''A nation should guard its language more than its terrotories, tis a surer barrier and more important frontier, than fortress or river''

GCU Flexible Demeanour

An Coilean wrote: »

You claimed that there is a barrier to discussion on the constitution.
The reality is that it is easily available in English. That covers 99.9% of what any citizen needs to know about the constitution. For the other .1% where there is divergance between both texts, there is a study that goes through them and explains what it is and what it means.
Would you care to explain where the supposed barrier to discussion is?

I'm afraid you keep missing the point. The point is that most Irish citizens cannot verify for themselves if what you've just said is correct. The only people who can would be Irish language enthusiasts. That's the barrier. That's the thing that disadvantages people who are not Irish language enthusiasts, and distances them from the text that is meant to set out the fundamental principles on which our State operates.

An Coilean wrote: »

The rational is obvious, Irish is the native language of Ireland.

But what does that actually mean? Irish is not the native language of most Irish people. Overwhelmingly, it is not the native language of the Irish.

What is the rationale for having our laws written in a language incomprehesible to most?

An Coilean wrote: »

''A nation should guard its language more than its terrotories, tis a surer barrier and more important frontier, than fortress or river''

I think you are confusing myth and reality, and inadvertently making my case for me again. A shared language could well promote some sense of community. The point is that Irish is not a shared language.

As your quote says, a language is "a surer barrier and more important frontier, than fortress or river''. That's my point. Asserting the Irish text to be the authoritative version erects a barrier between most Irish people and what should be their Constitution.

An Coilean

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm afraid you keep missing the point.

I am not missing the point, I am dismissing it.
There is no barrier to discussion of the constitution by people without Irish, the tools are all there for any citizen to have an indepth discussion on it if they are inclined to do so.

You are grasping at straws in what is by now a frankly tiring attempt to make a case for deminishing the status of Irish.

If you believe that this is needed and that people will support it, by all means push for a referendum on the issue to be held, just dont get too upset when people ignore you.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

An Coilean wrote: »

I am not missing the point, I am dismissing it.

But you are not engaging with the issue at all. If you intend your posts to be a dismissal, it's an arbitrary dismissal.

What is the rationale for having our laws written in a language incomprehensible to most? If you can't answer that question, you don't have a case.

Grudaire

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What is the rationale for having our laws written in a language incomprehensible to most? If you can't answer that question, you don't have a case.

Presumably you disagree with the EU as well given how many different languages are spoken by the people?

And as for the fact that you need a legal degree to understand the technical legal mumbo jumbo in most laws, I assume you also think laws should be written in comprehensible English?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Cliste wrote: »

Presumably you disagree with the EU as well given how many different languages are spoken by the people?

But the example of the EU supports my contention, rather than yours. All EU legal language texts are of equal validity, precisely because Member States would refuse to accept laws that aren't written in their native languages. For instance, German-speaking nations like Germany and Austria would refuse to accept that a text in English or French took precedence over the text that they can actually understand.

The equivalent to our situation would be if the EU took an obscure language like Luxembourgish or Maltese and insisted that the legal text in that language took precedence over all others.

The EU situation illustrates how incoherent our domestic approach is. Uniquely, we pick a language text comprehensible to a tiny few and make it the definitive version of our law. The EU insists that the law that binds you must be comprehensible to you, by not binding you to a law in a language that you can't understand.

The principle is so obvious, and sensible, that its no wonder that no Irish language enthusiast has yet been able to advance a reason why its a good thing for the authoritative version of a law to be written in a language which most don't understand.

Cliste wrote: »

And as for the fact that you need a legal degree to understand the technical legal mumbo jumbo in most laws, I assume you also think laws should be written in comprehensible English?

I already covered this point in an earlier post, reproduced below for ease of reference

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Most Irish people cannot tell you at all what this says

Admhaíonn an Stát ceart na mbeo gan breith chun a mbeatha agus, ag féachaint go cuí do chomhcheart na máthar chun a beatha, ráthaíonn sé gan cur isteach lena dhlíthe ar an gceart sin agus ráthaíonn fós an ceart sin a chosaint is a shuíomh lena dhlíthe sa mhéid gur féidir é.

So it's quite simply impossible to have any conversation about it. However, most Irish people can read this

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Now, it might involve quite a bit of legal argument to decide how this applies to embryo research, or other exotic topics. But people can read that English text, understand that it's establishing a principle that prohibits abortion and understand if a doctor or lawyer says that abortion is only allowed where there's a real risk to the life of the mother, because they can read "equal right to life of the mother" for themselves. So you can have a real conversation. Should the unborn have an equal right to life? Maybe yes, maybe no, but at least everyone can discuss it on the same terms.

marienbad

An Coilean wrote: »

I am not missing the point, I am dismissing it.
There is no barrier to discussion of the constitution by people without Irish, the tools are all there for any citizen to have an indepth discussion on it if they are inclined to do so.

You are grasping at straws in what is by now a frankly tiring attempt to make a case for deminishing the status of Irish.

If you believe that this is needed and that people will support it, by all means push for a referendum on the issue to be held, just dont get too upset when people ignore you.

Sorry An Coileann - whether you like it or not he has a point, citizens should be able to read their constitution without any interpreters .

Roger_007

marienbad wrote: »

Sorry An Coileann - whether you like it or not he has a point, citizens should be able to read their constitution without any interpreters .

So should judges. The Supreme Court is the court of final arbitration on the interpretation of the constitution. Since all supreme court judgements that I have ever heard are delivered in English based on their interpretation of the English text, are these judgements constitutionally valid at all?
Do all the supreme court judges have to be proficient in Irish in order to deliver a judgement on a matter where the outcome hinges on a word or the meaning of a word given that the Irish version has primacy.

Why do supreme court judges always deliver their judgments in English?

Finally: why is all public debate about the Irish language conducted in English?

Grudaire

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But the example of the EU supports my contention, rather than yours. All EU legal language texts are of equal validity, precisely because Member States would refuse to accept laws that aren't written in their native languages. For instance, German-speaking nations like Germany and Austria would refuse to accept that a text in English or French took precedence over the text that they can actually understand.

I would have no particular problem with both texts being given equal status, which would be the situation you describe in the EU. I would, for example choose to be bound by the Irish version of the constitution!

Of course then we would need a fix up job to correct any inconsistencies.

Would you consider this issue to be of such high importance given the costs of changing the constitution in our current economic climate?

The principle is so obvious, and sensible, that its no wonder that no Irish language enthusiast has yet been able to advance a reason why its a good thing for the authoritative version of a law to be written in a language which most don't understand.I already covered this point in an earlier post, reproduced below for ease of reference

Go raibh maith agat

I was referring more specifically to the nonsense written in most laws in Ireland.

But the primacy of the language in our constitution was and remains a statement of intent by the Irish state regarding our language. Upon inception of the state there was more English speakers than Irish, however it would have been a statement regarding our national identity.

From a practical point of view the constitution could be written in Chinese. No matter what happens we require people to interpret the impact of different wordings. There has been referendums passed where the wording agreed even in plain easy to understand English has had unintended consequences.

Grudaire

Roger_007 wrote: »

Finally: why is all public debate about the Irish language conducted in English?

Ní mbeadh diaspoireacht ceart againn as Gaeilge amháin! Tá sé deacair comhrá ceart gan daoine ag argóit I gcoinne an ábhar!




It wouldn't be much of a debate.. hard to discuss something properly if nobody is arguing against you!

(That's a Rough translation of the Irish above, just to emphasise that I am fully willing to discuss this through Irish. But I'd hate to exclude you, or anyone else from expressing their opinion! :pac:)