An Stáit dátheangach í Éire? - Is Ireland a bilingual state?

gananam

Tá ráite ag Gwynedd Parry, saineolaí dlí idirnáisiúnta agus Ollamh le Dlí agus Stair an Dlí in Ollscoil Swansea, gur ar éigean go bhféadfaí ‘stát dátheangach’ a thabhairt ar Éirinn toisc gan ceart a bheith ag saoránaigh ar ghiúiré le Gaeilge.

Níl an ceart sin ag an saoránach Éireannach toisc cinneadh na Cúirte Uachtaraí maidir le héileamh fir as Ros Muc i gConamara go mbeadh a theanga dhúchais, an Ghaeilge, ag baill an ghiúiré ina chás a bhain le hionsaí a dhéanamh ar dhuine eile, ar chainteoir dúchais Gaeilge é chomh maith.

In alt atá scaipthe aige ar gach ball den Oireachtas, tá ráite aige gur cheart do bhaill an Oireachtais reifreann a ghairm faoi stádas bunreachtúil na Gaeilge nó seasamh le cearta teanga an tsaoránaigh.

Áitíonn Parry go bhfuil tábhacht ar leith le ceist na ngiúiréithe dátheangacha in aon stát dátheangach, nó in aon stát atá in ainm is a bheith dátheangach.

‘Some may respond to this paper by claiming that it amounts to condemning the Irish state’s bilingualism on the basis of a single issue. The reply is that, firstly, to be tried by a court of justice in your official language and by a tribunal which understands your official language is the hallmark or the litmus paper indicator of true state bilingualism.’

Deir Parry go bhfuil ceist na ngiúiréithe dátheangacha in Éirinn ina comhartha sóirt ar ‘malaise’ níos doimhne an Stáit maidir le cearta teanga a ghéilleadh.

Sa chás go seasann baill an Oireachtais le cinneadh na Cúirte Uachtaraí maidir le giúiréithe dátheangacha, molann Parry dóibh reifreann a ghairm agus leasú a dhéanamh ar Airteagal 8 de Bhunreacht na hÉireann. Tá foclaíocht nua molta ag Ollamh na Breataine Bige a mhaolódh stádas bunreachtúil na Gaeilge:

Airteagal 8 (leasaithe)

1. Is í an Sacs-Bhéarla phríomhtheanga oifigiúil na tíre.

2. Glactar leis an Ghaeilge mar theanga oifigiúil eile.

Bheadh sé de bhuntáiste ag an bhfoclaíocht nua, a deir Parry, go gcuirfeadh sé deireadh leis an gcur i gcéill maidir le polasaí oifigiúil an Stáit i leith an dátheangachais.

‘Such a formula would reflect the slightly inferior status of Irish and would thus justify a policy of linguistic inequality…Who knows, it might finally lay to rest any pretence the Irish state residually holds about being a bilingual state,’ a scríobhann Parry san alt a fhoilseofar go luath ar an Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly.

Is í an rogha eile a chuireann Parry faoi bhráid bhaill an Oireachtais maidir leis an mbreithiúnas i gcás Ó Maicín v Ireland ná go leasófaí an dlí chun cur ina choinne. Ach an rogha sin a thabhairt, dhéanfadh an tOireachtas ‘a thiomantas a dhearbhú d’fhís bhunaidh an Stáit’ maidir leis an teanga agus leasófaí an dlí chun go mbeadh an ceart ann ar ghiúiré dátheangach.

Molann Parry do bhaill an Oireachtais ar fad breithiúnas Adrian Hardiman sa chás ‘Ó Maicín v Ireland’ a léamh. Ba é an Breitheamh Hardiman an t-aon duine de chúigear breithiúna a sheas le hiarratas Uí Mhaicín ar ghiúiré a mbeadh Gaeilge acu.

Molann Parry breithiúnas easaontach Hardiman mar ‘one of the most remarkable dissenting judgments in the history of Irish law’.

Sa bhreithiúnas sin, dúirt an Breitheamh Hardiman:

‘The effect of Article 8 of the Constitution is to establish Ireland as a bilingual State in terms of the Constitution and the laws. It is a historical truism that official Ireland has always been reluctant to behave as if the State were indeed, in law and in practice, as well as in constitutional theory, a bilingual State. But that does not take from the fact that Ireland is, by its Constitution, a bilingual State. The Judges, of course, are bound to uphold the Constitution.’

Creidim féin go bhfuil an cheart aige, is cóir go leasófaí an dlí chun go mbeadh an ceart ann ar ghiúiré dátheangach. Céard é bhur bairiúil féin?

---

Gwynedd Parry, an expert in international law and Professor of Law and the History of Law in Swansea University, has said that it is difficult to support the claim that Ireland is a bilingual state given that citizens do not have the right to a Jury competent in the Irish language.

Irish citizens do not have this right due to a decision by the supreme court in a case where a man from Ros Muc in Conamara requested that the jury be competent to hear his case in Irish, his native language, a case relating to an assault on another person, who was also a native Irish speaker.

In an article that he has sent to every member of the Oireachtas, Parry has claimed that members of the Oireachtas should organize a referendum on the constitutional position of the Irish language, or stand by the language rights of citizens.

Parry claims that the question of right to a bilingual jury in a bilingual state is one of particular importance.

‘Some may respond to this paper by claiming that it amounts to condemning the Irish state’s bilingualism on the basis of a single issue. The reply is that, firstly, to be tried by a court of justice in your official language and by a tribunal which understands your official language is the hallmark or the litmus paper indicator of true state bilingualism.’

Parry has said that the question of bilingual juries in Ireland is an indicator of a deeper malaise in the area of respecting language rights in this state.

Should members of the oireachtas stand with the Supreme Court on the question of bilingual juries, Parry recommends that the hold a referendum to amend Article 8 of the constitution. He has also put forward a recommended wording for the amendment:

Article 8 (as amended)

1. The first official language of the Republic of Ireland is English.

2. The Irish language is also recognised as an official language.

Such a new wording would have the virtue, Parry said, that it would end the fakery in the states policy of bilingualism.

‘Such a formula would reflect the slightly inferior status of Irish and would thus justify a policy of linguistic inequality…Who knows, it might finally lay to rest any pretence the Irish state residually holds about being a bilingual state,’ a scríobhann Parry san alt a fhoilseofar go luath ar an Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly.

The other option that Parry presented to members of the oireachtas as regards the decision in Ó Maicín v Ireland is to amend the law to reverse the decision. In taking this option, the Oireachtas would be demonstrating its commitment to the founding principle of the state and the right to a bilingual jury would be vindicated.

Parry has recommended that all members of the Oireachtas should read the judgment of Adrian Hardiman in the case of ‘Ó Maicín v Ireland’. Justice Hardiman is the only member of the five member court who accepted the request of Ó Maicín to be tried by a Jury competent in Irish.

Parry has praised the discenting judment as being 'one of the most remarkable dissenting judgments in the history of Irish law'.

In his judgment, Justice Hardiman said:

‘The effect of Article 8 of the Constitution is to establish Ireland as a bilingual State in terms of the Constitution and the laws. It is a historical truism that official Ireland has always been reluctant to behave as if the State were indeed, in law and in practice, as well as in constitutional theory, a bilingual State. But that does not take from the fact that Ireland is, by its Constitution, a bilingual State. The Judges, of course, are bound to uphold the Constitution.’

Personally, I think he is right, the law should be changed to vindicate the right to have a bilingual jury. What do you think?

Ken.

If it is it shouldn't. Irish should be taken out behind the shed and shot to put it out of it's misery.

gananam

ken wrote: »

If it is it shouldn't. Irish should be taken out behind the shed and shot to put it out of it's misery.

Ní thuigim an meon frith-Ghaelach seo.
I don't understand this anti-Irish mentality.

KingBrian2

It is trilingual. English, Irish and French with the occasional Chinese, Italian, Spanish and Russian thrown in. Come to think of it we kind of speak all languages to all people depending on who you know. Many Irish people have a grasp of some other language including Latin.

Mr. Incognito

There is more Polish spoken in Ireland than Irish.

Irish is a dead language to most of the population.

Thinking that it is the primary source of legal definition is an aspirational knot that has come back to bite us in the ass dozens of times. I would think a referendum striping its status from the constitution would easily pass.

It is a romantic notion to think that it come back. It never will until children are not taught to hate it by an antiquated curriculum that shoves grammar down people's throats.

Zaph

gananam wrote: »

Ní thuigim an meon frith-Ghaelach seo.
I don't understand this anti-Irish mentality.

You are well aware that you must provide an English translation of any posts that are not in English because you are doing so. However posting the translation in small white text is pretty much borderline trolling. Post proper translations that are visible to all or you will find your posting privileges removed.

Pat Mustard

gananam wrote: »

Ní thuigim an meon frith-Ghaelach seo.
I don't understand this anti-Irish mentality.

Mod:

According to boards.ie FAQ, if you wish to post in any language other than English, you must provide an English translation. Some forums like Teach na nGealt or the Languages sub-forums are exempt from this rule.

Your posts that do not have an English translation have been deleted and your attempt to bait other users by challenging them to report you has been deleted.

Please stay on topic and kindly refrain from trolling this forum.

Kindly familiarise yourself with boards.ie rules and the Legal Discussion forum charter before posting again.

Please do not reply to this post on-thread.

dalta5billion

The fluent Irish population (with the ability to understand the complicated Irish that would be used in a trial) is a small subset of the general population. It would be unfair to exclude jury members on the basis that they don't understand one or both of English or Irish. If I recall correctly FLAC took a case on behalf a deaf woman who was told not to come to the jury selection because she had asked for a translator to be present.

An daonra le líofacht i nGaeilge (agus an abáltacht acu chun an Gaeilge chasta a bheas á usáid i triail éigean a thuiscint) ina chuid bheag den daonra ghinearalta na hÉireann. Bheadh sé míféaralta chun duine a thoirmeasc de bharr easpa tuiscint sa Ghaeilge nó Béarla). Má chuimhním I gceart thóg FLAC cás ar son bean dall, a fuair litir a d'iarr uirthi gan teacht chuig an roghnóireacht toisc gur iarr sí orthu chun aistritheoir a bheith i láthair.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

It would be unfair to exclude jury members on the basis that they don't understand one or both of English or Irish.

is this about the rights of the jury, or the accused?

Victor

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

is this about the rights of the jury, or the accused?

Isn't everyone to be tried by a sample of where the crime is committed*, not by a sample of people selected from a minority?

The accused* may elect to have the case heard outside the immediate place where the offence occurred.

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

Isn't everyone to be tried by a sample of where the crime is committed*, not by a sample of people selected from a minority?

The accused* may elect to have the case heard outside the immediate place where the offence occurred.

Not really. The central criminal court mostly sits in dublin. Sometimes for convenience one countys courts will sit in a neighbouring county e.g. Westmeath crime is heard in Tullamore. I dont think jury geography is a matter of right so much as convenience

Victor

But the core issue remains - you can't pick your own jury.

coylemj

Victor wrote: »

But the core issue remains - you can't pick your own jury.

I think in the case of a criminal trial which is scheduled to be heard by a provincial circuit court judge with a jury, either the prosecution or defence can ask for the trial to be moved to Dublin or the DPP can issue a directive for this to happen. This would typically happen in a case where it's felt that a local jury would be too prejudiced in one direction or the other.

4ensic15

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not really. The central criminal court mostly sits in dublin. Sometimes for convenience one countys courts will sit in a neighbouring county e.g. Westmeath crime is heard in Tullamore. I dont think jury geography is a matter of right so much as convenience

The constitution provies that courts of local and limited jurisdiction may be set up. The Circuit Court must be local and limited in jurisdiction. Courts will sit in any convenient forum within the Circuit for a variety of reasons.