nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.