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

R P McMurphy · 05-08-2013 04:15PM

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 · 05-08-2013 04:34PM

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 · 05-08-2013 07:11PM

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 · 12-08-2013 12:10AM

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 · 12-08-2013 09:27AM

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 · 13-08-2013 05:13PM

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 · 16-08-2013 02:58PM

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 · 17-08-2013 04:52PM

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 · 17-08-2013 08:15PM

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 · 18-08-2013 01:28AM

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 · 18-08-2013 09:43PM

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 · 19-08-2013 12:17PM

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 · 19-08-2013 12:41PM

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 · 19-08-2013 01:07PM

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 · 19-08-2013 04:40PM

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 · 19-08-2013 06:39PM

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 · 19-08-2013 07:12PM

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 · 19-08-2013 07:36PM

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 · 20-08-2013 01:17PM

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 · 20-08-2013 01:25PM

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:)

Roger_007 · 20-08-2013 01:42PM

Cliste wrote: »

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:)

I notice that you conveniently ignored the main point in my post which is what this thread is about. I only made that final point to illustrate the fact that most people would not be comfortable discussing this, or any other topic, in Irish.
(For myself, I am reasonably fluent in Irish. I should be because my entire primary and secondary education was conducted through Irish).

Grudaire · 20-08-2013 02:14PM

Roger_007 wrote: »

I notice that you conveniently ignored the main point in my post which is what this thread is about. I only made that final point to illustrate the fact that most people would not be comfortable discussing this, or any other topic, in Irish.
(For myself, I am reasonably fluent in Irish. I should be because my entire primary and secondary education was conducted through Irish).

I would in general feel that the point has been addressed in other posts regarding the equivalence of the two texts excluding minor documented differences.

If a judge feels unsure of his understanding of a topic then I would suggest that he would be best get an expert in to translate.
Indeed judges often rely on expect witnesses for many things - medical witnesses, actuaries etc.

Also I picked on your final statement because it is a self fulfilling argument. We're discussing this through English because an English speaker has started the conversation on an English speaking forum!
You're more than welcome to visit teach na ngealt (sub forum of after hours) if you ever feel like flexing the Irish muscles on boards :-D

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 20-08-2013 03:13PM

Cliste wrote: »

I would have no particular problem with both texts being given equal status, which would be the situation you describe in the EU.

That would be an improvement on the present situation, but still incoherent. Bear in mind, the EU is trying to harmonise laws in different countries. That's different to the need for people within the same legal system to be bound by the same law.

Cliste wrote: »

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

Well, bear in mind that the general context is one where the State is considering Constitutional reforms. The following wikipedia link gives a brief overview of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(Ireland)

My point is that we need to be (literally) on the same page, speaking a language we can all understand, before we can coherently consider Constitutional reforms.

Cliste wrote: »

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.

Grand, but its a delusion to see the language as defining our national identity when so few of us speak it. What you're left with is that peculiar vibe of the status of the Irish language being a guilt trip. "Oh, we're not worthy, we're the worst people in Europe for not speaking sweet, melodious Irish." The effect (which is what I'm saying here) is to pervert the Constitution. It should simply be a document about how we want to run our collective affairs, not some kind of exercise is self-flagellation as we do penance for not living up to the aspirations of Padraig Pearse.

Cliste wrote: »

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.

Ah, come on, I've dealt with this point already. There's a world of difference between needing expertise on technical issues - say, a doctor to advise on medical conditions that might pose a risk to a pregnant woman - and inventing a completely unnecessary barrier to comprehension by using a language that so few can use. It's like insisting that everyone goes into Court in a blindfold with earplugs, and communicates through notes written in Braille.

Grudaire · 20-08-2013 04:19PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That would be an improvement on the present situation, but still incoherent. Bear in mind, the EU is trying to harmonise laws in different countries. That's different to the need for people within the same legal system to be bound by the same law.

So the EU example does not support your 'contention'?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, bear in mind that the general context is one where the State is considering Constitutional reforms.

Well to put my point a different way:

Is changing the primary language to English really value for money, or is it change for change's sake?

You do say that we need to 'be on the same page' before coherent discussion, but you don't deal with the fact that all other reforms with any actual practical impact will still need to be performed afterwards!

In summary for the €X it costs to change the constitution, do we get the most benefit for the €X spent?

For example I would suggest that reducing the number of elected representatives would save us money in the long run, and might even serve to reduce the parochial nature of Irish politics.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

My point is that we need to be (literally) on the same page, speaking a language we can all understand, before we can coherently consider Constitutional reforms.Grand, but its a delusion to see the language as defining our national identity when so few of us speak it. What you're left with is that peculiar vibe of the status of the Irish language being a guilt trip. "Oh, we're not worthy, we're the worst people in Europe for not speaking sweet, melodious Irish." The effect (which is what I'm saying here) is to pervert the Constitution. It should simply be a document about how we want to run our collective affairs, not some kind of exercise is self-flagellation as we do penance for not living up to the aspirations of Padraig Pearse.

Are you sure you don't just dislike the Irish language rather than thinking this is a necessary reform?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

There has been referendums passed where the wording agreed even in plain easy to understand English has had unintended consequences.

Ah, come on, I've dealt with this point already. There's a world of difference between needing expertise on technical issues - say, a doctor to advise on medical conditions that might pose a risk to a pregnant woman - and inventing a completely unnecessary barrier to comprehension by using a language that so few can use. It's like insisting that everyone goes into Court in a blindfold with earplugs, and communicates through notes written in Braille.

I'm not sure you took the meaning of what I was trying to say in my post... perhaps you intended quoting what I said to Roger..?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 20-08-2013 04:51PM

Cliste wrote: »

So the EU example does not support your 'contention'?

Well, yes, it does for the reasons stated. It demonstrates that countries don't generally accept laws written in a language that most citizens can't speak. You're confusing two points there, and missing the substance of both.

Cliste wrote: »

Is changing the primary language to English really value for money, or is it change for change's sake?

Yup, its value for money as its a necessary step in putting the purpose of the Constitution centre stage. Can I point out that I've already made this point, and you haven't engaged with it.

Cliste wrote: »

Are you sure you don't just dislike the Irish language rather than thinking this is a necessary reform?

Yes, I'm sure the reality is actually more that you've a blind commitment to the "status" of the Irish language which means you'll defend the present position, despite being unable to point to any advantage gained from having the authoritative version of our laws in a language that most can't understand.

Cliste wrote: »

I'm not sure you took the meaning of what I was trying to say in my post... perhaps you intended quoting what I said to Roger..?

Not particularly. I'm pointing out, again, why the "sure, the law can be technical anyway" line is invalid. The fact that some laws can be complicated isn't an argument for introducing an unnecessary complication to all laws.

Grudaire · 20-08-2013 05:30PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, yes, it does for the reasons stated. It demonstrates that countries don't generally accept laws written in a language that most citizens can't speak. You're confusing two points there, and missing the substance of both.

I'm confused here though, you claim the EU is good for publishing legislation in all languages... but that we shouldn't do that here?

Also EU legislation is available in both English and Irish... both legally binding.

Somehow you consider it possible that the EU has 24(?) versions of it's laws and legislation, each legally binding - but Ireland cannot!?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yup, its value for money as its a necessary step in putting the purpose of the Constitution centre stage.....

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure the reality is actually more that you've a blind commitment to the "status" of the Irish language ...

Read over our posts, you will realise that I have not got any 'blind commitment' to the status quo. I support the status of the language for two reasons:

I personally consider it to be my first language
I see no reason to change for changes sake

I am not opposed to a dual language constitution - I would not personally agree to English being considered the first national language because the I would like "our collective affairs" to be run through Irish, or at least the option should be readily available.
You of course will disagree - but that is my opinion, and we will need to agree to disagree.

From a practical point of view I see absolutely no need for this to be the "first constitutional reform" - claiming it should be is saying that this is a more important issue than political reform, or indeed reform of any of the many other personal issues.

That is absolutely false. This would be a mere cosmetic change to make you feel better. The wording considered by individuals for the constitutional review would be the same (Irish speakers can look at the Irish version, and everyone else consider the English), meanwhile the ongoing issues that actually require reform will be delayed.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Not particularly. I'm pointing out, again, why the "sure, the law can be technical anyway" line is invalid. The fact that some laws can be complicated isn't an argument for introducing an unnecessary complication to all laws.

I'm not going to re-hash what both you an An Coilean have said. In summary:

The English version is readily available, as is a documented list of inconsistencies...
Retort: It's not the official legal version
Rinse and repeat

An Coilean · 20-08-2013 09:37PM

Cliste wrote: »

This would be a mere cosmetic change to make you feel better.

I think it may be somewhat more problematic than that actually.

Giving the English version primacy is not a stand alone decision. It would have some potentially serious implications, most obviously it would change the age of elegability for running for President.
Beyond that, as is clear in the report, there is some level of divergance between the English and Irish version of the constitution in every artical, every decision made by the Supreme Court in the past would be open to question if the English version was now given precidence.

In most cases the divergance is too insignificant to have any implication for a ruleing, but the question mark will always be there.

There is also the possibility that if the English version is given primacy, we will see the Supreme Court move in the direction of the US Supreme Court in its decision making where by it rules on the letter rather than the spirit of what is written.

This has always been prevented by the Irish version having Primacy because the decisions have always been, as a matter of procedure, informed by both versions. Ensuring that the meaning rather than the form of words in either version is what the decision is based on. Personally I would rather not let that go.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 20-08-2013 10:44PM

Cliste wrote: »

Somehow you consider it possible that the EU has 24(?) versions of it's laws and legislation, each legally binding - but Ireland cannot!?

Again, I've already covered this. The EU is an international association of many countries. Ireland is one country. It would be very strange to run one small country as if it was an international association of countries with a combined population of several hundred million.

Cliste wrote: »

You of course will disagree - but that is my opinion, and we will need to agree to disagree.

But, to be honest, you're illustrating the problem I've identified. You're not thinking about the Constitution as the basic set of rules that we must collectively agree to. You're just seeing it as a vehicle to assert the status of Irish.

That's why I keep asking for a positive reason for having the authoritative legal text in a language few can understand. The few who understand it might not give a damn; but that's only part of the problem. It doesn't actually answer the point.

An Coilean wrote: »

Beyond that, as is clear in the report, there is some level of divergance between the English and Irish version of the constitution in every artical, every decision made by the Supreme Court in the past would be open to question if the English version was now given precidence.

Strange how the case goes from "there's no meaningful difference between the texts, and no significant decision has ever hinged on a difference in meaning" to "choosing the English text would undermine everything".

I suppose that's easier than stating why its a good thing for the authoritative version of a law to be written in a language which most don't understand.

Grudaire · 20-08-2013 11:31PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Again, I've already covered this. The EU is an international association of many countries. Ireland is one country. It would be very strange to run one small country as if it was an international association of countries with a combined population of several hundred million.

But, to be honest, you're illustrating the problem I've identified. You're not thinking about the Constitution as the basic set of rules that we must collectively agree to. You're just seeing it as a vehicle to assert the status of Irish.

You're picking and choosing what to reply to, and quite honestly you appear to be deliberately missing the point.

We are bound by both the English and the Irish versions of EU law - I am not expecting us to do anymore than what currently happens - ie laws are published in both English and Irish.
It's not a vehicle to 'assert Irish' - It is my opinion that in Ireland that the laws/constitution should be available in both English and Irish.

You clearly care a great deal about this issue, but you ignore the fact that in the scale of reforms needed this should be down the list.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's why I keep asking for a positive reason for having the authoritative legal text in a language few can understand. The few who understand it might not give a damn; but that's only part of the problem. It doesn't actually answer the point.

... and repeat.

As I said I'm not going to enter an infinite loop here for the craic. I would hope that you at least see a little irony in that you have actually done exactly what I predicted!

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 21-08-2013 01:46AM

Cliste wrote: »

You're picking and choosing what to reply to, and quite honestly you appear to be deliberately missing the point.

Well, no, it's more that you're not really engaging with the discussion. All because you've really no explanation for why its a good thing for the authoritative version of a law to be written in a language which most don't understand.

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

Comments