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

Grudaire · 21-08-2013 08:47AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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.

Well someone stayed up past their bedtime.

The sad thing is you're repeating yourself, while not dealing with any of the points I have made.

Secondly I have nothing against dual 'authoritative' versions... which if you stop to think means that I am not claiming that the authoritative version needs to be in Irish. I do acknowledge some difficulties with the idea, and don't see it as a pressing need.

Indeed making both versions authoritative means that everyone can refer to whichever version they prefer and should make even more people able to understand our constitution.. which appears to be what you want.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 21-08-2013 09:46AM

Cliste wrote: »

The sad thing is you're repeating yourself, while not dealing with any of the points I have made.

What I'm actually doing is drawing out the key point that you haven't engaged with.

Any point that you've raised has already been addressed. However, you haven't come up with any reason for 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: »

Indeed making both versions authoritative means that everyone can refer to whichever version they prefer and should make even more people able to understand our constitution.. which appears to be what you want.

This is obfustication. The point I'm making is we need a common dialogue based around a common text that we can all understand. As already explained, the EU isn't a single country. Its an association of independent countries. The political limitations of what it needs to do to promote co-operation between countries isn't a model for a legal system within one country.

And, you'll appreciate, making Irish a working language of the EU was a Bertie-bubble era act of hubris. No other country has insisted on a redundant language being made a working language. It's just an example of us foisting this incoherence onto the international stage.

We all need to be engaged in one dialogue. Making Irish the definitive text means there's actually no dialogue, as we never have a discussion around the actual text that carries authority. Having dual authoritative texts is simply unnecessary. There's no need for a few tens of thousands of Irish language enthusiasts to have their very own Constitution.

Grudaire · 21-08-2013 10:53AM

Oh dear, you've done it again...
I have not said Irish should be the single authoritive version.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And, you'll appreciate, making Irish a working language of the EU was a Bertie-bubble era act of hubris. No other country has insisted on a redundant language being made a working language. It's just an example of us foisting this incoherence onto the international stage.

Are you sure you don't have an inner dislike/open hatred of the language? You've mention Padraig Pearce, Bertie and I'd expect to see Peig mentioned in a minute! I don't think you can look at the language objectively.

Aaaaaand on that note I'm going to stop participating in this thread. It's been a pleasure etc etc.

Wearily,

Cliste

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 21-08-2013 01:55PM

Cliste wrote: »

Oh dear, you've done it again...
I have not said Irish should be the single authoritive version.

Indeed, but that takes us back to the point about the difference between the EU as a multi-country association with multiple legal systems, and Ireland being one country with one legal system.

Or, as I've said, changing the situation to one where both versions had equal validity would be an improvement, but still incoherent.

Cliste wrote: »

Are you sure you don't have an inner dislike/open hatred of the language?

But, sure, it's a fact that the decision to establish Irish as a working language of the EU was a recent piece of political grandstanding.

An Coilean · 21-08-2013 02:28PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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.

Both the dificulties in making English the authoratitative version, and the benefit in having both versions inform decisions are very much part of the reason for why keeping the status quo is the best course of action.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 21-08-2013 03:54PM

An Coilean wrote: »

Both the dificulties in making English the authoratitative version, and the benefit in having both versions inform decisions are very much part of the reason for why keeping the status quo is the best course of action.

No, they're just balls of smoke. Neither is a reason for having the authoritative version of a law in a language that no-one can understand.

Every time we change the Constitution, it opens the door to new Court judgments. On the other hand, law students still study cases that pre-date the Constitution. Key pieces of legislation that predate the State are still deemed to apply, such as the 1695 Statute of Frauds. We don't have to retain the incoherent practice of maintaining the authoritative version of the law is written in a language that few understand, for fear of what will happen when people can actually just read the legal texts that they are subject to.

In particular, it makes no sense to cling to this invention of "both wordings informing decisions" when one of the wordings is incomprehensible to the overwhelming majority of people to whom it is meant to apply.

So, no, you haven't answered, at all, why there is a benefit in having the authoritative version of the law in a language that few can understand. If we agree that its best for everyone to be on the same page, and a page written in a language that is generally understood, then any operational issues in changing over to that better situation can be discussed.

Do you agree that, in 1937, the Constitution should not have included that statement?

An Coilean · 22-08-2013 11:09AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, they're just balls of smoke.

it makes no sense to cling to this invention of "both wordings informing decisions"

Neither balls of smoke nor an invention.

At this stage you seem to be just soap boxing.

Good luck with that.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 22-08-2013 01:33PM

An Coilean wrote: »

Neither balls of smoke nor an invention.

They are both, and neither explains the benefit that flows from writing the authoritative version of a law in a language that most can't understand.

That's the point that you've remained silent on throughout.

eire4 · 23-08-2013 07:25PM

How about we get rid of DeValera's constitution. We are supposed to be having a constitutional convention maybe we could look at a new constitution. There is much that is laudable in the constitution but lets face it there is way way too much of DeValera's comely maidens, frugal comforts and catholic church doctrine in it.

AlekSmart · 31-08-2013 12:09AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Or, as I've said, changing the situation to one where both versions had equal validity would be an improvement, but still incoherent.But, sure, it's a fact that the decision to establish Irish as a working language of the EU was a recent piece of political grandstanding.

It could be less to do with Language,and more to do with our National Preference for avoiding definitives.

Clouding important stuff in the first official language,will always be a form of Political sorcery in Ireland,on an ever increasing level,as Polish takes further root as being more widely used than Irish itself.

It is particularly helpful,and gratifying,to be always able to say....Ar an Lamh amhain,no....ar an lamh eile....We vote as we Drive...middle of the road,and we most certainly have an aversion to unambiguity...or whatever an t-Athair O Dineen might call it these days ?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 02-09-2013 08:38PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

Clouding important stuff in the first official language,will always be a form of Political sorcery in Ireland,on an ever increasing level,as Polish takes further root as being more widely used than Irish itself.

I'd agree that's a factor. People, to an extent, want the Constitution to be distant and irrelevant.

I just think we've reach the end of that approach - it isn't sustainable. We need to have a more transparent discussion about our common rights and responsibilities. You are right, of course, that many people don't want that as they don't want their position to be made explicit - consider something like the issue around tuft cutting, when EU legislation pops up on the domestic agenda. Folk can't get their heads around a law made by institutions that don't expect it to be ignored.

So, yes, this is what we do. But it isn't working.

petronius · 11-09-2013 01:18PM

Can you list one example where legislation as gaeilge has been confusing or misinterpreted or differed from the english version.

It would be a massive assault on the irish language, and irish speaking community to do such a thing. Ni tir gan teanga.

oscarBravo · 11-09-2013 01:54PM

petronius wrote: »

Ni tir gan teanga.

Belgium and Brazil aren't countries?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 11-09-2013 08:30PM

petronius wrote: »

Can you list one example where legislation as gaeilge has been confusing or misinterpreted or differed from the english version.

This is only a variant of the point already addressed. The whole point is that very, very few Irish people are capable of telling you what the definitive version of our laws say, because its written in Irish. You can't get more confusing than complete incomprehension. The whole point is that most Irish people cannot tell you 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.

let alone tell you if it differs from 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.

What, in your opinion, is gained by stating the definitive version of our laws in a language that, overwhelmingly, we don't understand?

petronius wrote: »

It would be a massive assault on the irish language, and irish speaking community to do such a thing. Ni tir gan teanga.

And, again, my point is the Constitution is meant to be the statement of the basic rights and obligations that we all share. It's primary function is not to serve as a platform for the status of the Irish language. It has a far wider and more important function than that, which is devalued by asserting that the definitive version is the one that, overwhelmingly, we are unable to read.

Oakboy · 13-09-2013 12:28AM

walrusgumble wrote: »

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 .

There are some particular bigots that trawl around these boards looking for threads that have anything to do with "irishness" to have a bash. Pathetic individuals

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 13-09-2013 01:40PM

Oakboy wrote: »

There are some particular bigots that trawl around these boards looking for threads that have anything to do with "irishness" to have a bash. Pathetic individuals

When folk like yourself resort to ad hominem attacks, I think people know you are conceding the case.

If you want to actually engage with the point, you can answer the question that others have so blatantly avoided. What, in your opinion, is gained by stating the definitive version of our laws in a language that, overwhelmingly, we don't understand?

Banjoxed · 22-09-2013 01:24AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Belgium and Brazil aren't countries?

Or Canada, Australia, Austria, the United States etc etc? Tir gan teanga, tir gan anam is just passive aggressive bollocks.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 11-03-2015 02:46PM

The current issue of the Irish text of the same sex marriage amendment being changed reminded me of this old thread I started a while back. The background, for anyone who hasn't seen the story, is set out in the links below.

http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/international-news-news/ireland-almost-accidentally-bans-heterosexual-marriage/133877

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/another-legal-muddle-now-irish-language-wording-same-214620100.html#OHrmNTv

I think this issue makes the case for removing the primacy of the Irish text. So the Irish wording will be changed; it's not as if I, or 99% of people voting, would have been able to spot the flaw in the original wording or judge if the revised wording is fixing the issue.

I have no idea what the current Irish wording says - it could be proposing that I be betrothed to Enda Kenny, for all I know. I'll be none the wiser when the new wording comes out.

It's just bonkers to expect people to vote on a proposal that they can't read. The Irish version of the text should be a non-binding verbal decoration, if it is to exist at all. The English version, that almost every voter can read and make sense of, should be the legally valid text.

shruikan2553 · 13-03-2015 07:04PM

For the vast majority of people the Irish version has to be translated to English before they can understand what the version with highest priority says. As Im sure many people know there is rarely a direct translation for a phrase, it tends to be translated to a phrase that is commonly used by the other language.

The whole first language being Irish thing doesnt really work when you consider how many people have Irish as a first language.

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

Comments