The Empire Strike Back!

The results from the 2011 Census of Ireland published last week revealed continued growth in the Irish-speaking communities of the nation and the raised social standing and acceptance of our indigenous language and culture. 1,777,437 million people or 41.4% of the population stated in the census that they were able to speak Irish, an increase of 7.1% since the 2006 results. Of that number 801,063 recorded themselves as regular Irish speakers, another big jump from the last census. We know, of course, what the reaction was to these results by the anglophone supremacists who dominate much of the news media in Ireland. Arrogance, lies, falsehoods, distortions and simple anti-Irish propaganda of every conceivable form and make. So no surprises there.

And no surprise in the news that the Fine Gael-Labour coalition government, who’s ideological hostility and indifference to it’s Irish-speaking citizens and communities is greater than that of any government in the 90 year history of the state, is now signalling its intent to implement another policy to undermine the growth in Irish observed over the last several years. Eroding the equal rights of Irish-speaking citizens with their English-speaking peers is not enough. Now the anglophone elite want to erode their educational rights and standing too. From the Irish Times:

“THE AMOUNT of class time devoted to Irish and religion in primary schools has been questioned by Minister for Education, Ruairí Quinn.

He said teachers had told him how up to 30 per cent of all contact time in some primary classes was taken up by these two subjects. “If we are worried about literacy and numeracy and this figure is close to being correct . . . then we have to ask ourselves questions.”

In an Irish Times interview, he recalled how some educationalists had labelled Irish-language policy as the “biggest single policy failure in Irish education”.

Last year, Fine Gael proposed the abolition of compulsory Irish after Junior Cert; it later abandoned the proposal under pressure from the Irish-language lobby.

Asked if he would revive such a measure, Mr Quinn said: “I am implementing the programme for government.” (This proposes no change in Irish-language policy.) He said he had “enough fronts” open at present, including the drive for major reform of the Junior and Leaving Cert exams. Mr Quinn said he would be happy to get some of these reforms “over the line”.

Mr Quinn said his priority in office was to overhaul second-level education, which, he said, “did not encourage independent thinking”. He hoped the new Junior Cert would be implemented from 2017, with a revised Leaving Cert being rolled out shortly after.”

The latest battle in Ireland’s 800 year old culture war has been well and truly flagged. Not content with abolishing the Office of the Language Commissioner, gearing up to gut the Official Languages Act of 2003 of any meaning or purpose and undermining from the outset the state’s 20 Year Strategy for the Irish Language, Fine Gael and Labour are now intent on lowering the status of the Irish language (and Irish speaking children) in the education system.

Are these people our new Anglo-Irish elite?

About these ads

Colum Kenny, The Irish Independent And Some Media Spin

Colum Kenny is a regular columnist for the Oirish Independent newspaper, popular amongst right-wing types and other motley conservatives. Here’s his bio from Dublin City University (DCU):

“Professor Colum Kenny, B.C.L., Barrister-at-Law, Ph.D, School of Communications. Areas of special interest include broadcasting, journalism, media, culture and society. He is the author of, among other titles, The Power of Silence: Silent Communication in Daily Life (Karnac, 2011) and Moments that Changed Us (Gill & Macmillan, 2005). Currently a member of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. A former employee of RTE, he was also a member of the IRTC / Broadcasting Commission of Ireland from 1998 to 2003. A founding board member of the E.U. Media Desk in Ireland and a council member of the Irish Legal History Society. Member of the Media Mergers Advisory Group that reported to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in 2009. The author of many academic articles on cultural and media matters (listed separately at ‘Publications’ here), he is also a frequent contributor to the Sunday Independent, Ireland’s most widely read broadsheet Sunday newspaper. Awarded the DCU President’s Award for Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences, 2004/5.”

Impressive, no? So he’s someone who should, from an academic point of view, have a good understanding of journalism and media values in general. Y’know. Honesty, fairness, reporting without prejudice or bias. What do those crazy conservatives in the US’s Fox News call it? “Fair & Balanced”?

So here is Professor Kenny’s latest contribution to journalistic ethics, a look at the 2011 Census results in the Irish Independent:

“For one in three children, compulsory Irish classes are a complete waste of time.

The Census shows that the total number of people who say that they can speak Irish increased by seven per cent. But that is statistically insignificant when the general increase in Ireland’s population is taken into account.

What is truly shocking is that almost one in three people aged 10 to 19 say that they cannot speak the Irish language. Given the time and money spent on it at school, if this is not a measure of the continuing failure of the compulsory Irish curriculum, then what would be?

And the figure for the population as a whole who “cannot or never speak Irish” is even greater. Among those who do purport to speak it, only 77,185 said they speak Irish daily outside the education system. Given that there are 120,000 people speaking Polish at home in Ireland daily, perhaps these should be given their own TV station here.”

Hmm. So for 1 in 3 children Irish classes are a complete waste of time? But what about the 2 in 3? Those classes seem pretty successful for them. And that 7.1% rise in Irish speakers that is “insignificant”. A rise from 1.66 to 1.77 million people speaking Irish is insignificant? That’s 41.4% of the population. How does the general rise in population make that number insignificant? Actually, I believe you’ll find, that 110,000 extra speakers coupled with a general rise in population partly driven by overseas immigration is statistically very significant. Oh well, it’s not Kenny’s fault. He’s not a maths professor after all. Just a “meedja” one.

Addressing his next issue, well if 41.4% of the population say they speak Irish then the number who say they don’t speak Irish would be higher wouldn’t it? In fact it’s a whole 17.2% higher. Wow. Though, let’s not forget that the 58.6% who don’t speak Irish includes 544,357 non-nationals of whom 89,561 don’t even speak English. From 2.8 million supposedly monolingual English speakers take out foreign-born, non-Irish speaking residents, and you have 2.2 million Irish-born non-Irish speaking citizens. As opposed to say, oh I don’t know: how about 1.77 million Irish-born Irish speaking citizens?

How’s that for fun with numbers, Professor Kenny?

As for his final points (if I may dignify them with that term). The number of daily/weekly Irish speakers is 187,827. The equivalent number of Polish speakers is 119,526. And that excludes the number of people who state that they speak Irish less than once a week. And 613,236 is a lot of people to exclude.

But then, it seems, Colum Kenny would be happy to exclude 1,777,437 million Irish citizens full stop. The Irish-speaking ones that is.

A Native Place

The new Irish language social networking site Abair Leat!, which is primarily aimed at language learners, has been officially launched by the Irish-American comedian and Gaeilgeoir Des Bishop. From the Irish Times:

“… Abair Leat! is the first user generated content application of its kind and allows users to create a personal profile, add friends and exchange messages in Irish.

The core concept of abairleat.com is that at least 70 per cent of all posts and comments must be in Irish. It automatically calculates the percentage of Irish in each post and then invites the user to amend the submission if required.

A spellchecker is provided and an integrated version of Google translate allows users to translate any words they do not know.

Updates are automatically posted to Facebook and Twitter and site developers are planning to introduce an integrated thesaurus and speech synthesiser in the coming months. A smartphone app is planned for later in the year.

Originally intended as an educational resource for students attending Coláiste Lurgan – one of the country’s oldest Irish language summer colleges, the Abair Leat! concept was developed by company owner Mícheál Ó Foighil.

The website was built in association with US digital advertising agency Fantasy Interactive (FI) using ‘Contain’, FI’s social media platform.

Founded by Dubliner David Martin in 1999, FI has developed into a global firm with offices in New York, San Francisco and Stockholm. FI counts companies such as Porsche, Ducati, Google and CBS News among its customers.”

FI’s impressive portfolio of clients has led to a lot of free publicity for Abair Leat! and the website is generating a great deal of positive feedback for its slick look and tech-savvy nature. However, in the Irish Independent, Des Bishop also points to the torrent of abuse and discrimination Irish speakers regularly face when online necessitating a site like Abair Leat!

“”I’m a big user of Facebook and Twitter but when you post in Irish, people who speak Irish respond, but then everyone else makes passive/ aggressive comments saying things like, ‘Why are you speaking this dead language?’ and ‘I don’t understand’ or ‘speak English, please’. Irish is funny for some people, they get very upset,” he said.

“If two people were posting in Polish, no one would ask, ‘Why are you speaking in Polish?’”

Indeed, but the discrimination towards Irish speakers is not confined to online, anglophone trolls and bigots but is widely reflected throughout Irish society and the media establishment in particular.

Discrimination Dressed As Reasonableness… Isn’t It Always?

An article in the Irish Times decries the alleged “preferential” treatment given to Irish-speaking children in the education system because some students receive higher grades for successfully completing their study and examinations solely through the medium of the Irish language. No matter that Irish-speaking children are otherwise discriminated against in Ireland through the lack of Irish-medium schools, education services or the provision of social amenities. No matter that Irish-speaking children are forced to use the English language in wider society and sometimes face abuse and bigotry for not doing so. According to this writer it is the children of the dominant English-speaking majority who are discriminated against!

“Leaving Cert students who do their exams through Irish get grade boosts that add up to extra CAO points. This has been the case for so long it has been overlooked as a very serious inequality in our system.

The Leaving Cert is supposed to be a “level playing field”. That’s the phrase that supporters of this exam love to use.

Take two students, equally able, going for the same course in university. The student from the Irish language school has a better chance of getting that course, even if Irish is not required to study it. It doesn’t make academic sense at all.

I accept that completing an exam such as history through the Irish language is challenging, but not for a child that has had the benefit of 14 years of Irish language education.”

Challenging? Is that how one would describe life for an Irish speaking child living in a frequently intolerant English speaking society part of which actively discriminates against those raised in our native tongue, not least in the services provided by the state itself? Bizarrely the writer recognises this point by highlighting the state’s failure to meet the huge demand from parents and children across Ireland for Irish medium education, in the process contradicting his own argument.

“In my own locality there is one gaelscoil (Irish language primary school) and it is oversubscribed. The nearest gaelcholáiste (Irish language post-primary school) is miles away.

I absolutely support the right of parents to choose an all-Irish education for their children. I also realise that the bonus system is designed to encourage more parents to choose Irish language schooling. As we have seen, however, demand exceeds supply so the interest is being stoked by the bonus points system without a corresponding increase in provision.

Meanwhile, awarding bonus points for Irish continues to discriminate against those outside this limited Irish language school system. When a large pool of students are going for a small number of high point courses in university, is it really fair that those whose parents had access to a gaelscoil and gaelcholáiste should find themselves at such an advantage?”

But if all that is true then surely the most obvious and logical solution is to provide more Irish medium schools? That is, even greater numbers of children studying through the Irish language, not less. It could be done, for instance, by encouraging greater bilingualism in the English language education system, which compromises some 90% of schools in Ireland. Instead we have a situation where the Department of Education has become notorious for its anti-Irish policies, including a freeze on the construction of new Irish medium schools no matter how great (and growing) the demand is.

Furthermore, the present Fine Gael-Labour coalition government has set itself on a path of destruction through the nation’s Irish speaking communities by forcing the amalgamation or closure of Irish medium schools with its new regulations changing the teacher-to-pupil ratio in small rural or urban schools. Given the government’s now proven hostility to the Irish language, and its determination to roll back the limited civil rights provisions for Irish speaking citizens enshrined in the Official Languages Act of 2003, how anyone could argue that English speaking pupils face discrimination in contemporary Ireland is beyond comprehension.

The points made in this article are just another form of soft prejudice. If the writer truly believed in equality and equal access to education for all schoolchildren then the only rational course would be greater numbers of Irish medium schools up and down the country and at all levels. The demand is there, as is recognised: but instead of meeting that demand and “levelling the playing field” with a 50/50 Irish and English medium education system the writer simply wants the existing imbalance tipped even further in the favour of the English speaking majority.

Yes, there is very serious inequality in our education system. And it is an inequality that Irish-speaking children and their parents face every single school day.

Have You Seen The Size Of My Gun?!

Lets Get Them There Brits!

The “Oirish” Daily Mirror carries an eye-grabbing headline:

“We could have killed the Queen on Ireland visit, claim Real IRA”

Well of course they would claim that but is there any more to this report than a mere headline?

“THE Real IRA last night claimed they planned to kill the Queen when she visited Ireland.

But they called off an assassination attempt on the Queen because they did not believe her life was worth one of their volunteers being jailed.

In an astonishing interview with the Irish Daily Mirror the Dublin leadership of the dissident group claim they met to plot the killing and were confident they could pull it off.

A spokesman said: “We considered killing the Queen. We could have managed to carry out a successful attack but it wouldn’t have been feasible to get away.

“Any volunteer would have been caught and locked up for life.

“A volunteer’s life is not worth the life of the Queen.”

A revolutionary army with a conscience? Aww. And I like the fact that they are so familiar with “the Queen”. That would be the British head of state, or the British Queen, as most Irish Republicans would phrase it. But hey, if you prefer “the Queen” you go with it. Sounds like entirely plausible language from an Irish Republican to me. No doubts there.

But wait! There’s more.

“The organisation, which refers to itself as the IRA, yesterday insisted it now has the firepower capable of launching a major assault.

Among the deadly arsenal weapons are rocket-propelled grenades and encrypted bombs.”

“Encrypted bombs”?! Wow. Are they better than unencrypted bombs?

“A spokesman said: “The gardai can count themselves lucky that she wasn’t attacked.

“It could have been very embarrassing.””

It’s not the only embarrassing thing here, but I digress.

“The spokesman said: “The so-called pillars of society were fawning over her but the streets of Dublin were empty.

“The Cork Brigade did carry out a grenade attack and members in Dublin organised in assisting youths in rebelling on the streets. The IRA mobilised the youths. The public protest showed that there were numbers on the streets willing to oppose the visit.””

Rebelling on the streets? Five men and a dog…?

“Despite this the RIRA claim they are more popular than ever and have plenty of support.

The spokesman said: “This year has been our best so far and we have had significant numbers of people joining our organisation.

“We have a young base but we also have a good number of former Provos.

“We wouldn’t put a number on our membership because we can’t know, but we are the strongest republican group in Ireland and definitely in the south.”

Have you stopped laughing yet? Yes, the RíRá have lots of new members – unfortunately they can’t say how many members they have because they, um, well, they don’t know.

“The group claimed that teachers, mechanics and students all signed up in the last year. It is widely believed that the RIRA are bankrolling their bloody actions through extortion rackets.

The spokesman added: “We have a lot of money spinners. We fundraise from fuel smuggling, cheap DVDs and cigarettes.

“We also use a lot of the same fundraising that has been used in the past. We do not tax drug dealers. If you tax them then you are as bad as them.”

Asked if the group sees any hypocrisy in criticising drug dealers while they sell illegal cigarettes, a member said: “There is a qualitative difference between cigarettes and drugs.

“The working class can’t afford cigarettes so we are meeting the needs of the community.

“Nobody is being pressured into buying the cigarettes.””

The Real IRA: they’re just like the St. Vincent de Paul or the Samaritans! And such an eloquent use of language in building their propaganda image: “fuel smuggling, cheap DVDs and cigarettes”. The Real IRA: coming to a market stall near you!

“The Real IRA recently admitted bombing two banks in the North as well as the UK City of Culture office in Derry.

The spokesman said: “Such attacks are an integral part of our strategy of targeting the financial infrastructure that supports the British government’s capitalist colonial system in Ireland.

“The impetus to carry out this type of attack is directly linked to pressure from working-class communities in Ireland as a whole.””

I’m always hearing people crying out for someone, anyone, to bomb the banks. Sure don’t you see it painted on walls all over Ireland? Bankers Out!

Oh look, here comes some rationality. Hello, Mister Believability, have you something sane and not at all embarrassing to say to us?

“A TOP [!] security expert has poured cold water on the Real IRA’s claims they could have killed Queen Elizabeth II.

However, former Army captain Tom Clonan said the dangerous group had the capacity to launch a disruptive strike.

Dr Clonan is a former army officer with experience in the Middle East and the former Yugoslavia.

Since his retirement he has spent several years researching dissident groups like the RIRA.

“From my research I have found that these guys are committed, they are not a criminal outfit who are looking after their own interests.

“They have beliefs that they stand for and this makes them a serious and credible threat…””

Indeed. A lot more credible than some other things I could mention. Talking of which, back in the magical world of revolutionary politics, the RIRA are revealing their massive arsenal of hi-tech weaponry with which they intend to drive the British invaders back into the sea (or something).

“”We have good engineering units that are able to develop weapons.

“We have rocket propelled grenades, electronic detonated bombs, mercury volt switch bombs, remote bombs that are encrypted, light machine guns, heavy machine guns and assault rifles.””

That’s right. Let the Brits know what weapons and equipment you have. That will frighten the bejesus out of them funny-talking imperialists.

“The RIRA claimed that they have an effective network transporting weapons across the border.

They say that this is controlled by so-called “unknown volunteers”.

The gang said: “We are not having our weapons seized unlike other groups.

“Our supply network from the south to the north is very strong and has not been broken.

“These volunteers have no previous history they have no Facebook pages and there would be only one person from the organisation who would deal with the unknown volunteers.””

Wow! Real IRA not on Facebook! Now, there’s your headline, folks!

As Mark McGregor points out, its a funny old war.

Horrible Histories With The Sunday Independent

The Irish Independent’s pet “historian”, John Paul McCarthy, has written a lengthy article on some of the behind-the-scenes events relating to the 1981 Hunger Strikes documented in the Irish and British government papers released at the start of the year. As always he has his own very personal interpretation of Irish history.

“The State Papers for 1981 deal with the gravest political crisis in this Republic since the Civil War.

They show that the Irish Government’s response to Bobby Sands’ hunger strike was simultaneously weak and deceptive.

Marian Finucane’s guests last week on her radio show, especially John Bowman and Peter Taylor, worked these contradictions fairly hard rather than deal with the moral elephant in the room.

Firstly, they presented the hard-nosed Thatcherite stance on prison conditions as a calamitous own-goal, the fateful British stumble that supposedly catapulted Provisional Sinn Fein into the electoral stratosphere. They also failed to consider the possibility that the H-Block confrontation simply gave firm form to a potent, and pre-existing sentiment within a section of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, a sentiment that would probably have emerged into the electoral field through another channel if the hunger-strikes had never happened.”

Seriously? What single shred of evidence is there that Provisional Sinn Féin existed as an electoral force in the North of Ireland (or indeed Ireland as a whole) before the early 1980s? Up to that time the party was little more than the civilian wing of the Republican Movement, the provider of “incident centres” in times of truce, a support service for POWs and their families, an interlocutor and liaison between the Irish Republican Army and the Irish communities in the north-east, and a friendly face for the national and international media. But beyond that? The party barely functioned as a political party, in any conventional sense, at all. To argue that the Hunger Strikes played no part, or indeed the deciding part, in the politicisation of the Republican Movement and the “greening” of the Irish civilian population in the North of Ireland is too ridiculous for words.

“This sentiment was the one that sustained the Provisional IRA’s campaign of sectarian violence throughout the Seventies, that tawdry decade of no-warning bombings in working-class British pubs, scores of murders of part-time police officers in front of their children, the incineration of helpless civilians in hotels like LaMon and, on one especially barbaric occasion, the torture-murder of SAS captain, Robert Nairac, that culminated in the feeding of his body into a mincing machine.”

Is this a “sentiment” or a “mandate”? Or is McCarthy too afraid of the answer to go down that particular line of reasoning?

As for the British Army SAS “hero” Robert Nairac, his execution by the IRA occurred in terrible circumstances. There was no honour in it. On a purely human level one can only feel revulsion at the manner of his death. However that revulsion equals the manner of his living and of his “active service” in Ireland. John Paul McCarthy condemns the IRA for their violence yet is silent on the violence of Robert Nairac and his role as the leader of a British military and paramilitary death squad in Ireland. Or does the murder of Irish citizens not overly bother the good professor too much? British civilians, soldiers and policemen, yes. But Irish men, women and children?

“The Provisional IRA was a treasonous entity, and it could only win if the Constitution was voided. Sands’ starvation was not a passive sacrifice, but rather an aggressive policy on a direct collision course with our State.”

Treasonous? Against whom? The British-ruled apartheid-state they were born into and which treated them as a second class citizens with second class rights? If McCarthy means the Irish state, would that be the same state who’s Supreme Court ruled that certain military actions in pursuance of the reunification of Ireland under Articles 2 and 3 were “political in nature”? Is that colliding with the state or acting on its behalf?

“Must the democratic state simply yield to a treasonous conspiracy like Sands’ simply because it temporarily adopts the tactics of Gandhi and Emmeline Pankhurst?”

The hunger strike:  known as a tactic of Irish Republicanism since the mid-1800s and the establishment of the Irish Republican Brotherhood and the Fenian Brotherhood, and later adopted by many other democratic, revolutionary and nationalist movements and persons around the globe. This is what we call history, boys and girls.

“As Prof John A Murphy and former justice minister Patrick Cooney insisted at the time, the Republic remained in danger regardless of what the British did because Sands was exploiting our historic ambivalence about sectarian violence, unionism and the British connection.”

Ambivalence? As in rejecting the so-called “British connection”? Is this what you mean by ambivalence, John? The Irish people wishing to have a free and democratic nation of their own? Or perhaps you refer to your own “ambivalence” on the loss of the “British connection”?

However, perhaps, on principal, you are opposed to rewarding or giving in to all those who use violence for political ends?

“Nally was Secretary to the Irish Government from 1980-1993, and the principal architect of the Republic’s policy on Northern Ireland since Jack Lynch rescued him from obscurity in 1973.

Nally, writing in 1975, speculated on what would happen if Sands’ IRA actually achieved its goal of forcing a British scuttle from Northern Ireland — their stated aim in 1975 and again in 1981.

Nally predicted that an independent Ulster state would emerge after the British exit, but only after a communal catastrophe, mandarin-speak for a plain old Balkan-style sectarian slaughter.

So, as far back as 1975, Nally was warning Cosgrave that “the likely prelude to the establishment of a state comprising either the entire six counties or the part of it east of the Bann is so horrific for the entire island that I think we should, on no account, give any support or engage in any open analysis or discussion on the subject.” And in 1981 we now know that Nally seemed even more convinced that leniency in the H-Block confrontation could hasten that very nightmare.”

So, let me get this straight. We could not “give in” to the violence of the IRA – because we feared the violence of the British separatist minority on the island of Ireland even more? Well now, who say’s violence doesn’t pay? It’s paid the British national minority in Ireland very handsomely indeed, for the last 100 years and more.

“Nally’s hard words were written days after bricks, stones and bottles flew during a major riot outside the British Embassy in Dublin. Here, without anything like the body armour available today, a small force of gardai heroically contained a seething IRA mob intent on wrecking the embassy.”

Hmm, a “seething IRA mob”? All 2000 men and women who took part in the demonstration near the British Embassy that day were Volunteers of the Irish Republican Army? Remarkable.

John Paul McCarthy. Historian.

Sunday Independent. Newspaper.

An Anti-Irish Free State?

I’ve written several pieces here about the shock and dismay felt by many Irish-speaking citizens across Ireland at the decision by the current Fine Gael-Labour coalition government to abolish the office of An Coimisinéir Teanga or the Language Commissioner; a decision justified as a necessary requirement of the hack and burn austerity measures dictated by the IMF-ECB. However to most observers the move to do away with this independent public agency, which has fought to ensure the same access to state institutions for Irish-speaking citizens over the last 10 years that have been enjoyed by English-speaking citizens for the last 90 years, is driven more by the success of the office (and the legislation behind it) than any financial considerations.  Notable cases taken in recent years, based upon the exceptionally large number of complaints lodged with An Coimisinéir Teanga by Irish citizens who have found themselves discriminated against because they use the indigenous language of their own country, marked the Language Commissioner as an early target for the new wave of anti-Irish rhetoric emanating from a culturally Anglo-American, Anglophone political establishment.

Now support has come from a panel of Irish and international academics for those opposing the return to the institutionalised “racism” of previous decades, as reported in the Irish Times:

“FIVE INTERNATIONAL language experts have questioned the Government’s decision to merge the office of An Coimisinéir Teanga (Irish Language Commissioner) with that of the Ombudsman.

The merger was announced last month as part of the Government’s public sector reform programme, and has already been criticised by Irish language bodies and by Fianna Fáil.

In a letter to Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht Jimmy Deenihan, five specialists in Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Canada question the justification for the decision.

NUI Galway lecturer Dr John Walsh, Prof Colin Williams of Cardiff University, Prof Linda Cardinal of the University of Ottawa, Dr Wilson McLeod of the University of Edinburgh and Prof Rob Dunbar of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, the University of the Highlands and Islands, say they believe there are “no obvious economic savings” as a result.

Staff in the language commissioner’s office in Spiddal, Co Galway, are already employed by the Department of the Gaeltacht, and share that department’s human resources and financial and services functions.

The language commissioner’s office costs about €600,000 annually and is charged with ensuring language rights are adhered to under the Official Languages Act. Its annual report has been critical of a number of departments and public bodies for failing to meet these requirements.

“The great strength of the Irish system is the independence of the [Irish Language] Commissioner’s office to investigate complaints in strict accordance with its statutory obligations,” the five academics state.

“Without such an independent office and focus for investigation of complaints, we fear that the rights of Irish speakers will atrophy,” they say, calling on Mr Deenihan to reconsider the decision.”

It is of course the “great strength” of the Language Commissioner which is its undoing. For a zealous minority of the anglicised, English-speaking community in Ireland, with their pathological hatred of those who embrace a native Irish identity (or indeed a native and anglicised Irish identity), the success of An Coimisinéir Teanga was infuriating. For these “Neo-Colonials” the dismissal of indigenous Irish culture, in any and all forms, is the paramount “culture war”. One that has been fought here since the Middle Ages and the first British colonies. Any signs of “strength” by the “natives” is a sign of their “weakness”. No “parity of esteem” or “peaceful, communal coexistence” here. Annihilation, dressed up in the rhetoric of the free market or financial necessity or claims to faux modernism, is the intention. That is the true purpose behind the abolishing of the Office of the Language Commissioner.

A state which rejects the indigenous identity of its citizens is a state those citizens are in turn justified in rejecting.

Second Class Citizens With Second Class Rights

Two weeks ago I predicted that the Fine Gael led coalition government would use a review of the Official Languages Act of 2003 to reverse a decade’s worth of progress on equal rights for Ireland’s Irish speaking communities. And, hey, guess what news was announced today? The Irish Times carries the story:

“The decision to close the office of the Irish Language Commissioner has led leading Irish language groups to question the Government’s commitment to the protection and long-term development of the language.

The Government revealed its plan to merge the commissioner’s office with the office of the Ombudsman as part of the public sector reform programme announced this afternoon.

The language commissioner’s role was to monitor compliance by public bodies with the provisions of the Official Languages Act and to take measures to ensure the right of citizens to use their language in official business with State agencies.

Julian de Spáinn, general secretary of Conradh na Gaeilge, said the language commissioner’s office had made “huge strides” in recent years. “The Irish language community believes and trusts in the independence of the Office, and this is now to be put in jeopardy by the Government.”

Éamonn Mac Niallais, spokesperson for Guth na Gaeltachta, said it was “amazing” that the decision has been taken “at the very beginning of the implementation of the Government’s 20 Year Strategy for the Irish Language.”

“What message does this give the Civil Service, a service Irish speakers have been trying to access their rights from for years now? What this is saying to them is that this independent office is not important and as such, that it is not important to implement the Languages Act”, he asked.

Seán Ó Cuirreáin, formerly deputy head of Radio na Gaeltachta, was formally appointed as the first Coimisinéir Teanga in February 2004 under the Official Languages Act and was reappointed for a second term in 2010.

In his latest report – dated 2010 – Mr Ó Cuirreáin said his office received 700 complaints about difficulties or problems experienced by citizens about difficulties accessing State services through Irish. This was more than in any previous year.”

Perhaps, indeed, that was the problem? That Irish-speaking citizens of this state were too willing to fight for their rights. And the Official Languages Act and the Commissioner gave them a means to do so. Ah, we can’t be having that now, can we? Don’t these folk realise that we live in Ireland not Éire?

Perhaps those who have been so critical of my trenchant views on the real nature of modern Ireland, on the existence of an intolerant, bigoted Anglophone establishment that will not permit any other rival, might like to speak up now?

Or are you too busy meekly shuffling to the back of the bus again?

Scary Éire?

In the debate over the relative values of the Irish and English languages in contemporary Ireland one of the arguments being put forward by a small but powerful minority of anti-Irish zealots in the Anglophone community is that we should be learning another non-English language instead of Irish for “economic” reasons. The one picked from a presumably global list of languages is usually German, followed by French and, rather bizarrely, Mandarin Chinese (I’ve also heard Russian, Japanese and even Hindu mentioned – which really takes the argument to new levels of desperation).

The claim is that these non-English languages would be more valuable to the Irish people, or rather the Irish business community, than their own Irish language since some of these are the national languages of states with powerhouse economies or global economic reach. Give up Irish, cry the Anglos, and replace it with German, the supposed lingua franca of the business world.

The only problem is they are lying. And what’s more they know it. The lingua franca of international business is the same language it has been for the last fifty years and will be for the next fifty years – English. And what language is one of Ireland’s two spoken languages? Hmm?

Other languages, German, French, Chinese, are red herrings. False flags of convenience flown by a minority of English speakers in Ireland who are desperate for something, anything, to justify their opposition to our native tongue. They no more care about creating future multilingual entrepreneurs than I do about the average viscosity of custard!

They do care about destroying the Irish language, about completing a process began centuries ago through a foreign invasion and colonisation of our country. A colonisation that gave these people their language – and in some cases their identity. To say that there are people in Ireland who, though regarding themselves as Irish, hate all manifestations of Ireland’s native language or culture with a degree of loathing bordering on a mania is to simply state the truth.

In light of all of the above Salon features an excerpt from a new book by Henry Hitchings, “The Language Wars: A History of Proper English”, examining the role of the British English language around the globe. It contains a few truths, good and bad, the Angloban extreme most certainly won’t want you to hear.

“No language has spread as widely as English, and it continues to spread. Internationally the desire to learn it is insatiable. In the twenty-first century the world is becoming more urban and more middle class, and the adoption of English is a symptom of this, for increasingly English serves as the lingua franca of business and popular culture. It is dominant or at least very prominent in other areas such as shipping, diplomacy, computing, medicine and education.

…the propagation of English is an industry, not a happy accident.

English has spread because of British colonialism, the technological advances of the Industrial Revolution, American economic and political ascendancy, and further (mostly American) technological developments in the second half of the twentieth century. Its rise has been assisted by the massive exportation of English as a second language, as well as by the growth of an English-language mass media. The preaching of Christianity, supported by the distribution of English-language Bibles, has at many times and in many places sustained the illusion, created by Wyclif and Tyndale and Cranmer, that English is the language of God.

Wherever English has been used, it has lasted. Cultural might outlives military rule. In the colonial period, the languages of settlers dominated the languages of the peoples whose land they seized. They marginalized them and in some cases eventually drove them to extinction. …English is treated with suspicion in many places where it was once the language of the imperial overlords. It is far from being a force for unity, and its endurance is stressful. In India, while English is much used in the media, administration, education and business, there are calls to curb its influence.

And as English continues to spread, it seems like a steamroller, squashing whatever gets in its way. True, it is often used alongside local languages and does not instantly replace them. Yet its presence shifts the cultural emphases in the lives of those who adopt it, altering their aspirations and expectations. English seems, increasingly, to be a second first language. It is possible to imagine it merely coexisting with other languages, but easy to see that coexistence turning into transcendence. As English impinges on the spaces occupied by other languages, so linguists are increasingly finding that they need to behave like environmentalists: instead of being scholars they have to become activists.

There are more people who use English as a second language than there are native speakers. Estimates of the numbers vary, but even the most guarded view is that English has 500 million second-language speakers. Far more of the world’s citizens are eagerly jumping on board than trying to resist its progress. In some cases the devotion appears religious and can involve what to outsiders looks a lot like self-mortification. According to Mark Abley, some rich Koreans pay for their children to have an operation that lengthens the tongue because it helps them speak English convincingly. The suggestion is that it enables them to produce r and l sounds, although the evidence of the many proficient English-speakers among Korean immigrants in America and Britain makes one wonder whether the procedure is either necessary or useful. Still, it is a powerful example of the lengths people will go to in order to learn English, seduced by the belief that linguistic capital equals economic capital.

In places where English is used as a second language, its users often perceive it as free from the limitations of their native languages. They associate it with power and social status, and see it as a supple and sensuous medium for self-expression. It symbolizes choice and liberty. But while many of those who do not have a grasp of the language aspire to learn it, there are many others who perceive it as an instrument of oppression, associated not only with imperialism but also with the predations of capitalism and Christianity.

There are challenges to the position of English as the dominant world language in the twenty-first century. The main ones seem likely to come from Spanish and Mandarin Chinese. Both have more first-language users than English. But at present neither is much used as a lingua franca. The majority of speakers of Mandarin Chinese live in one country, and, excepting Spain, most Spanish-speakers are in the Americas.

I have mentioned India already; English is important to its global ambitions. The language’s roots there are colonial, but English connects Indians less to the past than to the future. Already the language is used by more people in India than in any other country, the United States included. Meanwhile in China the number of students learning the language is increasing rapidly. …it is a symptom of China’s English Fever: the ardent conviction that learning English is the essential skill for surviving in the modern world.”

So much for the “urgent” need of Irish people to learn non-English languages to compete in the global market. The global market is learning English!

There exists in Ireland a small but influential community of English speakers who regard the Irish language as entirely alien, entirely foreign. It is part of scary Éire, the Ireland they don’t understand or want to understand. They wish Irish to disappear, to be no more. They may well, and sometimes do, qualify it with statements of seeming generosity and understanding along the lines of “I personally don’t mind Irish but…”. The “but” usually leading to things like no funding for Irish language organisations or events, no public service broadcasting in Irish, no Irish in the public education system, no state documents, websites or signs in Irish – or to put it all more honestly, no Irish full stop. They simply want Ireland to be an English Ireland and that is it.

Or do you really believe these people are opposed to the Irish language in order to have Mandarin Chinese spoken in Irish schools?

Really?

The British Separatist Minority In Ireland. Or How To Use Political Violence And Get Away With It

Jude Collins is one of my favourite Irish bloggers, an author and journalist with a seemingly indefatigable supply of opinions (where does he get the time?). With the Irish media establishment speaking with one voice on what was known in my youth as the “National Question”, he represents one of the few places where one can hear intelligent, well-argued counter-opinion (the latter also being known as the truth). His latest post touches upon a word also rarely hear these days: partition. It is well worth reading not least for the image accompanying it which puts all the Anglomedia talk about democracy and the threat or the use of violence for political ends into perspective.

When is a majority not a majority? When it is the militant British separatist majority in the North of Ireland.

Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil – The Irish News Media And The Sam Smyth Scandal

As many regular readers may know (you are there, aren’t you?) I frequently bang on about the inequities of the “media establishment” in Ireland. In general I pretty much loathe ‘em, the whole right-wing, faux liberal, elitist Anglo shower. Bah! But for those of you who ask, “A Shionnach, but why?”, here, in several easily digestible paragraphs, is the answer.

Earlier this month The Journal carried some surprising news for those of us who believe in media plurality and freedom, news that has remained strangely underreported by the Irish press (or perhaps not so strangely as you will see).

“TODAY FM PRESENTER Sam Smyth has taken to the airwaves today following reports that his days presenting his Sunday current affairs show are numbered.

The Sunday Times reports today that Smyth has been sacked from the show he presents on Today FM, with the last show to be broadcast on 6 November. According to the paper Smyth has said that his reporting on the Moriarty Tribunal and his criticism of Denis O’Brien is behind him being dropped from the show.

On the show earlier, Smyth read out today’s headlines relating to his position in Today FM, but declined to comment saying:

“…before someone comes downstairs and pulls a wire we better move onto something else.”

The Sunday Independent reports that Smyth is planning to fight against his sacking by Today FM, which is owned by O’Brien. The Sunday Independent reports that O’Brien is currently suing Sam Smyth over comments made and written about the Moriarty Tribunal.”

The reaction to the news drew a deafening silence from the Irish rat pack – sorry, media pack. So much so that even a member of that august sleeping chamber, Seanad Éireann, was stirred from his slumber, as The Journal also reported:

“A LABOUR PARTY SENATOR has criticised members of the media for not showing more public solidarity to Today FM’s Sam Smyth, who is to be dropped by the station.

Senator John Whelan this morning criticised press commentators for their failure to publicly support Smyth…

“Press freedom and fair comment are a cornerstone and fundamental values of our democracy,” he said. “Fair comment in the public interest is a pillar of a real republic.”

It was reported in Sunday newspapers that Smyth was to be dropped from the station, which is owned by media and telecoms magnate Denis O’Brien – with the Sunday Times reporting that Smyth had protested that the move was related to his coverage of the Moriarty Tribunal.

That tribunal, which investigated the awarding of Ireland’s second mobile phone licence to O’Brien’s Esat Digifone, was prompted after reporting by Smyth published in the Irish Independent – which is also now majority owned by O’Brien.

George Hook of Newstalk – which is also owned by O’Brien’s Communicorp broadcasting empire – told listeners through Twitter that he did not think the matter was worthy of bringing up in an interview with Communications minister Pat Rabbitte.

On Sunday morning, however, Newstalk’s Eamon Dunphy made a brief statement on his own show – which clashes with Smyth’s Today FM show - defending his Communicorp colleague.

“If there’s any link between that sacking and his work as a journalist for the Independent newspaper group… it is up to every citizen in this country to understand that press freedom is threatened,” he said.”

That the Fine Gael activist journalist celebrity presenter George Hook squirmed his way out of making a comment on the affair was no surprise. Nor for many of us was the muted response of the journalistic class as a whole. After all they know which side their bread is buttered on and most have, do, or will work for the ubiquitous O’Brien owned media in Ireland. Eamon Dunphy’s courage in speaking up for his friend and colleague did come as a bit of surprise to some, despite his “maverick” reputation. However there is always a price to pay, even for integrity.

The Journal again:

“EAMON DUNPHY HAS announced that he’s quitting his job at Newstalk, calling the atmosphere at the station ‘inhospitable’ for journalists to work in.

A member of Newstalk staff has told TheJournal.ie that the first many employees heard about Dunphy’s departure when they opened the Irish Daily Star this morning, which carries Kieran Cunningham’s exclusive story.

Dunphy said that journalists have been encouraged to “put a positive spin on the news agenda” and he’s criticised budget cuts at the station.”

Today Dunphy spelled out his thoughts on the matter:

“EAMON DUNPHY HAS used his last show on Newstalk to reveal some of the reasons behind his decision to leave the station.

Dunphy said that Denis O’Brien – whose Communicorp company owns both Newstalk and Today FM – “hates journalism”. Dunphy also made reference to the working environment in Newstalk and said “not nice things are happening in this place”.

The Sunday Independent quotes Newstalk CEO Frank Cronin, who said that Dunphy was not spoken to about recent comments he made on his show about Sam Smyth’s departure. Cronin told the Independent’s Niamh Horan that Dunphy is free to say whatever he wants, and that he had been asked to take a more positive view in his coverage of some issues.

Meanwhile Dunphy told Mark Tighe and Justine McCarthy in The Sunday Times that Denis O’Brien is at war with journalists.”

As well as owning several radio stations in Ireland O’Brien is also a (somewhat unwelcome) shareholder in the dominant Independent News & Media (IN&M) along with long-time rival Tony O’Reilly (or Sir Tony O’Reilly as he – and his newspapers- insist on styling him following some serious kowtowing to the British establishment). He was briefly Deputy Governor of the Bank of Ireland while living as an overseas tax exile (you couldn’t make this stuff up) and more recently threw a few quid into the campaign fund of Mary Davis in her disastrous candidacy for the office of Uachtarán na hÉireann. However, in the last few years most of the focus has been on his, er, business dealings.

It is often said that we get the politicians we deserve. Perhaps the same can be said of the news media too.

Anglophone Intolerance Speaks The Same Language – In Scotland Or Ireland

Just in case you thought it was safe to speak the Scottish language in Scotland along comes journalist Gina Davidson with an anti-Gaelic diatribe in the Scotsman that twists logic and reason to breaking point:

“CAST your mind back a couple of years to the council’s school closures programme.

After all the wailing and knashing of teeth when it was first suggested that 22 schools and nurseries were to close almost immediately, the axe finally fell on just a handful of primaries.”

Um, does she mean “gnashing of teeth”? I do believe she does. Davidson goes on to discuss Bonnington Primary, one of the schools that was closed, and how the building which housed it was left to wrack and ruin for two years. However, under new plans, it may now be reopened as a Gaelic medium school.

“There are many who claim that the Edinburgh tram is a vanity project of city councillors, and therefore must come to fruition no matter what. Well it seems to me that a Gaelic primary school in Leith is just that – only this time it’s a vanity project being foisted on the council and Edinburgh taxpayers by an SNP government.

Of course, Edinburgh has a Gaelic speaking population that is said to number around 5000. But that’s surely no surprise as this is a city that attracts people from all over the world. Yet no-one is suggesting opening a Mandarin school or an Urdu-only primary for the vast numbers of pupils from those backgrounds who already study in our state schools.”

Is Mandarin or Urdu the native language of Scotland? Who knew? I thought it was a Celtic tongue. ‘mazing. Are the 5000 Scottish language speakers of Edinburgh not tax payers too? As for that point about Edinburgh attracting people from all over the world and having Gaelic speakers there being no surprise. Are you syaing that the people who speak the Scottish language are foreigners?

“No, Gaelic it seems is somehow more important than other languages – even more important than English, despite the 2005 Gaelic Language Act only stating it should have equal value. So important that while other schools are being closed because their rolls are too small, Bonnington will reopen with fewer pupils – around 158 – than it had when it closed. But that’s OK, as they’ll be doing their learning in Gaelic.”

But if English and Scottish are of equal value shouldn’t there be English and Scottish medium schools where parents and communities request it? Oh, sorry, I get you. You actually mean they are not of equal value.

“I don’t particularly blame the parents who send their kids to the Gaelic unit at Tollcross, and who will use the new Gaelic school, for being excited about the prospect. After all if someone hands you the opportunity to have your children learn the language you were brought up using, instead of you having to teach them at home, why not grasp it? Why not also then demand more if the political climate is right?”

Well, that’s nice of you, Gina. You don’t “particularly” blame the parents then. Only partially blame? Imagine, children learning in their indigenous language, the language they speak at home. Whatever next? Gaels sitting at the front of the bus?

“ It’s not really just about keeping an ancient language of the Scottish highlands and islands alive – it’s about courting Nationalist votes.

I realise that as the Nationalist party of Scotland, the SNP feels it has to prove its Scottish credentials time and again – I like to think membership involves knowing all the words to Flower of Scotland, proving you own a porridge drawer, and naming every whisky distilled in the land.

But Gaelic is something else. It has never been a traditional language of Edinburgh. It’s always been spoken by a minority – fewer people speak it than Scots even.”

That’s Edinburgh. Also known as Dún Éideann. The city with 5000 Scottish speakers (and growing). That is, speakers of the indigenous language of Scotland.

“I have no issue with people who want their children to learn another language – and I believe there are many studies that prove that bilingual children are more successful at school – I just don’t understand why, at a time when services are being cut everywhere else, at a time when kids who want to learn to play musical instruments are having the opportunity removed, public money has to be found for Gaelic. If I want my children to learn another language I’d have to pay for it privately – so why should Gaelic be different?”

Well, patently, you do have a problem with people who want their children to learn another language. Yet you acknowledge that being bilingual is a recipe for educational success. However, you don’t want it in the schools in Scotland? Eh, you don’t want Scottish kids being as well educated as their peers elsewhere in Europe?

As for paying to have your children learn another language other than their own, perhaps that is true. But what if the Scottish language is your own? Are Scottish speaking tax payers not eligible to the same public services as their English speaking contemporaries?

“Gaelic may well be a lovely, lyrical, ancient language and be worth keeping alive, but surely that should be in the places where it is traditionally spoken, not in a modern, cosmopolitan city, where the only Gaelic word known to the most is “slainte”.”

You say Edinburgh is “cosmopolitan” then state that there is no room in it for the national language of Scotland? Do you actually know what cosmopolitan means in a modern European sense?

“This Gaelic school is the SNP’s pet project; its a Nationalist version of the Tory government’s free schools down south. And it is bordering on ethnic engineering.”

Firstly, Gina, I think you’ll find that you should write “it’s”, not “its” (so much for English speakers and their education). Secondly, ethnic engineering? Like the kind that turned Dún Éideann into Edinburgh?

Ho-hum. Same prejudices. Same “ethnic” bias. Same Anglophone claptrap. But here’s this for irony: Gina “Save The Castles” Davidson! Bricks and mortar is for saving. Communities and rights, languages and cultures, not so much. Sounds like a supporter of Scottish Labour alright. Thankfully not everyone thinks the same.

Related articles

Playing The Race Card In Ireland

Poor old Kevin Myers is at it again: propagating his “race theory” of Irish politics (and society) thanks to the platform provided to him by his acolytes in the Independent group of newspapers. His latest attempt to whip up some “ethnic tensions” centres on an old and cherished theme of his: that Fine Gael, Ireland’s centre right conservative party, is made up of people ethnically different from those of other political parties. In Myers’ peculiar world view the “right sort of folk” are those in Ireland he believes to be descended from British settlers, in particular the medieval Norman-British who came here in the 12th and 13th centuries. These men and women he argues can be identified through their surnames, even after several hundred years of their ancestors living here, and are quiet distinct in temperament and intelligence from the native Gaels.

By Gaels Myers of course means the Native Irish but he cannot bring himself to use those two words together (and horror of horrors – capitalized!). He believes that “Gael” is not the same as “Irish” (no matter what the history books or dictionaries may say). No. Gaels are another thing altogether. A separate people, race, lingering on in Ireland and quiet distinct from the broad swath of people who call themselves “Irish” today. They, the monolingual English speaking, reading, writing (thinking) men and women of the island of Ireland are now the true Irish (including those like yourself born and raised in England, hey, Kevin, me ol’ darlin’?). The Gaels on the other hand are those who speak the Gaelic language (a dead language that no one speaks, dontcha know), and who adhere to Gaelic culture and a Gaelic identity. They are the people of the GAA, of Celtic myth, of nationalist violence, of Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, Óglaigh na hÉireann, of 1916 and 1919. They are a poisonous vein in the body politic, an unwelcome reminder of Ireland’s primitive pre-English, pre-British past. Or so he likes to think.

Thus Squadron Major Myers can write stuff like this in the Irish Independent and be lauded for it by those who follow a similar crooked path:

“Fine Gael really doesn’t know what it is, or what it wants. It largely accepts the gospel as written by Fianna Fail, that party of bamboozling boozers, frauds and terrorist-appeasers, which declares that Fine Gael is not authentically Irish. Which is pretty good, considering that Fianna Fail was founded by one man whose ancestors were (allegedly) from Spain… Actually, the only authentically “Irish” person left is probably some naked wet Hobbit huddling under a stone in Inishmaan.”

“Authentically Irish”? “Naked wet Hobbit”? Is this considered intelligent writing amongst the Anglophone establishment? And “Insihmann”? Is that what the rest of Irealnd (and the world) calls Inis Meáin? Wow. He can’t even bring himself to write in Irish. Oooops! Sorry. I meant of course, Gaelic.

And so on to his next big ball of crazy.

“Firstly, Fine Gael should start by slowly renaming itself.

…ditch the ridiculous name, Fine Gael the Republican Party. Firstly, all those Lucinda, Simons, Marks and Garrets are as much family of the Gael as they are the family of Dayaks. The best way for the party to rename itself is… by appending a slogan to the party name, which in time takes over the whole. Thus, Fine Gael: the Constitutional & Democratic Party can, by careful mutation, become The Constitutional Democrats.

The CDs will not do a tribal war dance at Bael na mBlath or Bodenstown. They will not “celebrate” the Rising. They will stand four-square behind the rule of law. Their children will learn politeness, punctuality, the piano and Chinese.”

Ah, and it’s off to the races – the racial kind anyway. No Gaels here, please. All those lovely “British” names, not an ugly Gaelic one in sight. We are definitely nothing to do with those people. Y’know. The others. The (whisper) “natives”. We vote Christian Democrat! Our kids speak English and learn Chinese, and trace their ancestors to good honest English folk. The seed of Britannia!

I know. It’s utterly risible. The ravings of a madman. But a madman who is given a prominent place of comment and opinion in our national press, and who is a regular guest on our news and current affairs shows. Which raises the question: where the hell does our media come from? A born-again Pale?

This stomach-turning bile, however insane it may seem to normal-thinking folk, is a familiar theme in Myers’ writing and one he has grown rich upon. Back in 2010 he wrote:

“…the nature of Fine Gael. It is defined by self-doubt and equivocation. With all its Lucindas, its Simons, its Garrets, its Olwyns and its Richards, its silly name notwithstanding, it is not a family of Gaels. It is a perpetual minority, largely of non-Gaelic, Anglo-Norman Catholics in ethnic origin: strong farmers, smalltown merchants and lawyers.”

Settler politics, hey? No Gaels in Fine Gael, just non-Gaelic (non-Irish!) Norman-British ethnos: an embattled minority surrounded by a sea of hostile, recalcitrant natives. What do Fine Gael members and voters actually think of this stuff? It’s the loonier fringes of British Nationalist and Unionist blogging. What next, descent from one of the Lost Tribes of Israel? Or have the British ethnic minority in the north-east of the country got that one all sowed up?

“Fianna Fail, with its eighty years of being in the driving seat — with the Simons being occasionally permitted to take over whenever Cuchulainn got tired at the wheel — still gets the obedient Soloheadbeg vote. But with so much political power for so long, it has colonised the old unionist boroughs of Pembroke and Kingstown, and the salubrious postal districts of Dublin 4 and 6. It has created a mandarin class whose accents and manners are identical to those of Fine Gael. Fianna Fail children go to Clongowes and Gonzaga, and their social camouflage is completed by their gloriously Protestant names: the Emmas, the Jessicas and the Jennies whose great grandfathers (or so the family legend maintains) were in the GPO.

The daughters of these Fianna Fail mandarins might speak Californianised Kingstown — omigod, no way Lucinda! — but the pike lies in the spiritual thatch still. Take them to a social gathering of Sinn Fein/IRA, Fine Gael, Unionists, and they’ll join the Shinner table. Their suits might shimmer with expensive threads, but they embody still the weird morality of Fianna Fail, in which clan and conspiracy, cronyism and ancestral cordite define loyalty.”

Whey! Religious and racial intolerance in two easily digestible paragraphs. Why be a racist bigot when you can be a sectarian one too?! You show ‘em, Caoimhín. Imagine. Bah to Cú Chulainn! Ooops, sorry. There I go again. I mean, Cuchulainn. The horror of it all. Where is Cœur de Lion when you need him? Or Henry VIII? Or (tremble) the great Winston C? Oh, for the elysian fields of Eton. Sugary tea and wrinkled-up sandwiches, warm beer and the beat of leather on willow. Dieu et mon droit!

Of course, Squire Meyers being Squire Myers, it could be far worse. In fact, earlier this year, it was:

“A comparable survey at Trinity College Dublin showed that Fine Gael TDs are disproportionately more likely to have Anglo-Norman surnames — again, this comes as no major surprise. Our ancient origins can leave a far greater imprint on us than we usually care to admit, and the social residues might remain in our conduct, just as herds of sheep continue to leap over the part of the field where there once stood a now-levelled hedge.

The social hierarchy that exists in England is vaguely similar to that in Ireland; both bear the imprint of a Norman Conquest. Of course, other conquests followed here, in which the Anglo-Norman classes lost most of their old privileges, especially if they remained true to the Old Church. But even then, they remained self-consciously aloof within the mass of Catholic Ireland. Edmund Burke was a Norman; so too was Nano Nagle, the founder of the Presentation Sisters. Garret FitzGerald is clearly Anglo-Norman, no matter the absurd Gaelic confection that he occasionally translates his name into.

Indeed, the name Fitzgerald gives us a useful barium meal into social immobility over the centuries. Some 52 men of this largely Anglo-Norman Irish name were killed with the British army during the Second World War. Ten (20pc) were officers.

Of soldiers with the Anglo-Norman Irish name of Burke, 7pc were officers. But the proportion is strikingly less for men with Irish Gaelic surnames.

Of the 62 men named O’Reilly or Reilly, only one (1.6pc) was an officer. Of the more than 200 soldiers called Murphy, less than 4pc were officers. The 44 Nolans had one officer — as did the 41 Maguires — roughly 2.2pc.

No doubt the now extinct and largely unfeline Celtic Tiger raised the social status of many people of aboriginal Gaelic stock…”

“Aboriginal Gaelic stock”? What a sort of lunatic, mid 20th century Untermenschen talk is this? And “Irish”? Where is that? Oh yes, with the Anglo-Irish. The real Irish in the eyes of Kevin Myers and the rest of his “ethnicity” on this poor bloody isle of ours. It lies with the schizophrenic madness of folk who claim Irishness as their own while also embracing another identity of another nation. We are Irish! We are British! We are Anglo-Irish! We are we don’t know what…!

Welcome to the world of Kevin Myers. Angloland!

Eoghan Harris, Free Speech And The Art Of Dissemblance

So, the Anglomedia’s “Anyone But McGuinness” campaign has taken a bit of a twist with claims that ex-Workers Party apparatchik and Sindo columnist Eoghan Harris has been threatened in an anonymous phone call to the Independent News and Media offices. According to the report from the organisation:

“A caller to Independent News and Media, purporting to be a supporter of Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness, referred to an article Mr Harris wrote entitled ‘Ten Reasons not to vote for Martin McGuinness’.

“Eoghan Harris should be shot for what he is writing about Martin McGuinness and I think I am the man to do it,” said the caller. The article was carried in last Thursday’s edition of the Dubliner magazine, which comes out with the Evening Herald.

Security staff at Independent newspapers said the caller had asked to speak to Mr Harris but made the threat when the writer was unavailable. The call was reported to Store Street Garda station and investigating officers said they were taking the matter very seriously.”

Hmm. Judging by the Comments left by readers underneath the article the Gardaí seem to be the only ones taking it seriously. Aside from Harris himself. Scepticism mixed with derision seems to be the overwhelming view.

Of course any threat to any journalist is to be condemned. The person who made this alleged call is an idiot. If it happened it was wrong. As wrong, in fact, as a media establishment which speaks with one voice and one opinion, and where a plurality of political views is simply denied. Ironically enough, as we will see, Eoghan Harris’ former associates in the Workers Party (many of whom are now in the Labour Party) were experts at denying free speech to those they disagreed with. The Sunday Times examined this in 2009 in a lengthy extract from “The Lost Revolution: The Story of the Official IRA and Workers’ Party”, a detailed history of Ireland’s would-be communist revolutionaries:

“In the summer of 1977, Paddy Woodworth, a member of Sinn Fein the Workers’ Party (SFWP), was waiting for a bus in Ballsbridge when Eoghan Harris and his wife Anne pulled up in a car and offered him a lift. During the drive to Bray, Harris disclosed to Woodworth his concerns about some members of the party leadership.

Woodworth recalls Harris explaining that the party’s primary problem was that there were “green people [ie nationalists] still in charge”, including Tomás Mac Giolla, Seán Ó Cionnaith and Tony Heffernan, and until “we get rid of these people we will never make it as a communist party”.

Already sceptical of Harris’s influence,Woodworth was amazed at what he was hearing. Such an attempt to influence a party member against figures in the leadership clearly contradicted the party’s tenets of democratic centralism. Woodworth recalls feeling “really outraged, because we took the thing about being in a Leninist party very strongly, meaning if you were in a branch in Galway and I was in a branch in Clare I would not tell you about my views about Mac Giolla . . . otherwise you were factionalising”.

On arrival in Bray, Woodworth discussed Harris’s comments with John McManus, a GP and former Labour party member, who had joined Sinn Fein in Galway, where his wife Liz was a party activist. A few days later, Mick Ryan called to see Woodworth at the Project Theatre,where he worked. He was questioned about the allegations and, aware of Ryan’s seniority within both the Official IRA and the workers’ party, stressed that Harris had not meant “eliminate” when he had spoken of getting “rid of” the three men.

A letter requesting that Harris explain his accusations of members of the leadership being opposed to the “further development of our policies” resulted in two replies. In the first Harris, claimed that he was not a member of SFWP (an associate explained to the party’s ruling body “that the denial of membership was to protect his job” at RTE).

In a second communication, Harris denied making the remarks, attributing them to a “third party”.

A leadership delegation was authorised to inform him that any “recurrence would lead to him being disciplined”.

The fact that Harris was only reprimanded for a contravention that would normally have been cause for expulsion was a sign of his influence, but the incident also aided those opposed to him. Woodworth was later scolded by an RTE producer and SFWP member for having “single-handedly put a stop to political progress in the party for two years”.

SFWP had several secret branches including the Ned Stapleton cumann, named after a communist activist who had died in January 1973. Its members included Harris and Oliver Donohue, another RTE employee. Cynics dubbed it the Led Zeppelin cumann. There was a strong macho tendency among members, and several were involved in the martial arts.

The penchant for secrecy and conspiracy alarmed Woodworth. “It was very creepy. I frankly found . . . the Harris faction a far more frightening phenomenon than the IRA itself,” he said. The branch was active within RTE, with Harris as its central figure. Secrecy was essential because in the 1960s, concerns within RTE about the left-wing tone of some of its programmes led the station’s director-general to introduce strict restrictions on political involvement by the station’s employees.

Harris’s winning charm and sharp polemic gained him many admirers, and a nickname: “the thin blue flame”. However, even among fellow adherents there was some amusement at the leather jacket-wearing Harris’s regular declarations that he was a “Stalinist”.

While some found such dramatics ridiculous, for others Harris was the “driving force in the party”.

Despite a tougher government line, RTE continued to attract such radicals as employees, several of them with backgrounds in the official republican movement. Among those joining the station in 1974 were Patrick Kinsella, a former Dublin Comhairle Ceantair member, and Charlie Bird,who was told about a research job with Seven Days by Harris.

Former SFWP-aligned student activists, including former USI News editor Joe Little, were also gaining employment at the station. Harris had been on the interview board that had hired Gerry Gregg, a 22-year-old University College Dublin graduate who became enthusiastic about SFWP politics. “[I] wouldn’t have jumped until I went into RTE and the battle was joined; you were either Stick or Anti-Stick,” Gregg said.

Other graduates were less susceptible to the party’s charms. Fintan Cronin joined the station in 1980, and recalls being approached shortly afterwards in Madigans pub in Donnybrook by Harris and asked if he would become involved with SFWP. Cronin was “suspicious of the Official IRA” but “not unsympathetic to their ideology”. When he informed Harris that he was somewhat “cynical about what they were at” he recalls the blunt response: “We need cynics like we need a hole in the head.”

The Ned Stapleton members had an influence on RTE’s output that belied their relatively small numbers. Producers Caden and Murray were also attached to the SFWP structures in a workplace that did not officially allow party political activity.

A number of SFWP members and supporters were active in the NUJ, including Padraig Yeates, Gerry Flynn and Woodworth, and there was mutual suspicion between them and what were termed the “Harrisites” concentrated in the Workers’ Union of Ireland (WUI).

Within RTE, the NUJ branch also contained a number of people formerly close to the Stickies, such as journalists Bird, Kinsella and Rodney Rice.

Today Tonight would become the station’s current affairs flagship, marked by a campaigning style of investigative journalism.

From its inception the show was associated with people seen as sympathetic to SFWP, among them producer Tish Barry, and programme editor Joe Mulholland from Donegal, a Francophile who had a keen interest in Marxist politics and knew some of the SFWP leadership, including Garland.

Although Mulholland never committed himself to movement discipline, he did recruit a number of young reporters and journalists to the programme who were closely aligned with the Ned Stapleton cumann. These included Gregg, who joined Today Tonight in October 1980, Barry O’Halloran, Joe Little, David Blake Knox and later Una Claffey.

Although a wide variety of views and strong personalities were represented within the programme staff, which also included Brian Farrell, Mary McAleese and Olivia O’Leary, cynics christened the programme Stickyline, in reference to the show it was replacing, Frontline.

SFWP influence within RTE was not confined to Today Tonight, and indeed Harris and other party members never worked directly on the programme. But critics complained that SFWP members were regularly interviewed on Today Tonight without their party affiliation being revealed. With SFWP members also involved in the production of RTE’s most popular programme, The Late Late Show, it was not unusual for activists to make appearances as members of the studio audience there as well. The H-Block hunger-strike issue led to bitter conflict. There were major arguments among the team that worked on Today Tonight about the prominence the issue should be given. SFWP members were quite clear that “some force had to stand up against the tom-tom drums” of nationalism, and that those politicians who opposed the strike, such as Gerry Fitt, should be given prominence.

During the first hunger strike a non-SFWP-aligned team — Forbes McFaul, Paul Loughlin and Fintan Cronin — had produced a programme that included hunger striker Leo Green along with victims of IRA violence. Belfast native Mary McAleese was a reporter on Today Tonight during this period and felt that her efforts to discuss the mood within Northern nationalism were ignored.

McAleese already knew and was hostile to the Officials, having met many of them while working in the Long Bar on Leeson Street, which had been owned by her father. Her cousin John Pickering was a Provisional IRA prisoner in Long Kesh and eventually joined the hunger strike himself. Though McAleese was not sympathetic to her cousin’s politics, she felt that any debate on the issue was dismissed as propaganda for the Provos.

The SFWP faction, who thought the coverage of the first hunger strike had been too sympathetic to the H-Block campaign, were unhappy with some of the coverage of Bobby Sands’ death. After these reports, McFaul and Cronin were taken off the story, and a team made up of Una Claffey, Joe Little and Tish Barry sent to Belfast in their place. In June 1981, Little and Barry produced Victims of Violence, which concentrated on the results of Provo and INLA paramilitary activity and was eventually nominated for an Emmy award. After that the attention given to the hunger strikes by Today Tonight declined notably.

Cronin contended that “the coverage was determined by a Workers’ Party line, it was as simple as that”. Other critics of the party nicknamed the show “Today Tonight: the Workers’ Programme”.

IN late 1985, Labour minister Ruairi Quinn told Hot Press that he believed that the Official IRA existed and that its army council had an influence over the leadership of [what was by then called] the Workers’ party. Worse was to come in March 1986, when a Today Tonight special examined the funding of paramilitary organisations in the north. The first segment of the 90-minute programme dealt with the Provisional IRA, INLA and loyalist groups. The second concentrated on the Official IRA’s connections to racketeering in the building industry, forgery and fraud.

RUC Chief Superintendent Bertie McCaffrey stated that it was the OIRA that had “started off” paramilitary involvement in racketeering and that they were “still very, very active in that sphere”. McCaffrey added that he believed some of this revenue was going “towards the political end of things”.

Brian Feeney, an SDLP politician, charged that “the Official IRA is engaged in the same activities as the Bolsheviks were before 1917, when Stalin was in charge of raising money for them . . . it was considered perfectly legitimate, before 1917, to stage robberies; [they] were called revolutionary expropriations”.

As no Southern WP figure was prepared to take part, Seamus Lynch appeared at short notice on a link from Belfast to respond to the allegations. A visibly nervous and annoyed Lynch alleged that the programme was the result of internal RTE politics. He stated that Pat Cox, the programme’s presenter, was on the verge of joining the newly formed Progressive Democrats, producer Mick McCarthy was a “republican sympathiser” and researcher Cronin had been seen in the company of “known” Provos in Belfast. Lynch denied any knowledge of the Official IRA and said anyone with evidence of illegality should contact the police.

When Cox was appointed general secretary of the Progressive Democrats shortly afterwards, Eamon Gilmore asked: “If RTE allows the general secretary of the Progressive Democrats to make a programme about the Workers’ Party, will they now accord the same opportunity to Sean Garland to make a programme on the Progressive Democrats?”

The Today Tonight programme had been conceived in early 1985 by a group of RTE staff who argued that a Workers’ party “freemasonry” had stilted programming and silenced opponents “through an orchestrated campaign of gossip and innuendo”. The programme was initially to focus solely on Official IRA racketeering; but in the interest of balance, a concern of Mulholland’s, it was decided that other paramilitary groups’ activities would also be examined.

The project provoked interest outside RTE, with government representatives assuring the journalists of their full backing and the Department of Justice offering them armed protection during their research. McAleese, by now a former Today Tonight journalist, organised a meeting between Cronin and Charles Haughey, the Fianna Fail leader, who expressed pleasure and surprise that the programme was emerging from a “nest of Sticky vipers”.

In the north, assistance came from an eclectic range of sources, including the SDLP, sections of the RUC and the Provos. While the WP’s enemies were adamant that the Officials’ activities should be exposed, particularly relishing the fact that this was to be done on a programme strongly associated with the party, leading WP members made polite inquiries with Mulholland as to why he was allowing such a programme.

Less politely, Cronin’s files in RTE were rifled through and his bank statements stolen; threatening calls were made to his home and to his mother, and RTE received bomb threats. As a precaution, very little of the programme’s research material was kept at RTE. The researchers were also followed, Cronin recalls: “At one stage Pat Cox and myself were in Buswells [hotel] and they had a guy walking up and down outside and [he] was identified to me as a member of the Official IRA. Another time a guy with a big bushy beard came up to us and feigned to pull out a gun.”

The team was also harassed while in Belfast: phone calls were made late at night to the reporters’ hotel rooms and files were stolen from producer Mick McCarthy’s room. On one occasion the research team hastily travelled back across the border after the RUC informed them they had intelligence that their lives were in immediate danger. The pressure had an effect, Cronin recalls: “We did think they would shoot us.”

The day before the programme went out, Cronin found himself face to face in the RTE canteen with a number of men whom he knew to be members of the Official IRA. The group had obviously been invited to lunch by sympathisers among the station’s staff. The same day Cronin’s wife’s workplace received a bomb threat.

The RUC was helpful to the programme makers, although one high-ranking officer informed them that a superior had instructed him that his interview — in which he accepted that much criminal activity previously attributed to the INLA had in fact been carried out by the Officials — could not be broadcast. The claim of an “unspoken RUC policy not to embarrass the Officials” by not naming people as members in court, was broadcast, but other claims, including one that armed OIRA men were sometimes allowed through RUC roadblocks, were not.

Cronin developed the view that the OIRA was “a protected species” in Belfast and that “their criminality was often overlooked by the NIO [Northern Ireland Office] and RUC”.”

Eoghan Harris, a champion of press freedom.

RTÉ Versus TG4

Ireland’s Anglophone media establishment has never been comfortable with the Irish language. Or indeed Irish speakers. The existence of both is too much of a challenge, too much of a threat to its assumed identity: not quiet Irish, not quite English, not quiet anything really. That is why so many Irish journalists and commentators ape aspects of Anglo-American culture and character. Lacking a self-confident identity of their own they must perforce steal from others to create a crude caricature of Irishness, a Frankenstein’s monster, lacking in the most essential element of that identity – the Irish language.

This is especially true when it comes to television where the Irish language simply serves as a red rag to a bull for the more fanatical elements of the Anglomedia clique. Enraged, outraged, puzzled and confused they inwardly contest with a learned hatred versus a more empathic pull that they try to rationalise by any means possible.

So to a review of Irish language documentary programmes from RTÉ and TG4 appearing in the Irish Independent (itself a bastion of Angliban intolerance in all its many forms). It begins with a dismissive tone, and the centuries old “apartheid” attitude of the Anglophone establishment (why isn’t the Irish language on TG4 where it belongs? Because RTÉ belongs to all of us – even Irish speakers!). Yet…

“Over the last couple of months, RTÉ One has been screening a succession of piddling programmes in Irish, a language not understood by the majority of its viewers, who are left wondering why such minor fare isn’t being broadcast on TG4 — which, after all, was created to cater for speakers of the native tongue.

For instance, currently running on RTÉ One is Réabhlóid, which translates as Revolutionary Tales and which is an Irish-language series of half-hour programmes telling the stories of marginal — indeed, largely unknown — participants in the Irish war for independence. Why isn’t that on TG4 where it belongs?

One answer might be that TG4 is too busy commissioning the kind of programmes — programmes of substance and general interest — that really should be on RTÉ One, but of course RTÉ’s schedules are so clogged up with slavish reproductions of foreign franchises that it’s hard to see where there’d be room for them.

This week alone I watched four TG4 programmes that were better than anything to be seen on either RTÉ One or (though probably needless to say) RTÉ Two. One of them, Misinéirí Radacacha, I’m afraid I came to very late, as it was the last instalment of a four-part series about the work of Irish missionaries in the repressive societies to which they were sent. However, struck by its impact, I went back to the previous three programmes and thought them just as fine.

Vastly different, though no less striking, is TG4′s six-part natural history series, Farraigí na hÉireann, which looks at the oceanic wild life around our shores. This week’s episode focused on our sea beds and it was to be seen and savoured rather than analysed — every shot of it was extraordinary in its strange, indeed surreal, beauty. The accompanying narrative in this Ken O’Sullivan production was beguiling, too, though words couldn’t do justice to the ecstatic visuals.

Maverick filmmaker Bob Quinn, who left RTÉ in 1969 and settled in Connamara in the early 1970s, is being celebrated in TG4′s Bob Quinn @ 75, with two of his early short films screened on Tuesday night.

Filmmaker Johnny Gogan decamped from Dublin to Leitrim in the late 1990s and Homeland (TG4) was an hour-long celebration of his adopted place, largely through the testimony of Leitrim friends and neighbours, many of them returned emigrants or blow-ins from abroad.”

A fan despite himself? Perhaps those who believe that Irish language television programming should be confined to TG4, and that RTÉ should be devoted entirely to the English language, would be now willing to divide up the TV Licence fee on that basis? The 2006 Census revealed that 42% of the population identified themselves as Irish speakers to one degree or another. So can we get 42% of the licence fee for TG4?

Hmm?

Perhaps the cartoon accompanying the article sums up the world-view of many in the Anglomedia, both to the Irish language and the Irish speaking population of Ireland. Or indeed, to the English speaking population. But what a sad world-view it is.

A few final words from the reviewer that make for strange reading.

“”Snakes with tits” is how British soldiers refer to Afghan women who help male insurgents in their subversive work. I learned this from Fighting on the Front Line (Channel 4), a riveting documentary, which accompanied some of these soldiers on the ground and in the Chinooks and Apache helicopters from which they observe enemy movements and despatch insurgents to explosive deaths.

Courtesy of the film, I watched some of these incendiary deaths — a distant figure spotted in a far-off field, the press of a button and then, whoosh, a puff of smoke and a body, or at least bits of it, sailing surreally through the night sky.

“What do you think goes through a Taliban’s head when he sees an Apache coming?” the interviewer asked one soldier. “Hopefully, a 30-mill bullet,” was the reply.”

I really cannot tell. Does the reviewer approve or disapprove of this? Or is neutrality of opinion only observed for subjects other than the Irish language?

Lies, Damned Lies And The War In Ireland

Journalist Martina Devlin sets the readership of the Irish Independent (and others) fairly hopping with outrage over her latest opinion piece. Can she be long for the Indo Group? One suspects not. In Ireland’s news media élite being More-British-Than-The-British is considered de rigueur. But it’s fun while it lasts:

“It’s the blatant revisionism that gets my goat: the deception being peddled that the IRA was solely responsible for the Troubles and therefore culpable for all the evils of the Northern state.

According to this false gospel, the IRA initiated the violence and continued it alone. Sooner or later those nice unionists would have realised it was wrong to deny equality to their fellow citizens, and knuckled down to cut a deal with the SDLP. But the IRA’s self-serving agenda derailed the potential for agreement to be reached, delaying the formation of a just society.

Herman Melville’s novel ‘White-Jacket’ contains the following passage: “You are the moderate man, the invaluable understrapper [underling] of the wicked man. You, the moderate man, may be used for wrong but are useless for right.” Melville was suggesting that moderates allow iniquity to be perpetuated because they do not challenge the status quo, and never support what is sometimes necessary to expunge tyranny — such as the tyranny of the Northern state, where ethnic cleansing lite was tolerated and citizens were denied fundamental human rights. There is more than one kind of violence.

This acceptance by revisionists of subjugation in the North allows them to claim it was wrong to resist the status quo, except peacefully. Conveniently, they forget how the agents of the state used rifles and batons to force civil rights campaigners off the streets. They ignore statistics showing how one sector of Northern society was favoured for jobs and housing at the expense of another. Left to them, the Northern state would have stayed gerrymandered, defective, deviant.

Politicians in the Republic countenanced gross inequalities in the state on their doorstep, perpetuated against people who defined themselves as Irish. Few commentators or voters called them on it. Yes, IRA violence was remorseless, but what caused it — and, more important, who helped bring it to an end? As history books about this period are written, whose names figure on their pages?

My final thought on the North is this: peace-makers are thin on the ground compared with bomb-makers.”

Just for the record, and to meet head-on the propagators of counter-factual myths that pass for history in the Anglomedia ranks, some salient facts.

The so-called “Troubles” did not begin at the end of 1969 with the formation of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, or in the early months of 1970 with the first attacks by PIRA units (the first British soldier was not killed until 1971!). In fact the conflict had been going on for several years previous to this (the Provisional IRA came into existence on the 28th of December 1969. The day before on the 27th the UVF carried out a bomb attack in Dublin city!).

The first violence, the first killings, the first shootings, the first bombings of the Troubles began in 1966. Over a period of several months terrorists from the British separatist minority in Ireland, the UVF, murdered three people, two Roman Catholic men and a Protestant woman, as well as injuring a number of others and causing substantial damage to property. The objective was simple, something they made clear in a statement issued to the general public:

“From this day, we declare war against the Irish Republican Army and its splinter groups. Known IRA men will be executed mercilessly and without hesitation. Less extreme measures will be taken against anyone sheltering or helping them, but if they persist in giving them aid, then more extreme methods will be adopted… we solemnly warn the authorities to make no more speeches of appeasement. We are heavily armed Protestants dedicated to this cause.”

And the cause? Killing Irish men, women and children, and driving those who survived from the last remnants of Britain’s colony in Ireland. This is the start of the Troubles. The British ethnic minority in Ireland using violence and the threat of violence to intimidate and terrorise the majority population on the island. As it was throughout the last 300 years.

The Facts of the Troubles the Media don’t want you to know:

The first shooting of civilian targets in the “Troubles”? British terrorists, 1966.

The first bombing of civilian targets in the “Troubles? British terrorists, 1968.

The first ethnic cleansing of civilian targets in the “Troubles”? British terrorists, 1969.

The first killing of a paramilitary police officer in the “Troubles”? British terrorists, 1969.

The first bombing of a capital city in the “Troubles”? British terrorists, 1969.

The first armed action of the Provisional IRA in the “Troubles”? 1970

The first killing of a British soldier in the “Troubles”? 1971

Do we need to go on?

David Norris – One Revelation Too Many?

The sheen has certainly gone off Senator David Norris, someone I used to have enormous respect and admiration for (even if his bonhomie demeanour and scattershot approach to politics did at times did grate on one’s nerves). We’ve had the scandal over his much debated opinions on paedophilia, pederasty and the age of consent expressed in a 2002 Magill magazine interview a number of years ago which came back to haunt him with the announcement of his candidacy for the presidency.

Then there was the revelation of a 1997 letter containing a plea of clemency for his Israeli former partner, Ezra Nawi, who was convicted by a court in Israel of committing statutory rape on a teenage Arab-Israeli boy (though there seems to be some dispute over when exactly Nawi became a “former” partner). That has been followed by the news that there were in fact several letters, none of which Norris is prepared to make public (due to “legal advice”), despite repeated demands to do so.

Fast on the heels of that shock came another blow with the uncovering of Norris’ extraordinary attempts to get an Irish passport for his then lover, the Algerian-born Tevfik Akin. Akin’s application for citizenship was turned down in 2006 but Senator Norris’ repeated lobbying led to him gaining Irish nationality.

We’ve had the somewhat less surprising claim from Victoria Freedman, the biographer of David Norris, that he had a six-month affair with one of his students in Trinity College, an as yet anonymous twenty year old American man.

And during the campaign itself we’ve had several accusations from politicians and journalists of intimidation and threats being made by the staff members of the Norris campaign towards those they view as enemies or insufficiently pro-Norris (which the candidate himself has disavowed).

Now we have the latest furore to envelop the Joycean scholar, as the Irish Independent claims that he was in receipt of a disability allowance for 16 years despite being a full-time (and fully salaried and expenses paid) member of Seanad Éireann. According to the story, published via the Belfast Telegraph:

“Independent presidential candidate David Norris received a disability payment for 16 years while out of work as a Trinity College lecturer — even though he was a “full-time” senator for the entire period.

Mr Norris confirmed to the Irish Independent last night he received the payment, but could not specify exactly how much it was worth.

He also refused to say what his disability is.

The 67-year-old Joycean scholar worked as a tutor and lecturer in Trinity between 1968 and 1994, when he took the disability payment and stopped working in the college.

The payment began in 1994 and ended in July of last year, when he reached pension age. He has since received a pension from the college, worth around €2,500 a month.

Mr Norris… also receives a senator’s salary of €61,073.

He also said he spent his annual leader’s allowance — the €23,383 Independent senators receive in unvouched expenses every year — on his Seanad work.“

It’s hard to see where Senator Norris can go after this. With anyone else, and this amount of troublesome revelations, a simple retirement from the public eye would have happened long ago. Unfortunately the Senator is not simply anyone. At least, perhaps, in his own view of himself. To see a basically decent and honest man brought down by his own overweening ambition and hubris is chastening indeed.

There but for the grace of God…

McGuinness Won The Audience But Did He Win The Debate?

The audience poll results are in from Vincent Brown’s Presidential Debate on TV3, and though entirely unscientific, they show Martin McGuinness way out in front, leaving the rest as also-rans. It remains to be seen whether the same will be true at the ballot box in a few weeks time but undoubtedly some optimistic news for a candidate receiving saturation opposition from the political and media establishment in Ireland.

As for the debate itself, Brown did sterling work marshalling what was at times a chaotic spectacle, with the candidates eager to get their points across. His quizzing of the candidates, particularly McGuinness, Norris, Davis and Mitchell, was well done and an exercise in the sort of informed journalism that we have come to expect from him. If you missed the broadcast watch it here.

Anyone For Some Apartheid? Anglo-Irish Style!

Yesterday’s Irish Independent featured a letter pleading for support from readers for a new campaign to remove obligatory Irish language teaching from the education system. Thereby, presumably, creating a two-tier education system, one for English speakers and one for Irish speakers (didn’t we have something like that before? I thought, in part, we fought a revolution over it? Oh well..).

The idea received some enthusiastic support:

“The new Indo comments on this topic are a real eye opener. It turns out that I am not alone in the world world of the Gaeliban. If commentary is anything to go by, there are lots of there is after all , lots of fellow citizens who reject the premise that being an English speaker is somehow Un-irish. So “Sing it out, sing it loud, I’m Anglophonic Irish and proud !!!”

(Apparently being “Anglophonic Irish” doesn’t actually include an ability to write in the English language, though)

The email address of the new campaign is: “voteAgainstIrish…”. Which sort of says it all, really.

English Ireland. A Nation Without A Soul?

The Irish script of Dubhghlas de hÍde

The Irish script of Dubhghlas de hÍde

Wonderful article in the Irish Times by Lucille Redmond on language and identity.

“According to linguist Mark Abley, a language dies every 14 days, never to be heard again.

Pádraig Pearse’s “Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam” echoed linguistic pioneer Johann Gottfried von Herder, who wrote “The breath of our mouths is the picture of the world”, and “A nation has no idea for which its language has no word”.

Would Arabs be less Arab if they spoke German? Does it really matter if we sing English nursery rhymes to our children, and say “St Anthony guide” when we lose the keys, rather than “Dúidín, dáidín,/ An rudín deas a chaill mé,/ Go lige Día na nGrásta/ Gur bhfaighfid mé arís é”?

Abley quotes Massachusetts Institute of Technology linguist Ken Hale, who said languages “embody the intellectual wealth of the people that speak them. Losing any one of them is like dropping a bomb on the Louvre.” Irish phrasebooks, in those heady days when everyone was trying to relearn the language, expressed a tragic nobility: “My thousand (times) pitiable! My pulse, and my fair secret love.” ( Easy Lessons, or Self-Instruction in Irish, by the Rev Ulick J Bourke, 1876.) Or sly humour, like Jack Yeats’s 1911 Ceachta Beaga Gaedhilge illustration of an Ascendancy gent sceptically examining a pursy, spavined, sway-backed, knock-kneed, vicious-looking horse, captioned “Ní fiú cúig phúint an capall so”.

But today, despite Gaelscoileanna, hours per week of school teaching, road signs, documents, Gaeltachtaí, despite TG4, Raidió na Gaeltachta, Raidió na Lífe, despite everyone having the 2,000 words requisite to speak a language, Irish is falling away, its fingers slipping from our grasp as it slides and slides away.”

Overly pessimistic? To many observers the opposite would seem true: that Irish is undergoing a true revival and that it is the urban working and middle classes that are driving it. Yet, admittedly, how poor we seem when compared with other peoples, how lacking in the courage of our own convictions.

“Some years ago I worked with an Israeli youth bilingual in Hebrew and English. He asked me why everyone didn’t speak Irish, and I mumbled that maybe because everyone already spoke English, unlike Israel, where people came from different countries.

“No, more people had English in common at first, or German. Partly it was that it was made compulsory.” “What? You’d go to jail if you didn’t speak Hebrew?” “No, but official business had to be transacted in Hebrew. And it was a matter of pride. And then, there was this one person, Eliezer Ben Yehuda .” In Eliezer Ben Yehuda and the Revival of Modern Hebrew, Galila Whitmarsh tells the story of the man who strong-armed Israel into speaking a language almost dead but for religious use for 2,000 years.

Born Eliezer Perlman in 1858, this brilliant Lithuanian widow’s son travelled, studied, went to the Sorbonne. His future wife, Devora Yonas, taught him French, German and Russian. When they moved to Palestine (then part of the Ottoman Empire), he insisted that only Hebrew be spoken at home, despite Devora not knowing a word of it.

Ben Yehuda invented words, using classical Hebrew roots but also Arabic and words from “Market Hebrew” used in Jerusalem, and sent his children out to spread them; he wrote a 16-volume dictionary of modern Hebrew.

“The Hebrew tongue on women’s lips” was central to Hebrew becoming the language of home and street.

He insisted that all subjects in all schools be taught through Hebrew, and did so in Jerusalem, whereupon the “direct method” spread like wildfire across the country. He and like-minded friends set up a language council and Hebrew speaking societies…

He called on the diaspora to learn Hebrew, a programme carried on by Ittamar, who would stop people in the street as an adult and say “Jew, speak Hebrew” if they were soiling their mouths with another language.

Ben Yehuda succeeded beyond any dream. Hebrew is a vibrant modern language spoken daily by millions.

Has it changed how they see their world? Charlemagne would have said yes; he said “to have another language is to possess a second soul”. What we don’t know is what it means to lose a language; does speaking a borrowed language mean possessing a borrowed soul?”

Are a people without a soul anyone’s to sell? Or to buy? Would an Irish Ireland have been better equipped to resist the traps and pitfalls of crass modernity that seduced an English Ireland in the era of the Celtic Tiger?

Without our language are we merely the chattels of an anglicised elite who still dominate our politics, business and media? And who led us to such economic, social and moral ruin?