It’s not discriminatory – its health and safety! That seems to be the disapproving line taken in this article from Breakingnews.ie on the long-delayed decision by a state agency to erect bilingual Irish-English signs on the Luas line, Dublin’s (government-supported but privately-operated) light rail system. The move is being taken at the insistence of An Coimisinéir Teanga, the language commissioner, following complaints about their absence, and despite initial resistance to the judgement.
“The State agency responsible for the Luas has been ordered to put up new signs in Irish as well as English, despite concerns they could make driving conditions less safe. The Railway Procurement Agency has been ordered to replace the signs, in response to a complaint that they were written in English only. The decision was reached despite the company’s concerns about a clutter effect for drivers.”
Except that is not the full story. Firstly one suspects, as is usual with the organs of the “Irish” state, that the real source of the company’s “concerns” were worries about the minuscule extra expenditure required to meet its obligations under the Official Languages Act of 2003; minimalist legislation establishing notional equality between the Irish and English languages in Ireland (but not too equal, mind you). Secondly the initial absence of the dual-language signs simply reflects the state’s schizophrenic indifference to its own Irish-speaking citizens and communities coupled with general antipathy to the 2003 regulations. Sure, can’t they all speak English anyway? And if not, why not? However a report on the issue by Today.FM gives a rather fuller account of what happened:
“…the Railway Procurement Agency says it’s happy that the replacement signs – which are now being raised nine months after the original deadline – will allow it to fulfill its legal needs without compromising on the safety of drivers or passengers.”
So rather than being a story solely about safety concerns it was, after all, a story about a state body acting in a discriminatory and illegal manner? A manner which was easily rectified? Oh…
I bhfocail Uáchtarán na hÉireann, Michael D O’Higgins: “Irish is not so much dead as not dead enough…”
I think it’s far more discriminatory that Irish speakers can’t get a job in their own country unless they speak the language of the invader.
Some random roadsigns is absolutely nothing compared to that.
holy crap! is that you, jānis? i’d have thought you’d taken a different argument…
sounds like you’ve done an alfred willmore!
maith thú, a chara. maith thú
OP is currently condemning jaywalking, but ignoring murders.
I’m just pointing out inconsistencies.
If it’s OK to discriminate against Irish speakers at the workplace, then it’s also OK to not put up bilingual signage.
Says the Latvian coward.
What’s Latvian for “chicken” Janis ? Is it “Latvia” – means the same thing anyway.
Don’t understand what you mean..
Do you think that it’s OK to discriminate against Irish speakers at workplaces?
Well he posts his comments under what I assume to be his real name.
so at least he stands over them.
I don’t think it’s cowardly to use your own name.
Even my name is just a nickname.
My name is the most popular Latvian personal name – it might as well be a nickname.
Still it doesn’t matter.
I was just pointing out that’s it very easy to label somebody a coward from behind an alias.
on the internets.
I meant nothing else by it.
I disagree with most of your opinions…But I think they should be countered by better arguments..Not by using labels.
And, If we all thought the same way..Life would be boring.
And also, if I try and counter your arguments..it makes me think.
So that only helps me and my cause.
This latter point is one reason why I don’t engage in debate on Unionist forums such as Slugger O Toole etc.
Why should I help my enemy think??????
so, to me you provide a vital service on here 🙂
so, now..Lets see if others can play the game??????????
Good point Jānis