General

Random entry RSS

  • Posted in:

    The constitutional status of the Irish language in a United Ireland. By Dáithí Mac Cárthaigh.

    Irish is experiencing a period of growth in its official use. It is a full official and working language of the European Union since 1 January 2022. Every regulation, directive and decision of the EU is now enacted and published in Irish at the same time and with the same status as the versions in the other 23 official languages of the Union, from world languages such as English, French and German to the languages of small nations such as Maltese, Estonian and Latvian. At national level, the Official Languages Act has been amended and the amending legislation signed into law by the President. The most noteworthy amendments provide that at least 20% of new recruits to the public service will be competent in Irish by the 31 December 2030 and that public services will be provided in Irish in Gaeltacht areas. At least 20% of public bodies’ advertising will be in Irish and at least 5% of their advertising budgets spend on Irish language media. Public bodies will facilitate the use of the síneadh fada. Bilingual logos, bilingual forms and bilingual advertising materials will be rolled out for public bodies. Protocols or ‘standards’ will be set in relation to services to be provided in Irish by public bodies, including services provided on their behalf by private agencies. Long-promised language legislation is being enacted at Westminster for Northern Ireland which will establish the office of Irish Language Commissioner and language standards for the provision of public services through Irish. In this context of growth, one must be watchful to ensure that the official status of Irish is safeguarded under any new constitutional arrangement. The status of Irish is secure at EU level and must be reproduced domestically. In the context of a united Ireland, the protection of minority rights will be very much to the fore, including the rights of Irish speakers. In relation to protecting linguistic minorities, Canadian constitutional law and language legislation, in particular the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides a useful exemplar. This is set out and discussed below. Irish as the Premier Official Language From the foundation of the State, Irish is established as the national language of the country and from 1937, with the enactment of Bunreacht na hÉireann, as the first official language because it is the national language. There is a divergence between the Irish and English texts of Article 8.1. In cases such as this, the Irish version, under Article 25.5.4°, prevails. In the English version Irish is the “first official language”. In the Irish version it is the “príomhtheanga oifigiúil”  i.e. the premier or main official language. It matters not that this is more honoured in the breach than the observance. Very few laws are constantly observed but this does not nullify the constitutional imperative which flows from Article 8.1. Consider that equality as between citizens was guaranteed from 1937 by Article 40 of the Irish Constitution, but that the marriage-bar which obliged women to resign from state employment in the event that they married persisted until 1973 and that discriminatory practise was only ended under the shadow of European law. Similarly, it is because of this constitutional status and the constitutional imperative which flows from it that any victory for Irish language rights has been secured in the Courts. Anyone who proposes a reduction in the status of the language does not have the good of Irish at heart or is unfamiliar with the caselaw. The Constitution of the Irish Free State 1922 Article 4 of the 1922 Constitution provided as follows: The National language of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Éireann) is the Irish language, but the English language shall be equally recognised as an official language. Nothing in this Article shall prevent special provisions being made by the Parliament of the Irish Free State (otherwise called and herein generally referred to as the “Oireachtas”) for districts or areas in which only one language is in general use. A derogation from official bilingualism was permitted at the end of Article 4 “to provide for the contingency of the entry of Northern Ireland into the Free State” according to Kohn The Constitution of the Irish Free State (London 1932), p. 124. This, of course, is being superseded by the aforementioned UK language legislation for the North. Language matters are also discussed in Article 42: As soon as may be after any law has received the King’s assent, the clerk, or such officer as Dáil Éireann may appoint for the purpose, shall cause two fair copies of such law to be made, one being in the Irish language and the other in the English language (one of which copies shall be signed by the Representative of the Crown to be enrolled for record in the office of such officer of the Supreme Court as Dáil Éireann may determine), and such copies shall be conclusive evidence as to the provisions of every such law, and in case of conflict between the two copies so deposited, that signed by the Representative of the Crown shall prevail. There are a number of ways to read this provision. According to Hugh Kennedy, the first Chief Justice, in the case of Ó Foghludha v. McClean [1934] I.R. 469 bilingual enactment is implied by this Article: It is not for me here and now to express any opinion as to whether each Act should not have been enacted at the same time in the Irish language (as seems to be suggested by Article 42 of the Constitution). No doubt an Irish translation of each Act has been prepared subsequently and published officially but such translation has no effect as legislation, there being no power under the Constitution to delegate the legislative power of the Oireachtas to a staff of translators. I may add that legislation in two official languages concurrently is the settled practice elsewhere. The learned Chief Justice referred in particular in support of this contention to the practice of bilingual enactment in other

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    'I AM NOT NUMBER 54'. By Christopher Stanley.

    “Two babies from one family, ‘gone’: Tusla unable to locate records despite ‘extensive’ search” — thejournal.ie 2 August 2022 Every day I receive at least one – and sometimes two or three – Google Alerts relating to ‘Irish Mother and Baby Homes’ [1] This edited collection of essays was published on 21 May 2022. On 27 July 2022 the Irish government approved a proposal to establish an independent office to lead an intervention at the site of the former Mother and Baby Home in Tuam. The intervention will involve the excavation, recovery, analysis, identification (if possible) and re-interment of the children’s remains located at the site. On the same day the United Nations Human Rights Committee published its report on Ireland noting “While welcoming the State party’s efforts to address and memorialize the past human rights violations and institutional abuse of women and children in the Magdalene laundries, children’s institutions, and mother and baby homes, as well as the State party’s recognition of its shortcomings in previous actions, the Committee recalls its previous concerns on the climate of impunity.” A climate of impunity and collusion which continues to demand intervention by way of an independent human rights compliant investigation and full disclosure of all records in order to ventilate the right to truth so wanted by so many women and children. [2] Including Number 54 – Mary Harney – who is not ‘pig’ , who is not ‘smelly pig’. Mary Harney born Bessborough Mother and Baby Home, not ‘eligible’ to be trafficked to America, illegally fostered then sentenced to twelve and a half years in the Good Shepherd Industrial School (pages 3 -4). Mary Harney who still waits for truth, justice and accountability which, to take W. B. Yeats out of the context of peace, comes ‘dripping slow’. [3] “We did not just hide away the dead bodies of tiny human beings, we dug deep and deeper still to bury our compassion, our mercy”- (Enda Kenny 18 March 2017 quoted at page 43) Christopher Stanley reviews “Redress: Ireland’s Institutions and Transitional Justice edited by Katherine O’Donnell, Maeve O’Rourke, James M Smith Five years on women and children still wait for the burial of Irish compassion to be exhumed and examined in the ways urged by the UN Human Rights Committee in accordance with human rights standards demanded by both ‘hard’ law and ‘soft’ justice – from criminal process to transitional justice – through police and coronial investigations, through disclosure of information to establish identity (page xi) and to establish a public record of truth, an inalienable human right – to know why. [4] This edited volume of essays is a valuable contribution to that truth-seeking process and how the right to truth can inform redress in a scheme of transitional justice (from darkness to light). In their Introduction, the Editors describe the genesis of this project by way of a two day conference at Boston College where different voices spoke on and were heard on the subject of ‘Reconciliation, Truth-Telling and Institutional Abuse in Ireland’. These were the voices of ‘scholars, policy makers, survivors, people affected by adoption, artists and advocates’ (page xiii). The voices of the survivors have so often to date been excluded from or silenced by the processes established by the state agencies (South and North) – the very agencies of truth-seeking that should have served to facilitate hearing those voices and enabling them to ask questions, to interrogate those responsible (civil servants, local councillors, clerical officials, bishops, law officiers, ‘sisters of mercy’ and others), to give their accounts of systemic abuse and suffering that was the evil of these institutions and processes (symphysiotomy, forced adoption, unlawful clinical trials, trafficking, illegal fostering, slave labour, disappearence) constituting Ireland’s crimes against humanity. [5] This is a compelling collection of essays, testimonies, analysis and interrogation. It is at times both intensely emtoional, as you would expect from the territory on which it reports, and intensely theoretical. The balance between the voices is  right. It is compelling because of the scope of the territory: from the loss and denial of identity of the survivor of institutional abuse, to the empty rhetorical gestures of state and church, to the manipulation of the public narative, to the closure of access to truth through the politics of information and the play of slippage of responsibilities. Then and Now. The volume is divided into seven conherent sections – truth-telling, law and (in)justice, transitional justice, adoption, children in state care, the Magdalene Laundries, the archive. The authors are survivors, artistists, lawyers, academics. Some of the material has been previously published but is now usefully collected together creating a ‘source book’ for further activisim and reflection on redress. Those turned to in these essays include Seamus Heaney, James Joyce, Sophocles Antigone, Giorgio Agamben, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault,  Gillian Rose. Perspectives are provided from contemporary thinking around the idea of the archive, the nature of archeology and preservation, historiography and epistemology. For example, Joyce’s Dubliners is deployed to interrogate institutional abuse in a Protestant setting. Heaney on poetical redress powerfully provokes thought on the shape of redress for survivors. Agamben is drawn upon in terms of shame and the collapse of the ‘sovereign self’. Gillian Rose’s thesis The Broken Middle describes social ruptures that cannot be repaired – the cleaving of Ireland – now a Potters’s Field (to apply Rose in a different voice) or cillíní. And always the figure of Antigone so oft drawn upon when considering the fate of Ireland, its women and children. To conclude: for Ireland this collection and the continued out-workings of the tragedy of abuse is a work in progress, a work to inform policies to secure redress, a work to enable access to justice, a work to prise open the vault that is the archive of truth, a work to establish identity and to continue to give voice after the violence of the imposed silence of the abused; both by the ‘sacred’ and the ‘secular’ – the forces of church

    Loading

    Read more