|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 18, 2007 20:34:14 GMT
I think its ironic Poots is saying the act would cost too much money but the government see no problem in spending close to millions on their own comforts in cars, flights, and first class hospitalities.
If this act is rejected then it says more about unionism than I need to say. Its not a protestant state for a protestant people anymore!
|
|
|
|
Post by bearhunter on Oct 18, 2007 20:36:13 GMT
The ILA would cost too much, but Peter Robinson is threatening a judicial review over the pulling of more than a million quid in financing for a paramilitary group who refuse to disband. Odd world you're all living in up there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Oct 18, 2007 20:55:52 GMT
IMO Poots hsould puit his arguement forward and if it is based solely on money then it is up to other politicians to show him that he is wrong and whatever other problems they have with his decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Oct 19, 2007 14:12:50 GMT
How does the assembly work?? Is their any flags or symbols present??
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Oct 19, 2007 14:42:36 GMT
Is there a case for Unionists in the sense of the Irish language being offensive to some of them. If a portrait of the Queen was in there or a Union flag would that be offensive??
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 19, 2007 15:27:34 GMT
I'd not want it but I'd not try to ban it either. I'd prefer a neutral flag to be used like the province of ulster flag, the yellow one, a flag with history longer than any other flag we've got. Could care less about the Queens mug sitting in Stormont either it just wouldnt bother me.
It would be sad to be a unionist if they get offended by a language, talk about pushing the right buttons eh? I'd be ashamed if republicans got offended by Ulster scots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Oct 19, 2007 16:18:30 GMT
So where does this offensiveness start and end?? Finding flags offensive is ok but finding a language offensive is not. Finding symbols of Britishness offensive but the use of the Irish language not. I'm not saying its right or ok to find the Irish language offensive but would like to find out why its ok to be offended by one thing but not another. When Nationalists request that all symbols of Unionism or Britishness are removed its simply a case of just promoting a good workplace and its nothing to do with anti britishness?? Its just that so many things and alot of them little seem to be offensive in this country and i'm amazed that no one can understand why the Irish language might be offensive to some without them all being labelled bigots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 19, 2007 16:30:10 GMT
It starts and ends with logic. Its obvious a union jack isnt going to be accepted by me or other nationalists, its obvious a tricolour isnt going to be accepted by you or other unionists, thats quite basic mate. Language is another matter, its only politicised because unionists have allowed to to be politicised.
Think back a few years ago with the England flag, St. Georges cross. For years it was seen as a symbol of white british nationalism, the national front, BNP, etc, because it was basically hijacked and used by no one else. After about two years of English people making a point in using it and a world cup later, its not seen as a racist symbol anymore its seen as an acceptable flag of the english people. The same can be said for the Irish language. Accept it and it wont be a political issue, it will start to become a working breathing language not just confined to the "culturlann".
I understand why unionists will see the irish language as offensive, sinn fein didnt help that situation either but I see it as more of a "because SF used it we need to be automatically against it" arguement from a lot of protestants. While on the other side, nationalists who dont even vote SF but are into the language just get on with things.
Its still bigotry to try and ban a language thats been in use for centuries before the Germanic (later English) languages even arrived in Britain, its part of my culture, and it can be part of your culture too if you want it. I'd rightfully be called a bigot if I was an MLA and tried to ban the Ulster scots language if an Ulster scots language activist was to become an MLA and make speeches in it. Remember that many SF and SDLP MLAs are also Irish language activists, infact I was taught by French and some Irish classes by Barbera de Brun in my first year of secondary school since she was a teacher before getting completely involved in politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Oct 19, 2007 16:52:12 GMT
It starts and ends with logic. Its obvious a union jack isnt going to be accepted by me or other nationalists, its obvious a tricolour isnt going to be accepted by you or other unionists, thats quite basic mate. Language is another matter, its only politicised because unionists have allowed to to be politicised. Think back a few years ago with the England flag, St. Georges cross. For years it was seen as a symbol of white british nationalism, the national front, BNP, etc, because it was basically hijacked and used by no one else. After about two years of English people making a point in using it and a world cup later, its not seen as a racist symbol anymore its seen as an acceptable flag of the english people. The same can be said for the Irish language. Accept it and it wont be a political issue, it will start to become a working breathing language not just confined to the "culturlann". I understand why unionists will see the irish language as offensive, sinn fein didnt help that situation either but I see it as more of a "because SF used it we need to be automatically against it" arguement from a lot of protestants. While on the other side, nationalists who dont even vote SF but are into the language just get on with things. Its still bigotry to try and ban a language thats been in use for centuries before the Germanic (later English) languages even arrived in Britain, its part of my culture, and it can be part of your culture too if you want it. I'd rightfully be called a bigot if I was an MLA and tried to ban the Ulster scots language if an Ulster scots language activist was to become an MLA and make speeches in it. Remember that many SF and SDLP MLAs are also Irish language activists, infact I was taught by French and some Irish classes by Barbera de Brun in my first year of secondary school since she was a teacher before getting completely involved in politics. There's no point talkng about Ulster Scots language to me cos i have no desire for it to be spoken so save your time trying to compare like for like because it isn't for me. Why is Language another matter??? Thats my main point. Why is it another matter?? Why is it different from Flags and Symbols?? Surely speaking Irish is an expression of Irishness as flying the Union flag is an expression of Britishness?? We all want to express our culture and heritage but it seems there is a structure or priority as to what is and isn't offensive. I've already stated i have no wish for Irish to be banned but it bothers me that there is no understanding of how the Irish language could be offensive to some. It seems its Unionists fault for making it an issue. Unionists can't be offended without being bigots. Being British i see my rights to express my Britishness being more and more restricted. Why then should Unionists accomodate this statement of Irishness?? |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 19, 2007 17:09:49 GMT
No but others do. Infact the only reason the Ulster scots society thing is against the Irish language act is because they want one for themselves too.
Language is another matter because it goes beyond borders, people, and time. Flags define borders, they're a symbol of a nation state or of state hood in general a language is not. Speaking Irish is an expression of the Irish culture but flying a tricolour is an expression of Irish statehood, the nation of Ireland, not the wealth and culture of Ireland. You have no wish to see the Irish language banned but others do so my posts in that regard arent actually directed too you.
It is unionists fault this time mate, do you think there would be kick ups about the Irish language if unionists just accepted it and got on with it instead of trying to ban it? There wouldnt, if the legislation was passed you'd not hear no more from activists, our goal would be complete, we would have protection for the language and that would be the end of it, whereas banning it just makes it even more politicised and the UUP and DUP dont really seem to understand this, either that or they are doing it on purpose to keep it politicised for some odd reason.
I see your rights to express your Britishness all you want as long as I have my right to express my Irishness equally, and for me the big thing isnt flags, in the end I could care less about flags we're all under the EU flag anyway, for me the big thing is the language I was educated in and brought up in, and it wasnt English! I only spoke English to my mates outside or at lunch time in school when we tried to be rebels. I was brought up in a completely bilingual environment. But the UUP dont like that and would rather ignore it or ban it. How can that not be seen as bigotry? Its hardly acceptance.
Why does it have to be one or nothing? Why does it have to be Britishness or nothing? Express your Britishness all you want, but it shouldnt impede on my expression of Irishness and visa versa, there is nothing the language is doing to impede Britishness, its a British politician trying to ban my language.
|
|
