Speaking Irish Gaelic "unrepresentative" : Supreme Court.
Keith G.Mills
time the primary legal adjudicators in the country told us what we know for
years; that English and not Irish Gaelic is the language of the Irish
people.
A Gaelic speaking Tallaght man charged with robbery, had appealed to the
Supreme Court that his case be heard by a jury which understood Irish
Gaelic. The Supreme Court threw out his appeal, on the grounds that it was
unreasonable to expect a jury made of Irish people to understand a case in
Irish Gaelic, and that if such a jury COULD be assembled, that it would be
unrepresentative of the Irish people.
This is a wonderful decision for the people of the country, and hopefully
will be considered by the government, when they review the idea of
maintaining compulsory Irish Gaelic in Irish schools.
As part of the story (which has received widespread coverage here today),
it was revealed that the programme with the highest viewing figures on the
state sponsored Irish Gaelic T.V. channel (TnaG) is in ENGLISH, Make of
that, what you will.
Keith
James Foster O'Quinn III
Ok, i am probably putting my nose where it does not belong, but i want
to ask a question to satisfy my curiosity.
THE QUESTION: About how many people (percentage of population) speak
in the gaelic tongue? I have heard it spoken before and i thought it
was a beautiful language. And the next part of the question: Do the
schools teach this language any more? If not, that is a pity, because
it certainly would be a shame for such a beautiful language to die
out.
Just a question from somebody that wishes he lived there.......
Jeff O'Quinn
joa...@my-dejanews.com
"Keith G.Mills" <kei...@xxxtinet.ie> wrote:
> Today saw a momentous decision in Ireland's Supreme Court. For the first
> time the primary legal adjudicators in the country told us what we know for
> years; that English and not Irish Gaelic is the language of the Irish
>
state sponsored Irish Gaelic T.V. channel (TnaG) is in ENGLISH, Make of
> that, what you will.
>
> Keith
With a nod in the direction of Milesius Cappaline, I have devised a
meta-language (Mahogany or má thagann í) that the courts, civil service
and elected bodies of Ireland can use to record the daily lies,
denials, crimes, escapes, rezonings etc. that pass for the official life
of this state.
When spoken it sounds just like English, but in its written form appears
as Irish or Gaelic. I am applying for grants to promote the use of this
language, and in future, once it is accepted and widespread, its
eventual lapse and disuse will lead once and for all to the recognition
that the English language is the primary means of communication on this
island among people below the age of 75.
Mahogany Gaspipe
The following is the above text in Mahogany.
Fbhuit a nád oin de deréicsiún ubh Maidhls na gCapaillín, adh haimh
damhaidhist a meta-lainguid (má thagann í) deat de cóirts, simhil
seirmhis aind eleictid bádís ubh Adharlant cain iúis tú raoiceárt de
déilaoi laghas, dinnadhails, cradhms, eiscéips, raoiseóníns, etc. dait
paghas fear de ófíseal laidheaf ubh dis stét.
Fbhuin spócain uit saúnts diúst laidheac Inglis, bút in uits fbhruitin
farm apírs ais Adhairis ár Gaelic. Adh aim apladhaing fur graints tú
prámót de iús ubh dis lainguid, aint uin fiútuir, fbhains uit uis
aicséipteit aint fbhadhaidspréid, uits emhéintúil laips aint duisiúis
fbhuil laoid fbhains aint fear áil tú de reiceágnisiun dait de Inglis
lainguid ios de pradhmairí
míns ubh camúnaicéisiun án dois adhlaint amung paoipeil bíló de éid ubh
75.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
chucky...@bigfoot.com
Gerard Cunningham
>THE QUESTION: About how many people (percentage of population) speak
>in the gaelic tongue?
Of a population of 5 million on the island, ~3.5m in the RoI, maybe
50000 are fluent speakers. Census figures show about 1m people in the
RoI and 100000 in NI claim to have some knowledge of Irish.
> I have heard it spoken before and i thought it
>was a beautiful language. And the next part of the question: Do the
>schools teach this language any more?
Irish is a compulsory subject in the RoI.
--
Gerard Cunningham abardubh at wwa dot com
http://www.wwa.com/~abardubh/
"For a guide to what's really going on" -s.c.i. FAQ
Paul Linehan
"Keith G.Mills" <kei...@xxxtinet.ie> wrote:
>Today saw a momentous decision in Ireland's Supreme Court. For the first
>time the primary legal adjudicators in the country told us what we know for
>years; that English and not Irish Gaelic is the language of the Irish
>people.
Mr bigoted anti-Irish fuckwit that you are.
Go look at the Irish Times website of today (Thur) - There is NOTHING
about that so-called case.
It would be unconstitutional anyway, since Irish is STILL the FIRST
language of this country - nice try at a troll - ASSHOLE.
Paul...
>Keith
>
>
>
email replies to my posts appreciated.
reply to plinehan.at.yahoo.com
and/or paul.linehan.at.infosol.ie
Gerard Cunningham
>Go look at the Irish Times website of today (Thur) - There is NOTHING
>about that so-called case.
Look a little closer at
http://www.irish-times.com/irish-times/paper/1998/0716/hom20.html
Man loses appeal to be tried by all Irish-speaking jury
By Mary Carolan
A man charged with stealing and receiving more than £11,000
worth of confectionery yesterday lost his Supreme Court
attempt to be tried by a jury sufficiently fluent in Irish to follow
legal proceedings without a translator.
While accepting there was no such thing as perfect
interpretation, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, said most
of the population would be excluded from jury service if they
were required to have a clear grasp of the Irish language. This
would be contrary to the requirement that a jury should be truly
representative. In Ireland at the moment, with most people
unable to follow legal matters in Irish without a translator, the
best available solution was having a translator.
Mr Ruairí Mac Cárthaigh, of Whitebrook Park, Tallaght, Co
Dublin, had said he was raised in Dublin through Irish and,
because of that, would prefer to make his own case through
Irish.
Mr Mac Cárthaig h had submitted that anything said by him or
by a lawyer on his behalf would not have the same effect unless
every member of the jury has a clear grasp of the Irish
language.
He claimed his constitutional rights would be infringed unless
the jury chosen were so fluent in Irish that they could
understand everything said in the trial without the assistance of
a translator.
Mr Mac Cárthaigh was charged with stealing £11,252 of
chocolates and confectionery at Suardais Road, Corballis,
Dublin, on May 28th, 1990.
In proceedings against the State and the DPP in the High
Court, he lost his application to be tried by a jury who
understood Irish and appealed that decision to the Supreme
Court.
Giving the Supreme Court judgment yesterday, the Chief
Justice said it was common knowledge that there were not
many people in Ireland today who understood legal matters
being discussed in Irish without the help of a translator.
He noted that, in the High Court decision, Mr Justice O'Hanlon
acknowledged the Irish language had a special position by
virtue of its being the national language and that Mr Mac
Cárthaig h could conduct his defence in Irish if he wished.
But, as far as selecting a jury went, there was a basic principle
which could not be set aside and that was that one should be
able to say of a jury in every criminal case that they stood for
every member of the public in the area where the case was
being heard.
Mr Justice O'Hanlon had, on the basis of statistics regarding
Irish speakers, found some 75 per cent of the population of
Dublin city would have to be set aside when assembling a roll
call of jurors if it was a requirement that they be able to
understand legal matters in Irish and that the figure would be
closer to 90 per cent if considering persons who could
understand and discuss complicated matters of criminal law.
The High Court judge also found, if Mr Mac Cárthaig h's
request was granted, most people in Ireland would be unable
to serve on a jury in cases conducted in Irish without an
interpreter. This would be contrary to the requirement that a
jury should be truly representative and a fair cross-section of
the community.
The Chief Justice said the court agreed with the High Court
reasoning that restricting jury service to special groups only or
excluding identifiable segments playing major roles in the
community could not be squared with the constitutional
concept of a jury trial.
He accepted there were difficulties associated with translation.
It had been stated that non-English speaking defendants were
not judged on their own words no matter how accurate the
interpretation. The words, style, syntax and emotion were not
the defendant's.
"That is true enough but it must be said, in Ireland at the
moment, there is no better solution," the Chief Justice said.
The five-judge court unanimously dismissed the appeal and
made no order for costs. Costs were awarded against Mr Mac
Cárthaigh in the High Court proceedings.
Aidan Hollinshead
wrote:
>>Today saw a momentous decision in Ireland's Supreme Court. For the first
>>time the primary legal adjudicators in the country told us what we know for
>>years; that English and not Irish Gaelic is the language of the Irish
>>people.
>
>Mr bigoted anti-Irish fuckwit that you are.
It's good to see you two love each other.
>Go look at the Irish Times website of today (Thur) - There is NOTHING
>about that so-called case.
Paul, I thought you'd be more of an Indo reader, I'd have thought the
IT was too west-Brit for you.
Try
http://www.independent.ie/1998/196/d07b.shtml
It was in the Irish Times online though
http://www.irish-times.com/irish-times/paper/1998/0716/hom20.html
just go to Irish News, then Courts and you'll find the story there.
>It would be unconstitutional anyway, since Irish is STILL the FIRST
>language of this country - nice try at a troll - ASSHOLE.
By definition, as the ruling of the supreme court, the ruling is
entirely constitutional since they are the utlimate arbiters of
constitutionality.
Aidan
Aidan Hollinshead
wrote:
>Today saw a momentous decision in Ireland's Supreme Court. For the first
>time the primary legal adjudicators in the country told us what we know for
>years; that English and not Irish Gaelic is the language of the Irish
>people.
In the ruling I heard about, the judge only talked about Dublin
people, not the Irish people as a whole. A jury need only be
representative of the people in the area in which the trial was being
held (Dublin in this case), not of the nation as a whole.
There would be areas of the country, where the majority could follow a
case (perhaps not very large areas), and in those areas, a jury of
Irish-speakers could be representative.
>A Gaelic speaking Tallaght man charged with robbery, had appealed to the
>Supreme Court that his case be heard by a jury which understood Irish
>Gaelic. The Supreme Court threw out his appeal, on the grounds that it was
>unreasonable to expect a jury made of Irish people
Dublin people primarily - based on the premise that only 25% of
Dubliners could understand legal matters through Irish and the judge
estimated only 10% could understand and dicuss complicated legal
matters. It may apply to the country as a whole, although with
slightly larger percentages (33% and 20%???), but that wasn't why the
judges ruled the way they did.
>This is a wonderful decision for the people of the country,
So wonderful that the Chief justice said of it "but it must be said,
in Ireland at the moment, there is no better solution"?
>and hopefully
>will be considered by the government, when they review the idea of
>maintaining compulsory Irish Gaelic in Irish schools.
Could it be really be? I do believe that Keith is advocating more
Irish in schools.
It seems you are saying that we, the people, are deficient in our
ability to speak Irish, and thus any reduction in the amount of Irish
taught would just make this lamentable situation worse.
Next we'll find you advocating compulsory Irish lessons for
non-Gaelgóirs. Keith, this is a new you.
At this rate you and Paul will be kissing and making up soon. Maybe at
a Gael Linn class, who knows :)
Aidan
Gerard Cunningham
>Paul Linehan wrote:
>>It would be unconstitutional anyway, since Irish is STILL the FIRST
>>language of this country - nice try at a troll - ASSHOLE.
>
>By definition, as the ruling of the supreme court, the ruling is
>entirely constitutional since they are the utlimate arbiters of
>constitutionality.
Keith spin isn't quite accurate though. (Quelle surprise!)
The SC denied the right to an Irish speaking jury on grounds of
logistics & representativeness, but acknowledged the right of the
defendant to conduct his defence in Irish with translators.
--
Gerard Cunningham abardubh at wwa dot com
"The Dundalk to Derry Canal: Build it wide & build it deep" -Unki
Pat Naughton
Gerard Cunningham (Ger@r.d) writes:
>
> Keith spin isn't quite accurate though. (Quelle surprise!)
>
> The SC denied the right to an Irish speaking jury on grounds of
> logistics & representativeness, but acknowledged the right of the
> defendant to conduct his defence in Irish with translators.
In the Northwest Territories in Canada, there are eight official languages
(Dogrib, Inuktitut, English, French, Slavey, Cree, Chipewyan and
Gwich'in). In any trial, the accused, the judge, the lawyers, the
witnesses, the jury, etc., are all entitled to communicate with the court
in any of the official languages, and translation will be provided. It
can get pretty complex providing direct translations from each language
to every other used in any particular trial, especially when three or four
languages are involved, but that's what they they do. Considering the
vastness of the NWT (over 3 million square kilometres), the sparse
population (less than 60,000 total), and the harsh climate of the Canadian
North, it ain't easy. Court dates tend to be rather fluid because the
judge, lawyers, court reporters, bailiffs, translators, etc. generally
arrive by air and the weather often doesn't cooperate. Sometimes the
court gets stormed in and can't leave for days once the trial is over.
How's that for logistics?
Pat
Muiris Mag Ualghairg
cases translated for them and what will be the reaction of monoglot
English speakers. I assume that their is no legal obligation on Jury
members to be English speakers if they can use the first official
language. This can also be extended into the actual jury deliberations
therefore breaking the principle of secrecy in jury deliberations.
Keith G.Mills
Paul Linehan <rub...@tinet.ie> wrote in article
<35adab51....@news.clubi.ie>...
>
> "Keith G.Mills" <kei...@xxxtinet.ie> wrote:
>
> >Today saw a momentous decision in Ireland's Supreme Court. For the first
> >time the primary legal adjudicators in the country told us what we know
for
> >years; that English and not Irish Gaelic is the language of the Irish
> >people.
>
>
> Mr bigoted anti-Irish fuckwit that you are.
>
> Go look at the Irish Times website of today (Thur) - There is NOTHING
> about that so-called case.
Check out Page 4, cloumns 2, 3 and 4 of today's paper, or are you blind as
well as stupid? (Rhetorical question)
>
>
> It would be unconstitutional anyway, since Irish is STILL the FIRST
> language of this country - nice try at a troll - ASSHOLE.
>
Well it is the Supreme Court who are the final adbitors of what is and
isn't unconstitutional. QED (that's latin old boy) it isn't!!!
Keith
Keith G.Mills
Muiris Mag Ualghairg <muir...@virgin.net> wrote in article
<35AE4243...@virgin.net>...
This sounds like fun, and might even put another nail into the Irish Gaelic
coffin, if persued,
Keith
Keith G.Mills
Aidan Hollinshead <aid...@iol.ie> wrote in article
<35aefa89...@news.eunet.ie>...
> On 15 Jul 1998 22:16:45 GMT, "Keith G.Mills" <kei...@xxxtinet.ie>
> wrote:
>
> >Today saw a momentous decision in Ireland's Supreme Court. For the first
> >time the primary legal adjudicators in the country told us what we know
for
> >years; that English and not Irish Gaelic is the language of the Irish
> >people.
>
> In the ruling I heard about, the judge only talked about Dublin
> people, not the Irish people as a whole. A jury need only be
> representative of the people in the area in which the trial was being
> held (Dublin in this case), not of the nation as a whole.
>
> There would be areas of the country, where the majority could follow a
> case (perhaps not very large areas), and in those areas, a jury of
> Irish-speakers could be representative.
<snip>
Aidan,
With all due respect this is complete nonsense.
I quote from the Indo. article:
"The Chief Justice said it was common knowledge that there are not many
people in Ireland today who understand legal matters being discussed in
Irish without the help of a translator."
There is a difference between Dublin and Ireland and you can see it was
IRELAND that was mentioned.
Keith
Gerard Cunningham
>With all due respect this is complete nonsense.
>I quote from the Indo. article:
>"The Chief Justice said it was common knowledge that there are not many
>people in Ireland today who understand legal matters being discussed in
>Irish without the help of a translator."
>
>There is a difference between Dublin and Ireland and you can see it was
>IRELAND that was mentioned.
With all due respect, this *is* an *Indo* article... ;)
Samhain
>> Mr bigoted anti-Irish fuckwit that you are.
>
Why should it be?
--
_________________________________________________
(__)
(oo) A dog is not reckoned good because he barks
/---------\/ well, and a man is not reckoned wise because
/ | || he speaks skilfully.
* ||-----|| Chuang Tzu
^^ ^^ samh...@DELETEME.usa.net
Allan-John Marsh
Allan-John Marsh
> >
> >shouldn't that be 'feckwit'?
>
COME ON!! Don't tell me that you don't watch Father Ted!?!? :-)
Neil McEwan
>Today saw a momentous decision in Ireland's Supreme Court. For the first
>time the primary legal adjudicators in the country told us what we know for
>years; that English and not Irish Gaelic is the language of the Irish
>people.
Why does there have to be only one?
>A Gaelic speaking Tallaght man charged with robbery, had appealed to the
>Supreme Court that his case be heard by a jury which understood Irish
>Gaelic. The Supreme Court threw out his appeal, on the grounds that it was
>unreasonable to expect a jury made of Irish people to understand a case in
>Irish Gaelic, and that if such a jury COULD be assembled, that it would be
>unrepresentative of the Irish people.
That's disgusting -- why can't a man be tried in his own language,
the language of his country, an official language of the State? And
what's "unrepresentative" about an Irish-speaking jury in any case?
Neil
--
mce...@supercity.ns.ca
mde...@my-dejanews.com
gae...@go.brath (Neil McEwan) wrote:
> That's disgusting -- why can't a man be tried in his own language,
> the language of his country, an official language of the State?
He can be tried in his own language, in the sense that he may give testimony
in Irish, through an interpreter. He should also be entitled to demand the
interpretation into Irish of all testimony delivered in English, translations
of trial protocols, etc., even though it is most unlikely that he is not
perfectly capable with the English.
This would apply whether or not his language were an official language of the
state. If he spoke only Urdu, he'd testify in Urdu, and have an interpreter
to tell him what everyone else was saying. This has nothing to do with
official status, and everything to do with the fact that the state must make
it possible for an accused to participate meaningfully in his defense (or
rather, in the case of an Irish-speaker, the language's official status
effectively precludes the state from enquiring whether the defendant might
not indeed be capable of participating meaningfully in English).
> And what's "unrepresentative" about an Irish-speaking jury in any case?
That there aren't enough Irish-speakers in Dublin, and certainly not enough
with a level of linguistic sophistication sufficient to permit consideration
as gaeilge of subtle legal concepts, to create confidence that the pool of
Irish-speaking potential jurors would produce a panel of representative
Dubliners.
Again, this has nothing to do with the status of Irish as an official
language. Just as the state must accomodate an Irish- (or Urdu-) speaking
defendant by providing an interpreter, it must also assure that he is tried
by a representative body of his peers. Much as Mr Mac Carthaigh might like
it, the state would fail in this duty to him if it allowed him to demand an
Irish-speaking jury just as it would fail Keith Mills, should he ever be put
on trial in Dublin, in allowing him to demand a jury of Rangers supporters.
This in no way means that Irish-speakers or RFC supporters (as the case may
be) would be barred from service as jurors; merely that neither
characteristic may serve as a criterion for eligibility.
This was not quite the ground-breaking decision you or Mills or Linehan
imagine it to be; perhaps you should all calm down a bit.
--
Devlin, C.B.
<mdevlin at brainREMOVElink dot see oh em>
www.brainlink.com/~mdevlin/index.html
My own opinions and no one's else
Paul Linehan
aid...@iol.ie (Aidan Hollinshead) wrote:
> rub...@tinet.ie (Paul Linehan) wrote:
>>Mr bigoted anti-Irish fuckwit that you are.
>It's good to see you two love each other.
Aint it a treat?
>>Go look at the Irish Times website of today (Thur) - There is NOTHING
>>about that so-called case.
>Paul, I thought you'd be more of an Indo reader, I'd have thought the
>IT was too west-Brit for you.
The Indo is WAY too Unionist for my liking - the Irish Times is
Republican in the French sense of the word - if not yet the Irish
(that day will come!)
As an aside, you should try reading the letters page in the IT and you
would see that I am a reasonably regular contributor - see Wednesday
for an eloquent 8-) destruction of Ruth Diddly Edwards.
The IT is by far the best daily in the country - though the Sunday
Business Post would come close in terms of quality.
>Try
>
>http://www.independent.ie/1998/196/d07b.shtml
>
>It was in the Irish Times online though
>
>http://www.irish-times.com/irish-times/paper/1998/0716/hom20.html
>
>just go to Irish News, then Courts and you'll find the story there.
Yes, I know that I was wrong, though I must say that I was disgusted
with the decision.
>>It would be unconstitutional anyway, since Irish is STILL the FIRST
>>language of this country - nice try at a troll - ASSHOLE.
>By definition, as the ruling of the supreme court, the ruling is
>entirely constitutional since they are the utlimate arbiters of
>constitutionality.
Yep, you're right - but they were wrong.
Paul...
>Aidan
Paul Moloney
>Keith said:
> >Today saw a momentous decision in Ireland's Supreme Court. For the first
> >time the primary legal adjudicators in the country told us what we know for
> >years; that English and not Irish Gaelic is the language of the Irish
> >people.
> Why does there have to be only one?
All part of Keith and Ozy's determined campaign
for a re-union with Grand Brittania. Just nod
and smile.
P.
tpw...@my-dejanews.com
Depends on which dialect of Irish you speak.
Tom
tpw...@my-dejanews.com
plinehan.at.tinet.ie wrote:
> Yes, I know that I was wrong, though I must say that I was disgusted
> with the decision.
>
Thought you might be less than pleased.
> >By definition, as the ruling of the supreme court, the ruling is
> >entirely constitutional since they are the utlimate arbiters of
> >constitutionality.
>
> Yep, you're right - but they were wrong.
>
They were being practical. The courts have to operate in the real world -
not the Chucky-in-Wonderland republic where we're all fluent Irish speakers.
Tom
> Paul...
tpw...@my-dejanews.com
joa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <01bdb07f$cbd1c760$17e2869f@keithm>,
>
> Fbhuit a nád oin de deréicsiún ubh Maidhls na gCapaillín, adh haimh
> damhaidhist a meta-lainguid (má thagann í) deat de cóirts, simhil
> seirmhis aind eleictid bádís ubh Adharlant cain iúis tú raoiceárt de
> déilaoi laghas, dinnadhails, cradhms, eiscéips, raoiseóníns, etc. dait
> paghas fear de ófíseal laidheaf ubh dis stét.
>
> Fbhuin spócain uit saúnts diúst laidheac Inglis, bút in uits fbhruitin
> farm apírs ais Adhairis ár Gaelic. Adh aim apladhaing fur graints tú
> prámót de iús ubh dis lainguid, aint uin fiútuir, fbhains uit uis
> aicséipteit aint fbhadhaidspréid, uits emhéintúil laips aint duisiúis
> fbhuil laoid fbhains aint fear áil tú de reiceágnisiun dait de Inglis
> lainguid ios de pradhmairí
> míns ubh camúnaicéisiun án dois adhlaint amung paoipeil bíló de éid ubh
> 75.
Jesus, this is more phonetic than English spelt in English...
Tom
tpw...@my-dejanews.com
gae...@go.brath (Neil McEwan) wrote:
> Why does there have to be only one?
Look, Keith has enough trouble expressing himself in English. Don't confuse
the poor devil.
> That's disgusting -- why can't a man be tried in his own language,
> the language of his country, an official language of the State?
He is; it's called English, which, like everybody else in Ireland, he speaks
fluently.
Gerard Cunningham
> That's disgusting -- why can't a man be tried in his own language,
>the language of his country, an official language of the State? And
>what's "unrepresentative" about an Irish-speaking jury in any case?
My own opinion is that the decision is a coverup for the lack of
Irish-speaking briefs. ;)
--
Gerard Cunningham abardubh at wwa dot com
tol...@my-dejanews.com
Paul Moloney <paul_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> All part of Keith and Ozy's determined campaign
> for a re-union with Grand Brittania.
If they hurry they might make it before UK flies apart.
Tom
> P.
Carrie Cochrane
Look a little closer at
http://www.irish-times.com/irish-times/paper/1998/0716/hom20.html
chocolates and confectionery at Suardais Road, Corballis,
Dublin, on May 28th, 1990.
Interesting, but I have to ask...what in the world did he do with all
that chocolate?
C.C.
ICQ# 9143177
Gerard Cunningham
Gave it to a really tense girlfriend?
--
Gerard Cunningham abardubh at wwa dot com
Carrie Cochrane
Look a little closer at
http://www.irish-times.com/irish-times/paper/1998/0716/hom20.html
Mr Mac Cárthaigh was charged with stealing £11,252 of
chocolates and confectionery at Suardais Road, Corballis,
Dublin, on May 28th, 1990.
Carrie Cochrane wrote:
Interesting, but I have to ask...what in the world did he do with all
that chocolate?
Gerard Cunningham wrote in article 35af75bc...@news.wwa.com...
Gave it to a really tense girlfriend?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seems like that would work...that chocolatey love sensation!!!
Either that or comatose!
C.C.
ICQ# 9143177
WABoyle
It's on realaudio at the following:
http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/archives/1998/980715.totn.html
Bill
Andy Harbison
>
> Today saw a momentous decision in Ireland's Supreme Court. For the first
> time the primary legal adjudicators in the country told us what we know for
> years; that English and not Irish Gaelic is the language of the Irish
> people.
>
> Supreme Court that his case be heard by a jury which understood Irish
> Gaelic. The Supreme Court threw out his appeal, on the grounds that it was
> unreasonable to expect a jury made of Irish people to understand a case in
> Irish Gaelic, and that if such a jury COULD be assembled, that it would be
> unrepresentative of the Irish people.
>
language of the country, just whether a representative group of people
could be assembled who could cope with the specialised vocabulary of
"Legal" Irish. Given that Irish developed in a culture that did not use
English Common Law, it is not surprising that the its vocabulary is a
little obsure. It would be fairly straightforward to assemble twelve
fluent Irish speakers. Given that the constiution specifically states
that Irish is the first language, it is unlikely that a constitutional
court would find that it isn't. To do so would be to provoke a crisis in
the courts system here.
Now Mr. Mills, let's discuss your obvious joy at the destruction of part
of the culture of this island. Why don't we just redevelop Newgrange for
a car park while we're at it? Maybe burn the Book of Kells to reduce the
heating bills at Trinity? Perhaps we should flog off the Ardagh Chalice
to pay off some of the National Debt. If you dislike the Irish language
and Irish government so much, why don't you just fuck off to England
where you belong. Then, perhaps you might find what your "fellow
Britons" think of your opinions.
The thing which most turns my stomach is that somebody might actually
confuse you for an Irishman.
Andy Harbison
>
> Irish is a compulsory subject in the RoI.
>
But unfortunately the way it is taught means that many kids find it
diffcult to learn. The DoEducation here insist on teaching it as if it
were the primary language spoken in all homes. So they tend to muck
about with complex grammar when they should be making sure that kids can
speak simple Irish and then building from there.
Neil McEwan
On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 17:49:14 GMT, tpw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <35aed4f5...@news.supercity.ns.ca>,
> gae...@go.brath (Neil McEwan) wrote:
>> That's disgusting -- why can't a man be tried in his own language,
>> the language of his country, an official language of the State?
>
> He is; it's called English, which, like everybody else in Ireland, he speaks
>fluently.
Don't you see anything wrong with using the historic
marginalization of the Irish language to justify further
marginalization? Anyway if it were just a matter of what language a
defendant understands you could have English-language trials in
Iceland, for example, since practically everyone understands Béarla
there, but clearly people have a preference for their own national
language which is understandable.
Neil
--
mce...@supercity.ns.ca
Keith G.Mills
Neil McEwan <he...@yer.maun> wrote in article
<35b055f4...@news.supercity.ns.ca>...
>
> On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 17:49:14 GMT, tpw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <35aed4f5...@news.supercity.ns.ca>,
> > gae...@go.brath (Neil McEwan) wrote:
>
> >> That's disgusting -- why can't a man be tried in his own language,
> >> the language of his country, an official language of the State?
> >
> > He is; it's called English, which, like everybody else in Ireland, he
speaks
> >fluently.
>
>
> Don't you see anything wrong with using the historic
> marginalization of the Irish language to justify further
> marginalization?
WHAT marginalisation?
For almost three quarters of a century people have been FORCED to study
Irish Gaelic, like it or not. Depite this, there are now fewer native Irish
Gaelic speakers than when we were part of the UK.
> Anyway if it were just a matter of what language a
> defendant understands you could have English-language trials in
> Iceland, for example, since practically everyone understands Béarla
> there,
Since when has English been a recognised national lanugage in Iceland?
>ut clearly people have a preference for their own national
> language which is understandable.
>
Like it or not the laguage of 98%+ of the Irish people is English. Where
the hell is there a "preference" for Irish Gaelic?
A few unrepresentatives, who CAN and DO speak English every day of the week
want the Supreme Court to make a futile and meaningless gesture. They
failed., and in doing so, they shot themselves in foot! This is , above
all, a great judgement for common sense.
>
> Neil
> --
> mce...@supercity.ns.ca
>
Fergus O'Rourke
>Gerard Cunningham wrote:
>Look a little closer at
>http://www.irish-times.com/irish-times/paper/1998/0716/hom20.html
>Mr Mac Cárthaigh was charged with stealing £11,252 of
>chocolates and confectionery at Suardais Road, Corballis,
>Dublin, on May 28th, 1990.
>Interesting, but I have to ask...what in the world did he do with all
>that chocolate?
Since he has not been tried, we assume that he didn't take it to begin with.
PeteStuart
Gerard Cunningham wrote:
> On 17 Jul 1998 15:27:32 GMT, Carrie Cochrane wrote:
>
> >Gerard Cunningham wrote:
> >Look a little closer at
> >http://www.irish-times.com/irish-times/paper/1998/0716/hom20.html
> >Mr Mac Cárthaigh was charged with stealing £11,252 of
> >chocolates and confectionery at Suardais Road, Corballis,
> >Dublin, on May 28th, 1990.
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >Interesting, but I have to ask...what in the world did he do with all
> >that chocolate?
>
> Gave it to a really tense girlfriend?
He must have been awefully sweet on her. Either she had some impressive Mounds,
or he just wanted to Nestle with her. (Next!)
--
Pete Stuart
http://personal.bhm.bellsouth.net/~taocelt
There's a whole lot of things that I ain't done,
But I ain't never had too much fun.
--Commander Cody
ta...@nildram.co.uk
>
> As an aside, you should try reading the letters page in the IT and you
> would see that I am a reasonably regular contributor - see Wednesday
> for an eloquent 8-) destruction of Ruth Diddly Edwards.
Thats the biddy that keeps stoking up the flames of anti-catholic
hatreds with lying propaganda for the Orangists.
Greig
Fergus O'Rourke
<6oo2qq$e39$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>> That's disgusting -- why can't a man be tried in his own language,
>> the language of his country, an official language of the State?
>
> He is; it's called English, which, like everybody else in Ireland, he
speaks
>fluently.
How do you know ?
Fergus O'Rourke
>> That's disgusting -- why can't a man be tried in his own language,
>> the language of his country, an official language of the State?
>
> He is; it's called English, which, like everybody else in Ireland, he
speaks
>fluently.
Even if he speaks it fluently, it may not be his own language
tol...@my-dejanews.com
"Fergus O'Rourke" <calla...@tinet.ie> wrote:
> tpw...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <6oo2qq$e39$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >> the language of his country, an official language of the State?
> >
> > He is; it's called English, which, like everybody else in Ireland, he
> speaks
> >fluently.
>
The last Irish-speaking monoglots died out a century ago.
Tom
>
>
--
www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2196
tol...@my-dejanews.com
"Fergus O'Rourke" <calla...@tinet.ie> wrote:
> > He is; it's called English, which, like everybody else in Ireland, he
> speaks
> >fluently.
>
>
But he can still conduct his trial in it, which is the point of this
whole discussion.
In any case, how can English not be his own language?
tol...@my-dejanews.com
"Keith G.Mills" <kei...@xxxtinet.ie> wrote:
> Since when has English been a recognised national lanugage in Iceland?
It's grudgingly accepted as such in the Constitution, to accomodate those
reprobates who persist in speaking English just because their families have
done so for a mere century or two.
I have nothing against Irish - I'm reading An Beal Bocht at the moment - but
it really annoys me when I'm told that the -only- language my parents and
grandparents speak is not -really- my native language.
> Like it or not the laguage of 98%+ of the Irish people is English. Where
> the hell is there a "preference" for Irish Gaelic?
Chez Linehan? Although his grasp of it seems rather shaky.
Derek Bell
>Do the schools teach this language any more?
Yes, though many people don't speak it very well, including myself.
Why is this? I'm not entirely sure, though some blame has been put on the
teaching methods used.
Derek
--
Derek Bell db...@maths.tcd.ie |The road to hell is paved with
WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html| melting snowballs
PGP: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/key.asc | -- Larry Wall
Derek Bell
>Go look at the Irish Times website of today (Thur) - There is NOTHING
>about that so-called case.
I'm afraid you overlooked it - it's at
http://www.irish-times.com/irish%2Dtimes/paper/1998/0716/hom20.html
>It would be unconstitutional anyway, since Irish is STILL the FIRST
>language of this country - nice try at a troll - ASSHOLE.
It was decided on the principle that the jury should be representative
of the area where the trial was held, which is in Dublin.
Gerard Cunningham
Agreed. Most Gaelgoirs I know would agree too, and are driven to
despair at the way the [absence of] Irish language policies of
successive Governments have contributed to the decline of the
language.
--
Gerard Cunningham abardubh at wwa dot com http://www.wwa.com/~abardubh/
"Let not the Old Glen be harmed,
The place of the slabs of heaven" -Colmcille
Donal O'Sullivan
Andy Harbison wrote:
> Gerard Cunningham wrote:
> >
>
> > Irish is a compulsory subject in the RoI.
> >
> But unfortunately the way it is taught means that many kids find it
> diffcult to learn. The DoEducation here insist on teaching it as if it
> were the primary language spoken in all homes. So they tend to muck
> about with complex grammar when they should be making sure that kids can
> speak simple Irish and then building from there.
Yes, I used to speak Gaelic until a strange man with a big leather strap
began to beat "Irish" into me. The words were similar but the cultural
nuances were different. What was more, I lived with a Presbyterian family
at the time and the compulsory Roman Catholic ethos grated with me. Irish,
as a language, developed in Ireland, post famine. Let's hope that it can
escape its dreadful past - as Irish music has done with the help of Andy
Irvine, Seamus Creagh, Christy Moore and many others. Maybe the Northern
brethern could learn a few new tunes.
Donal
Donal O'Sullivan
Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> tpw...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <6oo2qq$e39$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >>> That's disgusting -- why can't a man be tried in his own language,
> >> the language of his country, an official language of the State?
> >
> > He is; it's called English, which, like everybody else in Ireland, he
> speaks
> >fluently.
>
> How do you know ?
Exactly
Donal
Donal O'Sullivan
tol...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <6oqrv0$pe...@scotty.tinet.ie>,
> The last Irish-speaking monoglots died out a century ago.
>
> Tom
>
I think you mean; they were starved out by English speaking monoglots, Tom.
Donal
tol...@my-dejanews.com
Donal O'Sullivan <osul...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>
> tol...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >
> > The last Irish-speaking monoglots died out a century ago.
> >
> > Tom
> >
>
> I think you mean; they were starved out by English speaking monoglots, Tom.
>
> Donal
Fergus O'Rourke
1998 at 22:45:
>The last Irish-speaking monoglots died out a century ago.
No they did not, even if you refer to those who could not express themselves
adequately in English. There are still quite a few alive who think in Irish,
and
have difficulty with English. Whatever one thinks about the realism of
preserving
or reviving the language, one has to feel sad for those who cannot have
their
own language, which is part of the heritage of all of us and is our first
official
language, used in their own courts of justice.
Aidan Hollinshead
wrote:
>> Don't you see anything wrong with using the historic
>> marginalization of the Irish language to justify further
>> marginalization?
>
>WHAT marginalisation?
>For almost three quarters of a century people have been FORCED to study
>Irish Gaelic, like it or not. Depite this, there are now fewer native Irish
>Gaelic speakers than when we were part of the UK.
How did the number of native speakers change while we were in the UK -
halved maybe?
In theory, the number of people who can speak Irish has doubled from
540 thousand at the time of independence to 1.095 million in 1991.
In any case, people have been forced to study Irish literature and
obscure grammar. Compare how French is now taught in Irish schools
(little or no emphasis given to literature, all of it on being able to
communicate and comprehend), with how Irish was taught till very
recently and still is to some extent (lots of emphasis on poetry, etc.
and not very much on communication) and it's not going to help.
When I left school, I could have discussed metaphysical poetry in
Irish (not fluently) but I wouldn't have been able to order a pizza or
drinks (I still don't konw what the Irish for stout or lager is) to
save my life. Which of these things I'm least likely to do in real
life is pretty obvious.
> >ut clearly people have a preference for their own national
>> language which is understandable.
>>
>Like it or not the laguage of 98%+ of the Irish people is English. Where
>the hell is there a "preference" for Irish Gaelic?
Well, in 1994, 12% of people used Irish daily or several times a week.
To use it that much, you've either got to like it or have a lot of
dealings with other that do. Admittedly, only 5% claimed to be fluent,
but 5% is still almost 200,000 people.
>A few unrepresentatives, who CAN and DO speak English every day of the week
>want the Supreme Court to make a futile and meaningless gesture.
Okay, so Keith, how many people do you believe speak Irish better than
they speak English? Should they have to suffer by either using an
interpreter or using their less favoured tongue due to our
inadequacies in the first official language?
What proportion of Irish citizens do you believe are not sufficiently
fluent in English to follow complex legal arguments - seeing as that
was part of the basis the judges used for their ruling? Remember, in
the case of Irish the judges thought this was about half the
percentage of those in Dublin who claimed to be able to speak Irish.
>They
>failed., and in doing so, they shot themselves in foot! This is , above
>all, a great judgement for common sense.
What about moving the trial to an Irish-speaking area, where a
representative jury could be found that could follow the case in Irish
- would that be fair? (an option I don't believe the judges had)
Aidan
Aidan Hollinshead
wrote:
> That's disgusting -- why can't a man be tried in his own language,
>the language of his country, an official language of the State? And
>what's "unrepresentative" about an Irish-speaking jury in any case?
The law says the jury must be representative of the people in the area
in which the case is being tried. To be able to follow a legal case in
a language, you have to be pretty fluent - the judges reckoned only
10% of the Dublin population would be that fluent. As such, requiring
that a jury be drawn from just 10% of the population was viewed as
unrepresentative. The Irish Times article goes into fairly good detail
about it - here's a passage
"The Chief Justice said the court agreed with the High Court
reasoning that restricting jury service to special groups only or
excluding identifiable segments playing major roles in the
community could not be squared with the constitutional
concept of a jury trial."
I suspect a corollary of this would be if there were to be two large
enough monoglot populations then there could be no jury trials.
Aidan
Donal O'Sullivan
Derek Bell wrote:
> joq...@mindspring.com (James Foster O'Quinn III) writes:
> >Do the schools teach this language any more?
>
> Yes, though many people don't speak it very well, including myself.
> Why is this? I'm not entirely sure, though some blame has been put on the
> teaching methods used.
>
> Derek
> --
> Derek Bell db...@maths.tcd.ie |The road to hell is paved with
> WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html| melting snowballs
> PGP: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/key.asc | -- Larry Wall
Could it be that Irish is dull and of little relevance to our day to day lives
because it is a second class language? If the trial took place in Irish with an
Irish speaking jury, I would certainly read the report - if it was reported that
is.
I remember the "OZ Trial" of 1972 or thereabouts. That is where a group of
people were tried in the Old Bailey for publishing a magazine which was "obscene"
- that is, they were being tried for what they said, for their use of English.
Most of the case was taken up with the meaning of words and some words and syntax
were new.
Irish is thaught as a dead language and it is linked to a myth of saints and
scholars. About fifteen years ago, the Irish ferry, to and from Wales, had the
usual painting of a pastorial scene in Ireland with a donkey in the foreground.
Over the head of the donkey, someone had painted in a halo and it was done so
skillfully that it remained there as if it had been intended.
Am I overstating it by saying that the average person in Ireland watches at least
one court case, every week, on television? - fictional or otherwise - in English,
and in a culture which is not Gaelic.
The decision of the Supreme Court is totally wrong and the members unworthy of
the office. The Gaelic culture has a legal tradition and wisdom going back
thousands of years. The man has a full constitutional right to present his case
to an Irish speaking jury and the citizens have a right to hear it. I feel
strongly about this for some reason or other..
Donal
Harry Merrick
Derek Bell wrote:
>
.................."SNIP".........................................
> >It would be unconstitutional anyway, since Irish is STILL the FIRST
> >language of this country - nice try at a troll - ASSHOLE.
Living both in the North and in Dublin, and working all over Ireland, your sort of
assumption always surprises me! - Since when was Irish the FIRST language? -
English is the only recognised commercial language, and the vast majority of
people within the Republic only have VERY little Irish, on their own admission.
So, how could what you say be unconstitutional? - Even the Constitution had to be
written in English as well! And what would be the point of having a trial in a
language only a few would understand properly?
>
>
> It was decided on the principle that the jury should be representative
> of the area where the trial was held, which is in Dublin.
>
> Derek
> --
>
And Dublin is the very worst place to try to speak Irish. Most of them would
think it was German!!
--
Harry.
ICQ# 2546277.
--
"No Problem Can Stand The Assault Of Sustained Thinking."
Voltaire.
Neil McEwan
>WHAT marginalisation?
>For almost three quarters of a century people have been FORCED to study
>Irish Gaelic, like it or not.
The way that they've been FORCED to study mathematics, chemistry
etc.
>Depite this, there are now fewer native Irish
>Gaelic speakers than when we were part of the UK.
The government has obviously meant well but in some ways has had a
very half-arsed approach to trying to preserve or revive Irish -- the
imposition of an artificial standard on the living dialects (as
vividly described elsewhere by Donal O' Sullivan) is one good example.
>Since when has English been a recognised national lanugage in Iceland?
English is spoken by most people in Iceland. This is a
"recognized" fact. Despite that, trials are not conducted in English.
Why? Because Icelandic, a national language, is a first language and
is preferred. Now if one man in Ireland prefers to speak Irish, a
national language, at his trial despite the fact that most people
understand English (just as he does himself, most likely) he should be
allowed to, for the same reason -- it's his first language, it's a
language unique to Ireland, it's his language of choice.
>Like it or not the laguage of 98%+ of the Irish people is English. Where
>the hell is there a "preference" for Irish Gaelic?
I was comparing the Irishman in question with the Icelanders, not
trying to imply that the Irish as a whole prefer the Irish language to
English -- they clearly don't. But if most Icelanders were to switch
over to English as the general language of daily life I'm sure you'd
agree that Icelandic-language trials would still have to be an option
for those who wanted them.
>A few unrepresentatives, who CAN and DO speak English every day
> of the week
It's a shame not to be able to get by in your own language and in
your own country, isn't it?
Neil
--
mce...@supercity.ns.ca
orm...@my-dejanews.com
Harry Merrick <merr...@agencies.dnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Living both in the North and in Dublin, and working all over Ireland, your
sort of
> assumption always surprises me! - Since when was Irish the FIRST language? -
[ Adopting tone of patient explanation] Because it _says_so_ in the
Constitution...
> English is the only recognised commercial language, and the vast majority of
> people within the Republic only have VERY little Irish, on their own
admission.
... not a document noted for its recognition of reality.
> So, how could what you say be unconstitutional? - Even the Constitution had to
be
> written in English as well! And what would be the point of having a trial in a
> language only a few would understand properly?
There are both Irish and English versions of the Constitution. If the
two are found to be in conflict, then the Irish version takes precedence.
> And Dublin is the very worst place to try to speak Irish. Most of them would
> think it was German!!
I think most Dubliners would recognise it. I just wish to Christ they
didn't insist on mangling it; it's bad enough having to listen to them speak
English.
> Harry.
>
> "No Problem Can Stand The Assault Of Sustained Thinking."
> Voltaire.
Voltaire never visited NI, did he?
--
The Borderites Prayer
Thank God the Border is there to save us from the mad sectarian
bastards.
Jim Riley
> English is spoken by most people in Iceland. This is a
>"recognized" fact. Despite that, trials are not conducted in English.
>Why? Because Icelandic, a national language, is a first language and
>is preferred. Now if one man in Ireland prefers to speak Irish, a
>national language, at his trial despite the fact that most people
>understand English (just as he does himself, most likely) he should be
>allowed to, for the same reason -- it's his first language, it's a
>language unique to Ireland, it's his language of choice.
If the defendant prefers to speak Irish, he should have the right to use
that language if he chooses to testify in his own behalf, with the court
providing translation so that the jurors can effectively discharge their
duties. But I would hope that the same would be true if the defendant
only spoke Tagalog. Likewise, the defendant should have the right to
Irish-speaking counsel. If he is not fluent in English, he should have
the right to have all testimony translated for him. But what sort of
presumption is it that the defendant can not have a fair trial if some
of the jurors do not understand Irish?
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
>It would be unconstitutional anyway, since Irish is STILL the FIRST
>language of this country - nice try at a troll - ASSHOLE.
Would you happen to know whether a criminal trial is an 'official
purpose'?
Article 8.
1.The Irish language as the national language is the first official
language.
2.The English language is recognized as a second official language.
3.Provision may, however, be made by law for the exclusive use of either
of the said languages for any one or more official purposes, either
throughout the State or in any part thereof.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
>On 15 Jul 1998 22:16:45 GMT, "Keith G.Mills" <kei...@xxxtinet.ie>
>wrote:
>>A Gaelic speaking Tallaght man charged with robbery, had appealed to the
>>Supreme Court that his case be heard by a jury which understood Irish
>>Gaelic. The Supreme Court threw out his appeal, on the grounds that it was
>>unreasonable to expect a jury made of Irish people to understand a case in
>>Irish Gaelic, and that if such a jury COULD be assembled, that it would be
>>unrepresentative of the Irish people.
> That's disgusting -- why can't a man be tried in his own language,
>the language of his country, an official language of the State? And
>what's "unrepresentative" about an Irish-speaking jury in any case?
Don't all citizens have a right to be jurors? Is there any basis for
dismissing jurors other than bias with respect to a particular case?
Can bias be presumed on a class basis? What would you say if a
defendant demanded an all Fine Gael jury, an all white jury, an all
Catholic jury? That they are "unrepresentative"?
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
> The Irish Times article goes into fairly good detail
>about it - here's a passage
>
>"The Chief Justice said the court agreed with the High Court
>reasoning that restricting jury service to special groups only or
>excluding identifiable segments playing major roles in the
>community could not be squared with the constitutional
>concept of a jury trial."
>
>I suspect a corollary of this would be if there were to be two large
>enough monoglot populations then there could be no jury trials.
There would have to be translation, just as if other key players (such
as the defendant or witnesses) were monoglot.
--
Jim Riley
Derek Bell
>The decision of the Supreme Court is totally wrong and the members unworthy of
>the office.
On what basis do you say this? The jury had to be representative of
people in the area that the trial is held in - Dublin - which has 10% or less
of the population
The Supreme Court holds that the requirement that the jury be
representative of the area the trial is held in.
>The Gaelic culture has a legal tradition and wisdom going back
>thousands of years. The man has a full constitutional right to present his
>case to an Irish speaking jury and the citizens have a right to hear it.
I'm afraid that the laws in effect are not the same ones you appeal
to.
Derek Bell
> English is spoken by most people in Iceland. This is a
>"recognized" fact. Despite that, trials are not conducted in English.
>Why? Because Icelandic, a national language, is a first language and
>is preferred.
What does the Icelandic constitution (and indeed Icelandic law) say
about the languages in question and about juries?
>Now if one man in Ireland prefers to speak Irish, a
>national language, at his trial despite the fact that most people
>understand English (just as he does himself, most likely) he should be
>allowed to, for the same reason -- it's his first language, it's a
>language unique to Ireland, it's his language of choice.
He can speak Irish, he just can't have a jury of highly-fluent speakers
for his trial. Looking at the article, the court decided that having a
translator was the best solution.
Donal O'Sullivan
Jim Riley wrote:
You are talking a lot of crap and I am in a hurry. There is no right in the
constitution for the Catholic Church nor the Fine Gael party nor race. There is
for the Irish language. As for translation, read 'The Opium Wars' by Brian
Inglis if you think that language can be seperated from culture.
Donal
Aidan Hollinshead
wrote:
>> English is spoken by most people in Iceland. This is a
>>"recognized" fact. Despite that, trials are not conducted in English.
>>Why? Because Icelandic, a national language, is a first language and
>>is preferred. Now if one man in Ireland prefers to speak Irish, a
>>national language, at his trial despite the fact that most people
>>understand English (just as he does himself, most likely) he should be
>>allowed to, for the same reason -- it's his first language, it's a
>>language unique to Ireland, it's his language of choice.
>
>If the defendant prefers to speak Irish, he should have the right to use
>that language if he chooses to testify in his own behalf, with the court
>providing translation so that the jurors can effectively discharge their
>duties. But I would hope that the same would be true if the defendant
>only spoke Tagalog.
But Tagalog isn't an official language of Ireland, Irish is. The fact
most of us couldn't follow a case in it is the problem.
As for the question you posed in another post about a trial being an
official purpose, I think they might run into some problems there. One
would be that legislation making it an 'official purpose' may have to
apply to all cases. The judge's objection that the jury would be
unrepresentative of the people of Dublin by insisting they speak Irish
wouldn't apply in Gaeltacht areas, so any trial held there could not
be restricted to English. I wouldn't envy the legislators trying to
legislate on that one.
A reminder of the relevant wording Jim posted
'3.Provision may, however, be made by law for the exclusive use of
either of the said languages for any one or more official purposes,
either throughout the State or in any part thereof. '
>Likewise, the defendant should have the right to
>Irish-speaking counsel. If he is not fluent in English, he should have
>the right to have all testimony translated for him. But what sort of
>presumption is it that the defendant can not have a fair trial if some
>of the jurors do not understand Irish?
It presumes that a translator cannot perfectly emulate everything that
a speaker says. I don't think any translator would claim they could.
As such, translated evidence loses something in the translation.
Don't psychologists claim that the words of a conversation account for
about 10% of what we perceive, the intonation 30% and the body
language 60%? Translation can probably do a good job on the words, but
the other two? Who honestly believes they could judge as well whether
someone was lying through a translator as if they understood the real
words?
I certainly didn't envy the judges in having to decide, they were
stuck with a choice between two wrong answers, unless maybe they could
have transferred the case to an Irish-speaking area.
Aidan
Donal O'Sullivan
Derek Bell wrote:
> Donal O'Sullivan <osul...@iol.ie> writes:
> >The decision of the Supreme Court is totally wrong and the members unworthy of
> >the office.
>
> On what basis do you say this?
The decision of the Supreme Court is totally wrong because Irish is the first
language of the state and the citizen has a general right to plead his or her case
to a jury, in Irish and in public, and the citizens have a right to hear such a
plea. The imposition of a translator is a denial of such right.
The members of the Supreme Court are unworthy of the office as they have washed
their hands of the problem. They have a duty to ensure that a citizen has a fair
trial and they have dismissed this on the grounds that it would be inconvenient.
> The jury had to be representative of
> people in the area that the trial is held in - Dublin - which has 10% or less
> of the population
By people, I presume you mean citizens.The state has a duty to recognise Irish as
the first language and if it has failed to provide the citizens, locally, with a
capacity to understand and speak the Irish language, then the plaintiff has a right
to insist that the case be moved to a place where he can get a fair trial and the
state must pay any and all extra costs in so providing a fair trial.
The state may have failed in providing the citizens with a capacity to speak Irish
through incompetence, negligence or even collusion. The decision of the Supreme
Court smacks of collusion. We are used to blaming the English for the holocaust of
the famine in the middle of the last century and the near extermination of the
Gaelic culture - the British Prime Minister has even acknowledged such with an
apology. What is never recognised is the degree of collusion with which certain
groups of Irish allowed the mere, Gaelic speaking, Irish face the 'natural order of
things' and die of starvation.
It is well documented that many Irish, who could afford it, made sure that their
children learned English and it is well documented that those children adopted the
English perspective of the Gaelic speaking Irish as ignorant and uncouth and very
many of those English speaking Irish preferred the professions as a career, and in
particular, law.
The magazine 'Punch' at the time of the famine used to portray the mere Irish as
ape like creatures - big jaws, long arms and a vacant stare. However, the mere
Irish did not read Punch and were unknown to their readers. The readers were,
however, familiar with the aspiring English speaking Irish and it may have raised a
smile in England to see them represented as aping their betters - I may be seeing
wit here where none was intended.
>
>
> The Supreme Court holds that the requirement that the jury be
> representative of the area the trial is held in.
>
> >The Gaelic culture has a legal tradition and wisdom going back
> >thousands of years. The man has a full constitutional right to present his
> >case to an Irish speaking jury and the citizens have a right to hear it.
>
> I'm afraid that the laws in effect are not the same ones you appeal
> to.
The "laws in effect" are not the issue here. If I was before a jury in an English
court, I might better plead and illustrate my case by reference with Shakespeare,
Chaucer and the long history of English mores and tradition - and in a heartfelt
way in the case of a prison sentence.
When Bobby Sands, MP, died of hunger, the Indian Parliament stood in silence and
respect. The Brehon law practice of fasting outside the alleged wrongdoer's door
was common in India until British rule - not that many people died but rather that
the process speeded up settlement. To allow the plaintiff die was a disgrace only
the lowest of the low would countenance. The Caelic Brehon laws and practice and
the Brahmin laws have a common origin as has the Irish language and both are older
than the English form and language. I do not advocate fasting nor capital
punishment.
Peaceful and democratic means are not just for wimps.
(Caitlin answers the charges...)
Judge: Speak up, please.
Caitlin: Mary had a little lamb, Sir,
Is all that I can say,
For Irish is my language.
Iss ba voor on fuck shin ae.
Judge: That is not the language of the court.
If a German, you speak German
Or Spanish, if in Spain,
But if you're Irish, you speak English
And I hope I've made that plain.
Caitlin: Yes, My Lord.
Regards,
Donal.
PS I sent this reply some days ago but it never arrived. The above is more or less
as the original.
* It is not nature that we see, but nature exposed to our line of questioning -
what if truth be a woman? *
Red Branch Knight
wrote:
>When Bobby Sands, MP, died of hunger, the Indian Parliament stood in silence and
>respect.
I just laughed. Nah, only kidding.. I wasn't old enough... Another
reason to wish I was born in the early 60's.. Could have enjoyed Spain
'82 more and also appreciated Bobby and the other shit smearing
blanket men commit suicide while the Roman Catholic church and the
vast majority of Roman catholics cheered them on.
Jerry
05/01/76 - Ten Protestant workers were murdered in Kingsmill, south Armagh by the IRA.
The works bus was stopped and the Catholic driver seperated from his passengers who were
lined up and machine gunned. Sinn Fein couldn't find it in their hearts to condemn this
slaughter.
Martin Hanna
On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Red Branch Knight wrote:
> >When Bobby Sands, MP, died of hunger, the Indian Parliament stood in silence and
> >respect.
>
> I just laughed. Nah, only kidding.. I wasn't old enough... Another
> reason to wish I was born in the early 60's.. Could have enjoyed Spain
> '82 more and also appreciated Bobby and the other shit smearing
> blanket men commit suicide while the Roman Catholic church and the
> vast majority of Roman catholics cheered them on.
The vast majority of catholics cheered on the IRA??? What evidence do you
have for this or are you still talking out of your arse? Proof please.
##############################################################################
# Jerry Martin (jer...@brave.dnet.co.uk) and his support for terrorism #
##############################################################################
# The LVF is a proscribed (illegal) terrorist organisation. Up until his #
# death in 1997, Billy Wright was its leader. #
#----------------------------------------------------------------------------#
# On the LVF plus the LVF's plans to attack Dublin: #
# "in order to make an impact and stop the evilness of SF-IRA the only way #
# to do it is by killing nationalists" (21 Oct 97) #
# "Onward to victory" (30 Dec 97) #
# "you might get a nice surprise very soon :-)" (30 Dec 98) #
# "it's time for our southern neighbours to pay the price for interference" #
# "I look forward to the day when bombs explode in Dublin on a daily #
# basis." (06 Jan 98) #
# #
# On Billy Wright: #
# "a person whom I happened to admire" (30 Dec 97) #
# "Well, are you of the opinion that Billy Wright was a murderer? Yes or #
# No? I most certainly am. (22 July 98) #
# #
# His sectarian bigoted views on Catholics: #
# "It's the Roman catholic way of life in Ireland: The bomb, the ballot #
# box and the confessional. #
##############################################################################
dere...@my-dejanews.com
>washed their hands of the problem.
They have not washed their hands of the decision - they have passed a
judgement. If you want to change the situation, I suggest you take up a case.
>They have a duty to ensure that a citizen has a fair trial and they have
>dismissed this on the grounds that it would be inconvenient.
He's having a trial, via an interpreter. How is having a translator a
denial of the right to a fair trial?
> The "laws in effect" are not the issue here.
I thought you were claiming that the law (in this case the Constitution)
contradicted the Supreme Court ruling? Or were you citing the Brehon laws?
(which are not the law of the land, no matter how much you wish they were.)
>If I was before a jury in an English court, I might better plead and illustrate
>my case by reference with Shakespeare, Chaucer and the long history of English
>mores and tradition - and in a heartfelt way in the case of a prison sentence.
You would also be well advised to refer to the laws that the English
court follows - no amount of literary rhetoric will help you if the facts and
the law are against you.
Mick Fealty
<db...@maths.tcd.ie> writes
>
> I'm afraid that the laws in effect are not the same ones you appeal
>to.
>
Then perhaps, like the old law permitting capital punishment, this is
time for a change. And what this island needs is genuine change, right
across the board.
--
Mick Fealty
Fergus O'Rourke
Gerard Cunningham
[..]
>More than inconvenient: impossible to have jury of Gaeilgeoiri only
>which would be truly random. Without the latter quality, the trial would
>not be fair, remembering that fairness does not mean biased in favour of
>the accused.
Why not move the trial to a venue in the Gaeltacht?
[..]
>>then the plaintiff
>
>the accused, I assume
Presumably, he was the plaintiff in the case the SC heard, as well as
the accused in the underlying criminal case.
>>has a right to insist that the case be moved to a place where he can
>>get a fair trial and the state must pay any and all extra costs in so
>>providing a fair trial.
>
>Arguable all right; was this suggestion explicitly rejected by the SC ? I
>did read the report, but can't remember
IIRC, the SC only addressed the feasibility of finding an Irish jury
in Dublin. (Interestingly, I don't think they addressed the
feasibility of finding an Irish speaking court in Dublin. How many
judges speak Irish? How many barristers? Solicitors? Court clerks
etc?)
[..]
>The truth is that the Irish people have become a cultural subset of the
>Anglo-American culture ...
>Oh, there are exceptions. And perhaps the exceptions are quite
>numerous in spots, but I see no evidence that they are anywhere
>near a majority in any substantial area.
You need to get outside Dublin a bit more... :)
--
Gerard Cunningham abardubh at wwa dot com
http://www.wwa.com/~abardubh/
"Let not the Old Glen be harmed,
The place of the slabs of heaven" -Colmcille
Rena Hayne
Gerard Cunningham wrote in message
>IIRC, the SC only addressed the feasibility of finding an Irish jury
>in Dublin. (Interestingly, I don't think they addressed the
>feasibility of finding an Irish speaking court in Dublin. How many
>judges speak Irish? How many barristers? Solicitors? Court clerks
>etc?)
Good point Ger
Rena Hayne
Fergus O'Rourke
>Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>
eptions. And perhaps the exceptions are quite
I live in Cork. You are in Chicago, ISTR
Gerard Cunningham
Still makes you the townie, only a jackeen-wannabe instead of a
jackeen in this case.
Second city me arse!
Greig
> Second city me arse!
>
> --
> Gerard Cunningham abardubh at wwa dot com
> http://www.wwa.com/~abardubh/
> "Let not the Old Glen be harmed,
> The place of the slabs of heaven" -Colmcille
It had better Lord Mayors.
Greig
Roger
>On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:39:23 +0100, Donal O'Sullivan <osul...@iol.ie>
>wrote:
>>When Bobby Sands, MP, died of hunger, the Indian Parliament stood in silence and
>>respect.
>I just laughed. Nah, only kidding..
Did you not? I know I thought that he deserved no better at the time.
The guys in my school were cheering and shouting around a radio
listening to the morning news. Although most of us were only 11 at the
time, noone could believe that the IRA were committing suicide. That
was a marvelous day. Pity they gave the rest of the turd artists their
flares in the end.
>I wasn't old enough... Another
>reason to wish I was born in the early 60's..
On the grounds of not being able to fully appreciate the Donovan years
I would agree.
>Could have enjoyed Spain '82 more
Still, it was brilliant. Arconada......Armstrong!!!! I will never
forget that evening. Did you see 'One night in Valencia'? Classic!
>and also appreciated Bobby and
>the other shit smearing blanket men commit suicide while the Roman
>Catholic church and the vast majority of Roman catholics cheered them on.
Hmmm...Basil Hume said that it was suicide. But then again he was only
a brit. So I suppose they wouldn't have considered him a real Roman
Catholic. Double standards for a change?
Roger
Martin Hanna
> mush...@beatitsonny.com (Red Branch Knight) wrote:
>
> >and also appreciated Bobby and
> >the other shit smearing blanket men commit suicide while the Roman
> >Catholic church and the vast majority of Roman catholics cheered them on.
For the second time, what evidence do you have that the vast majority
of Roman Catholics cheered on the IRA or are you still talking out of your
arse? Proof please.
##############################################################################
# Jerry Martin (jer...@brave.dnet.co.uk) and his support for terrorism #
##############################################################################
# The LVF is a proscribed (illegal) terrorist organisation. Up until his #
# death in 1997, Billy Wright was its leader. #
#----------------------------------------------------------------------------#
# On the LVF plus the LVF's plans to attack Dublin: #
# "in order to make an impact and stop the evilness of SF-IRA the only way #
# to do it is by killing nationalists" (21 Oct 97) #
# "Onward to victory" (30 Dec 97) #
# "you might get a nice surprise very soon :-)" (30 Dec 98) #
# "it's time for our southern neighbours to pay the price for interference" #
# "I look forward to the day when bombs explode in Dublin on a daily #
# basis." (06 Jan 98) #
# #
# On Billy Wright: #
# "a person whom I happened to admire" (30 Dec 97) #
# "Well, are you of the opinion that Billy Wright was a murderer? Yes or #
# No? I most certainly am. (22 July 98) #
# #
# His sectarian bigoted views on Catholics: #
# "It's the Roman catholic way of life in Ireland: The bomb, the ballot #
# box and the confessional. (29 July 98) #
##############################################################################
Brendan Heading
Martin Hanna <admn...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes
>> >and also appreciated Bobby and
>> >the other shit smearing blanket men commit suicide while the Roman
>> >Catholic church and the vast majority of Roman catholics cheered them on.
>
>For the second time, what evidence do you have that the vast majority
>of Roman Catholics cheered on the IRA or are you still talking out of your
>arse? Proof please.
Your efforts are appreciated, Marty, but cannae ye jest killfile the
mutha ? It is like flogging an especially old, dead, maggot-eaten and
largely decomposing horse.
--
Brendan Heading (brendan at heading dot demon dot co dot uk)
===Please remove the spamguard to reply====
NB : I am a spokesman for *no* organisation or movement.
"Growth for it's own sake is the ideology of a cancer"
- Edward Abbey
Martin Hanna
On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Brendan Heading wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.98080...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
> Martin Hanna <admn...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes
>
> >> >and also appreciated Bobby and
> >> >the other shit smearing blanket men commit suicide while the Roman
> >> >Catholic church and the vast majority of Roman catholics cheered them on.
> >
> >For the second time, what evidence do you have that the vast majority
> >of Roman Catholics cheered on the IRA or are you still talking out of your
> >arse? Proof please.
>
> Your efforts are appreciated, Marty, but cannae ye jest killfile the
> mutha ? It is like flogging an especially old, dead, maggot-eaten and
> largely decomposing horse.
Jerry Martin has said he isnt the Jerry Martin of old who posted pro LVF
and bomb Dublin messages. Just recently he's been spewing out more
anti-catholic posts. Even you noted his constant reference to religion in
a thread when no-one else mentioned religion. I think it's highly obvious
that he's deeply sectarian and only biting his tongue on his pro
terrorist opinions. I'm not going to let him slander my religion. Perhaps
you dont mind, perhaps you arent that religious but I wont stand idly by
and see him make false statements about northern catholics.
Martin.
"in order to make an impact and stop the evilness of SF-IRA the only way
to do it is by killing nationalists" (21 Oct 97) - Jerry Martin.
Greig
> I think it's highly obvious
> that he's deeply sectarian and only biting his tongue on his pro
> terrorist opinions. I'm not going to let him slander my religion. Perhaps
> you dont mind, perhaps you arent that religious but I wont stand idly by
> and see him make false statements about northern catholics.
>
> Martin.
>
> "in order to make an impact and stop the evilness of SF-IRA the only way
> to do it is by killing nationalists" (21 Oct 97) - Jerry Martin.
People need to say all sectarian killing is wrong regardless who does
it. The idea of their being *any* legitimacy to sectarian killing is a
devious and foul construct.
Greig
slau...@kingsmill.co.uk
wrote:
>mush...@beatitsonny.com (Red Branch Knight) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:39:23 +0100, Donal O'Sullivan <osul...@iol.ie>
>>wrote:
>
>
>>>When Bobby Sands, MP, died of hunger, the Indian Parliament stood in silence and
>>>respect.
>
>>I just laughed. Nah, only kidding..
>
>Did you not? I know I thought that he deserved no better at the time.
No, I was too young. I would have though.. I do now.
>The guys in my school were cheering and shouting around a radio
>listening to the morning news. Although most of us were only 11 at the
>time, noone could believe that the IRA were committing suicide. That
>was a marvelous day. Pity they gave the rest of the turd artists their
>flares in the end.
>
>>I wasn't old enough... Another
>>reason to wish I was born in the early 60's..
>
>On the grounds of not being able to fully appreciate the Donovan years
>I would agree.
Spot on. The man is v. groovy.. Does he live in Galway? or is it Mayo?
or maybe Sligo? Let's pop in and say hi :)
>
>>Could have enjoyed Spain '82 more
>
>Still, it was brilliant. Arconada......Armstrong!!!! I will never
>forget that evening. Did you see 'One night in Valencia'? Classic!
Yep, I taped the second showing. Best night ever. I actually do
remember that game. It was better than the shit smearing blanket boys
but they were still good :)
>
>>and also appreciated Bobby and
>>the other shit smearing blanket men commit suicide while the Roman
>>Catholic church and the vast majority of Roman catholics cheered them on.
>
>Hmmm...Basil Hume said that it was suicide. But then again he was only
>a brit. So I suppose they wouldn't have considered him a real Roman
>Catholic. Double standards for a change?
Sheesh, watch yourself Roger. that's a terrible thing to suggest.
So, the 5 to 2's for the County Antrim this year?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bye
Fair enough, I'll stay here and talk shit. - Greg Carlin 16/05/98
Brendan Heading
Martin Hanna <admn...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes
>> Your efforts are appreciated, Marty, but cannae ye jest killfile the
>> mutha ? It is like flogging an especially old, dead, maggot-eaten and
>> largely decomposing horse.
>
>Jerry Martin has said he isnt the Jerry Martin of old who posted pro LVF
>and bomb Dublin messages. Just recently he's been spewing out more
>anti-catholic posts. Even you noted his constant reference to religion in
>that he's deeply sectarian and only biting his tongue on his pro
>terrorist opinions. I'm not going to let him slander my religion. Perhaps
>you dont mind, perhaps you arent that religious but I wont stand idly by
>and see him make false statements about northern catholics.
I don't disagree with anything you are writing, and hell yeah, we don't
know what the guy is like in real life. I think he is largely a troll
and therefore it is inherently pointless trying to argue with him.
Whenever I ask him a hard question both he and that Roger guy don't even
bother responding. He and Greig keep each other going, and are capable
of doing so because no particular degree of intellectual endeavour is
required for it.
Brendan Heading
slau...@kingsmill.co.uk writes
>>On the grounds of not being able to fully appreciate the Donovan years
>>I would agree.
>
>Spot on. The man is v. groovy.. Does he live in Galway? or is it Mayo?
>or maybe Sligo? Let's pop in and say hi :)
Did anyone noticed that the first letters of the months from June
onwards spell out the name of a certain crap "pop star" ? Spooky or
what.
Gregory
<bre...@heading.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't disagree with anything you are writing, and hell yeah, we don't
> know what the guy is like in real life. I think he is largely a troll
> and therefore it is inherently pointless trying to argue with him.
> Whenever I ask him a hard question both he and that Roger guy don't even
> bother responding. He and Greig keep each other going, and are capable
> of doing so because no particular degree of intellectual endeavour is
> required for it.
>
> --
> Brendan Heading (brendan at heading dot demon dot co dot uk)
*You* are still replying to him AFAIK, I have him on killfile. Ditto the
rest of the ultra rightists.
Greig
Gregory
Unki
> >Spot on. The man is v. groovy.. Does he live in Galway? or is it Mayo?
> >or maybe Sligo? Let's pop in and say hi :)
He lives in Dalkey in Dublin.
unki
Alan D Red
>> mush...@beatitsonny.com (Red Branch Knight) wrote:
Hanna youre fulloshit
~~~~~~~~~
Goldenhole.
~~~~~~~~~~
Alan D Rhode Island Red
Alan D Red
>In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.980804...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
>Martin Hanna <admn...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes
>>> Your efforts are appreciated, Marty, but cannae ye jest killfile the
>>> mutha ? It is like flogging an especially old, dead, maggot-eaten and
>>> largely decomposing horse.
>>
>>Jerry Martin has said he isnt the Jerry Martin of old who posted pro LVF
>>and bomb Dublin messages. Just recently he's been spewing out more
>>anti-catholic posts. Even you noted his constant reference to religion in
>>a thread when no-one else mentioned religion. I think it's highly obvious
>>that he's deeply sectarian and only biting his tongue on his pro
>>terrorist opinions. I'm not going to let him slander my religion. Perhaps
>>you dont mind, perhaps you arent that religious but I wont stand idly by
>>and see him make false statements about northern catholics.
>I don't disagree with anything you are writing, and hell yeah, we don't
>know what the guy is like in real life. I think he is largely a troll
>and therefore it is inherently pointless trying to argue with him.
>Whenever I ask him a hard question both he and that Roger guy don't even
>bother responding. He and Greig keep each other going, and are capable
>of doing so because no particular degree of intellectual endeavour is
>required for it.
>--
>Brendan Heading (brendan at heading dot demon dot co dot uk)
He has a much more light hearted outlook on the situation
than most.
Ive asked him to marry me.
Martin Hanna
On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Alan D Red wrote:
> Martin Hanna <admn...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> mush...@beatitsonny.com (Red Branch Knight) wrote:
> Hanna youre [snip]
When you evolve, come back with a more intelligent response. Also, if you
cannot hack Jerry's own comments then I suggest you take it up with him.
I personally am curious as to what evidence he has that, in his own words,
"the vast majority of Roman catholics cheered [on the IRA]" (29 July 98)
Gavin Bailey
<bre...@heading.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Did anyone noticed that the first letters of the months from June
>onwards spell out the name of a certain crap "pop star" ? Spooky or
>what.
Strange. The letters errajlehcimnaej also spell out the name of a
certain crap pop star backwards, possession of whos records has been a
crime against musical taste for some time.
Would you care to make a statement to the People's Criminal
Re-Education Committee (Tactical Music Squad) at this stage?
Gavin Bailey
Gavin Bailey
>It had better Lord Mayors.
They really knew how to loose weight in those days.
Gavin Bailey
Greig
70/73 in Belfast, that would be certainly true Martin. Nothing to be
ashamed off at all the IRA were fighting a depraved shower of homocidal
and utterly degenerate dogfucks. Who gives a toss what protestant
rightists think anyway, their disgusting thing is for the bin, their
ideology finished.
Put them on killfile!
Greig
--
"The injuries we do and those we suffer
are seldom weighed in the same scales."
Aesop.
Alan D Red
>On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Alan D Red wrote:
>> Martin Hanna <admn...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> mush...@beatitsonny.com (Red Branch Knight) wrote:
>> Hanna youre [snip]
>When you evolve, come back with a more intelligent response. Also, if you
>cannot hack Jerry's own comments then I suggest you take it up with him.
>I personally am curious as to what evidence he has that, in his own words,
>"the vast majority of Roman catholics cheered [on the IRA]" (29 July 98)
Fuck off ya glipe and get a life. Too long in Dpatrick. You
need to see the world
Martin Hanna
On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Alan D Red wrote:
> Martin Hanna <admn...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >I personally am curious as to what evidence he has that, in his own words,
>
> >"the vast majority of Roman catholics cheered [on the IRA]" (29 July 98)
>
> Fu.. [snip]
Still having problems I see. Never mind. I just thought you were
interested in exposing liars and spoofers. Maybe you are comfortable with
Jerry's ridiculous comment. Still no word from Jerry also.
> You need to see the world
...says you living in Northern Ireland to me living outside Northern
Ireland. Congratulations. You've perfected self-irony to a tee.
Brendan Heading
<gavin....@dial.pipex.co.uk> writes
>On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 20:17:56 +0100, Brendan Heading
><bre...@heading.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Did anyone noticed that the first letters of the months from June
>>onwards spell out the name of a certain crap "pop star" ? Spooky or
>>what.
>
>Strange. The letters errajlehcimnaej also spell out the name of a
>certain crap pop star backwards,
JmJ is a popstar ? I haven't seen a record of his in the charts in
*yonks*, at least not until he sold out over the World Cup thing. And at
least his managers never tried to rig the charts to get him in.
> possession of whos records has been a
>crime against musical taste for some time.
Oh, touchy! Gavin's a Jason Donovan fan!
>Would you care to make a statement to the People's Criminal
>Re-Education Committee (Tactical Music Squad) at this stage?
Yes, I'd play them my Clockwork Orange soundtrack.
--
Brendan Heading (brendan at heading dot demon dot co dot uk)
Alan D Red
Errr Martin I havent been stuck here all my life you know
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alain De Rouge
The Dogs DooDoo
###############
Donal O'Sullivan
tinsel town theme park - a mere curiosity of European civilization - I will point out
one or two things:
The practice of putting a lighted candle in the window is not an Irish tradition. It is
a Christmas card notion imposed on a deep folk memory. From the time of the famine until
about forty years ago lights did go out in country homes as parents died while awaiting
the return of their emigrant children and neighbours were very aware of it.
I know of a young English family who came to Ireland to raise their three children. I
remember those children as they sat on the landing and watched, late at night, their
father play chess with the visitor. Some months later the house caught fire from a
candle in the window and the three children died. They had the damn fool notion that
putting a lighted candle in the window was an Irish tradition.
> dere...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <35BF17FB...@iol.ie>,
> > Donal O'Sullivan <osul...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
> > > The "laws in effect" are not the issue here.
> >
> > I thought you were claiming that the law (in this case the Constitution)
> > contradicted the Supreme Court ruling? Or were you citing the Brehon laws?
This concept, 'the laws in effect', with regard to constitutional matters is peculiarly
English. The Irish constitution is written, the English constitution is not - it is
governed by 'convention' - by usage, by tradition and by the English language. The
British constitution is 'the laws in effect'.
The Irish constitution is a written document which may be altered, in writing, by the
majority vote of its citizens. It may not be altered by any powerful minority group as
has been the case with the British constitution.
The man is denied the right to a fair trial on the same basis that a powerful minority
washed their hands of the ignorant and backward, Gaelic speaking people who starved in
the famine - that is, it would be inconvenient to feed them.
The recognition of the Irish language as the first language of the state is made plain
in the Irish constitution, and, by implication, the traditions and usage of that
language.
Leona MacDonald
Donal O'Sullivan wrote in message <35D2B8EA...@iol.ie>...
>Before this topic dies out with the Irish language and Gaelic culture
becomes some
>tinsel town theme park - a mere curiosity of European civilization - I will
point out
>one or two things:
>
>The practice of putting a lighted candle in the window is not an Irish
tradition. It is
>a Christmas card notion imposed on a deep folk memory. From the time of the
famine until
>about forty years ago lights did go out in country homes as parents died
while awaiting
>the return of their emigrant children and neighbours were very aware of it.
>
Emm..isn't it a Christmas tradition in Ireland to put a candle in the window
to light the way for the Christ child? I thought THAT was.
--
......
Leona~~Just posting shite..