Opinion

Irish language act must represent good value for public money

As the independent Irish language advocacy group in the north, Pobal believes that it is now clear Westminster must introduce Irish language legislation. Since the breakdown of the talks process before the deadline, comments made by various politicians show that there was no realistic discussion of this matter between those supporting the act and those opposed. This is in spite of several discussion papers and costings being published by politicians and others which would, if put into effect, considerably limit the range and usefulness of the legislation. If these were attempts to promote discussion, we welcome them. However, as an attempt to woo opponents of Irish, they have failed.

Irish speakers have expressed concern to us that some of these documents leave out key areas, propose weak solutions to complex issues and project the costs of the act at what may be unrealistically low levels. Pobal believes that the Irish language act must represent good value for public money but this can only be measured by cost-benefit analysis looking at the advantages and potential of the legislation to promote equality, generate wealth and improve services for all.

Pobal has consistently called for the implementation of our comprehensive, realistic and reasonable proposals, contained in the document Acht na Gaeilge TÉ Eis II /The Irish Language Act Issue II as the basis of any act. This is because these proposals have been drafted with generous advice from some of the world’s foremost experts in language law. They have been the subject of numerous community discussions and in government-led consultations they have consistently been given exceptional levels of support by Irish speakers themselves. Getting agreement to implement the St Andrews commitment on Irish language legislation is only the start of what may be a lengthy process of discussion, debate and negotiation. If the bar is set too low at this stage it will be much more difficult to achieve effective legislation which will create a significant number of guaranteed rights and services and clarify for government bodies what they need to do and when.

Weak legislation would only lead to confusion and frustration and we call on the Irish speaking community to send out a clear message to all that we have waited long enough to be taken seriously. Politicians who support the introduction of legislation must stand firm in the knowledge that the Irish speaking community will not be satisfied with tokenism, however well intentioned.

JANET MULLER


Stiúrthóir Pobal, Beal Feirste BT12

Israel is only democratic country in the wider Middle East

Eugene Parte’s letter ‘Bedouin demolition’ (March 14) is very misleading. He puts forward propaganda as fact. To compare the situation in Israel with the apartheid era in South Africa and their Bantustans is far-fetched.

One needs to understand the history, background, context of what is happening and to be factually correct in your statements. Mr Parte ignores these matters. Out of approximately 240,000 Bedouin in Israel roughly 160,000 are now settled with their consent --given land – which no other country has ever done. Most Bedouin now have access to clean water, electric , schools, health centres and are attached to the Israeli registration and tax system. This type of entry to the 21st century living standards cannot be provided if people are living in unregistered places. The Bedouin who move to new registered hamlets can continue to herd their flock as they wish.


Recently I went to a talk by a Bedouin who had finished serving for three years with the Israeli embassy in London. This Bedouin man went around the UK trying to counter the type of misrepresentation in Mr Parte’s letter.

There are Bedouin trackers working with the Israeli defence forces and putting their Bedouin lives on the line to secure Israel’s border against the mounting threat from Egypt’s Sinai.

There are Bedouin doctors, teachers, lawyers and University students being trained in Israel. Illegal structures are only taken down as a last resort and after all legal processes are exhausted. Mr Parte does not mention that recently an illegal Jewish settlement on the West Bank was taken down by Israel.

There are many Israelis both Jews, Moslems and Christians who have spent their lives trying to cope with the problems involved, and many in the Bedouin community are helping in this process.

Israel is the only democratic country in the wider Middle East and all citizens have access to an Independent Judiciary and an inquisitive press.

M JAFFA


Bury, England

Moment of opportunity for people of Ireland

The sincerity of Britain’s prime minister Theresa May should not be taken lightly when she said she is a devout believer in delivering a fair and just society for the people of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Surely this is a moment of opportunity to offer the Republic an invitation to rejoin Britain.

The level-headed people of the Republic who possess any common sense must realise that if, or when – it is fair to assume, it’s more when than if – the EU collapses where do they go?

People like Gerry Adams and Nicola Sturgeon are hood-winking their electorate by having the audacity to mention the very words ‘national independence’ when at the same time they are devout believers of EU membership with their countries being governed by 27 foreign nations.

Should Ireland accept an invitation to join Britain it would be the greatest beneficiary. Besides the economic benefits the people of the 32 counties of Ireland would come together – and who could object to that ?

HARRY STEPHENSON


Kircubbin, Co Down

Talks are a matter of trust

It is noticeable that Naomi Long, SDLP and the unionist parties are pointing the finger at Sinn Féin for the talks running aground. For some reason they think that progress can be made and yet one has to question the bona fides of


the DUP.

Agreements made between SF and the DUP and Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) in 2006 are still outstanding. HMG says it was a different HMG and DUP say they may have signed but they didn’t agree to the agreement.

So how does SF trust that what they sign up to this time, both the British government and DUP won’t say later, ‘yes we may have signed that but we don’t agree with it’?

Can SF or any of the other parties trust the DUP?

PATRICK J DORRIAN


Belfast BT15

Expression of gratitude

I am addressing The Irish News to praise and thank the Royal Victoria Hospital Maternity Services and generally speaking our fantastic NHS following my family’s experience.


My daughter Francisca delivered a healthy baby in February and the whole process, GPs,  nurses, midwives, doctors, receptionists, cleaners, auxiliaries, catering was extremely perfect. We also could witness the same experience with other families as well. I believe our experience was not an exception to the rule. It was a pattern of the best professionals who care for their patients and love their jobs.

VICTOR MARDONES


Carryduff, Co Down