28 August 1997 Edition
Na hUncail Tomáis
By Laurence McKeown
When the panel of speakers on Questions and Answers, a discussion held during Féile an Phobail, were asked if they thought that a united Ireland would only be achieved once Catholics were in the majority, Norman Porter, representing the unionist tradition, said that if such were to happen it would signal the death of politics. It would be so because it would mean that change in attitudes, customs and practices would be reduced to whoever held the majority, and just as it was wrong that Protestants today in the north should dictate events to the exclusion of Catholics so too it would equally be wrong if the tables were turned and Catholics dictated to the exclusion of Protestants. I may have paraphrased somewhat there but that was the gist of his point and I think it a very valid one.
I thought of this - the idea of majorities - the other day when I learned that Queen's University Student Union had reversed its policy regarding the Irish language and the use of bi-lingual signs in the Union. The previous policy had raised the hackles of unionists ever since its introduction and not just those who were attending university and frequenting the Union's premises.
Many attempts were made to reverse the policy but because Catholics/Nationalists were in the majority in the Union, or at least better organised, those attempts never were successful. Which is why a new angle to have the policy reversed was adopted. This time the issue was raised under the guise of fair employment. The manner in which that was done, the way it was timed (the University closed during the summer) and the suddenness of the announcement shocked many. Not suprisingly there was much justified anger among nationalist people. Let's remember that what we were talking about was a total of 16 signs, not ones as Gaeilge even but bi-lingual ones. Signs that told us where we could find the toilets, for instance, Fir agus Mna. Hardly threatening. In fact, quite helpful when the need is upon us. Not to be compared with the loyalist flags and graffiti which adorn many a workplace for the benefit of Catholics.
The comments that have been voiced in the past week in support of the new policy and regarding the Irish language in general have been nothing short of racist, though only to be expected given the quarters and mindset from which they emanate. What is more interesting though is the silence from those who have in the past raised their public profile on the issue of discrimanation against Catholics/Nationalists at Queens. I'm thinking in particular of Alex Attwood of the SDLP who sits on the Queen's Senate as a nominee from the Belfast City Council. Alex's ticket onto the Senate in the first place, let's recall, was on the issue of discrimination.
And what of his colleague, Cormac Bakewell, President of the Students' Union and fellow SDLP member? It turns out that the boul Cormac, as part of the union executive, accepted and then enacted the consultative report that the bi-lingual policy be dropped. Not a vote taken among students mind you - to hell with that oul democracy lark - but an executive decision. Strange that Cormac should feel so strongly that the Irish language was threatening to any of the employees of the Union - the argument that is being voiced for the change in policy - given that there has never been any litigation on the matter never mind a successful prosecution by any Union employee regarding the bi-lingual policy.
I think that the SDLP should now clarify its position regarding the Irish language. It's not good enough for Patsy McGlone, their spokesperson on cultural issues, to voice his criticisms of Queen's Student Union if senior members of his own party are colluding in a policy which helps demonise the language. We can at least understand, if not accept, the bigoted attitudes of unionists. What is more disgusting is the active collusion of our own home grown `Uncle Toms' in assisting and strenghtening that bigotry when it should be resisted and challenged.
Norman Porter is right when he says that politics should not simply be about majorities and minorities, but neither should it be about small appointed groups who overturn the democratically expressed view of the majority when all that majority seeks to do is give equal parity to another spoken language.
When the panel of speakers on Questions and Answers, a discussion held during Féile an Phobail, were asked if they thought that a united Ireland would only be achieved once Catholics were in the majority, Norman Porter, representing the unionist tradition, said that if such were to happen it would signal the death of politics. It would be so because it would mean that change in attitudes, customs and practices would be reduced to whoever held the majority, and just as it was wrong that Protestants today in the north should dictate events to the exclusion of Catholics so too it would equally be wrong if the tables were turned and Catholics dictated to the exclusion of Protestants. I may have paraphrased somewhat there but that was the gist of his point and I think it a very valid one.
I thought of this - the idea of majorities - the other day when I learned that Queen's University Student Union had reversed its policy regarding the Irish language and the use of bi-lingual signs in the Union. The previous policy had raised the hackles of unionists ever since its introduction and not just those who were attending university and frequenting the Union's premises.
Many attempts were made to reverse the policy but because Catholics/Nationalists were in the majority in the Union, or at least better organised, those attempts never were successful. Which is why a new angle to have the policy reversed was adopted. This time the issue was raised under the guise of fair employment. The manner in which that was done, the way it was timed (the University closed during the summer) and the suddenness of the announcement shocked many. Not suprisingly there was much justified anger among nationalist people. Let's remember that what we were talking about was a total of 16 signs, not ones as Gaeilge even but bi-lingual ones. Signs that told us where we could find the toilets, for instance, Fir agus Mna. Hardly threatening. In fact, quite helpful when the need is upon us. Not to be compared with the loyalist flags and graffiti which adorn many a workplace for the benefit of Catholics.
The comments that have been voiced in the past week in support of the new policy and regarding the Irish language in general have been nothing short of racist, though only to be expected given the quarters and mindset from which they emanate. What is more interesting though is the silence from those who have in the past raised their public profile on the issue of discrimanation against Catholics/Nationalists at Queens. I'm thinking in particular of Alex Attwood of the SDLP who sits on the Queen's Senate as a nominee from the Belfast City Council. Alex's ticket onto the Senate in the first place, let's recall, was on the issue of discrimination.
And what of his colleague, Cormac Bakewell, President of the Students' Union and fellow SDLP member? It turns out that the boul Cormac, as part of the union executive, accepted and then enacted the consultative report that the bi-lingual policy be dropped. Not a vote taken among students mind you - to hell with that oul democracy lark - but an executive decision. Strange that Cormac should feel so strongly that the Irish language was threatening to any of the employees of the Union - the argument that is being voiced for the change in policy - given that there has never been any litigation on the matter never mind a successful prosecution by any Union employee regarding the bi-lingual policy.
I think that the SDLP should now clarify its position regarding the Irish language. It's not good enough for Patsy McGlone, their spokesperson on cultural issues, to voice his criticisms of Queen's Student Union if senior members of his own party are colluding in a policy which helps demonise the language. We can at least understand, if not accept, the bigoted attitudes of unionists. What is more disgusting is the active collusion of our own home grown `Uncle Toms' in assisting and strenghtening that bigotry when it should be resisted and challenged.
Norman Porter is right when he says that politics should not simply be about majorities and minorities, but neither should it be about small appointed groups who overturn the democratically expressed view of the majority when all that majority seeks to do is give equal parity to another spoken language.