If an Irish language act is a right, why does the public not have the right to know what exactly that right entails? Instead, we must rely on selective media leaks to get an unconfirmed idea of what a proposed Irish Language Act (ILA) might contain.

Thus our rights appear to be defined by a select few, most of whom have no Irish and little idea of what they hope to achieve by supporting or opposing a language act. It looks like a case of the ill-informed arguing over the unknown.

Stormont’s future hangs on a semi-religious dogfight over a language which not only pre-dates the Reformation but which originated before the birth of Christ. It is an unnecessary sectarian squabble, which insults the linguistic dignity of Irish and demeans its cultural tradition.

It is now time to decommission Irish as a political weapon. That is not to say we do not need a legislative foundation on which to build the language – we do. But if Irish is to grow and be appreciated by everyone, we need to end its current use as linguistic flag-waving.

The British were the first to politicize Irish, during the 16th Century Tudor plantation in Munster, on the basis that we could not be subdued while we spoke Irish. For the next four centuries, military and economic repression destroyed the fabric of Irish society and with it, the Irish language.

Even today, an 1837 Penal Law requires court proceedings here to be in English. So there can be no argument about the strong cultural imperative to promote Irish. But portraying it as a sectarian cudgel (which SF and the DUP are both doing) is hardly the way forward.

There are three weaknesses in the current ILA campaign: we have no informed idea what it might include; we do not know what it is meant to achieve and labeling Irish as “Catholic” is an insult to those who speak it, both Catholic and Protestant.

So is the ILA intended to halt the language’s historical decline, revitalize it or give it equal status with English?

When we have clarified that, we then need an Irish language policy, devised by a body similar to Scotland’s Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Its current plan is to increase the numbers learning, speaking and using Gaelic from the ground up.

The ILA approach lacks a policy for the growth of Irish, favoring instead a top-down legislative model, by allowing Irish speakers access to some government services. So, for example, would the right to a Court Hearing in Irish extend to those who have no Irish or be restricted to Irish speakers – and if so, who would test the pre-hearing linguistic competence of those wishing to take part? (Might there be a new criminal charge of wasting the court’s time through poor Irish?)

Perhaps those who demand an ILA could explain the benefits of legislation without a language policy. (ILA supporters include SF, the SDLP, Alliance and Fine Gael.)

The most damaging aspect of the ILA campaign is its sectarianism. I remember a DUP councilor raising a query about an Irish language school at an education board meeting and a Sinn Féin councilor shouting across the room: “This is our language, you have your own.” (Hardly what Pearse had in mind when he looked forward to the children of Sandy Row cursing the Pope in Irish.)

The growing sectarian attitude on both sides towards the language stems from historical ignorance. For example, because the Catholic Church supported the British administration here, most priests could not speak Irish. But many Presbyterian ministers could and significant numbers of Catholics converted to Presbyterianism. Today, in a wonderful irony, their descendants are being told by SF that Irish is not theirs and by the DUP that Irish threatens them.

For ten years, an ILA was barely raised in Stormont, but when SF pulled down the Assembly to catch up with their electorate, they used Irish as an excuse for staying out. To get back in, they appear to have considerably softened their stance on a Standalone Act.

The parties supporting an ILA might remember that rights are not a matter of timing. They cannot be determined by secret negotiation or political opportunism – and they certainly cannot be used as a sectarian weapon.

Rights for Irish speakers are welcome, but their politicized nature means they risk being offset by sectarian division and by repeating de Valera’s mistake of believing that legislation alone can revive the language. You see, that’s the point about history – you are meant to learn from it, not repeat it.

If an Irish language act is a right, why does the public not have the right to know what exactly that right entails? Instead, we must rely on selective media leaks to get an unconfirmed idea of what a proposed Irish Language Act (ILA) might contain.

Thus our rights appear to be defined by a select few, most of whom have no Irish and little idea of what they hope to achieve by supporting or opposing a language act. It looks like a case of the ill-informed arguing over the unknown.

Stormont’s future hangs on a semi-religious dogfight over a language which not only pre-dates the Reformation but which originated before the birth of Christ. It is an unnecessary sectarian squabble, which insults the linguistic dignity of Irish and demeans its cultural tradition.

It is now time to decommission Irish as a political weapon. That is not to say we do not need a legislative foundation on which to build the language – we do. But if Irish is to grow and be appreciated by everyone, we need to end its current use as linguistic flag-waving.

The British were the first to politicize Irish, during the 16th Century Tudor plantation in Munster, on the basis that we could not be subdued while we spoke Irish. For the next four centuries, military and economic repression destroyed the fabric of Irish society and with it, the Irish language.

Even today, an 1837 Penal Law requires court proceedings here to be in English. So there can be no argument about the strong cultural imperative to promote Irish. But portraying it as a sectarian cudgel (which SF and the DUP are both doing) is hardly the way forward.

There are three weaknesses in the current ILA campaign: we have no informed idea what it might include; we do not know what it is meant to achieve and labeling Irish as “Catholic” is an insult to those who speak it, both Catholic and Protestant.

So is the ILA intended to halt the language’s historical decline, revitalize it or give it equal status with English?

When we have clarified that, we then need an Irish language policy, devised by a body similar to Scotland’s Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Its current plan is to increase the numbers learning, speaking and using Gaelic from the ground up.

The ILA approach lacks a policy for the growth of Irish, favoring instead a top-down legislative model, by allowing Irish speakers access to some government services. So, for example, would the right to a Court Hearing in Irish extend to those who have no Irish or be restricted to Irish speakers – and if so, who would test the pre-hearing linguistic competence of those wishing to take part? (Might there be a new criminal charge of wasting the court’s time through poor Irish?)

Perhaps those who demand an ILA could explain the benefits of legislation without a language policy. (ILA supporters include SF, the SDLP, Alliance and Fine Gael.)

The most damaging aspect of the ILA campaign is its sectarianism. I remember a DUP councilor raising a query about an Irish language school at an education board meeting and a Sinn Féin councilor shouting across the room: “This is our language, you have your own.” (Hardly what Pearse had in mind when he looked forward to the children of Sandy Row cursing the Pope in Irish.)

The growing sectarian attitude on both sides towards the language stems from historical ignorance. For example, because the Catholic Church supported the British administration here, most priests could not speak Irish. But many Presbyterian ministers could and significant numbers of Catholics converted to Presbyterianism. Today, in a wonderful irony, their descendants are being told by SF that Irish is not theirs and by the DUP that Irish threatens them.

For ten years, an ILA was barely raised in Stormont, but when SF pulled down the Assembly to catch up with their electorate, they used Irish as an excuse for staying out. To get back in, they appear to have considerably softened their stance on a Standalone Act.

The parties supporting an ILA might remember that rights are not a matter of timing. They cannot be determined by secret negotiation or political opportunism – and they certainly cannot be used as a sectarian weapon.

Rights for Irish speakers are welcome, but their politicized nature means they risk being offset by sectarian division and by repeating de Valera’s mistake of believing that legislation alone can revive the language. You see, that’s the point about history – you are meant to learn from it, not repeat it.