I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, to delete all words after "mind" in line 2, to and including "aims" in line 4 and substitute "the future of the Irish language, and of Irish culture."
In the discussion which we had during the Committee Stage of the Bill we finally managed to hammer out between us on all sides of the House that section 4 was not intended to have any legislative effect but was to be, in Senator Brugha's words, an encouragement, a reminder. Basically, I still disagree with the inclusion of sections in Bills of the Oireachtas which are no more than forms of encouragement and reminder. The closest we have come to this in legislation, it seems to me, has been in the inclusion of various sections for clarificatory reasons. I am not all happy with this approach, which involves inserting vague aspirations into legislative instruments. If, on the other hand, we are to have a section like this in the Bill it was my contention on the Committee Stage, and it is still my contention, that the wording can be considerably improved.
When I spoke on the section itself during the Committee Stage debate the Minister complained that he found it difficult to follow my arguments. On reading the unrevised version of the debate I found myself in sympathy with him and I have gone to some trouble to spell out exactly what I mean in my objection to the section in its present form. The section contains two words which I believe should be deleted for vagueness. These are the words "national aims". I have gone to the trouble to look up the definitions of the words concerned in the Oxford English dictionary and I strongly believe that they support my contentention. The dictionary definition of "nation" is "the whole people of a country frequently in contrast to some small or narrower body within it".
When we use the word "nation" in this section, in what sense are we using it? It seems to me that we are not using it in the sense which the dictionary gives it, but in a different sense completely. The word "national" in effect in this section, as unamended, means "pertaining to this State"—not pertaining to the whole people of Ireland. The adjective "national" is described by the Oxford English dictionary as "of or belonging to a or the nation, affecting or shared by the nation as a whole". I underline these last three words "as a whole". In this section, as unamended, we are attempting to legislate on a national basis but are in fact using sectional terminology. This confusion of terminology between the nation and this particular state is at the root of my objection to this section in its present form.
On the Committee Stage debate I referred to the Constitution and it is relevant to refer to it again. The Constitution does not define any national aim with regard to the language. It defines the language quite properly as the national language, but it does not attempt to define the national aims for the simple reason that there was no way at that time of adequately finding out what the national aims were. I suspect that the situation which obtained at the time when that Constitution was brought into force is still basically the one which is in effect today.
We have, unfortunately, consistently acted in our legislation and in the taking of public attitudes as if the nation and the present State, which has jurisdiction over 26 Counties, were in some way coterminous. On the occasions in which we deign to recognise the existence of a large and important body of Irishmen to the north-east of us we consistently arrogate to ourselves the right to speak for them, especially where the quality of Irishness is concerned, as if we were in possession of some special revelation that is being denied to them.
This is particularly true of our attitude to the Irish language. Whether the Government's present aim with regard to the Irish language is something which can be said to be shared by the nation is, I would suggest, something which will be very difficult for us to find out. The restoration of the Irish language is my aim and is the aim of this State, but we must avoid falling into the confusion of discussing the policies and the aims of this State as if they were without further discussion the policies and aims of the nation.
Many things have been said and will be said about the people in Northern Ireland, but two things can be said about them with some certainty. The first is that the majority of them would regard themselves as Irishmen in at least some form. The second is that the very great majority of them resent very deeply the activities of people who claim, often very vociferously, to speak on their behalf. In saying this I am not subscribing to any sort of two nation theory. I am simply submitting that any discussion about national aims, what they are and what they are not, should be carried on with a sort of decent restraint pending any reunification of our country. I should hope indeed that the majority of Irish people would subscribe to the kind of aim which finds expression in section 4. For the moment I suggest that it would be wiser and less divisive not to attempt to speak on their behalf until they have had an opportunity of speaking for themselves.
That is what this section in its present form claims to do. I would go even further. I would suggest that the longer this State continues to proclaim as national aims something which pertains only to this State at the moment, the less chance it has of getting truly national priorities accepted for what they are by the people of the whole country. There is a very simple reason for this. There is a real danger that the people of Northern Ireland, because of their genuine and very often justified distrust of the activities of the Government in the Republic, may throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is a danger that, in reacting against the insubstantial and often misleading and sectional rhetoric of Irish Government spokesmen, they may also jettison the underlying reality.
To be more concrete, I believe that whatever goodwill exists for the Irish language north of the Border it is imperilled because of the implication in this section—and it is an implication which is reinforced in other forms of legislation—that full adherence to the present policy of the Government of the Republic is in some way a tradition of being accepted as an Irishman. Does this mean, therefore, that we have to remain silent about the Irish language? I do not believe so. I believe that we should proclaim it to be what it is: the Irish language, the national language.
I would refer the House to another definition of the word "national". It also finds a place in the Oxford English dictionary. "National" means "peculiar to the people of a particular country, characteristic or distinctive of a nation." I do not think anybody disagrees that the Irish language fills this description absolutely perfectly and completely or that the Irish language can and should be described as the national language. Where we have difficulty is in transferring the adjective "national" to the word "aim".
The same is true, to a certain extent, of the word "culture". I feel—I would be interested in the Minister's observations on this—that the drafters of this section, whoever originally drafted it in the form in which it found a place in earlier legislation, had a rather sectional idea of Irish culture in the sense that they identified it totally with Gaelic culture. I believe that Gaelic culture is Irish culture, but I do not necessarily believe that Gaelic culture is coterminous with Irish culture. The sheer impossibility of defining the word adequately makes me wonder at the wisdom of putting it into a legislative instrument like this.
The form of words that I have suggested to take the place of the words that I object to is, I submit, more accurate in terminological terms, less divisive, and has the additional advantage of simpler words.
