Is a little knowledge of Irish a dangerous thing?

On Saturday, George Chittick added another commandment to the canon of Ulster loyalism: Thou shalt not learn Irish.  Because for an Irish protestant to further their understanding of Ireland's native language is to play into the hands of a "Republican agenda".  George was subsequently challenged on this quite sectarian attitude by a BBC interviewer, and responded with an incoherent diatribe that invoked fears of discrimination in employment, before quickly escalating into a comparison between a Northern Ireland with an Irish-speaking population and the Nazi justification for the annexation of the Sudetenland.  You can see a video of the exchange at the link above, I'll not comment further on it for now other than to point out that George's office in the Orange Order is that of County Grand master for Belfast.  As in, this is the guy that the Orange Order in Belfast has decided should be in charge and should represent them in public.

George's PR and public oratory shortcomings aside, this episode reminded me once again of something that I, as a Southerner, have found difficult to get my head around since I moved to the North.  Which is the fact that one side of the community here has somehow managed to grow up and live in Ireland without ever learning anything about, or even having any sort of exposure to, the Irish language (with probably the only lamentable exception to that being "tiocfaidh ár lá").  And, in fact, in many cases that can be extended beyond the language to Irish history, and even to Irish geography beyond the border.

By way of example:  My daughter has a reasonably common Irish first name.  Asking someone here to pronounce it is about as reliable a way of working out which foot they kick with as asking them to pronounce the letter "H", or asking them what school they went to.  Confront half the population with a word, something as common as a personal name, spelled in the native language of the geographical entity they were born and raised in, and they'll probably pronounce it incorrectly.  How does that state of affairs come about?

Another example: My wife (who is Northern Irish) was raised Presbyterian, and educated in state schools.  The history curriculum she was taught was heavily focussed on English history.  It barely, if ever, touched upon the history of Ireland.  Anything she does know about the history of Ireland is no thanks to the education system as experienced by protestants here.  She has recounted to me conversations with other (protestant) people she knows who were surprised to learn that Northern Ireland only came into existence in the early 1920's - they assumed, based on their cultural upbringing, and in the absence of being exposed to any facts to the contrary, that Ireland had been divided into 2 distinct cultural and political entities for centuries if not forever.

To me, as something of an outsider in Northern Ireland, there seems to be a sort of weird cultural amnesia at work here.  Mostly rooted in a basic lack of information, but sometimes in a willful ignorance of certain things in case knowing too much about them would call one's loyalty into question.   Which is a strange idea - that you can become less of a person by knowing or learning something.  Especially if it's something that's common knowledge amongst the other side.

Which brings me back to the contention that the Irish language has been "politicised".  In the midst of George's paranoid ramblings, there is actually an element of truth - which is that Sinn Fein have contributed to the Irish language becoming something of a political football.  They are entitled to argue for the language to be officially recognised on this side of the border, as it should be.  But there's a line between advocacy and conspicuous over-promotion for the sake of optics across which I feel they stray repeatedly.  There's probably more electoral advantage to be gained from pushing hard on this topic, and giving an easy win to the predictable bigotry of someone like Edwin Poots (who claimed burying an Irish Language Act as one of his greatest political achievements during his tenure as culture minister), than there is in taking a more subtle approach that might deliver more incremental progress.  Sinn Fein get to look like they're fighting for nationalists' interests, and get to point at the anti-Irish bigoted Unionist bogeyman as the problem.  Unionists get to show their electorate how they've thwarted any perceived diminution of Britishness.  Each tribe's interests are defended at the expense of themmuns, and the natural order of sectarian politics here is maintained.

George Chittick is playing the anti-irish bigoted Unionist bogeyman to perfection.  In doing so, he's cutting off his nose to spite his own face.  And he's also betraying people of both main traditions who would like to further their own understanding of a vital part of Ireland's cultural heritage.  If, as George argues, the language is as much a part of his tradition as anyone else's, but it has been politicised, then why not try to reclaim it?  Why not do as has been done in East Belfast, and get people interested in Irish by educating them about the role of protestants in the history of the language?  Why concede the ground to those whom you argue are presenting a one-sided picture?

Why?  Because it's easier to circle the wagons and play to your own crowd.  To sell them a false narrative of clear black-and-white, Us vs. Them.  And maybe because, if politics was taken out of the Irish language, and everyone learned a bit more about it, they might learn that they have more in common with the other side than they thought.  That the divisions between the two tribes here aren't as clear as some would have you believe.

And we couldn't have that, now could we?

Not enough Fun and far too Mental

So, Northern Ireland's christian fundamentalist minority have, once again, ridden to the rescue and ensured that this society can't be exposed to the horrors of such blasphemous material as The Reduced Shakespeare Company's the complete word of god abridged.  Phew, that was close.  I bet that people living near the other 40-odd locations in the UK where this production is going to be staged wish they had elected representatives who were as vigilant as husband and wife DUP councillor team Billy and Audrey Ball.  After all, as Billy said:

"This is supposed to be a Christian nation and we are allowing the Bible to be mocked and slated,"

And we couldn't have that.  I mean, if someone, somewhere, is treating the bible with less than 100% seriousness, then that automatically inflicts injury on every christian everywhere, right?

Or maybe it pains christians to know that someone's getting enjoyment out of biblical subject matter being treated humourously?

Or maybe, if a christian went to see the performance, it would upset them?

Or maybe the bible's just too important to be the butt of a joke or two?

Or maybe none of the above constitutes anything remotely like a reason to cancel the show.

I am not a christian.  I had chosen not to go see this production, though I suspect I would have enjoyed it.  But, thanks to the narrow-mindedness of christian fundamentalists as exemplified by both the councillors and members of the public  who endorse them, my opportunity to make that choice has been taken away.  Because those christians played the offence card.  Because they assert that someone failing to take the bible as seriously as they do, and doing so in public,  in some way infringes upon their rights.  Which makes absolutely no sense, but is the sort of non-sequitur that consistently gets a bye in this society because it's asserted by the religious.

Offence has one important thing in common with beauty; it's very much in the eye of the beholder.  Some christians may well find a comedy stage show based on the bible offensive (especially if they actually went to see it, unlike those responsible for the show getting pulled by Newtownabbey Borough Council).  Others may well not, and treat it like water off a duck's back. Atheists like myself might even find it highly amusing (or not, depending on how well written it is).  The point is, feelings of offence are an individual's personal, subjective reaction to somebody else's exercise of freedom of thought and expression.  Those reactions are as varied as the people experiencing them.  And so, arguing that something should be suppressed because it is offensive is a nonsense.  Basically it's saying  that someone who publicly expresses an idea should be held accountable for all possible human reactions to that expression, and that someone who reacts by feeling hurt gets to exercise a veto over that act of expression in the first place.  And that's just thinking about offence in terms of censorship.  Consider the case of blasphemy laws - where not only is the offender held accountable for the reactions of others, but is actually held to be criminally liable for those reactions.

There can be no place in a democratic, free society for either blasphemy law or censorship on the grounds of religious sensitivities.  Any activity which would fall foul of such prohibitions does not actually infringe upon the rights of those claiming offence.  There is no such thing as a right to not be offended.  There is the right to express your own counter-arguments peaceably and as publicly as you wish.  There's also the option of ignoring the source of the offence and rising above it all.  There's no right to expect that the state or civic society make something that disturbs you, but doesn't actually infringe upon your rights, go away so you don't have to think about it.

In this case at least, there hasn't beeen any formal (legally-enforced) censorship, but still, a supposedly democratic public body has capitulated to the demands of small-minded local politicians backed up by some equally small-minded elements within their electorate.  The same sort of people who used to have the swings in public parks locked up on a Sunday in case anyone might be tempted to go out and have fun on their lord's day.  The same sort of people who want to ban us from going into the off-licence section of a supermarket with our children in tow because, well, they disapprove of alcohol.  The same sort of people who legislate to restrict Sunday trading hours.

Christian fundamentalists need to get their head around a simple concept:  There are people out there who have a right to disagree with you, and who choose to exercise that right.  That exercise does not infringe upon your rights, and so you do not have any entitlement to block it.  This is the nature of a free society.

I'll finish off with a quote from  Christopher Hitchens, who sums it up better than I ever could: