‘Dual signage in NI will bring us together, not drive a wedge between us’

The question of Irish language signage in particular and the status of the language more generally continues to occupy the minds of many columnists and political correspondents here.

Most recently, regular Belfast Telegraph columnist Malachaí Ó Dochartaigh, shared his opinion on the ‘divisive’ decision of Belfast City Council to poll streets to assess their demand for bilingual signage following requests from residents or councillors in that area.

Writing in his Belfast Telegraph column last Tuesday, Mr O’Doherty said: “It actually wouldn’t bother me if every street in Northern Ireland had bilingual, Irish/English signage, apart from it bothering others.

“What I object to is the decision on signage being made street by street. An Irish language street sign will be understood by many to indicate that they are entering a nationalist area, every bit as much as if the kerbstones were painted green, white and orange.”

However, the sharp increase in requests for bilingual street signs across the city follows a progressive change in the council’s dual language street signage policy.

The new policy, which is in line with international standards, including treaties ratified by the British Government, as well as with recommendations of the United Nations, moved away from the deeply restrictive policies that BCC and many other councils had in place (and still have in some cases) which were plagued with so many obstacles that achieving a dual language street sign was practically impossible

Language visibility, particularly in the context of minoritised languages, has been consistently identified in international research as a key tool in the normalisation process of said language; both among the minority language community themselves, and those with limited exposure to the language.

The case for Irish language visibility here is particularly unique, not only because over 95% of place names here derive directly from Irish, but because for so long here it was forbidden to erect street or directional signage which included Irish.

This ‘English-only’ policy, introduced in 1949, was only changed in 1995, however, the fate of the Irish language on street signs was further devolved to the interpretation and persuasion of local councils themselves, whilst requiring them to “have regard to any views on the matter expressed by the occupiers of premises in that street”.

The demonstrable and remarkable community-led revival of Irish and the more recent Dream Dearg campaign has led to a more assertive attempt by that community to move away from an ‘English Only’ approach to make sure that the days of see no Irish, hear no Irish, speak no Irish are a thing of the past.

This campaign has led to widespread communal support and an increase of awareness across society around the language, with more and more councils adopting more progressive policies in relation to the promotion of Irish and with a majority of MLAs in Stormont supporting the Irish Language Act.

Remarkable given that 75 years previous, the old Stormont introduced the ‘English-only’ legislation.

Change, however, remains very difficult for some to accept and this isn’t confined to newspaper columnists.

Many councils and institutions remain wedded to an approach which is in breach of international treaties, restricting the use and visibility of Irish, and is rooted in an attitude that some people find Irish offensive.

This mindset has long dominated service provision in public authorities, who have long championed an ‘English-only’ approach.

In this world view, English-only is seen as ‘neutral’ and any deviation from this is seen to be upsetting the balance and interfering with good relations.

As a result, legitimate requests for dual language provision are somehow countered with baseless claims that there may be those who are offended by having to look at Irish (alongside English).

What is worse is that these viewpoints, more often than not, rather than being challenged, are allowed to dictate and inform policies.

If the promotion of Irish, via signage or other means, is restricted to certain areas then it will only entrench attitudes in other areas that it doesn’t belong there.

In recent years this has been described by some as the ‘ghettoisation’ of Irish and it is strange that those who were most vocal and critical about the ‘ghettoisation’ of Irish seem most loyal to the approach that fostered it.

When public authorities take ownership and responsibility for the promotion of minoritised languages however, this provides communities, who for various reasons had little to no access to it, a safe environment within which to engage with that language, alongside a clear framework and set of procedures through which services and signs can be requested and erected.

Given that the vast majority of our placenames derive from Irish, signage and visibility of Irish increases a sense of common ownership and reminds us that the language truly belongs to us all. This is more than simply “sticking Irish up alongside English”.

This is a restorative linguistic movement, reinstating Irish as the authentic and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, as the original version of placenames once banished and banned from the public eye.

Malachi tells us that we “have to be more neighbourly”, to be more “progressive”, and reject dual-language street signage.

This must be the most draconian, deluded form of neighbourliness ever proposed.

Surely a more progressive society is one where our shared spaces reflect the diversity of residents, respect the legitimate expectations of minorities and international law, and celebrate the shared linguistic heritage of our placenames.

We can only, therefore, be grateful that Belfast City Council take their policy guidance from “progressive” international experts.