The representatives of the Gaelic-speaking minorities
in Canada, Scotland, Ireland have started an important discussion on the need for new arrangements for the recognition of their language rights.

The recently-released Meek Report in Scotland calls for "secure language status" for Gaelic, which is nevertheless being opposed by the Scottish Executive. The same scenario prevails with the Welsh language. The Irish government is assessing provision of access to the Irish language in government services. In Nova Scotia the Gaelic Language Development Group is debating the demand for secure language status. These developments occur in the context of vigorous efforts over the past ten years to revive the Gaelic language.

Who and what is responsible for the denial of the Gaelic language? These countries have all pursued a policy of anglicization and assimilation in the name of "superior" and "majority" languages with nominal bilingualism.

Language murder or "linguicide," whether it is carried out intentionally or not, is one of the basic tools of ethnocide, of the deculturation of peoples. It has always been perpetrated by colonization and is still the semi-official aim of governments which do not recognize the rights of their native minorities. It can be argued that non-recognition of language rights is tantamount to an official though subtle and undeclared policy of ethnocide. The "language war" has very seldom been regarded as a war and has never, anywhere, been declared. As indigenous languages are increasingly excluded from education, "linguicide" is accelerating.

Experience compels Gaels to acknowledge that the old 19th century British Liberal notion of superior and inferior languages will not guarantee rights.

The usage of their rights as political football compels them to take principled stands.

We consider this healthy trend. We congratulate the Gaelic-speaking communities for taking up this issue, an issue of great concern to many peoples.

On what basis should the rights of every collective of society be guaranteed?

The existing arrangements were established as part of 19th century empire-building. They never guaranteed the rights of language minorities. These arrangements did not recognize rights as something which belong to the holder on an objective basis, but as mere privileges. These can be granted in some conditions, withdrawn in others, and were never given the full force of law.

The governments instituted "bilingualism" at one time. Now they seek to withdraw this privilege, claiming it has become "too costly." The same was and is done in the name of multiculturalism. Far from recognizing the equality of all languages and cultures, these policies were used to create first and second class citizenship. Instead of a policy based on right, an atmosphere developed that rewarded toadyism, and accommodated elites with minor concessions. The result was linguistic and cultural ghettos and the maintenance of sectarian divisions among the people.

Gaelic and other language minorities are rejecting these archaic notions of majority and minority language rights. They do not agree with dividing society on the basis of language, race or national origins, and ardently seek unity in order to affirm their rights.

In Canada there is a concept of the "two founding peoples". It was specifically devised to create a British dominion and negate the nation of Quebec and the First Nations. During the 19th century, many nation-states emerged based on a modern concept of citizenship. But in Canada, Ireland and Scotland it was considered good enough simply to extend the British empire without laying the foundations for modern arrangements. Modern arrange-ments vest sovereignty in the people. They recognize the rights and duties of all citizens regardless of race, language, national origin, religion, gender, wealth or abilities.

Gaelic communities are now realizing that the issue of rights of any individual or collective is the concern of the entire society. The protection of the rights of one collective has to be harmonized with those of all collectives and with the general interests of society. This is the only way individual and collective rights can be guaranteed and the only real basis on which the unity of the people can be built. Instead, governments have been causing mischief by threatening Gaelic language minorities that they will be "submerged" by English if they abandon the colonial "heritage" of "divide and rule" — instead of a modern definition that harmonizes the interests of all with those of the individuals and with the general interest of society.

Mac-talla is also opposed to the policies of "majority languages." In addition to not guaranteeing the rights of the "official majorities" they negate the rights of those who speak any other language. Other minorities — many native-born but descended from earlier generations of immigrants — are also negated or amalgamated under the title "multicultural groups." Services and education in Native languages are also given practically no recognition. Whether we belong to a "majority language" or not, we face an anti-social offensive of governments. The granting of privileges was never a guarantee of rights.

Together, we minorities must stand for the equal rights of all cultures and all languages and demand that the government support them in their development. We are one people. We can have but one aim. All barriers hindering the flourishing of minority languages should be removed. Defending and respecting the language and culture of those whose mother tongue is not English is not in contradiction with the development of the Canadian, Irish, Scottish or Welsh nations. The spirit of cooperation and equal rights for all is the key to the solution of the language question.

The recognition of the rights of minorities necessitates definite arrangements to enable them to enjoy their rights — the right-to-be. For instance, parents have the right to receive education for their children in the mother tongue. This right-to-be flows not from any intrinsic character of language, or the virtues of "cultural diversity" or "cultural discourse," but from the fact that of living as human beings in society, who think, feel, and communicate through a specific language. This is the hallmark of a democratic society. — The Editors