Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Continental journalists should get their geography right

Radio France Internationale reports on the peace vigils taking place in the north. The reporter seems to think that the Real IRA (which in French bears the oddly attractive name l'IRA-Véritable) and the Continuity IRA are the same thing. He interviews a "young Catholic" woman who says she's on the march because she's part of "the new Northern Ireland." Well, if thats what she wants to call the six counties ... But the biggest howler lies in the name of the country that all of this is supposedly taking place in. According to the article, it's le Royaume-Uni.

Looks like the movement for Irish unity still has quite a bit of work to do in hearts and minds. Let's be at the forefront of it.

In other news, the site reports that in Iraq, Tariq Aziz has been sentenced to 15 years in prison along with "Chemical Ali" - "meme si jamais aucun témoignage n'a pu établir sa responsabilité directe dans ces crimes." The former foreign minister is, as you may know, a Catholic. How that fact ties in with the neocon myth that the invasion of Iraq was part of some glorious campaign against militant Islam is unclear. Especially since Saudi Arabia, which ruthlessly persecutes Christians and which I once heard a pious Iranian student describe as "a hell country", remains a cosseted US ally.

Battrmaio?

The other day I was in a newsagents, browsing the newspaper rack, when a man approached the sandwich bar and asked for a roll.

"D'you want butter or mayo?" asked the Irish girl behind the counter.

"Eh, mayo please" replied the man.

My brow furrowed. Mayo? Have we always called it that?

Let me explain.

As many of my readers know, I used to live in Germany. The German word for mayonnaise is simply Mayonnaise, but everyone in Germany calls it Mayo (rhymes with "bio"). I presume Poles call it mayo too. I don't know, it's just a hunch. (Those two countries have quite a bit in common in many areas of their culture, including food. The German word for plate is Teller, in Polish it's talerz.)

So when I got back from Germany in 2007, I often heard Polish staff in delicatessens say "Battrmaio?" when someone ordered a sandwich. I assumed it was just their way of asking "Butter or mayonnaise?" and that they didn't realise that Irish people said mayonnaise, not mayo.

But this girl at the sandwich bar the other day was definitely Irish, and so was her customer. Yet they both said "mayo". Is this a Polish import? Have we had so many Polish sandwich bar staff over the past few years that we've picked up the infectious "mayo" from them? Or have Irish people always called it mayo as well as mayonnaise? I could swear I'd only ever heard it called mayonnaise before, but I could be wrong.

So have the Poles changed the way we speak English, or had I just not been listening properly all those years? Answers below please!

Monday, March 9, 2009

Imaginary conversation with well-informed foreign friend

Friend: I've just been looking at the homepage of your ... what do you call him? Your Taoiseach. I wonder if you can help me, there's some stuff there I don't quite understand ....

Me: You're not the only one.

Friend: He made a statement on the killings of the two British soldiers in Antrim at the weekend, and it says he conveys his sympathy to the British Prime Minister. He also expresses the hope that those responsible will be brought to justice.

Me: Well, yes. The killings were pretty brutal, and have been condemned by all the major parties, north and south.

Friend: Yes, but when Gerry Adams condemned them, he added that he was nevertheless opposed to any British soldier's being in Ireland. He coupled his opposition to the killings with his firm hope of one day seeing Ireland free from occupation by a foreign power. But there was no such view expressed in Brian Cowen's statement.

Me: Should there have been?

Friend: I think so. You're Taoiseach calls himself a nationalist, doesn't he?

Me: Well, yes, but ...

Friend: ... He leads the political heirs of the anti-Treatyites of 1922, doesn't he?

Me: You have to make a disti-

Friend: ... He adorns his office with a portrait of a man who took up armed resistance against Britain and declared that "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace", does he not?

Me: You can't take that too seriou-

Friend: ... He will in a matter of weeks take part in a state commemoration of the 1916 Rising, whose declaration called for the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the full and unfettered control of Irish destinies, won't he?

Me: Look, you have to understand that this is just political window-dressing. It doesn't really affect the way he exercises his political office. Commemorating events that happened 90 years ago is one thing, practicing Realpolitik today is something else.

Friend: Okay, look at it this way: does your Taoiseach see the Six Counties as part of Ireland, or part of Britain?

Me: As part of Ireland, I would hope.

Friend: So what business do British soldiers have there?

Me: None.

Friend: So they're a foreign occupying force?

Me: Well, the Taoiseach would probably see the occupation as a regrettable and temporary state of affairs, to be one day replaced by a united Ireland - but one to be brought about by peaceful means. It's not like he's in favour of British soldiers being there, but he tolerates it for the moment.

Friend: But why does he not say this? Why is he sending messages of sympathy to Gordon Brown and expressing the hope that Irish republicans will soon be hauled before the Queen's courts, but not giving the slightest indication that he wants Britain's occupation of the six counties to end, that every last British soldier should leave Ireland's shores, that Ireland should be re-united? Is he a nationalist or not?

Me: He is a nationalist, but -

Friend: - but he just doesn't let that influence the way he actually does politics.

Me: Not really, no. That's diplomacy.

Friend: In my country we call that hypocrisy, not diplomacy. How depressing. Tell me, is there any party in Ireland, apart from Sinn Féin and its more radical offshoots, that opposes Britain's occupation of the six counties? That calls in its manifesto for Britain to leave?

Me: Yes, as a matter of fact there is. The Christian Solidarity Party calls for a withdrawal of Britain from the north of Ireland in its 1997 manifesto. And that is still our position today.

Friend: Well, that's good to know. Hey, I hope you didn't invent this conversation just for a bit of publicity for your party, did you?

Me: No, not at all. But I want to stress for my readers that we are a genuinely nationalist party.

Friend: Hmmm, it sounds to me like you did -

Me: Begone!

Friend: (vanishes in a puff of smoke)

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Labour in favour of discrimination

That is to say, Labour are demanding that candidates for political office be chosen not merely on the basis of merit, but also on the basis of their sex. Parties that do not ensure that at least 20% of their candidates are women are to lose their state funding, if Mr Gilmore has his way; after seven years the quota is to rise to 33%, after another seven years to 40%.

We are all familiar with angry newspaper articles decrying the fact that women are less represented in politics than men. But such pieces seldom state explicitly why this is so. The vague impression is given that it must be down to an attempt on the part of men - whether party members, or voters, or both - to exclude women from the political arena. But does anyone seriously believe this? Do we really think that male voters sit there saying to themselves, consciously or unconsciously, "I won't be voting for her - she's a woman!"? If anything, being female - especially an attractive female - might be something of an advantage for a politician. I specifically remember voting for a particular female candidate at a College election for no other reason than that she was better looking than her rivals. (I think the post was Welfare Officer. She didn't make it, alas.)

I can think of two possible explanations for "female underepresentation" in politics, and neither has to do with the attitudes of men, but of women themselves.

First, there is the plain fact that a great many women simply are not interested in politics. Many are, of course, and the Christian Solidarity Party is fortunate to have some very committed women in its ranks. But the fact remains that women are often impatient with the abstract theorizing and waffle that politics involves. I think it is telling that the gender balance, if we must use that term, is far more even in "issue politics" than in party politics. Women have no problem coming out in large numbers in favour of the right to life or against the slaughter in Gaza, but party politics, with its endless backslapping, compromises and U-turns, holds far less attraction for them.

Feminists will hold that this lack of interest in party politics in women is culturally conditioned; women grow up in a world where they are told that "women aren't supposed to be interested in politics" and therefore they convince themselves that they are not. But as with many other aspects of gender theory, the absurdity of this can soon be seen in the cold light of day. I know women from highly conservative backgrounds who are interested in politics, and I likewise know women from extremely liberal, enlightened backgrounds whose eyes glaze over whenever the P-word is mentioned.

The other reason is the reason comparitively few women rise to the top of the corporate world; because their nurturing instincts often lead them to interrupt their careers in order to have and raise children. And it seems to me that this is a quality we should encourage, rather than racing to get rid of it like the Labour Party.

I can think of a few female readers, conservative as well as liberal, who might find what I have written here insulting and pompous. I would like to assure them that I really have no problem with women in politics. I would support a superior female candidate over an inferior male one without the slightest, the slightest hesitation. But I think that the reasons for women's lower representation in party politics are the ones I have given here, and not any nefarious sexist conspiracy on the part of party establishments or voters.