No, this would be a ridiculous policy.
Agreed, but...
...why? Why and under what circumstances is it acceptable to say that of any language? That's an incredibly, and definitionally, pernicious sentiment, in fact one for which I would have much stronger words than 'pernicious' except I don't want to be accused of excessive hyperbole or excessive SJW-ism.
In Ireland the language has always been sold as the 'national language' with the implied nation being that of 'hard working, pious but essentially stupid peasants'. There has perhaps no more perfect example of this sort of pseudo-agrarian pseudo-populist romantic nationalism than that of Ireland, especially between the 1920s and 1950s when it was dominant state ideology. Needless to say, a lot of Irish people resent the implications...
I understand the resentment and I'm aware of the problems that the use of the language as a shibboleth for that type of Irish nationalism has caused, but an expressed desire for a language to be semi-actively extirpated is never going to sit well with me. Personally, I believe that it's a moral act--not
necessarily morally
obligatory, but a moral act--to take steps to keep minority languages on life support for as long as possible. I see diversity of this or similar kinds as an intrinsically good thing, for reasons that are at heart theological, even though I know full well that the ways in which Ireland has chosen to do this and the cultural position and political implications that the Irish project holds are...dubious (
id est yes, the idea that people's 'Irishness' is contingent on their level of participation in this project is both ridiculous and damaging).
Of course, I'm not Irish and my position on this is certainly not that of an expert in linguistics, nation-building, or even really sociology.
Poll
