05-14-2010, 04:27 AM
Jagera cannot support this resolution. The 25% threshold is flawed - smaller but important groups may exist, and this does nothing to really recognize what a language, as compared to a dialect, may be.
The resolution does not define what it means to be historically established, either. Taking a fictional country called "Canada", for example, we could imagine there is a group speaking a language called "French" who have lived in a given area for 400 years. Are they historically established, as compared to those in a fictional region called "Europe" who have been in a given area for 1000 years, or those in another region of Canada speaking a language called "Chinese" who have been there for 100 years? (OOC: No, the Chinese in Canada don't make up 25% of the population [yet], but it serves to illustrate).
The resolution also very carefully to define "languages" and "language communities", and then starts throwing around terms with debatable definitions, such as "cultural services". Not to mention it does not mitigate cultural services, nor allow nations to restrict harmful cultural education (such as if a culture had a traditional genocidal outlook towards another group).
Probably not the clearest statement on my part, but nevertheless, no.
The resolution does not define what it means to be historically established, either. Taking a fictional country called "Canada", for example, we could imagine there is a group speaking a language called "French" who have lived in a given area for 400 years. Are they historically established, as compared to those in a fictional region called "Europe" who have been in a given area for 1000 years, or those in another region of Canada speaking a language called "Chinese" who have been there for 100 years? (OOC: No, the Chinese in Canada don't make up 25% of the population [yet], but it serves to illustrate).
The resolution also very carefully to define "languages" and "language communities", and then starts throwing around terms with debatable definitions, such as "cultural services". Not to mention it does not mitigate cultural services, nor allow nations to restrict harmful cultural education (such as if a culture had a traditional genocidal outlook towards another group).
Probably not the clearest statement on my part, but nevertheless, no.