[Baranxtu]

So, an idea has been on my mind for some time now, so I finally decided to ask all y'all what you think about this, and maybe I can start to build reputation as a valuable UN member


I've skimmed through the passed resolutions, and rather to my astonishment, there seem to be few to none concerning the rights of the disabled (or I overlooked something, which could also be the case), and one particular topic was particularly lacking... namely, the rights of deaf people.

As a hobby linguist, sign languages do quite fascinate me, and as they are the easiest and most efficient way of communication for deaf people both with other deaf people and with the hearing community (i.e., as far as I know), I think that a mandatory recognition of a national sign language in all UN nations would do much good whereas (hopefully) being not too controversial.


And, er, that's about as far as I've gotten so far. So, any input is much needed and much welcomed!

[Sausage Arabia]

Bazalonia had a proposal had a proposal on an International Sign Language a while ago. His idea was to create a common, international sign language of basic vocabulary, whilst allowing nations to have sign languages in their own...well, languages.

And the fact that disability is excluded from all the anti-discrimination legislation seriously needs to be addressed.

[Antrium]

Neu HamsterdamMar 14 2006, 07:56 PM And the fact that disability is excluded from all the anti-discrimination legislation seriously needs to be addressed. [/quote]
Perhaps you could just make a big disability proposal that could cover both.

[Jonquiere-Tadoussac]

Unfortunately, such proposals do not appear to go over well right now... looking at the Care Accreditation Act in the proposals list right now. That's not to say they can't succeed, but that they seem to have a hard time.

The point of this: maybe you should tackle the sign language one first, as that should be a little less troublesome for some, and use that as a building block...

[Stolidia]

A fine idea. The "International Sign Language" proposal was a good effort. Unfortunately, the author didn't seem to understand the nature of sign languages very well. He appeared not to understand the technical points that were raised. Some thoughts to consider....

The other proposal intended to "harmonize" existing sign languages -- probably an impossible task. The effort should, of course, look for commonalities among sign languages in use and take advantage of them. But it shouldn't be an effort to try to force-fit them into a common can.

The focus of the effort should be on developing a standard alphabet for finger-spelling and a core vocabulary of signs representing commonly-used words.

The effort should be undertaken by A UN agency. The agency would conduct research on existing signing practices, then develop and publish the standard sign language. Nations may then add signs to their curricula as they teach signing to their people, but the standard core language must remain under the control of the UN agency or commonality will be lost.

[Baranxtu]

Quote: The point of this: maybe you should tackle the sign language one first, as that should be a little less troublesome for some, and use that as a building block... [/quote]
That's basically the reason why I want to start with something like this; get a foot in the door first and then try to elaborate on that.

Quote: A fine idea. The "International Sign Language" proposal was a good effort. Unfortunately, the author didn't seem to understand the nature of sign languages very well. He appeared not to understand the technical points that were raised. Some thoughts to consider....

The other proposal intended to "harmonize" existing sign languages -- probably an impossible task. The effort should, of course, look for commonalities among sign languages in use and take advantage of them. But it shouldn't be an effort to try to force-fit them into a common can.[/quote]
That's why I said a "national sign language". As for a common sign language, I doub't that would be feasible from a reality-focused standpoint, seeing as how well other international languages worked (Zamenhof, I'm pointing at you and your sorry excuse for an international language!).

[Baranxtu]

Okay, rough draft.

Quote: Sign Language Recognition

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description:

REALIZING that not all people are able to communicate via spoken language due to partial or total loss of hearing;

NOTING with regret that people hard of hearing are not yet protected and/or supported in their efforts to live within the hearing community;

NOTING further that, whereas some people hard of hearing may master or have mastered spoken language before or after the onset of their hearing impairment, not all can do so or only with most severe difficulty, especially when they have prelingual deafness;

The NS UN

1. RECOGNIZES the following rights for people hard of hearing:
a. Citizens shall be able to communicate with the government of a country they hold citizenship in the most efficient way of expressing their thoughts, needs and idea;
b. Deaf or hearing impaired citizens shall be taught a sign language if they desire so, and be taught so from infancy if they have congenital deafness or severe hearing impairment;

2. MANDATES that each UN member state recognizes at least one national sign language in which people hard of hearing may communicate officially;

3. URGES that each UN member state
a. Ensures that adequate facilities and personnel are provided for deaf and hearing impaired students;
b. Ensures that adequately instructed personnel is available to provide translation for deaf and hearing impaired people when dealing with government authorities

4. CONDEMNS and FORBIDS any discrimination of people hard of hearing due to their condition.
[/quote]
I realize that much work on that still needs to be done, so, tinker with it, please!

[Jonquiere-Tadoussac]

baranxtuMar 16 2006, 07:30 AM REALIZING that not all people are able to communicate via spoken language due to partial or total loss of hearing;

[/quote]
You could also include muteness here; i.e. physical inability to speak. This could be included in the whole resolution, in fact.

Quote: NOTING with regret that people hard of hearing are not yet protected and/or supported in their efforts to live within the hearing community;[/quote]
Not necessarily true; indivudal nations may have such protection and support already in place.. I think what you're trying to get at here is that such protections do not exist in the international community.

Quote: a. Citizens shall be able to communicate with the government of a country in which they hold citizenship through the most efficient way of expressing their thoughts, needs and ideas;[/quote]
Just grammar changes, I like this substantively.

Quote: b. Ensures that adequately instructed personnel is available to provide translation for deaf and hearing impaired people when dealing with government authorities
[/quote]
I'd prefer if this were mandated; after all, if it is an official language, there should be people available everywhere.

Quote: 4. CONDEMNS and FORBIDS any discrimination of people hard of hearing due to their condition.[/quote]
What if you need hearing to work in a place, such as a call centre? (Yes, there is TTY, but I don't know if this can go far enough.

I like where this is going.

[Baranxtu]

I quite agree with your suggestions, thanks...
Changes are bold:
Quote: Sign Language Recognition

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description:

REALIZING that not all people are able to communicate via spoken language due to partial or total loss of hearing and/or muteness;

NOTING with regret that people hard of hearing and/or mute are not yet protected and/or supported in their efforts to live within the hearing community throughout the international community;

NOTING further that, whereas some people hard of hearing may master or have mastered spoken language before or after the onset of their hearing impairment, not all can do so or only with most severe difficulty, especially when they have prelingual deafness;

The NS UN

1. RECOGNIZES the following rights for people hard of hearing and/or mute:
a. Citizens shall be able to communicate with the government of a country in which they hold citizenship through the most efficient way of expressing their thoughts, needs and ideas;
b. Deaf, hearing impaired or mute citizens shall be taught a sign language if they desire so, and be taught so from infancy if they have congenital deafness, severe hearing impairment or muteness;

2. MANDATES that each UN member state recognizes at least one national sign language in which people hard of hearing and/or mute may communicate officially;

3. MANDATES subsequently that each UN member state
a. Ensures that adequate facilities and personnel are provided for deaf, hearing impaired and mute students;
b. Ensures that adequately instructed personnel is available to provide translation for deaf, hearing impaired and mute people when dealing with government authorities

4. CONDEMNS and FORBIDS any discrimination of people hard of hearing and/or mute due to their condition unless hearing and speaking are imperative prerequisites for a job, etc.
[/quote]

Quote: I like where this is going. [/quote]
Thanks

[Eisophca]

Quote: 1. RECOGNIZES the following rights for people hard of hearing and/or mute:
a. Citizens shall be able to communicate with the government of a country in which they hold citizenship through the most efficient way of expressing their thoughts, needs and ideas;[/quote]
I'd like the list to include grievances as well (and possibly wants).

[Groot Gouda]

Wouldn't it be easier to simply make it "any person not being able to communicate through speech" and leave the details? Otherwise you're going to have to list all possibilities, which makes the resolution more difficult to read and can mean that some people are left out.

[Baranxtu]

Groot GoudaMar 17 2006, 08:52 AM Wouldn't it be easier to simply make it "any person not being able to communicate through speech" and leave the details? [/quote]
Yeah, the phrase "deaf, hard of hearing and/or mute" is quite cumbersome and not all-inclusive; but the problem is that in my opinion "any person not being able to communicate through speech" is too broad.

For example, it could in theory also include mentally challenged people, who however are also not able to master sign language, but which would then seem offensive to some, at least, and the proposal would be smashed by the politcal correctness mallet.


What about a term like "any person not being able to communicate through speech, but sign (henceforth referred to as signers)"?

[Groot Gouda]

You could do that, at least it's more general.

Now to the next problem: I really think that in order to get the UN involved into this, there has to be something international. I haven't followed the International Sign Language debate, but there should be something about that too. I fear that the best solution would be to create a commission that will create an international sign language which must be recognized by all UN members.

[Eisophca]

No RL conlang has really taken hold. What's to say an NS consignlang would?

[Baranxtu]

CeoranaMar 19 2006, 12:58 AM No RL conlang has really taken hold. What's to say an NS consignlang would? [/quote]
That's what I wanted to say, so thanks (that also why I've made that remark about Zamenhof earlier).

Also, if the UN would require nations to recognize one international sign language, that'd mean that all signers had to learn that new language if they want to be able to communicate with the government (etc, pp) in sign, which would be a bit inhumane, in my mind, especially for older adults (for whom, as far as I know, acquisition of (and especially achieving fluency in) a foreign language is harder than for young-ish people).

[Grosseschnauzer]

Maybe some clarifications would be in order.

Isn't ASL letter based, that is one signs each letter of a word, except for certain common words that has their special sign? If that is the case, the letter part of sign language would only present a problem where the non-English language contains a letter not used in English. There might have to be a series of international sign languages that vary depending on whether the underlying language uses the roman, cyrillic, hebrew, arabic, chinese, hindi, etc. alphabet. The common word sign langauge would be the same regardless.

If my understanding of this is incorrect, please correct me then. I'm sure I would not be the only one who would find such clarifying information usefukm and I would suspect that explanation would probably need to be included in some form in the proposal.

[Eisophca]

GrosseschnauzerMar 18 2006, 03:20 PM Isn't ASL letter based, that is one signs each letter of a word, except for certain common words that has their special sign? [/quote]
From what I understand, it's word-based, with letter symbols for uncommon words.

[Baranxtu]

CeoranaMar 19 2006, 01:24 AM GrosseschnauzerMar 18 2006, 03:20 PM Isn't ASL letter based, that is one signs each letter of a word, except for certain common words that has their special sign? [/quote]
From what I understand, it's word-based, with letter symbols for uncommon words. [/quote]
As far as I know, all sign languages use fingerspelling mostly for proper names, although person often have an own sign assigned to them for quicker reference.

As a matter of fact, sign languages are quite different from spoken languages, and one language community doesn't have to share the same sign language; for example, American Sign Language is related closely to Old French Sign Language, but mutually unintelligible with British Sign Language.


So, what about including a passage like this:
Quote: ACKNOWLEDGING the infeasibility of an International Sign Language for the international signing community as the diversity of sign languages is as great as that of spoken languages and the fact that sign languages usually are not simple transcriptions of a spoken equivalent into sign, but fully-fledged languages of their own,[/quote]

Edited because, dammit, I know English grammar!

[Fonzoland]

baranxtuMar 18 2006, 11:05 PM CeoranaMar 19 2006, 12:58 AM No RL conlang has really taken hold. What's to say an NS consignlang would? [/quote]
That's what I wanted to say, so thanks (that also why I've made that remark about Zamenhof earlier).

Also, if the UN would require nations to recognize one international sign language, that'd mean that all signers had to learn that new language if they want to be able to communicate with the government (etc, pp) in sign, which would be a bit inhumane, in my mind, especially for older adults (for whom, as far as I know, acquisition of (and especially achieving fluency in) a foreign language is harder than for young-ish people). [/quote]
The previous debate didn't go that far. I believe the intention was creating a basic vocabulary to facilitate international communication. This would be taught to people in all nations, if they so wished, but not necessary for everyday life.

[Xtraordinary Gentlemen]

I actually kinda like the idea of an international sign language. I don't feel that the learning curve argument is all that persuasive considering that the aim here is to establish a sign language in nations that don't already have one and thus will have to create or learn one anyway if (when!) this passes. In theory each individual nation isn't doing significantly more work to learn a UN-created sign language than they would if they were to create one on their own. In fact you could probably argue the opposite; the difficulty and cost of implimentation should be lower for the individual nation if the UN creates the language and establishes a training body.

[Baranxtu]

Xtraordinary GentlemenMar 19 2006, 07:21 AM I actually kinda like the idea of an international sign language. I don't feel that the learning curve argument is all that persuasive considering that the aim here is to establish a sign language in nations that don't already have one and thus will have to create or learn one anyway if (when!) this passes. [/quote]
The thing on my mind is that, at least based on RL, many countries do have a sign language that is common there and even regulated, but not officially recognized (I think only very few RL nations have granted sign languages that status).
So if we were to create an international sign language to be recognized in all UN member states, signers in nations that do have a sign language without official recognition still had to significantly adapt.
(And I hope that my point comes across, because it's 6:30 am and my mind doesn't work perfectly anymore )

Quote:  In theory each individual nation isn't doing significantly more work to learn a UN-created sign language than they would if they were to create one on their own.[/quote]
Well, in practice, probably noone will actually go create one


(And as a side note; I guess it becomes apparent that I personally am not in favor of international languages, whether signed or spoken, doesn't it ? I'll promise to try and push away my personal bias!)

[Groot Gouda]

But if this is about national sign languages, why should the UN care about it?

And a UN recognized sign language doesn't need to be the only one. Just the language that can be used so deaf/mute/etc people over the world can understand each other. If we expect our children to learn foreign languages, why not provide the same for sign languages? And if you need an international sign language, the UN is the best place to make one. And that doesn't affect currently existing sign languages.

[Baranxtu]

So, what about this?

The national sign language part I've kept, but given a more international feeling by referring directly to the universal rights.

Quote: Sign Language Recognition

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description:

REALIZING that not all people are able to communicate through speech, but sign (henceforth referred to as signers);

NOTING with regret that signers are not yet protected and/or supported in their efforts to live within the speakingcommunity throughout the international community;

NOTING further that, whereas signers may master or have mastered spoken language before or after they learned a sign language, not all can do so or only with most severe difficulty, especially when they have prelingual deafness;

The NS UN

1. RECOGNIZES the following universal rights of signers:
a. Citizens shall be able to communicate with the government of a country in which they hold citizenship through the most efficient way of expressing their thoughts, needs, ideas and grievances;
b. Deaf, hearing impaired or mute citizens shall be taught a sign language if they desire so, and be taught so from infancy if they have congenital deafness, severe hearing impairment or muteness;

2. MANDATES that a UN International Sign Language Committee shall be formed, constituted of native signers and professional linguists in order to constructing an International Sign Language based on a creole of major existing sign languages to be used within the UN henceforth;

3. MANDATES that in concordance with Paragraph 1.a., each UN member state recognizes at least one national sign language in which signers may communicate officially;

4. MANDATES subsequently that each UN member state
a. Ensures that adequate facilities and personnel are provided signing students in concordance with Paragraphs 1b and 3;
b. Ensures that adequately instructed personnel is available to provide translation for signers when dealing with government authorities in concordance with Paragraphs 1a and 3;

4. CONDEMNS and FORBIDS any discrimination of signers due to their condition unless hearing and speaking are imperative prerequisites for a job, etc.
[/quote]

[Xtraordinary Gentlemen]

I'd consider adding a suggested but non-mandatory adoption of the language developed by the UNISLC in article 2. That would, in my eyes at least, eliminate the possibility to contend that it's unworthy of UN consideration, allow qualified non-speakers to more easily obtain UN delegate positions within their governments, and still insure that nations with languages that are incompatible with the UN's ISL could continue developing/using their own sign language. Basically I don't think either camp would have anything left to object to with that addition.

[Baranxtu]

No, I haven't forgotten about this; however, I'm putting it into hiatus until around April 15 because I will be vacationing the week prior so putting it up for discussion at jolt and/or starting campaigning would be kinda senseless when I'm not around to defend my precious widdle baby :duck: