Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
23 September 2022 | Story Jani de Lange | Photo Rulanzen Martin
Jani de Lange
Jani de Lange is a Sign Language academic and researcher and a campaigner for South African Sign Language and greater inclusion for South Africa’s Deaf community. She is currently busy with her PhD at the UFS.

Opinion by Jani de Lange, Lecturer and PhD candidate at the Department of South African Sign Language and Deaf Studies, University of the Free State. 

September is designated as the National Month of Deaf People in South Africa. This includes the International Week of Deaf People (19-25 September) and the United Nations-recognised International Day of Sign Languages (23 September). This month commemorates the first World Deaf Congress, held in Italy in September 1951, at which the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) was established. The purpose of this month is to raise public awareness about Deaf people’s concerns and successes, about hearing loss, deafness, Deaf culture, as well as sign languages – in our case, South African Sign Language (SASL). The WFD, as the international Deaf organisation, allocates a theme every year to guide Deaf awareness campaigns. This year’s is ‘Building Inclusive Communities for All’. Considering the recent proposed amendment to include SASL as South Africa’s 12th official language, and our yearly celebrations of our diverse heritage on 24 September, this theme is applicable to all South Africans, not only the Deaf. But how much do we really know about this minority group?


To me, the success of this group is evident in their fight for the recognition of SASL, especially with regards to access to quality education. The Deaf community of South Africa has been fighting for the recognition of SASL for many years. The pre-1994 policy of racial segregation was extended to children’s hearing status, which resulted in small pockets of Deaf school communities away from their hearing peers. The education system at the time promoted the use of oralism (teaching Deaf children to lip-read and denying the use of SASL), and many Deaf children did not go to school. Despite this, SASL continued to develop among the different communities. This resulted in different dialects of SASL, a language with its own vocabulary and grammar rules. This language is an integral part of any Deaf person’s identity, and functions as a marker of cultural membership. 

SASL needs more recognition as a Home Language 

The Schools Act of 1996 recognises sign language (not specifically referring to SASL) as “official” for the purposes of teaching and learning in Deaf Schools. Unfortunately, this stipulation did not necessarily change the educational prospects for this group. While SASL was used as a medium of instruction, it was not accepted as an exit-level Home Language subject. According to an article published in the ‘African Disability Rights Yearbook’ in 2016, this led to many dropping out of school at Grade 7. Some learners were able to attend hearing schools by making use of residual hearing or assistive devices, but they either dropped out, or completed Grade 12 with poor results. Only a small group finished with an endorsed certificate. In all these scenarios, the prospects for tertiary education and employment are limited. A step towards improving educational opportunities for the Deaf was achieved in 2009: A family wanted their child to eventually attend a tertiary institution. Given the drawbacks of attending a hearing school, they did not want to risk their child’s chances, so they took the Department of Basic Education to court. After the case was settled out of court, SASL was implemented as an exit-level Home Language subject in Deaf schools in 2013.

This year, the draft Constitution Eighteenth Amendment Bill was published to give the Deaf community what they have been fighting for over so many years – official recognition of SASL. But will this recognition contribute to the inclusion of the South African Deaf community in the mainly hearing world? Currently, the legal protection of the Deaf in South Africa is under the umbrella of disability. This view is vested in the pathological perception of deafness, which is the prevailing understanding of the hearing world. To build an inclusive society, it is necessary to look beyond the medical aspect of ‘disabled’ and see the use of SASL as a marker of another culture, a view propagated by the socio-cultural approach to deafness. There is a lot that hearing people do not know or understand about the Deaf community and their experiences. However, we can acknowledge this group of people as part of our already diverse country by being open to learning more and celebrating their successes. 

As individuals, we can take time to determine how we ourselves could change to promote inclusion, rather than expecting people to change to fit into our own view of society.

News Archive

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept