Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
20 July 2023 | Story Prof Theodorus du Plessis | Photo Supplied
Prof Theo du Plessis
Prof Theodorus du Plessis is Professor Emeritus in the Department of South African Sign Language and Deaf Studies at the University of the Free State (UFS).


Opinion article by Prof Theodorus du Plessis, Professor Emeritus in the Department of South African Sign Language and Deaf Studies, University of the Free State


Firstly, South Africa now becomes the first country in the world to recognise its national sign language as an official language in the country's constitution. This is different from the current 76 countries that officially recognise their sign languages.

Secondly, South Africa becomes only the seventh country in the world to recognise its national sign language as an official national language. The other countries where the national sign language is an official language are Uruguay (as of 2001), New Zealand (as of 2006), Poland (as of 2012), Papua New Guinea and South Korea (both as of 2015), and Malta (as of 2016). Four of these countries – New Zealand, Poland, South Korea, and Malta – have effected the officialisation of their national sign languages through a national sign language law. Uruguay has done so through disability legislation and Papua New Guinea through a dictation of the country's National Executive Council.

Thirdly, it took South African Sign Language (SASL) just as long to become an official language of the country, as was the case with South Africa's nine Sintu languages (Zulu, Sotho, etc.). These languages were first recognised as official languages at regional level in 1963 but were recognised as national official languages alongside Afrikaans and English from the interim 1993 Constitution. SASL was granted official status from nowhere within 30 years. Incidentally, Afrikaans gained official status in 1925 – within 17 years after the 1909 Union Act was passed, recognising only English and Dutch as official languages.

Three factors played a role

Achieving these exceptional milestones is due to at least three factors, namely a favourable socio-political climate globally around minority languages and the whole disability issue, sustained pressure from an active Deaf lobby, and the active and decisive bottom-up actions by a string of role players. The degree of political favour should certainly not be lost sight of either. Already in 1995, the ruling ANC wanted SASL to become an official language, and eventually submitted exactly such a proposal to the Constitutional Assembly. Even though the time was not ripe for this, the proposal resulted in SASL being declared an official language in the South African Schools Act of 1996 for the purposes of teaching and learning in public schools (note, not only Deaf schools), the inclusion of "sign language" [sic] in the constitutional language mandate of the Pan South African Language Board, and the granting of linguistic human rights to all South Africans, including the Deaf, in terms of the Bill of Human Rights. The further amplification of SASL in terms of the 18th Constitutional Amendment crowns this campaign, which goes back to the period of the birth of our democracy.

International experts give three reasons why the officialisation of countries' national sign languages is significant:

  • It can help to ensure that Deaf people have access to education, employment, and other services in their ‘own language’.
  • It can promote the use of sign languages in general and also help to preserve the languages.
  • It can raise awareness about the so-called Deaf culture and the contributions of the Deaf.

All three reasons also bring us to the important issue of inclusivity. Education, in particular, plays an important role in this. To date, the Schools Act has been enforced in such a way that SASL has mainly been taught in Deaf schools as home language, while the law stipulates that it applies to all public schools. Now that SASL is also a national official language, perhaps the opportunity has come for the inclusion of SASL as home language in all schools. More importantly, a curriculum must now be developed so that the language can also be taught as first and second additional language in all schools. Such a thing would give inclusivity an enormous jolt. Many universities have been offering SASL as a subject for some time and can attest to the exceptional contribution it makes to fellowship between hearing and deaf persons.

Will not promote inclusivity as such

Also of great importance is the establishment of a functional language dispensation that will include professional language services for the Deaf as well. This will assist in actively realising the significant provisions of the Use of Official Languages Act of 2012 that state entities must establish communication for persons with SASL as preferred language.

It is important to understand that the mere inclusion of SASL as a 12th official language will not promote inclusivity as such. It will require hard work. And more hard work!

 


Bibliography

Wikipedia. 2023. List of official languages by country and territory.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languages_by_country_and_territory was verified by the author.

Branson, J en D Miller. 1997. National sign language and language policies. In Wodak en  Corson, Encyclopedia of language and education: language policy and political issues in education, 1:89–98). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Constitute. 2013. Zimbabwe 2013 (2017 hersien). https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Zimbabwe_2017.

De Meulder, M. 2015. The legal recognition of sign languages. Sign Language Studies, 15(4):498–506.

De Meulder, Maartje, J Murray en RL McKee. 2019. Introduction. The legal recognition of sign languages: advocacy and outcomes around the world. In De Meulder,  Murray en McKee (2019), The legal recognition of sign languages: advocay and outcomes around the world. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Kiprop, V. 2019. Which countries recognize sign language as an official language? World Atlas: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-countries-recognize-sign-language-as-an-official-language.html

Parlementêre Redaksie. 1995. Gebaretaal dalk gou SA se 12de amptelike taal. Die Burger, 8 Mei, bl. 9.

Reagan, T. 2020. Linguistic human rights and the deaf: implications for language policy. Hooftoesprak, 2nd Language Diversity in Educational Settings Workshop 2020: "Making a change through sign language". Organised by the Department of South African Sign Language and Deaf Studies, University of the Free State, 9–20 November 2020. Virtual event.

Timmermans, N. 2005. The status of sign languages in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

VN (Verenigde Nasies). 1975. Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons adopted 9 December 1975 by General Assembly resolution 3447 (XXX). United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commisioner. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-rights-disabled-persons

—. 2006. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities adopted 13 December 2006 by Sixty-first session of the General Assembly by resolution A/RES/51/106. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities

—. 2017. International Day of Sign Languages, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 2017 A/RES/72/161. United Nations General Assembly.  https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2FRES%2F72%2F161&Language=E&DeviceType=Desktop&LangRequested=False

WFD (Wêreld Federasie van Dowes). 2016. Our story. World Federation of the Deaf. http://wfdeaf.org/who-we-are/our-story

—. 2022. The legal recognition of national sign languages (Update: 10 January 2022). World Federation of the Deaf. https://wfdeaf.org/news/the-legal-recognition-of-national-sign-languages

Wikipedia. 2023. List of official languages by country and territory.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languages_by_country_and_territory (Verified by author).


 

News Archive

“To forgive is not an obligation. It’s a choice.” – Prof Minow during Reconciliation Lecture
2014-03-05

“To forgive is not an obligation. It’s a choice.” – Prof Minow during the Third Annual Reconciliation Lecture entitled Forgiveness, Law and Justice.
Photo: Johan Roux

No one could have anticipated the atmosphere in which Prof Martha Minow would visit the Bloemfontein Campus. And no one could have predicted how apt the timing of her message would be. As this formidable Dean of Harvard University’s Law School stepped behind the podium, a latent tension edged through the crowded audience.

“The issue of getting along after conflict is urgent.”

With these few words, Prof Minow exposed the essence of not only her lecture, but also the central concern of the entire university community.

As an expert on issues surrounding racial justice, Prof Minow has worked across the globe in post-conflict societies. How can we prevent atrocities from happening? she asked. Her answer was an honest, “I don’t know.” What she is certain of, on the other hand, is that the usual practice of either silence or retribution does not work. “I think that silence produces rage – understandably – and retribution produces the cycle of violence. Rather than ignoring what happens, rather than retribution, it would be good to reach for something more.” This is where reconciliation comes in.

Prof Minow put forward the idea that forgiveness should accompany reconciliation efforts. She defined forgiveness as a conscious, deliberate decision to forego rightful grounds of resentment towards those who have committed a wrong. “To forgive then, in this definition, is not an obligation. It’s a choice. And it’s held by the one who was harmed,” she explained.

Letting go of resentment cannot be forced – not even by the law. What the law can do, though, is either to encourage or discourage forgiveness. Prof Minow showed how the law can construct adversarial processes that render forgiveness less likely, when indeed its intention was the opposite. “Or, law can give people chances to meet together in spaces where they may apologise and they may forgive,” she continued. This point introduced some surprising revelations about our Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

Indeed, studies do report ambivalence, disappointment and mixed views about the TRC. Whatever our views are on its success, Prof Minow reported that people across the world wonder how South African did it. “It may not work entirely inside the country; outside the country it’s had a huge effect. It’s a touchstone for transitional justice.”

The TRC “seems to have coincided with, and maybe contributed to, the relatively peaceful political transition to democracy that is, frankly, an absolute miracle.” What came as a surprise to many is this: the fact that the TRC has affected transitional justice efforts in forty jurisdictions, including Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Liberia. It has even inspired the creation of a TRC in Greensborough, North Carolina, in the United States.

There are no blueprints for solving conflict, though. “But the possibility of something other than criminal trials, something other than war, something other than silence – that’s why the TRC, I think, has been such an exemplar to the world,” she commended.

Court decision cannot rebuild a society, though. Only individuals can forgive. Only individuals can start with purposeful, daily decisions to forgive and forge a common future. Forgiveness is rather like kindness, she suggested. It’s a resource without limits. It’s not scarce like water or money. It’s within our reach. But if it’s forced, it’s not forgiveness.

“It is good,” Prof Minow warned, “to be cautious about the use of law to deliberately shape or manipulate the feelings of any individual. But it is no less important to admit that law does affect human beings, not just in its results, but in its process.” And then we must take responsibility for how we use that law.

“A government can judge, but only people can forgive.” As Prof Minow’s words lingered, the air suddenly seemed a bit more buoyant.

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