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

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

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