Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
23 July 2024 Photo Barend Nagel
Nhlanhla Simelane
Nhlanhla Simelane is a second-year Language Practice student, majoring in South African Sign Language. He is also a former Chairperson of Signals – a student association that is aimed at promoting SASL and Deaf awareness.

Opinion article by Nhlanhla Simelane, Student Assistant: South African Sign Language and Deaf Studies, Faculty: The Humanities, University of the Free State.

It has been a year since the president signed off on the amendment bill to include South African Sign Language (SASL) as one of the country’s official languages. And one may wonder, what has changed since then? After all, many individuals and organisations, including the Deaf Federation of South Africa (DeafSA), the National Institute for the Deaf (NID), and Deaf rights activists from the Deaf community, believed that official recognition of sign language would lead to significant developments for SASL and the Deaf community.

Since then, SASL has mostly benefited from exposure from the SASL Indabas that PanSALB held on 9-10 March 2023 and another one on the 1-2 February this year. These Indabas were aimed at “discussing the standardisation of SASL and mapping a way forward”. They included several stakeholders, including our very own institution. They also had an impact on the development of SASL in various institutions, including UNISA and University of Cape Town (UCT), and it is hoped that this influence will extend to other institutions.

However, one must not overlook the fact that despite being a minority language, SASL already enjoyed significant language rights. For example, the South African Schools Act recognised it as an official language in 1996. The Use of Official Languages Act of 2012 provided another benefit that was not even enjoyed by the other 11 official languages; with this act, state entities had to establish a language policy outlining the use of official languages for public communication, specifically if a member of the public chose SASL as their preferred language. It also benefited from protection under the South African Sign Language Charter, launched by the SASL NLB (National Language Board) in 2020, roughly three years before it became official. Even Prof Theodorus du Plessis, Professor Emeritus in the Department of South African Sign Language and Deaf Studies, University of the Free State (UFS), in a previous opinion article, mentioned that there would be little to gain from officially recognising SASL, aside from the added symbolism associated with such a move. As a matter of fact, SASL had more to lose than gain due to its official recognition, as you will learn later in the article.

A human rights level

On a human rights level, which is more relevant to those living with hearing impairments in the country, the officialisation of SASL still had no significant effect on any of their human rights. This is simply because these persons already enjoyed their rights. However, what the officialisation cost the Deaf community* is the privilege as mentioned earlier that the Use of Official Languages Act of 2012 provided – users of SASL having the right to choose SASL as their language of interaction with the state – the very one that official languages do not enjoy. This is thus a disadvantage to the Deaf community, considering that they already suffer from a lack of interpreters in the county. An article by Nicky Bezuidenhout early this year highlighted that there is a “lack of access to crucial services like healthcare and justice due to a shortage of qualified South African Sign Language (SASL) interpreters”. Therefore, many Deaf people rely on untrained or unqualified individuals and mostly even family members to act as interpreters. This was mostly the case in my life, being a CODA (Child of a Deaf Adult) and having to interpret for my parents. And besides my proficiency in SASL, there was still the matter of a breach of confidentiality. This is a common problem for many people. Therefore, more SASL interpreters (SASLi) are needed. Additionally, it is up to everyone to take it upon themselves to learn SASL through the various provisions that are available today.

More development for SASL as a language

Thankfully, the UFS, among a few other institutions such as the Wits University, North-West University as well as the Durban University of Technology, makes such a provision through its SASL short course. Another way to learn is through mobile applications such as DEAFinition and the NID SASL Dictionary. The previous platforms also offer inexpensive online courses. This way, one can be equipped with SASL fundamentals to at least be able to hold a conversation without the need for an interpreter. Furthermore, we can only anticipate that since SASL is officially recognised, it will become more accessible in higher education institutions, as mentioned earlier, and will be included in the South African school curriculum, particularly for mainstream schools. As a result, more people will have the opportunity to learn SASL. Moreover, we can expect to see an increase in the number of qualified teachers with not only teaching skills but also proficiency in SASL.

Nonetheless, it has only been a year and matters regarding language plans and policies often require a great amount of resources, with time being the greatest of all. We can only hope that its officialisation has indeed led to the cultural acceptance of SASL and the relevant community, promoting substantive equality, and preventing unfair discrimination based on disability. But more importantly, we hope that this is not the end of the road for SASL in terms of its development as a language.

*Footnote: It is important to make a distinction between deaf people who are deaf but do not identify as part of the Deaf community and do not use SASL (who are referred to with a lowercase “d’’), and those who are deaf and are part of the Deaf community, making use of SASL as their first language (who are referred to using a capitalised ‘D’).

• Nhlanhla Simelane is a second-year Language Practice student, majoring in South African Sign Language. He is also a former Chairperson of Signals – a student association that is aimed at promoting SASL and Deaf awareness.

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