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

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