NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings Delegates,
Your consideration and support of my proposal "Freedom of Language" would be greatly appreciated! Essentially, the purpose of this is to strenghen the protections afforded by the Universal Bill of Rights with respect to language and discrimination arising from it. The proposal would recognize the value of linguistic diversity, and provide for the establishment of a voluntary fund allowing for language education in member states. Additionally, it recognizes the need to preclude discrimination, both de jure and de facto, resulting from the ascription of certain qualities to speakers of a respective language. Thank you greatly for taking a look!

The text of the proposal as submitted is below:
Category: Human Rights, Strength: Significant, Proposed By: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

RECALLING the Universal Bill of Rights as so adopted by this body; desiring to strenghen the various protections of linguistic heritage.

WHEREAS We, the United Nations assembled, recognize the inherent value of diversity and the worth of the rich linguistic heritage shared among peoples.

WHEREAS We hold that such diversity should be preserved and honoured; that no heritage is superior.

RESOLVE that all people are naturally imbued with the Right to determine which language shall be that of their use.

RESOLVE that no law or impediment shall be created to limit this Right of linguistic self-determination.

RESOLVE that the nations of the world shall work to expunge any discrimination arising from the use of a respective language.

RESOLVE that a voluntary fund shall be established for the purpose of providing language education in the recognition of such value.

Could you post an actual copy of the proposal. The reason being it will not always be on the page that it's on at the moment - it can move to the head of the queue if it gets enough approvals - and no one would be able to find it :}

But at first reading it would argue that I can submit all future proposals in Aslan (my "ancient" langauge) and no one would be able to complain about it.

Also there is the matter of spelling, grammar and so forth - they are quite important when drafting laws :}

I'm curious.

There should be able to be some sort of "native language" of a nation. If this proposal in any way discourages that - I will not support it.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Its also illegal I think.

Have a provision considered concerning proper noun vernacular purity.

(OOC: So Deutschland doesn't become "Germany" or "Allemagne"; Roma doesn't become "Rome"; Sevilla doesn't become "Seville"; or Marseille doesn't become "Marseilles". But, then again, we generally don't have that problem with NS nations.)

I'm curious.

There should be able to be some sort of "native language" of a nation. If this proposal in any way discourages that - I will not support it.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Why?

Nations exist which have no precise "native language". Forcing them to have one - or not to have one - goes against National Soverignty.

RESOLVE that all people are naturally imbued with the Right to determine which language shall be that of their use.

Naturally, you learn how to speak from the group you are apart of, your family, community, et cetera.

What is a parent to do? Live a life of silence around their child; Let the child be a mute until it figure out how to communicate in any language it sees fit.

Without a national language government efficiency could decline drastically (not to say it ever exists).

I'm curious as to how the situation in Enn would work under this, should it become legislation.

Currently, Enn has two national languages, English and Common Ennial. English became the national language through simple requirement of use when conversing with other nations. Common Ennial is the standard form of our original language.
In the People's Assembly, only Common Ennial and its ancestor High Ennial are allowed. This is inscribed into our national constitution. Anyone who does not speak either is unable to take part. Surely this would be at odds with this?
RESOLVE that no law or impediment shall be created to limit this Right of linguistic self-determination.
Also, the Council only conducts its affairs in High Ennial. Ergo, anyone who does not speak High Ennial fluently is barred from ever becoming a Council member.

So what happens to Enn?

Thanks to everyone for the replies!

My intention with this was strictly to affirm individual rights pertaining to learning languages and to be free of discrimination arising from their use. More specifically, I was looking to preclude persecution of individuals who used languages which might be associated with a particular ethic/religious/racial background. This is not at all meant to be violative of national regulations regarding the use of a particular language in formalized settings (I.e. In government, the writing of laws, etc.)

As a corollary to that point, it is common for such highly formalized settings (especially those with international participation) to standardize one language as "native" or "original", while allowing translated expression in other languages. This is common for international treaties, where an "original" draft in a given language exists, while the various signatories possess copies in their own language.

Regarding the admittedly vague "Right to Linguistic self-determination", this simply codifies one's right to learn any language. This does not imply that the 1st Language must be one of an individuals choosing, but guarantees one the right to learn and use any language they wish should they find themselves able to do so later in life.

In any event, thanks very much for the valuable feedback!

How about places like India and Slovadoberg, where there are thousands of "native languages"?

While it has been proven that the language one uses can affect how one views the world (usually because of grammatical restrictions determining how things can be veiwed) and that language has as deep a historic and cultural meaning as any other defining trait, I don't think it an amendment is needed to protect that. In fact, i think that putting in a resolution that ensures that everyone can use whatever language they want at any time.

My main problem is that it abolishes the right of a nation to have any sort of national language. While this may seem trivial, it is vital to create stability in a country. There needs to be at least one common language in a country so that infomation can be conveyed equally to all citizens without things being "lost in translation," so to speak. It would also complicat matters of national documents like liscences and permits. What language would they or theur required tests be in? This is especially problematic in a socialist, democratic, republican, or communist country where communication is at the root of society.

Abolishing the right of a country to declare a national language standard can also create national devisions. Countries could become divided along language barriers as easily as they are being divided along religious or idealistic lines today. It would just create another wall within a country that the government was helpless to dismantle.

In the Republic of Global Peoples, we support bi-lingual education for this reason. Children can be taught to properly use their "native" language so they can be in touch with their culture and local community, but also must be taught to use the common language so that they can be functioning citizens of the republic in places where their language might not be spoken.

I understand your concern and respect your idea, but at this time I do not feel that I could support this measure untill issues such as these are taken into account.

ROGP