NationStates Jolt Archive

It has come to my attention that there is no international standard for sign languages or even there be a requirement that there be one in each nation. As a result I have now Submitted a proposal to the UN. I'd like to thank all those that had a hand in this... A copy of the proposal is included.

If you are a regional delegate I would like to ask for your support for this proposal.

Thank you

Yours Sincerly, John McKay
Ambassador to the UN

Name: International Sign Language
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

BELIEVING communication between individuals within any UN member nation or in-between UN member nations is vital,

CONCERNED that opportunities for the verbally-impaired may be limited in some nations,

UNDERSTANDING the benefits of an international visual or sign language for verbally-impaired citizens who wish to travel abroad,

BELIEVING that verbally-impaired people need to learn a language that allows them to communicate effectively,

UNDERSTANDING that the use of technology can dramatically increase a verbally-impaired person's quality of life, by opening up the channels for two-way verbal communication,

The UN hereby

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:

a) 'word' as a movement or gesture that is used within a sign language framework to convey a meaning to others under the same sign language framework,

b) 'dictionary' as a recognised organisation of words and the specific idea that they convey,

c) 'verbally-impaired' as any person who is not able to participate effectively in two-way verbal communication due to severe hearing or speech impediment;

2. ESTABLISHES the International Sign Language and Verbal Communication Research Organisation(ISLVCRO), mandated to:

a) create an International Sign Language (ISL), harmonising the various sign language dictionaries into a standard ISL dictionary, and to add words that affect a majority of UN member nations,

b) provide a mechanism for nations to propose additional words to the standard ISL dictionary,

c) coordinate international research into technologies that allow the verbally-impaired to participate in two-way verbal communication;

3. MANDATES that all verbally-impaired citizens of member nations are given free access to training in the ISL;

4. STRONGLY URGES member nations to make training in the ISL available at no cost to persons who are not verbally-impaired, particularly health care, law enforcement, and emergency services professionals;

5. ALLOWS member nations to add regional-specific words to the standard ISL dictionary to create regional dictionaries;

This is a well-intended proposal with a nice idea, but its unworthy of the UN. I think we can all agree that the "mandatory universal language" proposals are foolish, so why hold sign language to a different level just because the words are not spoken?

This is a well-intended proposal with a nice idea, but its unworthy of the UN. I think we can all agree that the "mandatory universal language" proposals are foolish, so why hold sign language to a different level just because the words are not spoken?

Perhaps not all of us would agree that mandatory universal language proposals are "foolish". Impracticable, yes, but not foolish.

That aside, there are a number of significant differences between attempting to impose a mandatory universal language and developing a standard international sign language. One of the most important is the size of the population involved, and, thus, the practicality of the attempt. Further, there is nothing "mandatory" about the use of the language. Nations are required to make it available to their verbally-impaired citizens, but those citizens are not mandated to use it. We believe that practical considerations will cause many to do so, though. A third significant difference is in the scope of the effort. Many languages are huge, unwieldy things, loaded with synonymous words and the jargons of many occupations. The ISL would have a limited vocabulary containing only words found commonly necessary for essential communication. This, again, makes the effort do-able.

Although we consider this a commendable effort and would like to support this proposal, we find we cannot support the proposal as written for technical reasons. An effort to "harmonize" existing national sign languages, we believe, is the wrong approach to the problem. The ISLVCRO should be tasked with creating an alphabet for finger-spelling and a vocabulary of signs after proper study and research and including, where possible, common alphabet signs and words from existing sign languages with large user populations. And the creation of dictionaries should not be the purpose of the organization established. Dictionaries would necessarily be language-dependent and should be left to educators and lexicographers familiar with those languages.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Bazalonia']UNDERSTANDING that the use of technology can dramatically increase a verbally-impaired person's quality of life, by opening up the channels for two-way verbal communication,


We feel that this will divert funds as well as resources to this rather than advancing such technology to bring these impaired person closer to a normal life. This would only separate them as impaired persons since not all will learn this and I saw nothing to insure all do learn it.. thus impaired persons can wave their hands all they want and still be silent to many.

Give them medical procedures or devices that allow them to speak and hear as close to normal as one can... thus they will then decide the language they speak in and want to hear themselves not be regulated to just one...

Also so much is missed when a person can't hear that it would be best to provide the best means to let them hear than set them up only to watch others wave their hands at them.. To SIGN them what a bird song sounds like or the music from a good band...

Please. Are you actually stating your opposition because you think a preambulatory clause is forcing you to do something? That is an argument, not an effect of the proposal.

Hirota endorses the concept of promoting an international standard for basic sign language.

However, my government would be compelled to vote against any such proposal in its present form. Hirota notes that those who use sign language have a considerably easier time learning other sign languages according to RL studies, and therefore that there is no need to harmonise sign languages over the whole of UN. Hirota is of the opinion this is unnecessary and excessive micromanagement of the issue.

My government suggests a limited dictionary of less than a 1000 words as points of reference for users of sign language as a baseline for communication. We would not suggest nations can contribute to this list, so as to reduce administrative costs of implementing such changes (especially as this language would be used as a baseline for communications and does need expansion).

Hirota thanks Bazalonia for bringing this subject to the UN floor and looks forward to any future drafts for review.

Perhaps rather than looking to raise awareness for this one aspect of tools for the Impaired we should look to put in place a body sanctioned by the UN to install aids for disabled persons in the nations of the UN Members. We could call it the United Nations Disability and Awareness programme. In it we could list some guidelines promoting the rights of the disabled and give the body the power to implement tools and aids specifically designed for people with disabilities.

Personally i think this would be of more benifit than focusing on one aspect of physical disability and applying it to the UN resolutions. Also doing this would give the body a certain amount of independance from national and international politics to put in place the best and most practical solutions to assist people with dissabilities to lead normal and productive lives.

VL.