NationStates Jolt Archive

In the previous attempt at this proposal there was alot of claims that it was paving the way for a standardised international speaking language. Which was certainly not what is about. After some time I started to look at the proposal once again. And I believe that with the totally re-vamped preamble and some changes to the actionable clauses that such would remove the paving for a standard international speaking language.

Included below is a copy of the latest Draft. Comments and suggestions welcome

Yours Sincerly, John MacKay
Ambassador to the UN and Regional Delegate

P.S. If you had recently approved this proposal could you please re-check that you have. There was a minor issue. Thanks


Name: International Sign Language
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild

BELIEVING that effective international communication is important to modern civilisation;

DISTURBED that many people with severe hearing or speech impairments are restricted in their ability to communicate internationally due to the lack of a standardised sign language, and

RECOGNISING differences in culture and language and wishing to respect such differences while encouraging communication among nations,

ALSO RECOGNISING the importance of technology in improving the communications capabilities of speech- and hearing-impaired persons,

The United Nations hereby

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution:

a. "Grammar" as the rules of syntax used in a sign language.

b. "Word" as a movement or gesture that is used in a sign language to convey a specific meaning.

c. "Vocabulary" as a collection of words.

d. "Verbally-impaired" as a person who is not able to participate effectively in two-way verbal communication due to severe hearing or speech impairment.

2. ESTABLISHES the International Sign Language and Verbal Communication Research Organisation(ISLVCRO). The ISLVCRO shall:

a. Develop an International Sign Language (ISL), which shall include a standardized grammar and a core vocabulary of commonly-used words;

b. In developing these products, take into full account existing national sign languages, identifying commonalities and taking fullest advantage of them;

c. Ensure that the core vocabulary includes words necessary for acquiring and providing emergency services;

d. Establish a mechanism for national governments and interested groups to propose additions to the standard ISL vocabulary;

e. Provide assistance, as necessary and requested, to nations integrating the ISL into existing sign language training, and

f. Promote international cooperation in research into technologies that enable the verbally-impaired to communicate.

3. RECOGNIZES that nations may well develop and/or maintain sign language systems with much more extensive vocabularies than that of the ISL, depending upon their economic, social, and cultural environments.

4. MANDATES that all verbally-impaired citizens of member nations must have ready access to training in the ISL, including provision of training at no cost to those unable to pay.

5. STRONGLY URGES member nations to make training in the ISL available for free or at minimal cost to persons who are not verbally-impaired, particularly health care, law enforcement, and emergency services professionals.

OOC:
This resolution had been submitted as a Human Rights proposal and soon after I submitted it received an interesting TG from a Mod. Ruling that the proposal is not a Human Rights but could be a Social Justice. Now I'm not querying the ruling just extraneous things associated with it.

It's not a severe enough infraction to warn or delete over, but it will not be allowed onto the General Assembly floor even if it gets enough approvals. You should run such proposals past the UN forum regulars before posting in future. This is the last portion of the TG.

1. If it is not going to be allowed onto the floor by a Mod then what point is there keeping it in the list?
2. It has been on the UN Forum a number of times and even submitted an earlier version which was much the same appart from the pre-amble and some non-major actionable clause alterations. I have posted 2 threads in relation about it in the UN thread other than this one as well as in the NSO forums. Which the latest revision was nutted out in.

Original submission: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469887
Original Draft: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468719

We're very pleased to see this issue raised again in this Assembly. While there are a number of technical issues to be worked out, we believe this is a very worthwhile effort and hope to be able to support the final product. A few preliminary comments....

We're glad that the honorable representative of Bazalonia recognizes and addresses the fact that sign languages are more than simply gestures representing words. They typically have a grammar of their own as well, often quite different from that of the spoken language. This may prove to be a more difficult part of the problem to address than vocabulary, but it needs to be considered.

As in the last discussion of this idea, we remain troubled by the notion of "harmonizing" extant sign languages. With the multiplicity of such languages that likely exist among the nations of the NSUN, we doubt that such an approach is realistic. The effort should take extant sign languages into full account, but we can't see how they could or should be "harmonized".

In light of the final clause, which we believe to be valuable, we suggest a stated requirement in the proposal that the core vocabulary must include words needed to obtain emergency services. This might underscore one of the valuable benefits of the legislation.

We hope to be able to contribute more to this discussion as it progresses.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Some changes have been made to clause 2a which should resolve the issue of harmonisation as well extra d and e clauses have been added to 2 in regards to 'finger spelling' and emergency services facilitation.

I believe these should resolve the issues you have raised.

Yours Sincerly,John MacKay
Ambassador to the UN and Regional Delegate

OOC: charges made are in bold

I really know nothing about this topic, but why shouldn't finger spelling be part of ISL? It seems that it would be good to have a universal standard to fall back on if a word isn't part of one or both people's vocabulary.

The answer to that question is Alphabets. In written languages there are a number of potential alphabet's. Languages such as English, French and German. While generally using the same alphabet all have differences such as accents in French and German that are not in English Usage or characters in German that are not in use in French or English. "ß"

And then there are issues of different Alphabet's all together like Cyrillic, Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Hebrew plus the many others out there in the NSVerse. An international standardised finger spelling just does not make sense. And probably won't make much difference to understanding of it either.

The representative of Bazalonia is quite correct. Finger-spelling is an important part of sign language, but, unfortunately, it is not conducive to international standardization. Besides the problem of variant alphabets he describes, there is the problem that people finger-spell words from spoken/written languages. So unless the other party spoke the same language as the signer, he or she wouldn't understand anyway.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

.. Anyother comments?

This sounds like an excellent idea, and good job on working out a lot of the kinks in the older draft. I'm a little concerned about the deep cultural connotations that words have and the fact that sign language, in the same manner as spoken language, should be as free-form and expressive as a culture can be. Your current draft adequately addresses my concerns, so you have my approval.

Nice job getting innovative with a good topic.

Thanks To everyone that has helped me with there comments. This has been submitted.

Norderia approves, and wishes most excellent luck.

I think this should be in the Educational subcategory. I also don't like the latter half of clause 4: why should we give them free lessons just because they can't afford it?

I think this should be in the Educational subcategory. I also don't like the latter half of clause 4: why should we give them free lessons just because they can't afford it?

Because the whole point of the proposal is to open up the communication channels for those with as the proposal defines "verbal-impairment". It would be counter intuitive not to have this access to all citizens. Also it could be worked into the nations education system, the point of the proposal is to increase communication not to limit and control it.

We support this fine piece of legislation.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador

Because the whole point of the proposal is to open up the communication channels for those with as the proposal defines "verbal-impairment". It would be counter intuitive not to have this access to all citizens. Also it could be worked into the nations education system, the point of the proposal is to increase communication not to limit and control it.
Right - so it would be better to stimulate a competitive market in these services, than to stifle all chance of this through government subsidy.

I received an interesting TG from a Mod. Ruling that the proposal is not a Human Rights but could be a Social Justice.It's not a severe enough infraction to warn or delete over, but it will not be allowed onto the General Assembly floor even if it gets enough approvals. You should run such proposals past the UN forum regulars before posting in future. This is the last portion of the TG.

1. If it is not going to be allowed onto the floor by a Mod then what point is there keeping it in the list?
2. It has been on the UN Forum a number of times
My actual telegram read, ""Your UN proposal, International Sign Language, is mis-categorized. It would probably fit best under one of the Education categories, or possibly Social Justice. It's NOT Human Rights." Why you chose to ignore the Education categories evades me, as it's still a push to make it Social Justice.

1a. Leaving it out there allows you to gauge interest. Judging by the number of approvals, you were not running a campaign, so its chance of reaching quorum hovered between slim and none.
1b. Had I removed it, I would have perforce given you a warning for Category violation. You want one?

2. I assumed that any discussion of this proposal would have also incorporated discussion of the category. I've repeated the point over and over that proposals must be written with the category in mind, not vice versa. I'm guessing that you either didn't list your category, or nobody bothered to comment on it.

My two most common reasons for deleting proposals are Category violations and Branding. Branding is a n00b mistake and rarely appears in proposals with potential merit, but Category violations affect virtually everyone. If your text doesn't match the game effect, I'm gonna kill it.

I'll repeat (one MORE time): "Write your proposal TO the category, not vice-versa."

Fris, I thank you for your explainations. I am sorry if my comments seemed.. well.. attacking.

As for the category choices, I saw it as a human rights issue, the right to be able to effectively communicate. Spoken Languages are taught by children listening and copying their parents and to some extent so is sign language. But sign language, to me, would be needed to be enshrined as a human right to all those that require it. And that is what this does.

But it is also Social Justice, which you noted as a possibility in your TG, why? because it levels the playing field for all citizens whether they can pay or not. Effective communication is a vital tool without that tool citizens are at a severe dis-advantage. Yes it is acheived by education but is that the main focus on the proposal? I don't think so. The proposal is disturbed that there is an unecessary restriction, through the lack of an international sign language, on people that are already restricted due to things that are beyond their control.

As for TGing I have organised someone else to do it.

I thought I would explain my choices in the proposal and as for only coping half of the TG. Well I had read it, made my decision as described above, and re-submitted it. As for number 1 I only wanted an explanation of why that decision was made which I have received.

And 2, well, I have to admit that I was insulted and annoyed, partly because I had ran it through UN regulars and also partly because it was another blow for the proposal on something that should have been picked up, either by a mod or a non-mod, it even was submitted before, and I just find out about the miscategorisation.

I only quoted the last part because I didn't see the need for all of it, I just had a few questions, granted there probably where a thousand better ways I could have asked but since I only wanted to raise issues about the last half I only quoted the last half.

You're making the too-common mistake of looking at the main words of the the Categories without considering the all-important description lines. Let's break it down.

So, what does your proposal DO?

1) Defines your terms
2) Creates an organization with rules
3) Allows variation by nation
4) Mandates a government educational program
5) Encourages national subsidies for your program

So, what do UN categories DO?

Human Rights - "A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights." None of your clauses fit

Social Justice - "A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare." Only clause 5 fits.

Education and Creativity - "A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts."
1) Artistic - some could see language development as an art. Fits clauses 1-4
2) Educational - a better fit for clauses 1-4. You could even sneak in #5
3) Cultural Heritage - is the Deaf Community a culture? A stretch, but has conceptual possibilities, esp Clause 3
4) Free Press - would be a hard sell, but it could happen.

On the whole, I'd have gone with Education and Creativity / Educational.

Havvy Supports This. Of course, a few things need to be made especially clear, such as, we should have a universal language for all to understand that include words such as starving, help, and "911" or emergency. Of course, I will try to mandate this with governments. Go Sign Language. :upyours: (notice the universal thing we need to take out)