NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear UN Delegates;

I once again ask your favour and for your approval for this proposal. Ater the repeal of Hearing-Impaired Aid Act there is no UN resolution that deals with those that may be hearing-impaired. I Believe that this resolution will provide satisfactory solutions to the problems that many hearing-impaired persons may find. Please read the resolution a copy has been attached as well the Official Copy (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=sign) can be found in the UN records.

Please go to the Official and note your approval of this resolution. Thank you.


International Sign Language
Category: Education & Arts
Sub-category: Educational

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,

NOTING the REPEAL of "Hearing Impaired Aid Act" particularily it's flaws as well as it's intentions.

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.

I still don't like clause 4. Instead of giving state hand-outs that will favour laziness, it would be better to let the market produce the best possible courses.

I still don't like clause 4. Instead of giving state hand-outs that will favour laziness, it would be better to let the market produce the best possible courses.

For those Able to pay the market would produce the best possible courses but I don't see why people that are both "verbally-impaired" and dirt poor should have the access to it as well. It's like a double whammy. If your nation is unwilling to aid their poorness then they should still be able to speak with other "verbally-impaired" people using the ISL, whether or not it is the only recognised sign-language in existance.

OK, this is going to sound demented, but what about national sign languages? Or cultures that have developed sign languages as part of their identity (aboriginal hunters, for instance)?

I see this as being a lot like the “universal language” proposals: if we respect linguistic diversity for those who speak and hear, why do we treat people whose hearing differs from the norm according to a separate standard?

Assuming you meant "lack" instead of "have"...

They won't lack access to it. Because clearly, people without something represent...a market! Therefore, companies will lower their prices. But if they can't compete with a subsidised government monopoly, there is no impetus for them to improve their services.

OK, this is going to sound demented, but what about national sign languages? Or cultures that have developed sign languages as part of their identity (aboriginal hunters, for instance)?

I see this as being a lot like the “universal language” proposals: if we respect linguistic diversity for those who speak and hear, why do we treat people whose hearing differs from the norm according to a separate standard?

This proposal by no mean affects cultural identity, it does not prohibit the existance of any other Sign Language. It only mandates that a Sign Language that is standardised is taught, irregardless of what other sign language is taught or not.

It even promotes individual groups (whether ethnic, national, regional or any other appropriate group) to add additional words should their be requirements to do so.

Assuming you meant "lack" instead of "have"...

They won't lack access to it. Because clearly, people without something represent...a market! Therefore, companies will lower their prices. But if they can't compete with a subsidised government monopoly, there is no impetus for them to improve their services.

Where does it say that the government actually has to run their own courses? The government can simply pay a nominated fee to a training provider which according to agreements grant the people unable to pay access to the courses provided by any number of providers that have agreements with government, or could simply pass law as anyone identified as being "unable to pay" by government will have a set payment for the services rendered by an organisation of choice.

This proposal by no mean affects cultural identity, it does not prohibit the existance of any other Sign Language. It only mandates that a Sign Language that is standardised is taught, irregardless of what other sign language is taught or not.

It even promotes individual groups (whether ethnic, national, regional or any other appropriate group) to add additional words should their be requirements to do so.But that's the problem, don't you see? If the ISL is mandatory, that will squeeze out instruction in the national language - and potentially, in the local culture. There's only so much money and so much time, and the ISL is grabbing top billing, pushing everything else to secondary status.

But that's the problem, don't you see? If the ISL is mandatory, that will squeeze out instruction in the national language - and potentially, in the local culture. There's only so much money and so much time, and the ISL is grabbing top billing, pushing everything else to secondary status.

If you think that since ISL is mandatory that it might squeeze out local culture, make it mandatory in your own country that the national sign language be taught along side the ISL. You can emphasise your local Sign language while still making sure that people do know the ISL.

If you think that since ISL is mandatory that it might squeeze out local culture, make it mandatory in your own country that the national sign language be taught along side the ISL. You can emphasise your local Sign language while still making sure that people do know the ISL.You're missing the point.

Let's use spoken language as an example. The national language of Lakotastan is Lakotastani. Now we require everyone to learn English. Lakotastan is poor and its kids only have so much time to spend on learning languages.

Result: Kids learn English, not Lakotastani. Lakotastani becomes a dead language, and an important part of the traditional culture us lost.

Mandating bilingualism won't help if you don't have the time and money to support bilingual education. Essentially, you've said that if only one language can be learned, then it needs to be ISL, and the local sign language be d_mn_d.

Even if ISL takes over from an existing sign language. As the ISL, I quote

"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."

That does not mean that the existing sign language will be lost. I will virtually garuantee you that the core ISL vocabulary will not cover words that the local sign language would. So in clause 3, that explicitly makes a either a bi-lingual sign language. or melding the ISL vocabulary and grammar into the already existing.

I am not convinced that this will lead to a homogenous sign language throughout though it may result local Sign Languages be based upon the ISL, providing uniformiy but still allowing cultural identity to be alive. You are presenting a worse case scenario that if worse comes to worse results in a merging of 2 languages.

The purpose of Sign Language is to open up communication between people that cannot speak or hear this proposal will open communication up to hearing or speech impaired persons of differing nationalities as well promotion of research into technology such as cochlear implants,hearing aids or other devices which could very well eventually make sign languages redundent.

Also this has been before the NSO, the proposal's current form was actually nutted out in the NSO forum, neither me, being a member of the NSO nor any other member has raised an issue over this.

You're missing the point.

Let's use spoken language as an example. The national language of Lakotastan is Lakotastani. Now we require everyone to learn English. Lakotastan is poor and its kids only have so much time to spend on learning languages.

Result: Kids learn English, not Lakotastani. Lakotastani becomes a dead language, and an important part of the traditional culture us lost.

Mandating bilingualism won't help if you don't have the time and money to support bilingual education. Essentially, you've said that if only one language can be learned, then it needs to be ISL, and the local sign language be d_mn_d.

We're afraid we don't share the concern of the representative of Community Property. We would call his attention to Clause 3 of the proposal, which specifically addresses the issue.

The proposal does not call for replacing national sign languages. It calls for development of a lingua franca for the hearing impaired. Its emphasis on a core vocabulary, in fact, suggests that it could not replace national sign languages. If a nation wishes to substitute the contents of the core vocabulary for the corresponding words in its own sign language, fine. If it chooses to teach the core vocabulary in parallel -- with its words serving as synonyms to extant words -- fine.

It should also be kept in mind that sign languages are not simply national or regional languages expressed in signs and gestures. They are separate, distinct languages. For example, in the mythical world of RL, the grammar of American Sign Language is considered more similar to Japanese than to English.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

They won't lack access to it. Because clearly, people without something represent...a market!

No they don't, if they have no ability to pay. There would be no demand for it, since demand = willingness AND ability to pay. It's a market failure.

Therefore, companies will lower their prices. But if they can't compete with a subsidised government monopoly, there is no impetus for them to improve their services.

The price would not go lower than what is profitable, though, since once it does the private service would shut down. Moreover, there is no need for private involvement if there is the subsidised government monopoly, as the service is being provided. And for free, no less. You could quibble about inefficiency, but otherwise moneyless deaf people will slip through the cracks.

I agree with this resolution in principle.

This has our support. Should it pass we will continue to provide teaching of our national Wymgani Sign Language first and foremost, but ISL language courses will be made available to all those who wish them.

Oh, and change


NOTING the REPEAL of "Hearing Impaired Aid Act" particularily it's flaws as well as it's intentions.


to:

NOTING the REPEAL of "Hearing Impaired Aid Act", particularily its flaws as well as its intentions.


(Without a space before the comma. That's just added by the bolding.)

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Moreover, there is no need for private involvement if there is the subsidised government monopoly, as the service is being provided. And for free, no less.TANSTAAFL

I suppose that's a derisive snort of some kind?

Honestly, as if there's that much profit to be made from teaching people sign language anyway.

I suppose that's a derisive snort of some kind?There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

A government monopoly on a service is anything but free.

Free as in the deaf people without the means don't have to pay for it. I'm sure by now you know I don't buy the "making people pay taxes robs them of their freedoms" stuff.

You do realize even private schools for the deaf offer scholarships, don't you? We see no reason for the public to subsidize sign-language instruction, unless the government likewise wanted to offer scholarships for the needy to attend private schools for the deaf. Nor do we see any need for a universal sign language.

Because in addition to being disabled, and poor, they'd also have little ability to communicate and questionable quality of life? Kick 'em while they're down and can't hear you coming or sign "HELP ME", why not.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume everyone gets provided for without some intervention taking place.

Because in addition to being disabled, and poor, they'd also have little ability to communicate and questionable quality of life? Kick 'em while they're down and can't hear you coming or sign "HELP ME", why not.

On the other hand, being able to sign "HELP ME" isn't much use unless there's someone around who understands sign language.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

It should also be kept in mind that sign languages are not simply national or regional languages expressed in signs and gestures. They are separate, distinct languages. For example, in the mythical world of RL, the grammar of American Sign Language is considered more similar to Japanese than to English.Perhaps we failed to make our objection completely clear.

We know of a culture - an alien species - with a long military tradition; for over 100,000 years they have fought blood feuds and raids against each other. In these wars, surprise attacks and ambush play a crucial role. They have employed a sign language, not at all the same as their spoken tongue in grammar and syntax, to support these operations. It is as much a part of their culture - however much we might despise its bloody-minded nature - as is their spoken tongue.

To graft a few of their gestures or gestural combinations on top of an alien system, based on concepts of commerce and cultural exchange, would produce a “pidgin” language with no cultural connection with this species' history.

We find it curious that many of the delegates who now endorse this proposal opposed the establishment of an international spoken tongue. This is the second time in the last few weeks that these delegations have shown their contempt for those whose hearing is different from the majority, thinking them “disabled”, “crippled”, “defective”. Such people are entitled to the same dignity as everybody else.

We would support a resolution that establishes an international language - spoken, signed, written, or one of each - but not if there is any compulsion whatsoever when it comes to learning and using it.

We find it curious that many of the delegates who now endorse this proposal opposed the establishment of an international spoken tongue. This is the second time in the last few weeks that these delegations have shown their contempt for those whose hearing is different from the majority, thinking them “disabled”, “crippled”, “defective”. Such people are entitled to the same dignity as everybody else.


We don't need any lectures from the pompous windbag from Community Property on respect for the hearing impaired. Our monarch, Prince Leonhard, has suffered from a severe high-frequency hearing loss from his early teens.

To recognize a disability is not to devalue the person suffering from it. It enables you to accommodate the disability and recognize and value the person's abilities.

Your insulting comment is deplorable. You obviously know nothing about hearing impairments or sign languages, so all that's left to you is supercilious sneering. I'm sure the members of this Assembly will take that for what it's worth: nothing.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I don't think it's reasonable to assume everyone gets provided for without some intervention taking place.And we don't think it's reasonable to assume that it's the government that should be making all the handouts. Least of all by UN fiat.

If the private sector sees a need for education of the hearing impaired, they're going to provide for it. And if the government sees benefit in making sure that the poor have access to this service, they will do so. We don't see what business this is of the UN's. And once more, we don't see the need for a universal sign language. We simply don't.

So maybe what OMGTKK needs is some kind of resolution which allows them to see things?

What is so objectionable about making it free? You can implement it any way you want, in any case. If you prefer to subsidise a private entity or pay for admission to that entity go ahead. Or "encourage" private charity to the private school for the deaf. Or use magic and tactical nuclear weaponry. You get the idea. Do you really not care about enabling such people to have a decent life?

We would support a resolution that establishes an international language - spoken, signed, written, or one of each - but not if there is any compulsion whatsoever when it comes to learning and using it.

There is no compulsion here. Mandating that people should be granted access to a service if they wish to use it does not mean they are forced to use it.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

After a long session within the Senate of Krioval, it has been determined that this proposal is wholly unnecessary for the deaf and hearing-impaired citizenry of our Republic. This decision is the result of our working ceaselessly to improve the care for the disabled, to devise new technologies that restore lost functions, and from our perspective that prior UN resolutions already provide a strong mandate for pursuing more effective means of integrating the disabled into society. An international language of any kind is strenuously objected to within our Republic not because of our specific cultural concerns, but because we are convinced that, as an unnatural construct, such a language would create more new barriers than old ones would be destroyed.

With regard to economic concerns, this proposal unfairly places an unfunded mandate upon UN member states; money that could be better allocated to combat the very problems this proposal purports to solve is forcibly redirected by another unregulated and unmonitored committee. Moreover, the benefits of this proposal are marginal as most international travelers, whether deaf or hearing, must learn local language and customs prior to departure, and international businesses usually select a company-specific language with the idea of facilitating trade. We do not feel that either of these cases will be greatly impacted by the passage of this proposal, and for that reason plus those mentioned earlier, we register our vote against.

High Chief Serph Dekker
Republic of Krioval

We don't need any lectures from the pompous windbag...So tell me, do you support an international spoken language, one that we're all required to teach our citizens?

If not, why not?

OOC: Not that education and the arts are a bad thing. But international sign language? You're kidding us right? This actually strikes me as bad enough to qualify for the silly proposals contest. Not that you don't mean well, but sheesh.

So tell me, do you support an international spoken language, one that we're all required to teach our citizens?

If not, why not?

In theory, we would support it 100%, if the thrust was to emplace a language that could be used for international communication (a lingua franca). As a practical matter, though, we believe there are too many stumbling-blocks--economic and other--to be overcome. And we believe that the cultural implications noted by the representative of Community Property would have to be carefully weighed. And, as far as the probability of such a thing being established by the NSUN, we rate that as very low.

The case of an International Sign Language is very different: apples and oranges. The target population is only a fraction of that for an international spoken language, making implementation costs insignificant in comparison. National sign languages have relatively little cultural import. And students of any sign language--international or not--are required to learn communications patterns which differ markedly from the spoken language, making them more open to innovation in language.

We would respectfully suggest to the representative of The Cosmic Balance that the question of an international spoken language really is not relevant to this discussion. The situations are far too different for comparisons to be meaningful.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I'm sure by now you know I don't buy the "making people pay taxes robs them of their freedoms" stuff.No, but it certainly robs the of their money, making this anything but "free".

Besides, even assuming a nation with a welfare system, government funding to sign language schools takes that money from other areas that might need it too. A certain delicious irony is screwing one group of poor bastards to help another group of poor bastards.

And then we can strip funding from the sign language schools to pay for braille schools!

Looks good. I like the idea of it and my best suggestion is this: change as little as possible. The purpose of this document is best served without flowery writing and extra clauses and the like that just cloud and obscure meaning. If you revise it, only include two basic things: what the resolution does and how it will do such. Don't explain your document, people can do that for themselves. If they're set against your proposal, there isn't a thing in the world that will make them change their minds anyway.

Best of luck,
Riknaht

Even though it may allow loopholes, open ended proposals and laws can work. People might say that they won't support something that doesn't include whatever clause they think it needs, but they will probably support it anyway just because of the general nature of the law.

It may not be easy to concerned people to learn this new language. But on the long term this proposal makes sense, and contrary to spoken languages, I don't think that existing sign languages extinction will damage any culture (unless someone convince me)

our working ceaselessly to improve the care for the disabled, to devise new technologies that restore lost functions

We applaud the policy of the government of krioval on this matter. For example, we would like to say that for many (not all) people with hearing impairment, audio Prosthesis had and continue to make some interesting progress almost every year.

Something to take into consideration is also that with the more frequent use, by people without hearing impairment, of bluetooth headsets (for which audio Prosthesis are more and more similar in "look"), people with hearing impairment are less and will continue to be less easily "spotable", some other Prosthesis may be also prett small. It's very important for them as it means they are less subject to prejudice.

It's why we think the following clause is really important, and love and esterel will vote for this proposal:

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


http://www.celtichearing.com/assets/images/delta_deeppurple.jpg

What is so objectionable about making it free?

The objection is simple. It's not free. Someone ends up paying for it.

You can implement it any way you want, in any case. If you prefer to subsidise a private entity or pay for admission to that entity go ahead.

A government subsidy? Who pays for that? Oh, yeah, the taxpayer.

Or "encourage" private charity to the private school for the deaf.

And we do that how? Tax breaks perhaps? Oh, but then we have to make up for the lost revenue by increasing taxes on someone else.

Or use magic and tactical nuclear weaponry.

Ah, resorting to the ridiculous -- the last refuge of those who know they're wrong and must try to make the debate absurd.

You get the idea.

Yeah, we do. You don't give a wombat's ass about how governments come up with the funds to pay for the implementation of your fluffy, feel-good agenda.

Do you really not care about enabling such people to have a decent life?

And finally, the appeal to emotion. Yeesh...give it a rest.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

As much as I hate to admit it this, I have to agree with Cluichstan on this. Why do we even need an "international sign language"? Sign languages like other languages spring forth from a need for them existing, for example a way for deaf Elleltians to communicate with other Elletians.

We already have a sign language for our deaf and dont need an other...one is good enough thank you.

Furthermore the education argument is frankly stupid, My nation and Im sure many others provide their citizens with education. Ellelt, spacifcly mandates in its laws (which cover education from pre-school to grad-school...but spacificly mandating primary and secondary education) that upper-primary and Secondary students that would be years 4-12 (OOC: the US Equivilant-- 4th grade to 12th grade /OOC) take a second language...we offer English, French, German, Russian, and Elleltian Sign Lanugage. And to be quite honest...Ellelt has a limited number of rubles it can spend on education, If we were forced to use this system in conjuction with our own. We would obviouly have to take the rubles from somewhere..Maybe Pre-school, or Providing Breakfasts and Lunches for students...or maybe we could take the money out from teaching maths/sciences/Elleltian grammar and Literature. This garbage is too expensive...not to mention a waste of time.

Finally the proposal as written doesnt demand that UN states do anything....feel good or not.

If this peice of utter tripe should pass the cause/effect would be:

Un: "hey nations...we suggest you use this new international sign language but we arnt going to force you to use it"

<nations magicly and unexpectedly addopt the new system, and trash their own>

We'd suggest the representative of Ellelt read the proposal again and make an effort to understand it before posting any more of his sneering comments. The proposal is anything but "garbage" or "utter tripe".

The proposal would replace no system. It would provide material which would be integrated into and enrich existing systems of signing and instruction in signing. No national sign language would be "trashed". It would be expanded.

As for being too expensive... Has the representative made any attempt at all to actually consider the costs? For the requirement to provide no-cost instruction to come into effect, the prospective students would have to be both deaf and indigent. We're not exactly talking about the population of the mythical land of China here.

And yes, your national sign language is perfectly good enough -- as long as your deaf citizens never want to communicate with someone from another country.

Finally, does the representative not understand the meaning of the word "MANDATES"?

Posting snide, sneering comments based on obvious failure to understand the provisions of a proposal does the representative no credit. We had expected better of him.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We're not exactly talking about the population of the mythical land of China here.Actually, we might be.

As of today, the People's Democratic Republic of Community Property alone as a population on 3.301 billion persons, over three times greater than this mythical “China” - and we are hardly the largest nation in the world.Finally, does the representative not understand the meaning of the word "MANDATES"?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.We most certainly do.

It means that we have to provide the training for all eligible persons, whether they wish it or no. Money we have to spend is money we can't spend on something else - like teaching such persons their own traditional sign language (which many of our native tribes have and use as an ancillary to their spoken language).

So we start teaching these people this new international language and - thanks to lack of funding - find ourselves compelled to stop teaching them their traditional sign language, thereby depriving them an important part of their cultural heritage.

We support multilingual education, but we allow students and communities to choose the languages taught. Establish an international sign language, and someone will teach it to those who choose to learn it. But do not mandate its education; that is simply wrong.

You would not mandate a spoken language be taught to all students worldwide; do not mandate a sign language, either.

You would not mandate a spoken language be taught to all students worldwide; do not mandate a sign language, either.

As much as I loathe to agree with the representative of Community Property, this is the best agrument against this proposal. We can nickle and empty beer can it all we like with talk about taxes and such, but if I were to submit a proposal stating that everyone must learn to speak Cluichstani, would anyone support it? Of course not. I fail to see why anyone supports this then. Oh, wait...there's a "disability" involved. That's it. :rolleyes:

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Oh, wait...there's a "disability" involved. That's it. :eyeroll:Exactly. And, while I suspect you see this as fluffy-bunny liberalism, I see this as patronization.

Exactly. And, while I suspect you see this as fluffy-bunny liberalism, I see this as patronization.

In many cases, they are one and the same.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

As much as I loathe to agree with the representative of Community Property, this is the best agrument against this proposal. We can nickle and empty beer can it all we like with talk about taxes and such, but if I were to submit a proposal stating that everyone must learn to speak Cluichstani, would anyone support it? Of course not. I fail to see why anyone supports this then. Oh, wait...there's a "disability" involved. That's it. :eyeroll:

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The Sheik and some others seem completely unable to understand the difference between adding a core vocabulary to existing sign languages and teaching people some completely different sign language.

They also seem unable to comprehend the dramatic difference in scale of effort and cost between amending instruction for a small portion of the population and developing and presenting instruction to a massive population.

The Sheik can roll his eyes all he wants. The difference between teaching billions of people Cluichstani and modifying instruction for a relatively small percentage of the population are so obvious even he should be able to understand them... if he chooses to try, rather than sneer.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Exactly. And, while I suspect you see this as fluffy-bunny liberalism, I see this as patronization.

Do we understand, then, that the representative believes that anything that is done to enrich the lives of those with disabilities and enable them to more productively contribute to society is patronizing?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Sheik and some others seem completely unable to understand the difference between adding a core vocabulary to existing sign languages and teaching people some completely different sign language.

No, I've got that figured out, thank you.

They also seem unable to comprehend the dramatic difference in scale of effort and cost between amending instruction for a small portion of the population and developing and presenting instruction to a massive population.

Ah, but you concede there is a cost. Again, who pays for it? But more importantly, why?

The Sheik can roll his eyes all he wants.

And I'll continue to do so when faced with proposals like this.

The difference between teaching billions of people Cluichstani and modifying instruction for a relatively small percentage of the population are so obvious even he should be able to understand them... if he chooses to try, rather than sneer.

Sure, the difference between the two are obvious. Sure, it might cost less, but the principle is the same. You might try to consider that, Mr. Olembe, before you deride my sneering and dismiss the statement I made regarding the principle involved.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Auss, if you recall from a previous discussion on this proposal, I myself have a hearing impairment. Let's not make this a personal thing. Please, try to separate personal feelings from this debate.

OOC: Auss, if you recall from a previous discussion on this proposal, I myself have a hearing impairment. Let's not make this a personal thing. Please, try to separate personal feelings from this debate.

OOC: You post in character, and I respond in character. If the Ausserland delegation finds your representative's sneering and eye-rolling objectionable, they're going to say so. The fact that I'm also hearing impaired has nothing to do with that. They've reacted in just the same way to others on far different issues.

Do we understand, then, that the representative believes that anything that is done to enrich the lives of those with disabilities and enable them to more productively contribute to society is patronizing?A black-and-white argument is a poor argument indeed.

Missionaries have been known to “enrich” the lives of native peoples by teaching them their more “civilized” language and religion, not to mention making them more productive by replacing their “primitive” way of life with a “more advanced” one. That these people's “savage” and “backwards” culture usually gets destroyed in the process is not viewed as tragic, but in fact an exalted event, the triumph of “civilization” over “barbarism”.

Besides, this body just finished repealing legislation aimed at providing benefits for those whose hearing is not the same as the majority, on the grounds that legislation aimed at improving the lives of those persons deemed to be “disabled” fully provides for their needs. In the case of those who do not hear, the aid provided covers everything this resolution does - except for mandating a single international sign language be taught to the detriment of local alternatives.

This means that sign language is already being taught to persons inclined to use it; why does this language need to be an international one when we embrace the concept of national and ethnic diversity in spoken language?

The delegation from Ausserland claims that the mandate is justified by the small number of persons affected. This tells us that Ausserland in principle believes in a single global spoken language as an ideal goal and simply chooses not to pursue that goal for financial reasons. Evidently it's acceptable to do to minorities what we hestitate to do to majorities simply because we can't afford the money to stick it to everyone. We suppress the culture of the few, then, in the name of McWorld; the many get off because we balk at the bill.

But, we wonder, for how long?

As stated above, we embrace diversity as a social good in its own right, and see no impediment to global cultural, scientific, or economic exchange by leaving national languages - and cultures - be.

The comparasion of spoken languages to sign languages is irrelevent. Teaching students a second spoken language is necessary for economic reasons. That should be pretty clear when the Vast majority of people use a spoken language, be it Elleltian, Ausslander, Gruenbuerger whatever.

It is considered the norm for someone traveling abroad to know at least the basics, the very basics, of spoken languages so they can move about the country they are traveling in. For example if I went to the mythical land of China I would have to know how to say "I am hungry", "Where is the the Bathroom?", "Can I have some tea?", and "How Much is that?" in the mytical language of Chinese, wouldnt I? I just simply couldnt expect even a tenth of the people to know a single word of Elleltian.

The same is true about sign languages. I happen to have a linguist on my UN staff, who has informed me that every attempt at any artifical language has failed...including the mythical language of Esperonto, which only has 3 million mythical speakers, and that number is rapidly decling. Now, I highly doubt that Comrade Korvin is lieing to me.

And as for deaf foreigners coming to visit Ellelt...well they would have to learn the basics of Elleltian sign lanugage just as speaking persons would the spoken Elleltian language...plain and simple. And that is if they managed to get past the Commission on Extraordinary Affairs (Cheka) background checks to obtain a visa. Which are very hard to do.

Further remains the fact that to emplement this would cost money...money that would have to be taken from somewhere. Now we can kopeck and ruble all we want, it wont matter a pile of droppings...someone is going to have to pay for the costs...and this quotation comes directly from the submitted proposal before the UN right now.

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

This will directly require us to hire many teachers for our vocational schools, medical schools, and People's Universities to teach this unnecessary language. Education once again is provided by the state for Elleltians. And that means the burden falls on those who pay taxes, or rather in our case comes out of the surplus values generated by the soviets which would otherwise be divided amongst the workers. Our SV-Extraction rate (read income tax for other nations) already stands at 77%, we cannot raise this rate any further without severe economic repocussions.

And, In response to the Representive from Ausserland implying I didnt know what the word mandate means, I suggest he look up the word All in a dictonary sometime.

This proposal would stipulate that we teach a sign language (either as a first or second language) to the deaf/hearing-speech impaired in defference to our own national sign language. In essence telling us to give up our culture.

And what does make up a nation exactly? According to the Elleltian Communist Party dogma: Nations are determined by the presence of a territory, shared culture and shared economic ties. In otherwords...Boarders, Language, Culture, Economy...is what determines what is and what is not a nation.

(OOC: The last quotation in this post is a quotation from J.V.Stalin's work Marxism, and the National Question Offical English translation, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, USSR 1938. /OOC)

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.It's a bit of a stretch, but mandating educational programs of any sort is a violation of UNEAA, isn't it?

6. Entrusts nations with the right and responsibility to decide on the structure of their public education systems and the role of private institutions, mandatory, encouraged and prohibited subjects, skills and course elements in educational institutions, and the financing of educational programs, subject to previous UN legislation still in effect;

OOC: You post in character, and I respond in character. If the Ausserland delegation finds your representative's sneering and eye-rolling objectionable, they're going to say so. The fact that I'm also hearing impaired has nothing to do with that. They've reacted in just the same way to others on far different issues.

OOC: Wasn't taking a potshot, amigo. Sorry if I came across that way.

I happen to have a linguist on my UN staff, who has informed me that every attempt at any artifical language has failed...including the mythical language of Esperonto, which only has 3 million mythical speakers, and that number is rapidly decling. Now, I highly doubt that Comrade Korvin is lieing to me.He may not be lying, but he is certainly misinformed.

Esperanto estas la nacia lingvo de la Popola Demokratia Respubliko de Komunumo Nemoveblaĵo, estis estas parolita de apud tri miliardoj da homoj.

Esperanto is the national language of the People's Democratic Republic of Community Property, were it is spoken by close to three billion people.

No apologies are needed.

He may not be lying, but he is certainly misinformed.

Esperanto estas la nacia lingvo de la Popola Demokratia Respubliko de Komunumo Nemoveblaĵo, estis estas parolita de apud tri miliardoj da homoj.



No apologies are needed.
OOC:

In this case No it would not be. However, RL that is the case, and my linguist happens to be a RL, non-ns affiliated person, whom I happened to ask about artificial spoken languages.

This is not an apology in any manner shape or form. RL info...not NS info.

IC:

I will make sure that Comrade Korvin double checks his facts next time.

The representatives who oppose this proposal seem dead set in their opposition, which is, of course, their perfect right. We see little chance of changing their minds, and we've never enjoyed beating dead horses. We've tried our best. We sincerely hope that this very worthwhile proposal will reach quorum. If it does, though, it will be a couple of weeks before it comes before the Assembly for a vote. At that time, we'll enthusiastically rejoin the debate in its support.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

It's a bit of a stretch, but mandating educational programs of any sort is a violation of UNEAA, isn't it?


6. Entrusts nations with the right and responsibility to decide on the structure of their public education systems and the role of private institutions, mandatory, encouraged and prohibited subjects, skills and course elements in educational institutions, and the financing of educational programs, subject to previous UN legislation still in effect;


This proposal does not require the use of a public education system to acheive the goal of "ready access to training in the ISL" as such. It also implies with it's "including provision of training at no cost to those unable to pay." that those that can pay should be paying to train in the ISL. Thus generally ouside the realm of what is considered 'public education'.

I have stated this before and I will state it again, Clause 4 can be met by the government simply encouraging either through positive or negative means areas where the private sector has currently left gaps.

CLAUSE 5.. does not MANDATE anything, it STRONGLY URGES which means the UN GNOMES attempts to strongly encourage the government to adopt the following policy but the decision is still left up to the governments. If you don't think that non-verbally-impaired for some reason should not be allowed to learn ISL then you don't have to. There is just some preasure from the UN to change current policy.

As for sign language, I rather suspect that each nation that has a sign language would differ and be unique. They might use the same 'words' under a different grammar ruleset or same gesture with different meaning. National sign languages are generally very insular as compared to spoken languages which often travel around the world. Foreign Spoken languages are much accessible than Foreign sign languages, how do you even find a person that knows how to sign the sign language of Gruenburg? Where as the spoken language of Gruenburg for the sheer amount of people that can speak it it should be relatively easy to at least find a book, if not some sort of training course. Where do the people that need to sign get their training in the foreign sign language?

This proposal only stipulates that training in the ISL needs to be available not that every deaf, hearing-impaired, mute or heavily speech-impaired person needs to be trained. You can still mandate that your national sign language be tought and then have ONE International sign language available for when those people decide to go oversees. One language for international communication will mean that you only need to learn one language where ever you go in the UN, it means that you will be able to learn more than a basic understanding and beable to hold conversant signing with another International Sign language speaker who may very well, as the Ellitian signer have the ISL as their second sign language.

We see nothing that can harm a culture in this and we have made our arguments backing up our belief in this system and noting the benefits that came out of.

Also Only 6 more approvals to Quorum. Please we need those few more approvals!.

Thank you.

John MacKay
Ambassador and UN Delegate to the UN

There is simply No need for this legislation.

Btw, when does the voting end...is it at midnight gmt or some other time?

As it stands there are five votes lacking for it to be queued and hopfully it wont come to the floor...but that doesnt mean we wont see it again.

Well, I don't see it in the proposal list now...

Well hopefully it wont come back...but getting so close to being queued...they might try again.

This ISL would be nothing more than meddling in the education systems of socialist countries...and the welfare systems of the capitalist ones.

It was within 2 or 3 approvals. And you can be sure it will come back, ISL will reach the floor of the UN however as such there will be a reasonably large gap to not to annoy delegates.

As to when, that will be but it will be back.

We believe in all kinds of rights. We have no problem in helping creating a unversal sign language to further the commonality of mankind helping those who are deaf. This may also give us a chance to improve our battletongue -- silent warrior language by providing an improved base to derive new ways to express military actions that are universal to humans.