Answer to questions (in written English)

Below are the answers to questions in written English

1. It seems that promoting equal access to justice and addressing the unique challenges encountered by deaf individuals within the legal system should be achieved through the recognition of sign language as a valid language, the understanding and respect for deaf culture, and the provision of inclusive education and training. If we want to help the deaf seek justice, it is important to prioritize and value their language, which is sign language. However, it is unfortunate that there are many countries or districts that do not recognize the importance of sign language. Do you believe it is important to legally recognize sign language as a language before taking any action? Wouldn’t it be challenging for the deaf to access their rights if legislation related to sign language is not established from the beginning?

This is a good question: do we need to have sign language recognition before we can even think about establishing (new) rights for deaf people?  The jury is out on that one.  The impact of sign language recognition hasn’t yet been documented in full.  It is also not clear whether there is a marked difference in impact depending on whether sign language law is implicit or explicit recognition (see Meulder & Murray, 2017).

Having said that, there is one country where there has been a clear impact: Brazil. Brazil’s recognition of Libras and the inclusion of Libras in deaf education has seen a rise in the number of deaf people with undergraduate degrees, Masters and PhDs.  However, whether that is because of sign language recognition or because of the right to a bilingual education is a blurry line that needs to be cleared.  In any case, one could argue that the right to a bilingual education only came about as a result of sign language recognition.

Another question is whether deaf people need both Deaf-disabled and language-minority rights in order to have full rights as human beings.  Given the way society is structured and attitudes towards deaf people generally, and also the different groups of deaf people, i.e. deaf, Deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, Deafblind, deafblind, etc., we are probably going to need both types of rights to exist for the foreseeable future.

In short, more research is needed in this area, and this is a particular passion of mine so watch this space!

References

Meulder, M. D., & Murray, J. J. (2017). Buttering their bread on both sides? Language Problems and Language Planning, 41(2), 136–158. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.41.2.04dem

2. When mentioning one of the methods of Deaf Legal Theory – oppression, you mentioned that the law might grant deaf people new rights, or conversely, they may face increased discrimination, potential loss of rights, or having their rights ignored, or alternatively, the status quo may be maintained. Could you please provide some specific exaples to clarify this further?

Two examples immediately spring to mind:

• The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) was amalgamated with other anti-discrimination legislation in the UK to form the Equality Act 2010.  There were some improvements in the legislation for disabled individuals, such as the introduction of indirect discrimination (wasn’t available under the DDA) and disability-related discrimination was replaced by discrimination arising from disability to counter the negative impact of the Malcolm v London Borough of Lewisham case which rendered disability-related discrimination all but useless.  However, the definition of disability and reasonable adjustment provisions were not amended at all, and so the status quo for deaf people continued.
• The BSL Act 2022 came into force in April 2022 and recognises BSL as a language of Great Britain and imposes duties on Government departments to improve their communications with deaf people.  It does not give deaf people any new rights, directing them to the EqA instead.  This too, therefore, maintains the status quo.

I would imagine that examples where rights are lost will be few and far between, but you could argue that if a government decides to change a disability benefits regime which means that a large number of deaf people lose their disability benefits, that would be considered a ‘loss of rights’ and therefore oppression.

You may also be aware of the UK’s #WhereIsTheInterpreter campaign where the Deaf community and their allies launched a campaign against the Government during the peak of the Covid pandemic for the lack of on-platform sign language interpreters during Covid briefings by the Prime Minister and other Government ministers.  The Prime Minister’s office simply refused to provide an on-platform interpreter without any real justification. While this is not strictly law, it is still public policy and this is therefore an example of oppression.

[Author]

Posts