Source: : Danas
Following the announcement of the Law on sign language
Rodoljub Sabic
Personal attitude
Information was published recently that our country will attain the Law on sign language. In the scope of public information on planned activities, Ministry of Labor and Social Policy has announced introduction of this law during next year.It is a question of idea, which among other things represents standardization of our sign language. A number of people, first of all deaf-mute children, communicate using sign language - made of arm and body movements, gestures, facial expressions, manual alphabet and signs. It is known today, that this language even though we do not perceive it sonorously, contains all linguistic specifies as other languages. It is not universal, for, there are many national sign languages. There is ours, but it is not standardized yet, the fact bearing bad consequences.
Standardization would better serve quality of communication of deaf-mute persons, among themselves and with the environment, and would offer better opportunities for information access necessary for their active involvement in the social life. However, though it is not disputable that we should welcome the announced introduction of this law, positive impression should not fog some problems which will not be resolved by mere introduction of the announced law. In this matter we should conclude two essential things.
Firstly, introduction of this law is no acknowledgement of the sign language, nor is it any special condition for its application. Even for sturdy prigs who always look for formal legal framework in order to institutionalize “ new “ human rights, an existence of such universal base should be sufficient making legal acknowledgment unnecessary. It is a matter of completely relevant international document, Convention of UN on protection and advancement of rights and dignity of disabled people namely the fact that this international document, among other things, insists on implementing the rights of sign language use. Nowhere in the world is the sign language forbidden. And, all over the world, whether the law exists or not, the scale of sign language actual use in life, especially public, is one of the indicators of the level of democratic social relations.
Secondly, the sign language is not a sole communication device for deaf and hard of hearing, especially in the matters of education and information. It is a practical and fast communication system, primarily for purpose of daily communication. For education purposes and quality access to complex information, which is an essential prerequisite for inclusion of deaf and hard of hearing in the social life as equal members, more is required.
Therefore, the introduction of the Law on sign language has twice the value. Lesser by itself, and bigger as a warning to some questions pertaining not only to deaf and hard of hearing, but also to questions pointed out through other experiences. For instance, Slovenia has standardized the sign language long ago, and introduced Law on it. Deaf reserve the right to use free of charge the services of sign language interpreter, for 30 hours per year, i.e. 100 hours for educational purposes. But even there, in countries which have done more, it is confirmed that the sign language is only one element of the legal system of protection for individuals with special needs, a system which is complex and can not be reduced to a free interpreter, but imposes on all elements of the society certain obligations for better implementation of the rights of the deaf.
The best expression of this concept is probably The Americans with Disabilities Act - ADA (Law on Americans with disabilities) American law which deals with the rights of deaf and hard of hearing not as a separate issue, but in the context of all persons with special needs. This Law obligates all - social services, schools, sports facilities and employers, Zoo gardens, theatres, banks, restaurants, department stores, museums, libraries and of course before all authorities to adjust their means of communication for persons with special needs , which includes providing special tools.
Naturally, for implementation of such a concept, we lack material, financial and logistic presumptions. This, of course is no reason, not to do as much as possible. In this context, this topic is valuable also as a reminder to some questions of importance, being that proper answers to them are essential prerequisites to a true democratization of the society.
To what extent are the information of public importance accessible to all? How often this accessibility depends on non existence of ramps and elevators for wheelchairs? How could the blind find them through Brayer alphabet? And how often can they reach it, through use of adequate for contemporary times lingual software? How much are they published to be accessible to deaf persons? How many persons are there with special needs?
At least to the last question, we have a reliable answer. In any case, there are at least 10% of such persons in any society. Society aspiring to be democratic , should not marginalize such a number of people and should initiate all it can to provide a better information access. For the guaranteed equality and contributions they could give in establishing necessary mechanisms for checking of authorities...
