Every day somewhere in the world a child, a woman, a man stops speaking their mother tongue. The world's languages are disappearing faster than ever before in human history. Some predictions are that 90% of the world's languages are in danger of dying out within a century. The linguistic diversity that has been an essential characteristic of the human species is being replaced by a system in which some languages are expanding at the cost of others. This is now true within nation states and the global system. Control over someone’s language has become one of the primary means of exerting power over other aspects of people’s life.

Language is one of the essential keys to cultural and personal identity. People construct their identities in the house of their language. The present situation poses therefore a great risk to human diversity. Since linguistic and cultural diversity and bio-diversity mutually influence each other, this also contributes to a major ecological crisis.

This crisis has led social movements and organizations, human rights advocates, scientists and many others to address the world-wide problem of disappearing and oppressed lan-guages. Among these attempts is the People's Communication Charter.

The People’s Communication Charter (PCC) was drafted in 1995 as the common framework for a permanent movement on the quality of a sustainable communication environment. It resulted from an initiative of the Third World Network, Malaysia; the Cultural Environment Movement, USA; and the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC).

The Charter contains 18 Articles dealing with communication rights and responsibilities, such as the right of access of all people to communication channels independent of governmental or commercial control, the protection of journalists, the right of reply and redress, cultural identity, diversity of languages, children’s rights, cyberspace, due process and accountability of media.

In order to gain the support of civil society at national and international levels, the People’s Communication Charter, Amsterdam (PCC), the World Association for Christian Communication (WACC), the Institute of Social Studies (ISS), The Hague, and Olon, Nijmegen, took the initiative to organize the first public hearing on the PCC at the ISS from 1-3 May, 1999, the theme of which was ‘Languages and Human Rights’.

Methodology

The hearing was organized around five exemplary cases of threats to linguistic human rights, selected by PCC, WACC, ISS and Olon. These were: Creole Language (Kwéyòl); Sign languages ; Kurdish language; Bilingual education in California; and the Berber language (Tamazigh).

• To consider these test cases on the basis of dossiers and hearings of witnesses and experts, the organisers invited five experts in the fields of communication, language rights and international law to form an international panel of independent judges:
• ∑ Ariel Dorfman, author and Distinguished Professor of Literature and Latin American Studies, Duke University, USA;
• ∑
• ∑ Barbara Losier, Community Development Consultant and Treasurer of AMARC;
• ∑
• ∑ Robert Phillipson, former Dean, Humanities, Roskilde University, Denmark;
• ∑
• ∑ Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Professor of Minority Education and Linguistic Human Rights, Åbo Akademi, Vasa, Finland and Vice President of Terralingua;
• ∑
• ∑ Paul de Waart, Emeritus Professor of International Law, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
• ∑
• Dr Skutnabb-Kangas acted as chairperson. The panel focussed its public hearings on Article 9 of the PCC, which reads:

All people have the right to a diversity of languages. This includes the right to express themselves and have access to information in their own language, the right to use their languages in educational institutions funded by the State, and the right to have adequate provision created for the use of minority languages where needed.

The panel based the hearings of the witnesses particularly on:

• 1. the 1948 UN draft definition of linguistic and cultural genocide and Article II(b) and (e) of the Convention ;
• 2.
• 3. the International Bill of Human Rights; particularly Article 27 of the 1966 International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights ;
• 4.
• 5. the 1994 General Comment of the Human Rights Committee on Article 27 ;
• 6.
• 7. the 1992 UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Reli-gious and Linguistic Minorities;
• 8.
• 9. the 1992 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages;
• 10.
• 11. the 1995 European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities;
• 12.
• 13. the 1996 Hague Recommendations Regarding the Education Rights of National Minorities ;
• 14.
• 15. the 1998 AMARC Declaration on Communication and Human Rights.
• 16.
• The following experts argued the cases:

• ∑ Kennedy Samuel, Folk Research Centre in St Lucia, for .Kwéyòl;
• ∑
• ∑ Jan Pieter Govers and Herman Schepers from the Dutch Deaf Association, for Sign languages;
• ∑
• ∑ Surtaç Bucak, The International Association for Human Rights in Kurdistan, for the Kurdish language;
• ∑
• ∑ Peter Roos, lawyer, for Bilingual education in California;
• ∑
• ∑ Belkacem Lounes, for the Berber language (Tamazigh).
• ∑
• In addition, several witnesses were heard.

In structuring the hearings, the panel employed the taxonomy of Juan Cobarrubias (1983:71) which distinguishes the following five State attitudes towards minority languages: (1) attempting to kill a language; (2) letting a language die; (3) unsupported coexistence; (4) partial support of specific language functions; (5) adoption as an official language.

To judge the evidence, the following questions guided the international panel of independ-ent judges:

• 1. Was Article 9 of the CPP violated in each context?
• 2.
• 3. Where can each state be placed on the five-point taxonomy of ways of killing/unsupported co-existence or promoting a language?
• 4.
• 5. Does this represent genocide according to the definition approved by the UN in 1948 at the time of the passing of the UN Convention on the Crime of Genocide and according to Article II (b) and (e) of the Convention?
• 6.
• General considered opinions

• 1. The panel was very satisfied with the selection of the test cases. The co-operation of the witnesses and experts was excellent. The hearings were open, frank and often moving.
• 2.
• 3. The information gathered by the panel from the very extensive and substantial documentation as well as from the hearings provided an adequate basis for drawing conclusions and presenting recommendations to civil society and to national and international organizations.
• 4.
• 5. The overall impression is that the five test cases are representative of serious, generalized and systematic violations of linguistic rights around the world and underline the importance of the People’s Communication Charter initiative.
• 6.
• 7. The panel is alarmed that States and international organizations are insufficiently aware of the fact that respect for linguistic rights is essential to cultural and personal identity, as a cornerstone for human rights protection and tolerance, and in conflict prevention. All too often States parties to human rights conventions are not prepared to allocate resources for the implementation of linguistic rights.
• 8.
• 9. The panel expresses its deep concern about the constant misinformation regarding the significance of linguistic rights and their violation as well as the way in which the mainstream media consistently ignore these matters.
• 10.
• 11. While there is substantial variation between the overtly linguicidal policies of countries like Algeria and Turkey, and the covert measures in the USA and Western Europe, the evidence submitted to the panel indicates in all five contexts that there is a serious threat to the cultures and languages of a wide range of peoples.
• 12.
• 13. There is an urgent need for international bodies and national governments to be more energetic in ensuring observance of clauses in international covenants and the PCC relating to language rights, to elaborate strategies for monitoring violations and for preventive diplomacy.
• 14.
• 15. As conflicts between groups can be articulated in terms of linguistic difference (Hungarian speakers in Romania, Albanians in Macedonia), there is an urgent need for examples of good practice in the management of linguistic diversity (Switzerland, Finland, the Danish-German border), to be analyzed, for politicians and journalists to be better informed about language policy, and for myths and ignorance in this field to be attacked vigorously.
• 16.
• 17. In the light of such knowledge about communication rights and language rights, and their contribution to peaceful, democratic societies, there is an urgent need for dialogue between state authorities and minority language groups such as the Deaf, Kurdish and Berber speakers, Chicanos/Chicanas, and Creole speakers.
• 18.
• Creole language

Creole languages have a history of stigmatization, marginalization and official neglect, but there is increasing recognition of their major cultural significance in the communities where these languages have evolved, the central role that Creole languages play in the local economy, the links that unite Creole speakers in different parts of the world (Caribbean islands with Mauritius and the Seychelles), and the role that Creole should play in education, political and cultural life.

The Creole language of St. Lucia, Kwéyòl, is the product of the merging of African and European, primarily French, languages. English is the official language of the island, and the exclusive language of the Parliament, the courts, public administration, and formal business and trade. Attitudes to Creole have traditionally been hostile, even in the home, where there is a tendency to see the use of Creole as correlating negatively with acquisition of the prestige language, English. Creole thus leads a marginal existence, although it is the mother tongue of most inhabitants and an expression of a vibrant popular culture.

In scientific circles there is now a realisation that Creole languages are not deficient forms of language, but fully-fledged linguistic systems. Kwéyòl now has an appropriate orthography, and there is a conviction in educational circles that what is needed is bilingual education in Kwéyòl and English. Changed attitudes to Creole are also beginning to permeate political circles, where there is appreciation of the role of Creole in national development. Hitherto the linguistic human rights of Creole speakers have not been respected at all, and official policy has neglected Creole.

The panel is convinced that an increased use of Creole in all spheres of life would be in the best interest of Creole speakers and humanity as a whole. It therefore endorses the recommendation that the government should be congratulated on its openness to greater official recognition of Creole in public life and education. It is therefore desirable that a language policy should be elaborated that would allocate resources to the development and elaboration of Creole, its increased use in technology and modern media, teacher education, and collaboration with Creole-using communities in other countries.

Sign languages

The number of Sign languages in the world is not known, but there may be as many Sign languages as there are spoken languages, i.e. 6-7.000. Sign languages are fully-fledged, complex languages which can be used for all purposes, provided enough resources are available for their development.

In many parts of the world, a pathological view of the Deaf still prevails. This incorrectly sees deafness as a medical condition, an auditory deficiency, a handicap to be remedied, so that the deaf person can become as much like a hearing person as possible. Means used for this include the teaching of speech and lip-reading, use of hearing aids and cochlear implants, etc.

A socio-cultural view which the witnesses, national and regional Deaf organizations and the World Federation of the Deaf advocate, sees the Deaf as a socio-cultural and linguistic minority (‘different’ but not deficient) which shares characteristics with other minorities and where the problems which the Deaf face can be seen as human rights problems. In terms of Article 9 of the PCC, they can be analyzed as problems about:

• ∑ the right to have Sign languages recognized as official languages in all countries in the world, which should include cultural activities in Sign languages;
• ∑
• ∑ the right to have Sign languages recognized as the only possible mother tongues of the Deaf (also because they cannot have full access to any spoken languages);
• ∑
• ∑ the right to use Sign languages as the main media of instruction in educational institutions, funded by the state, as well as to learn the dominant official (oral) languages in the countries where they live, fully in terms of reading and writing, and to the extent that it is physiologically possible and the Deaf people so wish in the oral modes of understanding and speaking. Use of Sign languages in the care of deaf children should start as early as possible, in order for the children to have early access to the only language they can fully express themselves in;
• ∑
• ∑ the right to express themselves and have access to information in the Sign languages, including adequate provision for the learning and use of Sign languages, also for hearing people and most importantly for the relatives and friends of the Deaf. This also includes the right to adequate services with signing staff in many official situations, including health care.
• ∑
• Two aspects of information specifically stressed by the witnesses were lack of adequate information to parents of deaf children (some 90% of deaf children have hearing parents) about the long-term consequences of various choices the parents have to make (medium of education; cochlear implants, etc) and adequate information to the general public about the Deaf and Sign languages (including information to the medical community). Likewise, the witnesses emphasized the need of access to media by the Deaf, including obligatory sub-titling for as many programmes as possible and extended use of video.

There is clear evidence of violations of basic linguistic human rights of the Deaf all over the world. In a few countries, including the Netherlands, substantial progress towards addressing the language rights of the Deaf has been made in recent years. The judges urge governments to consider granting full rights to Sign languages as official languages and to offer real bilingual education and public services to the Deaf.

Bilingual education

On 4 June 1998, the voters of California approved Proposition 227, which mandates schools in the State to terminate bilingual education of students who were earlier qualified for bilingual education under the ethically dubious category of ‘Limited English Proficient’ (LEP), and immediately adopt what is known as the quick-exit submersion method of teaching English to children who are not proficient in that language. This is basically a strategy that states that after one-year of heavy and exclusive exposure to English in the classroom at an early age, students will be prepared to go on to a productive and equal academic life in English only.

The panel has heard compelling evidence that the implementation of this Proposition will lead, according to Article II (b) and (e) of the Genocide Convention, to irreparable harm to hundreds of thousands of children in the State of California, violating their linguistic rights under the Constitution of the United States and many International Conventions to which the United States is signatory. Proposition 227 also largely prohibits the use of all other languages except English in education.

Scientific research overwhelmingly proves that the method proposed by Proposition 227 will not help youngsters learn English and will furthermore diminish their capacity for other curricular education. An unstated consequence of this Proposition is to turn the children into monolingual English speakers, thus depriving them of being able to practise their mother tongues.

The panel is particularly worried about how defenders of Proposition 227 have incorrectly used and blatantly misrepresented European and Canadian experiences of bilingual education, stating that these experiences prove the benefits of educating minority children in the dominant language only, or educating children in one language only whereas all serious studies prove exactly the contrary: bilingual education grants the best results.

Most alarming, perhaps, are the long-term trends that underlie the implementation of Proposition 227. By stigmatizing the child’s primary language as useless for academic achievement and knowledge, what is being implied is that the United States should be an entirely monolingual nation. The movement to establish English as the sole official language of the USA fails to see other languages as valued and valuable resources to the whole nation and its communities and their maintenance and use as a linguistic human right.

The panel finds, therefore, that Proposition 227 violates Article 9 of the PCC by not providing support and resources for immigrant and minority children to preserve their language and identity.

The panel urges the Congress of the United States to enact legislation on linguistic rights for the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, especially Articles 28, 29 and 30, and to implement the Hague Recommendations Regarding the Educational Rights of National Minorities of the OSCE.

Amazigh (Berber) language

There are speakers of Berber languages, referred to as Amazigh by themselves, over much of North Africa, from Morocco (where Berber speakers represent 60% of the population) and Algeria (25-30% of the population) to Egypt in the east, and across the Sahara (Tuaregs) to Niger and Mali. The Amazigh people are original autochthonous inhabitants of the area. Their languages (seen by the witnesses as being essentially a single Berber language) have been used in the region for at least 2500 years, with a script that pre-dates Phoenician, Roman, Arab and European invasions. The testimony provided by the witnesses (resident in North Africa and Europe) documents convincingly that in all the relevant states speakers of Berber languages are subjected to strong assimilation pressures, primarily Arabo-Islamization. In the Canary Isles Berber is no longer in use. In Africa Berber is not used in public services, the media, or the administration of justice.

The Berber languages are not recognized in the constitutions of Morocco or Algeria. In contrast to what is indicated in some UN reports, government pronouncements in Morocco and Algeria, and some scholarly analysis, Berber is apparently not taught at any level of mainstream education subsidized by the State. After a boycott of formal education in Algeria lasting one year, some experimental use of Berber has been allowed, but in such a way that it is marginalized in mainstream education. This neglect of the mother tongue of Berber speakers continues in the education of migrants in Western Europe (notably Moroccans in the Netherlands and Algerians in France), who are treated as though Arabic is their mother tongue.

Berber speakers in France, of whom 1 million are French citizens, have petitioned the French Government to have Berber recognized as a language entitled to recognition under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

Witnesses felt that recognition of the rights of speakers of Berber language(s) was not an issue that needed to be seen in ethnic terms, since they regard the entire population of North Africa as Berber, some of whom have been arabized.

There is clear evidence of violation of linguistic human rights, Art. 9 of the PCC. Government policy in North Africa aims at the extinction of Berber. Government policy in western Europe does not provide speakers of Berber with any support. There is therefore a clear need for awareness raising in the political, scholarly, educational and media worlds, and for substantial policy measures to be introduced in Western Europe to remedy these violations. In Morocco, Algeria and other states in which Berber is part of the national heritage, Berber needs to be accorded constitutional rights and the language needs to be institutionalized so that linguistic human rights are respected.

Kurdish language

The evidence submitted on the oppression of the Kurdish language focussed primarily on the experience of Kurds in Turkey and Kurds in exile, but there are strong similarities between the violation of the linguistic human rights of speakers of Kurdish who are citizens of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. In all cases the use of Kurdish is seen by the governments as a threat to the State. The Turkish authorities thus see the use of Kurdish not as a matter of human rights but as a security question. These policies indicate that the speakers of Kurdish, that has been used in the Middle East for thousands of years and is spoken as a mother tongue by between 25 and 30 million people, have few if any rights. In the past Kurdish was permitted for a wide range of purposes in Iraq (where it is a second official language), just as it was widely used in the former Soviet Armenia, but at present the language is the object of serious oppression in all countries except Armenia.

The testimony, both what was presented orally and submitted in writing, taken from human rights scholarly journals and articles, documents unambiguously that constitutional legislation in Turkey explicitly deprives Kurds of their basic linguistic human rights and constitutes a gross violation of every aspect of Article 9 of the PCC. Criminalization of the use of Kurdish is a present reality, even though some laws passed in the 1990s attempt to create the impression that Kurdish can be used in domains other than the home.

In fact Turkish policy in education, in the public sphere, political life and the media, is genocidal and linguicidal according to all the international and regional documents the panel refers to above. Only those who deny their Kurdish cultural and linguistic identity can function as full members of Turkish society. Severe prison terms are imposed on those who campaign for Kurdish (including a peaceful solution to ‘the Kurdish question’), refer to Kurdish in public or the media, demand teaching in the Kurdish language or education through the medium of Kurdish, and a number of other activities which are expressions of cultural identity.

The oppression continues in western Europe and other parts of the world where Kurds live as immigrant minorities or refugees; the evidence suggests that in many countries Kurdish parents are prevented from giving Kurdish names to their children, and Kurdish children cannot get Kurdish mother tongue teaching. They can only receive teaching in languages other than Kurdish (i.e. if they receive any ‘mother tongue’ reaching in the first place, this is given in the official languages of the countries where the parents come from). Recently, the only Kurdish television channel, Med-TV, broadcast from Britain, had its licence withdrawn. Western governments operate with double standards when Turkey, a full member of NATO and the Council of Europe, manifestly commits many human rights abuses, including serious and brutal violations of linguistic human rights.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites