Sign language ruling

[nihilicious]

"All government services must be available in sign language free of charge, according to a court ruling hailed by the deaf community for giving their languages de facto official status alongside English and French."

Wow.

Article here.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the full text.

Comments

[skaloop]

OK, I didn't read the whole thing, but one problem I can see is which sign language to use. Particularly, American Sign Language (ASL) may be the most common in Canada, but Quebec Sign Language (LSQ) is more prominant in Quebec. Saying that services must be provided in sign language is about as precise as saying services must be provided in spoken language; there are several different forms. If the ruling is not specific, then are we not obligated to provide services in any sign language, even if it is not commonly used in Canada? And since we are not required to provide services in any requested spoken language, does the ruling then elevate sign language above spoken?

[scottyt2]

The cost of this is going to be huge, but the accessibility it provides is unprecedented. It's things like this that challenge me though, because I like to think I'm very much for accessibility but then I think of the money and the bureaucracy that will be necessary to support this and I'm just staggered.

A university group I was a member once faced this sort of choice and because we wanted to be accessible, we decided offering sign language interpreters was something we had to do. It did increase accessibility -- our group gained two deaf students who were devoted to the group and very productive, but 2/3s of our groups budget was suddenly sunk into interpreters. (We even recieved outside funding to provide the interpreters, but it still took 2/3s of our budget.) So many of the services we offered ended up shut down in order to afford the interpretters for 2 members.

I just can't pick a side on this one.

[scottyt2]

Nowhere near a good solution in discussion groups and policy meetings based on interaction. It would exclude the deaf individuals. There were times when we had to sink to me typing what everyone was saying so one of the deaf members of the group could read, but it was a wasted effort as it proved an unacceptable solution.

[siobhan63]

Unless you live in Quebec the French isn't bigger. There might be more of it but that's simply the nature of the language - it takes more words to say the same thing. But even in Quebec, on federal government signage, the languages are equal in size (if not length).

And really cheap/petty to compare having to go outside with being deaf...

[skeptacally]

yes!

[skeptacally]

1. *waits for one of the usual cabal to state that the government shouldn't have to pony up just because someone can't hear: "i mean, come on, we all pay taxes and you don't see us looking for special services!"*

2. *waits to see which side of centre the argument comes from.*

;)

[skeptacally]

wow, when i started to write this comment there were none. i got a phone call, finished it and WHAMMO! a bunch already.

thank you plizak! i can now leave the conversation safely, shaking my head bemusedly.