Lang Policy (2012) 11:253–272

DOI 10.1007/s10993-012-9245-8

ORIGINAL PAPER

Language justice for Sign Language Peoples: the UN

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Sarah C. E. Batterbury

Received: 12 April 2011 / Accepted: 3 May 2012 / Published online: 9 June 2012
 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract Sign Language Peoples (SLPs) across the world have developed their
own languages and visuo-gestural-tactile cultures embodying their collective sense
of Deafhood (Ladd 2003). Despite this, most nation-states treat their respective
SLPs as disabled individuals, favoring disability benefits, cochlear implants, and
mainstream education over language policies fostering native sign languages. This
paper argues that sign language policy is necessary for language justice. Based on
interviews with SLPs and policy makers in the UK, this paper argues that ideally
sign language policy requires a shift in policy discourse away from a disability
construction to one recognizing the minority language status of SLPs. However
minority language policy support for the formulation of sign language policies
hitherto has been very limited. Conversely, the UN Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (UN 2007) offers the best hope for sign language
policy notwithstanding its disability framing. The CRPD requires states to recognize
sign languages and to support sign bilingual education, where appropriate. It
employs a human rights approach, and is a potential stepping stone towards the
emergence of minority language policies for SLPs. This paper argues that the CRPD
offers a regulatory context that could enable a shift in policy discourse towards the
eventual promulgation of the minority sign language policy that many Deaf-SLPs
have called for. This strategy, as suggested here, offers the best chance of moving
from a situation of social injustice for SLPs to one of language justice where full
sign language access is promoted.

Keywords Sign Language Peoples (SLPs)
Language justice
Legal recognition

Disability discourse
Sign language policy
UN Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

S. C. E. Batterbury (&)
Centre for Deaf Studies, University of Bristol, 8 Woodland Road, Clifton, Bristol BS8 1TN, UK
e-mail: s.batterbury@bristol.ac.uk

123
254 S. C. E. Batterbury

Introduction

This paper argues that the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(CRPD) (UN 2007) has the potential to be an effective tool to achieve language
policy which promotes greater social justice for Sign Language Peoples (SLPs). In
making this argument, it is first necessary to explain the contested status of SLPs as
a minority linguistic community. The term SLPs includes Deaf sign language users
and their hearing kin (Batterbury et al. 2007).1 It is expressed in the plural in
recognition of the diverse nature of the different national characteristics of SLPs.
Although there is also hybridity within each national community, SLPs share
commonality in Deafhood and the visual nature of their languages (Ladd 2003).
Similarities have been asserted with indigenous first nation peoples, in particular in
terms of the development of an concept of SLPs’ self-determination (Batterbury
et al. 2007; Wrigley 1996). SLPs include Deaf individuals and also some hearing
people who are part of signing communities.
Rooted in human rights legislation, the UN CRPD contains five articles referring
to national sign languages, requiring their recognition and other linguistic human
rights for SLPs. As of 2012, 110 states have ratified the CRPD. In the UK, the
CRPD is currently the most progressive legal instrument supporting the emergence
of sign language policy. It offers the prospect of sign bilingual education and formal
recognition of British (BSL) and Irish Sign Languages (ISL). The CRPD provides a
framework that UK SLPs can use to negotiate policy changes in their favor at both
local and national levels (EHRC 2010:7). This paper argues that this has the
potential to result in sign language policy and greater language justice for SLPs.
Language justice is used to frame our understanding of social justice for SLPs,
where language access is the overriding key to achieving greater equality. The paper
analyzes the agenda for change expressed by UK SLPs and the extent to which the
CRPD offers a way of achieving this given its current state of implementation in the
UK. This is based on analysis of interviews with relevant policy makers and with
SLPs from across the UK (Batterbury 2010).2
More specifically, this paper argues that despite its disability locus, the CRPD
opens a pathway to eventual sign language policy in the minority language policy
arena. It analyzes the way in which the CRPD offers a regulatory context that has
the potential to deliver a seismic shift in policy discourse for Deaf-SLPs. Although
there is a tension in a ‘disability treaty’ acting as a mechanism for language justice
for SLPs, it is a significant step forward from anything that has hitherto been
available. Achieving policy change that accords with the requirements of the CRPD
necessitates some positive pressure from organizations led by SLPs to persuade
governments to adopt a culturally Deaf perspective on language justice and to

1
The convention of capitalizing ‘‘Deaf’’ to refer to culturally Deaf people and lower case ‘‘deaf’’ to refer
to audiological status is used throughout (Woodward 1972).
2
The paper also utilizes documents authored by SLPs: the British Deaf Association’s (BDA) response to
the UK government’s (non) implementation of the sign language provisions of the CRPD, and other
literature authored by SLPs (Ladd 2003; Emery 2011, BDA 2011b; SFF 2010).

123
Language justice for Sign Language Peoples 255

interpret the CRPD favorably.3 This process is just beginning in the UK at the time
of writing.

Language justice versus linguistic human rights

The term linguistic human rights (LHRs) has been contested within sociolinguistics:
Blommaert, for example, writes ‘‘[i]nequality has to do with modes of language use,
not with languages’’ (2005:411, italics in original), stating that failure to comprehend
the distinction can produce language policies that do not achieve their goals.
However, the oral nature of spoken languages renders them inaccessible to most
Deaf-SLPs; this factor overrides the impact of mode of language use. Sign languages
are uniquely bound to SLPs: visual language cannot be substituted with sound-based
languages for SLPs, previous attempts have failed abysmally (Lane 1999).
Achieving sign language access is consequently of much greater significance than
the existence of variance, regional dialects, borrowings and different registers within
sign languages themselves (Ann 2001). Without legal LHRs and without any
meaningful minority language accommodations, SLPs have consistently suffered
social exclusion due to restricted access to information and education (Branson and
Miller 2002). This has been especially acute since sign languages were banned in
education in 1880; a situation that persisted for over a century.
Social exclusion has long been linked to minority language groups. May (2003a)
favors minority language rights (MLRs), observing that justice requires that
marginalized groups are included in modern nation states. He contests the
inevitability of language shift, accusations of essentialism, and notions that the
interests of minority language speakers are better met by the majority language,
describing this as ‘‘majoritarian forms of linguistic essentialism’’ (2003b:95). Patten
and Kymlicka also see minority languages as ‘‘a worthwhile cause’’ in the context of
‘‘oppression and injustice’’ (2003:49). In the case of SLPs, the option of shifting to
the majority language is absent. Social exclusion is grounded in lack of access to
information in the public sector, and in criminal justice, education, and health care.
Exclusion is linked to Deaf-SLP status and lack of language access rather than being
provoked by issues of hybridity among SLPs or any essentialist approaches to
modes of sign language use (Ladd 2003).
This paper uses the term ‘language justice’, rather than either MLRs or LHRs to
emphasize SLPs’ need to achieve social justice through language access rather than
other forms social redistribution. May’s (2003b) approach to MLRs recognizes the
importance of language and identity and its link to social exclusion, Skutnabb-
Kangas describes LHRs as ‘‘necessary to satisfy people’s basic needs’’ (2010:213),
but both approaches do not go further than advocating legal protection of fun-
damental minority language rights. Conversely, scholars of social justice place the
onus on governments to redress inequalities through redistribution of benefits and
burdens (Rawls 1999). Where inequality is linked to minority language status there
is therefore a need for language justice that entails language policies that
3
The use of the term ‘Deaf culture’ was first used by Padden (1980) to reflect that Deaf people have a
shared language and established patterns of cultural transmission (Padden and Humphries 1988:9).

123
256 S. C. E. Batterbury

proactively redistribute resources. For SLPs, this involves capability approaches

that locate entitlements within groups of peoples rather than individuals (Nussbaum
2003). This requires greater levels of social inclusion through language access, sign
bilingual education, and promotion of their linguistic patrimony thereby enabling a
process of SLPs’ community regeneration. The CRPD is currently the only legal
instrument requiring states to deliver some aspects of language justice for SLPs.

Sign Language Peoples and their sign languages

Analysis of Deaf communities has highlighted their collective linguistic and cultural
patrimony (Bahan 1989; Lane et al. 1996, Padden and Humphries 1988). Deaf
culture is defined by Ladd as a way of giving ‘‘utterance to the belief that Deaf
communities contained their own ways of life mediated through their sign
languages’’ (2003:xvii): the basis for shared experience of Deafhood. This is
common to all Deaf-SLPs who, when together at Deaf events, instigate a temporally
and spatially defined Deafhood, which can be recreated at will in the formation of
local, national and international Deaf spaces (Breivik et al. 2002; Haualand 2007).
For example, as the only hearing person at an international Deaf conference that
took place in Palermo in Italy in 1983, Wrigley observed the emergence of a
spontaneous sense of universal ‘‘citizenry’’ that did not require a physical place
(1996:103).
Of course Deaf-SLPs also hold different beliefs and express their sign languages
and cultures in many varied ways that they share and transmit to hearing-SLPs
(Mudgett-Decaro 1998). There is, however, a commonality in visuo-gestural-tactile
interaction and in formalizing this as sign language expression which reaches out
beyond the confines of individual sign languages: Deaf-SLPs demonstrate relative
ease in understanding other sign languages which they express as feeling ‘‘naturally
bound to each other’’ (Batterbury et al. 2007:2907).
The UK has two named sign languages: British Sign Language (BSL) and Irish
Sign Language (ISL) as well as different dialects. Between the 1960s and 1990s,
evidence within Sign Linguistics demonstrated that sign languages were natural
languages, previously conceived of as merely gesture systems by hearing people
(Stokoe 1960; Brennan et al. 1984). Nevertheless, the misconception that sign
languages are mere communication tools continues among the public, partly
because there a paucity of political power and little penetration by Deaf people into
the professions.
The history of Deaf people makes difficult reading. In previous centuries Deaf
people were regarded as imbeciles, institutionalized, physically abused, and even
experimented on (Branson and Miller 2002). The banning of sign languages in
schools in 1880 saw the practice of oralism, in which spoken language was used as
the medium of instruction. Education gave way to speech therapy; instruction was
largely inaccessible and unintelligible to Deaf students. Schools also punished Deaf
children for using sign languages and excluded Deaf teachers from schools (Branson
and Miller 2002; Lane 1999). This resulted in generations of semi-literate and
underachieving SLPs and is a factor in the higher than average rate of mental illness
found among Deaf people (Conrad 1979; Powers 2003; Hindley and Kitson 2000).

123
Language justice for Sign Language Peoples 257

Although oralism had a negative impact on learning and literacy, Deaf schools
were also the locus for the development of shared Deaf identity and sign language.
As 90 % of Deaf children are born to hearing parents, Deaf schools played a pivotal
role in reproducing community cohesion, sign language and shared identity.
Educational placement of Deaf children has oscillated in the UK, from Deaf school
provision to mainstream provision, ultimately favoring open and often unsupported
mainstreaming (as a result of the 1981 Education Act) (DES 1978). Four of the
remaining 28 Deaf schools in the UK have been threatened with closure in the past
five years due to dwindling class sizes: one of these is now closed; others have had
to enter partnerships with mainstream schools (BDA 2011a; Heffernan 2011).
Baynton has suggested that oralism seeded ‘‘the trap of paternalism,’’ extending
beyond school life. He describes a process where Deaf people became dependent on
missioners and oralists to resolve communication difficulties and ‘support’ them as
adults (1996:150). In the late 20th and 21st centuries, this disabling practice has
transmuted into dependency culture through policies offering disability benefits for
adult Deaf people; creating a benefit trap and stifling Deaf enterprise, collective
consciousness, and community actualization. The dependency culture has its roots
in linguistic exclusion and is fostered by the disability paradigm. As one UK Deaf
entrepreneur interviewed noted, ‘‘local initiatives cannot get Deaf people, I can set
up jobs and training but I can’t get Deaf people as they will lose their benefits. This
needs to be changed.’’4

Disability or language minority?

The CRPD espouses a social model of disability (article 1), but despite its disability
orientation it nevertheless requires state parties to recognize sign languages, thus it
is argued, enabling sign language policy and ultimately language justice for SLPs.
Many SLPs see themselves as a linguistic community rather than a disability
formation and aspire to attainment of minority language rights (Jokinen 2005; Ladd
2003; Lane 2008; Edwards 2010). Ideally, sign language policies would be created
within a policy arena of minority language legislation as this removes the emphasis
from disability labeling and would offer parity with the treatment of other
autochthonous minority languages. However, disability legislation has greater
potency; it is enacted in the UK statutes through the Equality Act (2010) and
requires service providers to take reasonable steps to avoid placing Deaf people at a
disadvantage by providing auxiliary aids and services when required. The CRPD is
4
Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with twelve Deaf and hearing SLPs from across England,
Wales and Scotland in July 2010. They were well-educated, bilingual, professional and entrepreneurial
SLPs: selected as they either had direct experience of the 2003 BSL recognition campaign or had been
instrumental in pushing for policy responses in favor of Deaf rights since this time. The aim was to
identify the aspirations they still held for legal BSL recognition and the desired outcomes they attributed
to this. In addition the interviews sought to identify the reasons the 2003 BSL recognition campaign had
not been sustained. SLP leaders were identified using a snowball method and were drawn from across the
UK to explore any regional differentiation. Responses demonstrated remarkable consistency regardless of
the location in the UK. Informal interviews were also undertaken with three UK civil servants from the
Department for Education (DfE) and Scottish Government and a serving Member of Parliament
(Batterbury 2010) to identify current policy thinking on these matters.

123
258 S. C. E. Batterbury

likely to have greater reach than existing minority language instruments due to its
perceived association with disability legislation in the UK such as the Equality Act.
However, the CRPD, while serving as disability legislation, adopts a human rights
approach to recognition of sign languages. As such, a disability rather than a
minority language treaty is opening up the possibility of radical policy change.
The application of the disability label applied to Deaf-SLPs is socially
constructed but not contested by the community as a whole (for fear of losing
benefits). The European Union of the Deaf (EUD) regards Deaf people as
simultaneously a linguistic minority and disabled (Krausnecker 2009). However, for
Gertz, self-labeling as ‘disabled’ is an example of ‘dysconscious audism’, that is
‘‘the incorporation of antithetical views from the dominant culture’’ (2008:219).
Researchers do not agree: Lane outlines how technologies of ‘normalization’
determine whether a human variation is considered a disability (Lane 2008:279). He
shows, for example, how wide differences in height are considered ‘normal’
whereas very short people are considered disabled. Elderly deafened people who
can speak clearly are not considered disabled while sign language users are.
However, Kyle notes ‘‘there is financial gain in being disabled and it establishes
credentials for inclusion policies’’ (Kyle, personal correspondence 03/02/2010).
There is no research that demonstrates conclusively the view of SLPs on their
disability status; responses are biased by the wish to gain benefit payouts or by the
distorting impact of oppressive discourses (Freire 1972; Gertz 2008). However,
SLPs’ statements about linguistic minority status and self-actualization imply an
underlying ontological group identity and culture unrelated to disability categori-
zations. SLPs define themselves as a culturo-linguistic people with ‘‘ontological
frames of reference to explain their existence as a global geographical community’’
(Batterbury et al. 2007:2908): Sign language terms such as DEAF WORLD
encapsulate this.5 As Wrigley writes, by ‘‘recasting the meaning of Deafness in
positive terms, by reclaiming the authority of directly lived lives, Deaf people the
world over are making clear political claims to self- and collective determina-
tion’’(1996:115). The notion that SLPs are simultaneously socially disabled and
linguistic minorities neglects the expressed views of SLPs interviewed (Ladd 2003;
Jokinen 2005). The dissonance between the views of SLPs and non-SLPs is
reinforced by this widely accepted disability discourse.

Discourse inhibitors to language justice in the UK and beyond

In the UK, BSL and ISL are treated differently to other UK minority languages. Six
other autochthonous languages in the UK have protected language status (Welsh,
Scots, Ulster Scots, Scottish and Irish Gaelic and Cornish), and of these Welsh and
Scottish Gaelic have Language Acts and funding to support Welsh or Gaelic-
medium education, broadcasting and cultural development (Sunday Telegraph
2002). By way of example, there are approximately 60,000 Gaelic language
speakers, which is close to the estimated numbers of Deaf-SLPs across the UK.
There is a Gaelic Language Board (Bòrd na Gàidhlig), a National Gaelic Language
5
Capital letters used to depict a gloss of a term.

123
Language justice for Sign Language Peoples 259

Plan, a National Strategy for Gaelic Education, a Gaelic language television

channel, a Gaelic college, and Gaelic-medium schooling in areas of sufficient
demand. The Gaelic Language Board received grant-in-aid from the Scottish
Government worth £5.1 million in 2011–2012 (Bòrd na Gàidhlig 2012). This does
not include additional money spent on the Gaelic language television channel. In
direct contrast, most Deaf-related expenditure goes into Access to Work and special
education. However, there is no BSL Board, no BSL-medium schooling, no BSL
television channel and no government supported national BSL plan.
All the SLPs interviewed for this paper stated that they wanted to see sign
languages receiving the same status and treatment as other autochthonous
minority languages. Specifically they identified a need for BSL-medium schooling,
promotion and publicity of BSL as a language, BSL to be taught in schools to
hearing students, Deaf-SLPs to be empowered to make decisions about their
language, and the establishment of a BSL broadcasting channel. There was a hope
that language policy supporting this agenda might facilitate greater community
reconstruction: a necessary aspect of development and self-actualization (Ladd
2003). The interviews confirm earlier research by Kyle and Allsop (1997), who
reported similar findings drawing on a survey of Deaf people across Europe.
However, the UK polity is based around the perceived need to support Deaf
individuals and ‘cures’ to eradicate deafness. This is so far removed from the
expressed desires of UK SLPs as to make dialogue often difficult and mutual
incomprehension abounds. The categorization of Deaf-SLPs as disabled is described
by Branson and Miller as a persistent ‘‘error that has disabled and oppressed
countless people and has doomed a proportion of the population to be ostracized, as
beyond the pale’’ (2002:249). As Goffman writes, ‘‘we believe the person with
a stigma is not quite human. On this assumption we exercise varieties of
discrimination through which we effectively, if often unthinkingly, reduce his life
chances’’ (sic) (1984, p. 15). Despite the stigma associated with deafness, BSL itself
is popular with non-SLPs who participate in BSL courses, use baby signing, and see
BSL-English interpreting on up to 5 % of all television programs.
The issue of disability (deafness) is consequently the factor that associates stigma
with SLPs. The case of Deaf couples deliberately choosing to give birth to Deaf
children exemplifies this (Jeffreys 2011; BBC 2002). An analysis of the treatment
by non-SLPs of this topic shows language which stigmatizes the choice of a Deaf
identity and sign language for a child as: ‘‘criminal’’, ‘‘disgusting’’, ‘‘reprehensi-
ble’’, ‘‘selfish’’ and ‘‘cruel and inhuman’’ (Jeffreys 2011; BBC 2002); some Deaf
people conversely talk of the child being ‘‘blessed’’ (Jeffreys 2011). The stigma is
about deafness as a disability and not per se a language issue. However, these
factors have become blurred in the policy mindset making amelioration of disability
seem more important that investment in language policy. Four policy makers
interviewed in the UK in 2010 stated that this is linked to perceptions of high
additional cost.
In the UK, the disability discourse applied in policy circles towards UK SLPs is
reinforced by legislation giving Deaf people disability protection (Equality
Duty), medical interventions (cochlear implants, genetic selection) and benefits
(Disability Living Allowance among others). Until and during 2003, SLPs in the

123
260 S. C. E. Batterbury

UK campaigned for the legal recognition of BSL and are now reactivating their
campaign for language policy that will nurture the UK’s sign languages. Since the
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) ‘recognized’ BSL in 2003, the SLPs-
lobby dissipated, leaving many SLPs with a sense of injustice; hearing-led deaf
organizations were perceived to have taken over the process, government money
used largely for interpreter training programs. As one campaigner commented ‘‘the
whole BSL recognition issue then got hijacked, and Deaf activists who organized
the BSL marches got shut out in 2003’’.
In contrast with non-SLPs’ categorization of Deaf individuals as disabled people
and signing hearing people as their ‘helpers’, a body of academic writing asserts that
SLPs are a minority cultural and linguistic group. This academic view confirms the
stated views of SLPs interviewed as outlined above. Different aspects of Deaf
culture and experience have been emphasized by researchers using terms such as
linguistic community (Padden 1980), minority culture (Mindess 1999), linguis-
tic minority (Parasnis 1996), culturo-linguistic group (Ladd 2003), ethnic group
(Terstriep 1993) and Sign Language Peoples (Batterbury et al. 2007). All labels
reject the prevailing hegemonic discourse of Deaf-SLPs as disabled individuals,
emphasizing the culturo-linguistic character of SLPs. Despite this, the world of
policy perceives Deaf-SLPs as disabled. This has led to assimilationist rather than
multicultural policies for SLPs, perpetuating their linguistic exclusion.
The prevailing disability discourse in the UK is hegemonic, persisting
irrespective of campaigns for change, as exemplified by the policy response to
the 2003 BSL marches. It perpetuates the stigma of deafness. However, there is a
role for individual agency within the policy world leading to change. Bhaskar
suggested that although we cannot alter the social structures into which we are born
we can change them provided we first acknowledge the legacy of the past that ‘‘pre-
exists us’’ (2002:20). With increasing academic discourse describing SLPs as
minority language formations, pressure for policy change may well come from the
Academy as well as from SLPs themselves. This would lead to policies that meet
the Deaf agenda and reduce levels of linguistic exclusion.

Policy: past and present

Minority language instruments

There are a series of non-disability legal initiatives aimed at protecting minority

languages: but they have not protected sign languages. The UN has two instruments
that mention LHRs. The first of these, the UN International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (UN 1966) grants linguistic minorities the right ‘‘to use their own
language’’ (article 27). The second, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
(OHCHR 1989) stipulates that children of linguistic minorities and indigenous
children have the right to use their languages in their communities (article 30).
However, Skutnabb-Kangas notes these provisions do not prevent ‘subtractive
teaching’ in the mainstream language (2010:214). This has a negative impact on the
long-term future of minority spoken languages and is also damaging to the bilingual

123
Language justice for Sign Language Peoples 261

status of children who are hearing-SLPs. It does not prevent decisions being made
on behalf of Deaf children to use spoken languages in teaching, irrespective of any
negative impact on learning (Powers 2003).
In Europe, there are two key instruments: the European Charter on Regional and
Minority Languages (the Charter) (CoE 1992), and the Framework Convention for
the Protection of National Minorities (the Framework Convention) (CoE 1995).
Although non-disability instruments, they have not succeeded in promulgating
a non-disability policy approach to sign languages (Skutnabb-Kangas 2010;
Krausnecker 2003). The European Parliament also recognized sign languages in
1988 and 1998, but the majority of Member States did not respond to this initiative.
The Charter (CoE 1992) outlines a number of important rights: the right to
education in that language, teaching of the language’s history, use of the language in
courts, by the media, for cultural activities, and in economic and social life.
However states only have to implement a minimum of 35 articles and can select
which to apply (Skutnabb-Kangas 2008:109). States can opt out of many of the
provisions, especially if they define minority groups as being too small. Although
the Charter’s definition of a non-territorial minority language could easily apply to
sign languages, article 2.1 notes that signatories have agreed to apply it to ‘‘all the
regional or minority languages spoken within its territory’’ (CoE 1992, article 2.1;
italics added). Sign languages are consequently excluded, Skutnabb-Kangas
describes this as ‘‘fatal for the Deaf’’ (2010:222). In 2003, the Parliamentary
Assembly proposed a legal instrument protecting Sign Languages or a sign language
protocol for the Charter. (Bruce 2003). The Committee of Ministers did not take this
up and it ran out of time. Proposals to the Committee of Ministers have to be agreed
by all the member states: this is difficult to achieve as ‘‘almost half the Council of
Europe member states have not yet acceded to’’ the Charter; making achieving
consensus problematic (PACOE 2012:7).
The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (CoE 1995)
makes reference to minority languages in at least six distinct articles (articles 5, 9,
10, 11, 12 and 14). All except article 10.1 and 10.2 could apply to both spoken and
signed languages. It calls for members of minorities to be allowed freedom of
expression in their own languages. It grants the rights to: ‘‘receive and impart
information and ideas in the minority language’’ (article 9), to use that language in
criminal justice (article 10.3), and to learn the minority language (article 14). Eight
states have yet to ratify it (PACOE 2012). According to the Parliamentary Assembly
it ‘‘is concerned only with principles, and has no real binding monitoring
mechanism’’ (PACOE 2012:6). Thornberry describes this as ‘‘a low point in drafting
a minority right; there is just enough substance in the formulation to prevent it
becoming completely vacuous’’ (Thornberry 1997: 356–357 in Skutnabb-Kangas
2008:110).
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) grants directly actionable
rights to individuals though article 34. At the time of writing, the Parliamentary
Assembly is considering a new protocol for the ECHR protecting rights of national
minorities. National minorities would be allowed to use their languages freely in
the public arena but only in ‘‘areas where national minorities reside traditionally or

123
262 S. C. E. Batterbury

represent a significant percentage of the regional or local population’’ (PACOE

2012:2) this would exclude sign languages from this provision.
Krausnecker detailed the invisibility of sign languages in minority language
policies in Europe (2003); this remains the situation in 2012. The omission of sign
languages from these legal instruments, either by direct exclusion (the Charter) or
by failing to mention them explicitly (the Framework Convention and proposed
ECHR protocol) has contributed to sign languages having the lowest status of all the
minority and regional languages in Europe without any international lever to
persuade governments to take action.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2007)

The CRPD requires states to act to ensure human rights of disabled people are
respected (UN 2007). It requires state parties to ‘‘promote the full realization of all
human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities without
discrimination of any kind on the basis of disability’’ (article 4, UN 2007:5), and to
use legislation and administrative measures to achieve this. Economic, social and
cultural rights are to be realized progressively and legislation and policies to be
delivered in consultation with disabled people and their representative organiza-
tions. Despite its social model of disability, the CRPD comes closest to requir-
ing states to deliver SLPs’ agenda than any previous minority language legal
instruments (Ladd et al. 2003; Jokinen 2005; SFF 2010). The CRPD is still relative
new in legal terms, there is not yet any case law relating to the sign language
articles.

Sign language provisions

The CRPD contains five articles specifically referring to sign languages: article 2
includes sign languages in its definition of ‘language’, article 9 addresses linguistic
access, article 21 freedom of expression and opinion, article 24 education, and
article 30, participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport. This paper
analyses these articles only, as they directly relate to sign languages. The areas
covered by the 5 articles are key for any language policy and high of the
international Deaf agenda. Comparative analysis is made between the requirements
of these 5 articles and the current situation in the UK to illuminate the extent of
change required. Scrutiny of the negotiations for the CRPD shows that involvement
with the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) and Russian, Chilean and Korean
Deaf associations at the drafting stage was crucial to their adoption in the final
CRPD (UN Enable 2006a).
During the negotiations for the drafting of the CRPD from 2004–2006, the WFD
actively lobbied for full access to information in sign languages, education in sign
language, and LHRs for Deaf people. They were supported by the International
Disability Caucus and Chile, Thailand, South Africa, Norway and New Zealand
(among others). A major victory was the incorporation of the obligation on states to
formally recognize sign languages (article 21b).

123
Language justice for Sign Language Peoples 263

In what follows the implementation status in the UK of each of these five articles
is discussed below.
Article 2 defines: ‘‘language’’ as including spoken and signed languages and
other forms of non-spoken languages (UN 2007:4). Compared with pre-existing
minority language legislation, the explicit mention of signed languages in the article
2 of the CRPD gives SLPs a much stronger position. Considerable discussion was
held during the negotiations around whether sign languages constituted natural
languages (as opposed to gesture systems) and the number of national sign
languages existing in each country (as opposed to dialects and other variations).
Scientific evidence supporting sign languages as natural languages was accepted
(UN Enable 2006m).
Article 9 (accessibility) stipulates that states will ‘‘take appropriate measures’’
including ‘‘identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers’’ (UN 2007:9) to
ensure equal access for disabled people to a range of facilities including schools,
medical facilities, information, communication and emergency services. Article 9
(e) also states that:
State parties shall also take appropriate measures……
(e) To provide forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including guides,
readers and professional sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility to
buildings and other facilities open to the public; (UN 2007:9)
Reference to sign language interpreters was at the request of the WFD at the
negotiations in 2004 (UN Enable 2006b, j, k). Barriers to information are a major
issue for SLPs: for some, access to written language is limited where full literacy is
not achieved (Conrad 1979; Powers 2003). This reflects a concern with those
involved at negotiation to ensure better linguistic access albeit still from a disability
perspective.
In the UK, provision of sign language interpreters in official interactions is a
requirement of the Equality Duty, and necessitates advanced booking by the public
bodies in question. However, it is much less automatic in other areas such as health
care appointments, banking, tax queries, marriages, and court cases (except where
the Deaf person is the defendant or a witness). Unlike churches, registry officers will
not allow weddings to be conducted in BSL in the UK although they will accept an
interpreter. In situations where the Deaf person is in a supporting role (e.g. school
parents’ evenings, a birth partner) provision of interpreting has to be negotiated and
the Deaf person is often subjected to complaints about the cost.6 Deaf-SLPs are not
allowed interpreters in jury rooms and so unable to fulfill their civic role as
members of juries (Brennan and Brown 1997).
Article 21 requires state parties to provide freedom of expression and opinion and
access to information. Its achievement is however patchy in the UK. Article 21
stipulates that states must to ensure disabled people have the right

6
There is no published research to demonstrate these experiences; however access difficulties of this
nature are routinely discussed and shared by Deaf colleagues (from 2006 to 2012) and form part of
uncodified tacit ‘‘Deaf knowledge’’. My personal experience as the partner of a Deaf-SLP also
corroborates the regular occurrences of these access barriers.

123
264 S. C. E. Batterbury

to seek, receive and impart information and ideas on an equal basis with others
and through all forms of communication of their choice, as defined in article 2
of the present Convention (UN 2007:14).
The reference to article 2 reinforces Deaf-SLPs right to use sign languages and this
is further recognized in parts (b) and (e) of article 21 which notes that states will
assist this by
(b) Accepting and facilitating the use of sign languages, Braille, augmentative
and alternative communication, and all other accessible means, modes and
formats of communication of their choice by persons with disabilities in
official interactions (UN 2007:14)
and by,
(e) Recognizing and promoting the use of sign languages (UN 2007:15).
The wording of article 21(b) was debated at length at the negotiations. New Zealand
was instrumental in pushing inclusion of the term ‘sign language’ (UN Enable
2006c, e, f, g, m).
The obligation on states to recognize and promote sign languages was a
significant victory for the WFD who defended this as a mechanism to avoid having
to mention sign languages in many of the articles (UN Enable 2006h). Recognition
and promotion of sign languages is also an area where currently many states are not
yet delivering in full (Wheatley and Pabsch 2010). 38 countries have so far
recognized their national sign languages. Of these, Brazil, Austria, Venezuela,
Uganda, Portugal, Finland, and New Zealand have recognized their sign languages
in their constitutions, but this predates the CRPD (Wheatley and Pabsch 2010).
However, in the UK, legislation is needed to convert the DWP 2003 ‘recognition’
into statutory and practical concrete points of action. Bruce, when interviewed,
noted the real pressing need for BSL to be legally recognized as a pathway to the
instigation of actionable rights for SLPs:
this group of people has a requirement for sign language as a first language.
We need recognition first, to ensure areas of support are then met. If you create
recognition as a right then the finances will follow.
Article 24 focuses on education, stipulating that inclusive education should be
offered at all levels. The UK government has entered a reservation on this (clauses
2(a) and 2(b)). It may be that the reservation will facilitate the continuance of
specialist Deaf schools despite the on-going UK trend for their closure (BDA
2011a). Clause 3 of article 24 specifically refers to sign languages and the Deaf
community. It requires states to facilitate:
(b) …the learning of sign language and the promotion of the linguistic identity
of the deaf community;
and, to ensure
(c)… that the education of persons, and in particular children, who are blind,
deaf or deafblind, is delivered in the most appropriate languages and modes

123
Language justice for Sign Language Peoples 265

and means of communication for the individual, and in environments which

maximize academic and social development. (UN 2007:17)
Debate took place at the negotiations around the need to ensure that Deaf children
were not isolated in mainstream educational settings and prevented from learning
sign language (UN Enable 2006i, j). WFD also lobbied to ensure sign languages
were named explicitly (UN Enable 2006d). The language in the article is not as
strong hoped as the negotiating parties regarded the WFD demands as exceptional to
the general principle of educational ‘inclusion’.
For many Deaf children in the UK, education in a language ‘appropriate to their
individual needs’ means BSL-medium classes and the practice of sign bilingualism.
However, in the UK, Teachers of the Deaf are only required to achieve a minimum
Level 1 qualification in BSL, which means they are often unable to sustain even a
basic conversation. There is no research on the numbers of Teachers of the Deaf
who can use BSL to a more advanced level. In most instances Teachers of the Deaf
will rely on Communication Support Workers, for whom the minimum requirement
is Level 2 in BSL, way below the standards expected for interpreters (Level 6). A
recent project funded by the Department for Education (DfE) has highlighted a need
to increase the minimum skills levels of the children’s workforce to keep track with
the subjects they are learning (Batterbury et al. 2011). A new qualification of
‘Education Communication Support Workers’ (ECSWs) was being piloted in 2011,
with an expectation of a commitment to work towards the more advanced Level 3 in
BSL. Officials interviewed in the DfE have indicated a willingness to address the
issue of raising the minimum BSL standards required of Teachers of the Deaf.
Article 24, clause 4 requires states to:
take appropriate measures to employ teachers, including teachers with
disabilities, who are qualified in sign language and/or Braille, and to train
professionals and staff who work at all levels of education. (UN 2007:17)
However, there are very few Deaf teachers in the UK. There are no statistics in the
UK for the numbers of Deaf teachers who are BSL users. Estimates indicate
approximately 10 % of all Teachers of the Deaf have declared a hearing loss
(estimated figures from British Association of Teachers of the Deaf, personal
correspondence 13/02/2012). However not all of these are sign language users. The
requirement to have a GCSE in English and to undertake teaching practice in
hearing schools has proved a real barrier to Deaf-SLPs.
Article 30 (Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport) makes a
specific reference to sign languages in clause 4:
Persons with disabilities shall be entitled, on an equal basis with others, to
recognition and support of their specific cultural and linguistic identity,
including sign languages and deaf culture (UN 2007:23).
UK SLPs have called for full legal recognition of sign languages, and financial
support for setting up a language board, cultural exchange, and a heritage centre of
BSL signlore and performance (Batterbury 2010; SFF 2010). There is a precedent in
the UK for support of culturo-linguistic patrimony of other autochthonous minority

123
266 S. C. E. Batterbury

language communities including Gaelic and Welsh. However, similar provision is

not yet being planned for the UK’s sign languages. Currently, as the British Deaf
Association (BDA) has highlighted in their submission on CRPD implementation to
the government’s Office for Disability Issues (ODI), SLPs in the UK still face
continued social exclusion from education, employment, and social, economic and
civic opportunities. There are currently no multicultural language policy solutions
for BSL or ISL: both geographically dispersed indigenous languages in the UK
(BDA 2011b).
Perhaps unsurprisingly some of the CRPD requirements rooted in a disability
framework (especially article 9, providing language access through interpreters) have
been partially realized already in the UK. However those concerning cultural and
language promotion and full recognition of sign languages remain some distance from
achieving progressive realization. The BDA complains there has been little progress
or willingness to implement the requirements of the CRPD (BDA 2011b). There is no
formal legal recognition of BSL and no recognition of any sort of ISL. Provision also
varies across the UK: lack of full implementation of articles 21, 24 and 30 is especially
acute in England which does even not merit a reference in the government’s
implementation report (ODI 2011b) despite being the largest UK nation.

Enforcing the CRPD: a route to language justice for SLPs

The CRPD is one of the most powerful legally binding treaty mechanisms available
to the UN. However, it does not accord individuals directly actionable rights. Its
implementation must be legislated for by statutory instruments from national
legislatures. Nevertheless, the UK Equalities and Human Rights Commission
(EHRC) describes the CRPD as ‘‘not just a paper ‘declaration’ without any teeth’’
(EHRC 2010:2).
During the CRPD negotiations, delegates agreed to monitoring at national and
international levels, stipulating that disabled people and civil society should be
involved at both levels (UN Enable 2006l). Article 33 of the CRPD provides the
monitoring mechanism. In the UK, the requirement on the government and
devolved administrations to enforce the CRPD through changes to laws and policies
is reinforced by implementation monitoring at national levels by the EHRC and
national commissions of the devolved governments. At the international level, states
are required to present four-yearly monitoring reports on implementation to the UN
Disability Committee (EHRC 2010). The CRPD requires the full involvement of
‘‘civil society, persons with disabilities and their representative organizations’’ in
the monitoring process, in policy formulation and in changes to policies that
concern them (article 33.3, UN 2007:25). The UK government’s ODI writes:
Government will be held to account on what it does. In 2011 the UK must
report to the United Nations about how the Convention is being implemented
and what progress has been made. This will be a public document and UK
performance will be judged by both an international and domestic audience.
(ODI 2011a:no page)

123
Language justice for Sign Language Peoples 267

Civil Society has a key role in ensuring the CRPD is implemented in accordance
with a principle of ‘nothing about us without us’ (UN Enable 2007a). In 2007 the
Declaration of Madrid was agreed ‘‘to ensure the participation of civil society in the
implementation and follow-up of the Convention’’ (UN 2008:1). At the same time
recommendations were disseminated calling for disability advocacy through
Disabled Peoples’ Organizations. (UN Enable 2007b).
In the UK, the EHRC suggests that groups affected by the CRPD should provide
parallel reports setting out ‘‘their views on what the government is doing (or not) to
respect, protect and promote the rights under the CRPD’’ (EHRC 2010:13). The first
UK government four-yearly report to the UN Disability Committee was submitted
on 24 November 2011 (ODI 2011b). Disappointingly, it claimed that BSL was
recognized by the Government in 2003; even though this was in fact only one
government department. It omits to mention the lack of formal legal status, offering
no comparison with other autochthonous minority languages (ODI 2011b:62). The
report does not address the reality of lived the Deaf-SLPs experience which was
summarized in the BDA’s paper (2011b). The BDA’s response highlights a number
of areas (articles 7–33) where Deaf people do not have equality with hearing people
and where implementation of the CRPD has yet to be fully realized. They note:
Our overall assessment of the present Government’s willingness to move
forwards from the declaration of BSL as a recognized language in 2003 is
generally pessimistic. There is so much poor practice and so little attempt to
redress this that we do not feel we can support this draft report as it stands as
an adequate record of the current situation (BDA 2011b:11).

Conclusion

This paper has argued that sign language policies are needed to reduce social
exclusion due to lack of language access. The disability construction (both social
and medical) has been an impediment to the emergence of policy thinking that
supports sign language policy to deliver much needed language justice for SLPs.
Sign languages are minority autochthonous languages used by Deaf and hearing
SLPs, they are not merely communication tools. Ideally, therefore, minority
language legislation is needed to protect sign languages. However, disability
policies have greater power than existing minority language instruments. The CRPD
marks a shift to a rights-based approach, and explicitly names sign languages. It is
argued that despite its disability provenance, the CRPD opens an avenue towards
language justice and the eventual promulgation of genuine sign language policies
from a minority language perspective. The unprecedented presence of the WFD and
other Deaf organizations during the drafting of the CRPD, and their willingness to
work in partnership with hearing disability organizations, ensured that sign
languages were mentioned specifically and it was agreed that they should be
recognized and promoted by state parties.
The paper suggests that to deliver all the CRPD obligations, policy makers would
need to alter their understanding of SLPs towards something closer to a culturo-

123
268 S. C. E. Batterbury

linguistic model. This would reduce the dissonance between the policy view of
Deaf-SLPs as disabled and the complexity of self-definition by Deaf-SLPs
themselves. The CRPD offers SLPs a pathway of change and opens up a space
for dialogue with the policy world. However this needs to be done collectively, as
Emery has noted, ‘‘SLPs are seeking their rights not only as individuals, but as a
‘peoples’, as a collective group’’ (Emery, personal correspondence, August 2011).
The UK’s SLPs have begun a process of engaging with the CRPD. Their response to
the government’s report lists areas where CRPD requirements are not currently
being delivered in the UK (BDA 2011b). This demonstrates their willingness to use
it as a lever to bring about formal legal recognition of BSL, sign bilingual education,
more Deaf teachers, better qualified Teachers of the Deaf (who can sign), and
greater access to information. At the time of writing, the BDA is also in the process
of creating a new SLPs’ lobby (BSL Alliance) and BSL strategy. The aim for the
UK’s SLPs is to open the door to genuine sign language policy akin to that offered
to other UK autochthonous minority languages. Following the hiatus in proactive
lobbying after the nominal recognition of BSL by the DWP in 2003, re-engagement
with policy is a significant step forwards.
Looking forward, the CRPD prescribes a manifold difference to existing UK
policies for Deaf-SLPs. However its progressive realization is likely to be no easy
task as it carries cost implications. There perhaps needs to be a debate by SLPs
around the extent to which dependency on disability benefits reinforces a message
of inferiority and need. A move away from disability benefits might free up public
finances to support a sign language policy; although the two are not necessarily
mutually exclusive. However, government officials interviewed assert that addi-
tional public expenditure is difficult to secure in the current austerity period.
It is a paradox that it is a disability treaty rather than minority language
legislation that is requiring states to recognize sign languages and the progressive
realization of an embryonic sign language policy. However, the CRPD’s role as a
potential lever for language policy for SLPs is highly significant. If used
strategically the CRPD might enable progress down the minority language route
for all signatory states. The paper has argued that sign language policy would offer a
mechanism to lessen social exclusion for SLPs by enabling language justice through
full sign language access. It is too early to assess the extent to which the CRPD will
have a significant impact on the lives of SLPs and the achievement of global
language justice: but the seeds are there. The CRPD also has the potential to
catalyze a more united and coherent lobby from different national SLPs; if it
achieves this it will have exceeded the expectations of Pattern and Kymlicka, who
note ‘‘it is doubtful that international law will ever be able to do more that specify
the most minimal standards’’(2003:34). In the case of SLPs this is nevertheless a
step forward as disability constructions have hitherto denied them even these.

Acknowledgments I extremely grateful for the time and support given to me over many months by
Professor Kendall King, editor of Language Policy. I am also grateful to 4 anonymous referees and to the
anonymous Editorial Board member for their time and insightful comments on this paper. I would also
like to thank Professor Jim Kyle (Harry Crook Professor of Deaf Studies), and Professor Rachel Murray
(Professor of International Human Rights Law) at the University of Bristol and for their advice and
support, and the University of Bristol for the time they have given me to undertake this research. I am also

123
Language justice for Sign Language Peoples 269

grateful to Ms Alison Bryan, for supplying me with links to explanations on enforcement, and to Dr Steve
Emery, Dr Mike Gulliver, Mr Richard Magill, and Professor Jim Kyle for debating ideas on the disability
status of SLPs and applicability of disability legislation for achieving minority language justice. I am also
grateful to Rt Hon Malcolm Bruce M. P. for sharing his first hand knowledge with me of the process of
proposing a sign language protocol for the European Charter on Regional and Minority Languages.
Thanks also go to Dr Annelies Kusters, Ms Maartje De Meulder, and Dr Marc Marschark for helping me
locate elusive references, updated research in the field of Deaf education, and sharing insights with me on
the disability status of European Sign Language Peoples. I am grateful all to those whose interviews have
informed the research and given me insights into the policy and into the world of Sign Language Peoples.

References

Ann, J. (2001). Bilingualism and language contact. In C. Lucas (Ed.), The Sociolinguistics of Sign
Languages (pp. 33–61). Cambridge: CUP.
Bahan, B. (1989). Notes from a ‘seeing’ person. In S. Wilcox (Ed.), American Deaf culture: An anthology
(pp. 29–32). Maryland: Linstok Press.
Batterbury, S. C. E. (2010). Language policy and social justice: The case of BSL, M.Sc. dissertation in
Deaf Studies, University of Bristol. Available at http://www.bris.ac.uk/deaf/english/about/staff/
sarah-batterbury/bslrecognition.pdf.
Batterbury, S. C. E., Dickinson, M., Robinson, H., Sutherland, H., & West, D. (2011). Signing first:
Evaluation of I-Sign: The BSL Pilot project. Department for Education Research Report DFE-RR137.
Batterbury, S. C. E., Ladd, P., & Gulliver, M. (2007). Sign Language Peoples as indigenous minorities:
Implications for research and policy. Environment and Planning A, 39(12), 2899–2915.
Baynton, D. C. (1996). Forbidden Signs: American culture and the campaign against Sign Language.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
BBC. (2002). Couple ‘‘choose’’ to have a deaf baby: Should it be allowed? BBC talking point, Friday, 12
April, 2002, 10:41 GMT 11:41 UK, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1916818.stm. Acces-
sed August 10 2010.
Bhaskar, R. (2002). From science to emancipation: Alienation and the actuality of enlightenment.
Brighton: Harvester.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Situating language rights: English and Swahili in Tanzania revisited. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 9, 390–417.
Bòrd na Gàidhlig. (2012). Funding schemes, http://www.gaidhlig.org.uk/bord/en/funding-opportunities.
Accessed Feb 14 2012.
Branson, J., & Miller, D. (2002). Damned for their difference: The cultural construction of Deaf people as
disabled. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Breivik, J., Haualand, H., & Solvang, P. (2002). Rome? A temporary Deaf city! Deaflympics 2001.
A Publication within the Anthropological Project. Transnational connections in deaf worlds.
Norway: Bergen University.
Brennan, M., & Brown, R. (1997). Equality before the law: Deaf people’s access to Justice. Coleford:
Douglas Mclean.
Brennan, M., Colville, M. D., & Lawson, L. K. (1984). Words in hand: A structural analysis of the signs
of British Sign Language. Carlisle: British Deaf Association.
British Deaf Association (BDA). (2011a). BDA Statement on Elmfield School, http://www.bda.org.uk/
news/story/2011/01/26/bda-statement-elmfield-school. Accessed 11 April 2011.
British Deaf Association (BDA). (2011b). Response by the British Deaf Association (BDA) to the Office
for Disability Issues (ODI): Draft UK initial report on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (UNCRPD), mimeo, July 2011.
Bruce, M. (2003). Protection of sign languages in the member states of the Council of Europe. Report to
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Doc 9738, 17/03/2003.
Conrad, R. (1979). The deaf school child: Language and cognitive function. London: Harper and Row.
Council of Europe (COE). (1992). European charter for regional and minority languages, http://con
ventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/148.htm. Accessed Sept 03 10.
Council of Europe (COE). (1995). Framework convention for the protection of national minor-
ities. Strasbourg, 1.II.1995, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/157.htm. Accessed
Sept 03 10.

123
270 S. C. E. Batterbury

Department for Education and Science (DES). (1978). Special educational needs, report of the enquiry
into the education of handicapped children and young people. (Warnock report). London: HMSO.
Edwards, R. A. R. (2010). ‘‘Hearing aids are not Deaf’’: A historical perspective on technology in the
Deaf world’. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (3rd ed., pp. 403–416). Routledge:
London.
Emery, S. D. (2011). Citizenship and the Deaf community. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Ishara Press.
Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). (2010). The United Nations convention on the rights
of persons with disabilities: What does it mean for you? http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/
uploaded_files/publications/uncrpdguide.pdf. Accessed Feb 07 2010.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin.
Gertz, G. (2008). Dysconscious audism: A theoretical proposition. In H. D. L. Bauman (Ed.), Open your
eyes: Deaf studies talking (pp. 219–234). Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Goffman, E. (1984). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. (First published, paperback
1963). London: Simon & Schuster, Touchstone.
Haualand, H. (2007). The two week village. In B. Ingstad & S. Whyte (Eds.), Disability in Local and
global worlds (pp. 33–55). California: University of California Press.
Heffernan, C. (2011). Deaf pupils will bear the brunt of education cuts. In: The Guardian, guardian.co.uk,
Tuesday 10 May 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/10/deaf-pupils-edu
cation-cuts. Accessed Dec 10 2011.
Hindley, P., & Kitson, N. (Eds.). (2000). Mental health and deafness. London: Whurr publishers.
Jeffreys, D. (2011). Born to be Deaf, mail Online, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-108540/
Born-deaf.html#comments. Accessed Augest 10 2011.
Jokinen, M. (2005). Linguistic rights, Sign Language as a right in the UN convention on the rights of
persons with disabilities and in the legislation of UN member countries. Presentation at the CRPD
negotiations, President, World Federation of the Deaf, Monday 31 January 2005, http://www.
un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc5sideevents.htm. Accessed Augest 20 2011.
Krausnecker, V. (2003). Has something changed? Sign languages in Europe: The case of minorised
minority languages. Deaf Worlds, 19(2), 33–46.
Krausnecker, V. (2009). The protection and promotion of sign languages and the rights of their users in
council of Europe member states: Needs analysis. Report, www.coe.int/t/e/social…/soc…/Report%
20Sign%20languages%20final.doc. Accessed August 08 2011.
Kyle, J. G. & Allsop, L. (1997). Sign on Europe. Report for EUD, European Union of the Deaf.
Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding Deaf culture: In search of Deafhood. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ladd, P., Batterbury, S. C. E., Alker, D., Gulliver, M., Turner, G. H., & Krausneker, V. (2003). An agenda
for change: Principles and guidelines for policy making and research in Deaf-related areas. Deaf
Worlds, 19(2), 66–77.
Lane, H. (1999). The mask of benevolence: Disabling the Deaf community. San Diego: DawnSignPress.
Lane, H. (2008). Do Deaf people have a disability? In H. D. L. Bauman (Ed.), Open your eyes: Deaf
studies talking (pp. 277–292). Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Lane, H., Hoffmeister, R., & Bahan, B. (1996). A journey into the Deaf-world. San Diego:
DawnSignPress.
May, S. (2003a). Misconceiving minority language rights: Implications for liberal political theory. In W.
Kymlicka & A. Patten (Eds.), Language rights and political theory (pp. 123–152). Oxford: OUP.
May, S. (2003b). Rearticulating the case for minority language rights. Current Issues in Language
Planning, 4(2), 95–125.
Mindess, A. (1999). Reading between the signs: Intercultural communication of Sign Language
interpreters. London: Intercultural Press.
Mudgett-Decaro, P. (1998). On being both Hearing and Deaf: My bicultural-bilingual experience. In I.
Parasnis (Ed.), Cultural and language diversity and the Deaf experience (pp. 272–288). Cambridge:
CUP.
Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and Social Justice. Feminist
Economics, 9(2–3), 33–59.
Office for Disability Issues (ODI). (2011a). UN convention on the rights of disabled people: What
ratification of the UN convention means for the UK government. http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/disabled-
people-and-legislation/un-convention-on-the-rights-of-disabled-people.php. Accessed Feb 13 2011.
Office for Disability Issues (ODI). (2011b), UK Initial Report On the UN Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities, http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/docs/disabled-people-and-legislation/uk-initial-
report.pdf. Accessed Dec 10 2011).

123
Language justice for Sign Language Peoples 271

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (1989). Convention on
the rights of the child, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm#art23. Accessed August 20 2011.
Padden, C. (1980). The Deaf community and the culture of Deaf people. In C. Baker & R. Battison (Eds.),
Sign Language and the Deaf community: essays in honor of William C. Stokoe (pp. 89–103). USA:
National Association of the Deaf.
Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (1988). Deaf in America: Voices from a culture. London: Harvard
University Press.
Parasnis, I. (Ed.). (1996). Cultural and language diversity and the Deaf experience. Cambridge: CUP.
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACOE). (2012). An additional protocol to the
European convention on human rights on national minorities. Doc. 12879, 23/02/2012. http://
assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewPDF.asp?FileID=13083&Language=EN. Accessed April 03
2012.
Patten, A., & Kymlicka, W. (2003). Introduction, language rights and political theory: Context, issues,
and approaches. In W. Kymlicka & A. Patten (Eds.), Language rights and political theory (pp.
1–51). Oxford: OUP.
Powers, S. (2003). Influences of student and family factors on academic outcomes of mainstream
secondary school Deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(1), 57–78.
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. (revised edition): Originally published 1972 with OUP. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Scotland Futures Forum (SFF). (2010). The future of British Sign Language in an inclusive Scotland, 15
November 2010. http://scotlandfutureforum.org/assets/library/files/application/BSL_Report.pdf.
Accessed Feb 01 2011.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2008). Human rights and language policy in education. In S. May & N. Hornberger
(Eds.), Language policy and political issues in education 1, encyclopedia of language and education
(2nd ed., pp. 107–119). New York: Springer.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2010). Language rights. In J. Jaspers, J. O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.),
Society and language use. 7 handbook of pragmatics highlights (pp. 212–240). Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Stokoe, W. C. (1960). Sign Language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the
American deaf. In Studies in linguistics: Occasional papers (8). Buffalo: Dept. of Anthropology and
Linguistics, University of Buffalo.
Sunday Telegraph. (2002). Kernewek re be grontys dewhelans, (Cornish has been granted a comeback),
by Francis Elliot, November 17, 2002, 3.
Terstriep, A. L. (1993). Ethnicity, social theory, and Deaf culture. In Deaf studies III: Bridging cultures in
the 21st century. Conference proceedings, April 22–25 1993, 231–244. College for Continuing
Education, Gallaudet University: Washington.
Thornberry, P. (1997). Minority rights. In Academy of European Law (Ed.). Collected courses of the
academy of European Law VI, (2) (pp. 307–390). The Netherlands, Kluwer Law International.
United Nations (UN). (1966). International covenant on civil and political rights, New York, 16
December 1966.
United Nations (UN). (2007). Convention and optional protocol signatures and ratifications, UN Enable,
rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. http://www.un.org/disabilities/countries.asp?id=166.
Accessed Feb 07 2010.
United Nations (UN). (2008). Letter dated 11 January 2008 from the Chargé d’affairs a.i.of Spain to the
United Nations addressed to the President of the General Assembly. available at http://www.un.
org/disabilities/default.asp?id=359. Accessed 11 April 2011.
UN Enable (2006a). Daily summary of discussion at the seventh session, 31 January 2006. http://www.
un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc7sum31jan.htm. Accessed August 25 2011.
UN Enable (2006b). Daily summary of discussion at the third session, 26 May 2004. http://www.un.org/
esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc3sum26may.htm. Accessed August 25 2011.
UN Enable (2006c). Daily summary of discussion at the third session, 27 May 2004. http://www.un.org/
esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc3sum27may.htm. Accessed August 25 2011.
UN Enable (2006d). Daily summary of discussion at the third session, 1 June 2004. http://www.un.
org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc3sum1june.htm. Accessed August 25 2011.
UN Enable (2006e). Daily summary of discussion at the fourth session, 26 August 2004. http://www.un.
org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc4sum26aug.htm. Accessed August 25 2011.
UN Enable (2006f). Daily summary of discussion at the fifth session, 31 January 2005, http://www.
un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc5sum31jan.htm. Accessed August 25 2011.

123
272 S. C. E. Batterbury

UN Enable (2006g). Daily summary of discussion at the fifth session, 1 February 2005, http://www.un.
org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc5sum1feb.htm Accessed August 25 2011.
UN Enable (2006h). Daily summary of discussion at the fifth session,3 February 2005, http://www.un.
org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc5sum3feb.htm. Accessed August 25 2011.
UN Enable (2006i). Daily summary of discussion at the sixth session, 03 August 2005, http://www.un.
org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6sum3aug.htm. Accessed August 25 2011.
UN Enable (2006j). Daily summary of discussion at the sixth session, 04 August 2005, http://www.un.
org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6sum4aug.htm. Accessed 25/08/2011.
UN Enable (2006k). Daily summary of discussion at the sixth session. 05 August 2005, http://www.un.
org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6sum5aug.htm Accessed August 25 2011.
UN Enable (2006l). Daily summary of discussion at the sixth session. 11 August 2005, http://www.un.
org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6sum11aug.htm. Accessed August 25 2011.
UN Enable (2006m). Daily summary of discussion at the seventh session. 20 January 2006,
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc7sum20jan.htm. Accessed August 25 2011.
UN Enable (2007a). Making it work: Civil society participation in the implementation of the convention
on the rights of persons with disabilities, Declaration of Madrid. 27 November 2007, http://www.un.
org/disabilities/default.asp?id=359. Accessed April 11 2011.
UN Enable (2007b). Recommendations from the expert group to civil society, ‘‘making it work: Civil
society participation in the implementation of the convention on the rights of persons with
disabilities’’, November 27 2007, http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=359. Accessed April
11 2011.
Wheatley, M., & Pabsch, A. (2010). Sign language legislation in the European Union. Brussels: EUD.
Woodward, J. (1972). Implications for sociolinguistics research among the Deaf. Sign Language Studies,
1, 1–7.
Wrigley, O. (1996). The Politics of Deafness. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Author Biography

Dr Sarah C. E. Batterbury is a lecturer at the Centre for Deaf Studies, University of Bristol, UK. She
has worked for the past 15 years in the field of policy evaluation undertaking evaluation studies for
government clients and international organisations. She is also a member of the INTEVAL International
Evaluation Research Group. Since 2006 she has been publishing in the field of Deaf Studies on the topic
of Sign Language Peoples as indigenous minorities, and the exclusion of the Deaf community from the
Public Arena. Other publications have concerned evaluation practice and methodologies for policy
evaluation. She is married to a Deaf person and uses British Sign Language at home.

123
Copyright of Language Policy is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.