Deaf News: Campaign calls on UN to recognise language deprivation in Rights of the Child convention

A campaign has been launched calling on the United Nations to expand its Convention on the Rights of the Child to cover the right to language.

The Change.org petition, which is also addressed to the charity Unicef, was set up by deaf activist Naomi Smart and also calls for the convention’s definition of ‘neglect’ to include language deprivation.

“The United Nations has a duty to ensure that every child gets the access to language they deserve.

“The UN Rights of the Child (Article 19) explicitly states many examples of neglect, yet language deprivation is not mentioned once. The vital significance of signed communication is thus unknown by many officials, parents and schools.

“The Rights of the Child are thorough, sound, and undoubtedly beneficial […] They are lacking in one key area, however – the Right to Language,” it reads.

The action also cites a paper from Wyatte C Hall, from the University of Rochester in New York, which warns of “permanent brain changes” when spoken language is inaccessible to deaf children and exposure to sign language is “delayed”.

Hall writes: “There is no empirical evidence for the harm of sign language exposure but there is some evidence for its benefits, and there is growing evidence that lack of language access has negative implications.

“This includes cognitive delays, mental health difficulties, lower quality of life, higher trauma, and limited health literacy.”

Speaking to The Limping Chicken, Smart said the petition was set up after a conversation with hearing friends.

“They were completely unaware of the impacts of language deprivation and were shocked to learn how prevalent it was in the Deaf community. In explaining the impact of this, I found myself thinking that this should be a human right, but because hearing people are automatically surrounded by language, it’s not explicitly considered in human rights discussions.

“I found myself combing through the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and noticed that language always fell between the cracks. There was no direct attention afforded to the Right to Language, and it left me feeling pretty upset,” she said.

Smart went on to add that when she was first diagnosed as deaf, doctors encouraged her parents “to act as if I were a hearing child”, which they did.

“They had no reason to distrust the words of medical professionals, and I was too young to form my own stance.

“As I am not profoundly deaf, I have spent life relying on coping mechanisms to communicate with others. I lip read, ask people to repeat things and seek out quiet environments where possible, but this is of course not the reality for so many deaf children.

“Imagine the impact reliance on these “strategies” has on a child that simply cannot use the same coping mechanisms that I did? Language deprivation leads to a number of significant developmental concerns, lower quality of life, and greater levels of trauma, with evidence suggesting that it brings about permanent brain changes.

“This is serious, and why should any deaf child have to settle for simply ‘coping’ anyway,” she said.

Under Article 29 of the UN convention, a state must “direct the child” to develop respect for “his or her own cultural identity, language and values”.

However, Smart said this “falls apart too often”, with many still not seeing Deafness as a cultural identity “despite constant pushing and activism from the community”.

She continued: “The long-standing oralist culture still hangs over us, and it’s seen at diagnosis, where parents are all too often encouraged to simply act as though their child is hearing, in upbringing, and quite frankly in a lack of services for Deaf children. Who is holding the state accountable for failing deaf children?

“By the time these children are attending school, where they might be able to get a support worker, it’s becoming too late for them.

“Children cannot develop respect for their Deaf identity where Deafness is not recognised as a cultural identity.”

Elsewhere, Article 30 states that where “linguistic minorities” exist, a child belonging to one “shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture […] to use his or her language”.

When asked why this Article is insufficient, Smart replied that it is “wrapped up in perceptions and societal ideas”.

“Many hearing individuals do not recognise that sign is a language, or that signers are a linguistic minority – they instead see signed languages as a coping strategy or a last resort.

“There’s also the fact that this article states that children have the right to use their language ‘in community with other members of his or her group’ – sadly, hearing parents don’t fit this definition, and so once again deaf children in their critical period of acquisition fall between the cracks,” she said.

Smart also added that the two existing articles are “too vague”, with the clauses providing “far too much wriggle room” against a “deep, painful history of audism”.

“So yes, if you really bend them, you might be able to make them fit, but that also means you can bend them the other way too. I want 100% direct, no nonsense recognition on this,” she concluded.

The United Nations and Unicef did not respond to The Limping Chicken’s requests for comment.

Photo: UN Photo/Manuel Elías.

By Liam O’Dell. Liam is a mildly deaf freelance journalist and campaigner from Bedfordshire. He wears bilateral hearing aids and can be found talking about disability, theatre, politics and more on Twitter and on his website.