[DRAFT] Deaf Culture Recognition

[Canadian Union]

Hello everyone ! I noted that there was nothing ever passed along the lines of Deaf Culture recognition. So I thought I'd give it a try, especially for a first-time legislation. Commentaries welcome of course

Title : Deaf Culture Recognition
Category : Education and Creativity
Area of Effect : Cultural Heritage

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that when some individuals have significant hearing loss, these people generally have the habit of grouping together and developing, among themselves, a sign language;

Noting that this language provide these individuals with a sense of belonging to a community and participate in the development of a culture of their own, based on this sign language;

Further noting that this language need to be taught and promoted to ensure its survival;

Believing that the many sign languages and sign language related cultures deserve recognition for their interesting contribution to already established cultures;

Hereby,

1. Defines "sign language" as a visual language based on manual configurations and which present unique characteristics notably an independent grammar and lexicon;
   
   
2. Demands that the member nations presenting such sign languages to officially adopt them;
   
   
3. Encourages the member nations to provide education in sign language;
   
   
4. Suggests that the member nations promotes the use of sign language;
   
   
5. Recommends that member nations protects the existence of these sign languages and cultures;

1. Recognizing that generally 1% of the world is considered Deaf. Changed for Recognizing the many Deaf communities.
2. Recognizing the many Deaf communities. Changed for Acknowledging the existence of deaf persons.
3. Incorporation of Further acknowledging the establishment of these deaf persons into communities. From Morover.
   [*]Recognizing that Sign Languages are the principal languages used by most of the Deaf people. Changed for Noting the use of sign languages as the primary language used by these Deaf communities.
4. Recognizing that the Sign Languages are languages with their own grammatical structures and lexicon. Changed to Agreeing that sign languages are full-fledged languages.
5. Removal of Recognizing that there are thousands of Sign Languages in the world and, sometimes more than one by State.
6. Recognizing that Sign Languages are an important element of Deaf culture and Deaf identity. Changed to Believing that sign languages are essential for the identity and culture of Deaf communities.
7. Addition of the first article modified from Morover.
8. Encourages member states to, Recognize one or more Sign Languages in state legislation. Changed to Mandates member-states with significant deaf communities to adopt one or more official sign languages; modified from Morover.
9. Provide public services in Sign Language, especially but not limited to health services, education, judicial procedures and political debates. Changed to Encourages that the member-states with significant deaf communities provide the following public services in sign language :
   
   1. health services;
   2. judicial procedures;
   3. political debates;
   4. education.
10. Addition of Recognizing the demands of the many deaf communities.
11. Provide education in both spoken languages and Sign Languages for the Deaf people.
    Promote the teaching and learning of Sign Languages.
    Provide reasonable accommodations in Sign Language for Deaf people in the workplace.
    Promote Deaf culture amongst Deaf and Hearing communities.
    Consult directly with Deaf associations for the application of the present Convention Replaced with the last articles.
12. Replaced this text The World Assembly,
    
    Acknowledging the existence of deaf persons;
    
    Further acknowledging the establishment of these deaf persons into Deaf communities;
    
    Noting the use of sign languages as the primary language used by these Deaf communities;
    
    Agreeing that sign languages are full-fledged languages;
    
    Believing that sign languages are essential for the identity and culture of Deaf communities;
    
    Recognising the demands of the many Deaf communities.
    
    Hereby,
    
    
    1. Defines the following
       
       1. "sign languages" as the use of visual-manual configurations and non-manual elements incorporated within a grammatical structure and lexicon;
       2. "deaf person" as any individual with partial or total hearing loss;
       3. "Deaf communities" as a grouping of individuals that share a common sign language.
    2. Mandates member-states with significant Deaf communities to adopt one or more official sign languages;
       
    3. Encourages the member-states with significant Deaf communities to provide the following public services in sign language :
       
       1. health services;
       2. judicial procedures;
       3. political debates;
       4. education.
    4. Demands that the member-states with significant Deaf communities promotes the teaching and learning of sign languages.
       
       1. Clarifies that the teaching and the learning of sign languages is not limited to deaf persons but can be extended to the hearing persons.
    5. Further demands that the member-states with significant deaf communities provides bilingual education to deaf persons.
       
       1. Clarifies that bilingual education is considered to be, in this case, the learning of a sign language and a spoken language.
    6. Encourages the member-states with significant Deaf communities to promote Deaf culture.
       
    7. Suggests to member-states to consult directly with the Deaf communities for the application of the articles of the present convention.
    
    Co-authored by Morover

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Welcome to the General Assembly. This is a very good draft, and the one suggestion I have at the moment would be to change your first clause. The WA is composed of many different planets with thousands of nations, so the percentage of Deaf people could be either higher or lower than 1%.)

[Canadian Union]

(OOC: Welcome to the General Assembly. This is a very good draft, and the one suggestion I have at the moment would be to change your first clause. The WA is composed of many different planets with thousands of nations, so the percentage of Deaf people could be either higher or lower than 1%.)

Thanks for the tip I'll try something else, something along the lines of "Recognizing the many Deaf communities."

[Denathor]

Recognizing the many Deaf communities.

Recognizing that Sign Languages are the principal languages used by most of the Deaf people.

Recognizing that there are thousands of Sign Languages in the world and, sometimes more than one by State.

Recognizing that the Sign Languages are languages with their own grammatical structures and lexicon.

Recognizing that Sign Languages are an important element of Deaf culture and Deaf identity.

OOC: This is just my opinion, but the repetitive use of "recognizing" makes for dull reading, for want of a better term. I’d recommend using synonyms like "acknowledging," "respecting," "agreeing," or even "aware that"

[Morover]

OOC:

I actually have quite a bit of interest in this topic, myself. As such, I've kinda drafted up something below, basing it on your draft here. Feel free to use as much or as little of it as you wish, but I do request that if you take any significant portions, I be listed as a co-author. If it's not your style, don't worry too much about using any of it. I just figured I'd put it out there.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the existence of deaf persons;

Further recognizing the establishment of these deaf persons into Deaf communities;

Realizing that these Deaf communities are oftentimes persecuted for their natural disability;

Deeming this persecution as an unacceptable societal behavior;

Noting the creation of various forms of sign language, in order to better facilitate both the education and communication of deaf persons;

Believing that these sign languages are essential to the intellectual and social development of deaf persons;

Hereby,

1. Defines the following:
   
   1. "sign languages" as any form of non-verbal communication with a distinctive grammatical structure, capable of demonstrating complex thought;
   2. "deaf person" as any individual with partial or total hearing loss;
2. Mandates member-states with a significant population of deaf persons to officially adopt one or more official sign languages;
   
   1. Clarifies that, in order to change the official sign languages, the member-state must have the backing of a significant number of native deaf persons towards the change;
3. Demands, in member-states with a significant population of deaf persons, for some sort of educational accommodation to be made for deaf persons currently undergoing some form of education;
   
   1. Clarifies that educational accommodations made for deaf persons to occur in either the official sign languages of the member-state or in a native written language;
   2. Demands that deaf persons, with their consent (or the consent of their legal guardians, in the case that the deaf person is under the age of majority), be educated either formally or informally in one of the official sign languages of a nation, to an extent that allows the deaf person to accurately receive and convey complex thoughts;
4. Demands that reasonable public accommodations be made available for deaf persons;
   
5. Forbids the political, social, or economic discrimination against deaf persons for any reasons regarding their current hearing status;
   
6. Further forbids the discrimination in the workforce against deaf persons for any reasons regarding their current hearing status, except in cases where the ability to hear is an essential and vital aspect of the job in question;

While I'd love to include the issue of Deaf communities, I feel that it may be bordering too close to a RL reference to explicitly include them - and also infeasible to work out as a universal standard (among all 20,000 WA nations). I did give them a handy shoutout in the preamble, though, that hopefully would relieve any capital D/lowercase D controversy.

I'd be very happy to work further with you on this, and, as I mentioned earlier, feel free to use as much/as little of this as you want. Welcome to the General Assembly! This is a very good first draft.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Both your drafts need to be careful not to contradict CoCR, which allows discrimination for practical reasons (not needing to hire a deaf person to a job needing answering the phone, for example).

Other than that, though, exactly how would deafness not be an innate characteristic (and thus afforded protections by CoCR)?

Also, at least original draft looks more suited for Education And Creativity category.

[Canadian Union]

OOC:

I actually have quite a bit of interest in this topic, myself. As such, I've kinda drafted up something below, basing it on your draft here. Feel free to use as much or as little of it as you wish, but I do request that if you take any significant portions, I be listed as a co-author. If it's not your style, don't worry too much about using any of it. I just figured I'd put it out there.

While I'd love to include the issue of Deaf communities, I feel that it may be bordering too close to a RL reference to explicitly include them - and also infeasible to work out as a universal standard (among all 20,000 WA nations). I did give them a handy shoutout in the preamble, though, that hopefully would relieve any capital D/lowercase D controversy.

I'd be very happy to work further with you on this, and, as I mentioned earlier, feel free to use as much/as little of this as you want. Welcome to the General Assembly! This is a very good first draft.

OOC Yeah, I'll take a closer look at your proposals and you're welcome for your contribution. You will definitely be included as a co-author for sure.

[Canadian Union]

Other than that, though, exactly how would deafness not be an innate characteristic (and thus afforded protections by CoCR)?.

OOC Well, for most deaf communities, deafness is not necessarily a disability and thus should be separated from these measures, but I see how the CoCR vows to protect minorities as a whole.

[The COT Corporation]

Welcome to the World Assembly! "Our ambassador has left some suggested changes in Red."

Title : Sign Languages Convention
Category : Civil Rights I would recategorise this to "Education and Creativity"
Strenght : Mild

The World Assembly,

Recognizing (Change recognising to "Acknowledging".) the many Deaf communities,

Recognizing that Sign Languages are the principal languages used by most of the Deaf people, (Keep this one as recognising. Also, recognising has an "s" not a "z".)

Recognizing (Change recognising to "Noting") that there are thousands of Sign Languages in the world and, sometimes more than one by State,

Recognizing (This is debatable, but I would change this to "Further Noting", rather than recognising.) that the Sign Languages are languages with their own grammatical structures and lexicon,

Recognizing (Change recognising to "regarding") that Sign Languages are an important element of Deaf culture and Deaf identity,

Hereby;

Encourages member states to,

Recognize one or more Sign Languages in state legislation;

Provide public services in Sign Language, especially but not limited to health services, education, judicial procedures and political debates;

Provide (Change provide to "Further Provide") education in both spoken languages and Sign Languages for the Deaf people;

Promote the teaching and learning of Sign Languages;

Provide reasonable accommodations in Sign Language for Deaf people in the workplace;

Promote Deaf culture amongst Deaf and Hearing communities. (I might just be uninformed, but I have never heard of deaf culture. I would recommend removing this clause.)

Consult directly with Deaf associations for the application of the present Convention.

Recognizing that generally 1% of the world is considered Deaf. Changed for Recognizing the many Deaf communities.

[Kenmoria]

Promote Deaf culture amongst Deaf and Hearing communities. (I might just be uninformed, but I have never heard of deaf culture. I would recommend removing this clause.)

(OOC: Deaf culture certainly exists.)

[Canadian Union]

Any commentaries on the improved draft, it as been significantly modified since the first one.

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

Other than that, though, exactly how would deafness not be an innate characteristic (and thus afforded protections by CoCR)?.

OOC Well, for most deaf communities, deafness is not necessarily a disability and thus should be separated from these measures, but I see how the CoCR vows to protect minorities as a whole.

Being gay or having blue eyes is not a disability either, but they're still innate characteristics that can't be used to discriminate except for some compelling practical reasons (like given example before). So the discrimination aspects would already be covered. And you should use the preamble to explain why you think your chosen group of people needs more attention than a reasonable nation would already give them. Or why a nation might think it reasonable to not include them despite CoCR.

Also, like it or not, in a mostly hearing society, deafness is a disability. You'll likely be better off acknowledging that (in terms of getting people to vote for your proposal), rather than painting deafness as some kind of holy state of being.

Any commentaries on the improved draft, it as been significantly modified since the first one.

OOC: First of all, the Randomly capitalized Nouns need to go away. "Deaf", in the middle of the sentence, shouldn't be capitalized.

Additionally, the continued use of "deaf communities" makes me feel like you're talking of some kind of enclaves, instead of deaf individuals living in a hearing society. If you're not talking of enclaves, then I suggest dropping the whole concept and just talking about deaf individuals. Especially if you want this to be about civil rights rather than culture. If you want it to be about culture, then, again, focus on the culture, not the communities/enclaves.

Area of Effect : Cultural Heritage (Explanation is that it is more than education of sign languages but protection of the Deaf culture that comes mostly from the sign languages).

The explanation doesn't really make sense, so you should drop it and focus on actually making the active clauses fit the intended AoE.

Acknowledging the existence of deaf persons;

I would rewrite this as "Acknowledging the existence of deaf persons, and the difficulties they may face in a mostly hearing society" to start on explaining why they need more attention.

Further acknowledging the establishment of these deaf persons into Deaf communities;

Kill this entirely. This sounds very enclave-y.

Noting the use of sign languages as the primary language used by these Deaf communities;

Still very enclave-y.

Agreeing that sign languages are full-fledged languages;

In RL, maybe, but remember that you're not legislating for RL. In NS that might not hold true, so I would suggest adding the word "often" after the word "are", and starting with another word... Actually I would fold the following clause into this as "Aware that sign languages are often full-fledged languages of their own, and thus form the basis for a (sub)culture among those with severe hearing difficulties" - reason I'd use "subculture" instead of "culture" is that even in RL there's no universal culture of the deaf, and that's just one planet and one species. I'd also use "severe hearing difficulties", in the preamble, because "deaf" usually in RL means someone who can't hear anything.

Believing that sign languages are essential for the identity and culture of Deaf communities;

Recognising the demands of the many Deaf communities.

This is a bad choice of wording. Because "demands" makes it sound like they were demanding more rights than are afforded to others. And also, given your chosen AoE, you're no longer in the business of making demands of rights, but protecting/promoting a culture.

If you don't mean demand as "demanding something", I would instead use "requirements", which makes it more clear that you're using a noun and mean the needs of people. And as always, drop the enclave-y "deaf communities".

"sign languages" as the use of visual-manual configurations and non-manual elements incorporated within a grammatical structure and lexicon;

That's almost word for word from Wikipedia. Also, you need to define sign language, singular. Couldn't you just define it as "a visual form of communication based on gestures and expressions, which has its own grammar and vocabulary"?

"deaf person" as any individual with partial or total hearing loss;

Including partial hearing loss is a problem; I have mildly lowered hearing across a certain range of frequencies, but I'd fight tooth and nail against being included in any category named "deaf". I would reword that as "with total or legally significant hearing loss". Putting total there first, because that's the common understanding of "deaf", and specifying "legally significant" (if you want to avoid the word disability) or using "disabling" instead, as the additional category expansion. That way you're not forcing people with partial hearing loss but who aren't and don't want to be counted as deaf, to be counted as deaf, while still making it possible for them to be counted if their hearing loss is significant enough to be at the level of a disability.

"Deaf communities" as a grouping of individuals that share a common sign language.

And what of the deaf individuals who live as part of the hearing society? They might be offended not to be counted as full-fledged members of the hearing society. You really should consider finding other ways to say what you're lumping under that wording, because it sounds very much like "shut the deaf in enclaves so they don't have to interact with the hearing (and vice versa)", which is probably not your intention.

Mandates member-states with significant Deaf communities to adopt one or more official sign languages;

Why more than one? Also, here, "significant number of deaf individuals" instead of the enclave-y term. Though, what do you count as significant might not be what any given nation (especially one not really wanting much to do with WA resolutions) would count as significant.

Encourages the member-states with significant Deaf communities to provide the following public services in sign language :

Just fold this in with the previous clause as "Mandates that member nations with a significant number of deaf individuals adopt an official sign language, and provide the following public services in that sign language". Also, use "member nations" when you're talking of the whole nation (population and all).

political debates;

Exactly how does this work? And how is it a public service to begin with? What about nations where all political debate is done by private citizens (or TV shows) rather than politicians?

Demands that the member-states with significant Deaf communities promotes the teaching and learning of sign languages.

Language changes as before, but in the above clause you require education to be available in sign language. Wouldn't this be counted with it? And exactly what good does demanding promoting the teaching and learning? Are you trying to force people to learn a foreign language (hearing learning sign language) just because a minority uses that language? Why not demand that the deaf learn to speak, while at it? It'd only be fair. /sarcasm

Further demands that the member-states with significant deaf communities provides bilingual education to deaf persons.

...and the deaf are going to benefit from being taught spoken language exactly how? How would they even learn it? They can't hear how badly they pronounce things, so there's little chance of improving despite teaching. Bilingual education should be sign language and written language, because the written language often corresponds very closely (unless we're talking about something like English) to the spoken language. Sign language rarely (if ever) corresponds to either.

Encourages the member-states with significant Deaf communities to promote Deaf culture.

You need to first define what deaf culture is, and why it differs significantly from non-deaf culture. Or if it differs. Given that this is your whole point of the proposal (with the new AoE), you need to significantly concentrate on expanding this whole concept and thing.

Suggests to member-states to consult directly with the Deaf communities for the application of the articles of the present convention.

Nnnno, don't do this, if you want it to be legal. I kind of understand what you're talking about, but this practically scuppers up the whole proposal, because what if the local deaf peeps say "no thanks, we're fine the way the system works now"? Then the nation wouldn't have to do anything you want them to do, regardless of if they actually made their deaf population live in enclaves or provided them any services. I would suggest leaving this one out entirely. (It could also count as violation of existing resolutions, given that all inhabitants of member nations are supposed to be on par with one another, when it comes to law. If one group can decide for themselves whether they want laws to apply to them, that's not being equal.)

[Kenmoria]

First of all, the Randomly capitalized Nouns need to go away. "Deaf", in the middle of the sentence, shouldn't be capitalized.

(OOC: Capitalising ‘Deaf’ distinguishes between deafness as a medical condition and Deafness as being a member of Deaf community and culture.)

[Araraukar]

First of all, the Randomly capitalized Nouns need to go away. "Deaf", in the middle of the sentence, shouldn't be capitalized.

(OOC: Capitalising ‘Deaf’ distinguishes between deafness as a medical condition and Deafness as being a member of Deaf community and culture.)

OOC: ...given that there's a definition in the proposal, that clumps all kinds of not-part-of-the-deaf-community-and-culture people in it, that doesn't work. If the idea is to only include people who count themselves as part of the deaf population and culture, then it needs to actually reflect that in the definition.

I still suggest NOT capitalizing it, to avoid the inevitable backlash from the "so this is today's special snowflake flavour?" trolls. Use the definitions to define "deaf" (with lowercase) however you want, for the proposal.

[Canadian Union]

Also, like it or not, in a mostly hearing society, deafness is a disability. You'll likely be better off acknowledging that (in terms of getting people to vote for your proposal), rather than painting deafness as some kind of holy state of being.

OOC I understand from a NS point of view what you mean.

Additionally, the continued use of "deaf communities" makes me feel like you're talking of some kind of enclaves, instead of deaf individuals living in a hearing society. If you're not talking of enclaves, then I suggest dropping the whole concept and just talking about deaf individuals. Especially if you want this to be about civil rights rather than culture. If you want it to be about culture, then, again, focus on the culture, not the communities/enclaves.

OOC I might be too focused on RL with this one, but we have no history of sign languages being related to only deaf individuals without any deaf community. It is a conditional and essential part of what makes sign languages.

That's almost word for word from Wikipedia. Also, you need to define sign language, singular. Couldn't you just define it as "a visual form of communication based on gestures and expressions, which has its own grammar and vocabulary"?

OOC I know it is almost word for word what Wikipedia uses, it is what I use to describe the language in the course I give. (I teach sign language in university) There aren't many other ways to describe it precisely, it is the most accurate linguistic description.

Including partial hearing loss is a problem; I have mildly lowered hearing across a certain range of frequencies, but I'd fight tooth and nail against being included in any category named "deaf". I would reword that as "with total or legally significant hearing loss". Putting total there first, because that's the common understanding of "deaf", and specifying "legally significant" (if you want to avoid the word disability) or using "disabling" instead, as the additional category expansion. That way you're not forcing people with partial hearing loss but who aren't and don't want to be counted as deaf, to be counted as deaf, while still making it possible for them to be counted if their hearing loss is significant enough to be at the level of a disability.

OOC That's just how we identify deaf people, there can be some with partial hearing loss who identify more to the deaf identity than others. I'll see what I can do to include these people and also the ones who wouldn't want to be included as such, hence the deaf community.

And what of the deaf individuals who live as part of the hearing society? They might be offended not to be counted as full-fledged members of the hearing society. You really should consider finding other ways to say what you're lumping under that wording, because it sounds very much like "shut the deaf in enclaves so they don't have to interact with the hearing (and vice versa)", which is probably not your intention.

OOC Once again, that's how deaf people decided to identify themselves. They don't consider being that much part of the hearing community. Living within a hearing society yes, but not being part of this community. And hearing individuals can be a part of the deaf community. Hence the definition that included all individuals that shared the sign language.

Why more than one? Also, here, "significant number of deaf individuals" instead of the enclave-y term. Though, what do you count as significant might not be what any given nation (especially one not really wanting much to do with WA resolutions) would count as significant.

OOC In RL many countries have more than one sign language because they have more than one deaf community because of isolation and historical reasons, etc. In this case, if it works in RL it can work in NS with the many nations and species, etc.

political debates;

Exactly how does this work? And how is it a public service to begin with? What about nations where all political debate is done by private citizens (or TV shows) rather than politicians?

OOC My mistake, forgot about that one in NS.

Demands that the member-states with significant Deaf communities promotes the teaching and learning of sign languages.

Language changes as before, but in the above clause you require education to be available in sign language. Wouldn't this be counted with it? And exactly what good does demanding promoting the teaching and learning? Are you trying to force people to learn a foreign language (hearing learning sign language) just because a minority uses that language? Why not demand that the deaf learn to speak, while at it? It'd only be fair. /sarcasm

OOC Promotion can be to simply make the course available to hearing people, it does not have to be an enforced language policy. And the deaf already learn to speak, so it really is only fair that the hearing learn their language.

Further demands that the member-states with significant deaf communities provides bilingual education to deaf persons.

...and the deaf are going to benefit from being taught spoken language exactly how? How would they even learn it? They can't hear how badly they pronounce things, so there's little chance of improving despite teaching. Bilingual education should be sign language and written language, because the written language often corresponds very closely (unless we're talking about something like English) to the spoken language. Sign language rarely (if ever) corresponds to either.

OOC This is a RL demand from deaf people, not inventing this one. They are already learning to speak and the education in spoken language is joined of course with the writing and they also have to learn the writing of sign languages also (not the same writing systems as the spoken languages).

Encourages the member-states with significant Deaf communities to promote Deaf culture.

You need to first define what deaf culture is, and why it differs significantly from non-deaf culture. Or if it differs. Given that this is your whole point of the proposal (with the new AoE), you need to significantly concentrate on expanding this whole concept and thing.

OOC Probably should expand on the concept of Deaf culture indeed.

Suggests to member-states to consult directly with the Deaf communities for the application of the articles of the present convention.

Nnnno, don't do this, if you want it to be legal. I kind of understand what you're talking about, but this practically scuppers up the whole proposal, because what if the local deaf peeps say "no thanks, we're fine the way the system works now"? Then the nation wouldn't have to do anything you want them to do, regardless of if they actually made their deaf population live in enclaves or provided them any services. I would suggest leaving this one out entirely. (It could also count as violation of existing resolutions, given that all inhabitants of member nations are supposed to be on par with one another, when it comes to law. If one group can decide for themselves whether they want laws to apply to them, that's not being equal.)

OOC I understand from a NS point of view, once again taken from RL demands.

Overall, I'll try to take the exercise more from a NS point of view. Thanks for your comments.

[Araraukar]

OOC: The reason I pointed out the Wikipedia description is that it'll count as plagiarism and immediately make the proposal illegal. Plagiarism can also get your nation expelled from the WA for a year, if you submit a proposal with plagiarized text in it. That's why it's a big deal and why you need to come up with something that's in your own words (or text suggested by one of us). What I suggested as the alternative, says the same thing but in much more general terms, and is not plagiarized from anywhere.

EDIT: And while I get it that RL is the only reality you know well, you're not writing a law for that reality. You're writing a law for the NS reality, which is thousands and thousands of nations, hundreds if not thousands of species, much more varied cultures and tech levels (some nations might not have deaf people at all because of advanced medical or cybernetic technologies, for example, while there might be entire species that don't have the sense of hearing at all), so you really should wipe out the existing draft entirely, keep in mind the current AoE (culture) and write a draft for the NS world.

You don't need to go into any details about sign language at all, btw, given that "sign language" is a commonly understood term and you're not using it in a way that it's not normally used. But you do need to refocus on culture. As a draft-writing exercise (a useful one in this context), try to rewrite the whole thing so that you use "deaf community" only ONCE in the entire draft. Because you're not supposed to be focusing on the people but rather their culture.

[Morover]

OOC:

While I'm aware of the distinction of Deaf/deaf IRL, and that there will likely be similar groupings in most NS nations, you may want to find different terms for the proposal, in order to avoid confusion with the sole difference being the capitalization.

[Canadian Union]

OOC I scrapped the whole draft and went back to the drawing board. I wrote in my native language first and then translated it. I think it makes more sense now. The AoE seems to be more understood with this one. And I think it is overall, a much better version of the first draft I did.

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that when some individuals have significant hearing loss, these people generally have the habit of grouping together and developing, among themselves, a sign language;

Noting that this language provide these individuals with a sense of belonging to a community and participate in the development of a culture of their own, based on this sign language;

Further noting that this language need to be taught and promoted to ensure its survival;

Believing that the many sign languages and sign language related cultures deserve recognition for their interesting contribution to already established cultures;

Hereby,

1. Defines "sign language" as a visual language based on manual configurations and which present unique characteristics notably an independent grammar and lexicon;
   
   
2. Demands that the member nations presenting such sign languages to officially adopt them;
   
   
3. Encourages the member nations to provide education in sign language;
   
   
4. Suggests that the member nations promotes the use of sign language;
   
   
5. Recommends that member nations protects the existence of these sign languages and cultures;

[Teretstein]

I have a problem with #2. There's a big difference between officially adopting a language (in effect requiring everybody to be fluent in it) and bringing out a translator or someone like that,

Absolutely no to #4. Why would we promote a language that's only used by a small subset of the population?

[Canadian Union]

I have a problem with #2. There's a big difference between officially adopting a language (in effect requiring everybody to be fluent in it) and bringing out a translator or someone like that,

Absolutely no to #4. Why would we promote a language that's only used by a small subset of the population?

If I change #2 to officially recognise ?

For #4, is the suggestion really that binding ? It is a suggestion of a promotion, I mean, for all I care a country that does not want to enforce it could put a leaflet on the ground with the term "sign language" on it and that could be considered by some as promotion.

[Teretstein]

I have a problem with #2. There's a big difference between officially adopting a language (in effect requiring everybody to be fluent in it) and bringing out a translator or someone like that,

Absolutely no to #4. Why would we promote a language that's only used by a small subset of the population?

If I change #2 to officially recognise ?

For #4, is the suggestion really that binding ? It is a suggestion of a promotion, I mean, for all I care a country that does not want to enforce it could put a leaflet on the ground with the term "sign language" on it and that could be considered by some as promotion.

Officially recognize means what? Again that implies that all citizens need to learn all sign language used by all citizens, which may not be universal.

[Canadian Union]

If I change #2 to officially recognise ?

For #4, is the suggestion really that binding ? It is a suggestion of a promotion, I mean, for all I care a country that does not want to enforce it could put a leaflet on the ground with the term "sign language" on it and that could be considered by some as promotion.

Officially recognize means what? Again that implies that all citizens need to learn all sign language used by all citizens, which may not be universal.

Not necessarily, many places have 10's of official languages but many speak one or two. Recognising languages is mostly only to receive service in their own language and that's mostly it.

[Teretstein]

Officially recognize means what? Again that implies that all citizens need to learn all sign language used by all citizens, which may not be universal.

Not necessarily, many places have 10's of official languages but many speak one or two. Recognising languages is mostly only to receive service in their own language and that's mostly it.

So every waitress and bartender in the country has to learn sign language? I agree with what you're trying to do but that seems seriously impractical.

[Denathor]

OOC: Adopting something as an official language doesn’t mean everyone suddenly has to learn it.

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

Hello everyone ! I noted that there was nothing ever passed along the lines of Sign Language recognition. So I thought I'd give it a try, especially for a first-time legislation. I think it can be expanded to deaf civil rights protection, but I can start with Sign Languages and that can be already plenty. Commentaries welcome of course

Remove this, since you're no longer focusing on the language.

Title : Sign Languages Convention

Same thing; you need a new title. You have 52 or 54 marks at your use (it counts every keypress, so spaces are marks) for the title, so you can try to think of something clever or descriptory. Try to steer away from using "act" or "treaty" or "convention" or "agreement" or anything like that in the title. "Deaf Culture Recognition" would work as an interim title, so people know what you're focusing on.

Acknowledging that when some individuals have significant hearing loss, these people generally have the habit of grouping together and developing, among themselves, a sign language;

I don't think any sign language has developed like this, but rather out of necessity to communicate with the hearing (given that most often a deaf person has hearing family members). Also, this is still focusing on the language, while the new direction is no longer focused on the language.

I suggest opening with something like "Acknowledging that individuals with significant hearing loss have trouble communicating verbally, either with one another or those with unaffected hearing, necessitating the development of sign languages". That works as a short explanation without going into the whole enclave/ghetto-feel. Also, I used "unaffected hearing" instead of "normal hearing" on purpose.

Noting that this language provide these individuals with a sense of belonging to a community and participate in the development of a culture of their own, based on this sign language;

Getting better but still too focused on the language as a goal rather than a means, and the people instead of the culture. I suggest a rewrite of "Applauding the cultural achievements of persons mainly communicating with such languages", because it's not like if a deaf person writes poems, that a hearing person couldn't read them as well. Sign language is basically just the "speech", but written culture (not to mention visual like painting and sculpting and whatnot) is shared with the hearing peeps, and artists who've gone deaf during their lifetime, have even been famous composers, so it's not like you're stuck to "deaf culture" (whatever each person means by that term) only. It's better for the proposal if you kind of remind peeps that you're not talking only about some small fragment of an insular subculture, but actual large-audience mainstream culture as well.

tl;dr: Connect the subculture to the main culture, and you'll find it easier to connect with the voters.

Further noting that this language need to be taught and promoted to ensure its survival;

This doesn't make sense; if it's used and needed for communication, it's going to survive naturally. If it's not, it's not needed either. In my understanding (most if not all) sign languages are not in any danger to die out, unlike many spoken languages (which die because they're not necessary for getting by).

Believing that the many sign languages and sign language related cultures deserve recognition for their interesting contribution to already established cultures;

Here, too, you'd be better served to present sign language based culture - remember that for most people (who don't need sign language themselves) it's difficult to even imagine what kind of culture you might be talking about, because it's like saying "speech-based culture", which would make most people go "what?", because that's not how culture is thought about - as a subculture of the whole thing understood as local/regional/national/continental/global/whatever culture, an enrichment rather than a disjointed piece.

I hope this all makes sense (tired brain), but basically try to make connections rather than separating what you're talking about into its own corner and then trying to lift it on a pedestal. Instead make the proposal be about how this is a part of general culture, an enrichment that should be protected/promoted, because losing it would mean losing some cultural diversity. (Those words should probably appear somewhere in the preamble, now that I think about it. Maybe you could start the entire preamble with something like "Celebrating the cultural diversity of the World Assembly member nations".)

Defines "sign language" as a visual language based on manual configurations and which present unique characteristics notably an independent grammar and lexicon;

This still smells of plagiarism. Why can't you use the simpler termed version I gave you? (Not to mention that "manual configurations" is pure gobbledygook when what you mean is "gestures".) Also, at least the Finnish sign language also employs mouth movements, not only using hands (which is what "manual" means).

Demands that the member nations presenting such sign languages to officially adopt them;

The nations aren't "presenting" (using that word makes it sound like a medical symptom of a disease) sign languages, though; part of their population is instead using one (or more). I would change this to something more like "Demands official recognition to any sign language used by the majority of a member nation's population of hearing-afflicted inhabitants" (you might want to actually define "deaf" as a noun used of a person with severe hearing loss to make clauses easier to write - "inhabitant" is used to align this with the Charter of Civil Rights) and follow that by another clause with "Encourages nations to also officially recognize any sign language used a significant minority of a member nation's population of hearing-afflicted inhabitants", so that if all the deaf peeps in a given oblast or state or whatever use a certain sign language, they're at least a significant minority, if not national majority.

However, as you don't define what such official adoption/recognition actually entails, I suggest adding this:

Requires that all officially recognized sign languages are considered the first languages of the people relying on them to communicate, and that basic services, such as education, healthcare and translation services are offered to such people in their first language,

Basically trying to give them RL-equivalent "minority language" recognition here. That also makes this whole thing stronger (requires, instead of encourages), and is more in line with previously existing resolutions.

Encourages the member nations to provide education in sign language;

Making the suggested addition above means that this can be safely removed entirely.

Suggests that the member nations promotes the use of sign language;

As others have protested already, this doesn't really make sense, given that spoken language isn't specifically promoted either. Also, you're STILL focused on the sign language and not the culture. I don't see any definitions of "deaf culture" (or are you going to move away from the AoE and abandon the culture angle entirely?), and I don't see any ACTIVE CLAUSE explanations of what exactly is this culture that you want something to be done about. You just go on and on about the language. Languages do not cultures make. Even sign languages. Languages are tools used to create culture, but not the main aim of any culture.

Recommends that member nations protects the existence of these sign languages and cultures;

What cultures? This is the only mention of culture in the active clauses. And artificial "protection of existence" of a language or culture doesn't work, unless we're talking archaeology. You should have some clauses of encouraging nations of making the majority of the population aware of the minority subculture instead, or encouraging nations to create artistic grants or similar (though keep that as an encouragement clause only, to avoid the troglodyte kneejerk reaction) to make it possible for the creators of cultural content to focus on doing that. Or something like that.

Check the existing cultural resolutions to see how they've gone about the promotion part of it.