Opportunity or ghetto? The law that is currently being debated at the Chamber, already approved by the Senate, officially recognises LIS, lingua Italiana de segni – (Italian Sign Language), therefore guaranteeing a minority status to the deaf. The proposal has divided people in two, those who see it as an opportunity and those who see it, instead, as a ghettonization and a waste of resources.
The debate on disability has been dragged on for years now, and it has not yet been elaborated properly from a linguistic point of view, which is the real case in point. The lack of analysis has caused confusion and uproar and risks to become a controversy in itself.
Art.6 of the Italian Constitution states that "The Republic protects linguistic minorities with the appropriate norms." Such norms, absent for nearly 50 years now, alongside protests and retreats, finally apperad in 1999. The law, n.482, December 15, art. 4, comma 1 specifies that "Linguistic education foresees, alongside the use of the Italian language, the use of a minority language in order to carry out educational activity. In elementary schools and in first degree secondary schools, the use of a minority language is expected to be used as a teaching instrument;" furthermore, it specifies, in comma 5, that "at the time of pre-enrollment, the parents should communicate to the educational center in question if the parents wish to make use of the opportunity to teach their children in the minority language."
It is however difficult to understand how one can talk about ghettonization, where on one hand the rights are guaranteed, and on the other the decision is an individual one, where the freedom to choose is there but it is never put in to practice. Obviously one must see, if the law is debated and passed, how it will be applied in terms of the 482, but if we are talking about principles, we are talking about a bonus opportunity – even more so because, currently, some of the principles of the law stated above have already been launched, for example the conservation of languages on behalf of the television service, even if they are not LIS languages.
Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, one of the most well-known linguistic diversity experts in Europe and in the world, believes that "sign language is a language in every way, capable of expressing every thought. It is not linked, in any way, to the spoken language." In the same essay, entitled "Why should linguistic diversity be mantained and supported in Europe?", Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2002, Kangas explains: "many groups reject labels, not being aware of the legal implications this brings." The term "minority" is seen, by many, as a degrading term. (…) From the Human Rights perpective, especially when it comes to legal and educational implications, the groups that rejects being labelled as "minority" (ethnic/ linguistic / national) are damaging themselves, at times unconciously, rejecting the things they have and should have the right to.
We are not sure that the case in question is the same as the case stated by the linguist. We do, however, believe that information is meant to educate the deaf of their rights and what rights they would have by adopting the label of linguistic minority. But this is not what’s happening. A topic which should be faced with delicacy and attention instead risks to be rejected or supported by public opinion which is not educated on the subject in any way.