Framing Deaf Children’s Right to Sign Language in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v6i1.331Keywords:
Sign Language Rights, Deaf Children, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Disability Rights, Constitutional LawAbstract
Sign language rights for deaf children bring a unique perspective to bear in the fields of both disability rights and language planning. This is due to the lack of recognition in existing case law of the right to language in and of itself. Deaf children are frequently deprived of early exposure to a fully accessible language, and as a consequence may develop incomplete knowledge of any language. Thus, in the case of deaf children the concept of sign language rights encompasses rights that are ordinarily viewed as more fundamental to human equality. This paper will take as a starting point the historical treatment of the enumerated disability ground in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ section 15(1) guarantee of equality rights. We argue that in order to meet deaf children’s specific biological and linguistic needs, these children’s right to sign language also needs to be recognized as an analogous ground for protection from discrimination. Sign language rights are framed in terms of an immutable characteristic of all children, namely the biolingual process for language acquisition. The biolingual process is the experiential and innate ability to acquire language.
References
Bahan, Ben. (2009). Sensory orientation. Deaf Studies Digital Journal, 1. Retrieved May
, 2016 from http://dsdj.gallaudet.edu/index.php?issue=1§ion_id=2&entry_id=48.
Carbin, C. (1996). Deaf heritage in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd.
De Meulder, M. (2015). The legal recognition of sign languages. Sign Language Studies,
(4), 498-506. doi: 10.1353/sls.2015.0018
Codina, C., Pascalis, O., Mody, C., Toomey, P., Rose, J., Gummer, L., & Buckley, D.
(2011). Visual advantage in deaf adults linked to retinal changes. PLoS ONE, 6(6), e20417. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020417
Fader, R. (1997). Reemergence of the Charter application debate: Issues for the Supreme
Court in Eldridge and Vriend. Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies 6,187-235.
Garcia, J. (2004). Sign with Your Baby: How to Communicate with Infants before They
Can Speak. Mukilteo, WA: Northlight.
Garton, G. (2005). The Canadian Charter of Rights Decisions Digest. Justice Canada
(CanLII). Retrieved July 24, 2015 from http://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/charterDigest/.
Goldberg, D., Looney, D., Lusin, N. (2015). Enrollments in Languages Other than
English in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2013. New York: Modern Language Association of America.
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Mayberry, R. (2001). How do profoundly deaf children learn to
read? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(4), 222–229. doi: 10.1111/0938-8982.00022
Hamilton, J.W., & Koshan, J. (2013). The Supreme Court of Canada, ameliorative
programs, and disability: Not getting it. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 25(1), 56-80. doi: 10.3138/cjw125.1.056
Hauser, P. (2015, March 6). The effects of linguisticism and audism on the developing
deaf person. TEDx Gallaudet. Retrieved July 23, 2015 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73zUW76OOxg.
Humphries, T., Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G., Napoli, D.J., Padden, C., Rathmann, C., &
Smith, S.R. (2012). Language acquisition for deaf children: Reducing the harms of zero tolerance to the use of alternative approaches. Harm Reduction Journal, 9(16). Retrieved May 15, 2015 from http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/16.
Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, queer, crip. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Kauppinen, L., & Jokinen, M. (2014). Deaf culture and linguistic rights. In M. Sabatello
& M. Schulze (Eds.), Human rights and disability advocacy (pp.131-145). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Kelly, J.B. (2006). Governing with the Charter: Legislative and judicial activism and
framers. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.
Komesaroff, L. (2008). Disabling pedagogy: Power, politics, and deaf education.
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Kusters, A. & De Meulder, M. (2015, July 18). “Diversity” discourses as a way to deny
access: Post-ICED reflection. Pigs Can Fly blog archive. Retrieved July 23, 2015 from 5/07/18/diversity-discourses-as-a-way-to-deny-access-post-iced-reflection/.
Kusters, A. & de Meulder, M. (2013). Understanding Deafhood: In search of its
meanings. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(5), 428-438. doi:10.1353/aad.2013.0004.
Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding Deaf culture: In search of Deafhood. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Latimer, A.M. (2014). A positive future for section 7?: Children and Charter change. The
Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 67. Retrieved September 20, 2016 from http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol67/iss1/17.
Lieberman, A. (2012). Eye gaze and joint attention. NSF Science of Learning Center on
Visual Language and Visual Learning Research Brief No. 5. Retrieved September 27, 2016 from http://vl2.gallaudet.edu/files/2213/9216/6287/research-brief-5-eye-gaze-and-joint-attention.pdf.
Macfarlane, E. (2014). The dilemma of positive rights: Access to health care and the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Journal of Canadian Studies, 48(3), 49-78.
Mauldin, L. (2016). Made to hear: Cochlear implants and raising deaf children.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
McCarthy, M.A. & Radbord, J.L. (1999). Foundations for 15(1): Equality rights in
Canada. Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, 6, 261-376.
McGill, J. (2013). Section 15(2), ameliorative programs, and proportionality review. The
Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference, 63(1), 521-555. Retrieved September 27, 2016 from http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol63/iss1/22.
McKee, R. & Manning, V. (2015). Evaluating effects of language recognition on
language rights and the vitality of New Zealand Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), 473-497. doi: 10.1353/sls.2015.0017
McQuarrie L, & Abbott M. (2013) Bilingual deaf students’ phonological awareness in
ASL and reading skills in English. Sign Language Studies, 14(1): 80-100. doi: 10.1353/sls.2013.0028
Mellon, N.K., Niparko, J.K., Rathmann, C., Mathur, G., Humphries, T., Napoli, D.J.,
Handley, T., Scambler, S., & Lantos, J.D. (2015, June 15). Should all deaf children learn sign language? Pediatrics. Retrieved July 23, 2015 from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2015/06/09/peds.2014-1632.abstract.
Mühlke, A. (1999). The right to language and linguistic development: Deafness from a
human rights perspective. Virginia Journal of International Law, 40(2), 705–762.
Petitto, L-A. (1994). Are signed languages ‘real’ languages? Evidence from American
Sign Language and Langue des signes québécoise. Signpost, 7(3), 1-10.
Pettito, L-A. (2005). How the brain bets language. In J. McGilvray (Ed.), The Cambridge
companion to Chomsky (pp. 84-101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Roots, J. (2014, November 10). Sign language rights. Lecture for ALDS 3903 Sign
Language Planning and Policy, School of Linguistics and Language Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.
Russell, P.H., Knopff, R., Morton, F L., & Russell, Peter H. (1989). Federalism and the
Charter: Leading constitutional decisions. Ottawa, Canada: Carleton University Press.
Sala, J.P. (2013). How the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(CRPD) might be used in Canadian litigation. Council of Canadians with Disabilities. Retrieved September 27, 2016 from http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/socialpolicy/poverty-citizenship/legal-protections/crpd-in-canadian-litigation.
Siegel, L. (2006). The argument for a constitutional right to communication and language.
Sign Language Studies, 6(3), 255–272.
Skutnabb-Kangas T, & Phillipson R. (1995). Linguistic human rights, past and present. In
T. Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson (Eds.), Linguistic human rights: Overcoming linguistic discrimination (pp. 71-110). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyer.
Snoddon, K. (2008). American Sign Language and early intervention. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 64(4), 581-604.
Snoddon, K. (2012). American Sign Language and early literacy: A model parent-child
program. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Snoddon, K. (2014). Hearing parents as plurilingual learners of ASL. In D. McKee, R.
Rosen, & R.McKee (Eds.), Teaching and learning of signed languages: International perspectives and practices (pp. 175-196). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Snoddon, K. (2015). Using the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages to teach sign language to parents of deaf children. Canadian Modern Language Review, 71(3), 270-287. doi:10.3138/cmlr.2602
Snoddon, K. (2016, April 29). Queen’s Park should save schools for deaf children. The
Toronto Star. Retrieved September 27, 2016 from https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/04/29/queens-park-should-save-schools-for-deaf-children.html.
Snoddon, K. & Underwood, K. (in press). The social relational model of deaf childhood
in action. In T. Curran, K. Liddiard, & K. Runswick-Cole (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Disabled Children's Childhood Studies. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tucker, J. (2014). Linguistic justice. The Maryland Bulletin, 135(1), 8. Retrieved April
, 2015 from http://www.msd.edu/mdb/current.pdf.
World Federation of the Deaf. (2016). Position Paper on the Language Rights of Deaf
Children. Retrieved November 7, 2016 from https://wfdeaf.org/news/wfd-position-paper-language-rights-deaf-children.
Legislation cited
Auton v British Columbia (Attorney General), 3 S.C.R. 657, 2004 SCC 78.
Boulter v. Nova Scotia Power Inc., 2009 NSCA 17.
Canadian Association of the Deaf, James Roots, Gary Malkowski, Barbara LaGrange,
and Mary Lou Cassie v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2006 FC 971.
Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 651, [2014]
FCJ 679.
Constitution Act, 1982. Part I: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Retrieved
June 1, 2015 from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html.
Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs [1999] 2 SCR 203.
Eaton v. Brant County [1997] 1 SCR 241.
Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3. S.C.R. 624.
Gosselin (Tutor of) v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 SCR 238, 2005 SCC 15.
Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 SCR 519, 1993.
Tanudjaja v. Attorney General (Canada) (Application), 2013 ONSC 5410.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
There are no article processing or submission charges for CJDS authors.
Author(s) are not required to assign their copyright in and to their article to the Canadian Journal of Disability Studies. Instead, The CJDS asks for one-time rights to print this original work.
All articles in the journal are assigned a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.
Authors are asked to contact the journal Editor if they wish to post the article on any website; translate or authorize a translation of the article; copy or otherwise reproduce the article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so; copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
Contacting the Editor will simply allow us to track the use and distribution of your article. We encourage use for non-commercial, educational purposes.
Authors must provide proof of permission clearance prior to the publication of their work if they are including images or other materials that are not their own. Keep in mind that such clearance can at times be costly, and often takes time. The journal editor can often work with you to seek permissions if you need information, advice or assistance.
