Suchergebnisse

In Canada, indigenous peoples and official-language minorities benefit from certain rights that are not available to the rest of the population, but exactly who can claim membership in these groups remains a controversial issue. Protecting a group's culture and resources is often seen to be at odds with the freedom of individuals to claim membership in that group.

After years of political crises and negotiations, the deep-rooted conflict between Dutch- and French-speaking parties recently led to the 2011 agreement concerning a further reform of the Belgian state. This reform mainly furthers decentralises the – already federal – state structure, including the allocation of additional competences and fiscal powers to sub-national entities (Regions and Communities). But this new state reform also brings about a radical reform of the upper house: the Belgian Senate. Since 1995, the Senate was composed of three different types of members: Senators directly elected by two linguistically separated electorate (the Dutch-speaking and the French-speaking electorates), Senators indirectly elected by the Community parliaments and Senators coopted by the two other types. The French- and German-speaking linguistic minorities had a fixed amount of seats in this assembly. The reform of the state radically changed the legislative competences of the Senate and its composition as its members will now be designated by Regional and Community parliaments (plus 10 coopted senators). Broadly speaking, the appointment of the majority of the Senators moved from a system of direct and language-based election to a system of indirect and mixed regional and language-based designation. This change is not without consequence for the representation of linguistic minorities. In May 2014, regional, community and federal elections will be organised in Belgium, testing for the first time this new system of designation of Senators by regional and community parliaments. This paper intends to present the 2013 reform of the Senate in Belgium and its consequence for the representation of linguistic minorities. The situations before and after the reform of the Senate will be compared, not only in terms of the way Senators are appointed but in terms of its consequence on the linguistic aspects of the regional and community elections campaign and of the profile of the appointed Senators.

After years of political crises and negotiations, the deep-rooted conflict between Dutch- and French-speaking parties recently led to the 2011 agreement concerning a further reform of the Belgian state. This reform mainly furthers decentralises the – already federal – state structure, including the allocation of additional competences and fiscal powers to sub-national entities (Regions and Communities). But this new state reform also brings about a radical reform of the upper house: the Belgian Senate. Since 1995, the Senate was composed of three different types of members: Senators directly elected by two linguistically separated electorate (the Dutch-speaking and the French-speaking electorates), Senators indirectly elected by the Community parliaments and Senators coopted by the two other types. The French- and German-speaking linguistic minorities had a fixed amount of seats in this assembly. The reform of the state radically changed the legislative competences of the Senate and its composition as its members will now be designated by Regional and Community parliaments (plus 10 coopted senators). Broadly speaking, the appointment of the majority of the Senators moved from a system of direct and language-based election to a system of indirect and mixed regional and language-based designation. This change is not without consequence for the representation of linguistic minorities. In May 2014, regional, community and federal elections will be organised in Belgium, testing for the first time this new system of designation of Senators by regional and community parliaments. This paper intends to present the 2013 reform of the Senate in Belgium and its consequence for the representation of linguistic minorities. The situations before and after the reform of the Senate will be compared, not only in terms of the way Senators are appointed but in terms of its consequence on the linguistic aspects of the regional and community elections campaign and of the profile of the appointed Senators.

In the on-going debate about language rights, the role of translation remains somewhat of a blind spot. And yet, because there are very few truly monolingual societies in the world, any language policy implies a translation policy. Translation policies will vary from place to place, and they are often the result of ad hoc choices by policy makers at the local level. Even so, by looking at international law, we can find a sort of lowest common denominator for what is to be expected of translation policies. Sources of international law that can have an effect in shaping domestic policies include treaties/conventions and the judicial decisions of international tribunals. In Europe, in particular, a number of regional treaties from the Council of Europe weigh on translation as an instrument to guarantee the rights of minority speakers. The European Union – with its own treaties, regulations and directives – also helps set minimum standards for domestic translation policies. We will see that in Europe translation is usually cast as a means to secure other rights. Unfortunately, international law seems to set a rather low bar for this, with the most explicit protections afforded in the judicial realm but with relatively little elsewhere.

In attempting to provide a framework for the study of linguistic minorities within Yugoslavia and peripheral areas, I shall proceed along conceptual lines suggested by economic theory. Although the terms "ethnic minority" and "linguistic minority" are often used interchangeably, the focus is on linguistic minorities since in terms of economic significance the linguistic attribute generally outweighs other attributes which define ethnic groups. After all, communications involve substantial costs, and it is precisely the distribution of these costs between linguistic groups which gives the minority status its economic dimension. The subsequent discussion hinges in part on these costs.

Introduction: All references about France, be they about French language, French culture, French arrogance or French cuisine seem to indicate that this country is homogeneous, mono-lingua and mono-cultural. If we consider some of its regions we can note a huge linguistic and cultural diversity: Corsica is Italo-Roman, Brittany is Celtic, Flemish is spoken in the North of France, Alsace is Germanic, the language in the Basque region is pre Indo-European while Catalan and Occitan both form part of the "occitano-roman group, half way between Gallo-Roman and Ibero-Roman." According to the new Atlas of Endangered World Naguages published by UNESCO, all these languages, with the exception of Corsican, are part of the 3000 languages in danger of extinction.

AbstractMigration is an important reality for many sub-national autonomous territories where traditional-historical groups (so-called 'old minorities') live such as Flanders, Catalonia, South Tyrol, Scotland, Basque Country, and Quebec. Some of these territories have attracted migrants for decades, while others have only recently experienced significant migration inflow. The presence of old minorities brings complexities to the management of migration issues. Indeed, it is acknowledged that the relationship between 'old' communities and the 'new' minority groups originating from migration (so-called 'new minorities') can be rather complicated. On the one hand, interests and needs of historical groups can be in contrast with those of the migrant population. On the other hand, the presence of new minorities can interfere with the relationship between the old minorities and the majority groups at the state level and also with the relationship between old minorities and the central state as well as with the policies enacted to protect the diversity of traditional groups and the way old minorities understand and define themselves. The present lecture analyses whether it is possible to reconcile the claims of historical minorities and of new groups originating from migration and whether policies that accommodate traditional minorities and migrants are allies in the pursuit of a pluralist and tolerant society.

This article analyses how linguistic minorities in the province of Bihar navigated the era of linguistic territorialism, when mainstream political organisations and figures within India largely agreed that specific linguistic communities 'belonged' in particular regions. Indian scholarship has tended to focus on the mechanisms that brought about the linguistic reorganisation of states in India, therefore, concentrating largely on the ways in which territory and language became intrinsically connected. This article will examine the link of language and belonging with regard to a 'community', which demanded that states remain linguistically and culturally heterogenous. It focuses on the section of Biharis that identified Bengali as their 'mother-tongue' and tracks the transformation of Bengali politics within the province/state during the transition from colonial rule to independence. It explores the ways in which narratives of historical Bengali settlement were deployed for different reasons across this period, and argues that Bengalis in Bihar conceptualised the ordering of the Indian nation in a way that was inherently different from mainstream understandings of how the country should be ordered during this period. Bengali-Bihari figures and publications deployed rhetoric that attached much greater value to territorial belonging than to linguistic or cultural belonging. This article demonstrates that contrary to common assumptions, there were large groups of people who conceptualised India not just as a linguistically heterogenous nation, but one that consisted of linguistically heterogenous states that protected minority linguistic communities.