Justice in English-only
By: Buuren, Joseph van
.
Material type: 
BookPublisher: Social & Legal Studies Description: 33(2), Apr, 2024: p.191-212.
In:
Social & Legal StudiesSummary: Australia has long sought to portray itself as a proudly multicultural nation that claims to welcome and celebrate cultural and linguistic diversity. This article seeks to illustrate how the law, legal discourse and precedent continue to exclude and symbolically punish language-minoritised people, through reinforcing unofficial ‘English-only’ rules. This is accompanied by efforts to deny or downplay the racialised effects of linguistic marginalisation. ‘Equality’ discourses are especially powerful in this kind of denialism, where particular groups are portrayed as equally disadvantaged by particular language requirements needed to exercise and operationalise certain legal rights. This construct of a ‘shared inequality’ when it comes to language is effective in denying that laws can operate in a racially discriminatory manner. At an interactional level, racialised ‘English-only’ rules are reinforced through the policing and assessing of the language practices of minoritised witnesses and accused people. Speaking the ‘right way’ becomes particularly relevant when courtroom credibility assessments are tied to how a person speaks. In this regards, English monolingualism is constructed as the normative benchmark against which the linguistic and racial ‘Other’ is adjudged. This means that a failure to meet this standard can become a basis for questioning a person's credibility and believability as a witness.- Reproduced
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09646639231173669
| Item type | Current location | Call number | Vol info | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Articles
|
Indian Institute of Public Administration | 33(2), Apr, 2024: p.191-212 | Available | AR131580 |
Australia has long sought to portray itself as a proudly multicultural nation that claims to welcome and celebrate cultural and linguistic diversity. This article seeks to illustrate how the law, legal discourse and precedent continue to exclude and symbolically punish language-minoritised people, through reinforcing unofficial ‘English-only’ rules. This is accompanied by efforts to deny or downplay the racialised effects of linguistic marginalisation. ‘Equality’ discourses are especially powerful in this kind of denialism, where particular groups are portrayed as equally disadvantaged by particular language requirements needed to exercise and operationalise certain legal rights. This construct of a ‘shared inequality’ when it comes to language is effective in denying that laws can operate in a racially discriminatory manner. At an interactional level, racialised ‘English-only’ rules are reinforced through the policing and assessing of the language practices of minoritised witnesses and accused people. Speaking the ‘right way’ becomes particularly relevant when courtroom credibility assessments are tied to how a person speaks. In this regards, English monolingualism is constructed as the normative benchmark against which the linguistic and racial ‘Other’ is adjudged. This means that a failure to meet this standard can become a basis for questioning a person's credibility and believability as a witness.- Reproduced
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09646639231173669
There are no comments for this item.