000			01911nam a22001457a 4500
999			_c525789 _d525789
008			240415b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_aBuuren, Joseph van _951711
245			_aJustice in English-only
260			_aSocial & Legal Studies
300			_a33(2), Apr, 2024: p.191-212
520			_aAustralia 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
773			_aSocial & Legal Studies
906			_aLANGUAGES
942			_cAR