ABSTRACT: In 1992 around 350 Esperantists from 30 different countries were members of the Radical Party. These included Andrea Chiti Batelli, former Secretary of the Italian delegations in the European Parliament and President of ERA, the Radical Esperantist Association, which now has members in many countries around the world; Hans Herasmus, co-ordinator of the "Europa Esperanto Unio"; Fabrizio Pennacchietti, Vice-President of the International Academy of Sciences and President of the Italian Esperanto Institute; Emilija Lapenna, writer, long-time member of the International Esperantist Movement and founder in 1945 of the "Kroatia Esperanto-Ligo".

We want the Esperantists around the world who receive this newspaper to understand that their ideas can only meet with success if there is an instrument, a form of political organization committed to the problem of linguistic democracy. The Radical Party offers them a concrete possibility of finding such an instrument.

------------------------------------

Interview with Joseph Turi, Canadian professor and lawyer, General Secretary of the International Academy of Linguistic Law: "In the field of international communications the right to language becomes a theoretical right. This is why a neutral and artificial language would be ideal as the international language."

(THE NEW PARTY, MARCH 1993)

In many countries the language has become a national symbol, the manifestation of the country's culture. Do you agree?

Yes. Many people believe that language is a cultural symbol that is preferable even to race and religion. But what, in reality, is the difference between these concepts? They are all exclusive concepts. If the language is seen as the manifestation of a culture and it is clear that language is an important instrument of communication, then it should be respected as such. Not one language in particular. Any language. For this reason, amongst others, the International Academy of Linguistic Law is in favour of the recognition of the right to language as a fundamental right.

What does the "right to language" mean?

It means the right to any language and not to one language in particular. If this were not the case, we would return to the old medieval system in which everyone had to have the same religion as the sovereign. And so if you go to Quebec you have to speak French, if you go to Estonia you have to speak Estonian, and if you go to Ontario you have to speak English. We would return to other wars: wars between languages. In this sense, for example, I believe that there is great danger in the concept of historical linguistic rights, according to which only languages which have existed for centuries in a certain area deserve to be protected, spread and promoted. Those languages which have no historical rights have no rights. The languages of immigrants in Europe, for example, have no rights. The Moroccans or the Algerians in France would have no historical rights.

How can this distinction be reconciled with the more general principle of the right to language?

Historical linguistic rights are a concrete manifestation of the right to language. It is the right to language which should be recognized as a fundamental right.

So everyone should speak their own language. What are the limits of this principle?

The right to language is not an absolute right. In the field of international communications the right to language becomes a theoretical right. This is why an international language is necessary. At the moment it is English, in the past it has been French and Latin, in the future it might be another language. This is basically why a neutral and artificial language would be ideal as the international language. In the national sphere, states should recognize the right to language as fundamental, and many projects have been carried out and will be carried out to draw up a universal declaration of linguistic rights. Article 27 of the international pact of 1976 already recognizes the right of linguistic minorities to use their own language. This international pact, like the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, prohibits any linguistic discrimination. There are already international documents which are in favour, in a sense, of the right to language. There is still no universal declaration of linguistic rights, perha

ps because individual countries are afraid that it might break up their political and national unity.

What would a Charter of Linguistic Rights consist in?

The Charter I was talking about, which we are drawing up as UNESCO, although it is not an official UNESCO document, is a project of the international federation of associations of modern language teachers. For many years this federation has been preparing a universal declaration of linguistic rights, which recognizes the right of all people to speak their (or any other) language and to be taught the official language of their country and their own language or a language of their choice. It thus recognizes the general principle of the right to language and also the right to language in the field of education. We already have a draft universal declaration of linguistic rights and a document which should be published this year by UNESCO together with this project.

How far does the slowness of bureaucratic procedures influence the effectiveness of the principles laid down by the Charter of linguistic rights?

It is true that the international bodies and international treaties and declarations are not very effective. Unfortunately, this is the reality of the international community. It is also true, however, that in some cases they work. Turkey, for example, had introduced a severe law with regard to the Kurdish language. There were a number of strong international initiatives, and Turkey abrogated the law.

An international declaration does have some consequences. In countries which adopt international agreements more quickly, like Canada, it would undoubtedly have some effect.

It would probably be necessary to organize strong political movements which press for the respect of linguistic minorities. In this sense one effective way of protecting the right to language would be to recognize a neutral artificial language, both at national and international level. Very often, in fact, the right to language turns at national level into the use of the official language, and at international level into the use of English.

----------------

THE RIGHT TO LANGUAGE

The subject of "linguistic democracy", and in particular of Esperanto, was discussed during the proceedings of one of the commissions of the Congress, together with the more general subject of "federalism and nationality, civil, political and minority rights". In this commission, chaired by former Romanian deputy Erno Borbely and Federal Council member Sandro Ottone, the following were amongst those who spoke on the subject: Ferenc Csubela and Anton Skenderovic, members of the Serbian Parliament; Kolio Paramov, member of the Bulgarian Parliament, and Vjekoslav Zuhaj, member of the Croatian Parliament, both members of the Radical Party Assembly of Parliamentarians. Helmar Frank, director of the Institute of Cybernetic Pedagogy at the University of Paderborn and member of the Radical Party, addressed Congress on the subject.

----------------

IN THE PARLIAMENTS...

Thanks to the proposal presented last August by Luigi Vertemati, Socialist member of the European Parliament and member of the Radical Party, and Marco Pannella, the European Parliament decided to carry out a study on the theory that Esperanto helps in the learning of foreign languages (the Paderborn method).

In Italy a Federalist inter-group on language and for the reform of language policy was set up. It was joined by 36 parliamentarians from all the political forces with the exception of the extreme right.