PART THREE: PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS HURST V. STATE OF QUEENSLAND1063 Tiahna Hurst was a child who was “severely to profoundly” deaf who had developed sign language skills in Auslan (an indigenous Australian sign language) but was not able to utilize that language in the educational arrangements made for her by the State of Queensland, because the authorities were only willing to provide sign language support for her in English. Ms. Hurst contended that this requirement constituted indirect discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act, 1992. In court proceedings, Education Queensland acknowledged that it was obliged to make special provision for the education of persons with hearing impairments.1064 The State of Queensland submitted, however, that Ms. Hurst could be taught in English and still maintain parity with her hearing peers. PART THREE On appeal, the Federal Court of Australia ruled that the denial of teaching in Auslan had a detrimental effect on Ms. Hurst and that she might ultimately be denied the opportunity to achieve her full potential. The Court held that a person with a hearing impairment would suffer a serious disadvantage if denied support of the kind requested. It thus ruled that the Disability Discrimination Act had been contravened.1065 Questions of language rights and discrimination raise a number of issues in practice. For example, there are areas of life in which it may be justified to differentiate on the basis of language (employment in public authorities, for example), with the effect that language is one of the grounds on which direct discrimination is more likely to be permissible than discrimination on other grounds. A further example of the complexities of discrimination in this area is that many linguistic minorities are also ethnic minorities, with the effect that linguistic differentiation may result in indirect discrimination on the basis of ethnicity. One consistent area of concern is the question of education in minority languages. In some situations, the forced closure of minority language schools has been deemed to violate regional human rights law, as has nonprovision of minority language education.1066 However, in other cases, the maintenance of separate language schools has been found to result in de facto racial segregation: the European Court of Human Rights has ruled on at least one case in which separate facilities were provided pretextually on the basis of language in order to segregate on ethnic grounds.1067 In some scenarios, these arrangements can also create problems of non-integration. In practice, in some contexts, the maintenance of separate language schools at primary and secondary levels has resulted in significant emigration of minorities to pursue their studies at the tertiary level, often resulting in their permanent departure. In some cases, the maintenance of separate school facilities for different ethnolinguistic groups has been seen to exacerbate intercommunal tensions, in particular when this takes place in segregated environments. There has been a move across the board towards the promotion of multilingual education, at least in part in an effort to resolve these tensions, but more importantly as part of efforts to ensure vibrant societies embracing diversity. Thus, for example, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has set out the following position on striking the balance: 1. UNESCO supports mother tongue instruction as a means of improving educational quality by building upon the knowledge and experience of the learners and teachers. 1063 Federal Court of Australia, Hurst v. State of Queensland [2006] FCAFC 100 (28 July 2006). 1064 It formulated a policy to that effect, which was entitled “Total Communication Policy”. The Total Communication Policy treated signed English as the preferred method of instruction for the development of communication and literacy skills. It was Education Queensland’s requirement that Ms. Hurst was taught in English (including signed English). 1065 However, the Court stressed that the judgment did not establish that educational authorities must make provision for Auslan teaching or interpreting for any child who is deaf who desires it, or that Auslan is better than signed English as a method of teaching children who are deaf, or that an educational authority necessarily acts unreasonably if it declines to provide Auslan assistance. It regretted what it saw as the attempt to politicize the case by various interest groups. 1066 European Court of Human Rights, respectively, Catan and others v. Moldova and Russia, Applications Nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, Judgment, 19 October 2012; and Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium”, Applications Nos. 1474/62, 1677/62, 1691/62, 1769/63, 1994/63 and 2126/64, Judgment (Merits), 23 July 1968. 1067 European Court of Human Rights, Oršuš and others v. Croatia, Application No. 15766/03, Judgment, 16 March 2010. 155