I thought only we were experts on our own issue... How can the WFD support sign language advocates in western areas like the United Kingdom where such areas are very poorly supported BY deaf sign users and who cannot keep Deaf trustees to advocate for them? Obviously, the lesser included deaf in areas like India and the southern Americas, Asia, are breeding grounds for such projects by virtue of lack of inclusion education or health support. By comparison, the USA and UK/Europe don't have that demand.
The UK does not yet recognise a sign language based educational system. Recognised as one amidst 100s of European minority languages that is all. A lot is on the grounds sign is a social-cultural format that doesn't assist education or employment positively thus actually disadvantaging the deaf. It may well be the be-all and end-all of deaf socialising, but at the end of the day, they too have to work and earn a wage and the communication isn't there. The deaf Achille's heel is their lack of bilingualism, over-focus on sign language, and the inflexibility on learning alternatives, perhaps there should be more focus on that so fewer disadvantages can occur? For deaf to be included via sign only, they would need a new professional support system they won't have for another 25 years even if they commit to training the professionals today.
Deaf schools, clubs, interpreters etc are all areas diminishing in the UK. Rights without these very obvious professionals they need to practice them, isn't viable. So what is the direction by the WFD? just complain about signed access that cannot be made workable?