How about an artificial language? By definition such a language is no one?s native language, and words with no relation to a history or a living culture are not precise enough in meaning for legislation.
I sent them a email this evening:
I believe it is a very foolish and short-sighted policy to discriminate against artificial languages, saying that they have no native speakers, history, or culture. The statements in your website go beyond foolishness, however, and disseminate false and misleading statements to the public. By including these statements, you demonstrate profound ignorance on the part of yourself and the organization you represent.
Esperanto is an artificial language that has thousands of native speakers (children who grew up in familes for whom it was their everyday language) and has more than 100 years of history and culture. Moreover, it's speakers being drawn from more than 100 countries around the world, Esperanto has already confronted and dealt with many of the critical issues of international communication in ways few other languages have.
Because it's speakers are drawn from many countries, Esperanto has little political power and it may seem trivial to disparage it. But as Europe seeks to confront the linguistic imperialism of English, Esperanto may be the only hope to prevent the destruction of minority languages and cultures. It may not be in your power to support Esperanto, but I encourage you to at least remain neutral. Stop spreading malicious and false information about Esperanto. If you can do nothing constructive, at least do no harm.
It probably won't do any good, but if enough people point out their lies and mendacious statements, maybe they will at least retract them, if not come around to a more productive point of view.