The Rebuttal

It is official. I do not matter. We do not matter. The only people that matter are the people who are part of the Boys and Girls Club. If your not in you are out. You are irrelevant. You can scream and you can rant but it is all to no avail. You can even try negotiating and dealing with the complaints departments. You can try all the manner of diplomatic solutions but all will be pointless. You see you have to be part of this elite Boys and Girls club to have any influence.

I have come to this conclusion as the result of the farcical decision to nominate the Big 4 Cinemas for a Human Rights award. To rub salt into the wound Foxtel were nominated too. The Boys and Girls club that consists of the Commissioner, the captioner, the lobbyist and the executives have combined to collude. Their aim is simply to keep the names of the Cinemas and Foxtel in bright lights. The fact that these two entities have an appalling record in human rights makes no difference. They have friends in high places and enormous profits are being made. Self gratification is the name of the game.

What exactly are Human Rights? Well the Australian Human Rights Commission, that has seen fit to accept these nominations, defines them beautifully.

• the recognition and respect of peoples dignity
• a set of moral and legal guidelines that promote and protect a recognition of our values, our identity and ability to ensure an adequate standard of living
• the basic standards by which we can identify and measure inequality and fairness
• those rights associated with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Using this frame work lets examine a few of these criteria. Lets start with the first criteria – The recognition and respect of Human dignity.  It is worth nothing that this criteria is also prominent in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In fact it is the first of the declarations and states, All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Now before you read further watch this video in all its entirety.  It was, of course, made by the brilliant Phillip Debs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fylxGPHO394

Having watched this can you honestly say that Mr Debs left the cinema with dignity? He has had to go to the front desk, tell all and sundry he is deaf and needs CaptiView. He has had to wait a long time to get the device and let’s not forget all the cock ups that they made in getting it. He has then had to lump this unseemly device all over the cinema. It didn’t work. He had to get the manager several times and it still didn’t work. It finally worked after he had missed a quarter of the movie. What is worse he has had to endure this farce 15 times where only twice the captions worked as they should. He got no reimbursement, only an assurance that the difficulties would be reported to the big boss. Respect? Dignity? You tell me where they exist here.

In Darwin a couple of Aboriginal people were actually denied the device because they did not have a license. They offered other forms of ID but they were not accepted. In the end they went with out. Respect? Dignity? Where do they exist here?

Around Australia Deaf people are having their cinema experience ruined by this, in Mr Debs words, ‘Crap Technology’  They are leaving the cinema with eye strain and headaches because of the constant refocusing from device to screen. Tall people have to slump in their seats to use the device. People with vision issues have reported that they have to alternate their glasses on and off to try and watch a movie. Deaf kids are being denied the cinema experience because concentrating from device to screen is beyond them.

Now let’s look at point two and three of the Australian Human Rights Commission definition of human rights. Point  two – a set of moral and legal guidelines that promote and protect a recognition of our values, our identity and ability to ensure an adequate standard of living. What is moral about denying people the right to watch a movie in a way that they can enjoy it? Where does that provide the same standard of enjoyment as everyone else? Let’s look at point 3 – the basic standards by which we can identify and measure inequality and fairness. Are any of the examples listed in the previous standards FAIR or EQUAL? Of course they are not but some how the cinemas have been nominated for a Human Rights Award? Pray do tell me how.

And Foxtel? – hehehehehehehehehe. Foxtel are the richest television subsidiary in Australia. They have been in Australia for over a decade. Virtually every show they put on has a caption file available for it. Yet they are obliged to provide only 55% of their shows with captions. The captions often fail, double up or are not shown when they are advertised. Fair? Equal? In whose eyes?

For that 55% access to shows deaf people are expected to pay the full subscription. For the poor quality captioning deaf people are supposed to pay the full subscription. “OH”,  but Foxtel will claim,  “We provide more than we are legally obliged to.” Well WHOOOOOPPPPEEEEE! Arguably they can provide close to 100% captioning already but they simply do not want to. Yet they charge the deaf at the same rate as everyone else for less access and poorer quality. Dignity? Fair? Equal? Give me a break! BUT some how Foxtel got nominated for a Human Rights award too. What an absolute fricken JOKE!

I urge deaf people to not put up with this rubbish. Film yourselves and the sub standard access that you are putting up with at the cinema. Film your substandard Foxtel access. Post these films everywhere. Make them viral. Write to the Australian Huiman Rights Commission and let them know what you think of these joke nominations for Human Rights awards. Most of all PROTEST! The venue for the awards is at the Sydney Hilton on December 10th. Let the world know that the deaf have had enough – MAKE A STAND AND TAKE ACTION!

I was taken to account yesterday by my friend and writing mentor, Shirley. Shirley is often a soothing voice, although she can herself be very outspoken. She will often bring me to account if she feels I am taking cheap shots, as I sometimes do. On this particular occasion she challenged me over my description of Mitt Romney as a buffoon. I used this word on a Facebook Status that asked the question as to whether the US of A were about to elect a buffoon. I chose this word and backed it up with a couple of choice and humorous quotes that were attributed to Romney. My favourite was this, “I’m not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was,”

As is often the case, Shirley was right.  This I realised after reading Romney’s speech to acknowledge that he had lost the election. It was dignified, articulate and humble. It reminded me again that politicians are only human and have strong beliefs, as we do. But because they are in the public forum they are seen as fair game to ridicule and abuse. This is not helped by the fact that they are often the prime culprits for dishing out such ridicule and abuse. But nevertheless, Shirley was right. They are, at the end of the day, just human beings wanting to make a difference. In light of this I have decided to come to the defense of my mate Tony. Yes the Tony – Tony Abbott.

Mr. Abbott has been the subject of much lampooning in recent times. The lampooning of him has hit home hard and his popularity has hit rock bottom with voters. This was largely due to an astonishing attack on him in Parliament by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. This famous attack on Mr. Abbott received media attention around the world. Put simply Gillard labeled Abbott as a sexist woman hater and backed it up with an array of quotes attributed to him. One of the quotes suggested that it was it was completely natural and acceptable for more men to be in power than women. Shortly after Gillards’s attack on him the Neilson Poll showed that only 37% were satisfied with Mr. Abbott’s performance with a whopping 60% being dissatisfied.

Now Mr. Abbott is not really my mate. I use the term loosely with a twinkle in my eye. All who know me know that I vote Labor, it would take something special to sway my vote to Liberals. I, like most people, have an alliance to a political party that is similar to the way many support a football team. BUT I feel there is a real need to defend Mr. Abbott. Whatever his politics he is basically a decent man. I say this on the basis of just one meeting with him and a quick response I got from him for a request for help.

I had the fortune of meeting Mr. Abbott in his office at Parliament house in Canberra. He had not long been in Opposition. At the time I think he was Shadow Minister for Health. I was assisting Deafness Forum with a spot of lobbying that focused on employment and other needs. Mr. Abbott was late; he had been held up by a Parliamentary vote. I chatted the ex CEO of Deafness Forum, Nicole Lawder, while we waited for him. When he finally arrived he muttered something along the lines of Parliament being a zoo and asked if he could be excused for a few minutes to attend some ‘personal needs’.

A few minutes later Mr. Abbott returned. He offered a hand for us to shake. It can only be described as a wet handshake because he had not quite dried his hands properly. He led us into his office. His office walls were adjourned with some stunning paintings. If memory serves me right Mr. Abbott asked for permission to remove his jacket and tie. He gestured to us to sit down at a low lying coffee table. He sat down with us and promptly put his hands behind his head and his feet on the coffee table. As he did so his pants rucked up a little exposing a glimpse of his hairy calves and the tops of his black socks. He told us to make ourselves comfortable. To lighten the air a little I asked if I could put my feet up too. He laughed and told me to go for it.

It was all very casual. We discussed a number of issues concerning deafness and employment. The conversation is a long distant memory but we talked about support in the workplace, interpreting, technology, provision of hearing aids and the like. What was refreshing about Mr. Abbott was that he actually listened. He not only listened but he challenged. He was not patronising in anyway.

We spoke about the need for ongoing provision of hearing aids at length. I let Mr. Abbott know that it was crazy that free hearing aids, batteries and repairs stopped at 21. There was a need for this to be life long. After all these kids don’t suddenly become hearing at 21 and replacement hearing aids and maintenance is a life long need. Mr. Abbott acknowledged this. A lesser person may have just nodded agreeably and left it at that with no intention whatsoever to follow it through. But Mr. Abbott questioned me. He wanted to know how he could possibly argue for life long hearing aid provision when so many people were competing for limited dollars. Not only did he challenge but he also provided examples of needs, priorities and the challenges that he had to consider as a politician. I found this refreshing.

Earlier in the day we had set up a meeting with the Labor Minister for employment, O’Connell I think it was. He failed to attend as he was detained by the Parliamentary vote. He sent a couple of his minders. We spoke with them about basically the same thing as we did with Mr. Abbott. All the minders did was to nod agreeably and take notes. I much preferred Mr. Abbott’s approach.

Mr. Abbott generously spoke to us for 45 minutes before having to return to the floor. I left the meeting with a great deal more respect for him than when I had gone in. The respect came from the fact he diligently listened, questioned and challenged us. Of course he made no promises; he could not really being in opposition. But he was tuned in and he obviously cared enough to not just want to suck up to me for a vote. Popularity did not seem high on his agenda.

A week or so later I had a need to contact Mr. Abbott again. My middle son has a genetic condition that requires weekly infusions of a drug to replace a missing enzyme. At the time there was a strong lobby to have the drug recognised under the life saving drugs program. I emailed Mr. Abbott to ask if he could lend support to the lobby. Within a fortnight I received a reply from Mr. Abbott. He had approached the Minister concerned, Jenny Macklin, to see what was happening. He provided me with a thorough update of the Ministers reply. The reply was along the lines that the drug was currently under consideration. Mr. Abbott offered his support and asked that we contact him if anything else was needed. About three months later the drug was approved. Mr. Abbott probably had no influence whatsoever but his prompt response and thorough reply added to the increased respect I had developed for him from our meeting.

The point of all this is that I found Tony Abbott to be a thoroughly decent chap. Sure I do not agree with his politics but he gave me the time of the day, listened, challenged and assisted me. Yet despite this I cheered Julia on, just as many of us did, when he received that savage verbal attack from Julia Gillard. In retrospect, none of us should have been cheering.

Sure Julia Gillard scored points for women that day. She raised many salient points of importance that centred on societies attitudes to women. BUT lets be realistic, Gillard was in survival mode. She was backed into a corner having cynically maneuvered to get Peter Slipper as Speaker of the house. Slipper proved to be a thoroughly indecent fellow. Gillard wanted Slipper as the Speaker, not because she thought that he would be a good Speaker, but because it meant that the Liberals would have one less vote on the floor of what is a hung Parliament. In the end this cynical political ploy came back and bit her firmly on the bum. Her attack on Abbott was as much a need to divert from the real issue as it was to score a political victory for women. I would say it was more so the former than the latter.

What of Abbott? His reputation is in tatters. What of his wife and two daughters who had to sit and watch their father be called a sexist women hater and not be able to defend him? That’s politics you say. Well only if we allow it to be that way. I do not think Abbott is a woman hater although he may have some sexist traditional values. My experience of him was as a thoroughly decent man. I am sure there are many that will disagree. Nevertheless I do not think he deserved that savage attack from Gillard.

But was I any better labeling Romney a buffoon? Truth be known, no I wasn’t. As Shirley pointed out to me these are just people that think differently from me. It does not make them any less decent human beings. Sure they want a certain amount of power but all they want is a better world. They might not see things the same way as I do but the majority certainly don’t deserve the abuse either. It was a lesson well learnt and I hope I heed it.

Writing is my hobby. I am not a particularly talented writer. I can’t spell for a start. My grammar can be a little off at times. I am not particularly creative either. I have tried writing poetry a few times but I lack any sense of rhyme or rhythm. My vocabulary is surprisingly limited. My limited vocabulary is related to my deafness. I lack the ability to overhear; most new words that I have learnt are through reading. If I was hearing I would learn words through a variety of outlets. Just sitting on the train and overhearing conversations can build ones vocabulary. Media like talk back radio and even popular music can build ones vocabulary. These things are denied me so like many deaf people I compensate by reading. This is why I know many words but cannot pronounce them for shit. I learnt recently that I pronounced the word access as axis when my Auslan interpreter became my speech therapist. But I digress, I am supposed to be examining why I write.

Of late I have been examining why I write. I write for many reasons. I write because certain things piss me off. Rather than bottle this in I put it to paper. I write because I hate prejudice and discrimination and by writing I create awareness and hopefully help to reduce these twin evils. I have an ego too; I write because I love the response. I could write and just store my writing away from the public but what is the point of that? I don’t care what the response is sometimes. It can be positive or it can be negative. But it gives me a buzz that something that I have written has stirred someone’s thought process to the point that they feel a need to respond.

I write to be controversial. Not just for controversy sake but because controversy is often the trigger for change. Cynthia J Mcgean attempts to explain why writers write at her Blog. She has this to say of writers, “We have a duty to bear witness, to ask difficult questions, to generate conversation, perhaps even controversy.  Sometimes, we come down on one side, sometimes another, but often the writer’s role is to explore the complicated world of the in-between.”[1] This very much sums up my motivation for writing, particularly the controversy part.

Some people fear controversy but it is not always a bad thing. Used correctly controversy can be a trigger for change. There just has to be a little method to the madness. As Melanie Brooks explains on her Blog, “My goal in writing something controversial is to never regret writing it. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me…”  Brookes over all aim is “ … Creating a dialogue with my ideas is the ultimate goal, whether I am praised or shunned. It’s good to have strong opinions.” [2]That pretty much sums up how I approach my writing.

What really inspires me to write is knowing that there are people who have an opinion about things but for whatever reason they cannot express this view. They may not have the confidence or simply they feel that no one will listen. These people often talk among their friends. They complain, they praise, they lament and they seek answers but they fear doing this publicly for fear of ridicule. What I like to do is listen in to what these people are saying and then write about it. I try to put these ideas into the public platform so that they cannot be ignored. More importantly I do this so that the people that cannot find a way to be heard are heard.

Sometimes doing this inspires otherwise silent people to respond. Sometimes they write to me privately and sometimes they leave comments on The Rebuttal Blog. Sometimes they comment on Facebook but the real reward is that a dialogue is created where ideas are discussed. Sometimes they agree with me sometimes they are vehemently opposed to what I have written.  But nevertheless they are motivated to respond and for many this is an empowering thing.

That not everyone agrees with what I say is a good thing too. On more than one occasion people have let me know that I am talking crap and I probably was. On more than one occasion an organisation has written in to put their side of the story and refute what I am saying. On more than one occasion I have been told to stop whinging and suggest a constructive way forward. All these responses are good too because every side of the story should be heard. Most importantly, just as I hold organisations to account, I should be held to account too.

Central to my writing is controversy. I aim to create controversy so that debate happens and energy to respond to issues is created. I could write dry unemotional pieces but these probably would have no impact at all. So my aim is to, without regret, challenge and highlight issues in a way that makes people think. People often fear controversy but in the scheme of things controversy is actually very important. Anurag Bhateja on their Blog[3] defines controversy as, “a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion”.  That sums up why many of us write, to express our own opinion and in the process encourage people to express theirs.

Hopefully this expression of opinion will create enough energy for people to want to take action. Human beings are generally a passive lot and sometimes a catalyst is needed to spur them into action. This might be challenging a well respected public figure like Graeme Innes or it might be challenging the direction of our representative organizations. Whatever the target or whatever the issue the aim is to stir the emotions of people so that they react and challenge.

Mark Twain once cynically said, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”  And perhaps this is true for many of us that write. But by the same token if the people that are making decisions on our behalf, often against our wishes, and we all remain silent for fear of ridicule these people will carry on regardless and nothing in this world will change.

So I write and I write with no regrets, even when I get it wrong, because the intent is simply to try and make things a little bit better. Besides Oscar Wilde once said, “..Most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one’s mistakes.” Perhaps that is a dictum that we should all live by.

Shall I tell you what the real evil is? To cringe to the things that are called evils, to surrender to them our freedom, in defiance of which we ought to face any suffering.  Lucius Annaeus Seneca 5BC – 65AD

One of the most poignant moments in recent history is the image of American athletes, Tommy Smith and John Carlos giving the Black Power salute during a medal ceremony. With their black gloved salute, fist defiantly held high, they took the world by storm. But what is absolutely poignant is that this unforgettable moment in history was inspired by a radical Black woman who refused to give up her seat on a bus.

It is interesting to look at the Black Power movement. Of course this was the 1960’s a time when protest and civil unrest was rife. In the 60’s the power of television was just starting to hit home. Protests were beamed live to peoples homes in all their glory. The Kennedy assassination was seen by millions. Martin Luther King was stirring the masses and he too was assassinated. Riots seemed an everyday occurrence. The 60’s were a time when people were not going to accept second best. The evils of segregation, racism, sexism and war were challenged head on. And television beamed it, often live, direct into people’s living rooms. The influences of these protests were immense. The Black Power salute was an extension of these protests.

But let’s get back to the lady on the bus. Often it is just a single act of defiance that can spark the cause. Rosa Parks is a case in point. Parks is the famous Black woman who refused to give up her seat on a bus. This was in 1955 when segregation in America was law. So ridiculous were these laws that Blacks were expected to enter buses through the back door. As the story goes Parks was tired after a long day at work. She was asked to leave her seat by the bus driver and refused. She was arrested and sent to jail.[1]

This single act of defiance is often seen as the real start of the civil rights movement. So much that Parks is often called, “The Mother of the civil rights movements”.  Of course there were other events such as the Women’s Suffrage movement that had enormous impact on civil rights but this simple act of defiance by Rosa Parks ignited the civil rights movement like never before.

To cut a long story short she was bailed out of jail and as a result of her defiance Blacks boycotted the Montgomery Bus Service. This was no small thing because at the time Black men apparently made up 75% of the patrons. Lack of patronage meant that the bus service either changed its policy or potentially went out of business.  Interestingly Parks inspired the establishment of Montgomery Improvements Association that was headed by none other than a young Martin Luther King. This simple act of defiance created ripples that were to be felt in every corner of the globe.[2]

Closer to home Australia has its own famous acts of defiance. One of the most well known is the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. The Tent Embassy was established in 1972 on the lawns of Parliament House in Canberra. It started with a simple beach umbrella set up by Aboriginal Activist, Michael Anderson, Billy Craigie, Bertie Williams and Tony Coorey. It was in response to the Liberal Government of the day who refused to grant land rights to the Aboriginal communities of Australia. Instead they offered a lease system that was conditional to Aboriginal communities showing they could make economic use of the land. This economic use did not extend to the rights to the natural resources of the land such as minerals or forestry.[3] Michael Anderson spoke to the press and pointed out, “‘The land was taken from us by force … We shouldn’t have to lease it … Our spiritual beliefs are connected with the land’.[4]

From this humble beach umbrella the Tent Embassy grew to a point where at one stage more than two thousand people resided there. The Government Minister for Aboriginal Affairs of the day, Peter Howson, described the protesters as “unrepresentative militants”. So incensed were the Liberal Government about the Tent Embassy that they actually changed the law on public access to Parliament House lawns. The change in the law allowed police to forcibly remove the Tent Embassy.  Attempts to forcibly remove the Tent Embassy led to violent clashes between police and protesters. Eventually the courts ruled in favour of the protesters and the Embassy was re-established. (It was to be re-established several times over the next 4o years.)

This single act of defiance by four Aboriginal men brought attention to Aboriginal Rights like never before. Importantly it led to unprecedented public and political support to their cause. The tents themselves were symbolic. They represented, “a discomforting visual presence which reminds governments and people, from Australia and elsewhere, of a continuing Indigenous underclass with more health problems, less education and a much shorter life span than other Australians.”[5]  The Tent Embassy was not just about land rights it was about the whole sorry situation and abuse of Aboriginals by White Australians since White settlement. Sadly, despite gains in land rights, this abuse continues today.

Social change comes about because people refuse to accept mediocrity. It comes because people get tired of trying to negotiate with Governments that constantly fob them off with rhetoric.  Sometimes the spark for social change is something simple like Parks not being able to sit on a bus or the deaf not being able to see a movie. But either way a simple act of defiance that shows that people like Rosa Parks are not going to accept second best can be a catalyst to real social change.

“Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the danger of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of ‘crackpot” than the stigma of conformity.”  Thomas J Watson, early CEO of IBM who is largely credited with leading IBM to be the company it is today

What a week it has been in politics. Tony Abbott has been labelled sexist and misogynist by Prime Minister Gillard. This has sent shockwaves around the world. For those less articulate readers among us misogyny is, to put it shortly, disregard and disrespect for women. Particularly, at this point in time, the misogyny is directed firmly at our Prime Minister Julia Gillard. She has handled herself with admirable restraint, until yesterday that is.

Perhaps this all built to a boiling point when Shock Jock, Alan Jones, had a brain fade. In a speech to the Young Liberals, Jones inexplicitly uttered those immortal words, “… The PMs father died of shame.” Jones alluded that Gillard was a liar and that her father knowing she was a liar would have been ashamed of her, so much that it killed him. Of course this is the height of insensitivity, particularly because the PMs father passed away only last month. What is worse is that the Young Liberals apparently cheered him on and thus in doing so provided us with real fears of the pedigree of so called future leaders of this country.

Our faith in humanity was restored somewhat by the reaction to Jones speech from the general public and the sponsors of Jones radio program. His sponsors deserted him in droves. Mercedes pulled its advertising and demanded that he give back his $250 000 Mercedes. Social Media went into overdrive, so much that the ultimate bully, Jones, claimed he was the victim of Cyber Bullying. This is Jones calling the Kettle Black he has become the victim of his own brand of hate. At last count there were 17 300 members of the Sack Alan Jones page. This is Social Media at its best.

Then there was the astonishing attack from Julia Gillard on Tony Abbott in parliamentary question time. Abbott can only be described, and I say this kindly, as thick. Knowing full well the reaction to Jones comments he actually rephrased them. Said Abbott, ““And every day the prime minister stands in this parliament to defend this Speaker will be another day of shame for this parliament, another day of shame for a government which should already have died of shame.”

The Liberals were quick to jump to Abbots defense. Said Liberal frontbencher Sophie Mirabella, “There is no way whatsoever Tony was referencing Alan Jones; he’s used that phrase for many months,” Oh! Come on, pull the other one. Even if Abbott wasn’t referencing Jones his lack of judgment, something he is constantly accusing the Prime Minister of, is appalling.

The comments were the last straw. Prime Minister Gillard exploded, “The Leader of the Opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office. Well I hope the Leader of the Opposition has got a piece of paper and he is writing out his resignation. Because if he wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn’t need a motion in the House of Representatives, he needs a mirror.”

This is nothing compared to what followed, “…this is the Leader of the Opposition who has said, and this was when he was a minister under the last government – not when he was a student, not when he was in high school – when he was a minister under the last government. He has said, and I quote, in a discussion about women being under-represented in institutions of power in Australia, the interviewer was a man called Stavros. The Leader of the Opposition says “If it’s true, Stavros, that men have more power generally speaking than women, is that a bad thing?”

 In her speech Gillard was immediately on the offensive. She began her speech with this, “I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. I will not. And the Government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever.” For a full transcript of the speech click on the link, I urge you to read it is riveting.  http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/political-news/transcript-of-julia-gillards-speech-20121010-27c36.html

Once again Social Media went into overdrive. In fact the video of the speech went viral. It has been seen all over the world and newspapers and bloggers have been having a field day. Of course the newspapers like the UK publication The Telegraph were more refined calling Gillards speech a,  “Brilliant political pivot” Bloggers were a little more crude one saying that she had basically, “ripped him a new asshole.”

Facebook went  into overdrive with memes appearing everywhere with choice quotes from her speech. Again it was Social Media at its best showing that most of us are decent people that don’t want to put up with this sexist crap and vitriol that is being spewed from the male side of politics.

But it is not just Gillard that had to put up with this rubbish. Kate Ellis, an articulate and committed politician, was treated appallingly on Q&A on the ABC on Monday night, by both Labor and Conservatives alike. On the show with Ellis were Liberal Minister Chris Pyne, journalist Piers Akerman and ex Labor politician Lindsay Tanner. They took every opportunity to speak over and interrupt Ms Ellis when she was trying to get her point across. Comedian and author, Ben Pobjie, was moved to comment on his blog, “It was a horrible display by three men who, according to all reports, claim to be grown adults of fully-functioning intellectual faculties. But in the presence of a federal minister whose views on a range of issues are actually quite important to the country, but who happened to be a woman, they could not find it within themselves to grow the hell up and act like decent human beings.”

In the past people like Jones, Abbott, Pyne, Akerman and Tanner could get away with murder but now with Social Media the real world is fighting back. Everyone who makes utterances in public places is held to account and the refreshing thing is that the majority are showing that sexism, misogynists and racists are firmly in the minority and will not be tolerated. It has been wonderful to see.

Closer to home in the deafness area Social Media is also being used to good effect to show the feelings of deaf people towards CaptiView, the closed captioning device used by cinemas. The powers that be have attempted to paint a picture of objectors to CaptiView as being a militant minority and a disruptive influence. Postings on Social Media have shown this to be anything but the case.

The wonderful Phillip Debs attended Event Cinemas in Burwood. While he was there his experience of using CaptiView was filmed by his friend on her Samsung Galaxy 3 phone. In his video he was obviously Deaf, he signs and even wrote his needs to the customer service people. A comedy of errors ensued. He was offered headphones (presumably Audio Description). He was then offered one device instead of the two he required. Then after waiting for over twenty minutes and missing the start of his movie the device then would not work. He eventually was led to a different movie theatre whereupon the device would not work until a quarter of the way through the movie. It was chaotic. Phillip indicated that of fifteen times he had attended the cinema and requested CaptiView only twice had it gone without a hitch. Phillip posted this video on Facebook and the comments came thick and fast. At last count there were 212 comments and only two of the contributors had anything positive to say about CaptiView.

This was one of only several things that happened on Facebook last week that targeted CaptiView. A posting was placed on the Deafness forum site that aroused much passion. So much that their CEO took the time to respond and defend Deafness Forum. But to the CEOs credit he was responsive and respectful to these views and has promised to raise them with his Board. Another example of the power of Social Media.

The power is shifting. No longer can we be ignored. No longer can people dismiss our views. Said Manal Richa at her website Strategic Planning and Training, “Another powerful aspect of Social Media is the fact that it is measurable.  Do you remember how difficult it was few years ago to track a print campaign and its results?  No more guessing with social media. You launch your campaign; monitor what kind of interaction and responses it generated! If proven successful, move forward and leverage your success.” Whether it is measuring public feeling towards sexism in society or whether it is highlighting the angst of deaf people to CaptiView, used cleverly Social Media can tell the real story.

While Social Media has its dangers it is more often than not a powerful tool to highlight public feeling. It gives the power to US. We need to use it wisely and be the power that creates the change.

“Steve, in your words, you think these are ‘sensible’ steps? In whose view is cinema closed captioning devices such as CaptiView sensible? Instead, by playing the odds, you have dealt away my and others chances of one of the great joys of my life, seeing open captions at the cinemas ever again. Crap strategy. Sometimes you do need to go against the grain, take a stand for things that are right. Deafness Forum, if this is any measure of your collective skills at advocacy, then do me and all deaf Australians a favour, shut up shop and go away. Thank you very much for Craptiview!.”

The above was posted by John on Deafness Forums Facebook page. It was a response to postings about dissatisfaction with the introduction of CaptiView. The Deafness Forum CEO, Steve Williamson, had been kind enough to respond to the postings explaining Deafness Forums positions. He certainly did not deserve such a forceful comment but what the comment does show is the boiling frustration from people who are deaf towards the introduction of CaptiView. Or CraptiView as it is dubbed in the post.

The frustration of the deaf consumer is further highlighted in a posting from Peter that follows. “I think the real problem is that the Government, when faced with a group of people who want real change, get their backs up and choose to ignore those people, because they view those people as too militant or too extreme. The reality is that this is a group of people who are getting more and more frustrated and angry with the “game-playing” that goes on and just want to be HEARD. The approach by the government in putting such “extreme” groups in the too hard basket is simply a blackmail tactic to shut people up and give the government the right to ignore such people. It also reeks, AGAIN and AGAIN, of the attitude that people who do not have a disability somehow have a God-given right to decide what services people with disabilities want or need – “Oh look, you don’t have any experience or knowledge or wisdom in this area – we’re the experts and we’ve done this for years, so leave it to us to do the job – so go away and sit down, your ideas aren’t welcome.” I’m sorry but this is the common attitude I see again and again, even inside disability organisations, even with the very staff who have that specific disability. It is not and never will be right, but how do we change it? By not sitting down and shutting up, that’s how!! And if they don’t like it, then tough luck – they created this situation and now they have to put up with the reaction to this farcical situation. If it means marches, protests, lobbying, getting on the front pages of the newspapers to get the right response then so be it!”

 What these two posts highlight is that, increasingly, the consumer is feeling extreme frustration at being ignored. They voice their views in great numbers and then those charged with representing these views basically ignore them. The ‘representatives’ position themselves as ‘know best’ advocates. A gang of five or six, usually claiming a mandate, will make decisions that go completely against the grain of what the consumer is telling them.

It is not just deaf consumers who are experiencing this but also other disability groups as well. For example the Every Australian Counts group, in its wisdom, decided on a public campaign known as ‘DisabiliTeas’. The powers that be, apparently all who don’t have a disability, decided that it would be trendy to host teas known as ‘DisabiliTeas’ around the country to draw attention to the NDIS. The problem is that people with a disability found this idea condescending to the extreme. People with a disability around the country, including many who sit on the NDIS advisory groups, voiced their frustration that these ‘DisabiliTeas’ had been organised without their input. Even after they voiced their frustrations the ‘DisabiliTeas’ went ahead. Suffice to say, out of respect to my colleagues who are disabled and also fabulous advocates, this author will not be attending.

All of this begs the question; have our collective disability advocacy organisations become irrelevant to the real consumer? Time and time again we witness them making decisions and representing a view that goes completely against the grain of what consumers are telling them. They will claim that they have a mandate to make such decisions or they will condescendingly tell us all that we have to be ‘realistic’ and ‘sensible’ in our ambitions. Well what has being ‘realistic’ and ‘sensible’ achieved for us so far? CaptiView? Woohoo, lets all celebrate that one.

Realistically how relevant can our Government funded advocacy organisations be? In reality being funded by the Government means that our disability advocacy organisations have one hand tied behind their back. They are want to rock the applecart lest it will decrease their influence with the decision makers. Indeed they will baulk at upsetting the Government lest it will lead to them being defunded. They will argue that they have to have ‘relations’ with the Government so that they can influence change. This is certainly true but the question that needs to be asked is; has this relationship become so lopsided that these organisations have become mere puppets to represent Government policy?

 How relevant can these organisations be when, in their own words, they are chronically under-funded? They have no money to consult properly. They become organisations that represent the views of seven to ten people on their Boards simply by virtue of the fact that they cannot really afford to get out there and properly listen to their consumers. God knows even when the consumers voice is loud and clear they often choose to ignore it anyway. And why do they ignore it? Well according to them it is because they are ‘realistic’ and ‘sensible’. What does this make the consumers who are voicing their views loudly and clearly? A rabble?

And the Government will claim that they have made decisions based on their consultation with the Peaks. Graeme Innes, Disability Commissioner to the Australian Human Rights Commission, recently claimed that the groundswell of opposition to CaptiView from people who are deaf was the minority. He claimed he knew this because our Peaks had told him that. What rot. What is happening here is that the Government is hiding behind the peaks and letting them collect all the flack.

If I was a cartoonist, with any skill at drawing, I would draw a cartoon. In the cartoon there would be a gaggle of people all hiding behind a shield. This gaggle of people are sweating and desperate. The shield will have on it the logo of one of our Peaks. This shield is stained red with tomatoes that are being thrown by angry consumers with a disability. Behind the shield is a prominent Government representative. Perhaps the representative is Bill Shorten, perhaps it is Senator Jan McLucas or more probably it is Graeme Innes. The representative is sitting behind the shield in a deck chair, in an Hawaiian shirt, board shorts and drinking a cocktail. The dialogue balloon reads, “Don’t blame me, it was the Peaks that told me.”

And to me this is what it feels like. Our peaks have become mere shields for the Government to hide behind. When challenged the Government will simply claim that they consulted with the relevant Peak in making their decision. But what authority do the Peaks have to advise the Government when they are ignoring the consumers voice? To me, absolutely none!

Perhaps the time has come where we need to heed the advice of Peter that was quoted earlier in this article. Peter pointedly asks and answers his own question, “..how do we change it? By not sitting down and shutting up, that’s how!! And if they don’t like it, then tough luck – they created this situation and now they have to put up with the reaction to this farcical situation. If it means marches, protests, lobbying, getting on the front pages of the newspapers to get the right response then so be it!” Perhaps the time has come where we need to let our Peaks know just how irrelevant to our views that they have become. We need to protest, go against the grain and most of all let the public know that the views that are being represented by our Peaks are not ours.

It is perverse that it is the actual consumer who dares speak out that is being labeled as the maverick. But the mavericks are not us, it is the people charged with representing us. Because it is they who are going against the grain of what WE want. We have to accept that the change that we want will not come through our Peaks. It will come through us. As Barack Obama famously said, “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”  I’ll see you on the streets!

I have been a mite frustrated of late. You see I am living in a very rich country. This country I live in has resources that are the envy of most of the world. It is rich in a way that most countries can only dream of. But this country I live in is mean. It is mean beyond comprehension. It won’t let gay people get married. One of its politicians compared gay marriage to having sex with the family pet. Australia’s politicians, who supposedly represent us, voted against Gay marriage even though polls were showing that most of Australia is for it. But worst of all it treats people with a disability as absolute rubbish. So much that they treat people with a disability worse than 27 other comparable countries in the OECD. Cop this Peeps – Australia ranks LAST!

It really is unforgivable that many people who have severe disabilities can only have two showers a week. It is unforgivable that they are virtually prisoners in their own home because this rich country won’t make a society that is accessible for them. It is unforgivable that people who are deaf are being denied opportunities to enjoy such simple pleasures as going to the movies. And why?  All because Australia’s mega rich cinema industry, among the richest in the world, does not want to pay for decent access. It is just mean beyond comprehension. (Please do not insult our intelligence by suggesting that CaptiView is access.)

And you know in Australia it is almost legal to treat people with a disability like crap. We have a law that purports to prevent discrimination but does anything but that. It’s a law that says you can’t discriminate but you actually can if you can show that you have reason to. Consequently Australian organisations and business, whenever they are held to account for discrimination, simply cry poor. “It’s too expensive”, they will say, “It is Unjustifiable Hardship.”

Hardship?  My arse! Recently Al McEwin, who is deaf and a lawyer, spoke about Unjustifiable Hardship in Australia’s disability discrimination law. McEwin, who was speaking as part of a panel discussing accessible cinema, explained that Unjustifiable Hardship can be broken into two components. The first is the word UNJUST.  McEwin explained that this word means, “Lacking in justice or fairness”. The second part of the word is Hardship which means,“ a condition that is difficult to endure, suffering, deprivation and oppression.”

McEwin rightly pointed out that our mega rich cinemas certainly were not going to suffer any unfairness or endure any deprivation. McEwin pointed out that Hoyts alone had revenue of $927 million last year and that $2 million laid out to provide access wasn’t going to make any particular dent in that. In fact, arguably, that $2 million will be returned at profit by giving proper access to 2-3 million Australians who are Deaf or hard of hearing.

I mean Graeme Innes, our Disability Commissioner to the Australian Human Rights Commission, recently tried using the DDA to make the huge Rail Corp company provide audio announcements on trains and at train stations. The blind need such audio announcements so that they know what platform to go on and when to get on and off their train. Innes insists that Rail Corp have an obligation to provide full audio announcements under the DDA. Given that Innes is a lawyer and also blind you would think he would know what he is talking about.

Innes made a complaint about Rail Corp to the AHRC. I am not sure if Rail Corp actually submitted to conciliation as usually is the case when a complaint is made but the case ended up in court for ruling by a judge. The judge wouldn’t rule and instead sent Innes and Rail Corp away to try and resolve the issue themselves. All Innes wanted was audio announcements so that the blind in Sydney don’t end up in Melbourne when they are aiming for Redfern. Rail Corp said adapting its services for audio announcements would cost close to $1 billion. Perhaps it is just me, but this seems implausible.  What protection or support did the DDA offer Innes? Well in this case, as is often the case, absolutely none.

What sort of law is it that allows people to keep breaking it until the victim decides to complain? Then when they complain they have this cock a hoop system that tries to resolve issues by conciliation. If conciliation fails, and it often does, it ends up in court at great expense. Then of course the poor judge is expected to make a ruling on some vague chook scratching of a law that is supposed to explain what is reasonable. Then of course the offender is allowed to continue discriminating because they claim Unjustifiable Hardship, which is the only part of the law that anyone seems to understand.

A good law says wiki – answers .com is one which is:

1) Clear
2) Possible to follow
3) Enforceable
4) Consistent with the country’s constitutional right

The DDA certainly is not clear. It’s certainly not possible to follow it because most of it is not even explained properly. It is certainly not enforceable because no one can really say what is and is not discrimination under the DDA because there are so many shades of reasonable. It’s a law that champions ‘reasonable’ but one mans reasonable is another’s unfair. It certainly doesn’t support Australia’s constitution which is supposed to be built on the principle of a fair go.  To misquote Bumble from Oliver Twist, “The DDA is a Ass, A idiot.”

Because Australia’s disability discrimination law is so pathetic, so easy to manipulate and almost impossible to enforce Australia’s disabled are left in the dark ages. It perhaps would be a little bit more acceptable if Australia was poor and unable to provide but it is not. It is a mega rich country. But let’s not blame the law, as weak as it is, it really just comes down to common decency. Australia should provide because it can!

When Greece and Mexico, hardly economic giants, are performing better than Australia in terms of outcomes for people with a disability there really has to be something wrong. Surely we can do better than this. We don’t need a law; all we need is a heart.

RANT OVER!

George Parker died in 1936. He was a brilliant if somewhat corrupted fellow. He is famous for selling famous American landmarks to unsuspecting tourists. He apparently sold Brooklyn Bridge almost weekly. He would convince his victims that they could charge a toll if they brought the bridge and become very rich very quickly. Several times the police had to stop people as they attempted to erect toll booths at the bridge. Other land marks that he sold to naive investors included the Madison Square Gardens, the Statue of Liberty and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Quite how he managed it is any ones guess. He must have been an extremely smooth talker. Not unlike the people who have managed to smooth talk people who are Deaf and hard of hearing into believing that CaptiView was going to offer us all more access to the cinema. Parker would not have been out of place as one of the representatives for the Big 4 Cinemas who have foisted CaptiView upon us.

Last week there was a Forum about cinema access. The Forum was organised to coincide with The Other Film Festival. A panel was held to discuss cinema access for people who are deaf or have vision impairments. Disability Commissioner for the Australian Human Rights Commission, Graeme Innes, was part of a discussion panel. Mr Innes came under fire from all quarters. Many people that attended the Forum made it very clear to Mr Innes that they were very dissatisfied with CaptiView. Under much onslaught Mr Innes absolved himself of any blame and planted the blame solidly with the Federal Government.

 According to people that attended the Forum Mr Innes implied that the introduction of CaptiView was Bill Shortens fault. Mr Shorten had been the Parliamentary Secretary for Disability when The Australian Human Rights Commission decided to throw out the Big 4 Cinemas application for exemption to Disability Discrimination Complaints. At the Forum Mr Innes is alleged to have said that it was Shorten who brokered a deal for CaptiView with the Cinemas. Apparently it was Shorten who agreed, without consultation with anyone, that the Big 4 Cinemas would no longer have to provide Open Captioning if they agreed to introduce CaptiView.

For the first time it became clear that deaf people had been sold out. Shorten had brokered away rights to open captioning without consultation. For the first time it became clear why the Big 4 Cinemas and the Government have ostensibly refused to consider any other alternative except CaptiView. Like Parker selling things that did not belong to him, the right of quality access to the cinema for people who are deaf had been sold from under them.

It was virtually legalised discrimination. All the cinemas need to do is to ensure CaptiView is installed as agreed in the Accessible Cinema Roll Out Plan. It did not matter whether cinema goers who are deaf found CaptiView acceptable or not. A deal had been done. The whole Accessible Cinema Roll Out Plan has been a charade.

Initially our advocates all urged that CaptiView be ‘trialled’ before rolling it out widely. The trial was a quality control measure to ensure that the device was effective. Of course the powers that be all nodded wisely and made soothing noises. What liars! If Innes is to be believed CaptiView was a done deal the minute Shorten agreed to it with the cinemas.

Over time it became obvious that CaptiView had many, many problems. People who were deaf  who have vision impairments could not use it. Children who have short attention spans found it virtually impossible to use CaptiView. Tall people had to slump in their seats to align the device with the screen. Stories were common telling of eyestrain and headaches from the constant refocusing from device to the screen. Diligently the Action on Cinema Access Group brought these issues to the attention of the cinemas and the Government. But neither the cinemas nor the Government cared.

CaptiView was the technology of choice and nothing else would be considered. It was the technology of choice even though it often did not work. It was the technology of choice even though it often dropped pout in the middle of movies. It was the technology of choice even though it became obvious that CaptiView was widely LOATHED. You see it had already been agreed that CaptiView was it. OUR rights had been brokered away!

Not only were our rights brokered away but we were lied to. We were told that with the new Doremi digital severs that open captions were not possible. This is not true. We were then told that it was possible but complicated. This was again not true. We now know that open captions are possible IF the right captioning file is requested. Once the correct file is obtained it is virtually a matter of flicking a switch. We were told that alternate technology would be ‘considered’. Again a blatant lie because CaptiView was the technology of choice ad the only technology that COULD be considered by virtue of the Shorten deal.

We were told it would provide more access to more movies. Perhaps it gives access to a variety of different movies but is it actually more access? There are only six devices per screen. Only six people who are deaf can watch a movie at any one time! And even then there is no guarantee that the CaptiView devise will work. Stories abound of cinema goers who are deaf attending the cinema because it was advertised as captioned only to be told that the movie is not captioned. People who are deaf and who want to attend the movies have been treated like dirt.

Mr Innes cannot be absolved of the all blame. Mr Innes, knowing full well that this deal had been brokered without the input of the consumers, chose to tell no one until last week. This is the same Mr Innes who has been championing the Accessible Cinema Roll Out at every opportunity even though he is well aware of the immense dissatisfaction from many consumers.

On the day of the Forum Mr Innes took to Twitter praising the cinemas for opening six more venues with CaptiView and Audio Description. The day after attending the Forum and hearing the views of dissatisfied consumers, including a consumer who is blind, Mr Innes again took to twitter praising the cinemas because they are set to complete the Accessible Cinema Roll Out two years ahead of schedule. Is Mr Innes listening to us at all?

 It’s clear that as far as CaptiView goes, we are stuck with it. Whether we like it or not this largely ineffective and discriminatory technology is here to stay. People who are deaf have been sold out. They have been lied to and they have been conned. Mr Parker would have been proud.

Without feelings of respect, what is there to distinguish men from beasts? Confucius

The last week has shown this to be true. In an attack on the American Embassy in Libya last week four people, including the American Ambassador to Libya, were killed. The killings were supposedly in response to an anti-Muslim video that had been distributed in America.    

The American Government was at pains to point out that it was not the anti-Muslim video that had sparked the killings.  They rightly highlighted the fact that killings were the responsibility of terrorists and that it was a highly organised attack that would have taken some time to plan. Whatever the reason the killings were senseless and the result of total lack of respect for human life.

Around the world fundamentalist of the Muslim Community were outraged at the anti-Muslim video that was being distributed. Protests, many which became violent, were held all over the world. In Sydney we were confronted with the horrific photograph of a four year old standing next to his baby brother holding a placard that exclaimed, “Behead all those that insult the prophet.”

Anti-religious people must be having a field day. You can imagine them sitting around the breakfast table discussing religious zealots gone mad. They will be pointing out that religion is the root of all the violence in the world and all because of some mythical God that means different things to different people. Religion, they will claim, is bunk. The one thing they all forget is that the violence is the work of a minority, not the majority. The majority of religious people are peace loving and give an enormous amount to their communities.

The beast that Confucius spoke of has truly arisen in the absence of respect. Why has this happened? Seemingly because man is still struggling with the age old question of, “Where did we come from?”  Was it a God that created the Universe and life within it? Perhaps it was a group of Gods. Or perhaps it was just a natural catalyst, a Big Bang in which a series of totally random and natural occurrences led to the universe and life as we know it.

People of great intellect claim that they have the answers. But do they? We can talk theories but in reality do we really know? Scientist will claim that there is no proof of God whilst religious people will claim that there is no proof that there is not a God.  Christians will claim Jesus was the son and ultimate messenger of God whilst Muslims will lay similar claims to their Prophet Muhammad. Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists have different beliefs altogether.

One thing that I do know is that they cannot all be right and they cannot all be wrong.  It was the German philosopher Frederick Nietzsche who said, “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist[i]” Perhaps we should all take what he has to say on board. In considering the question of our existence human beings simply do not have all the answers. The real answer is probably a combination of all our beliefs and theories. Perhaps we also need to simply accept that we might not have the intellect to truly comprehend how it all began.

I do not claim to any expertise in religion. I claim no particular understanding of the science of the Big Bang except that it was a catalyst that led to life as we know it. What I do know is that when beliefs collide violence and death are often the result. Let’s be frank, science contributes to this violence.  Science, by challenging religious beliefs, contributes to the conflict. Indeed was it not misdirected science that created weapons of mass destruction?

Human beings are a stubborn breed. So stubborn that they will defend to the death what they believe. But usually the beast that leads humans to kill and main to defend what they believe is only aroused when they have been disrespected. Perhaps we need to heed the words of the Beatles in their song, “Let it Be”,

And when the brokenhearted people

 Living in the world agree

There will be an answer, let it be

For though they may be parted

There is still a chance that they will see

There will be an answer, let it be

 With respect.