The Rebuttal

“I stand here to represent all the children who are deaf, and all who haven’t been born yet who are deaf,” she told the audience.

“I think the changes we can make in (deaf) children’s lives are so huge you can’t believe them until you see them.

“Deaf is not deaf anymore,”

Dimiti Dorman, accepting her Queenslander of the year award.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/dimity-dornan-awarded-queenslander-of-the-year/story-e6freoof-1225874183350

And in so saying this Ms Dorman earned the wrath of the Deaf community. But is it deserved?

Ms Dorman is a well known advocate for the Auditory Verbal approach for teaching deaf kids to speak and listen.  She and her fellow professionals believe that the auditory pathway to the brain needs to be stimulated to the point that there can be no distraction from the process of listening. Sign language is one of those distractions. if the child is more inclined to sign they will be less inclined to listen. If they do not learn to listen early and prefer to sign their auditory pathways to the brain will be impaired.

This in itself is fine. In our democratic society we are allowed to express a view. BUT when we express a view or an opinion we should at least do so truthfully. Dimiti Dorman distorts the truth. She and her cohorts, which include Dr Bruce Shepherd, are not so much advocates for the Auditory Verbal approach, but zealots.

Ms Dorman’s network of professionals includes some prestigious centres that focus on the Auditory Verbal approach. They include the Shepherd Centre in NSW, Taryle in Melbourne and the Cora Barclay Centre in South Australia. All of these centres provide world class service in the provision of the Auditory Verbal approach to deaf kids. Not only that, they have some excellent outcomes as well. No one is doubting this.

BUT they have a problem. They lack respect for the Deaf community and sign language. They think it is a lesser form of communication. They think that speech is far superior and that sign language cannot provide deaf kids with the same level of access as speech. If you do not believe me, consider this quote from Dr Bruce Shepherd, it was taken from a radio debate on deafness with Phillip Adams in 2006 – “… But especially we wanted our children to develop language. Because it’s not well known that the average profoundly deaf person who signs generally doesn’t develop terribly good language and they often can’t understand a great deal of what they read and they can’t make other people understand what they’re thinking.”

And of course this utterance from Dr Shepherd is absolute poppycock. Ms Dorman believes this also, as do the other centres in her network of Hear and Speak centres. They use emotional language like, “Giving our Deaf Kids a Voice” or “To hear is to speak.”  Or they put out insulting advertisements like the horrendous Cora Barclay advertisement which has a young deaf lad  who started of the advertisement signing. The dialogue of the advertisement went something like this, (Boy signing) ” Not long ago the only way I could communicate was like this” (Boy breaks into clear and  fluent speech) “But now there is a better way..” Thus implying that speech is far superior to sign language. Make no mistake, this is what Ms Dormanand her cohorts believe. ( The Rebuttal has written of the Cora Barclay advertisement before, re visit the article at – http://the-rebuttal.com/?p=65 )

The issue that I, and many others, have with the tactics of Ms Dorman and her colleagues is not so much the method,  (it works for many kids just as it fails many) but the fact that they continue to mislead. They continue to put out misleading information such as Dr Shepherd did in his radio interview,  as the Cora Barclay Centre did with their television advertisement and as did Ms Dormann with her emotional acceptance of the Queenslander of the Year Award. Since when has she “represented all children who are deaf? – She doesnt. What gives her the right to spout misleading claptrap like “Deaf isnt Deaf anymore” – all this does is set deaf kids up to fail and make society think that deafness is a lesser kind of existance.

Now lets look at things from a different point of view. Let us discuss sign language in a different light.  Let us state a few home truths:

1) Sign language can help develop stronger literacy.

2) Kids that sign and have poor literacy, often have poor literacy because their language development was delayed by zealots that insisted on the Auditory Verbal approach long after it was clear that it wasn’t working. Sign language was not the reason.

3) That sign language actually HELPS with speech acquisition – it does not hinder it!

4) Deaf kids,  unless their hearing loss is conductive, WILL ALWAYS BE DEAF – even with a cochlear implant!

Now here is the research.  For ease – all of this is cut and pasted –

” ..IT WILL NOT DELAY SPEECH. Actually it will facilitate it with higher chances of earlier acquisition of speech. 103 eleven month olds were divided into three groups, one test group and two control groups (Goodwyn, Acredolo, & Brown, 2000). One group of parents knew nothing of the research intent and the other control group was instructed to make an effort to model verbal labels. The test group’s parents were to teach the infants sign. All groups of infants were tested in language proficiency at 15, 19, 24, 30, and 36 months. Results showed that the sign group had the advantage on the vast majority of language tests suggesting that sign does not hamper language development but may actually facilitate it.” (Goodwyn et al.).

and ….

“…Researchers in another article tying symbolic gesturing to speech development conclude, “it may even be the case that successful communication with gestures as object labels adds to the child’s overall conviction that he or she is on to something’ with this labeling business and thus speeds along the naming process in the verbal modality”  (Acredolo & Goodwyn, 1988, p. 464).

There is another side to every coin. All that the Deaf community and its advocates ask of Ms Dorman and her colleagues is that they provide both sides of the story to parents of deaf kids. They need to provide the pros and the cons for what ever decision that the parents may make. Is that too much to ask?

Yes, without doubt, Ms Dorman and her colleagues, through their continued lack of respect and misinformation, have earned the wrath of the Deaf community.  They should know better and THEY DO!  Its not hard – I close this article with a quote from Grace Fox;

“… It must be concluded, then, that any type of communication-signing, speaking, pictures-can be beneficial for a child not only intellectually and developmentally, but also emotionally. It is my opinion that all parents ought to teach some kind of early communication that the child can use early on, to reduce frustration. Every parent has their choice, and those who choose not to sign ought not to look down upon those who do, and vice-versa. Differences in opinion should be respectfully given in such discussions. Communication, after all, is the key.”

Nuff said.

(To read Grace Fox’s article in full go to: http://www.helium.com/debates/140836-infant-sign-language-beneficial-or-delays-speech/side_by_side )

I was fortunate last week to fly First Class. I sit on a government committee that they deem to be so important that members fly First Class. For the pedantic, it’s Busimess Class. I have told te Government that I am happy to fly economy but they are having none of it. The flight to Brisbane set the tax payer back $1069 each way for a whopping $2038 round trip. Given that there are  15 people on the committee flying from as far away as Perth, this is one very expensive meeting. I am sure they have corporate rates but still the cost is enormous. So being me I pulled on some shorts a scruffy t-shirt and runners and set off for the journey. Hell it’s Business class, if you are going to be spoilt you may as well be relaxed. They serve you with real cutlery in Business Class … All except the knife. The knife is plastic. Supposedly to discourage would be terrorists. Quite absurd really because the fork is still metal and capable of just as much damage. But anyway I lapped up free Chivas and red wine and while I was at it stole a glance back at the plebs in economy. I allowed myself a wry grin as heads at the end of the plane bobbed up anxiously, no doubt starving and wondering when the food trolley was going to reach them. Business Class is oh so much more satisfying when you are not paying.  If you want to know why they cant pay for your Auslan interpreters at your TAFE course, well I reckon its cos people like me are scoffing Chivas on tax payer money that could be better directed elsewhere.

I must be getting old because lately I have been reflecting on life. I came to the conclusion that we deafies owe a lot to the Egyptians and even the stoneage cavemen. The cavemen, you see, were the first people to write. They didn’t write as we do today but they told stories through cave drawings. These cave drawings told the story of the hunt and everyday life of those times. Through these drawings humans began to realise that they could record and remember events. As time went on this evolved to more abstract symbols like the early  hieroglyphics of the Egyptians. The Egyptians then invented paper which led to things being recorded on paper, bound in books and read by the masses. Thousands of years later the human desire to record, remember and be entertained led to not just books but also theatre, television, computers AND – much to the delight of the deaf, captions. From cave drawings to captions, surely I am not the first person to make this connection?

It is not just captions but text in general. I live for text. SMS, MSN, YAHOO, captioned telephony, Facebook, the National Relay Service, Captions, Facebook, emails, the Internet and yes, did I mention, – Facebook. 95% of my life is spent reading text in one form or another. It’s a wonder that I do not yet need glasses but without doubt life is so much easier for me as a deaf person because of text!

And captions are my favourite. Especially television captions. Especially live captions. Live captions are funny. The mistakes they make are just hilarious sometimes. Live captioners have a special machine that helps them type fast by use of phonetics. Words are programmed in such a way that the captioner need only type in a few letters or a phonetic symbol and the whole word comes up on the screen. But sometimes they get it hilariously wrong.

As is usually the way when I am trying to remember funny errors on live captioning I can not, so I thought I would do a web search to see if anyone had recorded funny live captioning errors. The funniest I could come up with was this – Take a look at the picture. This error is but the tip of the ice-berg – believe me this is not an isolated error.

What the captioner meant to say was evacuating. But somehow, through a slip of the finger, the live caption came out  as, ejaculating. Of course it was a very serious story but the image of men in the middle of the road umm – well you know  – while a a house or something is going up in flames is guaranteed to send even the most prudish person into hysterical fits of laughter.

And sometimes the captions just freeze. Last week I was watching Australian Rules Football. Australians will know that Australian Rules Football is a very fast and rough game, not for the light hearted. A goal was scored and they cut to an Ad. When the Ads had finished the final Ad had a caption that froze on the screen – it said simply “Gentle Music”.  For hearing people who are not aware, captions also cue in sound effects. Obviously many deaf cant hear the sounds in the back ground so the captioner will let you know whether there is music going on or traffic sounds just so the deaf watcher can get a feel of what is happening. These captions often do not capture the  dramatics of the scene. For example in an early Star Wars movie,  when that big star explodes, the caption was “BANG”

Anyway, back to the AFL. The Ad is finished and we are back to the game. There is a goal mouth scramble ,  a player gets whacked in the back of the head and goes flying, another has his knee  busted and is carried of in obvious pain, there is an all in melee as  players let each other know that they are tougher than the other … all the while the frozen caption down the bottom says “Gentle Music.” Imagine turning on the television at that very moment and seeing this violent scene with the caption “Gentle Music”. Perhaps you had to be there but take my word for it – IT IS FUNNY!

Then there is of course. me and my wife trying to communicate. When you are tired and married to a deaf person you tend to be very sloppy in your communication. My wife gets quite irritable  when I misunderstand her  and visa versa. Last night my eldest had to watch and critically analyse the movie Hairspray. It started well – his first question to me was ” Why the hell is John Travolta in a dress, couldn’t they have used a proper female.” He had a point.  Anyway when the movie was over  he had to go and write it up for school the next day. He did this in the kitchen.

After about half an hour he comes in and says something to his mother. She was a tad cranky. She was not feeling well and had a bad bout of mouth ulcers. In comes the eldest and mutters a pearl of wisdom that I did not catch. The wife sent him on his way with a tirade that went something like .. “that’s irrelevant, stop wasting time get back and finish your homework.” Of course, as his his way the eldest has to respond, ” but but but but ….”  The wife was having none of this and sent him firmly on his way.

As an interested spectator of the exchange I asked the wife what was going on. She replied with something that looked like, ” He is just telling me about being cynical.” I of course needed to put in my two bobs worth and said something about the need for him to be “Skeptical” rather than cynical. The wife looked at me as if I was a complete moron but I insisted that  a good critic uses skepticism and to be cynical would not win the eldest any browny points with the teacher. The convo went on like this for a couple of minutes with the wife getting increasingly cranky with me. To cut a long story short the conversation ended with ” I didn’t say cynical  I said sequel”  The eldest had come in simply to tell us that there would be a sequel to Hairspray. The wife sent him on his way and told him to FOCUS! I of course misuderstood sequel for cynical. When I said cynical she thought I had said sequel. When misunderstandings happen like this it is mandatory to abuse each other a few times before you find out that you have actually misunderstood each other.  This we did – but to our credit once we realised the error we saw the funny side and had a good chuckle.

Being deaf is so much fun sometimes – That’s life 😀

I am a mere passenger. I sit in my chair, carry out my duties for work and family man while the Deaf sector seemingly self destructs. It’s like a sedate drive in the country. Quiet winding roads, cows in the paddock, the odd kookaburra flying by while the mists hover enchantingly inches above the grass. All is right with the world and then one comes upon a train wreck, the illusion is shattered bringing one back to reality. In this case the train wreck is the Deaf sector. The Deaf sector at the moment seems to be a tragedy in motion, seemingly hell bent on self destruction.

It started with the stoush between Deafness Forum and Deaf Australia. Deafness Forum innocently prepared a policy paper focusing on recognising Auslan as an official language in Australia. The idea of the policy paper was to create discussion and debate on the merits of Auslan as an official language. It would mean that Auslan has legal status and would provide enormous benefits for Deaf Australians when they argue for access to Auslan in education, employment and everyday life. One would think the Deaf community, particularly Deaf Australia would embrace this – but NO!

What should have been embraced turned into an embarrassing public stoush. When a simple phone call to clarify the purpose of the discussion paper would have cleared things up Deaf Australia chose to publicly criticise Deafness Forum. They sent out a media release and they got the World Federation of the Deaf to do the same – quite simply they said to Deafness Forum,  Auslan is our territory – BACK OFF.

The public slanging match necessitated the Government getting involved. This, despite the Government, particularly Bill Shorten, consistently asking the sector to show solidarity. Parliamentary Secretary for Disability, Bill Shorten, must now mediate this very public falling out. It is totally embarrassing and Deaf and hearing impaired people just look on in bewilderment as our advocacy sector seemingly self destructs. The outcome could well be the end of both Deafness Forum and Deaf Australia as the Government seeks to streamline the advocacy sector. The message is work together or perish – a message that Deaf Australia continue to ignore. We are lucky that there is an election coming up as the Government, if they are returned to power, is unlikely to act until after the election.

In Tasmania we have lost Australia’s first Deaf sector CEO. Grant Roberts did not have his contract renewed. Diplomatic messages have been sent out stating that TasDeafhave decided to not renew his contract. The official line is that TasDeaf have made – ” the decision to restructure the organisation so that the role of CEO has greater duties and responsibilities in relation to the financial management and growth of the organisation.”  Given that the former CEO, Grant Roberts, navigated the organisation through turbulent times which included relocation of Tasdeaf and the selling of financially draining assets such as the Pleasant Pines facility, one would have thought that Mr Roberts had already demonstrated his capabilities in this area.  But, no, in their wisdom TasDeaf have decided that they need a FINANCIAL brain. Community awareness and understanding of the needs of Deaf people would seem to be a low priority, something Mr Roberts has in spades.

The Rebuttal understands that there was no one employed as an Accountant at Tasdeaf. Mr Roberts was a very much a CEO and a community worker as well. This was necessary because of the lack of resources, fiancial or otherwise, at his disposal. He did not have an accountant employed to manage the day to day finances and ensure Tasdeaf reduced it debt.  He was expected to be a jack of all trades. Consequently Mr Roberts has fallen on his sword. The Board of  TasDeaf have decreed that his achievements to date and his obvious drive for self improvement were not sufficient. Clearly there has been a lot going on in the background that people are not aware of but one would have hoped that TasDeaf would have given mr Roberts the opportunity to continue to develop his skills and drive TasDeaf forward.

Keeping in mind that the Tasmania signing community is about 60 to 80 widely dispersed people and with only two FTE AuslanInterpreters Mr Roberts had a very challenging job indeed. Instead, despite navigating TasDeaf through some tough times, Mr Roberts has been given the heave ho. In a further development Colin Allen, who is also Deaf, has been appointed as Acting CEO of Tasdeaf for two months. While Mr Allen is experienced, he would seem to have had no more financial experience than Mr Roberts, having been in his role at the Deaf Society of NSW less than a year. In fact the TasDeaf President has described Mr Allen’s appointment as – professional development for Mr Allen. The Rebuttal thinks Mr Allen is imminently qualified for the role but clearly much has been happening in the background. There are many questions left unanswered.

Queensland Deaf Services have an interim CEO, Brett Casey, who is Deaf. This came about after Deaf Services Queensland severed ties with Deaf Services Australia CEO, Damian Lacey. They are currently going through their selection process to appoint a new CEO. We believe that Mr Casey is immensely qualified for the job, and one hopes that Queensland Deaf Services will see fit to allow Mr Casey to continue, if Mr Casey has applied for the position. If they do not, it may be a double whammy for Deaf people – first Grant Roberts then Brett Casey.

If they do not appoint Mr Casey, all we will have left is Collin Allen as Acting CEO of Tasdeaf. – At least he is half a CEO.  At Vicdeaf, they actively provide opportunities for Deaf people. At last count they apparently employed 33 Deaf people including some in senior management – At least they are proactive in recognising the talents and benefits of providing opportunities to skilled Deaf people. The rest of the Deafness sector should take note.

And the carnage continues for the Deaf Services Australia empire. The grandiose scheme to have one organisation servicing the whole of Australia’s Deaf Community is at deaths door. Queensland Deaf Services severed ties with Deaf Services Australia in February despite making nice noises about – “continuing the partnership.” Rumours have it, unconfirmed, that the Western Australian Deaf Society, who are the last part of the Deaf Services Australia umbrella, is next on the chopping block. After several years and thousands upon thousands of dollars being spent on the concept,  it all seems to be over.

The penny has dropped that unless one can provide a consistent and even service all over Australia and a service that can incorporate the differing political landscape of each state it can not work. Money that could have been better spent on developing strong Victorian services has been spread too thinly. The concept was sound but the reality something different all together. In Victoria the Deaf services Australia ship is listing badly with several employees leaving the organisation in a very short time span. At least Queensland, having been in financial strife, came out of it stronger but overall the concept has provided no benefits and has been an enormous financial drain.

The destruction in the Deaf sector does not stop here. Apparently one accommodation service was so badly monitored that the accommodation was a health risk. the accommodation was unkempt and mouldy food found in the fridge. In another area staff have allegedly been dismissed for speaking out about service delivery and have even threatened strike action. Meanwhile Deaf and hearing impaired people look on in amazement as the damage from one endless train wreck after another means that much needed resources, that should be targeted towards them, are swallowed up in repairing the mess.

The shining light has been the cinema captioning campaign. Last week the campaign and major stakeholders met with the CEOs of the big four Cinemas. A lot of debate occurred before the meeting and at one stage it looked like the various stakeholders might self implode. But in the end sanity prevailed and, as The Rebuttal understands it, the various stakeholders entered the meeting showing a united front. The outcome, it seems, was very favourable. The Cinemas even agreed to a period of community consultation so that the community can provide their input to the solution that they have proposed. This is what can happen when people work together for a common purpose. Watch this space because the success of this cinema captioning campaign could well be the Deaf sectors saviour.

This week members of Deaf Australia have received a survey asking them to indicate what they feel is an acceptable level of cinema access. The Rebuttal is a firm supporter of consulting with the wider community before proposing things to governments or other organisations. On the one hand it is good that Deaf Australia is consulting but on the other it is not. Why? Because the issue of cinema captioning, especially in the last few months, has changed – the strategy has changed and the situation is now at a crucial stage that requires solidarity. Deaf Australia have sent this survey very much against the wishes of the other players in this campaign and this, potentially, can divide the campaign. At this crucial stage it is the last thing that we need.

Deaf Australia  have distributed their survey very much alone. It appears that they did not consult with the other players in this campaign. Perhaps they felt the need to be representative of their members and that is entirely their decision. Unfortunately their survey, intentionally or not, contains a number of inaccuracies. This article will attempt to show what these inaccuracies are.

First of all DA have claimed that it is not the cinemas fault that not all movies are captioned. They claim that it is the distributors who are at fault. The distributors are certainly the outlet that provides captioned movies but the reality is that they only provide what they see as the demand. What this means is that if the cinemas are only going to show one movie at three sessions a week that is what the distributors will provide. Like any business if a request is made for, and paid for, the distributors will move heaven and earth to provide because it is the market that drives them. If there is demand there will be supply.  Currently because cinemas provide very little access the distributors only provide what the market asks for.

The cinemas are the group that create the demand. They do this by asking for more captioned movies and putting on more sessions. If they say to the distributors, for example, we want to provide four movies per week with captions then the distributors, because there is money in it for them, will provide what is asked for. The cinemas MUST take responsibility to create the demand by providing realistic access. The CINEMAS are just as RESPONSIBLE as the distributors and in many ways more so.

Deaf Australia have sought to gauge from its members a level for captioned movies that they see as acceptable. They have taken, in my view, a rather paternalistic approach to this matter. For example they state to members, as if they were not aware already, that 100% captioning of all movies is not realistic. The majority of us know this already but the crux of the matter here is that by giving the cinemas a figure that people find acceptable then that is all that the cinemas are likely to provide.

Previous negotiations have tried to put a figure on what is a fair level of access and this approach, to date, has not produced results that deaf and vision impaired consumers find acceptable. This can be seen from the 465 submissions to the Australian Human Rights Commission in regard to the Cinema Industry’s application for exemption to DDA complaints . I have read all of these and anyone who has read them will clearly see that the vast majority have stated:

• that .03% access to cinemas is an insult.
• that having only one movie to chose from is not acceptable
• that the times available to see the movies are not fully accessible, being mostly off-peak times.
• the choice of venues is not diverse enough
• poor standards such as clear advertising of sessions often mean people attend the sessions only to find the captions are not being provided.
• that the cinemas are not respecting or acknowledging the size of the market. The market does not just include deaf people it also includes their associates and numbers in the millions. Proper access will see any outlay spent by the cinemas to provide captioning recouped. What this means is the cinemas need to INVEST to tap into the market just as they did with 3D technology.
• that the cinemas are immensely profitable and can afford to provide a lot more access.

All of these points I am recalling purely from memory. These are the issues that the cinemas need to address. It is dangerous to give the cinemas a number that the consumers find acceptable because it puts the responsibility for working out access on US. Access is the responsibility of the Cinemas. As paying customer we expect a fair level of access. We are the market and the cinemas have to acknowledge that we are a sizable market and not just a burden. In this sense it is a clear mistake to say we will accept 17% or 20%. Why? because the campaign focused on the cinemas providing for the MARKET and it is for the cinemas to work out the level of access that meets the needs of that market not the consumers. In short the cinemas have to come to us with a plan not us to them.

Did you see the cinemas crying poor about 3D technology? Did you see them sending surveys to consumers saying – “Would you accept 3% of movies in 3D?” or “What is a fair level of access to 3D movies for you?” or ” Would you come on Monday or Tuesday, in the evening, in the morning?”  No! What they did was to develop a thorough business plan and then MARKETED the service to the hilt.  They took responsibility for working out the market and the level of provision, they invested and they took RISKS. And then they spent money on the technology trusting to hell it would make a profit.

The captioned movies market is exactly the same. If the cinemas acknowledge the market, provide the appropriate access when people can attend and provide the diversity of choice in venues and movies then their investment is likely to succeed. We the consumers are not a welfare case, we are a viable market. This is the approach of this campaign. The mistake of the past has been to provide  so called “acceptable levels” of access – This campaign is saying provide for the market and this is what the cinemas must do. They must invest and provide for the market. If they do the costs will take care of themselves.

One needs to remember that the Australian Human Rights Commission has ruled in the Cinema Access Campaigns favour. They have clearly said that the cinemas do not provide enough access, nor do they respect the size of the market. What is more the minister responsible for media access, Stephen Conroy, is backing the decision of the Australian Human Rights Commission. He has even called the CEOs of the Big 4 Cinemas to a meeting and when he calls they jump!  Again this is a first. The Government, until now, has steadfastly refused to become involved. In this sense the Cinema Access Campaign strategy has worked. Deaf Australia need to acknowledge this publicly and even thank them.

There needs to be one strategy and one approach to this campaign. Communication needs to be united and consistent. While it is commendable that Deaf Australia are consulting with their members the approach of their survey is the exact opposite of what the campaign wants to take. It is not about ego anymore it is about solidarity. The deal that Deaf Australia, Deafness Forum and Media Access agreed to in exchange for support for the Cinema Industry’s application for DDA exemption was clearly rejected by the consumers that they represent. The Cinema Access Campaign are the new kids on the block. They have, in a short time, changed the landscape. True, they put a few noses out of joint but look what they achieved. It is time for solidarity so I implore Deaf Australia to work as one with them.

Carl Williams was bashed to death in gaol recently. This alleged cold blooded mass murderer met the fate that he is accused of dishing out to so many. Of course his life is glorified in Australia. He is the subject of countless newspaper articles, books and even a TV series called Underbelly. Just before his death newspapers alleged that his daughter’s private school fees were being covered by tax-payers as part of his plea bargain. Apparently by cooperating with the police, a few financial incentives were negotiated. He allegedly asked for them to clear his fathers tax debt too, but was refused. His trial cost the Victorian tax-payer millions upon millions of dollars. And now he is dead – Money well spent??

Last year in Brisbane, a man accused of killing three people complained because legal aide wanted to change his lawyers. He was yet to be proven guilty and the Government had seen fit to fund his legal representation. This is a good thing because he may well be not guilty and has the right for fair representation. The accused wanted the same lawyers that commenced his defense on the case because they were familiar with everything that had occurred during his trial. Fair enough. The accused has legal fees that are expected to cost the tax payer in the vincity of $2 million. This is not including other court costs and the costs of the prosecution lawyer. Guilty or not guilty the tax-payer is forking out. Everyone has the right for fair representation don’t they? That’s justice – Right?

Somewhere today, in Australia, a person with a disability has been discriminated against. They can’t get access to a building, education or every day things that the general populace take for granted like the movies. Many of them get to a point where they have to try and use the Disability Discrimination Act to protest against their discrimination. Discrimination is against the law – Right? It’s a bad thing. Murderers are brought to trial and sent to gaol if they are found guilty. They know that killing is wrong and so they must cop the consequences. It’s the same for breaking discrimination laws – Right? Its wrong with consequences – Right?

Not quite. You see, disability discrimination is essentially only against the law if the person with a disability complains about it. Discrimination can occur legally in Australia until someone sees fit to complain. Individuals must complain to the Australian Human Rights Commission who will then try to resolve the issue. If someone is found dead – the police kick into action. A thorough investigation happens. No stone is left unturned to find the cause of death. If foul play is suspected the police do all they can to find the murderer and bring that person to trial. What of discrimination?

Like murder, disability discrimination is against the law. Everyone knows it is happening. But who investigates it. If blatant discrimination occurs like what has happened with the Cinema Industry in regard to cinema access who holds the Cinema Industry to account? Does someone investigate it and say, “That’s wrong, We are asking you to stand trial and prove your innocence.” Do police go in and issue a warrant to investigate alleged discrimination? Do they force the Cinemas to comply with the law? The answer to these questions is – NO! First someone must complain the Australian Human Rights Commission mediate. And then what?

Well the Australian Human Rights Commission tries to get the person making the complaint and the organisation that is alleged to have committed the discrimination to agree on a fair outcome. If the two parties cannot agree on an outcome then the Australian Human Rights Commission basically says, “Sorry – cant help you – if you want to resolve this you now have to go to court.”

This I know because I recently made a complaint to the AHRC about Austar pay TV for poor and inconsistent provision of captioning. The process, over six months, was this – I complained and the AHRC clarified my complaint to make sure they had understood it – AHRC then took my complaint to Austar who then were asked to respond – Austar responded that they were “hurt” that I had made a complaint cos they are doing all they can to provide captioning, that captioning is expensive and that it hurts their hip-pocket (you are allowed a mocking giggle here) – AHRC contacted me and asked if I accepted Austars response and asked if I would withdraw my complaint – I responded no – AHRC responded that there was no hope of resolving the complaint and that I had to go to court if I wanted justice.

OK! Court it is. Like the accused murderer I would hope that there would be something that could help me pay my legal fees and have the matter dealt with in court with the full force of the law – not so! I have to pay! Little old me has to somehow compete with mega-rich Austar in the courts. Austar will be happy and able to fork out millions on a lawyer but less happy and apparently unable to forkout similar capital on captioning – go figure. I have to put my house on the line if I am to have any hope of having Austar held accountable. I can ask the courts to consider my financial situation. The courts may agree to cap court costs. The courts recently did this for a discrimination case. They capped costs to $25 000. Cheap! Mere pocket money for the average person – RIGHT?

So what am I to do? Risk my livlihood and house so that I can watch pay TV with captions? Or simply say stuff it – its not worth it? What happens if the courts find Austar not guilty? – OOOPS, gotta sell my house cos I wanted to watch a bit more TV with captioning. Sorry kids, pack up, we are off to the Salvos. I hear the food is not bad, certainly better than my cooking. It’s all worth it – the law will protect me – RIGHT?

This is what people with a disability are confronted with in Australia. A law that will only protect them if they can pay. If they can’t – well bugger that we will just have to let the discrimination keep happening. Do you remember Gail Smith? The mother of a Deaf daughter who took the Queensland Education Department to court for not providing Auslan for her daughter. She at first lost, appealed and then won. This led to the Queensland Education Department forking out $30 million to introduce Auslan to schools. It took god knows how many years to get to that point. I asked her recently how much it cost her financially – she said she did not know and that I would have to ask her lawyer – “Roughly”, I asked “How much do you think it was?” – “I don’t know…”, she said, “A lot.” Thats not including the emotional cost as well. The law protects us – RIGHT?

Well it does, if we can afford to pay for it. If we want to put everything we own on the line in the hope that the courts will agree with us then, yep, it’s a great law. Frigging fantastic law! What’s that I hear you say? SARCASTIC – me? Meanwhile murder trials are costing us millions of dollars. A dead mass murderer is having his child’s private school fees paid for at our expense for agreeing to cooperate with the police. Hell, they even considered wiping his fathers tax debt. Me – I just want to watch more TV and understand it – whose gonna help me? No one! No worries! I will just put my house on the line.

 That’s fair – RIGHT??

I have recently returned from the Deafness Forum Summit in Sydney. It was extremely successful. The highlight for me was the dinner where Caroline Conlon and Todd McKenney put on a wonderful show of singing and signing caberet. For me this was the most important part of the whole conference. The conference was largely dominated by technology and ways to alleviate hearing loss. This in itself is ok, but what Caroline( who is Deaf), and Todd (who is famous and hearing), did was bring Deaf issues and Auslan to the attention of everyone. And in a sea of “fix it” mentality, it was very much needed.

This is not a criticism of anyone; it is just to say that the information coming from the conference was largely unbalanced. As a board member of Deafness Forum I know this was not a deliberate ploy. It is just that many Deaf people mistrust Deafness Forum and opted to not participate. The Deaf community should be thankful that they were represented by the excellent and iconic Colin Allen at the conference. Alone he stood up for the Deaf community and its language in what was largely a pro-fix it atmosphere. His integrity and willingness to speak out, knowing that he would create waves, stamps him as a man of integrity.

Colin Allen is an icon of the Deaf community. Mr Allen doesn’t just fight for the recognition of Auslan in Australia; he fights for the recognition of ALL community sign languages and all over the world. He represented the World Federation of the Deaf during the development of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of People with a Disability. He was part of a delegation that ensured that the right to use sign language was recognised in several parts of this important document. Of course Australia has signed and ratified this document thus ensuring that sign language is recognised legally. What this basically means is that Deaf people in Australia, if they feel they are being denied access to their langauge in Australia, can take their complaints to the United Nations. A very powerful tool indeed.

In Australia, Colin’s tireless work for the Deaf community can be directly linked to the access that many of us now take for granted. His fight for the recognition of Auslan and the Deaf community is one of the  major reasons that we have such great access to sign language interpreters. At work, at university, at school, in the courts or for medical appointments – all of this is largely because of Colin’s committment to the cause. Certainly there were others, but Colin is among the most important of these lobbyists.

Paradoxically the hearing impaired community probably have a lot to thank Colin for as well. Auslan is a primary means for access to communication in many areas of society for Deaf people socially, educationally, medically or profesionally. At the Summit there was Live Captioning – indirectly Colin’s work has highlighted the need for ACCESS to information in all all areas of society for Deaf and hearing impaired people. Hearing impaired people have succesfully used Auslan as an exmple of the benefits of access to information. But for those that do not sign, Auslan is not an option. Captioning is the equivalent access. Yes, we have a lot to thank Colin for!

Colin Allen was virtually alone at the Summit waving the flag for Auslan. Thank God for that. Why? Because the Summit, politically, was a triumph for Deafness Forum. Bill Shorten opened the conference. John Howard spoke as Deafness Forum’s Ambassador. Other politicians presented papers on the work they were doing for Deafness Forum. Attendees were left in no doubt, Deafness Forum has CONNECTIONS and more than a little political clout. Enter Colin Allen.

This is where the Deaf community need to be thankful that Colin Allen attended the Summit. Whether you agree with Mr Allen’s politics or methods is not the issue. What is the issue is that Mr Allen has the strength and intergrity to stand up and represent the Deaf community and Auslan. He, along with Caroline Conlon and Todd McKenney made sure that the conference was aware and did not forget.

Who can forget when Colin got up and challenged Bill Shorten for failing to mention Auslan in his speech. Mr Shorten gave a very powerful speech. He unfortunately chose, largely, to use medical language in his approach. Time and time again he used the term impairment or language that highlighted deficiency. Even I cringed at the constant use of the negative terminology and I am very middle of the road on the issue. But the crowd loved it. Shorten spoke directly to the audience and he rarely used his notes. His knowledge, passion and committment could not be questioned. He had the crowd in the palm of his hand.

But Colin Allen was having none of it. He let Mr Shorten know, in no uncertain terms, that he was offended by the constant use of the term  impairment in his speech. He let Shorten know that the lack of acknowedgement of Auslan and the needs of Deaf people was unacceptable. And he was HEARD!

To Mr Shorten’s credit he did not take a backward step. He apologised and hit back with his own views. Shorten urged focus on ISSUES and not oversights. He reminded people that the Government could not respond to the needs  of the sector when it was receiving conflicting messages from the Deaf and disability activist. He urged unity.

I certainly agree with Shorten’s views but I am thankful that Mr Allen provided balance to the debate. After Shortens’s speech and Mr Allen’s protests, the attendees were abuzz. Many felt that Mr Allen had chosen the wrong platform to challenge Shorten. They felt that he had alienated people. BUT I have absolute admiration for what Mr Allen did. HE MADE PEOPLE TALK AND LISTEN!

What Mr Allen did was put Deaf issues on the agenda very early in the Summit and at a key moment. By speaking out when he did he brought attention to the issue of Auslan and the needs of the Deaf community in a way he would not have been able to do by making a silent protest in the background. Many said that Mr Allen was showcasing but I digress. What he did was make everyone stand up and take notice. He made everyone talk and debate. And believe me they were still talking about his one man protest at the end of the conference. It was an astute move on his part.

This is the strength of Colin Allen. He is not someone that worries too much about upsetting a few sensibilities. He has the integrity and strength to stand up for what he believes. How many people have the strength of character to do that? Too often in this area I see people who want to be everyone’s friend. They tell you what you want to hear, then tell other people completely different things. They will tell you, for example, hand on heart, that they support the fight to throw out the Cinema Industry’s application for exemption, whilst telling others that they think the campaign is wrong. In short they have no integrity.

Integrity is something Colin Allen has in spades – We, at The Rebuttal, salute him.

I love finding quotes on the Internet. Something happens that stirs my intellect and I like to see if other minds have thought along similar lines. What one finds is that their thought processes and feelings are very rarely unique. If you have thought it, you can bet that at some time in history its been thought before by someone, somewhere. Recently I have watched on as two of our peak bodies have squabbled. I have watched on as the masses made themselves heard on the cinema access issues but were ignored by our so called leaders. Of late I have thought much about leadership.I have questioned my own leadership and also the leaders around me.

Some guy, obviously famous, but who I have never heard of – Lao Tzu – said of leadership, “A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.” This quote struck me because it pretty much sums up the Cinema Access Campaign. One person spoke out on the AHRC website to protest the cinema industries application for exemption to Disability Discrimination complaints and a few hundred more followed. The end result of this first voice of protest was that last week the Australian Human Rights Commission threw out the Cinema Industries application for exemption. Whoever this person was is a true leader.

One would be hard pressed to remember who that first voice was but it does not matter. The voice of that person created momentum. Others came on board to add weight to the arguments. The emotions were stirred. The energy was created. In the end the result was a  massive win for the people – Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing, blind and vision impaired- who were offended and angered by the Cinema Industry’s inability, nae, unwillingness to recognise their right to access and, worse, to recognise the significant market that these people represent.

In winning this first battle for better access to the cinema we all had to make a sacrifice. The 35 cinemas that were going to be fitted out for captioning and audio description will now, in all probability,  not be fitted out. One can imagine that the Cinema industry will now  retreat, tail between its legs and in retaliation actually do less than they already are. Not that it was much anyway.

Another author, completely unknown to me -David Kenyon, said, ” Those things which are precious are saved only by sacrifice.” What is precious here is dignity. What is also precious is fairness. The people that protested in the Cinema campaign protested not so much for cinema access but for dignity and fairness. Australia’s hugely rich Big 4 cinemas were telling some 4 to 5 million Australian’s with a hearing or vision loss that they were a burden and not worth investing in. This is demonstrated by the fact that they were only willing to invest .0125 % of their total profit in creating access for this significant market.

These people sacrificed what paltry access they were being offered to send a message to the Big 4 cinemas, to send a message to the Australian Human Rights Commission and to send a message to society that they were fed up being ignored, that they were fed up of being treated like charity cases and that they would no longer be treated without dignity. The sacrifice was access to the cinema but only FOR NOW. The clear message is that it is time for the cinemas to take us all seriously because we are no longer going to be trodden all over. The real fight has just begun.

The real tragedy of all this is that our leaders in the sector actually ignored the overwhelming voice of the people it represented. Some of these leaders have now seen the light and are backing the masses but some still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the clear message that the people that they represent are screaming – this message is that they want REAL ACCESS, they want REAL RECOGNITION of their rights and above all they want to be treated with DIGNITY. That this message was at first ignored by our leaders was and is a disgrace.

Oscar Wilde, who I actually know of, said, “Those who lead the people can only do so by following the mob.” It is a message that our leaders could do well to heed. This is not to say that the mob cant be wrong, it can, but to constantly deny  the voice of the mob is not democracy, its dictatorship.  And dictatorship, said Stephen Vizinczey,  “is a constant lecture in instructing you that your feelings, your thoughts and your desires are of no account, that you are a nobody and must live as your are told by other people who desire and think for you.” Just for the record, I don’t know who he is either!

Congratulations to all who were part of the Cinema Access Campaign. Your voice and your commitment could well be the changing of the guard!

This is a short note to inform you, that The Rebuttal has been compromised, and may have infected  visitors machines with malware.

Please check your machines for any signs of infection, and take steps to remove them.

You can download a free Malware removal tool MALWAREBYTE’S at www.malwarebytes.org. Install this software and then run an update.

It is important that you do a FULL SYSTEM scan, to remove all instances of malware infection.

We apologise for any inconvenience, and would like to thank Liam Blakers for bringing this mater to our attention.
Malwarebytes
http://www.malwarebytes.org
Malwarebytes is a site dedicated to fighting malware. Malwarebytes has developed a variety of tools that can identify and

Malwarebytes

http://www.malwarebytes.org

Malwarebytes is a site dedicated to fighting malware. Malwarebytes has developed a variety of tools that can identify and remove malicious software from your computer. When your computer becomes infected, …