• I woke up from a bad dream last night. I dreamt that I was watching television. Bolt had just run like lightening and secured the 200m sprint. In my dream he ran it it in 3.4 seconds. Dreams are like that you know. He had celebrated by shaking his thang as only a Jamaican can do and it cut to an Ad .. A community services announcement.

    The Ad had a child, boy or girl I cannot recall. The child was signing on the screen. Looking rather sad. The dialogue went something like this:

    ” This is how i used to communicate” (Signing in stilted Auslan)

    There was then a flash, fire works and inspiring music. (Weirdly enough in my dreams i am never deaf)

    Then in a loud and beautiful voice the child speaks:

    “Now there is a better way! – Donate to us and make sure all kids speak like me!”

    I woke up in horror. It was just a dream. Things like that just did not happen in the real world and then I remembered. My dream, although in dream state and slightly exagarrated, had actually happened. The emails on my computer were sad proof of that. The dream resulted directly from reading them.

    I fear being sued so I cannot name the organisation, but an organisation somewhere in Australia has actually put an Ad on television that mirrors my dream, albeit without the special effects – thank god! But it is true, someone has had the gall to create an advertisement to raise money for an organisation that suggests that signing is ann undignified way to communicate, a lesser means of existing. The Ad suggests that if you donate money we can do away with sign language forever – “Speech is the future, give your money to us to make this possible.” (Authors words – not those of the Ad)

    Now I have not seen the Ad, I am only going on what I have been told. But if the Ad mirrors what my emails have told me then the creators and the organisation that allowed it to go to air need to bow their head in shame. I showed the emails to my wife, she was utterly speechless.

    When will this sort of garbage stop. When will professionals acknowledge the beauty the worth and benefits of sign language. When will they look at the research and acknowledge that sign language actually assists the acquisition of speech and does not hinder it. And more importantly when will they accept and stop oppressing people who are Deaf and who exist in perfect harmony with our society.

    Deaf people from the state where this Ad is being shown, if the Ad is as bad as it sounds, PLEASE, PLEASE complain for all you are worth. This Ad is a step back to the dark ages, MIlan has raised its ugly head. Stop the world now please, I want to get off!

  • I missed out on a job last week. It was to head a disability advocacy organisation. I was beaten by the proverbial Manchester United of Advocates. In comparison I am just Championship League material. More like a Preston North End .. Knocking on the door constantly but not quite making the grade. My conqueror, on the other hand, probably is on first name terms with the Prime Minister … such are her credentials. I dare say it was a far gone conclusion before we were even interviewed. No shame in losing to someone of this calibre. I am the worlds worst loser, so its just as well the successful applicant was so good.  Before going on I apologise to all readers with no knowledge of the English Premier League. A lot of the above will make no sense at all.

    I didn’t help myself by crashing my computer, losing my application, catching flu, redoing everything at the last minute and then sending the wrong documents, not just once, but twice. I must have come across as an eccentric dodderer. What really struck me though is just how heavily involved the successful applicant was in the Disability sector. I thought that I was too after 20 years, but one look at the successful applicant’s involvement in the Disability sector and it was obvious that, although I am experienced, I am primarily seen as a Deaf/hearing impaired advocate with some involvement in the disability area.

    This got me thinking about the general view of Deaf people, who are members of the Deaf community, towards the topic of disability. Deaf people, (With a capital D), are well known for feeling uncomfortable with the Disability label. They prefer to be known as a linguistic and cultural minority. Indeed it is the case that they largely are. BUT society in general still finds it hard to understand why Deaf people see themselves this way.

    It does not help that the Deaf sector quite happily apply for and receive funding from the Disability sector. Largely the organisations that serve the Deaf community exist on Disability money. Fundraising is often done by Deaf sector organisations using Disability themes and messages. Deaf Australia, the so called battison of the Deaf community, receive Disability funding too. It is no wonder that society, as a whole, is confused by the “We are not disabled” message put forward by the Deaf sector.

    Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the cultural and linguistic claims of the Deaf community. It is just that the Deaf community cannot seem to sell this message to the larger community. Many people in the larger community feel that the Deaf sector is hypocritical to willingly take Disability money while claiming, at the same time, that they are not disabled. In the defence of the Deaf sector, if they didn’t take the money they would be dead and buried because the Multicultural Sector certainly will not provide the sort of money needed to exist that the disability funding will.

    Recently I had a meeting as a representative of Deaf Sport Recreation Victoria. We were discussing inclusion for people with disabilities in sport. At the meeting were representatives from other major disability sporting groups. As a whole the disability sporting groups preferred to be fully integrated as much as possible. Wheel Chair Sports, for example, prefer their major competitions to be scheduled as part of the normal mainstream competitions. They would still compete against other wheelchair athletes, but their competition would be a part of the normal mainstream event. Other Disability sport groups prefer this sort of set up too.

    Now as a representative of the Deaf community I felt compelled to point out that the Deaf community had a different view. Deaf sport prefers to be separate from the mainstream. The Deaf community prefer their own events where its solely a Deaf event. I took pains to point out that this was not anything to do with not wanting to be involved with people with a disability but was rather to do with a cultural and social values that are an integral part of the Deaf community. I don’t think I explained it very well because other participants in the meeting gave me some strange looks. It was very hard to tell the disability groups that I fully supported and understood their want to be be fully integrated into mainstream events while, at the same time, not wanting to be involved myself.

    This is an ongoing problem for Deaf sports. They do not want to be part of the Paralympics. They want to retain and maintain their own competitions. Deaf Sports Australia has an ongoing battle to convince the government of a view that is very different to that of disability groups. Deaf people getting together is like a gathering of a like minded cultural group. Similar to, for example, the Jewish Games. The government sees Deaf people as a disability group. They can not understand why Deaf people do not want to be part of something as massive and successful as the Paralympics.

    Disabled groups don’t seem to understand it either. One wonders if the Deaf community is being seen as elitist and separatist. They are not, of course, but one wonders if this is the inherent view. The skillset for competing in sport for Deaf people is not all that different from the mainstream. Perhaps they need to be more visual, but really they compete in pretty much the same way as able bodies athletes. An amputee or a wheelchair athlete is different. The skills they have developed to compete in their chosen sport are awesome and elite. The balance is different, the timing is different and often even the rules are different. For Deaf people sport happens pretty much as for any able bodied person.

    The difference is in the social and linguistic interaction that occurs. The social and linguistic interaction is a thing of great value. It is something that Deaf people want to retain and maintian. And so it should. BUT convincing the powers that be and other Disability sporting groups of the cultural and linguistic need is not something the Deaf community has fully succeeded in achieving.

    Sport aside – Deaf people, outside of the Deaf community, are largely disabled. Mainstream society is largely not accessible to them. Indeed they are only Deaf, (with a capital D), when they are in the Deaf community. In mainstream society they face many barriers for access, pretty much like other disabled groups. They are not Deaf but deaf! Access to good education, access to communication and even access needs for transport  are all things they have in common with Disability groups. Transport? I hear you all say … Well the deaf person who has not missed a train, plane or caught the wrong bus because they didn’t have access to public announcements is a very rare individual indeed.

    There is much to be gained by being more fully involved in the Disability sector. There is much to be gained in identifying key themes of access to lobby for as part of the Disability sector rather than going it alone. Yet all to often Deaf people have to be dragged in, kicking and screaming, to the Disability table. It is hard enough to get Deaf Australia to even cooperate with Deafness Forum, let alone to get them to see the value in being more fully involved in the Disability sector.

    Let’s be fair, it is not just Deaf people that struggle with the Disability label. The Disability sector has trouble with it as well. It’s a generally despised word. Full of negative perceptions and vibes. I am forever attending meetings where people do not want to use the word. You can’t, for example, call a young kid at school disabled. It’s not cool. You have to come up with some cool term … “Differently Abled” – “A person with varying  Abilities” – Some one with a Learning Disability is “Learning Challenged”. A Dwarf is a “Short Statured Person”.

    Amazingly I find that these PC terms that people come up with are usually created by people who do not have a disability and are trying to find a nice way to describe people with disabilities. By and large people with disabilities have no problems with the term disabled. You ask someone that can’t see what they want to be called and most will say vision impaired or Blind. They will let out a deep sigh of frustration if you call them visually challenged. I met a short statured person recently and asked him what term he prefers …”Me?”, he said, “Call me a midget, otherwise I am Peter Short”

    That is my experience. People with disabilities are less obsessed with the words and labels than people who do not have a disability. “Take the Dis out of Disability”, “What the hell is normal anyway?” are slogans that, I am betting, were created by sensitive people who do not have a disability. My view is that the majority of us people with a disability wish society would get over coming up with PC terms and get on with providing the money that is needed for access. Deaf or disabled – Access is needed by us all!

  • Road Kill

    I am a South Australian. My career in Deafness started there at, the then, Royal South Australian Deaf Society. It was a fantastic place to work. The friendships I made there last til this day. Hell, I nearly married the receptionist there! I have nothing but fond memories of the place and often yearn for those care free days when I was an aspiring social worker out to make my mark.

    People have been emailing me about the place lately. It seems there are a few unhappy people in South Australia who, like me, remember what the Royal South Australian Deaf Society once was. One wag has emailed me and said that the place has become an embodiment of ROAD KILL. He urged me to check out the website, so I did. And there, right before me, was a picture of Road Kill.

    Not so much an animal, but an insect. On my screen was the new logo. The Royal South Australian Deaf Society is no more. Its name was changed some time ago to Deaf SA by an administration that brought the place to its knees. It is now known as Deaf Can Do and its logo is a butterfly. One that looks incredibly like it has been squashed on a car windscreen. Take a look yourself at this link.   http://www.deafcando.org.au/

    I guess it is a matter of opinion, but the butterfly looks as if it has been squashed and is oozing yellow goo. The yellow goo is supposed to be the map of South Australia. My friend, the wag, believes it is Road Kill – And I am sorry to say I have to agree.

    Road Kill aside there seems to be some disenchantment with the changes that have happened to the dear old Deaf Society. I am told, via email, that there is a core of people who find the logo childish. That it makes this once proud organisation seem like a page out of Winnie the Poo. They feel the identity of the organisations has been changed without consultation with the Deaf Community. They feel pushed aside and ignored. The affinity that they once felt for the organisation has been destroyed. I am sure that Deaf Can Do will dispute this strongly, but nevertheless these are the sentiments being expressed to me.

    This is one view. The other view is that the logo and name change is fresh and professional. The name CAN DO has apparently been researched and is a viewed as a positive name likely to attract funds. Fundraising, of course, is incredibly competitive. The new fresh logo and name change will help the organisation be noticed and promote positive vibes. It is a release from the negative recent past, a new start.

    There is another more sinister argument. This argument states that the Royal South Australian Deaf Society has been taken over. A few years ago Townsend House, also known as Can Do 4 Kids, rescued the Deaf Society from what seemed like certain closure. There was an uproar then. A fear that that the iconic home of the Deaf Community, building 262, would be sold and the Deaf Society swallowed up in Townsend House.

    The community were told, at that time, not to worry. Townsend House only wanted to help. The relationship between the Deaf Society and Townsend House was a partnership, a sharing of resources and talent. Building 262, they said, would never be sold. The SA Deaf Community, on being told this, breathed a collective sigh of relief.

    Yet now the Deaf Society has a new name Deaf Can Do, incredibly similar to the name Can Do 4 Kids. The butterfly that is now the logo for Deaf Can Do was apparently stolen from the top of the little girl that makes up the logo of CanDo4Kids. True, it’s a very different butterfly. It’s alive for a start.

    Everything seems to be aligned to CanDo4Kids. Have we witnessed a bloodless coup? Have we witnessed a silent takeover despite assurances that the Deaf Society would remain independent? Only time will tell.

    People have written into me and asked me to write something about this. I have encouraged them to write something themselves and promised to publish it in The Rebuttal. Some can’t because of who they are, some wont because they fear backlash, some wont because they are all talk and no action – Whispering in the background achieves nothing so I have chosen to publicise what people are saying, but not willing to own.

    The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding. The new name and logo may turn out to be a resounding success. Butterflies are deaf after all, especially dead one.

    It may well be the powers that be are positioning themselves to take over the Deaf Society. They will argue that it is not financially viable, they will argue that a streamlined administration and fundraising department will decrease competition and provide more much needed fundraising. Whatever they argue though, you can bet the Deaf community will be passive bystanders, not knowing what is going on or what is happening because no one is telling them and worse, no one is asking them what they want.

    All I can say is be alert and ask plenty of questions.  You might not get any answers, but don’t be caught off guard as you were the last time Building 262 nearly hit the dust!

  • I am a liar and a fake. I lie and fake on a daily basis as do many deaf people. It’s what I do when I can’t be bothered with communication. Sometimes the effort of lip-reading and intense concentration involved with communicating with hearing peers is a drag. So rather than make this effort I lie and I fake. If you are deaf I am betting THAT YOU DO TOO!!

    It happens everywhere. Where I work there are thousands of people walking around everyday. They come from all walks of life. From overseas, from up the road from regional Victoria … you name it we have it. At least four times a week someone will stop me, lost in the vastness of the campus and ask for directions. Now sometimes it is a simple ask like, “Where’s the loo?” and sometimes it’s more elaborate and detailed like, “..Where is the X room in the Y building?”

    Now generally I can assist but from time to time I get an Asian person asking for directions. Now I am not racist but I can not lip-read many Asian accents. Some Malaysian student will come up and ask me a question and I just will not understand them. So I fake it and answer, “No idea mate, the office will be able to help you.” And point them to the office. Sometimes they give me weird looks. They probably asked something like, “What’s your name?” and I answer, “No idea mate, the office will know.”

    McDonalds and any like fast-food place are the pits. It’s noisy and the person serving you just can not accept your order. You specifically say what you want and they ask if you want more. “Large chips?”, “would you like an upsize?”, “Desert with that?” -It’s worse than the Spanish inquisition. On occasions I will fake it, look a my son and say, “What do you reckon?” This is a mistake because he will always say “Yes”, “Large” and “More”. The consequence is I end up spending 20 bucks more than I intend to!

    Then of course when you have ordered they have to repeat your order to you. It’s noisy in McDonalds you know. I have a deaf voice and have trouble monitoring my volume in noisy areas. I either scream or whisper but very rarely get the right volume for the moment. What this means is I am often misunderstood. The person serving me will read back my order of a Big Mac with a large fries as a “Kids pack and an apple pie” I of course – fake it and nod vigorously. Mind you its fun to play with the toys. I guess you reap what you sow.

    I am a liar and a fake – My question to my fellow deaf folk out there is – ARE YOU?

  • Sometimes you have something on your mind that you just have to get out. It sits there and bothers you when you should be focusing on other things like work or that short four foot putt that you need to sink. Today is one of those days. Perhaps I really need to get a life because surely there are nicer and more exciting things to worry about than what I am about to offload.

    I was chatting the other day with a group of friends about our representative Deaf and hearing impaired organisations. We have two – Deafness Forum and Deaf Australia. These two organisations are like chalk and cheese yet are almost essentially the same. DF represent a whole range of issues including hearing health, parents, education, access, Deaf people, captions, hearing technology and anything else under the sun that comes under the banner of “hearing loss:. Deaf Australia represents the Deaf community and issues that affect them. Most of them include exactly what DF represent with the exception in that they focus solely on the Deaf community, the rights of the Deaf community and protecting Auslan – these issues they OWN and protect like a rabid dog with a bone.

    …..these issues they OWN and protect like a rabid dog with a bone.

    DF of course claim to represent everything that DA do too. DA doesn’t want DF to represent anything to do with the Deaf community. For DA they would rather DF focus on hearing health and that stuff and leave anything to do with the Deaf community to them. The problem is “Hearing Health and that stuff” often overlap and include the Deaf community. For example Deaf people wear hearing aids and want access to them and repairs throughout their life. DF represents that argument and DA SHOULD represent it too. Other issues that overlap include education, captioning, communication access and so on. The two organisations represent Deaf and hearing impaired people on nearly all issues bar say hearing loss prevention and tinnitus. On the latter I am sure there are Deaf people that suffer from tinnitus, so maybe that overlaps too.

    Now DA want DF to take a running jump on anything that is relevant to Auslan. Auslan, say DA, is their domain SOLELY. DA want DF to leave Auslan alone to the point of removing reference to Deaf people in their constitution. DA would like a clause in the DF constitution that acknowledges Auslan and Deaf people as the SOLE domain of DA.

    DF will not do this. They rightly point out that they have Deaf members too. They argue that too many of the issues overlap. That much of what they advocate affects Deaf people as well as hearing Impaired and blah blah blah we have an impasse. Neither organisation will budge and US, the tax paying Deaf and hearing impaired people of Australia, watch in bewilderment as the two organisations war with each other. “Its MINE” says one president – “ITS OURS TOO” says the other – and the two children continue their squabble ad-infinitum.

    I can’t claim from this quick glance at the websites of these organisations to understand the politics that go on within them

    I wonder if Australia is the only place in the world that is like this. I took the liberty of goggling deaf advocacy in England, Canada and America. I came up with organisations like the Royal Association of the Deaf in the UK, Orange County Deaf Advocacy in the US and the Canadian Deaf Legal and Advocacy Services. I picked all these at random. Not ONE, I repeat not ONE, represented only Deaf or only hearing impaired people. The advocacy services of these organisations covered the broad spectrum of Deaf and hearing impaired issues.

    I can’t claim from this quick glance at the websites of these organisations to understand the politics that go on within them BUT at a glance they seem to quite happily blend the needs of the various groups into one compact service.

    I would not be so naive to assume that these organisations are without their conflicts. I am sure there are plenty of disagreements within. It just seems that everywhere I look that advocacy agencies around the world have managed to put political differences aside, find some common ground and advocate for the needs off both the Deaf and hearing impaired successfully. Perhaps Bill Shorten should give DF and DA some money to jointly research how these agencies operate successfully with the view of doing the same in Australia. As it stands it just seems so much time and money are being spent by DF and DA duplicating each other.

    I am well aware of past injustices to the Deaf community. Timothy, on the now defunct AAD Discussion page, was fond of evoking the spectrum of the Milan conferences in the 1880’s. I am well aware of the battle that people like Colin Allen and Robert Adam fought to have the Deaf community and Auslan recognised. I am also well aware that these gains were hard fought and that the Deaf community are rightly suspicious and slightly mistrusting lest these hard earned gains be lost. However, smart individuals and organisations learn from past mistakes and move forward and find better ways to meet the needs of their target groups.

    The current situation between DF and DA has gone beyond a joke. Bill Shorten and his head Minister, (Is it Jenny Maklin?) should tell the two of them to get together and sort it out. They should tell them “SORT IT OUT OR WE WILL FOR YOU” All they need to do is learn some lessons from the past and move forward. If DA and DF can not do this then the only losers are US, the long suffering, tax paying and bewildered Deaf and hearing impaired individuals of Australia.


  • “Excellent work as usual. I think there was some mention some time ago about providing this forum in Auslan for those who struggle with English as their second language. My understanding is that there are still a large proportion of the Deaf Community who are finding the articles too “English” to follow. At this stage do you have a timeline for when the Auslan version of the Rebuttal will become available?” Mark Quinn
    A simple email such as this was the catalyst to finally get The Rebuttal translated into Auslan. We replied to Mark that we were all volunteers and asked if he would assist us. He, of course, was only too willing. Not only that, he asked Vicdeaf if they would be willing to help with the translations of The Rebuttal. Vicdeaf kindly agreed and to top this, they even made their studio available to produce the video. We at The Rebuttal can not thank Mark and Vicdeaf enough. We also need to thank James Blyth and Cheryl Sandilands, interpreting staff of Vicdeaf, who provided their skills for the videos.
    The Rebuttal team had been aware for sometime that the E-zine was not accessible to many of its readers. A fair proportion of people on our mailing list have some difficulty with reading English. The reasons are many but it is a fact of life that many Deaf people leave school with below average literacy. Many have good literacy but not quite the extensive vocabulary of their hearing peers.
    This happens because people who have a hearing loss (Deaf and hearing impaired) do not have the same ability to “overhear” as their hearing peers. Overhearing the conversations of our peers, listening to talk back on radio, watching media on TV /Internet or simply listening to chatter on the bus all contribute to expanding a person’s vocabulary and social awareness. People with a hearing loss, for obvious reasons, miss out on this. Couple this with a lousy education system for the deaf and you have a recipe for low literacy.


    A simple email such as this was the catalyst to finally get The Rebuttal translated into Auslan.

    Of course literacy levels vary. Some Deaf people have excellent literacy and some do not. One can never assume. It is therefore vital that when we produce media such as The Rebuttal, we think of ways to make it accessible to as many people as possible.
    It is a challenge that is not easily met. Money, time and lack of knowledge of the technology that enables access are all reasons why it is difficult. But it’s not impossible! If a free and voluntary publication like The Rebuttal can provide it, in partnership with a willing organisation such as Vicdeaf, then our richer multi-million dollar friends certainly can. Perhaps resources need to be channelled into more important priorities??
    But how far do we go? It is naive to believe that providing access to The Rebuttal in Auslan will suddenly provide access to all our readers. Like with English, the Auslan skills of Deaf people vary. Many learn Auslan later in life and it is their second language. Many who learnt Auslan as a second language also have English literacy issues. So for them the Rebuttal in Auslan can be a double whammy!
    The Auslan used in The Rebuttal videos is sophisticated. It does not “dumb down” The Rebuttal. The translations largely catch the nuances and meaning of the written English version. BUT unless you are proficient in Auslan to a high standard, the Auslan versions can be difficult to follow. Some recognised proficient Auslan users have commented that they needed to watch the videos two or three times to catch the full meaning. They have commented that they were fortunate to have good language development to help them with their understanding.
    Sadly this is not the case for many Deaf people in Australia. Whilst the Auslan versions of The Rebuttal provide access for more people there are still those that will not have full access. What is the next step – a plain English version? Do we, as volunteers, have the capacity to do all of this? Will plain English be able to convey the subtle nuances and messages of the language used in The Rebuttal? Or worse would a plain English version been seen as patronising to the reader and “dumbing down” The Rebuttal?
    Is it really feasible for us to be considering providing access to everyone? Indeed a few people have bemoaned to us that there is far too much emphasis placed on Auslan in the deafness sector. Auslan users make up a very small proportion of the “hearing loss” population in Australia. Despite this it seems that near on 100% of recent funding for communication access from the government has been directed towards Auslan users.
    In recent times we have seen $18 million provided for Auslan interpreters to private medical appointments through the National Auslan Booking Scheme (NABS). We then had $5 million directed to the pathetic program called the Auslan for Employment Scheme (AFE). This for a population of Auslan users that is, at most, 25 000. The reality is that the number of people that will use Auslan interpreters regularly is probably half of this.
    It is great, the AFE aside, that this funding has been provided but it beggars belief that somehow our advocates and the Government have failed to see communication access on a larger scale. There are millions of hearing impaired people who require access to communication at the doctor, at work, for job interviews, for counselling and so on. Yet despite this we continue to see the topic of communication access in isolation.

    The puzzling thing has always been why NABS is limited to medical appointments and Auslan.

    It would make sense for a service like NABS to focus and fund other means of accessible communication. A patient could, in theory, attend a doctor’s appointment with a laptop or PDA. The doctor would link up to a captioning service through the phone and what the doctor says to the patient can be relayed through the internet to the laptop or PDA. The puzzling thing has always been why NABS is limited to medical appointments and Auslan. Why not expand it to other communication means? Why not add employment to the scope of services that NABS can cover and do away with the worthless AFE? In this way we could fund communication access to work meetings, professional development, interviews and so on.
    It is so very important that our Deafness sector organisations work closely together to identify key issues. It makes no sense to have separate Auslan funding when we are talking about such a broad issue as communication access. Communication access is the same thing – even if the mode is different. A simple and open partnership based on respect between The Rebuttal and Vicdeaf is providing access to many of our readers. Perhaps our Deafness sector advocates need to take this on board.

    We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.
    Martin Luther King

  • I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. The beginning of thought is in disagreement — not only with others but also with ourselves. You’ve got to rattle your cage door. You’ve got to let them know that you’re in there, and that you want out. Make noise. Cause trouble. You may not win right away, but you’ll sure have a lot more fun. In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. You do not become a “dissident” just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society. (This paragraph has been formulated using quotes from – Beatrice Hall, Hoffer, Kennedy, Orwell and Havel)

    A couple of wags decided to post some satirical songs on the Australian Association of the Deaf Discussion page. Those of us in the know knew who the songs were about and found them amusing. The songs suggested that resources of the organisation which could be better used to support people who are Deaf and hearing impaired were being used for other not so important purposes. They suggested that services and staff support were not getting enough priority. An excess of travel by the CEO was cited as a large part of the reason.

    One suspects that there was more than an element of truth in the statements and this was probably the major motivator for preventing them being heard and seen.

    AAD have now closed the Discussion Page to the general public. To contribute individuals now have to be a financial member of AAD. Closure occurred to protect AAD’s reputation and to avoid possible legal action . Apparently challenging the practices of an individual or organisation using satire is akin to slander. Of course closing the Discussion Page does nothing to prevent satire/slander, it just makes it harder for people to comment, to question and to challenge. Making the user pay for the Discussion Page makes the more cynical among us see it as a nothing more than a clever fundraising initiative.

    According to some, to dissent now means to slander. What rubbish! Dissent, if you are not aware, means disagreement with the philosophy, methods, goals, etc, of a political party or government. This is one of many meanings, but for the purpose of this article it is the most appropriate. Slander is, legally, an untruthful oral (spoken) or written statement about a person that harms the person’s reputation or standing in the community***. Certainly voicing dissent to the policies of an individual within an organisation and suggesting these policies were very wrong could harm that person’s or that organisations reputation. This is not in dispute. The question is whether the actual statements were untruthful. One suspects that there was more than an element of truth in the statements and this was probably the major motivator for preventing them being heard and seen.

    Many years ago I was involved in an act of dissent as a member of the South Australian Association of the Deaf. At that time there was, we felt, misinformation going out to the public about the benefits of hearing aids. The person responsible for the misinformation was speaking at a function. SAAD organised a protest outside the function. We had support from a prominent organisation. They provided us with all the resources we needed and a mini bus to get protesters there. I vividly recall how empowered we all felt. We got outstanding radio and TV coverage. A few people were upset at this act of dissent but it was a VERY effective means to bring attention to the issue.

    Surely there is a better way to deal with something like this than preventing discussion on the issue? What is wrong with explaining the policy of the organisation, challenging the views of the dissenters and having an open and honest debate? It seems debate is too hard and dissenters a pain in the neck. Caroline Wilson, The Age Footy correspondent was recently the butt of sexist jokes on The Footy Show. Her response is an excellent and dignified example of responding to controversy. (Ironically in her case slander actually occurred). Click on the link to read it. Wilson’s calm and dignified response to a sensitive topic is a lesson to us all.
    Wilson’s article

    Martin, ( http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/93nw.html ) writes widely on the need for Dissent. He tells the tale of engineers on the Space Shuttle, The Challenger, who tried to bring attention to design flaws in the Space Shuttle. Their superiors, for reasons known only to themselves, suppressed the views of these engineers. The engineers were eventually forced to conform and remain silent with tragic consequences, the Shuttle blew up. Martin believes that the only thing more dangerous than censoring dissent is individuals who simply conform so as to not cause trouble or to avoid trouble for themselves. He calls this self censorship.

    Martin’s example of the engineers who warned of problems with the Space Shuttle and were kept quiet is a tragic example of dissent suppressed. The problems that they identified ultimately led to the Challenger Shuttle blowing up with the loss of lives. This could have been avoided simply through openly listening and debating the issues. But instead the all systems go approach and the “I know what I am doing” philosophy won over. What was the result? BOOOOOOOM!!! Sadly, in the case of the Challenger, it probably had more to do with saving money than with common sense.

    The articles that sadly led to the demise of AAD Discussion Page clearly had impact. If individuals felt aggrieved by them they only needed to put forward their own views

    Martin explains that a common tool for suppressing dissent is the threat of legal action through defamation. Actual defamation cases are apparently very rare. The threat of being sued for defamation is often enough to make people shut up shop and say no more. If the dissenter has a truthful and valid argument, defamation is hard to argue in the courts. However, the threat of defamation and the costs involved if the case gets to court are usually enough to prevent people speaking out. Martin believes that in most cases defamation threats are never carried out because they bring with them negative publicity that is best avoided. It is a sad fact of life that legal threats, more and more, are being used to silence dissenters in areas of the deafness sector. These threats are nothing more than a form of censorship.

    It would be so easy to blame the dissenters for the closure of the AAD Discussion Page to the public. It is so easy to classify the dissenters as trouble makers. But people usually only dissent when all avenues to be heard are exhausted. To be heard they will use a variety of tactics to get attention including, but not limited to, humour, satire, anger and controversy. They do this not to cause trouble but because they are committed to the cause. One can only admire them for their desire to be heard. Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy and is what makes Australia what it is today. Why should this be any different for the Deaf and Hearing impaired?

    The articles that sadly led to the demise of the AAD Discussion Page clearly had impact. If individuals felt aggrieved by them they only needed to put forward their own views. Sadly they took the easy way out – they chose censorship.

    Ultimately this will achieve nothing except more frustration and more anger. As the late and great George Bernard Shaw once said “ ..All censorships exist to prevent any one from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions.” Sad but true. So much, in fact, that there is almost nothing left to say that is permissible!

    If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
    Desmond Tutu

  • David

    David walked into his classroom and sat down. Around him there was a bustle of chatter. Richard and Adrian had their heads locked closely together in an obvious conspiracy. Debra and Meg whispered and giggled as they gossiped over the latest school yard romance. David watched everyone in animated chatter. He understood none of it. His head was filled with the noise of the class room. Screeching chairs, tapping pencils and a cacophony of mingling but indecipherable voices. The teacher entered the room and there was silence. A final screech of chairs and a tap of pens on desks, the class came to attention and the lesson was underway.

    Today’s lesson was Australian History. Mr Isterling had forgotten to attach the FM microphone again. David had dutifully placed it on his desk. All it required was for David to put his hand up and ask Mr Isterling to attach it. But, hell, David has to ask him to do it nearly every lesson. He couldn’t be bothered today. It always meant he had to speak and bring attention to himself. David was very conscious of his deaf voice. Every time he spoke he sensed his class mates whispering around him. He was sure that they were whispering about him. No! David would leave things as they were.

    Mr Isterling spoke, “Today’s lesson …will …learn …… turn to page ….pa….” Dutifully the class opened their books and turned to the correct page. David furtively looked over Peter’s shoulder to see which page he was reading. Peter, knowing that David was unsure which part he had to read, pointed to the paragraph they were supposed to be reading. The paragraph was quite interesting. It was about the development of the Australian larrikin trait. Reading was always David’s favourite part of a lesson. He understood most of what was on the page, interaction was minimal. It was just David and the book.

    He would not know what to answer. He would look stupid. He dug his nails into the palms of his hands.

    David was engrossed until Peter gently nudged him. Mr Isterling was talking again. David had not heard him. He realised his battery had gone flat. There were batteries in his pencil case. All it required was for David to insert the battery into his hearing aid. But this would mean that David would have to fumble with his ear in what he considered an uncool way. He was sure that when he did so everyone in the class stared at him in fascination. Apart from the odd glance they didn’t really, but David’s anxiety was very real.

    Without the benefit of his hearing aid David had to rely totally on lip-reading. With his hearing aid he could hear some things and his lip-reading helped him to understand some of what he heard. At best David understood about 30% of what his teacher said. Without his hearing aid this percentage was drastically reduced. Without the benefit of his hearing aid, coupled with Mr Isterling’s bushy beard, he understood nothing. David found himself developing a cold sweat. He was sure the teacher was going to ask him a question. He would not know what to answer. He would look stupid. He dug his nails into the palms of his hands.

    Suddenly the class erupted into laughter. Paul, the class clown, had made a joke. Even Mr Isterling chuckled and Mr Isterling was not known for his sense of humour. Peter, next to David, was beside himself with mirth. David looked around the class and smiled. He laughed too. He did not know why, but the laughter was infectious. Anyway, he didn’t want it to seem as if he had not got the joke.

    Mr Isterling put on a video. It was about the Great Depression. Phar Lap and Donald Bradman figured prominently. Derelict men sat on the streets. Old people were interviewed about their experiences of the Depression. Manning Clark had a lot to say. David knew he was Manning Clark because his name flashed up on the screen. David realised that this was the author of the book that they had been reading. In fact the only parts of the video that David had understood were the names of the people that flashed up on the screen. Captions would have helped but the video was not captioned. David made as much sense as he could of the video over the next 30 minutes.

    Mr Isterling explained the evening homework to the class. David did not understand a word of it. He looked to Peter with a questioning shrug. Peter wrote down for him what they had to do. David was thankful for this because communication with Mr Isterling was nigh on impossible. David usually made up for what he missed in class by reading profusely. This was really his only learning. He received no benefit from classroom discussions or from Mr Isterling.

    His deafness set him apart from his school mates and he hated it. This fear of interaction and unwanted attention was his constant companion.

    On the bus going home from school David sat by himself. He liked to sit at the very back of the bus so he could see everyone in front of him. If he could not get a seat at the back he found himself anxiously looking around. He feared that someone would be talking to him and he would not know. He wondered if they were staring at him, talking about him or making fun of him. Being a teenager he felt a strong desire to fit in. His deafness set him apart from his school mates and he hated it. This fear of interaction and unwanted attention was his constant companion.

    David arrived home from school. “How was your day?”, asked his mother. David answered as he usually did, “Good” His mother smiled. “Teenagers”, she thought to herself, “ are such a surly lot..” David headed to his room and threw his bag in the corner. He lay down on the bed and covered his face with his arms. He was knackered…

  • HEY! the captioning awards are next week. Did you know? On August 23rd, at Rydges in Sydney, there will be a slap up bash. Channel 7, Foxtel, Austar, and the Australian Communication Exchange with support from Deafness Forum will bring us these awards. Captioning has come a long way since the dark old days where the intellectual stimulation for Deaf and hearing impaired people was Neighbours and a few interesting shows on the ABC. We should take the time to celebrate, praise and slap people on the back. But while we do this let’s remember captioning access is far, far from perfect. This in mind I would like to award Prime (7) the captioning award for the Most Aggravating and Stupid Scheduling of Captioning ever in the Western, Eastern or Alien World. (Even though they are a sponsor of the awards)

    I live in rural Ballarat. I watch 24, admittedly an acquired taste. Jack Bauer can never die. He saves the world, his lovers, his children and their pet dogs. His wounds heal in a nanosecond. He shoots people, cuts their throats and loves them the same. His pained and emotional looks whenever he slashes someone’s windpipe is a lesson to us all in how to murder with compassion.

    Jack’s pained looks of failing and guilt were too much to bear. In the background the mushroom cloud rose into the air hauntingly

    In short, 24 is great fun. It is release from a tedious day and quite exciting. Every Wednesday I pressed the remote in anticipation. The momentum and excitement were building and then suddenly, after three weeks, there were no captions. I clicked! 24 came on, no captions, there was an ad break and in this ad break our esteemed and fellow hearing impaired Prime Minister, John Howard, came on to make an announcement. What it was about, I would not know, because, despite government policy to the contrary, it was not captioned. And neither, unfortunately, was the rest of the episode of 24. Not to worry thought I. “A technical problem. Captions will be back next week.” And next week, there they were, captions blessed captions. Jack killed a few more people, but bugger the nuclear bomb went off. It killed thousands. Jack’s pained looks of failing and guilt were too much to bear. In the background the mushroom cloud rose into the air hauntingly.

    “Goodness .. can’t wait for next week” thought I. The next week the time for 24 came, the credits for 24 commenced and .. bugger .. it wasn’t captioned …. I screamed, I literally screamed. Anyway in the ad break that kind old gent John Howard came on again. What it was about I would not know because his announcement was not captioned. And neither was the rest of 24.

    And next week all was back to normal, killing, car chases and the like were all captioned so that I knew of every bang and scream. All was right in the world. And the week after it wasn’t captioned. John came back on with his severe and serious look, no doubt apologising for the lack of captions on 24 – I wouldn’t know because whatever he said was not captioned and neither was the rest of 24. This charade went on for the whole series. John, not to be beaten by mere excitement, even came on the very last episode so that the very last and exciting episode of 24 was not captioned either.

    To add insult to injury whatever the Wally of a PM had to say wasn’t captioned either (Not that I really cared, but still…).

    Was I frustrated? You bet! Was my wife frustrated? You bet! What was this all about? Well apparently the esteemed PM of Australia had bought himself some airtime to make announcements to people in rural areas. In doing so his announcements interrupted the captioned feed from Melbourne that was beamed to rural areas. What this meant was that the rural TV stations provided their own feed and for some reason the copy of 24 that they had did not have captions. To add insult to injury, whatever the Wally of a PM had to say wasn’t captioned either (Not that I really cared, but still…).

    Confused? Well imagine how I felt! But that’s how it went. Every other week, because John Howard had something to say, we missed the captioned feed from Melbourne and the feed coming direct from the rural Prime station did not have captions. We complained, we screamed, we emailed but all to no avail. Media Access Australia said to complain and we did. And then we even complained about having to complain and have nothing happen. And then we simply just screamed. It was the pits!

    So the award goes to – (And guess where my vote won’t go?)

  • Finlay

    untitledFinlay sits at the kitchen table, across from his mother, who is close to tears, and his father who is red faced with anger. He is being blamed for smashing his mother’s favourite perfume bottle against the wall before his parents arrived home. Carrie, Fin’s sister, sits quietly with her other siblings, Aden and Jenny in the lounge. They all know he is in trouble, but only Aden and Jenny can hear the yelling, because Carrie is deaf.

    “But I didn’t do anything,” cries Finlay. “You always blame me for whatever happens.” Neither of his parents believes him. The only other possible culprit is Carrie. His parents are protective of Carrie. Their sorrow and guilt, because of her deafness, will not allow them to accuse her. No, of course, it has to be Fin. Fin gives up protesting. He knows from past experience that he will be punished anyway. He just wants it over and done with.

    Fin and Carrie were born18 months apart. For some unknown reason Fin has become Carrie’s main protector and communicator. Perhaps it is because they were born so close together. Everywhere Fin goes, Carrie follows. Everything Carrie does, Fin has to do too. And if he does not, often his parents will make him. “Don’t be mean”, they will say. “She only wants to play.” He always seems to be feeling guilty.

    Fin and Carrie, over time, have developed their own form of communication. It is a mixture of signs, gestures and oral communication. Fin seems to be forever trying to let Carrie know what is going on around her. When communication with Carrie becomes difficult his parents even ask him to “please explain to Carrie.” Sometimes Fin tires of this interpreting role and will tell Carrie that he will “tell her later.” He doesn’t quite understand why this makes him feel so guilty. He certainly does not often understand Carrie’s anger towards him when he refuses to interpret for her.

    He remembers specific incidents quite clearly that make him feel sometimes that Carrie is like his Siamese twin. This “other” thing that never lets him do the things he wants, never lets him choose his own hobbies, never allows him to have his own friends, never allows him to be as dismissive of Carrie and her needs as everyone else seems to be able to be. He is always her interpreter, her translator, her guide in the world. She is always his responsibility and his family think it is “wonderful” that they are so close. In truth they have a love/hate relationship that is based on dependence and guilt. No-one understands this. They each feel as alone as the other; unable to take comfort in each other because it only seems to reinforce the roles they have been relegated to.

    Carrie was born hearing, but became profoundly deaf at age two through illness. Finlay can still remember being held up to a glass window to see his baby sister lying in an adult bed with nurses completely covered in full length white gowns, caps and masks. At one time Fin thought she had died and the people surrounding her in white gowns were angels taking her to heaven.

    When she came home everything was different. During the day Aden and Jenny were at school and his father was at work. For most of the day it is just Fin, Carrie and their mother. Often friends of their mother will visit. The conversation is always about Carrie. The attention is always on Carrie. Fin never seems to get any attention. He knows it is irrational but this makes him feel strangely resentful and angry towards Carrie. Fin can not make sense of these feelings. Usually when Fin feels this way he has an overpowering sense of guilt. This, in turn, makes him feel more resentful and angry. It is a vicious cycle.

    Sometimes Fin just wants to be angry, to find someone to blame. But who does he blame? Carrie or himself? No, they are just kids, they don’t know what is happening, and are just trying to cope with what they have in front of them. His parents? No, they do what they are told by the professionals. It is the only thing they know at this early stage in Carrie’s life. If Fin knew better he might blame the system, the schools, the bureaucrats and the advisors. It will not be till much later that Fin will understand these issues. Meanwhile Fin is just confused, often angry, powerless and helpless.

    In later years Finlay will witness much of Carrie’s grief and anger. It will be years before he fully understands where this comes from. He will ask himself, “Is it her Deafness, her difference, the communication issues, the way we were raised, the way the system views and treats her, or all of those things, or just Carrie’s natural way?”

    Carrie is watching television. The captions are on but she cannot yet fully understand them. As always she asks Finlay to explain what is going on. Finlay is happy to oblige. He wonders how long it will be until she can fully understand the captions. When will he be allowed to be Finlay, a person without a deaf sister, able to do the things he wants without her around? Fin walks to his bedroom and shuts the door. He pushes his bed across the door barricading it from unwanted intruders. For the next ten minutes he will dream of a life without his sister. There is a knock on his door, it’s Carrie …

    Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future. – John F Kennedy (US President 1961 – 63)