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

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.

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?)

Welcome to The Rebuttal

The Rebuttal is an independent and community conscious newspaper that raises issues and information for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Australians and those who service and support them.

Comments expressed by the authors of articles in The Rebuttal do not necessarily represents the views of the publishers of The Rebuttal. All views expressed are the sole responsibility of the authors alone.

Paul Creedon on Dissent

The article, The Pursuit of Truth, focuses on a minority perception – but a perception common to many people who are members of, or work with or around community organisations. Community organisations are generally those that have a membership, Boards of Directors and who generally provide services for no profit.

Organisations like the Australian Association of the Deaf (AAD), all of the Deaf Societies, Deafness Forum and thousands of other cultural, disability, environment, sporting and special interest groups operate in this way around Australia.

Usually these community groups are created by people who value different things to the mainstream. They might believe in a different path, assert things are unfair, seek to challenge the way things are to create a better future for themselves and people like them. This ‘difference’ is what they are all about.
So why is it that while these groups live or die based on their success at dissenting with the mainstream community many are so unable to accept or manage dissent in their own ranks? Why do so many exclude people with a different view, who ask different questions, people who challenge, who debate, who dissent?

What is it about us, even when we want to break down an old system, that makes us want to produce a new world that is as intolerant as the old? What is it about these organisations and about us as a species that is so resistant to real openness, and real change?
At the core of this article are those sorts of questions.

Albert Einstein is reputed to have once defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. In other words, if you really want things to change then you have to do things in a different way yourself. The argument as logically applies to organisations as it does to individuals – if an organisation wants a different world then it needs to be a different organisation. If it wants the world to be more inclusive and accepting of its members’ differences, then perhaps it needs to be accepting and inclusive of others as well.

Agree or disagree with the views of this author, we bet that you have felt that your voice hasn’t been listened to by one organisation or another at sometime in the past.

You might have been told “you aren’t a member”, “you will get sued”, “you don’t know what you are talking about”, “you don’t have a right to know” or something similar – we have all heard something like this at sometime in the past.

It’s frustrating, it’s scary, it’s belittling and often it’s just wrong – but more importantly it prevents open discussion and debate. If Deaf/deaf/hearing impaired/HoH (or whatever definition you choose) people are really to have a say in their futures then open debate – of all stakeholders – is the only way.

Unfortunately, the Rebuttal seems to be the only forum that currently allows and encourages that debate. So like always have your say – like this author has!