Saturday, 8 April 2017

Are BSL lobbies Anti-Inclusion ?

E.G. SignHealth a charity purported to support deaf people in health issues NEVER defines who these deaf people actually are except they use BSL, none of the BSL groups do now, it is assumed Deaf use BSL, end of.  

As such, others who are deaf or severely so, are not included for use of vital services, this means a division of support, to people with mental health and other issues, simply because they didn't sign.  Do they not suffer enough via mainstream neglect ?  This charity and many other BSL ones insist it is 'simply' providing access for the deaf signer who are neglected by others, so they add to it by neglecting deaf who do not sign well enough for them ?  explain the logic...

The problem is the *charity commission (The UK state recognised Charity overseers and monitoring body),  are accepting the all deaf sign/all signers are cultural gig and ignored the hearing loss aspect.  When ATR queried that with them, the BSL lobby had added 'culture', meaning you could not lobby them for access, without being seen as attacking them, despite there being no statistic to prove who IS cultural and who isn't.  188,000 are declared deaf in the UK, 15,000 insisted in a census they were cultural.

Culture requires no defining, you just need two people doing same things, maybe not even the same way. 15,000 may not be 2 people, but their statistic belies their unilateral claim. Such is the Politically Correct and Liberal approaches of the millineum, everyone is a minority now.  It was game, set, and match, to the extremes.  Such people align the deaf person with cultural minorities, like the Sikh or Urdu speaker...  They lost the fight in wales trying to align BSL with the welsh language as they were not allowed to use BSL there because it was found to be based on English, they then were accused of 'disability discrimination'. They lost that too, so it was a victory of one minority over another,  but it also shows us the duplicity of deaf cultural lobbies using hearing loss AS a disability to try to win the point, when they did not aspire to that. Fraudulent ? or fair game and valid opportunism?

The *CC failed to understand that hearing loss and deafness crosses ALL minorities, indeed all majority, all disabilities, it is wholly democratic and not confined to the BSL user at all, or even all 'Deaf' insisting they belong to an indefinable community of deaf people, simply based on deafness.  The *CC still insists they cannot challenge singular BSL charity aims even when it fails to include others, they are serving a 'minority' not included anywhere else, but this was not true, and undermines the concept of true equality of access, fairness and inclusions, it gave BSL people an opt-out.  It is simply acknowledging loudest voice wins, even when it is abusing equality laws ambiguously for minority gain..

UNLESS support services/charities openly stated 'Deaf AND HoH', they are not circumventing any access laws... this law needs amending so true inclusion is seen to be operating, and not being allowed to drive forward divisions, and separate people by mode used, or decibel lost.  This was the main focus OF instigating equality laws, but seems to have empowered divisionist minorities instead, whom no-one is able to effectively challenge and it is affecting support and funding options for others they don't include anyway causing hardship..

Today there is no attempt whatever to include anyone else.  ATR suggests such dedicated BSL/Culture groups STILL do not provide access for BSL deaf who need captions too, and uses uninformed bias on loss awareness, so Deaf who needed that to avail themselves of services, still could not because their communication format was not the same, despite their hearing loss identical, or they needed more than  one access mode. You signed or were left out. You were then expected to use services designed for others, a setup BSL groups were formed to oppose. Others suffer neglect BY BSL groups, and BY their systems, and charities became legitimised, despite practising division via exclusive sign use, AND by non-signing access approaches.  If isolating the HoH was OK, then fine, isolating the BSL user was fine too.

We are told there is no point in complaining, BSL people have a right to access in their own language, so if people want e.g. captions, or other access, to organise own lobbies.. but this feeds into the non-inclusion gig by isolating access provision by comms used, or decibels lost, a violation of the basis of access and equality campaigning.  Either we are all together for access, or we aren't.

It is not lost on other hearing loss areas, BSL groups still lobby at access to THEIR services, on the same grounds of hearing loss, there is complete inequality of campaigning and huge opportunist bias. Indeed fraudulent lobbies in many respects, dedicated to isolating us all more, for some isolated and preferred 'Deaf' communal choice, they insist they want alternatives and choice, in the mainstream. You have to in it, to win that.  There is no inclusion in isolation, or in a narrowly-defined cultural setup.

It is too easy walking into own prisons and locking yourselves in it by choice, because it is easier than tackling inequality 'out there'.... and like most prisons you get 3 meals a day for free too.... but you cannot expect equality or inclusion using that approach, you are doomed to permanently fighting your corner, and playing the martyr card, at some point you will cry wolf too often... and nobody cares.

No comments:

Post a Comment