Thursday, 11 December 2008
From what little information there is, it doesn't sound as if they have that grassroots empathy with deaf people and thus an understanding of our issues and priorities. Do they know what it's like to be treated as inferior or ignored because you are deaf and/or don't hold the "right" opinions? Do they know what it's like to spend years on the scrapheap? Or to be made to feel that your voice counts for nothing?
If this is yet another extension of paternalism then it won't be enough to say that RNID are not listening to deaf people. It would be fairer to say that they are deliberately ignoring deaf people, even some of their members. After all, we have in many different ways been expressing our discontent about this 'everything about us, without us' approach for years.
If you have any information or comments, please let us know.
Edit: Here's the response from RNID: Of the five trustees, two have hearing loss, one has a deaf brother, one is a Professor of Audiology and the other owns a nightclub chain and has worked with RNID on protection of hearing for his employees and customers.
Whether or not that is satisfactory is, as always, a matter for deaf people. My opinion is that it could be worse, but I would like to see at least a few people from more humble or grass root backgrounds who understand things like disempowerment and unemployment.
Saturday, 6 December 2008
When people talk about the importance of better representation for minorities or women, it’s very clear exactly what they mean – to actually increase the numbers of the relevant people in the places where they are underrepresented. So if there are not enough women or ethnic minorities in Parliament, for example, they will try to increase the numbers.
Yet when it is shown that deaf people are underrepresented in Parliament or even their own organisation, all of a sudden the rules change. All of a sudden it’s not all that important to increase the numbers of the people who are underrepresented. It is now acceptable to water down that principle and have third parties representing us instead. It’s suddenly acceptable to have somebody who is the father, the mother, the grandson, the sister or the brother of a deaf person step in and do it for us. Sometimes the connection is even looser.
So why is there one rule for deaf people and another rule for everybody else? Could it be because some people have decided that we are ‘not good enough’ to represent ourselves? If so, that is not genuine representation, it is paternalism.
If somebody was a true friend of deaf people, wouldn’t they want the same things for deaf people as everybody else? Wouldn’t they want deaf people to have the fishing rod and fish for themselves rather than keep them dependent, throwing little fish at them from time to time? Wouldn’t they want deaf people to do things for themselves, to act and speak on their own behalf?
When Jackie Ballard was in Parliament, she worked to improve the representation of women. She has been described as a feminist and in one website, as ‘one of the driving forces in campaigns to get more women into Parliament.’
Now Ms Ballard is in the best position to do the same thing for deaf people in Parliament and especially at RNID. I hope she will do it.