Monday, 17 June 2019
Do cinema owners have a point,?when she isn't showing a demand for them? My local cinema could only attract 3 deaf people with their access offer. Should hearing wishes for no subtitling be respected too?
A deaf blogger from Wymondham has been told by cinema bosses it is her responsibility to show the demand is there for subtitled movies amid a passionate campaign. Ellie Parfitt has started a campaign for films to show more films using subtitles.
Her online petition has gained more than 11,000 signatures but she feels the cinemas are ignoring her. Ellie Parfitt, 22, started the #SubtitledCinema campaign two years ago, for more films to be shown using subtitles, especially during opening weeks and during peak times. An online petition launched by Miss Parfitt gained more than 11,000 signatures and she even bagged a meeting with the UK Cinema Association last year. But now Miss Parfitt, who is profoundly deaf, feels like she has hit a brick wall with the campaign as major cinema chains Odeon, Cineworld, and Vue only agreed to a small increase - and said it was up to her to prove the demand was there for more screenings.
Miss Parfitt said at one point she was even told hearing people did not want subtitles on films as they were distracting. Ellie Parfitt has started #subtiltledcinema campaign for films to show more films using subtitles. Her online petition has gained more than 11,000 signatures but she feels the cinemas are ignoring her. She said: "They have 100pc choice of which film they see, deaf people don't. If you explained that if this film wasn't subtitled due to them complaining, it means that this group of deaf people cannot go - hopefully, they'd understand but there is no awareness. How is that fair that hearing people get to dictate when we can go?"
"I love watching films and social outings with family and friends and the fact that they get to go the cinema without me is upsetting, isolating and I feel treated unequally as I don't have the choice to go because there are no subtitles." "All I want to do is go to the cinema on a regular basis, see the new films - especially in the opening week - with subtitles at a reasonable time, especially Friday/Saturday nights.
It breaks my heart when my friends go without me and they're all talking about the latest release and I have to wait months for the DVD to come out." Miss Parfitt said this was just the latest example of where deaf people faced a disadvantage, and cited audio announcements - especially on public transport - and people not being aware of how to communicate with deaf people as other issues. She said: "Deafness is one of the biggest disabilities, but the least understood. Hearing people wouldn't like it if films were shown without sound, so why do they think it's okay to show with very few subtitles?"
Sunday, 16 June 2019
An Online View by William K? (Posters are saying they aren't able to comment here? ATR will print any reasonable response let us know why you can't.). The response was too lengthy to include in the comment spot anyway. Try a PM to the ATR social site if all else fails.
ATR is covering political representation by BSL users, but the UK actually couldn't put up any of note. I follow ATR not always certain he approves of the deaf community as such but he raises a good point occasionally. I put this query myself to an AOHL CEO and he didn't answer, that was after he lauded BSL representation in politics on his twitter account, ATR pointed out the lists did not include ANY actual UK BSL people. Probably because they covered only those who were visible in the political area in 'politics' and not just those as lobbyists.
What they do is lobby hearing areas about how BSL users suffer a lack of support, it's a worthy cause, but it isn't 'deaf' representation as such, a minority cause would be more accurate a description, but we won't see BSL MP's or MEP's because the deaf show no interest in those issues they are 'hearing ones' not about sign, not about culture, not about deaf schools, not about deaf clubs etc, and there is a hardcore of deaf who take themselves far too seriously to be eligible.
Deaf online sites don't really exist for real politics they are fragmented complaint/closed areas about the lack of BSL access, none of it based on real inclusion. There isn't a single political meet in my area I feel excludes me, and that is because if I want to go I will and ask for help to follow, if you don't present as a demand they won't see any so that isn't discrimination. Use it or lose it applies there too. It's like demanding a car and then showing no interest in driving it or passing the necessary test. Everyone has a car so why shouldn't I have one? it shouldn't be a rule I have to drive it properly..
I take interest in non-deaf issues which is the only way really to get any respect for turning up. No-one wants to listen about BSL till their eyes bleed to the exclusion of everything else. It is instantly marginalising yourself, and, ignoring other deaf people's need too. BSL is still a minority cause. If you want access you have to front up and get involved using it. Online deaf sites are anathema to democracy they don't really understand what is involved or their part in it, and aren't able to cope with challenges to views party politics involved, topical issues, but I do wonder who apart from me (Or ATR Site), takes an interest in them anyway.
Find out in this timeline Deaf people around the world who have held political responsibilities and who communicate in Sign Language in the exercise of their functions.[ATR] Try to avoid UK Deaf political sites they have no idea how to attain representation because they refuse to get involved outside the deaf area themselves, they use excuses e.g. we don't have access, the real question is what do they use present access for?
Given 60% don't even use BSL interpreters, and their campaigns are about improving the cultural profile, not inclusion, there is little or no proof they are getting into hearing politics or even hearing debates and areas to be more aware of what they need to be aware of. Hearing are not going to sit there listening to the trials and tribulations of BSL users day in, day out, they want to know you care about their issues too.
Until the deaf understand they need the hearing vote to represent because there aren't enough deaf to swing it, they are NEVER going to be a political representation, just another deprived area ad infinitum, they need to know what hearing want/need to. Their only current aim is to represent themselves in own charities and adopt the martyrdom approach it seems. It's about cultural preservation, not inclusion.
This current list of successes by signers did not appear to include a single BSL user from the UK or NI, 2 leading areas for access provision in Europe (At least until October perhaps!), even New Zealand had some. A lot are European, but the distribution of European updates for the deaf are in a format BSL users claim they don't know or isn't their preferred option. It's text not sign. The only sign is 'uni-sign' a format British deaf doesn't know or care about. When did the UK 'Deaf' area last read up on European deaf inclusion? or representation?
1990, Gary Malkowski (Canada): member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario between 1990 and 1995. Party: New Democratic Party (centre-left).
1992, Stefano Bottini (Italia): member of the Social Affairs Committee of the Italian Parliament from 1992 to 1994. Party: Italian Socialist Party (centre-left).
1996, Alex Ndeezi (Uganda): member of the Parliament of Uganda since 1996 in representation of persons with disabilities. Party: National Resistance Movement (right).
1999, Wilma Newhoudt-Druchen (Sudáfrica): member of the Parliament of South Africa between 1999 and 2014. Party: African National Congress (centre-left).
2003, Sigurlín Margrét (Iceland): member of the National Parliament of Iceland (Alþingi) from 2003 to 2007. Party: Icelandic Liberal Party (centre).
2004, Helga Stevens (Belgium): Member of the Flemish Parliament between 2004-2014, member of the Senate of Belgium between 2007 and 2014 and European Parliament since 2014. New Flemish Alliance (right).
2007, Dimitra Arapoglou (Greece): Member of the Hellenic Parliament between 2007 and 2009. Party: Orthodox Popular Concentration (right).
2008, Raghav Bir Joshi (Nepal): member of the Parliament of Nepal from 2008 to 2013. Party: National Democratic Party (centre-right).
2009, Ádám Kósa (Hungary): Member of the European Parliament since 2009. Party: Fidesz - Hungarian Civic Union (right).
2009, Helene Jarmer (Austria): Member of the Parliament at the National Council of Austria between 2009 and 2017. Party: The Greens, Die Grünen (centre left).
2010, Gergely Tapolczai (Hungary): Member of the Parliament of Hungary since 2010. Party: Fidesz - Hungarian Civic Union (right).
2011, Martin Vahemäe-Zierold (Germany): member of the Berlin-Mitte District Assembly between 2011 and 2016. Party: Alliance 90/The Greens (centre-left).
2015, Pilar Lima (Spain): Senator in the Cortes Generales since 2015. Party: Podemos (left).
2015, Camila Ramírez (Uruguay): member of the Parliament of Uruguay in 2015. However, the Chamber does not allow access to Uruguayan Sign Language interpreters. National Party (right).
2016, Thierry Klein (France): Mayor of Chambrey (Grand Est) since 2016.
2018, Amanda Folendorf (United States): Mayor of Angels Camp (State of California) since 2018.
Saturday, 15 June 2019
We are defined by our sensory loss, there are no two trains of thought on this since with viable hearing we would not sign, not attend 'special' schools, not require 'support staff' etc... hence no culture would exist surrounding it. The annoyance is with those who we accepted may never have had any experiences of hearing to adopt this is a norm approach, where it falls down is a further statement made its a right their culture etc, which apart from being completely wrong and is polarising deaf people.
Even born deaf can acquire CI's etc which can disprove the statements. Identifying the fact deaf people can sign too doesn't remove the reason they ARE deaf. And all deaf sign isn't true anyway. If deaf refute the suggestion of disability then, they disbar their right to the support they get FOR a disability, which includes financial/interpreter support and legal help, we haven't seen their principle stretch that far yet. You cannot be 'disabled for support purposes only'.
We've been taught to refer to people with disabilities using person-first language, but that might be doing more harm than good.
Many disabled people consider their disabilities to be a core part of their identities. Shayla Maas is disabled. No, she doesn’t mind if you call her that. “I am actually disabled. I have multiple disability conditions, including Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, so it’s OK,” said Maas, who hosts the podcast “Tips and Tricks on How to Be Sick.”
“I am equally fine with you calling me ‘person with a disability,’ but don’t be afraid to say the word ’disabled.” In fact, Maas said it only gets weird when people dance around the word “disabled” with euphemisms like “handicapable” or “differently abled.” As she put it, “If someone feels like labelling me as ‘disabled’ makes me less of a person in some way, that’s really saying a lot about them, isn’t it?” The way Maas chooses to identify herself as a disabled woman despite other people’s discomfort with the word highlights an interesting cultural divide: While more and more disabled people are embracing the word “disability” and urging others to do the same with viral social media campaigns like #SayTheWord, nondisabled people are slow to catch on.
That’s in part because schools, medical professionals and human resources training have long advocated for “person-first language,” in which you identify the person before their disability, such as “student with autism or person with cerebral palsy. Person-first language is meant to emphasize that the person isn’t defined by their disability. But as actually disabled people will you, their disabilities are a vital part of who they are.
That’s why many prefer “identity-first language,” in which the disability is put front and centre in the terms we use. Examples include terms like “disabled people” or “Deaf person” rather than “person with a disability.” I use identity-first language because disability is inextricably linked to who I am. Emily Ladau, a disabled writer from Long Island, New York By leading with the disability rather than tacking it onto the end, you’re affirming and validating the person and their disability.
“I use identity-first language because disability is inextricably linked to who I am,” said Emily Ladau, a disabled writer from Long Island, New York. “Disability is part of what makes me me, and you shouldn’t have to go out of your way to emphasize that I’m a person first in order to be reminded of my humanity.”
So ASL doesn't have enough signs to effectively communicate? James Rooney hadn't planned on carving out a niche working with deaf clients. But nearly 30 years after his first encounter with a deaf client, he has become Morgan Stanley's go-to adviser for this unique community of clients. "The firm has given me a special designation and if a deaf client were to walk into any Morgan Stanley office anywhere in the country, they will find me," he said.
Mr. Rooney, who is based in West Hartford, Conn., and has been an adviser at Morgan Stanley for 20 years, was with Merrill Lynch in Long Island, N. Y., in the early 1990s when he noticed the receptionist struggling to communicate with a deaf client. "I walked over and started talking to the person in sign language," Mr. Rooney recalls. "Within six months, I probably got a dozen or more unsolicited walk-in deaf clients."
Mr. Rooney, who now has 225 deaf clients, learned sign language as a child growing up in a household with two deaf parents. Even though he and his team also work with about 1,000 other clients without hearing impairments, he considers his work with deaf clients as a "way to honour my parents." "I have grown my client base of deaf people every year and it's mostly word-of-mouth referrals," he said.
There are an estimated 2.2 million deaf people living in the United States, a number that is shrinking as a result of medical and technological advancements. But financial advisers who work with one or several deaf clients uniformly agree that it is an underserved market.
It was less than two years ago that wealth adviser Matthew Phillips had his first encounter with a deaf prospective client who emailed him at Trilogy Financial and closed with the explanation, "we are deaf."
Mr. Phillips, who had studied sign language in college but didn't consider himself fluent, wasn't sure how to proceed. "I reached out to our team to ask how we should handle this, and nobody had any idea," he said. "I started to realize no one at Trilogy [which has 250 advisers in 10 offices] has dealt with this before." Mr. Phillips, who now works with 20 deaf clients, contacted his former sign language instructor at California Baptist University for some advice. The instructor, W. Daniel Blair, organized a tutorial for a half dozen Trilogy advisers. And on June 20, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Blair are hosting a workshop for deaf families at the college.
One of the challenges when it comes to providing financial advice to a deaf person is clear communication. With technology and creative determination, the communication can be managed even if the adviser isn't fluent in sign language. But even being fluent is sign language doesn't guarantee perfect communication. "There's so much in the financial world that doesn't exist in sign language," Mr. Blair said. Not only does sign language differ by region, similar to regional accents, but he said some words just don't exist in sign language.