Friday, 7 July 2017

121 , social engineering and modelling

medical model vs social model
I'm  great supporter of 121 captions, but have to take issue with their recent article on social and medical models.

Firstly I don't ascribe to the social model.  I would doubt 9m in the UK with hearing loss do either.  We may pay lip-service (no pun intended), to the concept that cultural deaf support the premise, but it would be unfair to suggest it is widely held a belief anywhere else in the world of hearing loss, especially those struggling to cope.

Social modelling undermines the traumatic and real social isolation that hearing loss and deafness cause, no way will they ever suggest it is a right or any advantage.  Ascribing to the social model undermines support too, as we see system agencies backing away from offering support because 'Deaf do not see deafness as an issue', (so why should they ?).

Unfortunately due to the success of deaf cultural promotion/sign language, and huge disinformation being distributed, systems are assuming we are all the same and share the same viewpoint on that, despite the fact HoH charities and groups have collapsed.  All deaf sign, is just one lie they swallow, along with all of us are 'Deaf'. 9m aren't in the UK, 9m do not sign, there are more deaf that don't than do, but to read the hype you would never be aware of it.

Yesterday e.g. we read an advert for BSL lessons, nothing exceptional in that, but, they used the statistic 10m deaf people, when the true statistic is 15-20,000 only (Verified by the UK national census), and no statistic available  if it is via regular, is occasional use, or if the individual is reliant on that,  even if hearing were part of the stats, because the questions did not ask for that detail. 

The DWP e.g. (The UK's state welfare agency), used the social model to remove welfare support, especially targeting the HoH, the bulk of claimants, claiming via the disabling aspect of hearing loss, (The medical model ?).  Those who claimed it was a 'model' were challenged, to many it is a disability, loss being the defining criteria. Without that criteria being emphasised, they would lose support and recognition of their issues. Systems are being bombarded with Deaf rights instead, and ignoring the reality for most, of the issues being deaf present.

Whilst those who supported the social model (mainly the Cultural deaf), had little welfare refused to them of real note, because the assessors saw a sign interpreter and immediately classed them as an aid to a serious disablement. The individual could not function adequately without them. The ultimate irony, in that those who most lauded the social model were entitled to the lion's share of welfare support for their 'disability', indeed were the most expensive support in most areas to maintain.

Indeed the majority of 'Deaf' support comes via disability funding, even deaf arts etc, it is right to point out many HoH struggling to cope and disabled as a result by hearing loss, are not getting their fair share of help, or support for their own needs as a result.  To suggest 'if you don't ask, you don't get..' is suggesting it is their own fault they don't get that help.  Like many deaf people, it is not always those most in need are the ones most able to demand or fight for it. The onus therefore IS on us all to include.

Social modelling is directly affecting the support of many other people and we ask that the various campaigns stop using the 'Deaf & HI' remit, abusing statistics to misinform, and distorting the support message, so that those who need help can get it.  Empowerment, the term used to suggest the Deaf use to suggest they aren't disabled, is dis-empowering HoH.  We need to counter the selfish messages of me, me, me, and start using us, in a real and honest way, and by cooperating on support aid.

I still support 121 but feel they should stick to caption lobbying and leave the distorting cultural messages to their own area. Especially as they are openly defying the supply of captions in their own area, again as a 'right' !  Let us have balance please. 

We want to see 121 countering the cultural 'rights' to disable captioned access for us.  We cannot legally prevent signed access, nor would want to, so why is 121 supporting illegal deaf approaches to captioning and subtitles on their output, including basic health access, and news ?  That they can proudly advertise 'This site provides no captions..', which is open and blatant  discrimination in our view.  It's a policy of division and secularist.

No comments:

Post a Comment

No clowns, spoilers or extremes..