That different only big plm is communication we need interpreter as we are strong BSL. Not disabled so BSL is our first language not English
No, you cannot reject disability and then demand disability welfare support and funding, it's basically dishonest.
Without disability funding, there would be no deaf arts or cultural support except from some arts foundation doing these Deaf a favour, even then it is to cover translation so they can work or get involved WITH other disabled, so it is sign support. They are window dressing the disability, suggesting it is a culture instead.
Without welfare state support, the deaf would not be able to be educated, work in, or develop these deaf arts areas, 80% of which is inaccessible (And unintelligible!), to anyone deaf outside a city centre, like all arts it is for the snobbish few not the many. It's meaningless anywhere else.
I'd love to be in it! It is A2W subsidies that enable that and at a potential and maximum allowance of near £900 per week lovely jubbly, I'm in!
The poster rejects disability, so by default is rejecting disabled too? If he or she is NOT claiming any sort of welfare payment that is OK but cannot use a blanket term for everyone deaf, It creates issues with people who do are disabled who the DWP then quote you as saying we are not disabled so the DWP rounds with why are you claiming disability allowances then? others end up as collateral damage while some deaf elite is coining it in funding for stuff most of never see and cannot understand, it's great.. for them.
lol It's like those foreign films that used to be shown in cinemas where subtitles were the norm but at least we saw half-naked french women so not a total loss haha...
If you have a principle you have to stick with it or you get no respect or acceptance do you. If you tell lies you also need a good memory.
Nobody is buying the excuse deafness is a culture thing unless you are also saying culture is the disability? why else fund that with 'disability' money? This is some deaf area playing both ends of the disability definition.
I view deaf people very disabled they have huge problems accessing quite basic things we take for granted. Maybe its a blessing they don't see it, their way of managing it?
They are also running effective campaigns that insist being deaf is so awful they need money, support, and help. Which seems a pretty accurate description of being disabled to me.
Sensory impairment covers deafness, blindness, being blind-deaf, speech impaired, and resulting from brain issues etc this is fact, as are people going deaf by some accident.
LOSS is the true definition of disablement if you insist there is nothing to lose..... Then again being born without a sense has to be a disablement too. These issues are recognised, of course, we manage and cope with it our own ways, a lot don't, and without that being recognised as a disablement, they would get no help at all.
Deaf can do anything but hear? they can't do much without the support of welfare allowances, medical help, and trained interpreters, or relying on each other for a social life, re-jigging definitions to describe them as rights and not inevitable necessities is again a bit dishonest isn't it. Calling Interpreter help 'enablement' etc doesn't disguise the reality you are stuck without them. That's a defined need.
One problem is those insisting they aren't disabled take the HIGHEST disability welfare payments available in the UK to work. They don't get those if they have no issue. As I understand it the DWP is in no way a charity.
First language or not they have alternatives to use to sign. Lots of migrants come to the UK they don't go for a job demanding their employers (Or us), speak their language and provide interpreters or else we are discriminating, no other country in the world would go with that, they adapt, only the deaf refuse to, why?
Because they can't hear possibly?
We know! the debate is about those able to use alternatives and insisting they can't, they won't, or not obliged to.
They still cannot demand others acquire it any more than a migrant can demand we speak their first language and they can hear.
Yes migrants who come to the UK (3 million), have a first language that isn't English too, they learn ours they know without it they cannot work or live here. So what makes the deaf different, they admit their language is the disability?
BSL is what the purists tell us enables them to LEARN English, ergo they are 'bilingual' you are saying deaf are not bilingual? Or just refusing to be? "I am going to sign, yes I understand you, yes I can respond to you, I can speak too, but I won't, I choose not to I have a right to refuse so you must either sign to me, or get me an interpreter...."
No chance in hell is there? can they not see the illogic in that?