Thursday, 3 December 2020

Deaf elitism (II)

Deaf elitism is a fact, and its got a whole lot worse the last 15 years as they utilise access and equality law to do the exact opposite for their own area.  A right to blame others for their being deaf and a right to isolate themselves as a culture, whilst blaming that too on hearing 'not being able to, or refusing to sign for them.' and all with nil proof to back it up.  But hey they are doing OK out of it with their dubious awareness plugs that actively exclude others. 

The reality is activism made ASL and BSL a financially viable commodity, so it encouraged other hearing people to support their nonsense, after all, where would deaf BE without a hearing interpreter? or a hearing-run college course to validate them? or where would a terp work if they had alternatives?    This ensures pretty much there is nowhere for the deaf to go anyway, and this enables the extremist deafies who claim everyone is against the deaf.

How do you identify the deaf elite? they are the ones who don't need to rely on sign, are pretty much oral educated, they lip-read,  and insist all deaf people sign because you cannot prove differently, or if you do, simply go at them as discriminators or deaf haters, easy-peasy.

Cause 4?

A newish venture of a socially driven private area raising funds for charity (After they realised just give and others can make a decent living by pocketing 5% of all that is raised and charities cannot be bother to rattle tins at people any more).  Ensuring members DON'T dictate how a charity is run is far better, given the RNID raises and does more than any of them put together the facts don't seem to support deaf member-driven ventures.

A recent social media post by them extolls the virtue of 'member -driven' charities, this raised a few laughs at the RNID etc who preferred sacking them if they sign, or just letting them sweep the floors of the office while preferring to court celebs and politicians instead who have hard of hearing relatives.  One wonders if this venture really examined how effective deaf member-driven charities actually are?

E.G. The ELS, where 100s of deaf lost their support, and 70 staff lost their jobs because of an inability to manage their finances. Maybe the ultimate in member-driven deaf charities? like the British Deaf Association (The BDA), whose criteria and rules would put Hitler to shame regarding who is or isn't deaf or who signs correctly and doesn't, who last year stood by as an exodus of ALL their trustees took place with allegations of bullying by the executive?  

Unfazed they admitted a new batch who know when to keep their mouths shut and oversee threats to members of court action if they dare reveal how decisions are made there.  Perhaps member-driven in deaf terms means exclusion except to those they approve of, which is what Cause four was saying it is against, oops, not done your homework have you...

If cause four published a blacklist of deaf charities that don't enable and they won't raise funds for,  it would have more going for it, but I suspect profit, not democracy is the aim of it all.