javapride said:
they have ur address they see OH thier deaf fine we'll go break in thier home!
Ehh. Doesn't this assumes all Deaf are sitting ducks?! :|
Not wanting a
fact to be listed on the card suggets that the
the fact is a bad thing - something we do not wish to be associated with.
But I have no problem with Deaf. I have no problem with this on license. It is accessibility issue people may need to accomodate, not deficiency that makes me vulnerable. Theoretically, the card is information meant for self and the authority.
Truth is, police may not look you up on the computer before pulling you over. This is common. The card clearly and consistently states the situation; that is, does not hear/perhaps not communicate verbally. Which is really the main issue: isn't it?
For the sake of analogy. It is in police policy (in Toronto anyway) that police provide an interpreter for people who do not communicate in english (ASL or recent newcomers to Canada). Plenty of times, those that I see in my work report that this option was not given to them. Family member was used, no interpreter at all, or the interpreter was provided at a later date only.
There's a million reasons why: officer was misinformed, he did not understand the client's needs, or simply did not have the time or forethought to honor it.
It is an act of faith to assume that the officer will necessarily look you up. If there is a risk that the police will not understand me in a time-limited (if not critical) situation, hey man I welcome a little on-the-card backup