What does Deaf rights means to you?

[Grummer]

I went to a movie theater and saw a deaf woman in front of me complaining of her rights to have all movies open-captioned. She was acting like a lawyer and kept saying "deaf rights" to the manager.

I went to a local fast food restaurant and there was a deaf guy who was trying to order his food through sign language. When the employee couldn't understand what he was trying to order, he offered the deaf guy a paper and pen. The deaf guy refused and started rambling on about his "deaf rights" to choose his own method of communication and how the restaurant should be prepared to communicate with someone like him. It was something like, "I have deaf rights. Go find someone who can communicate with me. I refuse to write on this stupid piece of paper."

It's like a black person using his own race as an excuse to express his "black rights".

When a person of a minority uses a word of his minority group as an excuse to his own rights, that's like getting very aggressive and defensive.

Akhem,yeah - they obviously have a distorted view of how to apply it, furthermore they most likely DONT know what they're talking about. It's a big power trip ego thing, while so some of these occurances of being unfairly set up in society as being unaccommodating can be real, not it can be addressed.
Refusal to go half way using paper and pen is out of line, but i do understand the anger in which they have gone extreme to 'make a point 'because they are like trying to say 'English was poorly taught to us and you expect to us to struggle more - stuff you !!' but this is really failed thinking, it doesnt help since it is blaringly obvious a pen and paper is sensible visual medium that can be access by both verbal and sign communicators.

There is no escape from literature needs in Deaf education, we HAVE to have it, if we want equality, but again Rights for d/Deaf people is poorly understood and poorly translated to reality. So from this vantage point I understand their anger while it is not justified to lash out like you described

But interesting thing though, Black rights is questionable too, I mean like rights to BE black is not the same as rights to serve in society as a Black person in a White society, in other words, blacks people DO succeed so long as they have a 'white' mentality, aka a corporates' attitudes or such, exceptions are of course those in the popular music industry, since it's only images and not 'playing in the key fields' for success (in the white way "the only way")

the long way of processing to get the needs recognised is the right way, even though it s painfully slow, it is that channel of social adminstration which were social issues are seriously taken in, making it possible to have a problem acknowledged. Rambling and yelling in public place causing humulations is not the right way, it is an instant attention-getter but the wrong type of attention is drawn, like end result could be embarrassment or consequences following a violation of some by-laws. Nevertheless in the end, I still think "deaf rights" is valid it has its place, can be developed properly, concluding to say deaf rights is rubbish just because a few idiots have embarrassed us doesnt mean we have to dismiss the whole idea. We just need more time and more throughtout discussion on the whole range of consideration affecting Deaf rights.

 

[JClarke]

I went to a movie theater and saw a deaf woman in front of me complaining of her rights to have all movies open-captioned. She was acting like a lawyer and kept saying "deaf rights" to the manager.

I went to a local fast food restaurant and there was a deaf guy who was trying to order his food through sign language. When the employee couldn't understand what he was trying to order, he offered the deaf guy a paper and pen. The deaf guy refused and started rambling on about his "deaf rights" to choose his own method of communication and how the restaurant should be prepared to communicate with someone like him. It was something like, "I have deaf rights. Go find someone who can communicate with me. I refuse to write on this stupid piece of paper."

It's like a black person using his own race as an excuse to express his "black rights".

When a person of a minority uses a word of his minority group as an excuse to his own rights, that's like getting very aggressive and defensive.

There is always alternative way of communication in fast food restuarants

 

[Bebonang]

I don't like the concept of "deaf rights" because it's isolated from the general rights.

I would rather say, "I have rights" than "I have deaf rights".

Whenever I hear people use "deaf rights", it's usually when they are trying to abuse it.

Vampy, Are you trying to say that we should use rights instead of deaf rights to be like hearing people or just to go along with the hearing world we have to suffer if we don't get access to ASL or intepreters when we need accommodations to help us understand hearing people? Being deaf or hard of hearing is very difficult for us to go through trying with frustration to understand what the hearing people are saying. Hearing people think that we are able to understand lipreading or speechreading better without ASL. Very few Deaf people are probably able to understand with perfect lipreading, but they can get lost in that too. We still need Deaf rights to get our accommodations to help us feel less frustrating and better understand what hearing people want from us. Not oral only environment and lipreading are not going to help us understand, because we are left out a lot. Deaf rights are very important to us and we are not militant if that is what you are referring to. I still want to have Deaf rights to prove my point on getting access to getting an interpreter when I was told that I could not have an interpreter by an employers or court judge. It was not fair when we can not have the accommodations. That is why we have ADA help us get our much needed accommodations. Did you see what I am getting at?

 

[Bebonang]

I forgot to cross out "not" on the oral only environment and lipreading are not going to help us understand, because we are left out a lot. Have to brush up my English better.

 

[Hermes]

We must have Deaf rights as we are being discrimination on account of our deafness and hearing losses. ADA helps us get our rights to access to interpreters for schools, court cases, and to raise our children without being discrimination by hearing people. We may have the same rights as hearing people but it is different because hearing people think that we are not able functionally as normal human being like as if we are dumb to not know how to do those things like driving the car which shock hearing people.

Yes you are correct, but you see ADA helps a deaf person to exercise his human rights. Fair communication is your human right. So we all are actually talking about the same thing, there is just a word difference. But the reason I am stressing "human" part instead of "deaf" is, calling it "deaf rights" makes people think you are different and need special care. Then they dont see it as your natural rights, but they start thinking they should grant you these rights as a special case. But it brings more problem. Then they start seeing you different, then they start feeling its too much of hassle to deal with deaf rights, then anytime you need something they start trying to escape from it as long as they can , and they force you to mention ADA or use legal channels and so on.. Because they do not see you are naturally entitled to these rights like anybody else.

It doesnt matter if you call it rights, human rights or deaf rights.. And I do understand it , you want it to be called deaf rights so people will pay attention the fact that you need accomandation. And you are right in this, but perhaps there needs to be a way to present it without making it sound like you are seeking them to grant you something special as a favor.

Do you think calling it deaf rights make people think they are giving you something special as a favor, or do you think it makes them realize your needs? I believe it is a little from both. What do you think?

Hermes

 

[JClarke]

So, did you put deaf rights under the 'speech marks' as a way of saying its not really Deaf rights, but more of a Human Rights issue? or is it by other references?

That said, it could indicate to us that 'deaf rights' does not really exist, except if enforced by other means , namely disability discrimination and/or human rights

This is a question we must ponder amongst ourselves to ascertain whether Deaf rights is a such thing or not, or if it is just another way of applying these existing discriminatory laws, which may have some weaknesses lef intact for other situations. thus still leaving deaf people vulnerable to being singled out or ignored.

grummer, what I have explained in the post is my own reference and the court case is true --- I sued them actually. The justice has been won, but it was too late to provide while I just graudated. But We all have their own rights, and it can be related to Human rights, yes.

 

[Grummer]

JCarke, OK, thats cool.

I am kind of after something more substainal like the theory and reality of deaf rights, are there uch theing, what other areas could we look into, Karissa did a good starting outline, and yet has anyone got a firmer 'theortical views' on how it might be done?

 

[Grummer]

I got one idea, how about this,
make an outline stating all secretary jobs to be made more accessible and employers more accountable to ADA ruling to give accommodation/with say a by-laws to say deaf employees do not need to use the phone and modification is required.
How would that work? like how would that come into effect? surely some of you out there might whine to say, Deafs shouldn't do secretary jobs if they cant keep up pace wih the hearing communication. While there is a ALOT of evolving going on in terms of handling information, such as emails, use of MS office products or other specialised 'in house custom' network for the firms it implys d/Deaf people could very well work in this scenario however the cavent is the competitive nature of not only the job market but also within the educational institutions. To me, I feel there is now a blur between what is competitive in the workplaces and what is competitve in the tertiary backdrop amongst students AND their tutoring staff. To put more clearly to assert for more deaf rights to obtain education we want and to reach into the workplace is not just about 'language access' and even more than 'what additional tutoring could be offered' but to somehow curb the harsh nature of competitiveness. Like D/Deaf students have to work tiwce as hard in order to facilitate all the assistence received, sign language terps(does slows the interaction down it is not instantaneous, as often a deaf student would have to think around the loop of langage inside our heads between English and Sign, world's knowledge and self's knowledge (sign/english for self-explanation on the subject learning about at the time)and grasping for a right phrase to ask questions in class if any. This itself also prepares for 'interactional skills' in workplaces - most people dont realise this, some probably do, but i feel it is MORE pronounced in as demands for deaf people to survive and make ends meet for the real world. The real world should kind of 'slow down' or at least really make that accomodation not only for the 'deserving Bright deafs' but to be made more available to broader range of deaf people as we are seeing right now- more jobs and positions are now becoming more multi-tasked (again this discriminated to all / but the very most talented d/Deaf) and far more information-reliant, that said, it is increasingly becoming a information-handling-orientated job market, factories, labouring positions have move elsewhere, except for say building industry/ re-modeling teams which is again affected by the this tread demanding multi-skilled and again communication front in handling consumers and amongst other workers from other trades bonded together as a 'contractual team' for a building/renovation projects. The paces and demands of rapid decision making whilst ensuring the labour flow is intact have impacted on how a d/Deaf employees rights to be respected as an equal valued member of a team. It is hard to ignore this pattern thus is should be a concern taken into the matter discussing deaf rights don't you think? yes i have used crude examples but I think its a very good one to help illustrate my point on how d/Deaf people are indeed Still struggleing not because of the outmoded 'awareness' of Deaf/hearing people, it just needs to be more evolved to actually contain this pressure the shrinking job market, Without an advanced means of accommodation, d/Deaf people are surely going to be severely disadvantaged and probably worse off than it was 20 years ago.

This is the sort things we need to ponder on, and to take it back to reflect this against the first post of this thread would surely elict some interesting responses, any thoughts on this would be great


Cheers

 

[VamPyroX]

There is always alternative way of communication in fast food restuarants

Exactly. Paper & Pen. Pointing. Having a hearing friend interpret. Using gestures.

Sadly, some people are ignorant and refuse to try to work with the other person. Communication is 2 ways... not 1 way. If one way doesn't work, try another. Eventually, a means of communication can be made.

 

[VamPyroX]

Vampy, Are you trying to say that we should use rights instead of deaf rights to be like hearing people or just to go along with the hearing world we have to suffer if we don't get access to ASL or intepreters when we need accommodations to help us understand hearing people? Being deaf or hard of hearing is very difficult for us to go through trying with frustration to understand what the hearing people are saying. Hearing people think that we are able to understand lipreading or speechreading better without ASL. Very few Deaf people are probably able to understand with perfect lipreading, but they can get lost in that too. We still need Deaf rights to get our accommodations to help us feel less frustrating and better understand what hearing people want from us. Not oral only environment and lipreading are not going to help us understand, because we are left out a lot. Deaf rights are very important to us and we are not militant if that is what you are referring to. I still want to have Deaf rights to prove my point on getting access to getting an interpreter when I was told that I could not have an interpreter by an employers or court judge. It was not fair when we can not have the accommodations. That is why we have ADA help us get our much needed accommodations. Did you see what I am getting at?

I'm not saying that we have to accept everything that the hearing world gives us. I'm saying that when it comes to communication, it's like a 2-way agreement.

When you go to McDonalds, you can't expect an interpreter. They will have a menu "mat" (miniature version of the full menu) that you can point at.

Even at Taco Bell, they will usually have a picture of the current special on the counter for display. That's the easiest thing any deaf person can do... simply point at that thing.

You're right, we do have rights in order to get the accommodations we need. But that's something we have to work with the other person with. It's still aggressive and can be seen as ignorant when you say "deaf rights" or even say "rights" when you're approaching an ADA issue at first.

When you apply for a job and need an interpreter, it's your job to request that interpreter. Showing up without requesting an interpreter and then getting all upset. "Huh!? No interpreter!? What about my deaf rights!?"

Suppose you requested an interpreter and the interviewer asked why, you should not immediately reply saying that you have "deaf rights" or "rights"... but humbly explain that you're deaf and need an ASL interpreter to help you and him communicate. By jumping the gun and saying that you have rights is like saying, "I am not going to give you a chance to respond. You're a bad person. Period."

 

[Jolie77]

Hmm, This is interesting. I had a conversation with a friend the other day about this same issue related to the deaf rights.

Anyway, What does deaf rights means to me?

It means there are chances that we can at least try to get better access to interpreters, captioning, notetakers, and all that.

However, the thing is, when it comes to "abusing" it by using an attitude to say "I have deaf rights!" that's like asking for others to be misunderstood easily. There is nothing wrong being as proud as a deaf person but when it comes to the attitude, it is best efficient when you are to be able to educate others in order for them to understand your needs.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[dead money]

I don't like the concept of "deaf rights" because it's isolated from the general rights.

I would rather say, "I have rights" than "I have deaf rights".

Whenever I hear people use "deaf rights", it's usually when they are trying to abuse it.

exactly.

 

[Hwy99]

To me, the deaf rights are just meaning that we deserve the rights just as well as anyone equally

Although I can understand Karissa about deaf parent's rights to have the children, I've seen some of my deaf friends had their children removed just because they were deaf. They deserve the same rights to keep the children just like the hearies, that is what Deaf's Rights is all about!

 

[Tousi]

Does all of this also mean that "deaf rights" include deaf couples purposely have deaf babies?

 

[Hwy99]

Does all of this also mean that "deaf rights" include deaf couples purposely have deaf babies?

If the hearies can have "deaf-free" baby, then we can have the deaf baby too. If they can't, then we can't too.

 

[KarissaMann05]

To me, the deaf rights are just meaning that we deserve the rights just as well as anyone equally

Although I can understand Karissa about deaf parent's rights to have the children, I've seen some of my deaf friends had their children removed just because they were deaf. They deserve the same rights to keep the children just like the hearies, that is what Deaf's Rights is all about!

Yeah... I still remembered some old stories about deaf parents lost their children because they're just deaf... I don't want to post some personal here but, yeah, I glad that you know what I said.

 

[Hwy99]

Yeah... I still remembered some old stories about deaf parents lost their children because they're just deaf... I don't want to post some personal here but, yeah, I glad that you know what I said.

No problemo

 

[Grummer]

If the hearies can have "deaf-free" baby, then we can have the deaf baby too. If they can't, then we can't too.

unfortunaely, this does not rubs well with the medical normalcy, i mean it is hardly blameworthy to see the meical pursuits are for creatin ways to eradicate illness. I hate to say this but I will say it , not only they , and also 'we' have indeed crossed the line over the 'ideals' of the human body. I mean do blind couples/people want blind babies? i dont think so, do MSS sufferes wants their babais to have MSS babies? no again

It is only the radical deafies who has (dare I say) been (overly?) absorbed with the influence of Deaf culture in which so doing have even taken the culture paradgim as far to even imply ethnic, so hense somewhere along this line, someone expressed a desire to have deaf babies to perseve deaf culture.
Blind people 'do' have a 'blind culture' (as does other disabled groups) although its very 'small' or fragmented due to the 'lack' of blind language and such. However my point it they dont want blind babies, niether does people with MSS people only some Deaf do, it is an extremely hard 'rights' to obtain. In fact there was a story hitting the headlines about Deaf lesbian couple wanting deaf babies, the debate continues.

I would say indeed demanding rights to have deaf babies (gene modification or adoption) for d/Deaf (especially Deaf) parents is one of the ultimate milestone for Deaf rights. I beg to differ slighty however, I think if we Deaf can prove when we are beg mistreated, or treated differently, we can sue in the exact same way if a black person might sue a white person calling them ******s in public places (is there a such thing? - maybe not but im sure there some very subjective interpretations for some 'extreme case' - say a wealthy black man (eg Denzel washington?) but then again - this is not black's rights , its more 'wealthy's rights) That is typical - we have already seen this and its 'law' but law can only be bought by vast amounts acquiring shifty lawyers.

What you said, about laws, having a 'we cant have this' so they cant have this too' pattern is really interesting. I like what you said it got me really confused and thinking I have a freind who is a lawyer I must ask him sometimes

Again though, popular thoughts in society would disapprove a 'deaf-free' thinking , i know wht you're trying to say, its a clever twist on words, I like that creativity however society i dont think society operates on double - negatives. It never have and probably never will - sadly.