London G20 Protests: From Peach to Tomlinson, has anything changed? (includes my eyewitness account of the protest)

The emotions I’m feeling at seeing one video after another being released in the mainstream media following the G20 protest on 1st April simply can’t be described. It’s sad and annoying that all this reporting is taking place only after an innocent guy, Ian Tomlinson, died after being struck by the police at the protest.  Had this not happened, it’s highly unlikely the media coverage would be what it is.

Indeed, the original reasons for the protest seem to have largely been forgotten.  Barack Obama was making his first visit abroad since becoming President of the USA.  People in UK were taking the opportunity to protest against the banks, Presidents and Prime Ministers who are presiding over a credit crisis that is leading to rapid job losses worldwide.

I was there at the G20 protests around the same time as Ian Tomlinson and saw what it was like and what was going on in the area.  I had given a presentation on ‘Citizenship’ in London that day, to an audience consisting largely of those who work with Deaf people, and when it was over I headed out to meet a friend who had been at the protest and caught in a ‘kettle’  near the Bank of England.

My problem is that what I saw from the police has been witnessed so often in my involvement in politics over the last 25 or so years.  Such experiences never diminish in their ability to shock but soon after I quickly start thinking ’seen it all before’; even the news reporting afterwards seemed to follow a typical pattern of cover up. 

Not this time.

I went to join my friend at the Bank of England protest but people were kettled in by that time. Luckily my friend managed to get out of the kettle and I met up with her; a group of us tried to go to various points outside of the kettle to see if there was any protest we could join and to see what was going on and a couple of us ended up unintentionally getting caught up in a police surge.

It’s a long story but we had gone down an alleyway to see what was going off with a group of protesters.  We’d witnessed these protestors running from the police, who seemed to be chasing them off with sheilds and batons.  There was a lull in this battle so we went to see what was happening.  Some protestors were sitting in the road and there appeared to be a stand off with the police.  Suddenly the police made a surge that blocked off the alley so we couldn’t escape down it; seated protestors were forced to stand up and move backwards by the sheer police attack, and so I found myself at the very front of it, aggressive cops shouting at us to ‘get back’  pushing at those of us in the front with their shields…only we couldn’t retreat because those behind were a stationary dense bunch of people many of whom seemed to be taking photos (!), plus individuals next to us kept pushing back at the cops.  There was also no chance of moving sideways into the crowd cos that was a far worse police onslaught. Protestors were occasionally running at the police lines with their arms up, and things like empty cans were being thrown at them, bouncing off their shields or helmets.

It’s hard to describe emotions at that stage.  For me it was not one of ‘fear’ because I was too busy thinking ’s**t, how the f**k do I get out of here’ and ‘hey hang on, I wasn’t meant to be part of this!’, and trying desperately to work out how to escape while keeping one eye at the aggressive cop in front. [As we've since learned, the police tend to hit people when they aren't looking.]  They are jabbing their shields at you, and all I can think of is trying to keep out of the way, afraid that if I get hit too much for no reason I will instinctively react, and make the situation worse for myself and those around me.

My friend managed, however, to push her way through the dense body of people, and I did too eventually, and once through we both ran as far and as fast as we could.  My biggest fear was that this was the start of a police riot, where the police chase people away, hitting out at whoever gets in their way, whether you are part of the protest or not. 

It was during this period of time that the police hit Ian Tomlinson, which leads me to believe there was a higher order going around at the time for the police to be more aggressive.

We then walked over to the climate camp protest site, which appeared to be even more tightly kettled in than the other one; it was truly very scary and as well as fearing for the people stuck inside and unable to get out, I felt utterly powerless to do anything to help them out.  I kept thinking: ‘if only there were another 10,000 people here…’

The police kettling was truly astonishing to behold, taking up huge amounts of police resources in terms not just of numbers, riot gear and shields, but of vans, horses, cars, etc; to ensure they could completely kettle people in. So that’s where the £7.5 million was going…

That experience by itself is emotional in a lot of different ways. But to see the shift in media reporting is truly unprecedented and adds to the emotional impact.  It seems clear at this stage that the rise of the use of personal video cameras is significant.  I followed the initial press releases that (wrongly it seems) reported Ian Tomlinson had died of a heart attack, and then, late on 2nd April on Indymedia I read the eyewitness accounts of Ian being attended to by protestors while police declined to assist.  These were highly significant because during these early post-protest stages of the story there were reports of police medics being hampered as they tried to revive Ian; soon the news story was being reported in a ‘balanced’ manner: a non-protestor suffering a heart attack, with the possibility that there had been contact with police so this was ‘being looked into’ (by the police), meanwhile the police report having come under attack from protestors while trying to revive Ian.

As the Indymedia eyewitness accounts make clear, however, it had been the protestors who had tried to revive Ian, the police then moved in and surrounded him. Some protestors did throw things at the police, but quickly stopped when they realised a man was lying suffering on the ground.  The heart attack story persisted though, due to the autopsy that had been carried out; but once the video showing Ian being hit by the police was released the entire story was turned on its head by the mainstream media, and the police really had very little option but to question the officer and re-do the autopsy.

It is plainly becoming clear by the day that without the various video evidence that is coming in, the original story would have persisted, with the real version kept out of mainstream news reporting.  The parallel here is the death of Blair Peach, which the media reported as ‘misadventure’…but back then there were no CCTVs, neither were there many handheld camera’s; then, as now, eyewitness accounts hold little real value in the media.

The police actions (hitting people with their batons) aren’t new (though the kettling is actually quite a recent tactic, first employed in London during the May Day demonstrations in 2001); the fact they are being shown on all the big hitting press websites (such as the BBC and the Sunday Times) is, for me, totally surreal.  I mean the airing of all these videos of police brutality as prime news just doesn’t normally get reported in this way.   Even more remarkable is the way the police are being portrayed as being well out of order here; that’s so unusual to see too.  Normally it might be the odd baton whack that gets reported or commented on, and even that will be lost under a weight of news stories of protestors burning a rubbish bin or something that makes what the police do appear justified.  And that kind of thing doesn’t happen here, not with our police force. Greece maybe, France probably, but UK?? 

It is so unbelievable to see a far more accurate depiction in the mainstream media of what really happens when you go on a demonstration in the UK that has been reported to have ‘turned violent’.

Some key questions for me are:

(a) it is right and just that the officer who hit Ian Tomlinson is charged and brought to justice, but it should not stop there.  What exactly is the role of the Territorial Support Group, the group of police officers who are organised specifically to deal with ‘violent protest’ (even though there wasn’t any on the day)? Who organised and ordered its actions on the day? 

(b) will there be an independent public enquiry into the conduct of the police, particularly their use of ‘kettling’?  It is totally absurd that the enquiry should be conducted by the police. And finally

(c) how many cover ups of police brutality have taken place over the years if, as seems likely, all that’s different about this is that the police got caught on video?

And this brings up yet further emotions, to the killing of Blair Peach, almost 30 years ago.  An innocent guy, a teacher, hit by a police truncheon on 23rd April 1979.  And all those protests I’ve attended over the years seeing people get hit and hurt by police actions, and then the next day zero news reporting about it; or, worse, all reporting heavily biased, as if the police were simply reacting to violent protests.  [Yes, to be absolutely fair, the deaths of people protesting is not high in the UK, which is how it should be anyway; and that perhaps is why this death holds particular shock value; however, the violence is very real and sometimes I have left demo's wondering how nobody got killed.]

You really had to be there to believe it was happening: the forces of the State using violence as a means to an end; the media reporting of the events being totally opposite of what you saw with your own eyes; and then day to day life going on as usual the next day, with me still boiling inside at the injustice of what had happened. It is an education about capitalist society, for sure.

After the death of Blair Peach the dub poet Linton Kwesi Johnson wrote and sang an emotionally powerful song entitled: ‘Reggae Fi Peach’: some of the lines went as follows:

“…deh Special Patrol…dem a MURDER-AH, MURDER-AH/we can’t let dem get, no furder-ah/
deh S.P.G. dem a MURDER-AH, MURDER-AH/we can’t let dem get, no furder-ah”

The SPG refers to ‘Special Patrol Group’, which was the ‘Territorial Support Group’ (TSG) all those years ago, and so all that seems to have changed are the initials; while the message of the song remains.

Peace.

Voices from El Sayed screening at Bristol’s Watershed: BSL explanation of background to the film screening

Just a quick blog posting, following the one by grumpyoldeafies today,  about the film ‘Voices from El Sayed’, showing at Bristol’s Watershed cinema, on Saturday 9th May, 3pm.

Click here for more info in BSL, including some background as to why the film is being shown at the Watershed cinema in collaboration with the Centre for Deaf Studies.

I am really proud that CDS have collaborated with Watershed to ensure this film can be seen in the UK.

If you are in UK nearby do try to come along as the film will not be shown anywhere else in the country.  It is also, I should add, an opportunity for a public discussion about the important issue of cochlear implants and the Deaf community.

Steve

Research Project report: mental health needs of Deaf BME community in Glasgow

Last Tuesday I attended the launch of the report into the mental health needs of Deaf people from the Glasgow BME community. I gave a brief presentation of the research I undertook.

The project was a pilot to investigate if further research was necessary in this field.  You can see the full report here.

The work was undertaken last year while I was working at Heriot-Watt University and was in collaboration with Deaf Connections.  I worked closely with the Development Worker with the BME Deaf Community, and also the Asian Deaf Community in Glasgow during the research project.

The launch was under the name ‘Ishara’, a new word coined by the Asian Deaf Club , taken from the Urdu, Punjabi and Hindi languages, and means to make signs or gestures with the hands.

For more information about Ishara go here.

Celebrating Dot Miles at the BDA…some reflections on ‘the Vision’

Back fresh from the British Deaf Association (BDA) conference; my initial reaction is …. interesting!

Good to see a conference brimming with energy and enthusiasm, a full hall of people celebrating the memory of poet Dot Miles; and people getting involved in workshop discussions.

There is a new BDA Chair now, but I’d like to see some credit go to Francis Murphy (and all those involved in behind the scenes work) for keeping the ship going through rocky waters

Thanks are due to the BDA for allowing Deaf academics in the UK the use of a room to initiate a meeting: we are hoping to run a conference for Deaf academics as soon as we can secure funding for it.  In the meantime there is a new website that is accessible to the public and for the use of Deaf academics working within universities in the UK: www.deafacademicsintheuk.org.

Some things struck me from the BDA Membership workshops.

Far too many of the ideas coming out were focussed on short term work.  What happens short term can work well if it’s part of a long term vision or strategy.

Things people raised struck a chord and would be ideal for developing a longer term vision that could help focus short term work:

A. Building the bridges with the younger generation of Deaf people.

This came up repeatedly (and it wasn’t helped that there was a glaring lack of young presence) but short term solutions seemed hard to shake off.

Mainstreaming is now the norm, the cochlear implant generation will surely be entering citizenship in larger numbers in the coming years.  How can the BDA encourage and welcome a generation who have probably not been able to access sign language, or Deaf culture?  How can the BDA assist in developing Deafhood?

I have no easy answers to this issue, but suggest some kind of strategy is necessary to encourage whom Paddy Ladd called ‘Deaf street people’ to participate in keeping sign language and Deafhood alive for future generations.

Unfortunately there were not enough Deaf young people present to help take that debate forward so it might be time to think of how the BDA can actively go to where the young people are and learn from them in their own geographical spaces.

B. Networking politically.

A guy brought this up at the workshop session and that point he made was hugely valid.

I’m thinking particularly of the genetics campaign; sure, the clause that was campaigned against wasn’t overturned, but there were rich political networks that activists were able to tap into and have an effect and influence thanks to hearing political allies who shared the concerns of Deaf people over the HFE Bill.

The point isn’t necessarily winning the battles you fight; if it means losing a few to learn new skills to help to win a longer term war, those losses will have been worthwhile.  If you don’t fight you never have any chance of winning anyway.

A long term strategy to build up long term relationships in the field of politics, so that anything to do with Sign Language and Deaf education becomes a BDA issue, and not an RNID or UKCod one will take a few years.  You need a longer term vision in the first place though.

Central and crucial to this is political networking involving some kind of strategy for engaging with parents; which again I’m not an expert on, but some kind of debate needs to take place with how that might be achieved.

People are still getting up at these conferences and talking about the need for action; there were some complaints the BSL marches of the past were ‘too passive’.  It’s an important debate to have but political action takes active people doing active things; it involves risk taking, boldness and being prepared to confront.   I never remember the Wolvie Six telling people they needed to block the roads, they went out and did it!

The BDA is not a direct action political organisation though, it can’t be expected to do everything; and in any case historically any kind of activism has traditionally come from outside the ranks of the BDA.  That doesn’t mean the BDA members cannot lend support to action that does take place.  The BDA itself could run workshops on the issue, perhaps.

One final question related to the conference: why weren’t hearing people allowed into the Interpreting workshop?

Finally a real highlight of the weekend was the train journey home to Bristol.  The journey was such a brilliant communicative event that it hardly mattered how many times we had to change seats not knowing they were reserved, and never before was I so un-bothered by a crowded train.

Capitalism goes into a spin; but what does it mean to the Deaf world?

News just in has seen the vote for the $700bn ‘bail out’ plan fail in the US, and the markets dive yet again.  The only thing that surprises me about these events is that anybody was ever surprised about it at all.  As long ago as 2002 there were warnings that this is what would happen.  And everybody in the financial world has been bleating on for ages that a bubble is being created that is fit only to burst. Governments generally tended to believe that the market would eventually right itself if left unregulated and to its own devices.

I’m not going to pretend I understand the fine and technical details of what is happening: hedge funds, equity savings, and the impact of short term investments are beyond me; but anybody who takes a moment to look at what is happening will notice all is not well in the finance markets.

But two things are being forgotten that I think are worth considering.  Firstly, those interested in making profit from capital will not be the main ones to suffer: it will be those already struggling to make ends meet as banks and services start to tighten up lending and increase prices to make sure they retain their profit margins.  I can’t be the only person on the planet to notice that even though the price of a barrel of oil has actually been falling in recent weeks, petrol and energy prices have stayed rooted upwards. While it is working people who will be expected to bear the brunt of the crisis, the panic will surely be the middle-classes.

What does all this have to do with Deaf people one might wonder? Socio-economically, I’ll suggest that Deaf organisations will be at risk of seeing ‘progress’ being reversed, as programs that rely on funding are scaled back: we’ll find ourselves looking at the similarities we have with other groups, the need for solidarity with those who are also affected, and the class-based nature of our society will become ever more exposed.  These issues may end up cutting through Deaf/hearing lines, and giving rise to differences within Deaf studies on the nature of our society.  As I have written elsewhere, often the nature of the ‘hearing society’ in which we live is contested, but is often never made explicit on the basis it is considered ‘not a Deaf issue’.  Deaf studies can, of course, be a separate area and sphere of study, but I’d suggest when we get events like this happening, it can have its limits unless tied into a relationship with wider epistemologies.

Secondly, although the news is looking dire, this will not frighten those whose job it is to make profits; this will be considered an ‘opportunity’ – to make money and profits from declining stocks, perhaps for longer term profits.   That also shouldn’t come as a surprise because our entire system is underwritten by this very factor: i.e. competition for money, resources, stocks, etc; and those involved are trained to see it in fiscal rather than human terms.  This is in no way to de-humanize those involved in buying, selling and profit-making, but to simply underline that the world has suddenly become obssessed by what happens to cash.  And as the old punk saying goes: some will be out to make cash from chaos.

Our modern day politicians are too used to the idea that the market can solve the problems; indeed their careers have recently been spent fine-tuning arguments to favour a form of the market, even if it might be called ‘market-socialism’ (an oxymoron if there ever was one).  Now it is cracking or creaking or whatever they have no alternatives; they look to the ill-patient to get them out of the rut.

I’m not one of those who takes great joy in the problems experienced by capitalism, much as Ive never been a great supporter of the system, and that’s because every crisis creates misery and makes it much harder for people to enjoy a good quality of life.  Some even struggle to survive.  Protest or even revolts are not inevitable, in spite of how people might like to think of a misinterpreted marx, but the chances of them happening rise because people may see they are being made to pay for a crisis not of their own making.  Deaf people may find themselves faced with the question of whether to get involved in these movements, and they will be faced with what to do to ensure they can take part.

I am interested to see what Deaf people are making of this situation; not only with regards to their personal point of view, or with its affect on Deaf communities; but in terms of how this affects Deaf people in relation to the system as a whole.  One of the questions I would ask is whether these events are considered a separate political/economic issue to what goes on in the Deaf world; but more importantly, if they are connected, in what ways might that be so?

Moving on and apologies

My many apologies for not keeping up to date with this blog So I am just writing a brief summary here for now.

But…a lot has been happening, I’ve not been away on holiday.

Firstly, I am moving to University of Bristol from the beginning of October.  To my delight I was awarded an early careers fellowship from Leverhulme Trust.  This is a two year fellowship and will enable me to continue working in an academic environment.   I’m particularly pleased given that I’ve spent the last two years on short term contracts; valuable as that experience has been it’s stressful working on contracts that last less than a year.  The piece of research I will be undertaking will be exploring the concept of group rights in education, with deaf children as the case study.  This follows on very nicely from my PhD in citizenship, where Deaf people expressed serious concerns for the education of deaf children, and this fellowship will enable me to investigate this further.

But first of all, there is work to complete and I have been keeping busy with analysis of research that has been undertaken on Deaf people’s attitudes and beliefs on genetics.  We have our workshop at Cardiff on 18th September to disseminate the findings.  I’m also giving a paper on the subject at a conference in Amsterdam on 25/26 September, and will be at the Centre for Deaf Studies 30 year celebrations in Bristol on 27th September.

My small-scale but important piece of research on mental health in the Glasgow Black Minority Ethnic Community has been complete; I’ve written up the report and that is due for launch and publication in November.

I’m particularly pleased that a 7,000 word peer-reviewed article I wrote on citizenship is due to be published in Citizenship Studies; it’s a good summary, I think, of what my PhD is all about.

On a lighter note, I managed to catch some of the Edinburgh Festival amidst all the work, seeing two signed comedies and watched three mime-comedies as well as some street theatre and a fab exhibition.   And I treated myself by buying a replica Brighton and Hove Albion away strip that arrived today, but my excitement was dampened cos they lost today for the first time this season 4-1   Oh well, the players are probably all excited about facing Man City (and Robhino?) in the Carling cup…

…and so the genetics bandwagon looks like rolling into the Netherlands [and the 'designer baby' created free from hereditary cancer!]

Genetics ‘stuff’ might have died somewhat with the virtual unopposed passage of Clause 14/4/9 of the HFE Bill through UK Parliament and burn out on the part of those of us who have spent so much time and emotional energy trying to bring to public awareness the consequences of the Bill. But it looks like rearing its ugly head in the Netherlands; Stop Eugenics always warned that what becomes law in UK tends to be copied elsewhere, but I’m sure none of us will take any pleasure if those words are vindicated.

We could really have done without UK’s See Hear smashing and thrashing a lot of big thick nails into the coffin of what has been such a heartening and soul-fulfilling International campaign of which there is much to be inspired by; more on that later.

The HFE Bill is something that certainly should be treated seriously. I’m writing under the assumption that it appears as if 14/4/9 is about to pass through Parliament and become law, and unless there is some dramatic intervention, here is what it will mean.

As is well known most deaf babies are born to hearing parents. Deafness, rightly or wrongly, is still looked upon as something of a deficit in our society, the loss of a sense, a disability that a child should be prevented from having if at all possible, and in that context the vast majority of parents tend to feel grieved when they learn their child is deaf.

We also know that 50% of deafness is genetic, and therefore unknown. There is not a lot that can be done about that and therefore deaf babies are still going to be born (unless, of course, Tom Cruise comes to the rescue in a Minority Report kind of society where balls roll down a chute to warn the medical-police of a deaf baby potential so in swarm the cops to pry apart the couple from the act of copulation).

The hearing parent may want to know why their child was born deaf. If they are thinking of having another child, they may want to know the chances or possibilities of their future baby being born deaf. In the past such questions would be left to speculation, unpreventable, chance, wait and see, etc.

Genetic counselling, however, offers couples the opportunity to go for a chat and explore their questions and concerns. What is more; we will now have a situation where it is legally possible to create a ‘designer hearing baby’.

Ok, it isn’t a simple or cheap solution right now; the couple will have to go through the process of IVF, because that will enable embryo’s to be removed from the womb; and they will then be able to go through a process known as Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), which will enable a test to be undertaken to identify if an embryo is likely to be born deaf or hearing.

Currently it will only appeal to those rich enough to afford it, because this is expensive (they pay for IVF and also for PGD).

Sure, only the connexin 26 gene can be identified from this test, but it is would not surprise me if the test was expanded in future to identify the hundreds of other genes for deafness that are known (300 at the last count).

A couple may legally undergo PGD screening to see if they can identify the deaf/hearing status of the embryo. If it is found that there is a mix of deaf and hearing embryo’s, the next step is very simple. The hearing embryo(s) are the only ones that can legally be implanted [because deaf genes are highly likely to be regarded as 'abnormal' under the terms of the clause], and so therefore the female will have the hearing embryo put inside her and with it comes a high chance/near certainty that their child will be born hearing.

Of course, there is no guarantee: it could well be that all embryos are found to be deaf. Then the couple will have the choice of deciding whether it is better off having a deaf child or no child at all.

But when the first ‘hearing’ child is born from IVF via PGD I’ll hazard a guess the chances are high that this will hit the news, presenting an overjoyed couple with a hearing baby. Other couples in a similar situation may then want to look at the possibility of the same kind of service for themselves, encouraged no doubt by genetics industry spokespeople who consider deafness as an illness, a disease to be eliminated and eradicated, and a drain on taxpayers money. I can just picture them now, in their white coats, speaking calmly about the miracle of genetic technology, the joy it brings to parents, the lack of resources to make this more widely available, the high expense that prevents people affording it, and presenting themselves as entirely impartial service providers with no vested political interest.

And of course we will have the ‘baddies’ too: those ‘moronic’ and ‘sick’ Deaf people who see nothing wrong with being Deaf, taking great pride in language and culture, and who see the technology as yet another means of reducing if not eradicating Deaf people from society altogether. The media story will begin by highlighting a ‘frenzied’ group of Deaf people wanting to force hearing parents to have deaf babies, to deny them the choice of PGD; and in the process the media will whip up yet another anti-Deaf hysteria field day.

We have already seen a dry run of that in the press with the furore over the HFE Bill, which See Hear, to its shame, has tried to minimise with a narrative that treats the whole things as a silly little fuss over nothing.*[See End Note]

—–

I was fascinated to read how the press has treated the story of the yet to be born baby that has been through IVF and PGD to ensure he/she will be born without carrying hereditary breast cancer. A couple had decided to undergo this process due to the high incidence of cancer in their family. The thisislondon report was typical of many I read, headlining the process as the creation of a ‘designer baby’; I am fascinated by the media depiction since one might assume the elimination (or at least the reduction of) the potential for a baby to develop cancer as an adult would be hailed as universally positive: and yet here they are calling the process the creation of a ‘designer baby’.

Yet there was hardly any mention in the media that the screening out of deafness, which the media widely regard as being a bad thing, would equate to the creation of a ‘designer hearing baby’.

Interestingly, the reports highlight something else that is quite crucial: this screening process does not guarantee the baby will not develop cancer; it reduces the risk (albeit considerably they report).

I don’t personally think that particular practice is necessarily a bad thing to do, to harness and use genetic technology for screening out something like cancer. Nobody that I know of celebrates breast cancer; in Edinburgh they have an annual ‘through the night’ walk to raise money to go into research to seek cures for such cancer (called the MoonWalk) but with the Deaf community we have a group that celebrates sign language and Deaf culture.

—–

If our energy is waning and the baton looks like being passed on elsewhere, I wanted to take this opportunity to celebrate the positives from what’s come out of the opposition to Clause 14/4/9: Stop Eugenics may not achieve its aim of getting the Clause scrapped, but it did give the world a glimpse of what’s possible. Via cyberspace, a true campaigning network force was created (which incidentally I read elsewhere is becoming quite a common means of organising protest in the 21st century). The established charitable organisations were largely on the fringe (though the National Deaf Children’s Society did early on release a statement opposing the Clause); links were made with International organisations that represent the interests of Sign Language People (such as the World Federation of the Deaf); the odd media article was truly insightful, the blogosphere rocked with some stunning pieces of writing, while many within the genetic and medical community recognised the injustices of the clause and said it could easily be scrapped; the radio proved probably the most surprising outlet of them all for dissemination of the view of those opposed to this Clause. The British Deaf Association delved in early on, quickly recognising the implications of the Bill. There was a march organised by people unconnected to Stop Eugenics, which was made up largely of young Deaf people. Disability organisations and writers even got involved adding their words and voices in opposition; there have been many positives too long to mention: the setting up and maintaining of the website; creative posters and pictures opposing the Clause; that incredibly powerful ‘Stop’ video; translation of all kinds of material into BSL (done entirely voluntarily); transcripts of radio interviews into English by the superb Team HaDo (again largely voluntary); Tomato and Paula’s hectic international interviewing schedule; meetings with the Department of Health and at Wales Gene Park, and so on.

This was all achieved in the space of less than 6 months, when fully-paid up politicians, government departments, civil servants, and all kinds of other organisations, have had years to prepare their arguments.

If there are any group of people or scientists who are working on something for which others hold a totally opposite view, consultation and open discussion and debate is essential before any kind of policy making is made for legal consideration; but in this case that has not happened…Oh, I forgot, the UK government does actually legally require a consultation process with affected parties to take place…only it appears to have been brushed aside in this case.

This is far from the end; it feels to me just as if the ignition has been turned on to fire up and start a brand new car.

—–

[* Note: As a comparative example, look at all the mighty fuss kicked up in the UK over the 42 day terrorism detention extension…critics are universally agreed that hardly anybody will be locked up for so long (though legally they can be), but they also know that is far from the point, it’s arguably a blatant attack on civil liberties generally. Bit by bit those days have extended by the UK government over the last few years…there is a mighty argument about it, some are solid in their support, others solidly against and a lot of people in the middle. It comes on top of the growing number of CCTV cameras, surveillance in general, increasing, more police powers to stop and search people on the streets they suspect of possession of weapons, substances, or whatever, possibility of ID cards on the way, etc. That doesn’t make people stupid because they have different views on these issues, or sometimes are not always entirely clear of the arguments; but they do have some sense of feeling threatened by these laws and articulate that in different ways.]

Telegraph on ‘deaf babies’ we are still failing to get the message across

This report appeared in the Daily Telegraph today.

It is a positive report in so many ways, as it demonstrates what we already know: pressure from activists (you see, pressure politics DOES work!!) has actually forced the Department of Health into a climbdown (though whether it will find its way to Parliament is a different matter).

I have met the two health officials involved in rewriting the explanatory notes, and they were genuinely concerned at the feeling amongst Deaf people on this clause, and relating it to deafness. They were open and willing to learn, and I think they deserve credit for being open to the case we at Stop Eugenics have been putting to them.

But the Telegraph heading is actually quite a disappointment as far as I am concerned. We are not out to create deaf babies, how many times do we have to make this clear before the message gets through? Maybe it probably never will, but it does show that, in spite of what the media write, it is still possible to influence change in spite of all the forces that seem to be ranged against you.

It does not stop here, however. It is only the explanatory note that refers to deafness that is subject to a suggested amendement; it won’t stop the clause proper.

There is still work to be done, particularly because Baroness Deech made that statement in the Lords that the clause 14/4/9 applies to deaf people. And the clause tries to legalise something that the state is best kept out of anyway cos there are far too many scenarios, possibilities, issues, that can’t be legislated for and are best made privately.

That Inspiring Debate on Genetics in UK on 9th April…with a caveat

This post is coming somewhat a few days after the event of 9^th April, but better late than never I hope!

I have taken a jolt from the events surrounding the fact that one person at the event was attacked by a couple of others (more on that later): that is not a nice feeling when it happens to a friend, but I tried to support the person as much as was possible, while also having to grapple with the nerves of having to take part in the debate, and I had also had intense (but useful) genetics meetings earlier on Wednesday and also on Thursday.

It risks taking the focus away from what was, for me, one of the best events I have seen that involves Deaf people concerning a political issue for years. So while I do not in any way want to belittle, undermine, or ignore what happened with the attack, I do want to try and firstly write something of the spirit I felt being there.

I can’t remember the last time being part of an atmosphere such as was the case on Wednesday: utterly electrifying, and probably not felt since the march/event meetings on BSL recognition. In many ways I felt a lot more could be taken from this occasion, simply on the basis of who was present at the debate, the atmosphere created, and just the sense that everybody present had so much to contribute.

The incredible thing of all were the mix: medical people, geneticists, and department of heath officials, genetics interests groups, mixing with local Deaf people, Deaf academics, and representatives from Deaf organisations, including the campaign group Stop Eugenics and the BDA.

The way the seating was arranged (it is hard for me to explain this) meant that people felt so close to you when you stood up to speak/sign; it wasn’t like a flat classroom or a huge lecture type all. It was really a dynamic setting.

This also wasn’t one of those conferences that you pay ridiculously huge amounts of money to attend and so in the process exclude those on lower wages and are more likely to get a balance of professional heavies who can afford to go because their work pays for it. That was, of course, thanks to the Progress Educational Trust, who made no charges, and who, incidentally, appear to favour dropping/amending the clause. But the thing is, ‘professional’ (Deaf and hearing) people turned up anyway, out of genuine interest, and not cos their job demanded it.

Neither was it a show for men/women in suits telling you how it is and then giving the ‘proles’ from the audience a chance to have their say: in fact after the three speakers had given their 10 mins view, and apart from having had one or two times each to respond, this was an occasion for as many people to come forward and have an opportunity to put their point of view: professors, government reps, Stop Eugenics activists, BDA (National and Wales), IDC, NDCS, and so on. The event did not end with any so-called experts telling you what the answers were, because the truth is there aren’t any simple ones (other than, of course, dropping the clause!).

And the guy who was the speaker at the debate other than myself and Anna Middleton; Colin Gavaghan; I am linking to his website: go see what this guy has to say; he has written on this issue and there is a link on the right hand column of his page: I may not agree with all his finer points, but his approach towards the issue is very refreshing and if you are an activist I’d count him amongst your allies.

Everyone I spoke to after the event had nothing but positive things to say about the event and what was said/signed; other than the attack on the friend, the vibes were buzzing, people wanted more such debates, they wanted to know ‘what next’.

The event was ticket (free) only because they can only cram 100 people into this hall (and when I agreed to be a speaker I wouldn’t have thought we’d get more than 40 or so, cynical me); it was sold out and there was a long waiting list, plus I understand some people who had driven all the way from Bristol had to be turned away due to the event having started and being packed out completely.

Where-ever else do we see this happening? It proves very clearly without doubt that Deaf people ARE political people; this specific IVF issue will hardly affect anybody, but the interest does not come as a surprise because it will affect ‘the Deaf community’. Just in the same way that issues regarding education do, this is another that Deaf people involve themselves deeply in, because they know what it can lead to.

It was with great sadness that my friend was attacked; this spoilt the event in a big way, however, my friend showed great bravery and dignity to stand up to this attack, ignore the demands of one other, to come into the meeting, sit through it, join us all afterwards for drinks and chats, and then pen a fantastic summary of the event itself. And she has continued to engage with the issues ever since: I, in contrast, have found it hard to deal with, needing to take a few days ‘off scene’.

My hope is that people will not allow that event to overshadow what was, in effect, a very interesting debate. I hope that people will take inspiration from it.

Our international allies will surely be assured that we UK activists are fighting this every inch of the way!

‘Isn’t that all a bit Adolf Hitler?’ the taxi driver said.

Text message from a friend today:

“Today my taxi driver asked me about my work, so I told him about the Bill, and his immediate response was, without me declaring my position on it all was ‘Isn’t that all a bit Adolf Hitler?’ and we went on from there.  If it is so obvious to ‘the man [sic] in the street’, what is the problem with our elected representatives? Maybe we could do more somehow to stir up the general population to support us. Sigh.”

And that is in addition to the ‘lass’ he’d spoken to about it only the day before, a waitress, who was so horrified she started off discussing it with her working colleagues…who also agree the clause was out of order.

Tiger