The peacekeepers and the war officer: living dangerously at the bbc by allowing the bnp onto question time

The BBC has been at the forefront of producing some excellent documentaries about the rise of the Nazi’s to power and the horror of their rule in the 1930’s. Whoever allowed the bnp into their studios would do well to watch historical documentaries they funded and produced, that are available within their own archives and buildings.

Letting the bnp onto Question Time is alarming for every Deaf person who values diversity in society. The Nazi’s killed or sterlised deaf and disabled people as well as Jewish people, Trade Unionists, and just about everyone who disagreed with them.

Fascists play by totally different rules. It is too simplistic to say they are lying and evading arguments put to them, even though that may be true: it just doesn’t tell the whole story. One of the strategies of fascists is to make use of the media to try to influence people. But their target is not the ‘educated’ audience or politicians who already see through them, it’s the ‘mass’ who they are interested in, and their message is always intended to be simple and short…and emotive…to appeal to that mass. [In this case it's the 'fears' of immigration into the UK, terrorism by extremists passing as follows of Islam, the powers of the European Union, and many others.]

The points being made by liberals as to why griffin should appear are ridiculously, naively hollow. Their two key beliefs that (a) it is in the interests of impartiality, and (b) doing so will expose their racism and fascism, are not even the basis of an argument, but a shift away from it.  The issue here is not about ensuring impartiality and is even less about exposure of hidden beliefs.

I have tried to think of a metaphor that I’ll entitle ‘the peacekeepers and the war officer’.

The context of the debate is fundamental.  For griffin, the entry into Question Time is an essential part of a war manoeuvre. Real life peacekeepers would hardly see any sense of inviting a war officer into a room so they can argue about the merits of peace when the visit is considered by him to be a manoeuvre towards war.

It is griffin and the bnp who are constantly stating ‘indigenous’ British people are under siege by multiculturalism, i.e. using the language of war. They are said to be under attack, from immigrants, terrorists, followers of Islam, everybody who just happens to not agree with their politics. The action, the tactics, are ones being employed to suit peacetime, but the mentality or agenda, is one aimed for war.

It therefore makes more sense for the peacekeepers to keep the war officer out of the meeting, in order to keep the peace.

Was there some requirement to invite the war officer into the room in the first place? Was there a legal obligation? Was there a threat to the BBC by the public or politicians or others that they had to allow the bnp onto Question Time?

Impartiality, like choice, requires context, not mantra. There is certainly a liberal good that comes from impartiality, but allowing a fascist on a flagship political programme can hardly be deemed a liberal good.

It’s extremely dangerous that this has happened.  It is easy to lose faith, trust and hope in liberal polity.  ‘How can they allow it?’ But they did, that is the point, and the UK is not the only country to have done so; when France’s fascist Le Pen first took part in a Question Time style progamme his vote doubled. (As reported by the BBC on its own news website, are the invitee’s reading it?) It seriously exposes the shortcomings of liberals who try to do good.

I was utterly horrified with the programme. It was a hollow feeling to watch the Nazi totally outnumbered, attacked on all fronts politically, by the audience, panel and presenters.  You cannot choose an easier argument to win in a liberal democratic society. Almost too easy. But fascists do not care for liberals, they are not their audience. To fascists, liberals are part of the problem to be sorted out once power is achieved.  They have a broader perspective that goes way beyond the media.  The politicians and the presenter seemingly using a united strategy of bringing into the studio quotes that griffin had made and examples of his past violent life was futile in that regard.

It is absurd to see BBC liberals handing fascists an opportunity to promote their warplan.

The next time the BBC makes an excellent documentary about the rise of fascism in the 1930’s, those who are responsible for making the decision to let a 21st century fascist into their midst under the guise of liberal impartiality, would do well to watch their own programme. They might learn something from it.

John Clifford Blackman – obituary

The entry I’m about to write is personal, and refers to the first boss I ever worked under, as a cleaner at a printing factory, aged 17.  The experience of my time with Carmichael & Co. Ltd (Brighton) was so profound that it shaped my life thereafter. The reason for this entry is that he passed away on June 14th, which I found out about only recently.

Blackman, as I always refer to him, was a staunch right-wing Conservative Party councillor in Brighton, an arch-Thatcherite.  He was the Mayor of Brighton from 1984-85 and if you ever see a clip of documentaries of Thatcher dancing the night before the IRA bombed the Grand Hotel, Blackman is the Mayor seen in a dance with her. (His son, also called John, and also working at Carmichael’s, was even worse, a supporter of the arch-right wing Monday Club.)

Blackman set up his own printing business and it was quite a successful one.  It was also one that refused to recognise the trade unions, which at the time operated the ‘closed shop’, whereby you needed to be a member of one of the trade unions to apply for a job in the print.  Usually those working at Carmichal’s were not members of a union.

As a 17 year old I had no clue who I was working for, let alone the situation of trade unions.  I’d struggled to find jobs anywhere after leaving school, and got this one having been for loads of interviews.  Ninety percent of the time those jobs fell through because employers wanted me to be able to use the telephone. I’d already been working as a cleaner part time, notably at Sussex University.  When the job centre asked me if I had any other ideas of jobs I would like to do other than computing or clerical, I told him that I had an uncle who worked in the printing and that might be something I’d consider.  He pulled out a card for a cleaner/print room assistant at Carmichel & Co.  I went along for a job interview. It was a small company employing around 20 people.

A director guy with the second name of Beebe interviewed me, along with Blackman’s son John.  Beebe wasn’t convinced I could do the job; actually neither of them were.  It involved lifting stacks of paper into printing presses, and other manual labour.  Sure, I was some skinny guy back then, but I wasn’t entirely limp.  I kept telling them I could do it, no problem at all.   They summoned in Blackman, and it’s fair to say that if it wasn’t for his involvement I wouldn’t have got that job.  He said I should be given a chance. My first impression of him was as a very grumpy old man, who told me he had no idea what the wages where, ‘it might be nothing’.  I think it was something like £17 or £24 a week; whatever, it was quite low, but I was grateful to take anything.  (There was no DLA at the time!)

Working for Blackman wasn’t a relaxing or pleasant experience.  When he took me round the factory to ‘train’ me on aspects of the print, he would be explaining the names of various tools or equipment and then he would suddenly say ‘what is it?’ to ensure I had understood him.  It came so suddenly and out of no-where, taking me by surprise, but most of the time I understood him.  But I was nervous of the guy in those early years, so much seemed to depend on working to his satisfaction.  Once he asked to polish his car and gave me something; I had no idea what it was and began to apply it to the main body of the car.  Blackman came storming out: it was chrome polish I’d been given and I was only meant to polish the chrome parts of the car.  Blimey.  I had no idea cos I never imagined I’d be asked to do a job like that.  Of course, I was apologetic; for six months there were occasions such as these, with Blackman having little outbursts whenever I didn’t do a task to his satisfaction.

After six months I was expected to undertake an apprenticeship.  That was the norm for all print room assistants who worked at Carmichaels.  But unbeknown to me, he’d called in a lawyer of some kind, and they were advised to prolong the trial while they considered whether it was safe for me to work the print machines.  They were worried that if I was involved in an accident, the company would be liable having not taken the fact I was deaf into account. It may, therefore, require extra insurance for the company. They had contacted my former teaching assistant, Ms Taylor.  She had been the sole support I had during my time at secondary school, coming in once a week to help me out with English, Maths and any other subject. She had given me a positive report.

I was annoyed that my trial was extended for an extra six months, but didn’t complain.  It was hard, however, to dislike Blackman, as he did have a certain charm.  After a while of knowing him, it was possible to laugh at some of the comments and things he said: like when at lunch time I would sit reading the Sun or the Mirror, and he asked me why I read ‘that rubbish’, and ‘why don’t you read The Times’, little things like that.  He would glare at me and I would laugh, and he would just shrug and walk away.  When I got into a panic with printing taskes he would put it into perspective: ‘have you ever seen a man dying,’ he would say.  ‘Err, no,’ I would respond.  ‘You wouldn’t want to,’  he said.  Blackman had seen action, while in the Navy, in the second world war. You had to respect that.

I did get some experience on the printing presses, usually when a worker was ill.  I shouldn’t have been, for health and safety reasons (untrained, etc.) but I got work done for them.  But Blackman did something else, he gave me a go on the typesetting machine at Carmichaels.  I was getting experience in all departments, and after a year they asked me if I’d be interested in working as a full-time typesetter.  ‘You wasn’t very good working on the machines,’ he told me, although I’d hardly had much of an opportunity.  Still, it was very true my skills were better used in that department. His son, John, tried to train me, but was always leaving it until 4.30pm in the afternoon or getting called away, so I had to learn most of it myself, and with help from other workers who knew how to use the typesetters.  Rather strangely, one other woman would come in about once a week to do typesetting, and she had the same surname as me, and was called Sandra, so two S. Emery’s working as a typesetter in such a small printing company was rather amazing!

I continued, however, to get rollickings.  I recall one incident, before I formally began as a typesetter, Blackman was unhappy with something, or with a job I did badly.  I got a severe dressing down and was ordered to sweep the floors of the print factory.  It was utterly humiliating, but I didn’t feel I had a choice.

But Blackman gained my respect in perhaps a bizzare way.  When I was made Typesetter, I’d made a hash of some jobs, particularly with my spelling.  I still remember spelling principle rather then principal, for example.  Beebe mocked me: ‘you can’t spell can you’ and that was irritating, it was a comment Blackman would never have made.  There was one occasion where there was a problem with a job, and for the first time ever I defending myself.  Blackman respected my defense and left it at that, but from that point on, I found Blackman changed.  We would disagree over many things, and I found myself challenging and responding in a way that was impossible when I was a print room assistant.  I would do the same with Beebe and John.

I used to mess around a lot with my fellow workers; we got caught out doing some blatant stuff but Blackman never said anything, instead grumbled and muttered.  Then, once, from the far end of the corridor, I gave a colleage a gentle poked in the tummy and Blackman came storming over, summonded us into the office, gave us a severe bollocking, I protested but it was hopeless.  I’ve still got the letter of an official warning from him, for ’skylarking’.

I was confident enough, therefore, to challenge on a regular basis, my fears of Blackman having reduced.  I had also become more politically aware and asked to join the trade union the NGA.  ‘Blackman, that c***,’ they always said. They were delighted to have me as a member.  They wanted me to leave Carmichaels and join a unionised factory, but I wanted to stay on and fight for the unionisation of the company.  That couldn’t be done alone, of course, but had to involve other workers joining the union.  I managed to recruit a few others, sort out some problems that others had, and was really pushing on.  Whether Blackman was aware or not, I have no idea, but it did get bad.  I was always refusing to work overtime.  It got the extent that Blackman was training a young guy to take over from me, but Blackman couldn’t do very much because I worked hard and well.  The overtime issue came to a head one evening when Beebe and John sat down and told me that if I didn’t work overtime I’d be sacked. I relented and worked overtime in order to stay on, they let the poor young lad go, in tears; but it was obviously clear from that point on that my time was up there.

I handed in my notice soon after, having secured a job in Burgess Hill with the assistance of the NGA. My co worker told me there were tears in his eyes when he was talking to her about my going.  He wasn’t around on my last day so I never got to say goodbye to him; and when I visited the factory a few years later, he wasn’t in the office. I wrote to him for a reference a year or two after that, but, probably not surprisingly, received no reply.

That was some experience for a young lad who started there at 17 and left at 20.  But the trasformation I underwent when Blackman was my main boss was lifelong, changing me into something that was the exact opposite politically of what he was.  He was also the architect at giving me experience on Typesetting machines, which led to being experienced in a trade that was very well paid, and, providing you were a union member, very easy to find job a job in at a time when jobs were hard to come by.  I spent a further seven years working in the print.

I have a grudging respect for Blackman in that regard.  On starting at Carmichael’s he became a figure I respected but also detested and was angry with on a lot of occasions, but when I challenged, he returned respect.  His aggression towards me stopped and he treated me like any other worker.  All of that gave me a lot of confidence as a person and in myself.

It would be wrong to say I ever missed the guy, and hypocritical to write anything of a glowing tribute.  I am, however, extremely happy to have met him and had him as a boss, however hard going it was at the time.  What I will also say is that the guy will never be forgotten by me, even though he is gone.

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?

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

Five years after BSL is acknowledged: was it worth it?

Today is five years to the day that BSL was finally acknowledged (although it’s down as being ‘recognised’ in the official statement I don’t buy it) by the UK governement. 

Let me be clear.  Deaf people should celebrate because it wouldn’t have happened without the action of people up and down the country: the marches, the demos, the direct action especially.  Without that we’d have nothing to refer to, nothing to show for it. But sometimes I wonder if it would have been better to have publicly rejected the statement, and fought on, since let’s face it, it’s hardly done much to change anything?  Plus we were still quite fired up into taking action, and this statement seems to have killed that off. 

The other thing is, that the very next day this statement was announced, the UK joined the USA in it’s illegal invasion of Iraq.  I recall watching the nightly news bulletins of ’shock and awe’ bombs raining down on the beautiful and historical city of Baghdad. In that context it was very hard to celebrate the statement effectively, knowing people were being mercilessly killed in Iraq.

However, people did begin a mass movement to oppose the war and I attended demo’s in the UK calling to ‘Stop the War’; if we had rejected the statement we could have continued with the demoing, but it’s too late to reflect on ‘what if’s…’ now.  Hopefully this will be a learning process; I certainly learnt a lot from it.

And here we are, five years on, yet another meeting has recently been held with government and organisations, which incidentally we still don’t know anything about, what happened at this meeting of the suits and our PM Gordon Brown??  All I have seen is the photograph of those who attended the meeting, and a brief outline of what was agreed.  And also this is all taking place in the context of the HFE Bill, clause 14/4/9.

Is this the setting for a BSL Act finally being seriously considered?  It would not be perfect, but would nevertheless be a step in the right direction.  And if that does come to fruition, all fine and well, but I still feel that at some stage, the marching boots will be out again!

To march or not to march (against Eugenics)…is that the question?

For some time now it has been known that Islington Deaf Campaign (IDC) are organising a march through the centre of London ‘to stop remove deaf gene’. From their website it is clear that their campaign has arisen as a result of the HFEB bill.

They are to be congratulated on that.  A march will put further pressure on MPs and the government to drop or amend the clause. A march will receive media attention linking the government with Eugenics and that is something they will not want. It has also become particularly urgent in light of the fact that the Lords have completely ignored the StopEugenics campaign, and therefore the HFEB Bill and the clause is now set to be processed through Parliament…unless it can be stopped.

However, there is some confusion with the aims of the march: are IDC organising against the entire Bill or just the clause?

StopEugenics has sought clarification on this but are still awaiting a reply. StopEugenics was not set up to oppose the entire Bill, only the clause (see here for some of the reasons why the whole Bill is not being opposed). Individuals might be against the Bill in principle and that is up to the individual if they want to oppose the whole thing, but not necessarily everyone in StopEugenics does so, and therefore StopEugenics is not in a position to support a march which opposes the entire Bill.

But there is a more fundamental problem. Nowhere in the Bill is there anything that will lead to the compulsory removal of the deaf gene. It is clause 14/4/9 that is the problem. If it becomes law it will mean a form of eugenics where parents can choose hearing genes over deaf ones, BUT only during the IVF process and then only if they decide to have the test for the deaf gene. If the clause is removed, however, it removes allowing parents the (eugenics) opportunity to create a hearing baby.

IF the march, however, is being planned as a general, broader attempt to ’stop remove the deaf gene’, of which the clause in the HFEB Bill is just one example, then that would be a different matter and would undoubtedly be supported by a lot of those involved in the StopEugenics campaign.  There does, however, need to be some clarity of the various ways in which the deaf gene is under threat other than from this clause; otherwise I am left wondering for what reason the march is taking place other than it being linked specifically to the HFEB Bill.