*Re the
use of deaf and Deaf: the lower case d refers to some
form of hearing loss or individuals who have it but do not consider themselves
part of the Deaf community. The capital D refers to individuals who are members
of the Deaf community and consider their Deafness part of their identity and
culture.
Some
weeks ago, my husband collected me from uni late. He talked in the car about a
serious accident that had snarled up traffic in the CBD: everything towards the
quay was gridlocked and police and other emergency services would probably take
several hours to clear the accident. A few days later I chatted to my Deaf
tutor and a Deaf man, E, about the traffic jams that day and realised they had
no idea what had delayed their journeys home.My husband heard about it on the radio, I interjected, and turned off to take a different route.
But Deaf people don't listen to the radio, E signed. Deaf people rely a lot on their mobile phones, but unless someone sends them an SMS about the accident, they wouldn't know.
D/deaf
people can have flashing lights or vibrating alarms or both for their doorbells and phones and to wake them up for work, smoke, or a fire. But d/Deaf tenants miss out if
their landlord doesn't install visual and vibrating alarms -- unless they fork
out. D/deaf people can miss smoke and fire alarms at work if the building has
no visual alarms -- deaf Green Party MP Mojo Mathers nearly missed the fire
alarm at work because
of that lack, prompting the Green Party to campaign the government to review the law change on requiring developers to install visual alarms. While d/Deaf people can use NZ Relay and text 111 to contact the usual emergency
services, the information flows only one way: d/Deaf people can report a crime
or request assistance, but NZ Relay and the police won't be contacting d/Deaf
people about an incident in their area. The Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (MCDEM) and Deaf
Aotearoa have produced videos for natural disasters (featured
on Deaf Aotearoa’s website); some airlines show in-flight safety videos with
subtitles and even sign language interpretation. These address the need for
information appropriately but also preemptively: they try to prepare d/Deaf
people using the correct methods, but the information mostly anticipates. You
can argue that preparation's half the battle, but when the emergency occurs,
how do d/Deaf people get further, up-to-date information as events unfold? Sign-interpreted
in-flight safety videos help pre-flight and sans emergencies, but what do
airlines do for d/ Deaf
passengers when the engine blows and the plane starts going down? Government emergency
plans
recommend having a battery-operated radio and list radio stations to
listen to in an
emergency. Should d/Deaf people have to go looking for what hearing people get
just because they can hear - by listening to the public address system on the
plane – when time may be short and facilities lacking? What's the alternative
when you can't hear? The National Association for
the Deaf (NAD) in the US recommends a reverse 911 service (where police can call people
via TTY to alert them of local emergencies) in its report about emergency warnings for
d/Deaf and hard-of-hearing people. Radio stations can use Radio Data System (RDS) to broadcast traffic and other information.
Hi Ana,
ReplyDeleteI know this is early days so feel free to take my comments with a pinch of salt!
I think the content you have is very persuasive for the fact that there should be more substantial services in place for emergency situations. But I think you're right (based on our previous discussions) that maybe your topic needs to be tweaked a bit so that there's a position which could be fought against. I think it'd be difficult for anyone to argue that services should exist, but if you pick a specific position about e.g. exactly what services should be available, or how much money should be spent from government budgets, or as you said earlier that there should be a consolidated and mandatory approach for all regions rather than them managing their emergency response services independently.
I think the challenge is that you need to find the opposing opinion already in existence so that you can talk about it and link to stuff, in order to then argue against it and convince people that your opinion is 'right'.
The content itself you have so far is good though. It's quite long, already more than half the word count (though I'm sure you were already planning on moving things around a bit) - I think you could have less detail in the introduction about the various services and preparation currently available, and move this to a subsequent post. If the introduction is kept a little more brief and just used to set up what the next posts will be, it makes the word count less daunting!
I'm looking forward to seeing your next posts, though. Interesting topic! :)
Thanks, Julia. Those are points that I was already worrying about. I plan to cover the opposition (so to speak) in a later blog. As for the length -- I did wonder about where exactly to cut off to make up the first blog! I think it will help when I have it all written up and I can read and evaluate it as one thing....
ReplyDeleteHi there
ReplyDeleteNice background and picture - I find your page visually appealing!
I also like that you use lots of hyperlinks - makes me think you've done lots of reading and gives your post more credibility.
I echo Julia's comment and know we've discussed in the lab about choosing a more specific, "arguable", stance - how about something like promoting a national register where the Deaf can enrol to be contacted by txt etc in the event of an emergency? Re the airlines, perhaps a call to Air New Zealand would be interesting to find out what their policy is with deaf passengers in an emergency - could give you some leads to pursue online.
I wondered if your title would be better in statement form rather than as a question? (This may change anyway as you refine your stance) Also, I felt your personal view doesn't come through strongly enough - perhaps a final personal statement at the end of your 1st paragraph would do the trick?
Also, 1st paragraph, "My husband heard about it on the radio, I interjected, and turned off to take a different route." - I stumbled a little when I was reading here, as it is direct speech. Either rework this or use speech marks
Jenette -- to address your and Julia's points, I've re-phrased my question now. I guess it's hardly arguable at this point whether d/Deaf need better access to emergency information -- they DO -- but WHO provides or funds it would be a better question to pose. I think calling Air New Zealand would be opening a kettle of fish that I would't have the time to deal with for this brief, though it would be an avenue to pursue. I'd probably contact all the carriers that fly in and out of NZ, in that case.
ReplyDeleteI agree the wording could use clarification somehow, but I didn't use quotation marks for that because I wanted to keep it consistent -- the whole conversation was signed. I might italicise the dialogue instead...
Well done - the tweaked title works better. Your idea to italicise the conversation with E helps with the clarity, too.
ReplyDeleteA recent online article reported a deafblind priest refused passage on a plane because he was travelling unaccompanied (see newer post): the airline explained that they required him to travel with a companion in case of emergencies. I don't know what the airline's policy is towards d/Deaf passengers. But I thought it was a shame they refused that man passage...
ReplyDelete