Deaf Blawg

For over 10 years, I have wanted to set up a Deaf Law Centre, with the aim of Deaf clients being able to receive advice in their first language: BSL. This is something that I’ve floated around in various circles, and even wrote my dissertation on the very subject for my LL.B. For years I have received mixed messages of yes, lets go for it, to pushing Deaf people down in the fact that it will never happen. This issue has raised its ugly head and amounted to bullying and harrassment.

This issue seems to be pushing towards the agenda with the formation of the Blind and Deaf Legal Access Group, plus there are other things happening within the field.

Currently I am seriously worried, if not angry how this whole thing is being pushed forward. There is complete little regard to understanding the ethos behind legal services and merging this seamlessly with the unique make up of the Deaf community.

Any such initiative, has to be completely independent of deaf organisations. For such a law centre to be tied in any way to a deaf organisation, either financially or by other means, goes against many of the ethos of law and secondly fails to understand the Deaf community.

For example, many Deaf people work for deaf organisations, attend Deaf Clubs which are owned by deaf organisations. Should a Deaf Law Centre be affiliated to an organisation, even financially, it will exclude many Deaf people from being able to access advice, where no conflict of interest is present. Those people working closely with deaf organisations, where ties are made, I seriously question if impartiality can be maintained, yet alone trust, whereby a Deaf person wants to challenge the status quo.

Deaf history, and indeed the current set up is very much geared towards paternalism of Deaf people. Deaf organisations are one of the major catalysts of controlling Deaf people, and indeed has maintained structures to (in)directly ensured that this has continued.

Any set up a Deaf Law Centre, needs to do so independently, and the Law Centres Federation needs to work within this remit. I worry, in the sense that the Law Centres Federation will fail to appreciate how the Deaf community works, its make up, and thus not pick up on some of the issues involved. Deaf organisations won’t do it, on the basis that they are in it for financial gain, and with 225 organisations in the UK very often such initiatives are not there for the best interests of Deaf people, but an attempt to gain yet another illusionary feather in their hat. Lawyers may seek out deaf organisations, as they do not have the necessary expertise within deafness, and thus not able to step outside the box.

The issue is one that has been played around with for so long, and for the past 10 years, there has been no Deaf leadership in this respect. Leaders and speakers are all hearing. Noone challenges this. Whilst Deaf people want to work with hearing professionals, advice has to be adhered. At the end of the day, hearing professionals do not live and work in the deaf community, thus may not pick up on some of the nuances.

The Deaf Law Centre is an initiative that should be taken forward, but it has to involve Deaf people alongside lawyers, and it has to be independent. This cannot be stressed enough.