All The Young Dudes

ANALYSIS: The HFEB & Clause 14(4)(9) Media Feeding and Talkback Frenzy

Unlike the first media feeding, and talk back, frenzy surrounding the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, and Clause 14 (4) (9), Not quite with the Times,Sunday Times article & my communication with the Sunday Times, Media Watch: Hearing People Still Don’t Get It!, and Media Watch: Hearing People Still Don’t Get It! Part Two, that saw words like evil, selfish, militant, politically correct, and deaf activists, et al, bandied about in a manner that was more blind ignorance and hate than considered opinion.

This time round, the media feeding, and talk back, frenzy, is much the same, except that it has been tempered by some rather sane, thoughtful and and touching observations: Mike Gulliver’s Response to John Humphries, Howard’s The Right To Remain Silent, Disability Now’s Deaf Activists Bill and “Designer babies” storm, and Dominic Lawson’s, Of course a deaf couple want a deaf child. Including a Deaf couple, Tomato Lichy and Paula Garfield, who put themselves in the public eye, to fight ignorance, only to be met by uncomprehending arrogance in many quarters. There are many more people working behind the scenes, such as the oft uncredited Stop Eugenics team, led by G.O.D, to whom we should also be grateful.

With rare exceptions, the actual content of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, and the implications of Clause 14 (4) (9), in particular, is again, willfully disregarded and rendered meaningless to a media intent on sensationalist headlines, and journalists and bloggers eager to further obfuscate the debate whilst perched on their lofty pedestals blinded by their own self importance, and a general populace that is still exploring the dark recesses of their cavernous arses, “Baa! Baa!”, to even take time out to THINK!

In which case, why should, I, a sane and rational man, give due respect be given to the opinions of the great unwashed thus expressed?

Well, there is the argument that people have a right to express themselves however they see fit. I will concede that. However, reading response after response, article after article, and blog post after blog post, where the tone is often culturally presumptuous and arrogant, it gets quite dispiriting. I would engage in some good natured bantering, but many of these respondents are beyond rational, or should I say, incapable of rational debate. They cannot see outside the box. Convince me otherwise. And let’s not talk about analysis, it often leads to brains shorting.

You know, I wouldn’t waste time trying to engage a sexist pig, a homophobe, or racist, in life, love and the universe. Like these talkback frenzied netizens, their positions are absolute. So why would I want to engage with them? Which begs the question, who are the real lovers of choice, diversity and life here?

I know it sounds as if I am writing off a whole contingent of humanity, and if these responses are anything to go by, then so be it. They are a rather shallow lot, and they wallow in it. That’s what raises my ire. They frigging wallow in it.

Maybe it is an intellectual disability of sorts. Intellectually bereft, defined as the shorting of the brain as it attempts to engage with reality? If so, why are they allowed to breed like rabbits? Why are we not subjecting them to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, and Clause 14 (4) (9)? Why do some of these intellectually bereft people actually govern us? Would they not all qualify as having the faulty gene? Thereby, forfeiting their right to propagate their kind. If they have to propagate, let them take photos, and make as many copies as they desire. That way, they pose no danger to sane society, and will eventually die out. Without us having to resort to bloodletting.

Yes, I know it’s easier to respond to a concept engendered within a headline or catch phrase, and in this day and age, where the amount of information is overwhelming, bite sized morsels of information are a welcome relief. But the media is doing lot of damage by their lack of thought and careless opinion. Which is why hearing people really need to have a good look in the frigging mirror before they open their big fat gobs!

The problem with the media attention to his bill, is that, once again, it is framing it entirely as a Deaf People want a  designer baby issue. Pointing the finger at Deaf people as selfish, amoral, and pick any other negative adjective, they probably think that too. As a consequence, little or no thought is given to the actual bill. No thought is given to the implications of the clause 14 (4) (9), which have ramifications for hearing people too. The hearies who are so ready to judge us Deafies, are in for a rude shock, once they realise what they actually support. They really have no idea as to what they are actually speaking out against.

I was speaking to my mate G.O.D this morning, and she raised a point that many of the respondents didn’t even consider. What if you had a choice of two embryos and both had a faulty gene. Which are you going to choose?

It is the usual thing for hearies to jump in and voice an opinion, based on nothing more than, what they consider “common sense”. A definition of disability that they consider to be the correct one, and dismissing anything else as political correctness. We were born with two ears, two eyes, etc, is a cliche that is dredged out everytime a discussion is raised about deafness and disability, when there is no desire for indepth discussion. No thought is given to context, which plays an overwhelming part in how that disability manifests itself. Just pat answers until the next uninformative skirmish!

Further Reading:

Deaf People & Genetics: Media Coverage
MEDIA WATCH:  A Cacophonous Din of Ignorance & A Sane Voice  [More Linx]

Sphere: Related Content