Johan Wesemann, Policy advisor of the Board of Governors of the schools for the deaf and hard of hearing (Netherlands)
Note: This document has been derived from speech to text transcription and may contain minor transcription errors.
I have listened with great interest to the previous two speakers, and they were both extremely interesting. Partially they have said what I have said in the past, and what I have prepared for today. I will skip part of the presentation I had prepared as it has been covered.
It may be relevant to know that in the late 90s I was the president of the European Disability Forum for ten years. Also I have been a director not for the deaf, John [John Low, Chief Executive RIND], but of the deaf.
We are of course here because we believe in the vision and the necessity to create a joint strategy, so much more than in the past. We'll have to communicate inside our own world and to the outside world.
It is this dialogue, this industry and an interesting characteristic of this meeting today.
There are a couple of points I would like to make today. When I first represented the EUD in a meeting with European Commission it was terribly difficult to have the hearing world understand what deaf people needed. This was in addition to problems with local and national cultures within Europe, bureaucratic culture, itself an organised culture and indeed we were facing a reality of 7 text phones systems which were incompatible within Europe, and this was an area where what we felt was progress, actually created barriers when we looked across the board.
So, I am very happy with the fact that the existence of text phones has not prevented other technologies from becoming available. Instead, you could even argue that text telephony was one of the first types of technology that allowed not only deaf people but also hearing people to realise the communication possibilities available. Even hearing people have found out there is a need not only for voice telephony but also for text communication.
Had hearing people not been interested in text communication we would have been fighting a lost battle. We would still be dependent on separate technologies.
At the same time, we have to understand that together with you and other organisations and stakeholders we have to monitor these elements. We have to monitor technological progress to ensure no new barriers are being created. Not only do we have to take part in the formulation on demands of user demands for new technologies we (the deaf community) have to be seen as one of the most important stakeholders, not only for economic perspectives but also from the perspective of human rights, that is a perspective I have worked for many years in my European work. It is a matter of human rights and that is however brilliant the previous speakers presentations were, that is an argument I want to add to future representations.
Equal opportunities are a fundamental human right. This is the basis for equal opportunities and equal participation in society.
In Holland, a country where I now live and work, deaf people have more computers and are more computer literate than hearing people. So deaf people are, for now, coping with what is available. Despite the fact that the use of written language for many deaf people is still a problem, these technologies do meet the basic need of communication.
I assume that within the rest of the European Union also the vast majority of deaf people still don't have text telephones; apart from the very senior deaf people among us I know very few deaf people with access to text telephones.
It is also clear that current computers do not meet all the needs of deaf people. In a way this is strange. Why do I say strange? It is strange in the sense that very often we (the deaf Community) have been educated away from our families. We have been raised away from our families. The educational world, the educators may have considered themselves experts in education but very, very rarely are they also aware of technological possibilities. Very few deaf children are now trained, educated in how to use modern technologies. I believe this is still a flaw of deaf education.
So you could raise the question to what extent deaf education is playing the roll it should play in terms of empowering deaf children and students to use technology and to become global communicative citizens.
I am deviating from the paper I have prepared because of the vast amount of points that have already been made. Deaf and hard of hearing people suffer from mental health problems four to four and a half times more than the hearing population. I am convinced that electronic communication can partially close this gap or alleviate the situation, but I would be even happier with a truly open society where technologies are truly inclusive.
I have to express my admiration for in a way some aspects of the UK situation and environments deaf and hard of hearing people live in. The Telecommunications Act and the broadcastings are on the front in Europe. In Holland, less than 50 percent of the programmes are subtitled and only on the public channels, not the private networks.
Also, the UK experience shows it is not a matter of technological possibilities or impossibilities. It is simply a matter of political will. Political will and the will of the stakeholders. In a sense this is dramatic. Also dramatic because the EU claims it is not competent in this area.
Recently in a meeting with the Dutch government the Dutch government stated by the year 2010 we should have achieved 100 percent subtitling, but time and time again the arguments brought up that this can only be regulated for public networks and time and time again we have to fight the fact that or the consequence of the fact it is not in the budget. Time and again we run the risks of losing subtitling percentages when financial cuts are being made.
A point has already been raised that is already important to me and close to my heart. The SMS services are not sufficient and cannot serve in emergency situations. In case of an emergency, for now, the Dutch government is still refusing to introduce a system that gives deaf people access to emergency services. The costs argument is the main argument and I think it is safe to say that the same argument is used in other countries. Here again I feel there is a strong need to develop a joint strategy.
We have to appeal to the responsibility of society, especially in the area of those emergency services where very little of anything at all has been arranged for deaf and hard of hearing people. The European Union of the Deaf has been very closely involved in the project and wants to continue this participating with other stakeholders, the organisations of hard of hearing people and service providers to make sure we arrive at regulations that are transparent and maximum usability for deaf and hard of hearing people in Europe.
As a Dutch citizen it is my experience that working in Europe, through work in Europe we have sometimes achieved more than we were ever able to do when working only on a national level. I was surprised that and I am still surprised that industry seems little interested in applying standards or arriving at standards. I am not sure if my impression is right. Maybe we ourselves have failed and how some aspects of our needs are relevant to all humanity, to all human beings.
I think that in parallel to our work with the European Commission and the decision makers in the European institutions we may have to be more active in approaching industry and working with industry.
In my work, I have had and still have many bilateral meetings with hearing people inside and out of my work. It often happens during these meetings that the conversation is interrupted when a hearing partner grabs for his mobile phone and starts a phone conversation. I am standing there waiting. It is an insult. In many cases, it appears our conversation, which I feel is very important, is being interrupted because one of the children at home wants to know where mummy has hidden the candy. It is these subtle sensitivities on a very basic one on one human interactive level where awareness needs to be raised.
When I say I am insulted by the fact that our conversation is interrupted by a phone, very often the counter argument is "well my children have their rights and I am a Dad too".
People rarely understand for me it is still not possible to interactively communicate with my children at home. It is one of the subtle areas in life where we expect solutions from society, where we look at technology to bring about real change and add real quality of life. So centralisation is not the only solution, it is a means to an end. The end is human beings, whether deaf, hard of hearing or speech impaired, can communicate with each other and the rest of humanity on an equal level.
I have skipped parts of my presentation and I have only touched on a few of the items that are relevant to a deaf person's perspective and made a few additional points to the two presentations you have already heard this morning. I am looking forward to a very interesting and fruitful day.
I hope that the outcomes of today, the impact of today's results will be felt and I also hope that we are not only sitting here today but this is the start of true incorporation among the stakeholders and that people will leave here with a new understanding of the relevance of these issues and of the differences between people and how technology can accommodate the difference. I don't want to change, I don't want to become the same as a hearing person, I want the same opportunities as a hearing person. I am sure that these are the same points the RNID were raising, but from a different perspective.
Thank you very much.
Speech held at the occasion of the European Conference on "Access to the Information Society" in the Residence Palace, Brussels, on 25 February 2004.
