Speech is a scary racist-like system. It is a judge and jury system against many.

Speech is a scary racist system. It is built on the same mechanisms that define and operate racism.

No this is not the kind of racism everyone discusses……. Speech is a scary supremacist system. Supremacist like racism and this is where the analogy comes in.

It is arguable however in the last deaf people have likened the notion of audism/oralism to that of racism, and have highlighted the many parallels between the two.

In my experience looking at one and looking at the other it is obvious there are parallels.

Every one who has speech is lucky. VERY LUCKY. Just like everyone who is white is also very lucky. (For example there is better treatment by law enforcement agencies, authorities, organisations, even applying for jobs etc.)

People with speech can essentially argue, defend, put forward points, campaign, give speeches, convince other people of views and perspectives etc. Essentially chin-wagging, speaking nine-to-the-dozen etc. They can get jobs, they can conduct and complete deals, make friends easily etc.

Indeed, it is known that criminals have a better chance of geting a job than people like myself. It is confirmed. Clearly criminals can talk and blather they way through things. They have the access, the means to negotiate the system that is called speech.

deafnessbar

Guardian report 2nd Dec 1997

Talking of criminals, the other thing, a very sad thing indeed, is people can also lie, distort, again convince, others, dupe, delude, create a fallacy, an untruth. I have said speech is a white system. It is like white versus black. It is a ideological system that decides who fits and who does not fit – upon the instant analysis of whether, or how, indeed, if one has any capability to speak or communicate effectively – just as racism is based on how one sees another person’s skin and thereby decides upon (and implements) a system of exclusion measures.

In that way speech becomes a massively exclusive system, a system that panders to a massive exclusion of those who dont have it. It is a far worse racism than disability discrimination. I have had some assert to me that even disabled people who have speech are ‘hearing’, audist etc. Certainly when I have met disabled activists like Sue Marsh etc I have found their supremacy quite evident. They immediately ignore me. Push me aside. It does not matter that I approach everyone with an absolutely neutral stance. People will judge and pass sentence immediately.

Now the good thing about the police, the very good thing in this case especially with regards to the Metropolitan Police (but of course other police forces too) is they are also speakers, their lives are ingrained in the use and daily dispensation of speech. Isn’t that an excellent thing for those who speak and have a need to phone the police and report incidents? I mean just really think about it and work on how much of speech warriors these law enforcers are.

Let’s face it, every police conference (as do other forms of conferences and gatherings) involve a speaker (or speakers) and this in itself exposes the supremacist aspirations of that system. Speech cannot just be done away with. Just like a lot of other aspects of this so called ‘equal’ speech society. Yet the irony is those without speech can, and are ‘done away with.’

Too often people will bully those like me. They have this automatic idea that just because I (or others similarly) cant communicate, they can abuse us, swear at us, punch us, just because we have no idea how to respond (and this brings out the very animal desires in those who speak because this regular practice is no way of achieving a equal society but clearly one that is desperate to divide and subvert certain groups of people.

You cant envisage what I am saying? Perhaps thats because you are part of the system itself. You have never thought about the massive power of law the police have which also ties in with the power of speech?

Let’s devolve into this thought experiment. An incident occurs. Police arrive. On one side it is a crowd of speakers. On the other it is a crowd of deaf people. Who will the police attend to first? (And by that decree who will the police more likely establish their bias with?)

What better buddies could one want when those (who are perpetrators, abusers) need to dispense lies? When for example its the Met police and the perpetrators against an innocent victim? A massively unequal system and one the Metropolitan Police very happily participates in almost automatically. Because it is like a duck to water. It understands only others who speaks and surreptitiously bathes in the very oppressive system it is so adept at using. The Met cannot see the bias it operates and yet it thinks it’s a force that is representative of everybody.

deafjury

Letter in the Guardian 11th Nov 1999

The above headline from the Guardian (1999) highlights the contradiction. A deaf person is on trial and yet the jury is 100% hearing. Deaf people are NOT allowed to be on a jury. Why is that? Well you may or may not realise it but it is because the justice system sees those with speech as having more validity than those without.

The Guardian headline therefore highlights a paradox. Why is the deaf person on trial and facing a jury that consists of not one peer? Oh no, the justice system does not want to know, the deaf person must be judged by those whom it deems best – which is of course those who have full speech faculty.

Now let’s think the other way round. If a hearing person was on trial and it was a full 100% deaf jury, there would be outrage, demonstrations etc. People would be outraged that the hearing person was not being judged by their peers. The other way round its absolutely fine of course and it cant be challenged at all because the controlling paradigm is speech.

Do you see where I am getting at? Speech is the truth, being deaf or non-verbal etc is being a liar, or someone with just absolutely no rights and in line for abuse that will regularly be excused or overlooked because of the in-built bias of the speech system.

Having mentioned that, the automatic consensus is the latter (the victim, eg me) is the criminal because communication (speech) is a problem. The police and the perpetrators win. The police collaborate with abusers ironically because the cops deem the abusers are SPEAKING the truth. The Met Police have heard the abusers’ words and passed judgement at that point. The Met essentially flags its mistaken intent: ‘You have spoken and we have heard. We are going to act against this unspeakable entity.’

This is not justice. It is fake justice perpetuated by the fact speech is a powerful system which cannot be challenged.

Its not only me, there have been others, there are others, in the Met police area, cases have been documented, and not just in the Met police area either but many other police forces too – Police Scotland treated one group of deaf people especially in a very shite and totally unjust way because they sucked up to the hearing perpetrators and just could not even for a moment consider the deaf people were telling the truth.

What a fucking magical system! Just say something and it resonates, spreads, makes long lasting impressions….. wow! Just amazing! No wonder the police get so orgasmic when ‘reports’ about me come in…. and just how fantastically adept the police are at squirming out of complaints that I make about their clearly speech-cum-racist aspirations.

The deaf, those without speech, the non-verbals, are regularly seen as some of the lowest low. We know there is discrimination against others too, however there is a hierarchy of discrimination and some discrimination are more institutional than others. Speech is one of the worst discrimination tools there is. It is entirely, totally, abjectly institutionalised and for that reason millions just cannot see the oppression they automatically dispense towards others…. (like me, like other non-verbals, like the deaf, like those who need visual communication systems etc.)

I only write this because of my perpetrators and the Metropolitan police. I am an innocent. My perpetrators are abusers. The police get involved and they hear my perpetrators. They frequently side with my perpetrators. This is abuse. To me the police are abusers. No less. This is not law enforcement. It is institutional discrimination.

The Met police are abjectly biased towards the jaw-chomping lies my perps make and the deep impression their vocal pleas make upon the officers. They hear what they think is a truth and automatically view me as a liar. This is no surprise. The Met themselves are jaw-chompers, even goldfish. They open their mouths and love the sound of their own voices but detest those who do not have the same natural inclinations.

The police think my perps are good and practically let them have their way, which is clearly a horrific police condoning of these abuses – and that is even though I have evidence – they are not interested in that nor my assertions through either written notes or an interpreter.

The Metropolitan Police are clearly a successful exploitation agency because they are taking advantage of my disability and using it as a tool for oppression. This the Met clearly, abjectly, sadly, and it most miserably fails to understand its stance as an agency of exploitation as it continues its cheerful flag-waving and endless issuing of plaudit awards for my perpetrators is the worst malevolence that is possible.

Speech becomes a judge and jury system. It judges, and it passes sentence on people like me. It decides I have no rights. It decides I am not fit to participate in society. It makes decisions based on what others have to say, or have said – not what I am communicating. This is why my perpetrators are so successful and why the Met Police is so extremely biased.

Of course it is not just the police, it is also why employers make immediate decisions that I am not fit to be employed. It is why shops ignore me when I want to be served. It is why a lot of organisations laugh at me and essentially say “we’re not going to help those who can’t fit in our world-view system.” Equality is a massive joke. You speak of equality. We experience oppression. It is why criminals have a better chance of employment than people like me.

Let’s face it, speech is the tool of society. Parliament wouldn’t be debating otherwise and people would not be speaking against Government policies, and lecturers would not be telling others about the things they have learnt or observed. An amazing, simple, apparently very equal, communication system for everybody!

To re-cap, speech is very much the same as racism. It may not be exactly the same as racism however its the identification of a particular species against another that makes it like racism and the tendency for people to avoid one who has communication problems is probably as racist as racism itself.

Speech is essentially the skin of society. Its fabric. The ways and means in which people are identified as accepted, participant, normal, members of society. Speech is a passporting system. It gives access to lots of things. Its also extremely easy for it to build barriers against those without. Its like having signs that say ‘non sourds’, ‘nie spreek verbode’ and so on. In fact these signs are everywhere, just not written down at all. Society doesnt advertise it but these signs are indeed everywhere. Just imagine the anger when clearly visual ‘no blacks’ signs are seen written somewhere.

With speech its different. The normality is so widely accepted that the discrimination is totally obscured. One is speaking therefore one cannot be discriminating. Of course that is right. Except when one turns their back to, gives far less credence forsakes, denies, marginalises, and ignores those who are without.

The reactions, responses, the disgust, the refusals, the rejection is just as severe as racism because one is fucked, screwed, judged, pre-judged, marginalised, excluded, and damned for all time. The constant threat of instant judgement is a huge cloud that hangs over the likes of us.

NOTE: For the purposes of this article verbal conflicts between, say the public vs the police, public vs the government, or just arguments between those who have speech, these are an area that’s totally alien to me – those areas are NOT my problem because I have no input on these (a non-right imposed by the speech system.)

This article is based on what the speech system does to me or indeed to others who just cannot participate effectively in it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!