Persons or embryos that are known to have a gene, chromosome or
mitochondrion abnormality involving a significant risk that a person with the abnormality will have or develop—
(a) a serious physical or mental disability,
(b) a serious illness, or
(c) any other serious medical condition,
must not be preferred to those that are not known to have such an abnormality.

If the Bill is enacted, this could mean that Deaf people are prevented from having children, either through natural means, IVF or as donors, surrogates etc., simply because there is a chance that the child born will be Deaf.

This has huge ramifications for the Deaf community, particularly Deaf families with generations of Deaf children, such as my in-laws, and will impact my wife and I’s plans to have children.

I have done my bit for the Stop! Campaign, which has started in earnest. I have sent a clip of myself saying “Stop!”, and you should to, if you haven’t already. All you need to do is make a recording of your signing “Stop” and send it to joe@gwallgofi.com. Wear dark tops, and stand in front of plain background. Go here to see who has contributed so far.

Show your opposition to this Bill, before it’s too late.

Related links:

• Guest: Clark Denmark – Stop!
• Parliament: Deaf Embryo selection to be made illegal
• HFEB: Explanatory clause on deaf selection
• HFEB: BDA draft letter to Professor Marcus Pembrey
• HFEB: other places discussing Deaf Eugenics
• Parliament: Deaf Embryo selection to be made illegal

Compared to non-existent rights for Deaf people in the 1900s, has much changed? We used to be thrown in mental asylums because we were unable to communicate effectively, sign language was seen as a threat to our “normality” and ability to speak, if a deaf child was lucky (sic) enough to be educated, it was usually shit and very oralist.

Fast forward to the 21st century, the only difference seems to be that we’re not thrown in mental asylums any more (although I’m sure it still happens when a frustrated Deaf person who can’t communicate with hearing people and has no access to education, language or the Deaf community). The rest still exists. Audiologists continue to inflict the opinion on parents of Deaf children that sign language is a no no, and education is still very oralist, with Deaf schools having been shut down and mainstreaming is becoming more prevalent.

It’s articles like these that make my blood boil:

• Parliament: Deaf Embryo selection to be made illegal
• A question
• easydiscrimination.com

When are Deaf people gonna get some respect, equal opportunities and above all, NO discrimination?

Another thing that makes my blood boil is the Deaf community’s passivism. I’m one of them. I don’t do enough to challenge the attitudes I come across either. But if we all did, then perhaps, just perhaps, things would start to change.

Or is it a case of, “and pigs might fly!”?

Source: BBC News: Cabinet faces: old and new

When I think of Brown jetting off to the USA to meet George Bush at the White House, there’s something wrong with that image. The same is true of Brown jetting off to the Middle East, Africa, even Europe, to meet with other world leaders. It could simply be that Blair was PM for 10 years, and he had a high international profile, which Brown has yet to attain.

For the duration of Brown’s premiership, I have a feeling that he will be a domestic PM, in the sense that his policies will be UK-focused rather than international. To be fair, there is a great deal to do in the UK, and the BBC has provided a useful summary of the issues Brown faces: What’s in Brown’s in-tray?. In short, he has to sort out the NHS, education and security. It’s a well known fact that despite increased spending in the NHS and education, there has been little improvement. Why? I suspect it’s all been swallowed up in red tape, a common issue within British society.

This week, Brown announced his new Cabinet, and the one politician I’ve got my eye on is David Milliband, the new Foreign Secretary. He had a blog when he was in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and if he has one as Foreign Secretary, I’ll definitely be subscribing to its feed. He’s also young, Jewish, and most importantly, not afraid to criticise the United States and Israel. There’s been enough pussyfooting around – time for some harsh words and more common sense on the international field.

These are interesting times for British politics.

Afghanistan

Strictly speaking, the war in Afghanistan began with the September 11, 2001 attacks. Attributed to Al-Qaeda, an international alliance of militant terrorist organisations established in 1988 by Osama bin Laden, the attacks prompted the US to declare war on Afghanistan on 7 October 2001. This was the beginning of the war on terrorism.

A curious thing apparently occurred following the attacks. Members of bin Laden’s family, who were in the US at the time of the attacks, were granted extraordinary White House privileges to fly out of U.S. airspace. According to Vanity Fair, at least four flights with about 140 Saudis, including roughly two-dozen members of the bin Laden family, flew to Saudi Arabia that week without even being interviewed or interrogated by the FBI (( Propaganda Matrix, “Bin Laden family allowed 9/11 leave” )). It is almost certain that at the time, bin Laden was a main suspect for the September 11 attacks, so why arrange for his family to be flown out?

An aerial bombing campaign was initiated against Afghanistan by the US and the UK, with the ultimate aim of capturing bin Laden, destroying Al-Qaeda, and removing the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbour to Al-Qaeda. The Taliban regime was overthrown, but the invasion has largely failed, with the future of Afghanistan now hanging in the balance. It has a weak government, Taliban forces are re-emerging and the poppy fields are ripe with opium.

So then, what was the point of invading Afghanistan? Osama bin Laden is apparently still at large and Afghanistan is the largest supplier of heroin world-wide – 90% of the world’s opium comes from Afghanistan (( Baldauf, S and Bowers, F, “Afghanistan riddled with drug ties”, The Christian Science Monitor )). The invasion has elevated human rights infringement of women somewhat, but with the resurgence in Taliban forces, these rights are again under threat.

Iraq

Turning our attention to Iraq, George W Bush decided that evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq could not be ignored, and on 20 March 2003 the US invaded Iraq with the support of the UK. The Iraqi government and military collapsed within three weeks. Of course, Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, was eventually captured, tried and executed.

Why was the decision taken to invade Iraq? Initially, the rationale was that Iraq posed a threat due to weapons of mass destruction, which then turned into a crusade promoting freedom and democracy (( Stevenson, Richard W., “Aftereffects: The President; Bush, Visiting Michigan, Promises All Iraqis a Voice in New Government”, The New York Times, 29 April 2003 )). However, the overriding rationale was the continuation of the war against terrorism, in a similar vein to that of the invasion of Afghanistan following the attacks of September 11.

If one thinks about it, Iraq is a major producer of oil. Therefore, the US had an economic interest in the invasion of Iraq. There are sources to suggest that Saddam Hussein had planned to require Euros for all oil sales, rejecting the US Dollar. This would have been detrimental to the value of the US Dollar. By invading Iraq, the US was able to protect its interest (( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Petroleum )).

Terrorism

The war on terrorism / struggle for freedom and democracy has so far resulted in the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. However, it’s rather curious that other nations world-wide subject to human rights infringments, the will of cruel dictators and of civil war and unrest, are largely ignored.

Iran

The current human rights situation in Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is poor. According to Amnesty International, dissidents who oppose the government non-violently face harassment, torture and execution (( Amnesty International, “Iran” )). Additionally, the Human Rights Watch has stated that “[r]espect for basic human rights in Iran, especially freedom of expression and assembly, deteriorated in 2006. The government routinely tortures and mistreats detained dissidents, including through prolonged solitary confinement” (( Human Rights Watch, Essential Background: Overview of human rights issues in Iran” (Human Rights Watch World Report 2007, 31 December 2006 )).

Iran has also refused to stop the Iranian nuclear enrichment program, sparking fears of a potential nuclear conflict.

Where’s the US invasion? Well, Iran does have access to nuclear weapons, so a bit of a risk perhaps? Also, it’s right next door to Iraq, so it would look a bit dodgy if the US invaded; insomuch that it would appear that the US is trying to take over the world.

North Korea

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, among others, accuse North Korea of having one of the worst human rights records of any nation, with a severe restriction on political and economic freedoms. North Korean defectors have testified as to the existence of detention camps with an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 inmates, and have reported torture, starvation, rape, murder and forced labour. (( http://hrnk.org/hiddengulag/toc.html )) A man who claims to be a former prison guard and army intelligence officer said that in one camp, chemical weapons were tested on prisoners in a gas chamber (( BBC News, “Access to Evil”, 29 January 2004 )). According to another claimed former prisoner, pregnant women inside the camps are often forced to have abortions or the newborn child is killed (( http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gashc3859.doc.htm )).

Where’s the US invasion? Of course, there’s no oil in North Korea.

Zimbabwe

There have been widespread reports of various civil and political human rights abuses throughout Zimbabwe, in particular against opponents of the government. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch the government of Zimbabwe violates the rights to shelter, food, freedom of movement and residence, freedom of assembly and the protection of the law. There are assaults on the media, the political opposition, civil society activists, and human rights defenders (( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe#Human_rights )).

Where’s the US invasion? Of course, there’s no oil in Zimbabwe.

There are several similar examples.

Countries that are reported to host Al-Qaeda cells include:

• Pakistan;
• India; and
• Somalia.

Countries where human rights infringements are reported to exist include:

• Belarus;
• Burma;
• China;
• Cuba;
• Eritrea;
• Ethiopia;
• Russia;
• Sudan;
• Turkmenistan; and
• Uzbekistan.

In light of the above, the US government under the lovely George W Bush has a lot to answer for. Afghanistan can probably be put down to a knee-jerk reaction to the appalling atrocities of September 11 and the war against terror, but why has there been little or no action against other contries where Al-Qaeda cells are reported to exist? The Iraq invasion is not quite so clear-cut, and the excuse of “freeing the Iraqi people and restoring democracy” doesn’t quite wash, as the same is arguably needed in numerous other nations around the world.

I have to say that Bill does certainly know how to waffle. However, I appreciated the detail, honesty and frankness of his account. He has certainly had an interesting life. I liked the way he brushed over the Monica Lewinsky issue; he simply said that he’d done something inappropriate that he was incredibly ashamed of.

What I’d like to pick up on is the partisan nature of American politics. On pages 862-863, Bill states:

“When the New Right Republicans had taken power in Congress in 1995, I had blocked their most extreme designs and had made further progress in economic, social, and environmental justice the price of our co-operation. I understood why the people who equated political, economic, and social conservatism with God’s will hated me. I wanted an America of shared benefits, shared responsibilities, and equal participation in a democratic community. The New Right Republicans wanted an America in which wealth and power were concentrated in the hands of the “right” people, who maintained majority support by demonizing a rolling succession of minorities whose demands for inclusion threatened their hold on power. They also hated me because I was so apostate, a white southern Protestant who could appeal to the very people they had always taken for granted.”

That sums it all up really, doesn’t it? While the Democrats are more concerned about improving the lives of the working and middle classes, and asking the upper classes to pay a bit more in taxes, the Republicans want the upper classes to pay less and the lower and middle classes to pay more in taxes. Republicans aren’t interested in human rights and the environment. They weren’t interested in working with Bill; they just wanted to bring him down because he was such a good President.

I realise that I have only read one side of the story; Bill and Hillary’s. So I will see if I can get hold of a book published by a Republican, perhaps Newt Gringrich, and see what I think thereafter.

For now, however, I would say that I’d rather be a Democrat than a Republican. Does that make me a Democrat?

I’ll look into how the UK Conservatives and Labour parties compare with the US Democrats and Republicans in a later post.