Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Honorable Judge Stow.
I have a matter in discussion as it relates to Case number, CV043266. In looking at the case, you have ordered that the plaintiff, (the father) is to force his daughter to wear her cochlear implant devices during all waking hours, despite the minor child's protests and reluctance, expressing her wishes not to wear them. Regardless of this, your ruling states that she must be made to wear them all day, (all waking hours). This is a form of Audism.
The term Audism means the belief that is focused on the attitude that people who hear and speak, or hear and speak better, or have excellent English skills, are superior to others. As it relates to Deaf people and their human rights. This includes the language of American Sign Language, (ASL) and the right to use that language. When a majority group displays attitudes, behaviors, (that are associated with hearing and speaking) approach a minority group, (the Deaf signing community) and takes away their human right as it relates to communication other than speaking, is a form of Audism.
In looking at this as it relates to the ADA, (Americans with Disabilities Act), and an individual's human rights as it relates to one's language preference, the father is Deaf, and uses American Sign Language. The minor Deaf child also uses American Sign Language. This is their preferred method of communication and it is their choice that best suits them. You have ordered that the child must wear cochlear implants in order to accommodate the hearing community regardless of the right to her preferred method of communication. This ruling is a violation of the ADA.
This ruling is unjust and displays inequality. It is biased.
Imagine if you will, that you have an 8-year-old daughter, and your daughter was born without one arm. You have discovered that there is new technology in which a bionic arm can be attached to an individual. The device can connect to nerve endings, sending messages to the brain electronically thus making the arm move. Unfortunately, you and your partner or spouse have separated, and your spouse's doctor goes forward with the procedure, and attaches the bionic arm. Your daughter repeatedly protests and states that she does not want to wear this device because the electronic connections to her nerves are hurting her causing much discomfort, and she continuously removes the bionic arm.
However, a Judge has ordered you to force your daughter to wear the bionic arm. What would you do in this situation? What are your rights? Where is your protection? Your daughter has continuously expressed to you that she does not wish to wear the bionic arm, yet despite her wishes as presented in court, her rights are oppressed. Imagine if this were your daughter?
The proceedings with this case have demonstrated a violation of the ADA, a violation of human rights, and the right to use whatever language an individual chooses. To show this form of neglect to a child's repeated protests and wishes is a form of child abuse.
We believe that you should remove the argument and ruling of the cochlear implant use in this case, and move forward in understanding our human rights as Deaf people in seeking equality and justice in the court of law.
On behalf of Audism Free America