Good point. I think it's amazing that parents with Hearing Privilege make their kids spend literally years of time in a Cochlear Implant Program (CIP) but won't bother to spend a bit of time learning NZSL.
This is a great article. I'd like to take the discussion a step further about the damage hearing privilege is doing to innocent children.
Hearing privilege is leaving up to 50-60 Deaf children per year in NZ without a language. Why? Because parents of Deaf kids are being told they can make their kids hearing with a Cochlear Implant Program (CIP). 90% of Deaf kids are born to hearing parents who often suffer grief and shock to learn their kids are deaf.
They turn to the medical profession and the Ministry of Health, not to the Deaf community, for advice. The advice is to begin a CIP and avoid New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL). Unfortunately this advice is wrong. It has not kept up with the latest science which is to teach a child NZSL before beginning a CIP. That science is available here: http://www.deafchildren.org.nz/assets/Resources/Hearing-Communication/Language-Choices-for-Deaf-Infants.pdf
The false claim is that bilingualism (English via CIP and NZSL) will reduce a Deaf child's chance to learn English.
The sad fact of the matter is that one third of Deaf kids on a CIP do not do well on the program. They are left without a language or, in the jargon, Permanently Language Deprived (PLD). I've met young Deaf PLD kids - it is a very sad thing. It's also an abuse of the Deaf kids human rights. Now that's how damaging hearing privilege can be to innocent kids.
NZ has been very slow to address this. California, for example, has a law, SB 210, that requires parents to enrol their Deaf kids in Sign Language classes if the kids are not meeting their language benchmarks.
It's really time that NZ faced the destruction being wrought on Deaf people by hearing privilege.
Thanks Rosemary. Great article. "successfully applied for a Suspension Order under s 92O (2) (d) of the Human Rights Act." Applied to Minister? Can you tell us more about why Ruth Dyson's attempts failed?
The International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000 (NZ)
Article 29—Non-applicability of statute of limitations
The crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court shall not be subject to any statute of limitations.
I couldn't find authority on our military police being subject to any statute of limitations. Limitation Act 2010 doesn't mention police, military or war.
BTW some of the language in the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000 is a bit wishy washy - qualified by words grave, serious, etc, presumably so that acts against the law which aren't grave or serious etc are not caught.
A war crime includes "Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;" - nothing there to excuse "Oh sorry, our intel was wrong."
A war crime includes "Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives." That might cover setting fire to Naimatullah's room with his Quran and holy books (page68-69 #HitandRunNZ)
Proof reading and spell checking? Mataparae? etc.
Matthew. If you are serious about this discussion you really need to read the book, as I have done. My twitter point, to you and other scoffers who probably didn't check #HitandRunNZ, was that I was tweeting page numbers and points from the book. Editorializing and supposition without reading the book is wearing thin. I can't think of a single point you have raised, including the tactical and strategic questions (not to mention the problem with having a politically powerful war-lobbying SAS) that hasn't been covered in the book. QED.
Stop being oblique and speak clearly.
You're being silly again Matthew. Follow me on twitter if you're serious about this. See #HitandRunNZ
Here's what a soldier has to say about soldier worship.
Now you're being silly Matthew. It looks like war crimes have been committed and you joke about it?
positive contribution of the NZ PRT to the Bamyan Province.
Scene of the Crime chapter of Hager/Stephenson shows the absurdity or this and documents NZDF people saying so. Our presence there was for purely political reasons (flying flag with USA) and to blood the SAS who hadn't seen combat for a while.