Deaf to common sense
From Max Hastings
Sir: At the risk of boring readers with the latest instalment of an obsession of mine (Diary, 14 February), I thought it worth reporting that I have at last received an answer to the letter I wrote to the Royal Opera House before Christmas, asking some sceptical — indeed, derisive — questions about sign-language-assisted performances for the deaf. Tony Hall's courteous but evasive letter does not address my inquiry about whether this nonsense was his own idea or imposed upon him by creatures from the Department for Culture. He says the ROH has no idea how many deaf people attend performances. However — and I should explain in quoting him that I told him that his responses would be for the record — 'Our obligation is not linked to the number of people requesting this service. We willingly offer this facility, but it is in any case a requirement under the Disability Discrimination Act, and we could be prosecuted if a disabled patron felt discriminated against because we chose to ignore his needs.'
Here is marvellous stuff indeed. It suggests that under this lunatic legislation a wooden-legged applicant to Manchester United would have a legal case if the club denied him a trial. All manner of tasteless visions spring to mind, about prosecutions that David Blunkett, for instance, might bring against our great arts institutions for failure to provide remedial facilities for his handicap. If Tony Hall's interpretation of the Disability Discrimination Act is accurate, then self-mutilation seems the only way to secure a privileged seat in the stalls of the national madhouse.
It seems worth saying again and again: sign-language-assisted performances of opera for the deaf are a parody of political correctness, a waste of ROH money, an abuse of the goodwill of unhandicapped patrons, and a reflection upon an institution whose leaders have lost at best their nerve, at worst their marbles.
Max Hastings
Berkshire
Previous page
