“As the world continues to exist, and even slightly to improve its health, like a permanently convalescent patient it is afflicted by an endless variety of obscure, but threatening illness; and so, like a single invalid, it is subject to relapses”

Peter Ustinov

The right to information and culture – to the “spiritual food” absolutely essential for a dignified and fulfilled life - is one of the fundamental human rights. In our age of modernity, to be informed has not just an immense pragmatic and symbolic value in itself. It is the very precondition of exercising all other rights, of existing at all as a civilized human being. And yet, this elementary chance to become equal members of the informational universe is still denied from millions of people. It is denied out of overt political considerations, discrimination and exclusion, but even much more many times it is denied as a consequence of neglect, lack of respect for individual needs and lack of consideration to difference and to being different.

The following paper will look to the different dimensions of what exclusion of deaf from the visual media transmitted information means and how it is caused. After an overview of the legislation and policies in this field in the countries of the European Union, I shall have a closer look to the situation in two EU candidate countries: Romania and Hungary.

The problem under discussion can be defined in terms of marginality and inequality of a social group as a consequence of lack of access to visual media information of a particular type of disabled persons. A whole social category composed of people with special sensorial characteristics (the deaf) is disadvantaged in exercising full participation in the public life of the country, due to the inability/unwillingness of the rest of society to provide them with adequate means for complete access to television transmitted information.

In fact, the deprivation of the deaf as far as their access to information is concerned, should be considered as a part and a manifestation of a much larger problem, the political exclusion and marginality of disabled. Two distinct purposes, which are fundamental for any democratic society, are intimately connected with the requirement to ensure the fulfillment of the right to information of all citizens, including the disabled. The first consideration is of a more idealistic nature. It concerns the fact that the right for information is a value in itself and for itself, being a fundamental human right. The second consideration, derivable from the first, has a more instrumental significance, namely, to ensure full participation of citizens in the public life.

To obtain a clearer understanding of what political marginality means in case of the disabled and how it is caused, it is necessary to shift the analysis from the level of individual and micro levels in order to encompass the societal level. One has to look to the way power and resources are distributed between social groups having competing interests. Social disadvantage and discrimination of the disabled should be seen in this wider context.

The most important aspect to be considered here is concerning interest representation on behalf of the disabled. In this regard, disability politics already has its own history. The Western democratic experience of the past decades generally shows that traditional party politics and lobbying failed to adequately represent disabled people. The major positive changes have been mainly the result of pressure made by activist groups, setting the target to influence the behavior of groups, organizations and institutions. (Barnes et col., 1999, p.167)

The growing activism of self-organizing activist groups in the field of disability rights beginning from the sixties has been accompanied by the increasing importance of minority issues in the public scene. In case of Britain, for instance, the advocacy work of the disabled people’s organizations has been inspired and stimulated by the demands and achievements of other disadvantaged minority groups.

The activation of advocacy organizations in the West coincided with the strengthening of disabled identity. As Campbell and Oliver pointed out, “clearly the purpose of disabled people’s self-organization is to promote change: to improve the quality of our lives and promote our full inclusion into society. It does this both through involvement in the formal political system and through promotion of other kinds of political activity.” (Campbell et Oliver, 1996, p.22)

Today, the disability movement within the European Union has achieved a high level of integration and coordination, particularly through the activities of the European Disability Forum. The outcome of the Amsterdam Summit, which incorporated several important principles and provisions concerning disability into the EU Treaty, is regarded by the EDF leaders as the greatest achievement of their organization, not just because of the result, but also because the way it was achieved. For the first time a strategic, collective campaign work has taken place involving all EDF members over a sustained period.

In Eastern Europe, however, the historical background of disability organizations is a quite different one. The brutal interruption of civil society development during the time of communist dictatorship made impossible any form of overt activism. The existing organizations were dismembered or became de facto parts of the state apparatus. Communist politics promoted an idealized view on society, attempting to deny or to minimize the existence of social inequality and deprivation. Even the use of terms like “poverty” or “disadvantage” was under ideological ban. The general image promoted to the public was that of an omnipotent state which takes care of everything and assumes the whole responsibility for catering to the needs of the population.

In the same time, in order to ensure and consolidate its legitimacy, communism cultivated a public discourse with strong populist and nationalistic overtones, which left little if any space for the manifestation and expression of minority needs and interests. Such policies arguably affected even to a larger extent the self-organizing ability of the disabled than they did in case of national minorities. The latter received much stronger international attention and were able to make use of covert forms of pressure to the government in a much more efficient way than the disabled could.

After 1989 there was an almost completely new beginning and enormous work to be done. As the pluralistic institutional framework started to take shape, the voice of disadvantaged groups did not seem to be heard very much. The political priorities of the day – economic reform and democratic transition – were looked upon predominantly from a narrow perspective. A large segment of the political elite acted according to short run party and even personal interest, with little consideration to the general democratic criteria beyond the game of party politics.

In this context, the task of disability advocacy organizations emerging in the new political environment created after the revolutionary changes was not an easy one. They had to strive for public recognition of their mission and to create a new public space in order to be able to effectively act in societies accustomed to completely different patterns of political legitimacy. Fortunately, the ongoing process of internal democratization and the building up of emerging civil societies in the context of EU enlargement, and more generally, of European integration, offered both a powerful stimulus and a credible argument to these organizations in their efforts to make themselves accepted by their own societies.

As Central and East European candidate states are approaching the moment of joining the EU, the European Disability Forum has intensified its efforts to encourage existing or emerging organizations in the future new Member States to prepare their membership for active involvement in the work of EDF. Disability organizations in the current Member States should support partner organizations in relevant countries, thus ensuring that some of the EU funds allocated for the preparation of the accession are spent on improving the situation for disabled people.

The basic legal issue emerging from the problem of lack of accessibility of disabled is concerning the interpretation of the non-discrimination principle in the case of the population with special characteristics (such as the disabled, ethnic and religious minorities, etc). Decision makers should not adopt a homogenous view on population, but need to take into consideration the specific ways and modalities by which human rights and the equality of rights can be implemented in a diverse society, where people have various cultural, physical and sensorial peculiarities. Otherwise, for certain minority groups “human rights and “equality of rights” could remain little more than empty concepts.

This is the basic assumption of current nondiscrimination legislation for disabled in the Western democracies: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, the EU regulations, Britain’s 1995 Disability Discrimination Act, and similar legislation in other countries. To give an example, The Americans with Disabilities Act is prohibiting employers, employment agencies, labor unions and joint labor-management committees from discriminating against persons with disabilities. In addition, ADA is placing employers under the obligation to take into account the special characteristics of the disabled and the special ways in which they can satisfy their needs.

“It is unlawful for a covered entity not to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified applicant or employee with a disability, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its business” (Title 1). (text from the National Association of Deaf Law Center, USA)

ADA is also setting a model by formulating the requirement that accommodation to the particular characteristics of the disabled should be as case specific as possible. In order to achieve the highest possible adaptation, the law is stating that the concerned disabled individuals should be consulted. For instance, employers are required “to consult with deaf and hard of hearing employees about the type of accommodations that are needed in order to make its facilities and work environment accessible. The accommodation that is appropriate for one deaf and hard of hearing employee may not be successful in achieving communication for other employees.”

From sociological perspective, the emergence of this new type of nondiscrimination regulations for disabled can be viewed as an outcome of a radical shift in understanding disability: the traditional model is constantly loosing ground in favor of the “social model”. In contrast with the old approach which considered that individual limitations are the principal cause of the difficulties experienced by disabled people, the proponents of the social model are focusing on the failure of society to accommodate the needs of disabled. For instance, the Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) defines disability as “the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary social organization which takes no or little account of people who have physical impairments and thus excludes them from participation in the mainstream social activities.” (UPIAS, 1976, pp. 3-4) This definition, which equally applies to other types of disability as well, clearly points to the social, economic and cultural peculiarities of the society. (Barnes et col., 1999, p.2)

Similarly to other minority and disadvantaged groups, the sociological perspective has been integrated into disability legislation and disability policies by the emergence of a new vocabulary of fundamental concepts, which includes “equal treatment” and “equality of chances”, beyond mere “non-discrimination.” In this regard, USA and EU regulations are usually emphasizing the fact that in order to achieve a successful outcome, much depends on the concrete social framework in which a disabled person has to act and interact with the rest of society. Attention should be devoted, therefore, to ensure the right preconditions for an effective functioning of the non-discrimination legislation, every step of the concerned individual’s life-path. The society-centered nature of this legal approach is well illustrated by the following passage from the Americans with Disabilities Act:

“ The duty to provide interpreters and to make other reasonable accommodations is not limited to daily work performance activities or the ability to perform the essential functions of a job. Applicants are entitled to reasonable accommodations during the interview and application process. Employees are entitled to equal access to general information, employee benefits and training opportunities available to other employees. Employees should be able to have access to telephone services, recreational and social activities, emergency procedures, health programs, and the whole range of facilities, services and amenities that are available to other employees.”

As can be seen from the above provisions, in the USA and EU legislation the principle of nondiscrimination is clearly subordinated to the desiderata to protect human rights. Nondiscrimination is only aimed to ensure the implementation of a substantial principle: the equality of rights. The Amsterdam treaty is quite clear in spelling out this absolute priority, stating that “ the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States. The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States as general principles of Community law” (text provided by European Disabilities Forum).

The special importance of protecting human rights becomes clear also from the requirements put forward by the European Union for the East European accession countries. To be eligible under the “Copenhagen criteria”, an applicant state must have “achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities" (European Disabilities Forum). All these are fundamental substantive criteria, which are concerning the very essence of the way social and political relations are constructed in the candidate states. Of course, nondiscrimination is also an important requirement, but mainly of a technical- administrative nature. Adopting the EU aquis is not a target in itself, but rather, concerns the optimization of the available legislative means in order to ensure the fulfillment of rights.

The socially-centered and right–oriented approaches in understanding disability are raising one important problem for politicians and legislators alike, namely, how to conciliate the contradiction between the collective dimensions and determinations of the life of disabled and the individual character of human right regulations applied to the disabled population. In the past few decades there has been a continuous pressure on governments, coming from the advocacy organizations in the West, in order to recognize disabled as a minority group entitled not just to individual rights, but also, to certain kind of collective rights. Although these efforts were not completely successful so far, nevertheless the issue today is firmly established on the political agenda of the countries with advanced democratic systems.

Among the different categories of disabled, deaf are perhaps the closest to achieving their objective to gain collective recognition. They tend to be regarded more and more as a distinct cultural and linguistic community. Sign language enjoys full recognition as an official language in several EU member states (such as Finland, Denmark, Portugal and Sweden) and the linguistic and communicational rights of the deaf as a community are enshrined in the respective national laws.

The developments in Finland are, for a number of reasons, exemplary for the development of legal system in the field. In this country, the changes have begun at constitutional level, followed by practical assessment and implementation. Today, Finnish sign language users are acknowledged as a linguistic minority and their rights are included in the Constitution. In the past few years, policy measures have been taken in order to incorporate Sign Language into the appropriate government ministry and to extend the use of technological developments to improve access (information provided by the European Union of Deaf).

Taking into account these preconditions, is even more striking that in monitoring the implementation of minority rights within the accession countries and other post-communist states, the European Community and the Council of Europe are focusing predominantly, if not exclusively on the rights of national and ethnic minorities. The main cause of this paradox lays probably in the fact that ethnic conflict apparently presented a much stronger threat to the political stability of the countries concerned and of the region, as a whole.

It was a matter of urgency to find some solutions for the accommodation of coexisting ethnic and national groups. By contrast, the disadvantaged status of disabled was not regarded as a problem requiring immediate political action. The fact that the organizations of disabled were less able to present and translate their case to the European policy making bodies in persuasive political terms probably also contributed to this partial neglect.

It can also be argued, as a possible explanation of less active European involvement in the field, that unlike the issues faced by national minorities, which are often to a large extent politicized, the problems of disabled are perceived as having a predominantly medical - or at best social - nature. Therefore there are no such pressing needs to deal with these issues politically, the argument runs.

In the ground, things are, however, a little bit more complicated. The lack of sufficient articulation of disability concerns in explicit political terms is indeed the case in Eastern Europe, but this does not mean that those problems do not exist and that they are not ultimately political problems. Even if the envisaged solutions might involve from case to case the social, the economic or the cultural fields, their implementation still presupposes the existence of political will and of a workable political mechanism of implementation. Using the right means in the right time, European integration process could become a much more powerful driving force and motivating power in prompting East European countries to adopt more specific and far reaching legislation and policy measures in the disability field.

The implementation of rights generally depends not just on the existence of certain constitutional and legal norms, but is contingent in large extent of the available means and opportunities to exercise those rights in practice. In case of persons who have special physical and sensorial characteristics, certain rights are simply meaningless in the absence of special technical solutions necessary for their implementation. To the physically disabled the existence of obstacles such as stairs (and the lack of special devices) might prevent entering public places, shops, etc. In case of population with disabled hearing, (if special solutions such as translation into the sign language are not available) the exercise of virtually all rights might be jeopardized by their inability to communicate with the rest of society. (Barnes et col., 1999, p.5)

The access of deaf to the information transmitted by the television programs requires specifically designed technical facilities and procedures in order to “translate” this information to them. These facilities and procedures might vary from case to case, ranging from captioning or subtitling to the use of an interpreter of the sign language.

Beyond the instrumental aspects, however, the crucial issue is the existence and implementation of certain standards and regulations in this field. The major questions to be raised in this regard are:

- What is the level of special solutions and practices, which can be regarded as high enough?

- What means are available or can be devised in order to ensure the implementation of those standards?

There are several factors, which clearly have an influence on the level of accepted standards. First, the level of technological development in a particular country or area obviously has an important impact. In the past years, the invention and spread of new technological devices (such as the digital television, the teletext and the TTY-s) has led to a significant improvement of information technology access standards for deaf, particularly in the United States and in Western Europe.

In the same time, the existence of new technical devices in the market does not offer in itself any guarantee, that the improvement of accessibility standards will follow suit. New innovative technologies are generally more expensive than the traditional devices. Thus, much depends on the level of economic development and prosperity of the countries concerned, on the situation and regulation of markets, but also on the political will of the government to allocate the necessary resources. Internal and external political context, long term political processes, such as European integration, and the advocacy work of civil organizations can have a significant influence on the legislative and policy making processes in this field. Much depends on the level of general moral and human rights standards, as these issues are obviously raising not just serious human rights problems, but also “basic normative and ethical issues for the society as a whole”. (Barnes et col., 1999, p.5) The level of public acceptance of diversity and difference as social values has, of course, an important role to play as an influencing factor in that regard.

The EU legislation, although it includes references to human rights and disability rights, is touching on the relationship of deaf (and more generally of disabled) with the visual media and with other sources of information only in an indirect manner, without setting up precise and concrete regulations in this field. While reaffirming the general right of European citizens to have access to the documents issued by the EU documents, the Amsterdam Treaty does not refer to the need to provide documents in forms, which are accessible to disabled people. This should be regarded as a major legislative gap, which might partly explain why the European integration process is not used very effectively in order to prompt the countries concerned to make significant steps forward towards ensuring higher degrees of access.

Probably one of the most important causes of this surprising level of neglect is the par excellence “marginal” status of the problem. This marginality should be understood in two different senses. On the one hand it concerns the social positioning of the beneficiary disadvantaged minority group (the disabled), on the other hand it has to do with the administrative positioning of the problem in the borderland of two separate and distinct areas: media regulations and disability rights. As a general rule, media regulations do not go so far as to reach the level of concrete requirements for disability access, while the codification of the rights of disabled is also mostly ignoring the field of media.

The absence of concrete and precise regulations does not mean, however, that the study of legal and policy documents indirectly connected with deaf accessibility (and more generally, with the disabled people’s access) to the visual media can not prove to be useful. There are several provisions within the EU norms, which although not stating directly any concrete obligations in the field, in reality are pointing towards the necessity of adopting certain standards of accessibility for disabled. Other norms, while apparently in favor of disability access, in fact are the produce of policy motivations connected with other policy fields. Both the advantages and shortcomings of these provisions should be discussed in order to have a fairly balanced image on the “state of the art” of the problem as it is reflected within EU documents. On the basis of the existing legislation the door is then open to follow up measures in order to determine in each particular case the meaning of the terms “access” or “exclusion” from information to various categories of disabled. Subsequent concrete regulations should be based in such definitions.

In the field of visual media legislation the most interesting provisions as far as deaf (and generally disability) access to media is concerned are connected with the regulations on:

1.cultural and linguistic diversity

2.the status of public television services

1. The requirement of ensuring cultural diversity within the television programs has been reaffirmed several times by major European Community and Council of Europe documents. This requirement was explicitly included in the European Commission’s Communication to the Candidate Countries of 14 December 1999. Stating that “it was crucial that the candidate countries incorporate the acquis communautaire in the field of audiovisual affairs promptly and in full” (art. 5), the document “expresses the view that, in cultural and audiovisual fields, this should apply with the aim of preserving and promoting cultural diversity in Europe.” (art. 10). (EU Press Release: Luxembourg (21.06.2001) –Press: 233 – Nr. 9755/01)

If we assume the existence of a separate deaf culture, then this rather special and distinct type of culture should also find its place on the television screens. These special cultural TV programs should also be made accessible to their main potential audience, the deaf and hard of hearing population. However, is not resulting either from the text, or from the context of the document whether the above article is also applicable or not to the “deaf culture”. On the contrary, it would be probably safe to assume, from the study of how the term “cultural diversity” is used in various EU and Council of Europe documents, that it refers primarily, if not exclusively, to national and ethnic cultures.

The Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers entitled "Audiovisual Policy: next steps" (COM (1998) 446 final of 14.07.1998) is shedding a light to the motives behind the inclusion of the principle of "cultural diversity”. The document is noting that “ EU wide support was considered essential in helping to connect projects from smaller countries to the rest of Europe by providing an early incentive for collaboration between the producers from different Member States”.

Thus in the context of promoting cultural diversity, the protection and promotion of cultural values of smaller ethnic communities and nations, rather than a broader vision of culture, appears to be the major motivating factor of European policy makers. In many respects the same considerations can be made also as far as the significance of the term “linguistic diversity” within the European documents is concerned. In 21 November 1996 the European Council adopted a multi-annual programme to promote the linguistic diversity of the Community in the information society. The opening statement to this programme affirms that it is “essential to provide citizens with equitable access to information, whereas this information should be available to them in their language” and that “languages that remain excluded from the information society would run the risk of a more or less rapid marginalization”. (Official Journal NO.L 306, 28/11/1996 P. 0040 - 0048)

These are important declarations of principle. No concrete reference is made, however, to the sign language, which is the preferred or exclusive mean of communication for many deaf citizens. Moreover, the document is not including disability among the factors to be taken into consideration in regard to interpreting the right for information in a divers society. It only states that “all citizens of Europe should have equal opportunities to participate in the information society, irrespective of their social, cultural, linguistic or geographical situation.” (Official Journal NO.L 306, 28/11/1996 P. 0040 - 0048) This provision still lives the status of sign language within the information society in general and the television broadcasts in special, unanswered.

2. The second main area of visual media regulations to be discussed in connection with the special legislation for deaf and other categories of disabled is the body of regulation concerning public television services. As it is generally expected that public television has to assume the role to reflect as far as possible the whole social diversity, is interesting to see what the European regulatory bodies have to say in this respect.

One of the major documents of reference in the field is the Declaration of the Council of the European Union and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Community. This Declaration reaffirms that “public service broadcasting, in view of its cultural, social and democratic functions which it discharges for the common good, has a vital significance for ensuring democracy, pluralism, cohesion, cultural and linguistic diversity”. (Press Release: Brussels (17.11.1998) – Press: 382 – Nr. 12744/98)The same document formulates essential requirements for fulfilling the socially inclusive and integrative role of public television:

a. “broad public access, without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunities, to various channels and services, as a necessary precondition for fulfilling the special obligation of public service broadcasting” (art.4)

In the body of this article the term “broad public access” is providing ground for granting broadcasting space to programs and channels specifically designed for deaf or other categories of disabled, including participation of journalists belonging to these groups in program design and production. The presence in the text of the expressions “without discrimination” and “equal opportunities” suggest that disadvantaged groups should be supported in order to have their needs, views and ideas adequately represented in the public service television. The Declaration also speaks of access to “services”, a term large enough to include “helping mean” kind solutions specifically designed for facilitating deaf access to visual media, such as the use of interpreters of the sign language.

b. “The ability of public service broadcasting to offer quality programming and services to the public must be maintained and enhanced, including the development and diversification of activities in the digital age.”(art.6)

The reference to the new television technology is important here, as technological advancement can and should be used also to promote equal access of the deaf and hard of hearing to the audio-visual broadcasts. Digital television, in particular, offers the possibility to use subtitling of programs through teletext.

c. “Public service broadcasting must be able to continue to provide a wide range of programming in accordance with its remit as defined by the Member States in order to address society as a whole; in this context it is legitimate for public service broadcasting to seek to reach wide audiences.” (art.7)

This article has a particular significance in sustaining the legitimate demands of disadvantaged social groups – among them the disabled – to have their voice heard and their aspirations represented via the public television services. In the same time, the text is sufficiently vague in the sense that does not formulate any concrete requirement about what social groups should be represented. Nor is any compulsory program time frame for specific social groups established.

The legislative and official policy documents of the European Union touching on disability rights, which are – more or less directly – linked to the issue of media accessibility can be divided in two types. These are:

a. Non-discrimination legislation and policies

b. Measures promoting equal opportunities

The Maastricht Treaty included no mention of disability and provided no legal basis for specific action in this field. The result has been legislation, which indirectly discriminate against people with disabilities. Such was the case, for instance, with the regulations setting up common design standards for goods. When such standards were issued, the needs of disabled population were sometimes overlooked. For example, the 1991 directive on the mutual recognition of telecommunication terminal equipment sets certain minimum standards, which must be met by producers of such equipment in order to achieve free movement within the European Union. These standards do not include the requirement that the equipment should be accessible for use by people with visual impairment, and the result has been to undermine national legislation, such as that in the United Kingdom, which does include this requirement (information from the European Disability Forum).

The Amsterdam Treaty brought about a significant change, by inclusion of a general non-discrimination article, which specifically mentions disability. It reads:

“ Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty and within the limits of the powers conferred by it upon the Community, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial and ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.” (art.13). (text from European Disability Forum)

The provision quoted above does not confer in fact any extra rights upon European disabled citizens. Instead, it expressly gives the Community competence in the disability field for the first time. More over, the document recognizes the existence of disability discrimination. In order to become an effective tool in fighting discrimination, this provision should be translated, however, in concrete Community policy action.

Such practical policy measures did indeed appear with not much delay. In 27^th November 2000 the European Council adopted a decision establishing a Community action programme to combat discrimination (2001-2006). Beyond reaffirming the general principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms on which the EU is founded, the Action programme makes an important consideration concerning the necessity to adapt non-discrimination legislation to the diversity of social situations and contexts in which discrimination might occur:

"Discrimination on different grounds can have similar features and can be combated in similar ways […] However, the specific features of the diverse forms of discrimination should be accommodated. Therefore, the particular needs of people with disabilities should be taken into account in terms of accessibility of activities and results.” (art.7) (Official Journal L 303, 02/12/2000 p. 0023 - 0028)

There is a clear recognition, in the text of the document, that discrimination of people with disabilities has one special feature: namely, that it can occur simply because the absence of the special means aimed to provide accessibility to services. By the very fact that a society is not producing those helping means and is not making them available to the disabled, is in fact discriminating them, since they are excluded from products, services and facilities which the other (non-disabled) citizens can access.

Among the fields of action to which the Community program should apply the document lists “non-discrimination within and by the media” (art.1b). This means that on the one hand, accessibility for disabled should be extended to the field of media, and on the other hand, media should treat disabled in a nondiscriminatory manner. Two other fields directly connected with ensuring the right to information for disabled are also listed: “equal participation in political, economic and social decision-making” (art.1c) and “effective dissemination of information about right to equal treatment and non-discrimination”(art.1f).

In fact, EU already made a breakthrough in this field by adopting a Declaration to the article 96 of the Amsterdam Treaty, concerning internal market legislation, which reads:

“ The Conference agrees that, in drawing up measures under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the institutions of the Community shall take into account of the needs of persons with disability” (information from the European Disability Forum).

Although this declaration is not legally binding, if a directive adopted on the basis of article 95 does need to be interpreted by national courts or the European Court of Justice, the article could be referred to, to assist in that interpretation.

b.Measures promoting equal opportunities

The Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 (Official Journal L 303, 02/12/2000 p. 0016 - 0022) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation is setting guidelines, which have a much greater range of applicability than the fields explicitly mentioned in its title.

One provision with a larger applicability to a whole range of problems encountered by disabled people concerns the interpretation of the principle of equal treatment. It is stating that “there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 (i.e. religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation). (art.2). On its turn, indirect discrimination is defined as occurring:

In the same time the document reaffirms the necessity to adopt special measures beyond mere nondiscrimination intended to prevent or compensate for disadvantages suffered by a group of persons of a particular disability.

“Employers shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training…unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. This burden shall not be disproportionate when it is sufficiently remedied by measures existing within the framework of the disability policy of the Member State concerned.” (art.5)

In line with these provisions, the Council Directive states that “appropriate measures should be provided, i.e. effective and practical measures to adapt the workplace to the disability, for example adapting premises and equipment, patterns of working time, the distribution of tasks or the provision of training or integration resources.” (art.20) This also includes telecommunication and visual media equipment (TV sets), which in the information society are essential components of more and more working environments. The technological adaptation of TV sets, so as to enable them for captioning, is particularly important for deaf or hard of hearing employees who needs access to television transmitted information for the proper fulfillment of their duties.

While making clear these obligations, the document is also setting a limit to their applicability, namely that such measures should not impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. This burden shall not be disproportionate when it is sufficiently remedied by measures existing within the framework of the disability policy of the Member State concerned.”(art.5). Although the term “disproportionate burden” is ambiguously defined and largely left to the area of responsibility of each Member State, the Council Directive should nevertheless be regarded as an important step forward.

In the same spirit, the Resolution of the Council of 20 December 1996 on equality of opportunity for people with disabilities (Official Journal C 012, 13/01/1997 P. 0001 - 0002), reaffirms the principle initially enshrined in the Community Charter on the fundamental social rights of the workers.

“All disabled persons, whatever the origin and nature of their disability, must be entitled to additional concrete measures aimed at improving their social and professional integration.“ (point 26).

With view to the implementation of this requirement, The Council Resolution is making a call on member states

2. to promote the involvement of representatives of people with disabilities in the implementation and follow-up of relevant policies and actions in their favor.”(chapt.2)

As can be easily seen, all these directions for policy action are presupposing adequate information and media policies. Due to their extremely large impact on the population, television programs should play a major role in “empowering and enabling people with disabilities” and “in nurturing public opinion” in order to achieve the envisaged policy objectives. But, for these, first of all there is a need to “remove barriers” which prevent disabled to access visual media and to ensure that they can take active part in constructing their own image in the television screens.

In the absence of a Community wide specific legislation regulating the access of the deaf to the television programs the responsibility for drawing such legislation and for the implementation of certain solutions primarily rests with the Member States. If we look to the existing legislation at state level, however, the situation is pretty much similar with that at Community level.

The data on access to television referred to in this chapter were taken from the European Union of Deaf Sign Language Project (SLP, 1997). These data were made available by Helga Stevens, project leader of the SLP project. According to this survey, in 1997 only a few states adopted precise legal standards of accessibility. Moreover, the existing legislation was also usually rather modest in its demands. For instance, in Greece a law (no. 2320/1995) requires TV broadcasters to offer a daily 5 minutes news programme in sign language, with simultaneous use of subtitling. In addition, TV stations also have to offer a half an hour programme in sign language every two weeks, which is informative, entertaining, or educational, with simultaneous use of subtitling.

Great Britain is probably one of the countries with the most developed legislation in the field. As a result of the Broadcasting Act 1990, television companies were required to subtitle 50% of all broadcast output by 1998. At BBC1 and BBC2 40-50% of output was subtitled. Commercial TV stations, such as Channel 4 and ITC also complied with this requirement. According to the assessment of the European Union of Deaf, “The existence and activities of the Deaf Broadcasting Council have been a major factor in such achievements as exist in the UK with regard to television.” (SLP, 1997)

In Finland, which officially recognized deaf as a linguistic minority community, possibilities have been investigated to go beyond news programs and “set up an obligation to the Finnish Broadcasting Corporation and commercial channels to produce and transmit a certain portion of programmes in sign language and interpreted into sign language.” (SLP, 1997)

The special solutions offered by TV stations in most West European states are, however mostly the result of the decisions taken by the concerned television companies themselves. These solutions are based on kind of informal standards, guided by EU and national normative political principles. They are mostly established by means of promoting “good practice” and are reinforced by public acceptance.

In some cases, advocacy on behalf of the deaf, direct contacts and negotiations of deaf organizations with TV companies is leading to a positive outcome. This way of achieving accommodation presents the additional advantage that in such cases deaf specialists are usually involved in the process of program implementation from the very outset. The European Union of the Deaf has assumed the task to stimulate this process. The experts of the Union have been involved in monitoring new developments in the sphere of visual media, and have acted in an advisory capacity to a number of national deaf associations and other organizations involved in the development of project proposals.

Sweden, where the sign language was officially recognized already in 1981, and the deaf themselves are regarded as a linguistic minority, is one of the countries with success stories in this regard. “In 1987 started a cooperation of the Swedish National Association of the Deaf with the Swedish Broadcasting Corporation…From the beginning of March 1993, news in Sign Language for the Deaf (News in Sign) was broadcast for five minutes every weekday. Later, “News in Sign” has been enlarged to include 15 minutes in Saturdays. Today only deaf persons are employed to work with News in Sign at the branch of the Swedish Broadcasting Corporation in Falun” (SLP, 1997).

Sweden also offers a good example of how to involve deaf citizens into the political process via the visual media. Before the general elections, political debates on TV are interpreted into sign language. The results of the vote are also presented in TV in the sign language, and at the same time a debate interpreted into sign is going on during the program. This preoccupation to make special and highly symbolically charged political events accessible to the whole society, including the deaf, is characteristic for most Western countries. In Great Britain the annual speech of HM the Queen is re-transmitted with sign language. In Belgium, the King’s speech is rebroadcast with subtitles.

Not withstanding the importance of deaf access to news and to political information, one should nevertheless be aware, that ensuring equal access to people with disabilities ought not to be limited to the accessibility of programs with direct informational purpose and content. In particular, access to cultural and entertainment programs and programs designed for children should fulfill an important role in the personality development of disabled people and could offer them spiritual resources for dignity and self respect. In spite of these, the available data shows that television stations in Western Europe are much slower in finding solutions for making these kind of programs accessible.

The reluctance of TV broadcasters has several reasons. As these programs are supposed to be much longer compared to “flash news”, their costs are also supposed to be higher and they are taking a larger program space, which might be perceived unfavorably by important segments of the hearing audience. Television stations accepting to introduce special programs for deaf might have a difficult time having to respond to pressures coming from both the deaf and the hearing. In Germany, for instance, controversies aroused the special broadcast entitled “Sehen statt Horen” (Seeing instead of Hearing), “presented by deaf people 39 time a year. In 1996 there was talk of a large reduction of the number of presentations […] Massive protests by the deaf as well as numerous politicians and other handicap groups helped to keep this reduction to a minimum.” (SLP, 1997)

There are some other positive experiences. In Great Britain “there are several special children’s programmes from time to time, sometimes geared towards introducing hearing children to sign language”. In Denmark the National TV had programmes for deaf adolescents, once a month and for deaf children, app. once a month. This need is acutely perceived also in other countries, as deaf children can not benefit from the programmes for hearing children. (SLP, 1997)

The accessibility of foreign films and other foreign programs is better, as in many countries these are subtitled, but the translations are designed to a nationwide audience and could hardly be regarded as special solutions aimed at the deaf. Many television stations, particularly the commercial ones, prefer vocal synchronizing instead of using subtitles, a procedure with absolutely exclusive effect on accessibility for deaf.

The situation of deaf access is improving with the increasing possibility to utilize the technical resources of digital television. However, in 1997, when the collection of data was made, only a slow progress was noticed in this regard. In the Flemish linguistic area of Belgium, of all television stations, only BRTN had teletext for deaf and hard of hearing people. Apart from the 19.30 news bulletin, only about a third of all Dutch programmes on BRTN were captioned. The accommodation of deaf from the Walloon area was significantly better, with the RTBF television station giving them the opportunity to get information through Teletext, including pages specifically meant for the deaf. In Great Britain it has been agreed that upon its introduction, digital TV shall have 5% of all programs accompanied by sign language within ten years of its introduction. (SLP, 1997)

The use of teletext has multiple advantages, but also some serious shortcomings and cannot completely replace the use of the sign language interpreters. Although teletext provides plenty of information, but in a manner, which is not specific for the visual media. There is a static image appearing in the screen, resembling the style of a newspaper, rather than of a television. Teletext is a non-personalized method of transmitting information, which offers none of the excitement and emotional involvement characteristic to “live” broadcasts.

In the same time, it is necessary to take into account the profound symbolic significance of the sign language interpreter’s presence in the screen during the main broadcasting programs. These special broadcasts are not just responding to the needs of a disadvantaged social group. They are fulfilling also the role of implicitly educating the public about difference, equality in difference and the necessity to offer public recognition and equal dignity for people who suffer disadvantages due to their special characteristics/disabilities.

Both countries have a significant tradition of deaf self-organization, preexistent to the communist period. In Romania, the first self-organized association for deaf was set up in 1919. During the inter-war period it achieved significant results in its institution building and interest promoting work. It helped establishing a number of special schools, published a journal and promoted deaf employment through press campaigns and advertising. One of the most ambitious initiatives, which ultimately failed as the result of insufficient government support, was the creation of a National Center for Deaf. Communist authorities put an end to these encouraging developments and took over the responsibility for the faith of deaf. The association was closed down and then reopened in 1953 as a formally autonomous body, but in fact was completely subordinated to state throughout the communist period. From 1978 to 1990 it loosed even its membership in the international organizations for deaf due to non-payment of membership fees.

In Hungary, the institutionalized preoccupation for the needs of the population with disabled hearing started from the beginning of the nineteenth century, when the first special school for deaf was opened in Vac (1802). The graduates of this school begin to set up societies throughout the country. The process of self-organization reached a higher level in 1892 when the first journal for deaf was established. In 1907 the first country- wide association, the Home of Deaf was founded. Its legal successor today is the National Association of Deaf and Hard of Hearing (SINOSZ). Communism caused a discontinuity in the organizational development in Hungary, too, though its consequences were not as hard as in Romania. Civil society was not completely destroyed and formally independent institutions were granted some degree of autonomy during the milder decades of the authoritarian regime. Thus after 1989 the transition to a pluralist democratic system also proved easier.

From a formal-organizational perspective, after 1989 the two countrywide "official" deaf associations evolved in a similar manner in Romania and Hungary, both being registered as non-profit and non-governmental organizations. New statutes have been adopted, international contacts established or re-established. The change in the legal status does not necessarily mean, however, a radical shift of the organizational structure and style of work. There is still a long way to go.

In this respect, the Hungarian association, which could act in a more favorable internal policy context was able to adapt comparatively faster to the new social and political environment. In the same time, in Hungary organizational pluralism in the field of deaf advocacy has developed rather quickly. Instead of trying to desperately stick to a monopoly status, SINOSZ was able to adopt a more flexible strategy, by setting up or attracting under its umbrella a number of foundations dealing with particular (social, medical, educational, cultural) aspects of deaf community life. Beyond its territorial subsidiaries, the Hungarian Deaf Association also set up a series of specialized committees and services at central level, such as the offices dealing with education, sport activities, culture and youth etc.

What is even more important, the emergence of a new organizational framework coincided with a significant modernization of the association's agenda. Special offices on communication and information matters have been established in order to assist and promote the enlargement of opportunities available to deaf in these crucial fields. The organization is taking up an active role in enhancing the status of sign language within the society and in training and qualifying sign language interpreters. The Hungarian Association of Deaf is proposing to act as a key social actor in the center of a communication system which involves all important stakeholders: the deaf themselves, their family members, their teachers, medical experts, governments, entrepreneurs, representatives of the media, interpreters of the sign language and others. A particular attention is devoted to the community organization and cultural community life of the deaf.

By contrast, in case of the Romanian association, outdated mentalities and old methods of work, inherited from the past centralist system, persist to a comparatively greater extent, particularly at regional level. Instead of acting as an authentic movement organized from down to top, the organization still presents partly the image of a rather rigid structure, which resembles some of the characteristics of state institutions.

This situation is also reflected in the nature of the ANSR objectives and activities, as presented in its official promotional booklet. The advocacy work, the attempt to influence policy to a desirable direction to the benefit of deaf population are not even stated among the association’s objectives. In fact its major assumed task is to assist state authorities in the implementation of legislative measures and policies in the field. In this respect, it proposes to “cooperate with the State Secretary’s Office for the Persons with Handicap, the Ministry of Work and Social Protection, the Ministry of Education and other authorities and organizations contributing to the social and professional integration of deaf ” (ASR, 1994)

In exercising some of its attributions, the ANSR even takes the role of a state authority, for instance in “identifying the hearing impaired at as early age as possible” and in the “inclusion of deaf children in the system of special education”. (ASR, 1994) The association also acts as an intermediary between the deaf persons and the state institutions, in order to ensure that they receive the support granted by law. Otherwise, it fulfills mostly the double role of being both an administrative and a recreational center. While keeping the files of deaf persons in good order, it also provides cultural, entertainment and sport opportunities to them.

One of the most important obstacles in overcoming this ambiguous relationship of the association with the authorities is the perpetuation of financial dependency from the state. The organization continue to function, most of cases, in state owned or rented offices, and, most importantly, a large segment of its employees receive state salaries. Apart from state funding and membership fees, subsidiaries survive as the result of occasional donations from local sponsors. Most office employees are not familiar with Western techniques of fundraising. In some territorial offices even modern communication equipment is absent.

In recent years, however, one could sense certain positive changes in the work of the organization. The interest is gradually shifting from administrative tasks and daily routine to promoting objectives aimed at qualitative changes in the social status and in the life standards of deaf. The intensification of international contacts with partner associations from Western Europe certainly has a significant role in stimulating this process.

One of the most interesting developments in this respect is the participation of the Romanian association in EUDECU (Culture for Deaf in the Countries of the European Union) project in partnership with similar organizations from Belgium, Spain, Greece and Denmark. (Vocea Tacerii, January 2000, p. 3) This project is focusing on key aspects of deaf culture and community life: defining deafness, disability and handicap, raising the self-awareness of deaf, definitions of deaf as a cultural and/or linguistic minority, access to information and modern technology, training and employment of the interpreters of the sign language.

From theoretical discussion to practical implementation the distance can be, however, considerable. The new regulations on disability (Gov. Order 102/1999) – in an attempt to get closer to certain European Union standards - set 31 December 2002 as a deadline for employing professional sign language interpreters in all public offices of the country. But the preconditions of achieving this objective are almost completely absent. There are very few professional interpreters in Romania. The status of interpreters and the conditions of exercising this profession are still not defined. There is no any officially recognized institutional framework for the training of future interpreters.

To what extent the Romanian Association of Deaf was unprepared to provide the necessary expertise and human resources in this field is well illustrated by the fact that at the beginning of 2000 the organization did not employ even one expert familiar with both English and the sign language. Although the ANSR leaders expressed their strong interest in the training of sign language interpreters, the process of initiating this is still at its early stages. Recently, a project for organizing a sign language interpreter’s training course was discussed with a British partner organization, which promised to support the program financially.

With the comparatively lagging behind of the association’s own efforts and initiatives, an important social actor from outside the world of disabled took the front stage in promoting sign language: the churches. For those who are familiar with the Romanian context, this is hardly a surprise. From a predominantly dogmatic theological perspective, churches - acting from a position of moral authority in a society where the influence of traditional value systems is still strong - have taken interest in social and disability problems as inseparable part of their assumed mission.

The preoccupation of churches for the situation of disadvantaged people can be viewed also in light of their efforts to strengthen their legitimacy and prestige within the community. There also might be an interest to attract new adherents from disadvantaged groups, while preserving the allegiance of their traditional members. As churches have been regarded after 1989 by many Western organizations as the only credible institutions after the fall of the communist regime, they attracted considerable financial support for their activities. This fact should also be regarded as an important factor of motivation.

As far as the promotion of sign language is concerned, the Romanian Orthodox Church can claim an undisputed tradition and continuity. During communism, the only sign language dictionary was that published by the Orthodox Metropolitan’s Office of Oltenia. After 1990 new initiatives emerged. Special orthodox communities for deaf, where services are being held in the sign language have been set up in several cities, including Bucharest, Pitesti, Oradea, Craiova, Iasi and Cluj. In 20^th May 2000 in Craiova the first religious wedding officiated both in vocal and sign language took place. These special religious services received wide written media and television news coverage. (Vocea Tacerii, May-June 2000, p. 2 )

In order to train a qualified clergy for the deaf communities, at the Orthodox Theological Faculty of the University of Pitesti around twenty places each year are allocated to deaf students, who are receiving sign language training in addition to their professional courses. Similar efforts are being made also by the Reformed, Roman-Catholic, Baptist and other churches.

The initiatives of the churches are focusing mainly on the spiritual-religious field and therefore are usually regarded by deaf association leaders as complementary to their fields of activity. Since the type of work the ANSR is doing is to large extent inherited from the communist past, it largely avoids using religion as a mobilization tool for the deaf. As a consequence, today there is a division of tasks between lay and religious organizations. The churches are filling a gap, which the ANSR subsidiaries are not in the position and do not want to fill. Certainly, the considerable moral authority of the churches within the Romanian society and the important legitimizing role of religion are also playing a part in setting the scene for this kind of coexistence and even cooperation between these two key players in the field of disabled interest representation.

By contrast, the relationship of ANSR with civil organizations advocating for the rights of the deaf is more complicated. In fact, we cannot speak of just one, but of a multitude of relationships, taking into account that there are several types of civil organizations involved.

One characteristic type is represented by the organizations set up by churches or being church affiliated. It is a rather frequent practice in Romania that churches are creating their own associations or foundations in order to benefit from the advantages offered by the existence of such nominally autonomous organizations. Within the Orthodox Church, the most important such organization active in deaf community life is the Grigore Palama Christian Missionary Foundation. Other civil organizations are associated with – and often set up by - special schools for deaf, with the aim to help in bringing support, particularly foreign aid, to those schools. Such organizations, due to their affiliation, rarely are able or even wishing, to play an autonomous role as distinct social actors. Therefore, the relationship between them and ANSR is largely depending on their “parent” institutions’ own relationships with the deaf national organization.

The situation of truly independent associations and foundations is, however, completely different. The emergence of this type of organizations is a rather new phenomenon. They are, by virtue of their structure, flexible, able to adapt easily to the changing environment. In order to develop, they have to learn and adopt new methods of work very quickly. They are challenging by their very existence the rigid centralized structure, the patronizing relationships and the corresponding mentality.

Autonomous organizations do not have an easy life, as they have to survive financially from their own resources, under the conditions of unfavorable fiscal legislation. They are in large extent dependent on foreign donors, being supported by Western human rights organizations and charities. Coming in contradiction with the still strong centralist mentality and interests, they are almost inevitably subjected to pressures of political and administrative nature in order to adopt partisan positions or to let themselves used by others.

Given this social and political context, it is not surprising, therefore, that even some “official” deaf leaders, particularly at local level, might perceive the activities of independent organizations in this field as manifestations of unwelcome competition, or, worst, as a threat. This problem is presenting itself in more acute forms in Romania, but in certain situations is coming to surface in Hungary too.

For example, the task of training sign language interpreters and advocating for the recognition and institutionalization of the sign language is assumed both by SINOSZ and by the Hungarian Association of Interpreters of the Sign Language (JOSZ). The latter is a rather new professional organization of sign language interpreters, but can already claim important achievements. Two years ago, JOSZ established a partnership with a similar organization in Britain (SLI), which is providing help in creating networks of sign language interpreters in Hungary. However, the status of interpreters is still uncertain, they are mostly doing their work as a secondary job only and are low paid. The fact that interpreters are divided between two organizations does not necessarily help them in their efforts to enhance their professional status.

In long term, however, organizational pluralism, the existence of a number of civil organizations active in the same field is likely to produce beneficial results. The fact that no single organization has the monopoly to act on behalf and for the benefit of deaf, requires a gradual process of adaptation to a pluralist NGO environment and a change of the mentalities previously dominated by the monolithic party-state model.

Today is more and more clear that “official” deaf association leaders at national level are not able or are not willing anymore to de-legitimize the parallel efforts and initiatives of other organizations by simply denying their rights to exist and to function. In a society aspiring to full membership of the European club, such attitude would be a self-destroying strategy. Thus, the only viable alternative remains the “modernization” of the official deaf association’s own agenda, so as to be able to compete with the newly emerging NGO-s.

If we look to the legislation and to the official political agenda in the two countries, we can find a certain similarity with the situation in Western Europe. Namely, that there are general principles and policy guidelines affirmed and to some extent even included in the national law, but these principles and guidelines usually do not reach as far as to establish concrete and precise requirements for the television broadcasters. As we shall see in more details, the similarity ends at this point. The actual practice of Western European states in the field is in most cases much more favorable to deaf than the existing legislation. This can not be said about the situation in Romania and Hungary, however. Unlike in Western Europe, not just policy makers, but even deaf organizations in the two countries tend to regard advocating access to the visual media as a field of action which is rather marginal compared to their major preoccupations: employment, social care and education.

In Romania, there are no specific regulations concerning the access of deaf to the visual media, which means that access is made or not made possibleat the sole discretion of the television companies concerned. Two pieces of legislation currently in force are tangentially connected with this issue, without any of them setting, however, any concrete standards in the field: the Law on audio-visual media and the Emergency government ordinance concerning the rights of disabled. The latter was still not adopted by the Parliament, but is legally bounding from the moment it was enacted by the Government in 1999.

The Law on audio-visual media (Law nr.42/1992, modified by Law 62/1993 and Law nr.19/1999, Legislative Data - base of the Romanian Ministry of Justice) states that “ the licenses for broadcasting shall be issued by the National Audio-visual Council (NAC)” (art.12, par.2). This is defined “an autonomous public institution" (art. 11)”. Concerning the criteria to be used in the evaluation of TV stations aspiring to a license, the Law formulates certain principles to which the broadcasts of the applicant TV stations should adhere. These are: “the plurality of opinions, equal treatment of participants, quality and diversity of broadcasts, stimulation of free competition, of the national audio-visual creation and production, illustration of the national culture, independence and impartiality of the broadcasts of public TV stations “ (Art 12, par. 4). “ The access of social-cultural, political, religious organizations and other applicants to the audio-visual programs shall be made with respect to the provisions of paragraph 4, according to the conditions set by the license agreement.” ( art.12, para.5).

As can be easily seen, neither of these criteria refers explicitly to the access to information of the population with disabilities, or of any other category of persons with special cultural, physical, sensorial or other distinctive characteristics. The provision concerning the access to broadcasts of various organizations expressing particular group interests and needs is too general and vague for being considered satisfactory. Any specification of the social groups, interests and needs which shall be represented in the TV programs is avoided by the legislator.

One can conclude that the text of law essentially reflects a homogenizing view on Romanian society. Moreover, the explicit call for the cultivation of the “national culture” in the text of paragraph 4 is suggesting the assumption that the interests and world outlook of the ethnic majority should receive a special attention within the broadcasts, being regarded as a priority. By contrast, minority interests and concerns receive much smaller – if any – attention within the text of the law.

On the other hand, it is stated in the document that the concrete criteria for granting the license “shall be announced to public by the National Audio-visual Council at least 45 days prior to the day when the competition takes place (Art. 12, para.3). This provision gives in fact an almost discretionary power to NAC, a decision-making body set up predominantly along political lines (complying with the provisions of art.25).

The Emergency Government Ordinance 102/1999 concerning “the special protection of disabled and their integration into work” (Legislative Data-base of the Romanian Ministry of Justice), puts forward certain standards concerning several facilities to be offered to the persons having special characteristics due to their handicap. For instance, referring to the population with hearing disability, the regulation asserts that the sign language shall receive official recognition. The document sets as a deadline 31 December 2002 for all public institutions in order to employ translators of the sign language who shall be in direct contact with their deaf or hard of hearing clients. Although in practice very little has been done so far for the implementation of this requirement, public debate on the issue has already been stimulated and civil society initiatives for furthering the introduction of sign language into public life and into social services emerged.

However, in spite of the progress made in formulating clear obligations in some important fields related to the social integration of the disabled population in general and of the deaf population in special, the government ordinance completely neglects other fields which are clearly as much important. The document does not include provisions concerning deaf access to the visual media and does not refer in any sense to the representation of disability issues and interests within the television programs.

Even so, judged in the Romanian social and political context, the government ordinance on disability rights also has incontestable merits. The very fact of recognizing sign language and setting the obligation for the institutionalization of this language should be regarded as a great step forward, setting the scene for a subsequent introduction of the sign language translation into the broadcasts. In order to accelerate this process there will be a need, however, for improving the current legislation, to include explicit obligations.

There are still some open questions. It is yet unclear whether the issue of deaf access to television programs should be regulated within the framework of media legislation or rather should belong to the field of disability rights. Being a border area, it can be subject of disputes concerning legislative and institutional competence. Such disputes can have in certain contexts stimulating effects for adopting new regulations and standards. Other times, however, they are likely to provide an easy pretext for not acting.

Another question is whether the regulations can legally extend to commercial televisions or should be restricted to the public television stations. All these are mainly technical and legal concerns. But the fundamental matter is how to build up political will for a positive solution and how to translate this will into effective political action.

Similarly to Romania, in Hungary the legislation in the field of disability rights is rather new. This fact reflects the recent preoccupation of both countries to set up a legislative framework acceptable by Western standards. The ongoing process of European integration (both countries are involved in negotiations for EU membership) acts as a clear motivating and moving force in this respect.

Another similarity concerns the nature of underlying arguments. In justifying the necessity for adopting the new regulations, the legislators of both countries are emphasizing social, instead of legalistic motives. Rather than being primarily concerned of ensuring equal treatment and nondiscrimination, they are stressing the need to achieve “social integration” and a greater “equality of chances.” This can probably be partly explained by the insufficiently developed legal tradition and democratic culture within the region.

Beyond these similarities, there are also important differences. Compared to the Romanian text, the corresponding Hungarian regulations are based on a much more elaborated vision, attempting to state as clearly as possible the basic guiding principles behind the legislative measures. In the same time, Hungarian legislation is also more specific and sets up provisions on most significant aspects related to disability rights.

In the Hungarian case there are three basic documents to be considered. First, the Law nr.26/ 1998 “on the rights of disabled persons and on ensuring their equality of chances” should be regarded as a fundamental legal source in this field. The Parliamentary Resolution nr.100/1999 is proceeding to a detailed interpretation of Law 26/1998 and also sets the concrete tasks. Finally, the Government Decision nr.2062/2000 is putting forward deadlines and is establishing the responsible authorities for the implementation of each objective (the texts of these documents are available in the Hungarian Legislative Data-base).

The philosophy behind the regulations is based on an interactionist perspective, being primarily concerned of “the meaning of social action, that is the subjective perspective, emotions and feelings of human agents as social individuals” (Turner, 1987, p.3). Falling short of convincing human rights centered argumentation, the Law nr.26/1998 nevertheless affirms that the access of disabled persons to information should be considered the very precondition of all other rights and facilities (art.6). Thus the importance of communication and information issues is firmly established, although based on a pragmatic rather than on a right oriented approach.

The need for positive discrimination is also justified by the legislator in a pragmatic manner: “Given the fact that - in their situation - the disabled are less capable to use their rights to which they are equally entitled, they should receive preferential treatment in all possible ways” (art.3). In this context, the law has the merit of stressing the importance of the “helping means”, defined as “the means aimed to compensate for the total or partial absence of the disabled persons’ physical or sensorial ability.” (art. 4)

Although not stated explicitly by law, from the corroboration of the above mentioned articles results in fact the necessity to use all available helping means and to create new means in order to ensure the access of disabled to information. The Parliamentary Resolution 100/1999 aimed to offer a detailed interpretation of the Disability Law goes further. It states that “ the access to information presupposes the fulfillment of two distinct requirements: on the one hand the disabled person should be enabled to receive the information, on the other hand he/she should be offered the possibility to interpret this information correctly” (art. IV/2, para.1)

In this regard, the document puts forward the following provision concerning the access of deaf to the visual media:

“ It is justified to use media regulatory means in order that all national television stations be obliged to transmit at least two daily news broadcasts in such a way that they could be understood by the deaf: either by using subtitles or with the help of a sign language interpreter.” ( art. IV/2, para.2)

From the text does not result clearly whether this requirement should apply only to public TV stations or also to the commercial televisions. The Government Decision 2062/2000 is more specific, stating that “ By the modification of the Law nr.1/1996 on radio and television, the program services of public television must provide the parallel transmission of the main news broadcasts in an understandable manner for deaf persons” (art.2/1). 1^st January 2001 was set for the implementation of the above requirement. This objective, however modest (since it refers exclusively to the main news broadcasts of public television) was not entirely fulfilled so far. Nevertheless, a legislative framework is beginning to take shape. This creates a precedent and an example for solutions in the field and should therefore be regarded (compared with the situation in Romania, for instance) as an important achievement.

As shown in the previous chapter, there are only minimal (the case of Hungary) or no requirements (the case of Romania) to television stations in order to make their program accessible to deaf or other categories of disabled persons. Similarly, there are no specific requirements concerning the inclusion of special programs dealing with the problems of disabled. On the other hand, it should be emphasized however, that there are no legal limitations or restrictions in this field either. While TV stations are not obliged (or are obliged only at the minimum level) to use special procedures and to broadcast special programs for the needs of disabled, they are not prevented in any way by law from doing so. Thus the broadcasting policies of various televisions appear as a crucial field, where there is a huge space and potential for measures in favor of the disabled.

This is one of the reasons why it is so important to assess the factors, interests and values, which are shaping broadcasting policies at the level of television companies. The interviews with visual media leaders in Romania and Hungary have assumed to collect information in view of this task. Although the analysis and interpretation of the collected data is still under way and a much more detailed and elaborated presentation of research findings will be included in the final report, some remarks and preliminary conclusions can be formulated already at this stage.

First, it can be observed that due to the specificity of the theme of the proposed interview, the process of contacting the responsible individuals (program directors, public relations managers) of various TV stations has been an interesting experience in itself. The initial reaction of the great majority of interviewees denoted a degree of surprise, simply because such “marginal” subject was raised and brought to their attention. The basic assumption of most contacted media representatives – particularly after reading the fairly detailed questionnaire - probably has been that the research will try to show that they are not doing enough for ensuring accessibility and that they will need to demonstrate the contrary and/or justify their shortcomings.

Two different kinds of reaction emerged from this starting point. Some leading TV personalities tried to avoid responsibility, by postponing the interview, claiming that they are busy and not available for the moment or arguing that they are not competent or are not empowered by their decision making body to answer the questions. With one exception, no overt refusal occurred. In order to protect their public image, some visual media leaders made efforts in order to continue be perceived as “politically correct”, while nevertheless indirectly attempting to avoid replying to the questions. Others, by contrast, adopted a more active-constructive self-justifying approach, and co-operated during the information collecting process. They usually emphasized their own merits in obtaining some achievements and blamed external factors, which are out of their possibility to influence, for not being able to offer more to the disabled.

Beyond the various types of argumentation used during the interviews, certain general characteristics can be observed, which presumably have a negative effect on the ability of TV stations to respond to the social needs linked to disability:

Only a very tiny minority of program producers and television journalists in the two countries has the adequate training and affinity to deal with disability matters. Competent media workers in this field can acquire their skills after many years of practice. Such experience can be gained today mainly - if not exclusively - at the national public television stations, the only ones, which offer permanent programs to disabled. The very limited broadcasting time offered to special disability programs (in Romania: RTV – one 30 minutes program once a week, in Hungary: MTV - two weekly programs of 15 minutes each; Duna TV – one 30 minutes program/week) allows however the employment of just a small number specialists. In addition the religious programs of the two Hungarian public service televisions, similarly to the Romanian public service television, are rather often presenting the activities of church directed social establishments for disabled.

The journalists working at the private television companies usually have at best a remote connection with disability issues. Many of them find it hard and risky to make an “excursion” to this “strange” field. As a consequence, important events in the life of disabled are often not reported and their special communication needs neglected.

One exception seems to occur in the situations where the program producer feels that a certain issue can be presented in such a manner as to attract a wide public by producing sensation. In such context, “life stories” of disabled persons are presented from time to time in TV magazine-programs specialized in treating “unusual” facts and events. However, presentations of this kind are often one-sided, full of stereotypes and preoccupied mainly to impress their audience, rather than to search for solutions or to engage in a serious social dialogue.

Concerning the implementation of special technical solutions for deaf, several TV station representatives argued that it is difficult to find competent interpreters of the sign language. This is particularly the case in Romania, where there is still no recognized institution for training sign language interpreters. On the other hand, the professional status of interpreters is also uncertain in both countries.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the work of these interpreters is used even by the national public televisions to a very limited extent. In Romania and Hungary alike, only the weekly special disability programs are regularly translated into Sign. As far as private TV companies are concerned, this issue just started to reach their agenda.

 b. limited broadcasting time-frame

In case of the researched local television stations (in a centrally located area of Romania), the reduced broadcasting time is often perceived by TV station insiders as another impediment to the introduction of special programs for disabled. Some local program directors feel that news broadcasts, shorter reports, or roundtable discussions can fit more easily in their broadcasting frames. This might indeed be the situation if the available time frame is really very short in absolute terms. In other cases, however, where there is a larger broadcasting time, with good will and efforts, solutions could be found in order to find space for disability programs, even if on a monthly, rather than on a weekly base.

The absence of adequate solutions might denote exactly the absence of sufficient political will to pursue positive discrimination by allocating a reasonable broadcasting time for the articulation of disabled and other minority views and interests. This also presupposes the willingness to assume the risk that the broadcasting time allocated to disability issues might be perceived by part of the non-disabled audience as disproportionately large.

c. financial burden

 This has been another argument, which returned in all interviews. It is interesting to remark, however, that the size of the television companies' budget does not appear to be a significant differentiating factor in this regard. National and local, big and small TV stations are complaining of the insufficient financial resources in a similar manner. Therefore, at least in case of the large TV stations, seems that the major problem resides in their priorities and in their way of allocating resources, rather than in the size of their budget. What is even more striking, among the questioned visual media representatives there is an almost general absence of visionary thinking for finding adequate financial solutions in order to cover the costs of special disability broadcasts. This lack of creative ideas and solutions basically originates in the reduced level of interest in a problem perceived as marginal and of secondary importance, if not neglected altogether.

While the cost of certain technical devices, such as subtitling machines, is indeed high in absolute terms (and can represent a real burden for certain local televisions which have limited funds at their disposal), in case of national TV companies the situation is completely different. Such machines, in fact, already exist at the countrywide TV stations, but they are used mainly to the benefit of a larger audience, rather than of the deaf. In Romania, for instance, most foreign films and rebroadcast foreign programs are subtitled, which is accidentally beneficial to the deaf too, but the using of this procedure is not aimed specifically to fulfill their special needs. The same assertion is valid concerning the television genres, which due to their nature are more accessible to deaf (such as dance, ballet, animation films or pantomime).

In Hungary, by contrast, the majority of films are translated by vocal synchronizing, instead of using subtitles. The alternative solution is teletext translation, but this is used rather sporadically for the needs of deaf. In addition, captioning requires special TV sets, which are too expensive for many deaf persons to buy. The only regularly translated broadcasts are the daily news programs of the central television and of one regional studio, but both encounter difficulties in allocating the necessary resources. During the interview at the national public television, the idea came up that a foundation specialized in promoting media appearances and media accessibility for deaf could help to improve the situation.

d. Lack of co-ordination between TV stations and deaf advocacy organizations

The absence of regular contacts with deaf organizations has been often invoked by the interviewed program directors as an obstacle to the implementation of special solutions and programs. There is a very sporadic circulation of information from the deaf organizations to the TV stations, concerning the special modes and means of communication of the hearing impaired. Program directors argued that it is difficult for televisions to come up with new initiatives without close co-operation, help and advise from those who are most directly affected and who should know best what is good for them.

As I argued in a previous chapter, deaf organizations in Romania and Hungary indeed had to go a long way in modernizing their agenda so as to include the improvement of communicational and informational opportunities for deaf among their priorities. However, their capacity to effectively promote changes, which could really make a difference in this field, is still low, for various reasons:

• the general perception in the society that the problems of disadvantaged categories of population are “marginal” and therefore less important;

• persistent social prejudices concerning the deaf

• the special status and priority of political and commercial interests and considerations in the policies of the TV stations

• the reduced organizational and human resources of the deaf organizations, which make them less able to communicate effectively and build strong coalitions

During the interviews, several program managers said that they would be happy to include disabled in their staff and to co-operate with organizations of the disabled, but they complied that it is hard to contact disabled people, and they have no experience of working with them.

Even in such difficult context significant steps forward have been made. Communication between the key stakeholders has become more effective recently, and a dialogue between television companies, the National Audio-visual Council and the Romanian Association of Deaf started this year. It is hoped that also as a practical outcome of this project, the process of negotiations will continue and will result in significant legislative, institutional and policy changes aimed to improve the access of deaf and other categories of disabled to media transmitted information.

References

Asociatia Surzilor din Romania - 75 ani de la infiintare, official booklet of the ANSR, Bucharest, 1994 (ASR, 1994)

Colin Barnes, Geof Mercer and Tom Shakespeare, Exploring Disability. A Sociological Introduction, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1999.

J. Campbell and M. Oliver, Disability Politics: Understanding Our Past, Changing Our Future, Routledge, London, 1996.

Fundamental Principles of Disability, UPIAS, London, 1976.

B.Turner, Medical Power and Social Knowledge, Sage, London, 1987.

1. Name of the television station

2. Year of foundation

3. Broadcasting time

4. Legal status

5. Broadcasting area

6. Territorial subsidiaries

7. Departments:

8. Do you have programs specifically designed for a certain category of people?

a. yes b. no

9. If yes, please list the most important programs of this kind.

Nr.		Title of the program	For which specific social category it is designed ?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

 10. Within your programs in the past year did you tackle the problems of disabled people ?

a. yes b. no

If yes, please answer the questions 11-21. If no, please go to question nr 22.

11. In which of your programs did you tackle the problems of people with disabilities ?

12. Did you receive any feedback to your programs in which you tackled problems of people with disabilities?

a. yes b. no

13.If yes:

	From whom ?	What kind of feedback ?
a.	People with disabilities
b.	Organizations of people with disabilities
c.	The general public
d.	Civil organizations
e.	Authorities
f.	Others

14. Please, select one of your programs dealing with problems of disabled people in the past year and make a brief presentation of the program, on the basis of the following guidelines:

• How the idea to make this program emerged?
• What was the content of the program ?
• Who were the editors ?
• Brief evaluation of the program
• Plans concerning the continuation of the program

15. How would you assess the average audience rate of your programs dealing with the problems of disabled persons compared to the average audience rate of your television station ?

16. What considerations made you to broadcast programs dealing with problems of disabled people?

17. Why do you think such programs are important ?

18. Do you think that the broadcasting time you allocate currently to such programs is sufficient?

a. yes b. no

19. If no, what are the obstacles, which prevent you to increase the broadcasting time allocated to such programs?

20. Do you have in mind any change concerning your programs dealing with problems of disabled people ?

a. yes b. no

21. If yes, what changes do you have in mind?

22. In the following table we are listing some special procedures which can facilitate the understanding of the message of the television programs by deaf and hard of hearing people. Please, mark, by ticking in the corresponding boxes, which are the procedures used in your television programs in the past 12 months, and also, whether you intend to utilize these procedures in the future.

23. If you applied any of the procedures listed above, share with us your experience concerning the utilization of the procedure and possible difficulties you encountered.

24. If there is any procedure listed in the above table, which you consider that it is not possible to be applied at your television station, please, describe what makes you to think so.

25. Please, mark, by ticking in the corresponding boxes, which of the following types of programs, more accessible to deaf and hard of hearing persons, did you include in your broadcasts in the past 12 months.

26. Comments, proposals:

back