Category Archives: Bélgica

by monzo

Panel: The Legal Framework for Languages and Models of Linguistic Officiality

Panel chair: Juan Jiménez-Salcedo

Is Switzerland as language-friendly as its reputation suggests?

Prof. Dr. Manuel Meune

With its four official languages​,​ Switzerland, where most citizens identify with the Swiss “nation of will”, appears to have “satisfied” its linguistic minorities and rarely makes international headlines because of language conflicts. This success is often attributed to the absence of linguistic enclaves (except for Romansh) and the principle of territoriality. However, language freedom also plays a role along the German-French language border (Biel/Bienne) or in Graubünden, where the decline of Romansh is hard to stop. And some heated legal debates have taken place particularly in multilingual cantons.

In addition, the “language peace” can be linked to pragmatism and non-intervention. Even without legal protection, Swiss German dialects are very much alive, in a stable diglossic relationship with standard German. But Switzerland’s flattering image seems misleading in regards to its “fifth language” – Francoprovençal. The country has not done much better than centralist France in protecting this age-old language. Its recent inclusion in the debate on the implementation of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages offers some perspectives of revitalization, as does the proactive policy of the cantons of Fribourg and Valais, but this minimal legal protection comes very late.

Canada’s language regime: policy-choices and the modernization of the Official Languages Act

Prof. Dr. Linda Cardinal

Canada is a federal country. Canadian federalism is the result of a political compromise between its two main groups, Anglophones and Francophones. It language regime is also informed by political compromise. Because of federalism, language is ancillary in Canada. All governments can adopt their own language policies. As a result, Quebec has its own language policies as well as all the other provinces and territories except for British-Columbia.

This paper will discuss language policy-choices at the federal level. It will explain how such compromise has informed four generations of language policies. It will present briefly these different generations and their main characteristics. It will focus on the government’s new proposed legislation to modernize its Official Languages Act (Bill C-13). It will discuss its key points and show how it is continuing Canada’s language compromise while trying to propose change. The paper will conclude by explaining why it is important to look at patterns of continuity and change in the study of language regimes.

The Belgian language regime and the limits of the law as a language policy tool

Dr. Sophie Weerts

The Belgian state is a federal state, bringing together three national linguistic communities (Dutch, French and German speakers). Its linguistic organisation is part of a ‘model of plurilingualism’; based on three principles of freedom, equality and territoriality. These characters are translated into the law – sometimes very imperfectly – with the freedom of language, the linguistic regions (principle of territoriality) and an institutional organization that puts the (two main) linguistic communities on an equal footing.

In this contribution, I will argue that the Belgian language regime has two critical weaknesses. First, the freedom of language is interpreted restrictively under the principle of linguistic territoriality. Second, there is a lack of formal recognition of the plurilingualism of the Belgian state. The former is a matter of legal interpretation, while the latter stems from silence in the law. These elements make it possible to say that the law is undoubtedly necessary to carry out a linguistic policy that ensures linguistic pacification but cannot be seen as sufficient.

by monzo

Linguistic injustice despite language rights. Raising awareness on language barriers for vulnerable groups in legal settings in Belgium: minors as a case

Katalin Balogh and Heidi Salaets

The right to an interpreter is part and parcel of the roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings. Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings has sought to lay down common minimal rules on this fair trial right. Arguably, the directive could be seen as a push towards the institutionalisation of interpreting and the professionalisation of interpreters in criminal proceedings.

Assuming that vulnerability means a suspect’s or accused’s difficulty in understanding or following the content or the meaning of the proceedings, the interpreter could be seen as the gateway to facilitate such understanding.

Moreover, the 2012/29/EU establishes minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, even more so if the victim is a child.

In our presentation, we wish to outline our research on foreign language  (FL) speaking minors. Next to FL-speaking minors involved in criminal proceedings (as victims or suspects), the cases presented will also consider FL-speaking (non-accompanied) minors involved in asylum procedures in Belgium.

We will critically reflect on the (lack of) underlying assumptions and definitions as to what that role of the interpreter is, in particular in light of the vulnerability of FL-speaking minors. We will elucidate and build our reflections on the basis of empirical research that sought to clarify the perspectives of the different actors involved in interpreter-mediated interaction in the legal sphere. What is new is that we will specifically consider the minors’ viewpoints: through interviews with vulnerable minors, we will illustrate their view on the interpreter’s role and competences. By listening to the minors’ voices, we definitely respond to their need to the right to participation, as described in article 12 of the CRC (Child Rights Convention) of the UN.

Keywords: criminal proceedings, legal interpreting, minors, vulnerability, code of ethics, role and competences, fair trial.

by monzo

Action research into developing language solutions to improve multilingual communication during the registration of persons seeking international protection in Belgium

Kerremans, Koen; Cox, Antoon; De Wilde, July; El Hahaoui, Karima; Guaus, Aline; Maryns, Katrijn

When persons seeking international protection arrive in Belgium, they need to register their application at the Arrival Centre of  Federal Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers in Brussels. The registration process involves, amongst others, a medical screening and social intake. This registration is a challenge in a context where multilingualism, intercultural diversity, and time pressure are the rule rather than the exception. For instance, applicants sometimes receive a vaccine without being properly informed and have to undress (for the chest scan) without knowing what is going to happen. This is a violation of the Belgian patient rights.

This paper discusses the results and experiences of the AMICA project on multilingual needs and practices in the context of the Belgian reception of applicants. Particular attention is paid to the linguistic and communicative needs of people with vulnerable linguistic profiles (i.e. low literate people as well as people only speaking languages for which it is difficult to find language support in the Belgian context, such as Somali or Pashto).

In the scope of this paper, our focus will be on the setting of the Arrival Centre. We present a research-action framework aimed at developing language solutions to better inform applicants during the intake flow. These solutions involve a series of multilingual information videos pertaining to different steps in the intake flow as well as a web application, featuring audio-recorded questions and answers in several languages, to assist service providers during social intakes. Both types of language solutions (available in more than 10 languages) have been developed based on ethnographic observations and interviews with stakeholders.

The project allows us to study how applicants and service providers experience the intake flow. It also allows us to involve the (busy) staff of the centre, who saw the language solutions as relevant to their work.

Keywords: language solutions, linguistic rights, language app, multilingual information videos, Belgian asylum reception.

by monzo

Linguistic injustice despite language rights? In dialogue during detention: raising awareness on language barriers for detainees in Belgium

Heidi Salaets, Shanti Heijkants & Katalin Balogh

The right to an interpreter is part and parcel of the roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings. Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings has sought to lay down common minimal rules on this right to a fair trial. Arguably, the directive could be seen as a push towards the institutionalisation of interpreting and the professionalisation of interpreters in criminal proceedings. 

Assuming that vulnerability means a suspect’s or accused’s difficulty in understanding or following the content or the meaning of the proceedings, the interpreter could be seen as the gateway to facilitating such understanding. 

In our presentation, we will focus on Flemish and Brussels prisons in Belgium and answer the question as to how far language rights reach, assuming that they are at least respected during the criminal procedures that eventually lead to incarceration. Thanks to empirical data we obtained from foreign-language-speaking (FL) prisoners explaining their service paths up until detention, we will show that even during pre-trial and court proceedings, the interpreter is seldom or wrongly deployed. Moreover, language rights seem to stop at the prison gates in Belgium: the Law on the prison system and the legal status of detainees, along with the Coordinated Laws with regard to language use in administrative affairs, show that language rights are downsized to an absolute minimum. Since language in administrative affairs in Belgium concern Dutch, French and possibly German (to a lesser extent), almost half of the prison population (49 % being foreigner) depends on Google Translate, the use of second and third languages, pictograms, inmates and staff that operate as self-proclaimed interpreters, and all sorts of gestures. This information was obtained through interviews with prison staff and management and will describe also how fundamental human rights are violated through denial of language rights.