Category Archives: Right to Interpreters

by monzo

La interpretación sanitaria en Gran Canaria, ¿un privilegio o un derecho?

Mónica del Carmen Santana García

En el archipiélago Canario podemos encontrar población extranjera que reside en las islas y turistas, por lo que la presencia de extranjeros en las Islas Canarias no es algo nuevo. Mucho antes de que se hablara de interpretación en los Servicios Públicos ya se daban casos de personas que, sin hablar español, visitaban nuestras islas con el fin de mejorar su salud, esto es lo que hoy se conoce como turismo sanitario. Estos dos grupos de personas, en algún momento, tienen que hacer uso de los servicios sanitarios públicos de las islas y se encuentran con el problema de que no existe un servicio de interpretación para poder comunicarse adecuadamente. Hemos entrevistado al personal perteneciente a los dos hospitales públicos de Gran Canaria y hemos apreciado que estos, muchas veces, deben encontrar soluciones para que la comunicación con los pacientes extranjeros pueda desarrollarse. Del mismo modo, hay que destacar que la situación ocasionada por la crisis sanitaria de la COVID-19 ha puesto de manifiesto que la asistencia sanitaria al paciente extranjero en las islas es una asignatura pendiente, además ha exacerbado en nuestro entorno la llegada de inmigrantes que llegan a las islas, de manera irregular, huyendo de sus lugares de origen por diferentes motivos. Si bien no se trata de un fenómeno nuevo, las actuales medidas de seguridad hacen que estas personas se conviertan en pacientes al llegar a nuestras fronteras. Finalmente, debemos aprovechar esta oportunidad para que la profesión del intérprete sanitario reciba el reconocimiento que se merece y se puedan llevar a cabo medidas para solucionar la falta de un servicio de interpretación sanitaria y concienciar a todos de que sin una buena comunicación no puede existir una sanidad de calidad. 

Palabras clave: interpretación en los Servicio Públicos, interpretación sanitaria, COVID-19.

by monzo

The right to sign language as the right to an interpreter?

Hilde Haualand, Maartje De Meulder

Communicating to linguistically diverse audiences, including deaf people, is best achieved by using native languages and communication styles (Di Carlo et al 2022, Xu et al 2021, Pollard et al 2014). Although both deaf people, sign language interpreters and service providers experience considerable limits in communication even  with an interpreter  present, sign language interpreting services (SLIS) have become tied with ideologies of ‘access’ and ‘inclusion’ for deaf people (De Meulder & Haualand 2021). Notwithstanding  the legal recognition of sign languages in an increasing number of countries, governmental language policies  still often confine the right to sign languages as a right to SLIS, not as a right to access to language-concordant public services (De Meulder 2015).  Since the outbreak of Covid-19, there has been a rapid increase in the presence of sign language interpreters  at public briefings, but few governments have made an effort to provide public information in sign language outside these interpreted briefings. As such, the pandemic has probably contributed to reinforcing the ideology  of interpreting as accessibility and inclusion. In this presentation we will first discuss if a discourse that equals SLIS with “access” actually obstructs language-concordant information and service provision for deaf people. Then we will discuss if and how deaf associations contribute to this discourse by framing language rights as a disability and accessibility issue. It may be that this framing has been an efficient strategy to increase the presence of sign language in public settings, but with the unintended and detrimental consequence that the right to sign language is confined to interpretations of spoken language provided by mostly hearing second language users of sign language. 

De Meulder, M., & Haualand, H. (2021). Sign language interpreting services: A quick fix for inclusion? Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association, 16(1), 19-40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.18008.dem

De Meulder, M. (2015). The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), 498-506. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sls.2015.0018

by monzo

To interpret or not to interpret? Observations on the role of the interpreter in the courts of law in Wales

Professor R. Gwynedd Parry

Language justice is social justice. However, achieving language justice is not a linear but a continual process. One that comprises ongoing education and training of all stakeholders to ensure meaningful access to services for Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals through translation and interpreting. This research project explores current practices around language access and the provision of translation and interpreting services, in relation to both state and federal language access guidelines in the United States. It does so within the broader framework of language access as a catalyst for achieving greater equity and social justice among minoritized, LEP communities. It builds on existing translation and interpreting research on (in)equities in access to social services for these communities. Accessing information in one’s preferred language and desired modality is critical to their ability to participate fully in all areas of daily life. Despite existing state and federal policies that require health and social services to comply with language access guidelines, the COVID-19 pandemic shined a light on the inconsistencies, and the ad hoc approach to provisioning these services. Thus, this project explores the critical components which are paramount to building language justice and offers a model for increasing interpreter and translator capacity through interprofessional education and training. Lastly, it re-examines existing and considers additional best practices for language access in the U.S.

Keywords: Legal System in Wales; interpreters and translators; official languages.

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.

by monzo

The right to an interpreter – a guarantee of legal security and equal access to public services? 

Kristina Gustafsson, Eva Norström & Linnéa Åberg

Since the 1970s, the Public Administration Act in Sweden has regulated the public service obligation to use interpreters in contact with persons who do not speak Swedish and persons with impaired hearing, sight, or speech (SSB 2017: 900 § 13). Hiring an interpreter is stated as a guarantee for transparency, participation, and legal security. Based on theories about legal security in welfare institutions, the use of public service interpreting as a right and guarantee of legal security and equal access to public services is formally fulfilled every time an interpreter is assigned. Our previous research shows that this does not necessarily guarantee or secure the quality of the interpreting service at hand.

Therefore, this paper seeks to discuss linguistic rights from an ethical and material perspective on legal security. The analysis is based on migrants’ narrations of interpreted encounters in Swedish welfare institutions. The empirical data consists of observations of lectures conducted by interpreters in dialogue with refugees and migrants who take Swedish language courses. In these dialogues, the interpreter describes the regulations and ethics of interpreting and their experiences of interpreting in various welfare settings. The participants react and comment on this information, sharing their own experiences of interpreting services. A significant amount of their testimonies describes shortcomings and feelings of being silenced even if there is an interpreter at hand.        

Hence the paper aims to take public service users’ perspective and analyse discrepancies that arise between the right to public service interpretation as specified in the legislation and the quality of the public service interpretation services offered. Leading questions are raised about the right to speak, understand, and be understood, and who deserves these rights in their contacts with public service authorities.