A frequent argument, at least used in the UK is you cannot possibly be a good lawyer or participate in courtroom proceedings, if you cannot hear.This has been an argument that has been swung for years, in relation to access, especially in terms of jury service until the 13th person issue became the mainstay. The same argument has been swung in terms of Deaf people cannot be magistrates or members of the judiciary.

Consequently, there is sensitivity to issues around whether a Deaf person is able to be a lawyer, and interpreters can be used effectively. The only people who are effectively able to judge this are interpreters themselves, and Deaf people with an experience of using interpreters.

An argument flared up over at Blind Insight relating to this very issue (see comments).

Firstly, it is understood that this is a personal blog and I for one have full respect for Mad. She has inspired me, and I hope her career continues to go from strength to strength.

However, the bone of contention was around this statement:

“my client deserves to have an advocate who can hear and address everything the judges and opposing counsel have to say about his case”

Whilst I accept that Mad prefers audio as her reasonable adjustment in the courtroom and this is what she needs to have her client’s best interests at heart, this statement could have been better worded. After all, wording is meant to be a lawyer’s craft. The statement as it stands implies that lawyers who do use interpreters are giving a second rate service. It implies that via interpreters you somehow miss information, and thus an inferior advocate.

There are further comments relating to this argument in this comment section. Interestingly those lawyers who were affected by this comment, all use interpreters and thus a direct personal experience.

Those people who attacked those speaking out, were all hard of hearing, and none of them use interpreters in the courtroom! is sign language their preferred language and used regularly? This is not about a Deaf vs hard of hearing debate, it is about people not getting issues that Deaf people preferred sign language users face and thus are neither qualified or experienced to pass judgement. This is largely about use of interpreters in the courtroom, and only those who use interpreters are familiar with the issues. In the same way as only Black people are qualified to speak on Black issues, and should a white person pass judgement on racism and declare something was not racist there would be an outcry.

With such issues still raw in the mainstream, it is imperative that assumptions and prejudices are challenged on the surface of access and discrimination that happens. It is nothing more, nothing less, and to bring other arguments such as the difference between two websites, what law school someone went to (what has this got to do with it, I attended a top ranking law school too!), or CIs kind of makes me wonder if people are actually lawyers and can stick to the issue in hand. Where is the clarity, and a focus on the key issue?

Deaf lawyers having to fighting their corner says an awful lot relating to lack of understanding relating to the issues.

What scares me is the same people are meant to be representing sign language users within the American Bar Association. This is truly frightening, and one hopes that US colleagues make their voices heard on this.

A Public Service Interpreting and Translation Conference will be held at the Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh on 19-21 March 2005. The theme of the conference is ‘Breaking Down the Barriers: A Team Effort’.

The conference is said to be of interest to:

? Policy-makers with an interest in social inclusion and equality of access for people from minority and ethnic backgrounds
? People responsible for ensuring the effective delivery of services to multilingual / multi-cultural groups
? People working in public service sectors: legal system and immigration, health care, local government (social work, housing, education, environmental health?), cross-cultural survey work, etc.
? Organisations in the voluntary and not-for-profit sector offering support to minority language groups (including Deaf Communities)
? Public Service Interpreters & Translators (practitioners, trainees and students)
? Sign Language/spoken language Interpreters (practitioners, trainees and students)
? Trainers of public service & sign language interpreters & translators
? Researchers in the fields of interpreting, translating, linguistics, cross-cultural communication and anthropology

Further details available to download: Flyer, Registration Information, and an Application Form

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has published a report ‘Using interpreters to access services: user views’.

Whilst this is aimed at spoken language interpreting, and unfortunately this does not cover BSL/English Interpreting, JRF says this is an in-depth study examined the experiences of people who need interpreters.

What is startling about this research is two key findings:

- People mostly prefer family or friends to interpret for them.
- The researchers conclude that training in the basics of interpreting should be made more widely available to members of minority ethnic communities who regularly act as interpreters for family members or friends.

This is research which is heavily user-led, and whilst users have preferences it fails to acknowledge that there are two users in an interpreting process. Secondly, that users might not necessarily understand the dynamics and complexities around the interpreting process, therefore might not be best placed to judge if something is being interpreted well. It is one of those situations whereby end user experience is brought into question; and this very much exists within the Deaf community. There is also the assertion that ‘basic training’ will suffice.

In terms of Deaf people and this research, what is springs to mind is that such research findings could be used to justify family members (with little or no formal qualifications) being used in legal situations.

Here is a link to the California Judicial Council website with information related to interpreting in the courts of California. Apparently 80 languages, including American Sign Language, are used in the California courts. I know of other sign languages that have been used in California courts that required several teams of people to assist in the communication process in the courtroom. For general information on court interpreters and how American Sign Language Court interpreters for the deaf are certified, take a look at this website.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/courtinterpreters/

There is a call for papers for an international conference on Clarity and Obscurity in Legal Language, which will be held from 5 – 9 July 2005. The call deadline is December 2004.

This international conference will explore how the various linguistic disciplines can help us understand the nature of legal language – both oral and written – and how it might be improved and clarified. The conference will present and examine the latest research and theories, along with practical guidance on how to avoid obscurity. It will also review international efforts and projects to make legal language more understandable.

This is of obvious interest to BSL/English Interpreters working in this field, and any Deaf professional that has to work with legal translation.

IAFL ? Cardiff : 1-4 July 2005

Thematic Symposium

SEMIOTIC ANALYSES OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAW

Convenors: Anne Wagner and Sophie Cacciaguidi-Fahy

Interpreting and mapping the law calls for a series of illustrative semiotic analyses. Indeed, the life of the law involves analysing and interpreting the salient features of linguistic, socio-political and cultural realities so as to bring forward new legal concepts, construct new statutes, create new linguistic, behavioural and other codes, etc.

Semiotic analyses of the language of the law are just other ways of pointing the torch, of surfacing, exposing, illustrating a language of identity. Hence, the question of analysing the language of the law needs to be included within other semiotic systems (culture, ethics, politics, codes, gestures, verbal speeches, etc.). They are processes whereby legal reality is produced, maintained, repaired, altered and transformed. Furthermore, legal language must also remain sufficiently flexible and fuzzy in order to allow plurality and not singularity in meaning.

For the 2005 International Association of Forensic Linguists conference, we will propose a thematic symposium on semiotic analyses of the language of the law. Papers will focus on texts, processes, and practices that are linguistic in nature.

Suggested topics for discussion might include:

- semiotic analyses of the language of statutes (determinacy vs. indeterminacy, international, European or domestic statutes, plain language, etc.);
- semiotic analyses of the language of interpretation techniques/processes (legal theories, feminist approach, etc.);
- semiotic analyses of the language of the courtroom (attorney and judicial speech, codes of practice in courts, the language of power, performative speeches, vagueness in jury?s instructions, etc.);
- semiotic analyses of the language of police interviews (statements, questioning, cautions, etc.)
- semiotic analyses of the language of translation/interpretation (. non-native speakers in the judicial setting, problems of meaning, etc.).

Please send your expression of interest, a title and an abstract of no more than 250 words by 20 October to Anne Wagner (valwagnerfr@yahoo.com)