comments on CBC's story :

1-Stellarahman:
I am the President of the Court Interpreters Association of Ontario and I have read all the comments posted on this issue. The accredited court interpreters in Ontario, as a collective body of professionals, did not present any reasonable grounds of inadequacy to the Ministry of Attorney General to necessitate re-examination of their linguistic capabilities. Similar to any other profession, individual cases of misconduct and/or negligence should have been dealt with separately and can hardly be a base to entice an overall judgment. Interestingly, the re-test was so unrealistic that interpreters with more than 20 yrs. experience failed the test - doesn't this say something?

2-Jaybird83:
For those few people going on about ASL interpreters in the courtroom, I don't think your arguments are all that valid becuase if I am not mistaken the sign language used in North America would be American Sign Language or the French equivalent and therefore I don't think anyone going on about only French or English would have a problem with a government interpreter provided it was the ASL or the French equivalent (sorry, I don't know the actual name of it).

3-Kumars wrote: "Who is paying for this translators. If you can not understand the official languages, bring your own." What if the only witbness to a crime committed against you happened to be a tourist who spoke neither English or French? Then would request a government interpreter? What if you were unfairly charged with a crime? Would you want a professional accredited interpreter or some guy off the streets? To those who are concerned about their tax dollars - does anyone know how much court interpreters earn? Anyone? If you want to save tax dollars, let's not bother with accrediting judges - or lawyers for that matter - let's not even check into their background. Court clerks too, let's save more money there, would it matter if they were unprofessional and say let a child molester go free on a technicality? Let's save tax dollars by having everyone bring their own unaccredited court staff. Could we save on the court security too by having everyone bring their own guns ? How about the cleaning staff at the courthouse, because they get more of your precious tax dollars than do the interpeters - remember to bring a mop and bucket. Well you can imagine the chaos. My point is the triviality of the tax issue. Social programs get most of your tax dollars, not court interpreters.

4-Mikeclark wrote:
Why do they need interpreters they are supposed to be fluent in our language here in Canada and if its like Quebec we even have to pay for them to learn our language. And I find this really a affront that my governments make me pay for this so they can insult me every day or cry about us not letting them run us. So send them all back to were they came from I refuse to be taxed to pay for anymore of this stupidity as they don't want to be Canadians they just want what they get for free.


5-watchingtext wrote:
Interpreting is not translation. For the interpreter, it means using both sides of the brain in a high velocity verbal excercise. You are speaking, listening to sometimes convoluted sentence structures (not all judges and lawyers are eloquent), turning them backwards and sideways into another language all the while still listening and having to make sure legal terms are precise and that the client understands clearly what is taking place.Something like playing the piano and doing calculus at the same time. Try it! Repeat every single word the newscaster says, get all dates and numbers correctly and don't miss a word for only 15 minutes - ahhhh now you get the idea,! Sorry about the headache. Now learn another language, (or try it in your mother tongue) study the dictionary of legal terms, meanings and their translation, obscure ones too, and the Latin terms (the client may not speak Latin) . Now pass the gruelling government tests for a few hours (you must pass with at least 70%) and then go to work for less than $26 per hour on a per call basis with no benefits. Enjoy! By the way - Liberal -Muslim wrote: "A good interpiter knows what the answer will be and helps the client out on the stand I would pay for an experienced interpider. " ???Allow me a few momments to recover from the shock and to pray that he is not involved with the Canadian court system in any way! This is what a court interpreter does NOT do! Repeat - does NOT do!

6-e.g.johnsmith wrote:
Remember how teachers fought so hard against being subjected to testing?

7-killerbea wrote:
Sounds like a sweep to get rid of many people who worked in the courts systems for decades, then all of a sudden, they are no longer needed or qualified?Sounds messed up to me.

8-yosh Schmengie wrote:
@jaybird83 Re: "Don't commit a crime, problem solved!"

You don't need to commit a crime in order for the police to charge you with a crime. Happens all of the time. The Court-appointed interpreters are there to ensure that the judge (or judge and jury) can accurately understand and assess the evidence of everyone (police, witnesses, and the accused) and most importantly to allow an accused person to fully understand and participate in his or her trial. Imagine bring in another country, where you don't speak the language, and you are wrongly accused of a terrible crime. Imagine not understanding a word of what is being spoken at your trial. How do you think that would feel? With your liberty and possibly your life on the line? Wouldn't you want the opportunity to be able to understand the case against you, and to be able to tell your side of the story? THAT is why we have Court-appointed interpreters. Fortunately we live in a society where we value things like fundamental justice. If you don't want to help pay for the services and facilities necessary to allow justice to be carried out, then there are many regimes in the world where, in exchange for paying less in tax, you get to give up such freedoms and liberties.

9-exasperation wrote:

A lot of the posters here seem to be missing the point that this is as much for the court's benefit as the person who doesn't speak English or French.Imagine a tourist or newly landed immigrant who are the only witness a horrible crime. "Tell us exactly what you saw." -- "Man *point* stab very bad bad bad many bleed he die" is hardly going to be sufficient testimony to convict for murder...

10-Joe Gall wrote:

This is just my observation, no data:Court interpreters have English as their second language.This article seems to be saying that some of them do not have sufficient competence in languages such as Ethiopian, but I wonder if their English isn't the problem.


11-Allen Robertson wrote:

Not to worry folks, soon they'll only need two interpreters in Canadian Courts, English and French.