I would like to add one more issue to the list. Recently, Oshawa court does not recognize interpreter's ID. In order to get into court, interpreters must go to line up, empty their pockets and bodily searched. Soon other courts will follow. In courts we are no body. If this is not discrimination please let me know what it is??
.............
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Dear .....,
Please forward this e mail to other interpretere asking for their input, should they have any info about the subject.
Mr. ......, the .... Interpreter has suggested that the Interpreters issue is an issue of Human Rights. My understanding is that he believes that Interpreters have been put in this position (wages, conditions of work, rights and benefits or lack of rights and benefits..etc) because, among other reasons, they are predominantly of third world origin. They have been subjected to systemic discrimination, deprived of any right to negotiate, their association's requests to communicate with the ministry were ignored, they were asked humiliating questions -about their test results and accreditation- in the court room, in public, that deprived them of respect and self esteem.
This is just an introduction to start debate that may take this idea to fruition. This may lead to court case in the human rights tribunal. What do you think. Let us talk before you take any written action. Thanks.
signed by........
Do you think the interpreters issues (All including the unpopular test ) with Ministry of Attorney General are human rights issues? members and non-members of the association who read this question please go to comments section below /open it and answer it/write just YES / NO and remember to change your ID then post it.Thanks
Please forward this e mail to other interpretere asking for their input, should they have any info about the subject.
Mr. ......, the .... Interpreter has suggested that the Interpreters issue is an issue of Human Rights. My understanding is that he believes that Interpreters have been put in this position (wages, conditions of work, rights and benefits or lack of rights and benefits..etc) because, among other reasons, they are predominantly of third world origin. They have been subjected to systemic discrimination, deprived of any right to negotiate, their association's requests to communicate with the ministry were ignored, they were asked humiliating questions -about their test results and accreditation- in the court room, in public, that deprived them of respect and self esteem.
This is just an introduction to start debate that may take this idea to fruition. This may lead to court case in the human rights tribunal. What do you think. Let us talk before you take any written action. Thanks.
signed by........
Do you think the interpreters issues (All including the unpopular test ) with Ministry of Attorney General are human rights issues? members and non-members of the association who read this question please go to comments section below /open it and answer it/write just YES / NO and remember to change your ID then post it.Thanks
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Dear members,
One of our member announced a sad news :
Amal, the Assyrian-Arabic interpreter passed away few days ago. If anyone knows anything about her memorial services, ... please let us know. maybe we can put her picture... on the board in any of the interpreters rooms.
Our condolence to her family members and friends. please if you have a picture or any comments and memories from her email us or let us know. Thanks
One of our member announced a sad news :
Amal, the Assyrian-Arabic interpreter passed away few days ago. If anyone knows anything about her memorial services, ... please let us know. maybe we can put her picture... on the board in any of the interpreters rooms.
Our condolence to her family members and friends. please if you have a picture or any comments and memories from her email us or let us know. Thanks
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Members of CIAO met on Saturday May the 8th at City Hall again.
Picture was taken by one of the Association member and by a cell phone. Sorry if the picture is not clear.
Members of CIAO met again on Saturday May the 8th from 1-3pm and discussed on various issues. The meeting decided first a letter be send to the Minister of Attorny General by our lawyer and then we will decide what action we are going to take.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Dear Fellow Interpreters,
Please note that there is an interpreters’ meeting on Saturday May 8 at 1:00 PM at the New City Hall.
It is very important that all interpreters attend this meeting. In order to achieve anything, we need to take a decisive action soon, and in order to take an action, we need everybody’s active participation, your participation.
Please check the attached files for a summary of the discussions and decisions made in the last meeting (April 24) and the agenda for the next meeting
Please try your best to attend. Thank you.
Wishing you Good luck.
Please note that there is an interpreters’ meeting on Saturday May 8 at 1:00 PM at the New City Hall.
It is very important that all interpreters attend this meeting. In order to achieve anything, we need to take a decisive action soon, and in order to take an action, we need everybody’s active participation, your participation.
Please check the attached files for a summary of the discussions and decisions made in the last meeting (April 24) and the agenda for the next meeting
Please try your best to attend. Thank you.
Wishing you Good luck.
Intro
-I am fed up with the way the Ministry has been treating interpreters. What kind of Ministry rewards interpreters with 20+ years of service, without incident ,with removal from the registry and with no offer of up-grading of skills?
Should a surgeon be sued for malpractice, the Medical authorities would not ask all surgeons to re-establish their credentials. We should have been grand-fathered in as Paralegals have been, and interpreters' perfomances could have been reviewed on a per-complaint basis. This test was a knee-jerk reaction by MAG following a huge lawsuit at the Brampton courthouse which was brought about after a shoddy interpretation caused a mistrial. This test has caused more problems than it has solved: the Criminal Lawyer's Association has now asked MAG to review all cases where there was a conviction and where the interpretation was done by an interpreter who has failed the test. Because unaccredited and conditionally accredited interpreters have been deemed not competent enough to do trials, the limited numbers of accredited interpreters will result in many cases being adjourned for long periods of time and will be used by lawyers to get their clients off on 11b's under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The test
A) Vancouver Community College(VCC)
There are only 3 correctors for the tests, how can they know all of the various languages? VCC grads do get to see their corrected copies and review their sight translations, consecutive and simultaneous performances with a corrector. I called the Department Head, Karen Reinhold, at the College and she told me that students can appeal their results. When asked for the grounds for appeal, she told me that disagreeing with the marks is grounds enough. The only allowable grounds for our appealing our marks is that there may have been an administrative issue. Another very important point is that the course at VCC is 8-10 months long and include much classroom time and a full curriculum(which can be viewed online) whereas we were sent a boooklet a few weeks ahead of the test. This test had been in the works for a few years and this time could have been used to provide us with the adequate teachings for this test. VCC graduates also receive a certificate after passing the test.
B) The results
At the onset, in the study materials supplied by MAG, there was no mention of the "conditionally accredited" status. It stated that one needed to achieve 70%+ in all three sections in order to remain on the registry. It is my opinion that this new status was created after the fact when MAG realized that not enough interpreters had achieved a passing grade. This is CYA, cover your a@@ from the MAG. They made a mess and they are changing the rules as they go. They do not have enough fully accredited interpreters to go around so to suit their purposes, they created a new sub-category. How long had the results been known by MAG? They conveyed the results 10 months after the writing of the test. How long does it take for VCC students to receive the results of their tests? How long did MAG keep the results under wraps while they figured out what to do thereby "jeopardizing" the courts' intergrity and allowing "below par" interpretation to continue? It will be interesting to note the delay for the results of the second round of testing... I have been asked many times to do trials even though I am only "conditionally" accredited. So which is it? Am I good enough or am I not? This just doesn't any sense.
As with all of this whole process of testing, it seems not much thought was given to the effect the results might have in the long term. No contingency plan had been put in place. In the cover letter of the results materials sent, they mention that experts in the field had been consulted prior to this whole process. Who are these experts? It adds insult to injury when MAG requires of us really high standards and then in the correspondence sent to us to inform us of our results, one can count 11 punctuation errors, 5 typos and 1 sentence structure error.
What can we do?
-We can request that MAG provide all interpreters who failed to reach the 70%+ mark be paid a 2-week, accelerated, intensive training session, the equivalent to a condensed version of the course offered at VCC(which is 8 months in duration), along with all of the necessary prep materials, at the end of which we could be given the opportunity to write the test. As stated, the VCC program is months long whereas we were given the test materials
mere weeks prior to testing.(I have a letter to Ms. Chow and Ms. Bristo requesting materials for study and emails to Ms. Chow requesting specific lexicons for test preparation)
-We need to demand from MAG: tools, up-to-date materials, regularly scheduled seminars, paid preparation time, lexicons and information on matter prior to court date. I have emails to Mr. Bernier at Superior Court downtown where I request information on a Class Proceeding I was scheduled to interpret. Mr. Bernier requested information from the parties on my behalf and was flat-out told that none would be forthcoming...
-For the long-term: set up a tier system whereby interpreters are gauged by skill level and areas where they have the most experience. Interpreters who take-on difficult trial matters should get paid a higher salary than those who merely set-dates or take on matters to be spoken to etc.
-We need to write Alison Hedden at Alison.Hedden@ontario.ca and request our marks be disclosed to us. I know of interpreters who did manage to obtain their marks from her but then, it was said at the meeting that there had been a change in policy and tjhat she would no longer supply the marks. This is another manifestation of the fact that the MAG is making things up as it goes.
-Appeal the decision. There was no slang on this test therefore no way for them to measure the extent of the skill of the interpreter in their particular language or in English for that matter. The section in the study materials supplied by MAG on weapons-related terminology is so "hermetique" that I highly doubt that any lawyer or the best among us interpreters could find the equivalent terminology in the target language(unless one had been involved in a lengthy proceeding on such issues). I would request to see the terminology(or lexicons) used to correct this section of the study materials...
-It was unequivocally stated that the second round of testing was adjusted and had a slower speed for the simultaneous portion of the test (160wpm from 180wpm). That fact, if verifiable, is enough in itself to be grounds for a successful appeal(and another sign that MAG is making things up as they go).
-We need to hold rotating strikes at different locations, different times, where word of such is spread via blog to all interpreters and where media is called. Our position needs to be clearly enunciated with a prepared statement and where a representative is named to speak to the press. We need to have a plan for the long-term, as one day of striking may not be enough for us to be heard. We need contigency plans. We need to send a copy of the statement of our position to MAG, the Bar Association, the Press etc...
-We need to let people know that the reason for the re-testing was ONE bad interpretation, that the test was unfair, flawed and that this test had been available through the VCC since 1979 and therefore, it should be the MAG on the hotseat for not putting in place adequate training and not interpreters, who do their best with what they are given.
-The public needs to understand that the way MAG reacted to the Brampton lawsuit has caused more problems than it has solved. That they have used interpreters as scapegoats for their own ineptitude in providing us with the basics to do our work in the most professional manner. That this testing will result in more lawsuits and more criminals getting off the hook because lawyers will be invoking 11b of the Charter.
-Even though coordinators will schedule conditionally accredited interpreters to do trials because of the shortage of fully accredited interpreters, we need to refuse to do them, on principle. Trials are not on the list of what conditionals are supposedly good enough to do, therefore if you are not good enough, you don't, out of necessity ,become better because the courts are short-staffed.
-Perhaps we need to look at paying monthly contributions in order to have someone who is paid for to look after our interests, some of these funds could even be used to obtain legal advice. Another option would be to join a bigger organization, a professional organization or find out how we can somehow unionise. We obtain information on the steps necessary to achieve such.
-Individual courthouses each have their own budget allocations for interpreters. If the budget for interpreters was to be more of a global one, it may be more cost-effective for the gov't to have more of us on contract because then courthouses could "share" a contracted interpreter.
-We need to demand to be included in all decisions which will have an effect on us.
-we need to hold MAG accountable for not providing us with the materials, the training, the upgrading, the periodical gauging of our skills, for not allowing interpreters preparation time and giving us the information on the cases we will be working on.
-Noone else's skill level qualifications and performance record,as courtroom players,is being questioned publicly on the stand. How about asking lawyers to tell the court how many cases they have won, lost, how long they have been practising, what marks they achieved at the Bar Exam etc... How about we ask Clerks and Registrars similar questions? How about asking judges how many of their decisions have been appealed?
Other Issues
-Our invoices need to be processed in a timely fashion where we can expect payment within 2 weeks of work performed. Whenever office staff go on holidays, our invoices sit on their desks and wait for staff to return to be processed. Some courthouses are very effective when it comes to invoice processing while others are less than. Procedures for processing need to be established and streamlined across the board for all courthouses. Staff can expect to be paid in a timely fashion, why shouldn't we?
-Cancellation fees: we should not accept to schedule lengthy trials weeks ahead of time as they usually are settled within a few days and we only then get measly cancellation fees and may have refused countless assignments for the same time slots in the meantime. Should we get scheduled for a 2-week trial, then we should get guarantees for those days.
-Tools of the trade: we need up-to-date lexicons, seminars with practice exercises on specific subjects(bail, family court etc..), preparation time and information for matters which will be labour intensive.
-We need to educate the court as to our role.
Conclusion
-We need to liaise with MAG, the Bar Association and Union experts.
-We need to communicate with unionised court interpreters from other provinces to find out how they formed a union. We need to find out what percentage of the interpreters in other provinces are staff or contract employees? What are their wages? Training schedules? What materials are provided?
-We need to stick together, communicate as a group and not forget we are all on the same team. Solidarity.
-We need to be proud and stand up for ourselves. Let this be a wake-up call. Let's organize and be less vulnerable. We have a never before available way to communicate amongst ourselves: Morteza's blog.
-We need to write Alison Hedden and ask for our results and appeal our results as some sort of Class Appeal.
-The judicial system needs to realize that we, as interpreters, have too big of a responsibility if our mistakes can cause mistrials and multi-million lawsuits although we are expected to show up without any tools or regular upgrading of our skill set. Judges' errors in law are cause for appeal. Noone gets tested, their livelihood hanging in the balance. We get paid a pittance and are expected to be encyclopaedic in our knowledge. So much responsibility, so little respect, so little pay.
N.B. these notes were prepared in haste so please pardon my mistakes....
-I am fed up with the way the Ministry has been treating interpreters. What kind of Ministry rewards interpreters with 20+ years of service, without incident ,with removal from the registry and with no offer of up-grading of skills?
Should a surgeon be sued for malpractice, the Medical authorities would not ask all surgeons to re-establish their credentials. We should have been grand-fathered in as Paralegals have been, and interpreters' perfomances could have been reviewed on a per-complaint basis. This test was a knee-jerk reaction by MAG following a huge lawsuit at the Brampton courthouse which was brought about after a shoddy interpretation caused a mistrial. This test has caused more problems than it has solved: the Criminal Lawyer's Association has now asked MAG to review all cases where there was a conviction and where the interpretation was done by an interpreter who has failed the test. Because unaccredited and conditionally accredited interpreters have been deemed not competent enough to do trials, the limited numbers of accredited interpreters will result in many cases being adjourned for long periods of time and will be used by lawyers to get their clients off on 11b's under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The test
A) Vancouver Community College(VCC)
There are only 3 correctors for the tests, how can they know all of the various languages? VCC grads do get to see their corrected copies and review their sight translations, consecutive and simultaneous performances with a corrector. I called the Department Head, Karen Reinhold, at the College and she told me that students can appeal their results. When asked for the grounds for appeal, she told me that disagreeing with the marks is grounds enough. The only allowable grounds for our appealing our marks is that there may have been an administrative issue. Another very important point is that the course at VCC is 8-10 months long and include much classroom time and a full curriculum(which can be viewed online) whereas we were sent a boooklet a few weeks ahead of the test. This test had been in the works for a few years and this time could have been used to provide us with the adequate teachings for this test. VCC graduates also receive a certificate after passing the test.
B) The results
At the onset, in the study materials supplied by MAG, there was no mention of the "conditionally accredited" status. It stated that one needed to achieve 70%+ in all three sections in order to remain on the registry. It is my opinion that this new status was created after the fact when MAG realized that not enough interpreters had achieved a passing grade. This is CYA, cover your a@@ from the MAG. They made a mess and they are changing the rules as they go. They do not have enough fully accredited interpreters to go around so to suit their purposes, they created a new sub-category. How long had the results been known by MAG? They conveyed the results 10 months after the writing of the test. How long does it take for VCC students to receive the results of their tests? How long did MAG keep the results under wraps while they figured out what to do thereby "jeopardizing" the courts' intergrity and allowing "below par" interpretation to continue? It will be interesting to note the delay for the results of the second round of testing... I have been asked many times to do trials even though I am only "conditionally" accredited. So which is it? Am I good enough or am I not? This just doesn't any sense.
As with all of this whole process of testing, it seems not much thought was given to the effect the results might have in the long term. No contingency plan had been put in place. In the cover letter of the results materials sent, they mention that experts in the field had been consulted prior to this whole process. Who are these experts? It adds insult to injury when MAG requires of us really high standards and then in the correspondence sent to us to inform us of our results, one can count 11 punctuation errors, 5 typos and 1 sentence structure error.
What can we do?
-We can request that MAG provide all interpreters who failed to reach the 70%+ mark be paid a 2-week, accelerated, intensive training session, the equivalent to a condensed version of the course offered at VCC(which is 8 months in duration), along with all of the necessary prep materials, at the end of which we could be given the opportunity to write the test. As stated, the VCC program is months long whereas we were given the test materials
mere weeks prior to testing.(I have a letter to Ms. Chow and Ms. Bristo requesting materials for study and emails to Ms. Chow requesting specific lexicons for test preparation)
-We need to demand from MAG: tools, up-to-date materials, regularly scheduled seminars, paid preparation time, lexicons and information on matter prior to court date. I have emails to Mr. Bernier at Superior Court downtown where I request information on a Class Proceeding I was scheduled to interpret. Mr. Bernier requested information from the parties on my behalf and was flat-out told that none would be forthcoming...
-For the long-term: set up a tier system whereby interpreters are gauged by skill level and areas where they have the most experience. Interpreters who take-on difficult trial matters should get paid a higher salary than those who merely set-dates or take on matters to be spoken to etc.
-We need to write Alison Hedden at Alison.Hedden@ontario.ca and request our marks be disclosed to us. I know of interpreters who did manage to obtain their marks from her but then, it was said at the meeting that there had been a change in policy and tjhat she would no longer supply the marks. This is another manifestation of the fact that the MAG is making things up as it goes.
-Appeal the decision. There was no slang on this test therefore no way for them to measure the extent of the skill of the interpreter in their particular language or in English for that matter. The section in the study materials supplied by MAG on weapons-related terminology is so "hermetique" that I highly doubt that any lawyer or the best among us interpreters could find the equivalent terminology in the target language(unless one had been involved in a lengthy proceeding on such issues). I would request to see the terminology(or lexicons) used to correct this section of the study materials...
-It was unequivocally stated that the second round of testing was adjusted and had a slower speed for the simultaneous portion of the test (160wpm from 180wpm). That fact, if verifiable, is enough in itself to be grounds for a successful appeal(and another sign that MAG is making things up as they go).
-We need to hold rotating strikes at different locations, different times, where word of such is spread via blog to all interpreters and where media is called. Our position needs to be clearly enunciated with a prepared statement and where a representative is named to speak to the press. We need to have a plan for the long-term, as one day of striking may not be enough for us to be heard. We need contigency plans. We need to send a copy of the statement of our position to MAG, the Bar Association, the Press etc...
-We need to let people know that the reason for the re-testing was ONE bad interpretation, that the test was unfair, flawed and that this test had been available through the VCC since 1979 and therefore, it should be the MAG on the hotseat for not putting in place adequate training and not interpreters, who do their best with what they are given.
-The public needs to understand that the way MAG reacted to the Brampton lawsuit has caused more problems than it has solved. That they have used interpreters as scapegoats for their own ineptitude in providing us with the basics to do our work in the most professional manner. That this testing will result in more lawsuits and more criminals getting off the hook because lawyers will be invoking 11b of the Charter.
-Even though coordinators will schedule conditionally accredited interpreters to do trials because of the shortage of fully accredited interpreters, we need to refuse to do them, on principle. Trials are not on the list of what conditionals are supposedly good enough to do, therefore if you are not good enough, you don't, out of necessity ,become better because the courts are short-staffed.
-Perhaps we need to look at paying monthly contributions in order to have someone who is paid for to look after our interests, some of these funds could even be used to obtain legal advice. Another option would be to join a bigger organization, a professional organization or find out how we can somehow unionise. We obtain information on the steps necessary to achieve such.
-Individual courthouses each have their own budget allocations for interpreters. If the budget for interpreters was to be more of a global one, it may be more cost-effective for the gov't to have more of us on contract because then courthouses could "share" a contracted interpreter.
-We need to demand to be included in all decisions which will have an effect on us.
-we need to hold MAG accountable for not providing us with the materials, the training, the upgrading, the periodical gauging of our skills, for not allowing interpreters preparation time and giving us the information on the cases we will be working on.
-Noone else's skill level qualifications and performance record,as courtroom players,is being questioned publicly on the stand. How about asking lawyers to tell the court how many cases they have won, lost, how long they have been practising, what marks they achieved at the Bar Exam etc... How about we ask Clerks and Registrars similar questions? How about asking judges how many of their decisions have been appealed?
Other Issues
-Our invoices need to be processed in a timely fashion where we can expect payment within 2 weeks of work performed. Whenever office staff go on holidays, our invoices sit on their desks and wait for staff to return to be processed. Some courthouses are very effective when it comes to invoice processing while others are less than. Procedures for processing need to be established and streamlined across the board for all courthouses. Staff can expect to be paid in a timely fashion, why shouldn't we?
-Cancellation fees: we should not accept to schedule lengthy trials weeks ahead of time as they usually are settled within a few days and we only then get measly cancellation fees and may have refused countless assignments for the same time slots in the meantime. Should we get scheduled for a 2-week trial, then we should get guarantees for those days.
-Tools of the trade: we need up-to-date lexicons, seminars with practice exercises on specific subjects(bail, family court etc..), preparation time and information for matters which will be labour intensive.
-We need to educate the court as to our role.
Conclusion
-We need to liaise with MAG, the Bar Association and Union experts.
-We need to communicate with unionised court interpreters from other provinces to find out how they formed a union. We need to find out what percentage of the interpreters in other provinces are staff or contract employees? What are their wages? Training schedules? What materials are provided?
-We need to stick together, communicate as a group and not forget we are all on the same team. Solidarity.
-We need to be proud and stand up for ourselves. Let this be a wake-up call. Let's organize and be less vulnerable. We have a never before available way to communicate amongst ourselves: Morteza's blog.
-We need to write Alison Hedden and ask for our results and appeal our results as some sort of Class Appeal.
-The judicial system needs to realize that we, as interpreters, have too big of a responsibility if our mistakes can cause mistrials and multi-million lawsuits although we are expected to show up without any tools or regular upgrading of our skill set. Judges' errors in law are cause for appeal. Noone gets tested, their livelihood hanging in the balance. We get paid a pittance and are expected to be encyclopaedic in our knowledge. So much responsibility, so little respect, so little pay.
N.B. these notes were prepared in haste so please pardon my mistakes....
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Court Interpreters' Association of Ontario
Mailing address: 17 Wycombe Road, North York, ON. M3M 2W6 • Fax: (416) 398-2715
e-mail: stellarahman@hotmail.com • www.ontariocourtinterpreters.ca
Minutes from last meeting-
Meeting Notes of the emergency general meeting of the Court Interpreters held on April 24th, 2010 in
Committee Rm. # 1 at New City Hall, 100 Queen St. W.
1. Stella provided a brief summary of the steps that were taken by CIAO since 2006 onwards
and explained CIAO’s efforts to work collaboratively with MAG. Although CIAO has
been recognized by MAG, MAG kept CIAO informed but not involved and rejected our
participation or input.
2. A Form To File An Appeal ( Appeal Form) developed by CIAO was circulated and all court members who
have been conditionally accredited and unaccredited were encouraged to file an appeal
within 60 days of receiving their test results on the following grounds:
• Sight translation – not enough time for review and delivery
• Consecutive interpretation – nowhere in the world recorded tests are used other than
for conference interpreters. There were too many sentences in a row with a lot of
names, nouns, numbers, events, etc.
• Simultaneous interpretation – the speed was unrealistic and extremely fast. The
speaker was speaking @ 190/200 words/min. The normal speed of a speaker
speaking the same language is 140 words/min. and when an interpreter is present,
the speed is reduced to 120 words/min.
3. A Form for Request for Access to Information under FIPPA developed by CIAO was
circulated. A cheque of $5.00 payable to the Minister of Finance needs to be sent together
with FIPPA application.
4. Highlights of discussion:
• Ask MAG for a 2 wk. intensive paid training and move up the accreditation level
• Higher pay for different accreditation levels
• Possible strike – how do we ensure complete participation?
• Continue media coverage
• Draft a statement re: our position
• Monthly contribution ? Union
• Retain a lawyer ? labor lawyer
5. A 7-member sub-committee was struck to look at:
• Lobbying with the Minister of Attorney General
• Lobbying with the Premier
• Lobbying with the judges and crowns
• Draft a statement for any media coverage
• Possible strategies and a date for a strike
• Retaining a lawyer
6. The need to create a fund for future legal expenses was agreed upon and everybody
present was encouraged to pay their membership dues of $35.00/year and also, think
seriously about a donation for legal fees.
Mailing address: 17 Wycombe Road, North York, ON. M3M 2W6 • Fax: (416) 398-2715
e-mail: stellarahman@hotmail.com • www.ontariocourtinterpreters.ca
Minutes from last meeting-
Meeting Notes of the emergency general meeting of the Court Interpreters held on April 24th, 2010 in
Committee Rm. # 1 at New City Hall, 100 Queen St. W.
1. Stella provided a brief summary of the steps that were taken by CIAO since 2006 onwards
and explained CIAO’s efforts to work collaboratively with MAG. Although CIAO has
been recognized by MAG, MAG kept CIAO informed but not involved and rejected our
participation or input.
2. A Form To File An Appeal ( Appeal Form) developed by CIAO was circulated and all court members who
have been conditionally accredited and unaccredited were encouraged to file an appeal
within 60 days of receiving their test results on the following grounds:
• Sight translation – not enough time for review and delivery
• Consecutive interpretation – nowhere in the world recorded tests are used other than
for conference interpreters. There were too many sentences in a row with a lot of
names, nouns, numbers, events, etc.
• Simultaneous interpretation – the speed was unrealistic and extremely fast. The
speaker was speaking @ 190/200 words/min. The normal speed of a speaker
speaking the same language is 140 words/min. and when an interpreter is present,
the speed is reduced to 120 words/min.
3. A Form for Request for Access to Information under FIPPA developed by CIAO was
circulated. A cheque of $5.00 payable to the Minister of Finance needs to be sent together
with FIPPA application.
4. Highlights of discussion:
• Ask MAG for a 2 wk. intensive paid training and move up the accreditation level
• Higher pay for different accreditation levels
• Possible strike – how do we ensure complete participation?
• Continue media coverage
• Draft a statement re: our position
• Monthly contribution ? Union
• Retain a lawyer ? labor lawyer
5. A 7-member sub-committee was struck to look at:
• Lobbying with the Minister of Attorney General
• Lobbying with the Premier
• Lobbying with the judges and crowns
• Draft a statement for any media coverage
• Possible strategies and a date for a strike
• Retaining a lawyer
6. The need to create a fund for future legal expenses was agreed upon and everybody
present was encouraged to pay their membership dues of $35.00/year and also, think
seriously about a donation for legal fees.
Court Interpreters' Association of Ontario
Mailing address: 17 Wycombe Road, North York, ON. M3M 2W6 • Fax: (416) 398-2715
e-mail: stellarahman@hotmail.com • www.ontariocourtinterpreters.ca
A TIME TO DECIDE!
EMERGENCY COURT
INTERPRETERS MEETING #2 on the fallout of the unjust retesting
and results
Special Guest : John Weisdorf, Q.C., Barrister & Solicitor
When:
Saturday, May 8, 2010
1 PM to 3:30 PM
Where:
Committee Room #2, 2nd Floor
New City Hall
100 Queen Street W., Toronto
Calling All Court Interpreters
(Freelance and Staff)
Please remember to bring your cheque books for Annual Membership dues of $35.00,
and Donations towards legal fees, payable to CIAO
Mailing address: 17 Wycombe Road, North York, ON. M3M 2W6 • Fax: (416) 398-2715
e-mail: stellarahman@hotmail.com • www.ontariocourtinterpreters.ca
A TIME TO DECIDE!
EMERGENCY COURT
INTERPRETERS MEETING #2 on the fallout of the unjust retesting
and results
Special Guest : John Weisdorf, Q.C., Barrister & Solicitor
When:
Saturday, May 8, 2010
1 PM to 3:30 PM
Where:
Committee Room #2, 2nd Floor
New City Hall
100 Queen Street W., Toronto
Calling All Court Interpreters
(Freelance and Staff)
Please remember to bring your cheque books for Annual Membership dues of $35.00,
and Donations towards legal fees, payable to CIAO
Sunday, May 2, 2010
All the comments by interpreters will be added in this post :
1-We all must sign a petition.The rest of interpreters who were not tested yet should refuseto be tested.United we bargain, divided we beg!!!!!
2-
Dear Friends,
(...) and (...) were discussing the latest CBC article regarding interpreters and he suggested that we should share it with everybody. Here is the argument. Please feel free to give us your suggestions. I would emphasize the we should focus on practical suggestions for action rather than just self-serving arguments and sympathy or complain with the interpreters’ cause.
Thank you,
(...)
April 29, 2010
Dear Fellow Interpreters,
Please do not forget to check the comments at the end of the article. They are very “enlightening” and give you a pretty good idea of what the general public thinks about us, interpreters—it is scary!
(...)
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/04/16/court-interpreters.html
April 29, 2010
(...)
Comments are very interesting. It shows no understanding of the legal importance of understanding the procedure and the universal rights of citizens. Some people subsidize healthcare, transportation and welfare systems without using any of them. Otherwise we will have rampant crimes and hatred.
(...)
April 29, 2010
(...)
Dear (...),
You are right: “These people subsidize many services without using any of them, such as public transportation, etc...” and they don’t realise it or they don’t mind it. The argument is kind of trivial and I am not going to bother with it.
These comments are the “redneck-type” of remarks along the line of: foreigners (immigrants) come to “our” country, abuse our welfare system, commit crimes etc..., and “our” government pays for them out of “our tax money”. They have the same attitude toward us, interpreters, because they perceive us as a part of abusing “foreigners” or “immigrants”, and everything that goes with it. No wonder, we are treated with such resentment and in such condescending and humiliating manners by a lot of court and Ministry staff. I can’t help feeling that they hate our guts.
April 29, 2010
(...)
I guess we need to re-introduce ourselves i.e. we need a public relations campaign. It is also unfair to say we need this or that without paying for what we want to get whether in terms of money or effort, participation.
You only get what you pay for.
(...)
April 29, 2010
Dear (...),
Exactly, you put your finger on the right spot: We have to pay for what we want to get or achieve, in terms of money, effort, participation, etc... Are we interpreters really ready to pay for it? If not, then we should just shut up and take whatever they give us, including humiliation.
(...)
We interpreters all agree on these self-serving arguments, could argue for ever on how just our cause is and, of course, endorse and applaud one another. It is important to make the Ministry agree with us and give in to our demands. And that, as you said, requires effort, money, participation, etc...
The Ministry seems to be adamant (as always) on their decision. They don’t want to lose face. At this stage there is no face saving course of action and we are forced to swallow the venom they have cooked up for us: It can’t go on like this; something or someone has to give!
Pay attention to this part of the CBC report:
In a statement sent to CBC News, the ministry said it is recruiting new interpreters to help fill holes. And it defended the examinations.
"The new tests are specific to courts and are based on actual court documents and trial transcripts from Ontario court proceedings," the ministry said.
It appears that the Ministry is not backing off.
On Interpreters’ Participation:
According to the official numbers announced in the meeting (on Saturday, April 24th), out of 225 interpreters who sat for the test last year, only 46 have passed it fully and 69 passed conditionally. That means 110 interpreters failed completely and therefore their livelihood is gone. Yet, only 49 interpreters attended the meeting—I counted them carefully—and I could say more than half of them were the ones who have passed the test, fully, conditionally, or they were staff interpreters whose jobs are secure and didn’t even need to be there. Is this how much the failed ones care about their livelihood???
I got totally disappointed in our colleagues and disheartened. I began thinking: maybe the successful interpreters passed the test because of this positive attitude—despite the harshness of the test.
What we need and the only thing that could solve our problems is: BARGAINING POWER. And for that we need TO ORGANIZE and for that we need PARTICIPATION.
(...)
2-
Dear Friends,
(...) and (...) were discussing the latest CBC article regarding interpreters and he suggested that we should share it with everybody. Here is the argument. Please feel free to give us your suggestions. I would emphasize the we should focus on practical suggestions for action rather than just self-serving arguments and sympathy or complain with the interpreters’ cause.
Thank you,
(...)
April 29, 2010
Dear Fellow Interpreters,
Please do not forget to check the comments at the end of the article. They are very “enlightening” and give you a pretty good idea of what the general public thinks about us, interpreters—it is scary!
(...)
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/04/16/court-interpreters.html
April 29, 2010
(...)
Comments are very interesting. It shows no understanding of the legal importance of understanding the procedure and the universal rights of citizens. Some people subsidize healthcare, transportation and welfare systems without using any of them. Otherwise we will have rampant crimes and hatred.
(...)
April 29, 2010
(...)
Dear (...),
You are right: “These people subsidize many services without using any of them, such as public transportation, etc...” and they don’t realise it or they don’t mind it. The argument is kind of trivial and I am not going to bother with it.
These comments are the “redneck-type” of remarks along the line of: foreigners (immigrants) come to “our” country, abuse our welfare system, commit crimes etc..., and “our” government pays for them out of “our tax money”. They have the same attitude toward us, interpreters, because they perceive us as a part of abusing “foreigners” or “immigrants”, and everything that goes with it. No wonder, we are treated with such resentment and in such condescending and humiliating manners by a lot of court and Ministry staff. I can’t help feeling that they hate our guts.
April 29, 2010
(...)
I guess we need to re-introduce ourselves i.e. we need a public relations campaign. It is also unfair to say we need this or that without paying for what we want to get whether in terms of money or effort, participation.
You only get what you pay for.
(...)
April 29, 2010
Dear (...),
Exactly, you put your finger on the right spot: We have to pay for what we want to get or achieve, in terms of money, effort, participation, etc... Are we interpreters really ready to pay for it? If not, then we should just shut up and take whatever they give us, including humiliation.
(...)
We interpreters all agree on these self-serving arguments, could argue for ever on how just our cause is and, of course, endorse and applaud one another. It is important to make the Ministry agree with us and give in to our demands. And that, as you said, requires effort, money, participation, etc...
The Ministry seems to be adamant (as always) on their decision. They don’t want to lose face. At this stage there is no face saving course of action and we are forced to swallow the venom they have cooked up for us: It can’t go on like this; something or someone has to give!
Pay attention to this part of the CBC report:
In a statement sent to CBC News, the ministry said it is recruiting new interpreters to help fill holes. And it defended the examinations.
"The new tests are specific to courts and are based on actual court documents and trial transcripts from Ontario court proceedings," the ministry said.
It appears that the Ministry is not backing off.
On Interpreters’ Participation:
According to the official numbers announced in the meeting (on Saturday, April 24th), out of 225 interpreters who sat for the test last year, only 46 have passed it fully and 69 passed conditionally. That means 110 interpreters failed completely and therefore their livelihood is gone. Yet, only 49 interpreters attended the meeting—I counted them carefully—and I could say more than half of them were the ones who have passed the test, fully, conditionally, or they were staff interpreters whose jobs are secure and didn’t even need to be there. Is this how much the failed ones care about their livelihood???
I got totally disappointed in our colleagues and disheartened. I began thinking: maybe the successful interpreters passed the test because of this positive attitude—despite the harshness of the test.
What we need and the only thing that could solve our problems is: BARGAINING POWER. And for that we need TO ORGANIZE and for that we need PARTICIPATION.
(...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
