Official language laws and the First Amendment

[fumster]

@Little_Nemo

All of your concerns are based on a faulty premise: that civil rights are finite. You’re trying to protect your rights by making sure you grab as many as possible, even if it means taking them from other people.

It doesn’t work that way. If you’re trying to protect your right to speak English by taking away other people’s right to speak Spanish or French or Chinese, you’re just making it more likely, not less likely, that some day your rights will be taken away as well. You give the power to take away other people’s rights and they may someday use that power against you.

Instead work on protecting the rights of all languages and you’ll find that the right to speak English becomes better protected as part of the package.

I like puppies and kittens too. But you keep ignoring my questions on the nitty gritty details.

Let’s put aside the idea of what “rights” one has and look instead at expectations. Having been born in a de facto English speaking country and been educated in schools which taught English, my expectation is that police officers, postal workers, the staff at the DMV, and teachers at my kids’ school will all understand English.

If I were born in the United States to parents who speak Norwegian, and that was all I knew, I would not expect all those people I mentioned above to speak Norwegian. But I would expect that if I were arrested I could hire or be assigned a translator that would assist me when I am being questioned and when in court.

Even in the case where I spoke Norwegian, it would be better for me if everyone I dealt with in the public sphere was able to communicate in English. That means I would only need to learn one additional language to get along.

So I want no part of a movement that says the United States is multilingual and that we can’t require government employees to speak English, or that street signs don’t need to be in English, or that court proceedings could occur in whatever language the judge wanted to use.

That doesn’t mean that there should be laws against speaking another language or that we shouldn’t translate legal proceedings.

It is actually quite surprising that anyone could take a different view than that. There are countries that have multiple official languages. We aren’t one of them. You seem to go even further, though, in saying that we could function in a country where government services aren’t consistently available in a at least one common language.

[Little_Nemo]

Can anyone give an example of a single time in American history when a trial for an English speaking defendant was conducted in Spanish or any langauge other than English?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Kind of a gigantic excluded middle here.

[fumster]

@Little_Nemo

Can anyone give an example of a single time in American history when a trial for an English speaking defendant was conducted in Spanish or any language other than English?

Of course not, because the assumption has always been that English is the language in which the government does business. You appear to state that assumption is not valid.

I think it boils down to whether you think English has a special standing in the United States. I maintain that it does, even though it is never stated so in law.

If we follow this through to its conclusion, and say that English has no special standing in the United States, then how can we require government workers to be able to speak English? You could require workers to be bilingual, but that could be Cantonese and Mandarin. How could we require that public records be kept in English?

[tomndebb]

@fumster

I like puppies and kittens too. But you keep ignoring my questions on the nitty gritty details.

Let’s put aside the idea of what “rights” one has and look instead at expectations. Having been born in a de facto English speaking country and been educated in schools which taught English, my expectation is that police officers, postal workers, the staff at the DMV, and teachers at my kids’ school will all understand English.

Which you already have without any silly laws making English “official.”

@fumster

If I were born in the United States to parents who speak Norwegian, and that was all I knew, I would not expect all those people I mentioned above to speak Norwegian. But I would expect that if I were arrested I could hire or be assigned a translator that would assist me when I am being questioned and when in court.

Which you can already have without any silly laws making English “official.”

@fumster

So I want no part of a movement that says the United States is multilingual and that we can’t require government employees to speak English, or that street signs don’t need to be in English, or that court proceedings could occur in whatever language the judge wanted to use.

We already have that, without any unnecessary laws. There are not enough multilingual American citizens to support a change to that de facto situation.

@fumster

That doesn’t mean that there should be laws against speaking another language or that we shouldn’t translate legal proceedings.

Good. Then, we need to tell the people pushing for an “official” language to stay in their English-language ghettoes and stop bothering lawmakers with unnecessary requests for pointless laws.
If Little Nemo actually proposes that we should encourage, (much less enforce by law), the creation of legislation or the conducting of trials in languages other than English, then I will note that that position is also silly. However, there is no need to try to prevent such a minority view by making it illegal.

[Little_Nemo]

@jtgain

should English be displaced to that extent, it would be no less than an absolute conquest by other nations.

Does our use of English represent our absolute conquest by the United Kingdom?

[Little_Nemo]

@tomndebb

If Little Nemo actually proposes that we should encourage, (much less enforce by law), the creation of legislation or the conducting of trials in languages other than English, then I will note that that position is also silly. However, there is no need to try to prevent such a minority view by making it illegal.

To a certain extent, that is my position. I would encourage trials in languages other than English for people that don’t speak English.

[fumster]

@Little_Nemo

Does our use of English represent our absolute conquest by the United Kingdom?

No, but it represents English speaking settlers’ absolute conquest over Native Americans

[tomndebb]

@Little_Nemo

To a certain extent, that is my position. I would encourage trials in languages other than English for people that don’t speak English.

So, rather than presuming that a collection of somewhat randomly chosen citizens are capable of determining the guilt or innocence of an actor, based on the information provided by the lawyers and witnesses who participate, you believe that justice can only occur if the trial, including the judge, the lawyers, and the witnesses are all selected from the pool of people who happen to share a language? (And when a member of a new immigrant group is accused of a crime, it does not bother you that the entire trial will need to be conducted by people who may be predisposed to provide a verdict, (whether of guilt or innocence), based on a personal familiarity with the defendant while the trial, itself, is delayed for years until enough members of that language-defined community can be trained as lawyers and appointed or elected to the bench?)

While I am sure that there have been occasions when a language barrier inflicted a negative outcome on a trial, I suspect that the collection of facts, examination of witnesses, and rulings of jurisprudence have tended to result in fairer trials when the police and courts have functioned within the normal linguistic experience of the greater society.

[Little_Nemo]

It’s a point that fumster and I agree on. You can’t really consider it a fair trial if the defendant isn’t able to understand what the judge is saying, what the lawyers are saying, what the witnesses are saying, doesn’t understand the questions he’s being asked, and may not even understand what he’s being charged with.

To me, the ideal would be a trial where everyone speaks a common language and that language is used. In most cases in the United States, the obvious common language would be English. But if you happened to have a situation where everyone involved spoke Spanish, I don’t see any reason why a trial conducted in Spanish would be less Constitutional than one conducted in English.

As a practical matter, I understand that it’s not always going to be possible to conduct the entire trial in one language. In that case, the best alternative is to have translators present so the defendant and other involved parties can follow what’s going on.

[Northern_Piper]

You can’t really consider it a fair trial if the defendant isn’t able to understand what the judge is saying, what the lawyers are saying, what the witnesses are saying, doesn’t understand the questions he’s being asked, and may not even understand what he’s being charged with.

But these points don’t necessarily mean that everyone else has to use that language. Due process means that the accused needs to understand the trial, but that can be satisfied by simultaneous interpretation.

There’s a difference between a trial where there is interpretation into another language, and a full trial in that other language, where everyone speaks the same language as the accused. The first is a due process requirement; the second is more of a policy accommodation.

By way of background, I’ve done both type of trials: ones where different participants speak different languages (English and French), with a bilingual judge who understands both; and a trial in the accused’s language, French, where the judge, the Crown, the clerk and the defence all used the accused’s language and the witness’s testimony was translated into the accused’s language - even though the accused was perfectly fluent in English and could have understood the trial perfectly if conducted in English.

[Little_Nemo]

@Northern_Piper

But these points don’t necessarily mean that everyone else has to use that language. Due process means that the accused needs to understand the trial, but that can be satisfied by simultaneous interpretation.

There’s a difference between a trial where there is interpretation into another language, and a full trial in that other language, where everyone speaks the same language as the accused. The first is a due process requirement; the second is more of a policy accommodation.

Yes, I’d agree that a trial with translation would be acceptable (and in some cases the only possibility). But as I said, I feel that if a common language exists, it’s better to use it, regardless of whether that common language is English or Spanish or French or Norwegian.

Let’s say, for example, that there’s a trial being held in Puerto Rico and half of the parties involved speak Spanish and the other half speak Spanish and English. Would there be any useful purpose served by conducting the trial in English and translating the proceedings into Spanish for the non-English speakers? The only reason to so so would appear to be the principle of “Real Americans speak English”.

[tomndebb]

@Little_Nemo

It’s a point that fumster and I agree on. You can’t really consider it a fair trial if the defendant isn’t able to understand what the judge is saying, what the lawyers are saying, what the witnesses are saying, doesn’t understand the questions he’s being asked, and may not even understand what he’s being charged with.

Sure, I can. As long as adequate translation is provided, the accused has access to the same information as everyone else in the room. Conducting a trial while failing to provide translation would be cruel, but it is not necessary for the actual testimony, arguments, and ruling be presented in the accused’s language. (This has also been true in cases of civil law where the plaintiff does not speak English.)

@Little_Nemo

To me, the ideal would be a trial where everyone speaks a common language and that language is used. In most cases in the United States, the obvious common language would be English. But if you happened to have a situation where everyone involved spoke Spanish, I don’t see any reason why a trial conducted in Spanish would be less Constitutional than one conducted in English.

And I have no problem with trials conducted in state courts of New Mexico being conducted in Spanish, since that particular state has long since adopted bilengualism as an official policy. Extending that to the rest of the country or to Fedral courts would require a radical change in American culture and at least a generation to accomplish. Barring that, there are many “ideal” situations that simply do not exist.

@Little_Nemo

As a practical matter, I understand that it’s not always going to be possible to conduct the entire trial in one language. In that case, the best alternative is to have translators present so the defendant and other involved parties can follow what’s going on.

That is already the the practice. (I will not pretend that every court in every state meets a level of proficiency in that effort, but I suspect that where they fail, convictions are generally appealed on that basis.)

[Northern_Piper]

@Little_Nemo

Yes, I’d agree that a trial with translation would be acceptable (and in some cases the only possibility). But as I said, I feel that if a common language exists, it’s better to use it, regardless of whether that common language is English or Spanish or French or Norwegian.

Let’s say, for example, that there’s a trial being held in Puerto Rico and half of the parties involved speak Spanish and the other half speak Spanish and English. Would there be any useful purpose served by conducting the trial in English and translating the proceedings into Spanish for the non-English speakers? The only reason to so so would appear to be the principle of “Real Americans speak English”.

I can see that argument, but it always tends to favour the speakers of the majority language in a particular area, not the minority language, since the speakers of a minority language tend to be fluent in more than one language. For public policy reasons, a country that has substantial minority language communities could adopt a different rule, to put the majority and the minority languages on a more equal footing.

For instance, in Canada, federal criminal law gives the accused the right to a trial conducted in either English or French. It doesn’t matter what language the other participants prefer, it’s the option of the accused. If the accused speaks the minority language in that province, then all the officials in the trial speak that language too, even if everyone could also speak the majority language. Witnesses speak whichever language they prefer, with interpretation if necessary.

The reason for this approach is that the two languages have equal status, and a Canadian charged with an offence should be entitled to a criminal trial in his/her own language, anywhere in Canada.

So in the trial in French which I mentioned earlier, the accused was fully bilingual (English and French), but had the right to chose a trial in French, and did so. There were two Crowns, a court clerk, the judge, and the two police witnesses. The Crowns, the clerk and the judge were all bilingual (the judge and one Crown were anglophone, the other Crown and the clerk were francophone, but all were bilingual); the police were both unilingual anglophones; the accused was a bilingual francophone.

By your suggestion, the trial would be in English, since that was the common language of all the participants, but instead it was in French, because that was the choice of the accused. The judge, the clerk and the Crowns spoke entirely in French. The two police officers testified in English, but without interpretation needed, since the accused could understand them in English. All written submissions were in French, as was the judgment.

[Little_Nemo]

@tomndebb

Sure, I can. As long as adequate translation is provided, the accused has access to the same information as everyone else in the room. Conducting a trial while failing to provide translation would be cruel, but it is not necessary for the actual testimony, arguments, and ruling be presented in the accused’s language.

I don’t know if you’re being coy or if you’re really not understanding what I’ve been saying. I’ve repeatedly said that translation would be an acceptable practice when needed. When I say it wouldn’t be a fair trial if the defendant doesn’t understand what’s being said, I thought my meaning was clear - I’m talking about a trial which is being conducted in a language the defendant does not speak and in which no translation is given. I would not consider that a fair trial.

Are we on the same page now?

[tomndebb]

@Little_Nemo

Are we on the same page now?

Sure. It took you a few posts to actually get your whole point out, but I don’t think we are in basic disagreement, now.

[Little_Nemo]

@tomndebb

It took you a few posts to actually get your whole point out

I said “my position is that the trial should be translated into the languages used by all the main parties in the case” and said an unfair trial was one where the “the defendant isn’t able to understand what the judge is saying, what the lawyers are saying, what the witnesses are saying, doesn’t understand the questions he’s being asked, and may not even understand what he’s being charged with.” I thought it would be clear that the situation I was describing didn’t include translation.

That said, we’ve wondering pretty far off topic anyway. My original interest was to ask a specific legal question, not have a general debate on the use of the issue of official languages.

[fumster]

The legal system does not just exist for the accused and the victim. Imagine a case where a non-native English speaking immigrant is accused of an attempted “honor killing” of a family member who was gay. This has a potentially large impact on the society as a whole. Let’s say that the trial is conducted entirely in Beckybeckystanish. Does the court have an obligation to translate the proceedings into any other language if the defendant, the victim, the prosecutor, and judge all speak a common non-English language?

I maintain that it does. The public has a right to know what goes in in court; that is why we have public trials. There also needs to be an official record for appeals.

So what language does the official record needs to be in? If we were a multi-lingual country it could be in one or more of the official languages. If we had an official language then it would obviously be in that.

What is the right thing in our current situation. Ten or twenty years ago there would be no question that it should be English, even though we have no official language. Now it seems that we have people saying that English has no special standing at all. It might give one a warm feeling to say that no language has a privileged position, but it is impractical. To my mind it is also dangerous as it can lead to a Balkanization of the country where different regions use different de-facto languages to conduct business.

If people think we should be officially bi-lingual, then they should make that case. But to argue that there is no one language, or set of languages, that serve as the “language of record” (for lack of a better term) is madness.

Immigrants have come to the United States from countries that speak dozens of different languages and somehow they or their descendants have been able to learn English and by doing so have had the ability to communicate with their neighbors, employers, co-workers, government officials, and shopkeepers. They have not had to give up their native languages in order to learn a new one (with the occasional outrageous exception such as Native American children being taken away from their parents and sent to boarding schools).

I don’t see a need to sacrifice that model of a single, common language on the altar of Political Correctness. I imagine most immigrants would be baffled as well by the thought that they wouldn’t need to learn the language of the country they have chosen to come to.