| 用户 | 论题张贴者: Peter Manda Bravo Professor - NYTimes article on agriprocessors case II |
|---|
Peter Manda
美国
Local time: 10:34
 正式会员 (自2007)
German德语译成English英语
+ ...
|
Sorry, I got carried away by copying the story on Professor Erik Camayd-Freixas in the New York Times today. Here is the link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/11immig.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all
I think he did the correct thing.
The job of the interpreter is to interpret everything correctly, but the interpreter is a citizen also and as such also an officer of the court. I would think he/she would have the duty to make the court aware of gross injustice - as in this case.
The nature of the proceedings (as he describes them) reflect the frustrating dehumanization of people without money and funds who come before the courts or who face the law. No one helps, the attorneys don't respect them, and the courts literally shirk their obligations for judicial convenience.
In dark times it takes someone like professor Camayd-Freixas to take the stand. But I wonder, shouldn't he have made the court aware of the problem during the hearings, rather than waiting until after the proceedings? What is the best approach?
 
| | | |
jacana54 
乌拉圭
Local time: 13:34
 正式会员 (自2007)
English英语译成Spanish西班牙语
+ ...
| | Thank you for providing the link | Jul 13 |
Peter,
Thank you for providing the link.
I would like to know how other colleagues who work as court interpreters feel about this striking case; also about the confidentiality issue.
Lucía
| | | |
Christina Courtright
美国
Local time: 10:34
正式会员 (自2007)
Spanish西班牙语译成English英语
+ ...
| | discussion within NAJIT | Jul 13 |
We have discussed the article extensively in the listserv of the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT). Most are supportive of Erik's decision to speak out and agree that he did not violate our canons of confidentiality as he did not reveal any details of any case in particular. Instead, he made overall observations based on a huge volume of cases for which he interpreted. In addition, he sparked discussion about our role as interpreters in general, and reflected the anguish many of us feel when interpreting in a situation in which injustices occur but we can't say anything about it because of our oath and training.
A few people did not agree with his opinion, but that is the minority. I spoke at length with one interpreter who was working there also the whole time and she was just as horrified by what she observed.
Today's New York Times editorial has strongly endorsed Erik's exposé and condemned what occurred in Postville: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/13sun2.html
| | | |
Andrzej Wróblewski
波兰
Local time: 16:34
English英语译成Polish波兰语
+ ...
| | Ways of proceeding | Aug 11 |
Imagine, that every law enforcement organization in the world would abandon their ways of proceeding and would only act to prevent crime... without set-ups, entrapments... In my opinion the author of the essay only did what he felt was right to expose one hard evidence on the immigrants' behalf.
| | | |
hakim_sm
瑞典
Local time: 16:34
Swedish瑞典语译成Arabic阿拉伯语
+ ...
| | questioned credibility | Aug 14 |
I think this problem is very delicate. an interpreter must absolutlly respect the ethical rules such neutrality. under any pretext interpreter must not add or modify words in favour or disfavour to any of the parties. feelings, humanism must remain away. otherwise, he put his credibility at stake
| | | |
The translation workplace 
