[sw-l] RE: [DEAFACADEMICS-L] Definition of a Sign Language interpreter in your country

[Department of Access Services Room 2319]

Thierry,

This is in response to the first message sent. Here is the excerpt to which
I am responding:


Furthermore, they are hired as "therapeutic interpreters in visual modality"
(that is what their contract says). That covers Cued Speech, Signed French
and to a lesser extent, Belgian French Sign Language. These people have no
training whatsoever and they are still labelled "interpreters". With a few
colleagues, I am fighting against this. In the Commission, there are a few
people who come from a medical background and they still believe that these
"interpreters" match the definition of a true sign language interpreter...

 As I am getting more and more frustrated and filled up with anger, I am now
seeking more information as how to fight their ignorance and stubborness.
Our local interpreters association is powerless in front of the medical
lobby, because the profession of SL interpreter is not recognised yet.

 I am hoping that some people in this forum might help me find the right way
to submit a clear overview of the current situation in the French-speaking
part of Belgium and to submit new proposals based on scientific facts.

------------------ end excerpt

Dr. Daniel Burch of the United States may be able to help with defining
direction. He is a certified interpreter here. I worked extensively with him
while I lived in the state of Louisiana. The Deaf organizations and the
state Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf worked on establishing the
state's interpreter law and on other issues facing the Deaf community. It is
just a thought.

Cj


On 1/19/05 4:53 AM, "Shane Gilchrist Ó hEorpa"
<shane.gilchrist.oheorpa at francismaginn.org> wrote:

> Thierry,
>
> Good news re: the recognition of LSFB in the Communauté Française - I know
> Helga Stevens in the Flemish Parliament is working on the recognition of VGT
> there as well - too bad the Belgian Constitution isn't very specific about
> languages in general use.
>
> As long as Deaf sign language users keep shouting "deaf deaf deaf", it will
> be about disability (no clear barriers between people with disabilities and
> people without disabilities) - I think we need to work on the language
> itself.
>
> The most important thing is to find out WHO are LSFB users - rather than
> their hearing status - many of our best NISL users here happens to be
> 'non-deaf' - and for me, it is about encouraging racism if we are obsessed
> with whether one is Deaf, HoH or non-deaf. Do Finns really give a damn about
> this? I don¹t think so as I get to hear stories about how people with little
> hearing get to be very fluent in SVK etc - and there's Australians (one cant
> really tell if one is deaf or not) and of course, there's the Flanders (the
> Vlaams region) where VGT users are much involved in the VGT development
> therefore more respect for both sides.
>
> You speak of 30 people on the LSFB Commission - how many of them are fluent
> in LSFB? And do they really use LSFB in the Commission?
>
> I think Paddy Ladd himself is being a bit unfair - we don't know if he is an
> Alkerist or not - as Alkerism focus on the exemption of non-deaf BSL users
> from the development of BSL, playing on the anti-hearing racism etc - the
> sad fact is that there are people who focus on who r the owners of BSL when
> the most important thing is to ensure that the language will survive,
> continue on and GROW (that was the aim of the Welsh language community) -
> and to ensure that the quality of the language is kept at a high level (also
> the aim of the Welsh language community) - away from the influence of
> English on the language itself - and accommodating (again, the aim of the
> Welsh language community - most of their best Welsh language activists are
> the ones who learned Welsh as their 2nd language!) Many people in England
> have forgotten that it was thousands of BSL students who learned the
> language that prompted the UK Government to do something about it.
>
> The number of fluent BSL users is fast shrinking in England (do anyone
> really wonder why many of the best BSL signers are from Scotland?)
>
> The Northern Ireland Office, last year, have asked the Department of
> Culture, Arts and Leisure for Northern Ireland to run a wee commission made
> up of deaf organizations (a big mistake here) - and it turned out to be a
> farce, a real play on disability etc - and the RNID kept going on about
> health issues (which is totally unbelievable) - and what is even worse, the
> non-deaf NISL users on the group won't use NISL - they'll revert to using
> English instead - therefore it was more a disability consultation rather
> than a sign language issues discussion.
>
> (For this reason SLCB, my organization, have left - and Hands That Talk, the
> most strong grass-root Deaf organization here with real fluent signers, also
> has left)
>
> Until we separate deafness from our national sign language, we will continue
> getting this shit.
>
> Shane Gilchrist Ó hEorpa
> Sign Language Centre Belfast
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Deaf Academics [mailto:DEAFACADEMICS-L at LIST.UNM.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Thierry Haesenne
> Sent: 19 January 2005 09:16
> To: DEAFACADEMICS-L at LIST.UNM.EDU
> Subject: Re: [DEAFACADEMICS-L] Definition of a Sign Language interpreter in
> your country
>
> Please find below Paddy's reply (he wasn't able to post this to the list).
>
> Here is my reply:
>
> LSFB was recognised following a research from two major French-speaking
> universities (4 experts - 2 linguists and 2 psycholinguists - were asked to
> draw an overview of the situation in French-speaking Belgium. I was part of
> that team and I am the only one in that team to have been selected to join
> the SL Commission).
>
> The SL Commission has 30 members, of which 15 are effective. Our government
> has decided to select members from different backgrounds. However, I am
> still not happy with the number of Deaf people represented :
> - General Deaf associations : 4 members (2 Deaf and 2 HoH)
> - Association of parents : 2 members (hearing)
> - Cultural, Sport or Leisure Associations : 4 members (2 Deaf and 2 hearing)
> - Deaf schools : 8 members (hearing)
> - social services for Deaf people : 2 members (1 CODA and 1 hearing)
> - housing services for Deaf people : 2 members (hearing)
> - sign language teachers : 2 members (1 Deaf, 1 hearing)
> - sign language interpreters : 2 members (hearing)
> - sign language experts : 4 members (1 Deaf - myself-, 1 HoH, 2 hearing)
>
> The members were selected by the Government on basis of their CV (resume)
> and their motivations.
>
> The main problem in our Commission comes from a few people who supported
> oralism in the past (and who still do nowadays), and those who support a
> standardised "official" sign language (which I am totally against, just be
> aware that an official sign language is being imposed in many deaf schools
> and in most sign language classes, and that is not the language used by the
> majority of Deaf people here). Overall, the number of effective members who
> might cause a problem and who might not respect the Deaf community's point
> of view and wishes is about 5.
>
> Thierry
>
>> From: Paddy Ladd <pad.ladd at bris.ac.uk>
>> To: thaesenne at hotmail.com
>> Subject: Fwd: Rejected posting to DEAFACADEMICS-L at LIST.UNM.EDU
>> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 02:05:49 +0000
>>
>>>
>>> well done !
>>>
>>> Yor govenrment puts our crappy mob to shame :-(
>>>
>>> 4 working groups !!
>>>
>>> mind u, the whole point is that the ONLY parties to the debate
>>> shud be the Govt and the Deaf communitys own officially elected body.
>>>
>>> all the other organisations have to queue up at the door for that joint
>>> group to consider
>>>
>>> when they recognised welsh language they didnt talk to the ENGLISH
>>> about how to draft a law.. that was for the govt and the welsh people
>>> jointly
>>>
>>> and thus same for us { well thats the aim !]
>>>
>>> Paddy
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, Jan 19, 2005, at 01:32 Europe/London, Thierry Haesenne
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>
>>>> As you may know, Belgian French Sign Language was recognised in
>>>> October 2003
>>>> by the French-speaking parliament of Belgium (Communauté Française de
>>>> Belgique). Several deaf and hearing experts have been appointed to
>>>> represent
>>>> Deaf people's interests in a Commission which meets every two months.
>>>> That
>>>> Commission has to submit proposals on various topics related to Deaf
>>>> issues
>>>> to the Government and these proposals may become legal some day...
>>>>
>>>> Recently, four working groups have been set up: interpreting,
>>>> education,
>>>> baby care and information. I am responsible for the "interpreting"
>>>> group.
>>>> Now my task is to find out more about the definition of a "sign
>>>> language
>>>> interpreter" in various countries around the world. This is because
>>>> there is
>>>> still a big confusion when it comes to defining an "interpreter" here.
>>>> Most
>>>> "interpreters" work in mainstream schools and are part of a
>>>> therapeutic team
>>>> (speech therapists, psychologists, social workers, doctors, etc.)
>>>> thus, they
>>>> are not neutral and do not respect confidentiality as they must report
>>>> any
>>>> incident that might have happened in class. Moreover, such
>>>> "interpreters"
>>>> work on their own 8 hours a day in a class (they have to translate
>>>> everything that is being said, but as you know, interpreters cannot
>>>> work
>>>> efficiently more than 20 minutes in a row; their brain needs to rest
>>>> from
>>>> time to time; which has never been the case in mainstream schools.)
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, they are hired as "therapeutic interpreters in visual
>>>> modality"
>>>> (that is what their contract says). That covers Cued Speech, Signed
>>>> French
>>>> and to a lesser extent, Belgian French Sign Language. These people
>>>> have no
>>>> training whatsoever and they are still labelled "interpreters". With a
>>>> few
>>>> colleagues, I am fighting against this. In the Commission, there are a
>>>> few
>>>> people who come from a medical background and they still believe that
>>>> these
>>>> "interpreters" match the definition of a true sign language
>>>> interpreter...
>>>> As I am getting more and more frustrated and filled up with anger, I
>>>> am now
>>>> seeking more information as how to fight their ignorance and
>>>> stubborness.
>>>> Our local interpreters association is powerless in front of the medical
>>>> lobby, because the profession of SL interpreter is not recognised yet.
>>>>
>>>> I am hoping that some people in this forum might help me find the
>>>> right way
>>>> to submit a clear overview of the current situation in the
>>>> French-speaking
>>>> part of Belgium and to submit new proposals based on scientific facts.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much in advance.
>>>>
>>>> Thierry HAESENNE
>
>
>
>