The court-appointed translator is largely an invisible actor in the legal space. The Israeli context provides an extreme example of this invisibility: apart from a general statutory definition of the court's obligation to translate criminal proceedings, the work of translation in the Israeli courtroom is mostly unregulated by state law, rendering it highly susceptible to informal manifestations. This article offers a critical empirical investigation into the micropractices of translation performed in the Jerusalem criminal trial court in 2002. On the face (...) of things, the court-appointed translator performs a technical task in the everyday working of the court. Expected to mediate between the defense, the prosecution, and the judiciary, the translator is usually not perceived as an active participant in the legal procedure. Problematizing this perception, the article examines the multiple tasks of court-appointed translators in the Jerusalem criminal trial court, thereby challenging traditional court roles and legal perceptions. Not exactly court officials yet also not outsiders to the courtroom, the translators exercise a mixed bag of formal and substantive roles. They act not only as linguistic intermediaries, but also as intermediaries between formal legalities and commonsense discourses. The article is divided into three parts. The first part sketches three primary linguistic challenges, as those are identified by the translators interviewed for this study. The second part of the article adds the perspective of other court practitioners so as to depict a dynamic picture of the particular loyalties of the translators. Finally, the third part of the article examines the liminal, "third space," of translation. Precisely for its extreme articulation of sovereign ideologies, the Israeli/Palestinian setting provides an intriguing geohistorical context within which to think about translation. This last part ties the article together by highlighting the dynamic relationship between language, law, and space, as these are constructed and subverted through practices of translation within the particular setting of the Jerusalem courtroom. (shrink)

In social and political philosophy, linguistic differences are usually seen as one item in the long and indefinite list of Cultural Differences; consequently, language rights are discussed and criticized together with other cultural rights. In this essay, it is argued that a right to use one's own language can be justified by appeal to the practical role of language in human life. The ability to communicate effectively is essential for human autonomy and well-being; thus there is no need to argue (...) that linguistic groups, as groups, are entitled to special treatment, or that language rights are group rights. Because learning a new language is invariably a costly matter, by recognizing some languages as official languages the state (re)distributes burdens and benefits among its citizens. The task of language rights is to guarantee that these burdens are not distributed in a too unequal way. (shrink)

Will Kymlicka's Multicultural Citizenship represents an extraordinary attempt to put applied political philosophy to work in the empirical context of contemporary political debates about immigration and ethnic minorities in western society. This paper explores the methodological and interpretative difficulties of combining normative and empirical goals, in a critical discussion of the examples Kymlicka makes of multicultural issues in France, Britain and the US. It goes on to argue that these weaknesses lie in the Rawlsian influence in Kymlicka's work, and that (...) political philosophers may have to rethink their methodological approach if they wish to pursue further the kind of applied work which Kymlicka is aiming for. (shrink)

Will Kymlicka’s new book makes important conceptual, methodological, and substantive contributions to contemporary discussions of multiculturalism. Nevertheless, Kymlicka’s attempt to construct a defense of special rights for minority cultural groups on the basis of his conception of “societal culture” entails implications that are both too radical and too restrictive with regard to the kinds of minority claims they support. In particular, Kymlicka’s account undermines the claims of immigrant minorities to the sorts of special rights that Kymlicka thinks they are entitled (...) to demand. (shrink)