Language tests may screen asylum seekers in Britain

An article in the Guardian on October 22nd indicates that language tests are to be used to screen migrants who seek asylum in Britain. There has already been a pilot test. This was announced by Beverley Hughes, the immigration minister:

She said that a pilot scheme of tests had been successful in proving that one in five of those claiming to be fleeing from Somalia had in fact come from another country.

These tests have been used in Australia and are very much criticized by forensic linguists, partly because so many people have moved around and do not speak according to whatever rules the testers establish.

There’s a report by language experts on the Australian procedure here.

They say that many people are unaware of the limitations of their own understanding of language.

Language is very much more complex than is often realised, and many statements about language can only be made with appropriate hedging. Many points that an ordinary person considers to be ‘obvious facts’ turn out under linguistic analysis to be half truths or worse. Consider for example the idea that ‘a noun is a word for a person, place, or thing’, ‘the word ‘cat’ is made up of three sounds’, or ‘acoustic analysis can create a voiceprint which identifies a person in a way similar to a fingerprint does’.
Many people would consider these to be truisms but in fact each of them has very serious limitations in linguistic analysis.

Later:

Consequently, linguistic research shows that a person’s nationality, ethnicity and/or place of origin normally cannot be determined solely on the basis of a few words in his or her speech. However, according to the RRT cases we examined in which details of the Agency LingID are given, many determinations in these reports were made precisely on this basis. For example, on the basis of one applicant using some “typical” Pakistani words and Iranian words, it was determined that he lived some time in these countries (N20). Another applicant was deemed to come from Pakistan on the basis of his use of one Urdu word, one Iranian word, and two words (Afghanistan and dollar) spoken with an Urdu accent (N7), another because of one Urdu word and pronouncing some words with an Iranian accent and some with an Urdu accent (N2), and yet another because of one Urdu word, pronouncing several words with a Pakistani accent, and using two Pashtu words and two English words (N28).

(Information from the Forensic Linguistics mailing list: International Association of Forensic Linguistics.

Chinese-English translator interview

I happened on an interview in the Guardian with a Chinese-English translator from Taiwan studying in Britain. Kenneth Liu, who did an MSc in Chinese/English translation at Newcastle, was interviewed by Miles Brignall.

The interview is in the education section of the paper. It is not very informative.

bq. However much I study it, and however many books I translate into it, I don’t think I will ever find English easy. I was brought up in Taiwan and Mandarin Chinese is my native language. In purely structural terms it’s difficult to think of another language further removed from English.

I can’t go along with that. Just you try Turkish, mate!

Google glossary tool

The Google glossary function, which has been available in beta for a few months now, is now officially available (via beSpacific).

It is better described as a definition tool (jurabilis).

It only works in English so far. You enter ‘define:’ in an ordinary Google search. Thus the following search:

define: barrister

produces the following results:

Definitions of barrister on the Web (only the Australian and BBC definitions are any good!):

bq. a British lawyer who speaks in the higher courts of law
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

bq. A lawyer who conducts public trials in an English superior court. See solicitor.
august1.com/pubs/dict/b.htm

bq. lawyer
www.webtrail.com/sopafug/gendictionary.html

bq. in England, one of two classes of legal practitioners; an English trial lawyer
www.lombardiperry.com/glossary.htm

bq. One admitted to plead at the bar; one who has been “called to the bar.” The bar is the rail which divides the counsel from the audience, or the place thus enclosed. Tantamount to the rood-screen of a church, which separates the chancel from the rest of the building. Both these are relics of the ancient notion that the laity are an inferior order to the privileged class.
www.bootlegbooks.com/Reference/PhraseAndFable/data/99.html

bq. A member of the bar who has exclusive rights in some Courts to plead cases.
www.fire.org.uk/legterms.htm

bq. A lawyer who specialises in court appearances and providing written opinions. Usually not able to act for clients directly and is engaged through a solicitor. In some courts they are required to wear wigs and gowns. •Disability
elo.legalaid.qld.gov.au/asp/glossary/glossary.asp

bq. Lawyer, in England.
www.city-net.com/~markd/dictionary/dictionary_b.htm

bq. One admitted to plead at the bar; one who has been “called to the bar.” The bar is the rail which divides the counsel from the audience, or the place thus enclosed. Tantamount to the rood-screen of a church, which separates the chancel from the rest of the building. Both these are relics of the ancient notion that the laity are an inferior order to the privileged class.
ppcl.chungnam.ac.kr/my/references/phrase/data/99.html

bq. Barristers are instructed by solicitors. They specialise in a particular field of law and can present a case in any court (compare a solicitor whose rights to speak in court are limited).
www2.thny.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/legalglossary/b.shtml

bq. a courtroom lawyer; a litigator
www.hpo.bc.ca/PublicationsForms/MMR/Glossary.html

I looked at the sources of the two good definitions. The BBC glossary is very brief, but the Australian one is interesting – there is not only a glossary with definitions, but a column to the right with links to what is called ‘Infoscreen’, short texts putting the terms in a wider context.

The beta glossary had or has its own link, but that produces inferior and fewer results for ‘barrister’.

Central Register of Criminal Offences / Bundeszentralregister website

The Juristisches Internetprojekt at Saarbrücken University has a new link of the week: the site of the Bundeszentralregister in Bonn (it used to be in Berlin, but it moved the other way when the government and parliament moved from Bonn to Berlin). It’s all in German. Unfortunately it introduces itself with a gimmicky dwindling-circle effect, but when you leave it there are no special effects.

The Gewerbezentralregister is also there – Romain translates it as the Central Register of Trade and Industrial Offences.

There is a lot of information about criminal records and about the Führungszeugnis / Certificate of Good Conduct.

Nuremberg courtroom photo/Schwurgerichtssaal

schwurgw.jpg

This is the courtroom where the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial took place. ICC judge Hans-Peter Kaul speaking, to his right Lee A. Casey, furthest right Dr. William Sheldon. Taken without flash. It was pretty dark. The crucifix looks more interesting on the photo – in reality the details are indistinguishable in the poor light.

Serious crimes (such as murder) are still tried here, with three professional judges and two lay judges sitting at the bench in the background. On the left wall, not visible in the photo, is the door to a lift to the prison corridor (one reason why the War Crimes Trials were held in this building). In 1945-46, the room was arranged differently. The judges were at a bench on the right, under the windows.

International Criminal Court vocabulary EN>DE

I have to post some entries to test some problems with my blog setup. So here’s some vocabulary for the International Criminal Court:

|appeal|Berufung|
|authentic texts|verbindliche Wortlaute|
|chambers |Kammern|
|communication|Mitteilung|
|complementarity|Komplementarität|
|core crimes|Kernverbrechen|
|crime of aggression|Verbrechen der Aggression|
|crimes against humanity|Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit|
|custodial state|Gewahrsamsstaat|
|deferral of investigation or prosecution|Aufschub der Ermittlungen oder der Strafverfolgung|
|elements of crime|„Verbrechenselemente“ [sic]|
|escape|Flucht|
|excusing and disqualification of judges|Freistellung und Ausschluss von Richtern |
|forfeiture measures|Einziehungsanordnungen|
|genocide|Völkermord|
|International Criminal Court ICC|Internationaler Strafgerichtshof IStGh|
|jurisdiction ratione temporis|Gerichtsbarkeit ratione temporis|
|mental element|subjektive Tatbestandsmerkmale|
|misconduct before the Court|ordnungswidriges Verhalten vor Gericht|
|non-retroactivity ratione personae|Rückwirkungsverbot ratione personae|
|Office of the prosecutor|Anklagebehörde|
|preliminary ruling|vorläufige Entscheidung|
|prescription of law|gesetzliche Vorschriften|
|Presidency|Präsidium|
|Pre-Trial Chamber|Vorverfahrenskammer|
|prosecutor|Ankläger|
|Registry|Kanzlei|
|removal from office|Amtsenthebung|
|reparation to victims|Wiedergutmachung für die Opfer|
|revision|Wiederaufnahme|
|Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court|Römisches Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs|
|sentencing|Strafspruch|
|State Party|Vertragsstaat|
|superior orders|Anordnungen Vorgesetzter |
|trial|Hauptverfahren|
|Trial Chamber|Hauptverfahrenskammer|
|war crimes|Kriegsverbrechen|

ICC: complementarity

There is a principle of complementarity – a bit like subsidiarity in the EU. It means that if a national court wants to try a case on one of the ICC crimes, it can, and the ICC will only try cases if the country (or countries?) in question don’t want to.

This explains why Germany enacted a Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (Code of International Criminal Law).

English version here:

This, of course, is very similar to the Statute of Rome.

Symposium on International Criminal Court

(See October 19th entry)

The two really exciting speakers at Nuremberg were Hans-Peter Kaul, the German judge at the ICC, who talked about Das Vermächtnis von Nürnberg – The Legacy of Nuremberg, and Lee A. Casey, from Washington D.C., who talked about the Position of the U.S. Administration on the ICC.

Before them, Klaus Kastner talked about The Nuremberg Trials. Vom gerechten Krieg zur Ächtung des Krieges – From a just war to rejection (outlawing? scorning?) of war, and Christoph Safferling about comparative procedure in the Statute of Rome.

Dr. WilliamSheldon, the director of the Deutsch-Amerikanisches Institut in Nuremberg, presided. There was some discussion afterwards, but it was with the audience, not much between the speakers, who probably know each other’s opinions after many years of negotiating.

There’s a report in German in the Nürnberger Nachrichten. The talks will be available on the site of the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg, which is a good site.

The symposium was held in the courtroom where the Nuremberg Trials took place. I counted only 29 in the audience at the beginning. Maybe there were 35 later. It was a pathetic turnout. I don’t know where these things are advertised. I heard as a member of the DAJV, the German-American Lawyers’ Association, and I think quite a lot of the audience came from the Amerikahaus, either employees or people who do English conversation courses there. There were at least two journalists there, because I talked to them in the break. There were at least two photographers – one of them had a large digital camera with huge lenses, which I greatly coveted. Obviously the speakers were speaking for a wider audience than us.

Hans-Peter Kaul was a superb speaker. He sounded as if he was speaking extempore on a subject he felt very strongly about.

There’s an article about him in Die Welt online, and an interview of a few months ago. He stated a number of facts about the American reasons for not signing the Statute of Rome, and mentioned a number of Americans who are not against the ICC. He also emphasized the limits of the Court’s powers, to do away with some misconceptions about it.

Lee A. Casey said he was speaking as a private person and merely about his own opinion. He believes the USA should never sign the Statute. His main argument was that America became a nation because its people wanted to govern themselves, and the ICC is not subject to review by the American people. It is neither dependent on the people nor answerable to them. Clinton recommended not ratifying the Statute, because it lacks enough safeguards. There have been over 600 complaints lodged with the Court, most of them relating to matters the Court has no jurisdiction over because they happened before July 1st, 2003. These complaints often refer to American actions in Iraq, and they show there is a politically motivated attempt to obtain convictions of American citizens. aother point: some of the (only) 92 States Parties to the Statute are not noted for their systems of justice and any of these could have a US citizen prosecuted if that citizen were on their territory.

There is a summary of the US arguments against the ICC in German here . They can also be seen in the American Service Members’ Protection Act. There is an excellent summary here, including a summary of steps that should be taken to prevent the ICC from being implemented.

White collar boxing for lawyers

White collar boxing is a form of boxing for people in white collar professions. Gleason’s Gym in the USA has been putting on events for 13 years:

bq. Gleason’s Gym created the concept of White Collar Boxing. The need for this program arose because of the numerous men and women that began training at the gym in the mid [90?]s. The boxing workout is addictive and the non-amateurs and professionals wanted to compete. After conferring unsuccessfully with the Amateur Boxing President and the New York State Athletic Commission, Gleason’s Gym created it’s own White Collar league.

bq. Both men and women can participate in the shows. The bouts are 3 rounds of tow minutes each. Now winner or loser is declared and both participants receive a trophy at the end of the contest. Registered amateur Boxers and Professional Boxers are not permitted in the White Collar Boxing program.

Now the Real Fight Club in England is advertising an event for lawyers on November 20th:

bq. Starring white collar workers learning the art under our supervision who work in the legal profession for leading institutions such as: the State of New York, Davis Polk and Wardell, Allen & Overy, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, S J Berwin, Linklaters, CMS Cameron & McKenna, Richards Butler, Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan Chase Bank, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, Judicium and many more – in 3 x 2 minute round non-decision bouts regulated by the IWCBA

I’m sure they’d take German lawyers as well. I believe some of them go to gyms.

I read about this in the Tuesday law section of the Times Online, for which there is or was free registration. They had an article about a New York judge being flown in.

bq. Judge Maier is no novice — he took up boxing in 1997 — but this is the first time that he will have fought at an event at which all the boxers are lawyers. He is the veteran of 51 white-collar fights, the last of which was against a performance artist who filmed their bout by means of a camera strapped to his head. “He kept telling me to hit him hard,” Judge Maier says. “But I wouldn’t. White-collar boxing is about fun, not hurting people.”