Interpreting

One of the key issues facing the Deaf community is equal communication access via interpreting services. The historical view of access to interpreting services stems from the late 1960s and was based on a social services/welfare or vocational rehabilitation approach. At the time, interpreters were largely seen as a service required solely by the Deaf person, and there was little awareness that interpreters were in fact serving both the Deaf person and the nondeaf consumer in any given interaction. The interpreter was frequently a family member or someone who acted as an interpreter but may have also played another role in the Deaf person’s life, for example, as teacher, [Page 491]social worker, or clergy member. In this social welfare model of service delivery, interpreters were there to provide communication support and “help” the Deaf person through the system.

As interpreting practices, the training of interpreters, and ethical codes of conduct evolved, so too did the desire of Deaf communities did and their interpreter allies for professional services and access to all of the same aspects of life enjoyed by nondeaf people. During the 1980s, interpreters began to be provided for situations far beyond basic social welfare and/or employment contexts, and they worked with Deaf people in medical, legal, and educational settings. While this opened opportunities for Deaf people, it still fell short of full inclusionary access. Full access would have meant that Deaf people enjoyed equal access to all aspects of life that are choices for those who are not deaf—for example, to government procedures and events, to public events, to recreational and wellness options, and to engagement with a faith-based community.

From 1990 to 2010, legislative reforms began to occur throughout the world, bringing attention to human rights for all persons and the inclusion of linguistic rights as a significant aspect of human rights. Two examples of legislation that has protected Deaf people and the right to access to service in a signed language are the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Both laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability and mandate interpreting access for Deaf people. More recently, international conventions such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) have shifted the dominant discourse from viewing interpreting services as an accommodation for people who require it to recognizing such services as a linguistic human right. Sign language is specifically mentioned nine times across five articles of the convention in the contexts of accessibility; freedom of expression and opinion; access to information; education; and participation in political, social, and cultural events.

Over 155 countries are now signatories to the UNCRPD, and countries with well-organized Deaf communities are harnessing the power of the convention to ensure these individuals’ linguistic human rights are upheld. The convention recognizes the linguistic identity of the Deaf community and the rights of children to access an education that is delivered in ways that support academic and social development, with an emphasis on using natural signed languages. In addition, Deaf people in countries such as Chile, New Zealand, Australia, and Japan have successfully lobbied governments to ensure access to interpreting services for a range of events and settings, including media broadcasts during natural disasters (e.g., tsunamis, earthquakes, and floods); to leverage legislation at the national and international levels; and to produce and consume literature on best practices.

...