PDA

View Full Version : Professor arrested for not speaking English



CWSmith
01-26-2018, 12:17 PM
I'm not 100% sure how I feel about this:




Warrant issued for Hawaii prof after he refuses to speak English

A bench warrant was issued for the arrest of a University of Hawaii professor on Wednesday — even though he was in the courtroom at the time.

The unusual exchange took place in a Wailuku courtroom when Samuel Kaleikoa Kaeo spoke in the Hawaiian language instead of English when he addressed the judge.

Judge Blaine Kobayshi said he couldn't understand Kaeo and issued a warrant for his arrest, saying "the court is unable to get a definitive determination for the record that the defendant seated in court is Mr. Samuel Kaeo," according to Hawaii News Now (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/37344278/arrest-warrant-issued-after-maui-professor-speaks-hawaiian-in-court).

The warrant was dropped on Thursday. The Judiciary said it will be reviewing policies for providing Hawaiian language interpreters.

Kaeo said he appeared before the same judge repeatedly and complained that "it was about the fact that I was speaking Hawaiian that he didn't like."



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/warrant-issued-for-hawaii-prof-after-he-refuses-to-speak-english/ar-AAvb3TS?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

S.V. Airlie
01-26-2018, 12:21 PM
English is NOT the official language of the USA! It doesn't have one!

Keith Wilson
01-26-2018, 12:34 PM
Hawaii has a population of about a million and a half. There are maybe 24,000 fluent speakers of Hawaiian, about 1.6% of the population. If the guy spoke English, which I presume he did, he was just being an *ss. Is there anyone who speaks Hawaiian who doesn't also speak English?

ishmael
01-26-2018, 01:02 PM
^Yep to Keith.

One thing you NEVER do when in legal trouble is p*** off the judge! Assuming this professor, an educated man, speaks English, I'd offer my non-professional opinion that he deserved a contempt citation.

hikingchrs
01-26-2018, 01:07 PM
English is NOT the official language of the USA! It doesn't have one!
Has nothing to do with this since it was a state court. Hawaiian has been spoken there in court long before english.

Canoeyawl
01-26-2018, 01:10 PM
Asserting his right to an impartial trial. (This is likely going to make the judge a fool, except among white republicans)

Good on him!

SKIP KILPATRICK
01-26-2018, 01:13 PM
Too me, it's a clear case of contempt of court.

this is gobbledygook: "I showed up," Kaeo told reporters, according to Hawaii News Now. "I dealt with this judge maybe 15 times before. So, obviously, it had nothing to do with they couldn't recognize me. You see what the issue was? It wasn't about me. It was about the fact that I was speaking Hawaiian. But these small obstacles are the kinds of things we overcome."

Jim Bow
01-26-2018, 01:16 PM
^Yep to Keith.


I was told that Hawaiian is the only language among the small population on Niihau.

Jim Bow
01-26-2018, 01:20 PM
Here's the details. It's far more interesting than the msn condensed version.

http://m.hawaiinewsnow.com/hawaiinewsnow/db_330510/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=YTPnUXB5

George Jung
01-26-2018, 01:21 PM
Keith nailed it.

Keith Wilson
01-26-2018, 01:21 PM
I was told that Hawaiian is the only language among the small population on Niihau.Could be. But he's fluent in English, according to the news report.

CWSmith
01-26-2018, 01:25 PM
It's clear that he was messing with the judge. It's also clear that the court dropped the arrest and is evaluating its practices.

In other words, he got inside the judges head and he won (at some level). As I said, I'm not 100% sure how I feel about this, but it seems to me that as a society we go from talk to arrest (or shoot) very quickly. There should be a middle ground and we need to explore it more.

Canoeyawl
01-26-2018, 01:32 PM
I like it. A strong political move.
He is adding a larger voice to a protest (that may or may not be wrong) and the courts are are trying to silence him. Free speech is the rule. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

The charges in this "crime" are reminiscent of charges against civil rights protesters in the early 1960's. It should go on to a higher court.

"He is facing disorderly conduct, obstructing a sidewalk, and obedience to police officers charges stemming from the August protest. All three charges are petty misdemeanors".

bobbys
01-26-2018, 01:52 PM
I worked bridge union carpentry with a hawaiian .

I could not understand him but to be fair he could not understand jersey...

They called us the odd couple.

First time i ate sushi and the first time he ate elk........yes?.

He always ended with a ....yes..?

Keith Wilson
01-26-2018, 01:55 PM
Charging him with a crime may be excessive. Refusing to speak English when one is fluent in the language, and insisting on speaking an almost-extinct language which only 1.6% of the people in Hawaii understand - that's mostly just obnoxious.

David G
01-26-2018, 02:03 PM
Charging him with a crime may be excessive. Refusing to speak English when one is fluent in the language, and insisting on speaking an almost-extinct language which only 1.6% of the people in Hawaii understand - that's mostly just obnoxious.

I'm fine with 'obnoxious' (in case you hadn't noticed). He was using 'obnoxious' (but seemingly legal) to make a point. And since it was a valid point, and one that probably needed to be made, I'll roll with it. I did a quick psychic consult with Pigasus the Immortal - and he's on board. A koa longboard, if I'm not mistaken.

AlanMc
01-26-2018, 02:10 PM
toss the obnoxious jerk in jail for a few days.

CWSmith
01-26-2018, 02:14 PM
I'm fine with 'obnoxious' (in case you hadn't noticed). He was using 'obnoxious' (but seemingly legal) to make a point. And since it was a valid point, and one that probably needed to be made, I'll roll with it.

My real concern was with a seriously multi-lingual defendant who could run through a dozen languages until they exhausted him. But then, judges have a way of getting even and I decided I had no problem with it.


toss the obnoxious jerk in jail for a few days.

Of course you would, even though he broke no laws. Wouldn't it be great if you ran the world?

BrianY
01-26-2018, 02:14 PM
I'm fine with 'obnoxious' (in case you hadn't noticed). He was using 'obnoxious' (but seemingly legal) to make a point. And since it was a valid point, and one that probably needed to be made, I'll roll with it. I did a quick psychic consult with Pigasus the Immortal - and he's on board. A koa longboard, if I'm not mistaken.

While I am sympathetic to the cause of Hawaiian sovereignty and cultural identity, I fail to see what point this guy was trying to make. Please explain what it was. I understand his actions in teh context of the ongoing protest against American imperialism, the overthrow of Hawaiian culture, etc. but I can't see it as any kind of "free speech" thing. Hawaiian's are not being discriminated against or denied equal access to the legal system because they speak Hawaiian or because they're Hawaiian. The refusal of this English - speaker to speak in the language used by the court isn't about free speech. It's about contempt of court. As Keith said, it's simply being obnoxious and rude.

Tom Montgomery
01-26-2018, 02:15 PM
I am outraged! :d

AlanMc
01-26-2018, 02:16 PM
My real concern was with a seriously multi-lingual defendant who could run through a dozen languages until they exhausted him. But then, judges have a way of getting even and I decided I had no problem with it.



Of course you would, even though he broke no laws. Wouldn't it be great if you ran the world?



he was in contempt of court. you can "break no laws" and still be in contempt of court.

David G
01-26-2018, 02:29 PM
While I am sympathetic to the cause of Hawaiian sovereignty and cultural identity, I fail to see what point this guy was trying to make. Please explain what it was. I understand his actions in teh context of the ongoing protest against American imperialism, the overthrow of Hawaiian culture, etc. but I can't see it as any kind of "free speech" thing. Hawaiian's are not being discriminated against or denied equal access to the legal system because they speak Hawaiian or because they're Hawaiian. The refusal of this English - speaker to speak in the language used by the court isn't about free speech. It's about contempt of court. As Keith said, it's simply being obnoxious and rude.

I hear you talkin' - but I think you also need to consult Pigasus the Immortal.

I don't think I mentioned 'free speech'. I'm more interested in subverting the cultural paradigm (which involves - in this case - immoral and illegal cultural genocide).

And yes... in fact Hawaiians ARE very much being discriminated against (including in the legal system) in their home lands by the white conquerors.

bob winter
01-26-2018, 02:30 PM
I must say it is a sad comment on the Brits on how easily they let vermin take the place over.

David G
01-26-2018, 02:33 PM
If any of you are thinking that this 'obnoxious' guy should be jailed... I advance to you the notion that you are simply an ignorant, disrespectful (of native culltures and of the law), authoritarian, bully. Did I mention 'ignorant'? And 'bully'? And I sincerely hope that you and your family are, at some point, equally unfairly and illegally treated. Some folks can't see the truth until it pees in their very own bowl of cornflakes. :(

Ian McColgin
01-26-2018, 02:36 PM
It is a strong political move that is utterly consistent with the thrust of the state constitution, especially as ammended in 1978, to reverse over a century of radical repression of one of the state's two "official languages." The state law the judge relied on requires interpreter services in court for defendents or witnesses of limited or no English. But recognition of the meaning of "official language" is being pushed on many fronts. For example, there was a struggle about banks being required to honor checks written in Hawaiian. And note that the court interpreter law addresses requiring interpreters for people of limited English who do not speak an official language of the land. Hawaiian is an official language. Faced with an Hawaiian attorney or client speaking one of the states two official languages, a judge who speaks only or best the other of the state's two official languages will need an interpreter.

Of course it's political theater. Very good theater at that. You don't need to know how many letters there are in the Hawaiian alphabet to know what's really right here.

CWSmith
01-26-2018, 02:51 PM
he was in contempt of court. you can "break no laws" and still be in contempt of court.

If he were in contempt of court then the court would not have reversed the ruling.

BrianY
01-26-2018, 02:56 PM
If any of you are thinking that this 'obnoxious' guy should be jailed... I advance to you the notion that you are simply an ignorant, disrespectful (of native culltures and of the law), authoritarian, bully. Did I mention 'ignorant'? And 'bully'? And I sincerely hope that you and your family are, at some point, equally unfairly and illegally treated. Some folks can't see the truth until it pees in their very own bowl of cornflakes. :(

How was this guy - this individual - treated unfairly by the court? Did his refusal to cooperate achieve anything towards addressing the issues of American imperialism?

I do not believe he has no right to protest on behalf of the very real grievances native Hawaiian's have with the US and individual Americans. If, however, one is going to protest, one should be prepared to accept the consequences. The consequences for contempt of court are pretty well known.

Keith Wilson
01-26-2018, 03:05 PM
I'm sorry but the idea of an 'official language' spoken by 1% of the population (and very few of even them as their native language) is ludicrous, whatever the history. Yes, it may be the law; it's still ludicrous. If someone is fluent in English and refuses to speak it, demanding a Hawaiian interpreter, he's being a total jerk.

David G
01-26-2018, 03:07 PM
How was this guy - this individual - treated unfairly by the court? Did his refusal to cooperate achieve anything towards addressing the issues of American imperialism?

I do not believe he has no right to protest on behalf of the very real grievances native Hawaiian's have with the US and individual Americans. If, however, one is going to protest, one should be prepared to accept the consequences. The consequences for contempt of court are pretty well known.

After my #24, and Ian's #25... I think I'd just be replowing old ground. Maybe re-read #25, and see if you have any questions/objections? And... DID you consult Pigasus yet?? <G>

SKIP KILPATRICK
01-26-2018, 03:12 PM
Meh, I'm not buying what you or the professor are selling! The Professor is just an ass being an ass!

David G
01-26-2018, 03:18 PM
I'm sorry but the idea of an 'official language' spoken by 1% of the population (and very few of even them as their native language) is ludicrous, whatever the history. Yes, it may be the law; it's still ludicrous. If someone is fluent in English and refuses to speak it, demanding a Hawaiian interpreter, he's being a total jerk.

So you think your notion of what's reasonable should carry more weight than the actual law? You believe he should be constrained from using the existing law to make a larger point about an important issue? I couldn't disagree more, but I can pass on bbbbbbybs' phone #. You two may have more to talk about than I'd have guessed. <G>

CWSmith
01-26-2018, 03:22 PM
The Professor is just an ass being an ass!

Possibly. I can certainly argue that he is not being effective in his protest.

However, it does not appear that he broke the law and despite the opinion of some that he should be thrown in jail for being a jerk, that still is not illegal. If it were, the jails would be overflowing and very few of us perfect people would be on the outside paying the taxes needed to support those jails.

David G
01-26-2018, 03:27 PM
Meh, I'm not buying what you or the professor are selling! The Professor is just an ass being an ass!

Well... it's and opinion. And you're welcome to it, of course.

I'd agree that he was being an ass. But he was doing so TACTICALLY. In a considered and self-aware manner. And effectively. To make an important point.

I'm reminded of the following saying (though we'd perhaps need to add indigenous person; racially denigrated, or any oppressed group).



https://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/well-behaved-women-don-t-make-history.png

BrianY
01-26-2018, 03:27 PM
And... DID you consult Pigasus yet?? <G>

Yes and I fail to see its relevance.

SKIP KILPATRICK
01-26-2018, 03:29 PM
I'm not saying the judge was right with his antics of issuing an arrest warrant. I do think he could hold the man in contempt of court.

As you mentioned the Professor really did nothing to advance of the protest over the telescope.

I understand the desire to push for minority rights and to preserve native heritage but this silliness isn't the way to accomplish those goals.

Good theater? No just melodrama!

David G
01-26-2018, 03:31 PM
Yes and I fail to see its relevance.

Then you know that Pigasus was the candidate that the 'Yippies' ran for president. As a stunt. And that the Yippies made an art of making 'asses' of themselves to make a larger point. They are far from the first to do so, but they introduced me to the notion. The professor is following this time-honored approach. Be ridiculous and obnoxious to highlight injustice wherever you find it. It's an effective tactic, and one of a limited number of arrows in the quiver of oppressed groups.

bobbys
01-26-2018, 03:35 PM
So you think your notion of what's reasonable should carry more weight than the actual law? You believe he should be constrained from using the existing law to make a larger point about an important issue? I couldn't disagree more, but I can pass on bbbbbbybs' phone #. You two may have more to talk about than I'd have guessed. <G>
.

We could talk about someone maybe drinking while posting.......

CWSmith
01-26-2018, 03:36 PM
Good theater? No just melodrama!

I probably have to agree. When MLK performed nonviolent protest he did not speak to the judge in an African language. He spoke so that he could be understood by the people he was trying to persuade.

Then again, we have no MLK today to carry on the fight.

SKIP KILPATRICK
01-26-2018, 03:38 PM
Then you know that Pigasus was the candidate that the 'Yippies' ran for president. As a stunt. And that the Yippies made an art of making 'asses' of themselves to make a larger point. They are far from the first to do so, but they introduced me to the notion. The professor is following this time-honored approach. Be ridiculous and obnoxious to highlight injustice wherever you find it. It's an effective tactic, and one of a limited number of arrows in the quiver of oppressed groups.

Ah! Bach!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYSG8AQO3tw

David G
01-26-2018, 03:40 PM
Skip - sorry, I missed the point of your Radar reference...

AlanMc
01-26-2018, 03:46 PM
sorry, but once you enter a court room you don't get to act however you want. this fool could knowingly speak english and was refusing to do so. the judge had every right to jail him for contempt.

SKIP KILPATRICK
01-26-2018, 03:49 PM
Skip - sorry, I missed the point of your Radar reference...

It's not a deep point.

It's just when you start equating the professor antics to Yippies! Then you've lost me! At that point my only response is.....Ah! Bach! or maybe Ah! Yippies! :d

David G
01-26-2018, 04:14 PM
It's not a deep point.

It's just when you start equating the professor antics to Yippies! Then you've lost me! At that point my only response is.....Ah! Bach! or maybe Ah! Yippies! :d

Lost you how? You don't believe he's following in that same tradition? You lost concentration because you have to jump up and own every time someone says Yippie!!? <G> What??

SKIP KILPATRICK
01-26-2018, 04:18 PM
Lost you how? You don't believe he's following in that same tradition? You lost concentration because you have to jump up and own every time someone says Yippie!!? <G> What??

Yes, this part!

Canoeyawl
01-26-2018, 04:23 PM
sorry, but once you enter a court room you don't get to act however you want. this fool could knowingly speak english and was refusing to do so. the judge had every right to jail him for contempt.

Contempt of what? Failure to do your bidding? Good luck with that, I know some 5 year olds who could argue and win that point with you.
Failing to speak the courts language? I don't think so, freedom of speech includes the right to not speak at all.
That could get messy pretty quickly if the judge pushed it, (which he didn't, in fact he reversed his decision) this could get the supremes involved. Wouldn't that be fun?

I like his position more and more, genius perhaps.

BrianY
01-26-2018, 04:28 PM
Then you know that Pigasus was the candidate that the 'Yippies' ran for president. AMs a stunt. And that the Yippies made an art of making 'asses' of themselves to make a larger point. They are far from the first to do so, but they introduced me to the notion. The professor is following this time-honored approach. Be ridiculous and obnoxious to highlight injustice wherever you find it. It's an effective tactic, and one of a limited number of arrows in the quiver of oppressed groups.

Sure, go for it. I think such satire is wonderful. I do not think, however, that the perpetrators of such shenanagins should expect to not be subject to the consequences that may arise from such actions nor should they be excused from such consequences because they're merely following a long and often quite humorous tradition.

David G
01-26-2018, 04:40 PM
Yes, this part!

I very much sympathize. It takes a good deal of my small stock of self-discipline not to do so myself :rolleyes:

OK... seriously... lost you how?

David G
01-26-2018, 04:55 PM
Sure, go for it. I think such satire is wonderful. I do not think, however, that the perpetrators of such shenanagins should expect to not be subject to the consequences that may arise from such actions nor should they be excused from such consequences because they're merely following a long and often quite humorous tradition.

Agreed. They have no gripe if they break laws, are apprehended, duly charged, and found guilty.

In civil disobedience, you knowingly break a law... then stand still for the consequences. A Yuppie wouldn't stand still for legal confrontation - whether they'd broken the law, or just bent it. Or simply offended the dominant culture without illegality. They, not trusting the tender ministrations of the legal system, would run off and skip all that argument (and potential incarceration, legitimate or not).

In this case - what 'consequences' do you reckon the professor is legally subject to? I don't see any.

Simply being a thorn in the side of the legal system is not a legal offense. That's why the 'contempt' charge was dropped. He was speaking one of the two lawful 'official languages'. Unusual, for sure (and that's part of his point), but not illegal. So what consequences do you say he's earned. A lecture from the judge? A medal from whatever indigenous groups are resisting the strangling of their culture? Fire hoses? Dogs? Lynching? A trip to Disneyland to see the Enchanted Tiki Room? Too much? How about a couple of free tickets to 'Moana'?

johnw
01-26-2018, 04:57 PM
Well, obviously they needed a translator, and since Samuel spoke both languages, the judge should have asked him to act as translator.

David G
01-26-2018, 05:00 PM
Well, obviously they needed a translator, and since Samuel spoke both languages, the judge should have asked him to act as translator.

Now THAT would have shown some creativity... instead of self-important, legally flawed, lashing out.

johnw
01-26-2018, 05:57 PM
Now THAT would have shown some creativity... instead of self-important, legally flawed, lashing out.
:).

Ian McColgin
01-26-2018, 05:57 PM
I hate it when people break laws, like vandals dressing up in ethnic costumes and committing malicious destruction of 46 tons of property worth anywhere from $1m to $1.7m in today's money. Jail the hooligans.

obscured by clouds
01-26-2018, 05:58 PM
This argument has been raging over the years in my own small country. What we welsh speakers get is 'you all can speak English, so why don't you?' My answer is invariably 'why should I? It's my country and I wish to speak my own language. If you want to get on here, learn the language. If not bugger off and either find someone who can or an interpreter'

my sympathy lies 100% with the Hawaiian professor who is only trying to safeguard his language and culture by sticking to his priciples.

Go back a 100 or so years and it was Government policy to eradicate the language and the welsh culture, as it was seen that the two went hand in hand. Google 'welsh not' for more info.

Thankfully welsh is now the official language of Wales along with english.

And whilst I'm at it - a message to our American, Canadian and Antipodean cousins, please do not conflate the whole of Britain with 'England' - there are several other countries involved too.

I thank you

bobbys
01-26-2018, 07:08 PM
This argument has been raging over the years in my own small country. What we welsh speakers get is 'you all can speak English, so why don't you?' My answer is invariably 'why should I? It's my country and I wish to speak my own language. If you want to get on here, learn the language. If not bugger off and either find someone who can or an interpreter'

my sympathy lies 100% with the Hawaiian professor who is only trying to safeguard his language and culture by sticking to his priciples.

Go back a 100 or so years and it was Government policy to eradicate the language and the welsh culture, as it was seen that the two went hand in hand. Google 'welsh not' for more info.

Thankfully welsh is now the official language of Wales along with english.

And whilst I'm at it - a message to our American, Canadian and Antipodean cousins, please do not conflate the whole of Britain with 'England' - there are several other countries involved too.

I thank you.

Well , one can state that england, or britian or blighty or whatever all agree with stealing the falklands ..

Heres where i takes me bow...LOL

Hwyl
01-26-2018, 07:38 PM
We went through this with the Welsh language 40 years ago. At the time it was tough to do business in Welsh because olthough there were words for typewriter, clerk or subpoena (what were you saying about dying language Keith).

Through the bravery of people like the professor, we eventually got everything bilingual, even the road signs. I'll admit my driver's license renewal in Welsh was tough.

If a language is to be saved, then it has to be able to be used at all level's of society.

By the way, Skip's "ah bach" is a term of endearment,translates to "ah little one" (in this usage).

David G
01-26-2018, 09:14 PM
I hate it when people break laws, like vandals dressing up in ethnic costumes and committing malicious destruction of 46 tons of property worth anywhere from $1m to $1.7m in today's money. Jail the hooligans.

Oooohhh... I see what you did there. You are too danged subtitle for most of us!! <G>

Breakaway
01-26-2018, 10:13 PM
I also could not have expressed it better than, Keith.



One thing you NEVER do when in legal trouble is p*** off the judge!

Smart people know this.



So you think your notion of what's reasonable should carry more weight than the actual law?

The law doesn't mandate that one must speak Hawaiian. It accommodates those who ONLY speak Hawaiian.

Kevin

David G
01-26-2018, 10:15 PM
I also could not have expressed it better than, Keith.



Smart people know this.



The law doesn't mandate that one must speak Hawaiian. It accommodates those who ONLY speak Hawaiian.

Kevin''

As I understand the situation... this is incorrect. The law certified TWO official languages. He was speaking one of them. The judge took offense, charged him with contempt when he refused to switch to English... then realized he was legally off base, and reversed his ruling. No?

Breakaway
01-26-2018, 10:58 PM
As I understand the situation... this is incorrect. The law certified TWO official languages. He was speaking one of them. The judge took offense, charged him with contempt when he refused to switch to English... then realized he was legally off base, and reversed his ruling. No?

Yes. I agree there are two official languages. Nowhere, does it indicate that you MUST speak one or the other, or that you can refuse to use English if you know the other. Instead, the law is there to help those who don't possess English, not provide a loophole for those who possess both languages.

As far as the reversal... judges can have a lot of leeway in their own courtroom. I wouldn't presume to read his mind.

Kevin

Art Haberland
01-26-2018, 11:03 PM
It is interesting how this case has set off a few here in the Bilge. Coming from some Native American roots myself, I give kudos to the Professor to bring to light a problem native Hawaiians have with bigotry and prejudice. It is a shame he had to do it, but as in business, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

As for MLK used above. No doubt he spoke perfect English because that is what he knew. He was a beautiful orator with an impressive grasp of the English Language, but I doubt he knew any Native African Languages and even if he did, using them would not have helped his cause. Nice try with the Strawman argument.

johnw
01-26-2018, 11:04 PM
''

As I understand the situation... this is incorrect. The law certified TWO official languages. He was speaking one of them. The judge took offense, charged him with contempt when he refused to switch to English... then realized he was legally off base, and reversed his ruling. No?
I know of no American jurisdiction where there is an official language, but I'm willing to be educated.

The act was intended to provoke a response, and it did. Now we've all heard of Samuel's cause. The judge realized he'd been played.

Nicholas Carey
01-26-2018, 11:04 PM
This argument has been raging over the years in my own small country. What we welsh speakers get is 'you all can speak English, so why don't you?' My answer is invariably 'why should I? It's my country and I wish to speak my own language. If you want to get on here, learn the language. If not bugger off and either find someone who can or an interpreter'

my sympathy lies 100% with the Hawaiian professor who is only trying to safeguard his language and culture by sticking to his priciples.

Go back a 100 or so years and it was Government policy to eradicate the language and the welsh culture, as it was seen that the two went hand in hand. Google 'welsh not' for more info.

Thankfully welsh is now the official language of Wales along with english.

And whilst I'm at it - a message to our American, Canadian and Antipodean cousins, please do not conflate the whole of Britain with 'England' - there are several other countries involved too.

I thank you



Amen brother.

David G
01-27-2018, 12:09 AM
I know of no American jurisdiction where there is an official language, but I'm willing to be educated.

The act was intended to provoke a response, and it did. Now we've all heard of Samuel's cause. The judge realized he'd been played.

I was simply going from news reports - but here's some references --

https://statesymbolsusa.org/symbol-official-item/hawaii/state-language-poetry/hawaiian

http://www.alternative-hawaii.com/hacul/language.htm

http://www.ahapunanaleo.org/index.php?/about/a_timeline_of_revitalization/

David G
01-27-2018, 12:12 AM
Yes. I agree there are two official languages. Nowhere, does it indicate that you MUST speak one or the other, or that you can refuse to use English if you know the other.

Instead, the law is there to help those who don't possess English, not provide a loophole for those who possess both languages.

As far as the reversal... judges can have a lot of leeway in their own courtroom. I wouldn't presume to read his mind.

Kevin

Such is not my understanding, but I too am willing to be educated. References please...

---------------------------

Alright... I have one for you confirming my understanding of the situation. If you've got anything that would contradict or supercede that language, please share it.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/101/s2167/text

This is a Senate bill, introduced by Senator Daniel Inouye (D) Hawaii in 1990. It specifically gives states, and other bodies, the right to declare an indigenous Native American Language to be an official language. See Section 104 (5).

It also says, in Section 105 --

NO RESTRICTIONS


SEC. 105. The right of Native Americans to express themselves through the use of Native American languages shall not be restricted in any public proceeding, including publicly supported education programs.

Chip-skiff
01-27-2018, 01:01 AM
The prof's action was successful, as political provocation.

As a practical matter, if one wished to testify in a certain language (official or not) or was unable to testify in the language used by the court, there are means to engage a translator.

David G
01-27-2018, 01:06 AM
If you look up the Hawaian state constitution you find:


"OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Section 4. English and Hawaiian shall be the official languages of Hawaii, except that Hawaiian shall be required for public acts and transactions only as provided by law. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]"

So it looks like you need legal direction as to what specific laws say about the required use of the Hawaian language. I sympathize with the man, and his bringing the issue to light may clarify the situation, and perhaps even change things in a direction that he wants.

Language is just part of the picture. I listened to an activist speak last year. She lived in a beach park and insisted that she was not homeless, she was simply houseless, and that the island was her home.

How do you set 150 year old cataclysmic social changes right again? If I were in charge I would do it by distributing a combination of state and private lands to Hawaians based on % of native blood. Of course then over a million and a half people would hate me and a hundred thousand would love me, and the strife would never end.

That's interesting... and maybe in the end, it's simply a legalistic argument that the lawyers will have to settle. But - since 1990 - that Federal language seems pretty clear --

"The right of Native Americans to express themselves through the use of Native American languages shall not be restricted in any public proceeding".

I can't see how 'in any public proceeding' would not include a courtroom.

But Kevin has not chimed in yet. He seems pretty firmly committed to his interpretation. If he's got backup for it - maybe the above will turn out to be moot. From what I know so far, though, that seems unlikely.

Breakaway
01-27-2018, 02:07 AM
But Kevin has not chimed in yet. He seems pretty firmly committed to his interpretation. If he's got backup for it - maybe the above will turn out to be moot. From what I know so far, though, that seems unlikely.

David,

This is one of the links in the OP:

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/37344278/arrest-warrant-issued-after-maui-professor-speaks-hawaiian-in-court

In it, a newscaster, a prosecutor, and a supporter of the professor, all agree that the law applies to those whose English skills are limited. Those on the prof's side specifically want to change that bit of language to include say, (sic)" any language speaker." You can Forward the video to about the 1:50 mark to hear these statements.

Kevin

Phillip Allen
01-27-2018, 02:16 AM
gratuitous stirring of mud

Hwyl
01-27-2018, 04:15 AM
You guys are hiding cultural genocide under the cloak of pragmatism.

Captain Intrepid
01-27-2018, 04:33 AM
Yes. I agree there are two official languages. Nowhere, does it indicate that you MUST speak one or the other, or that you can refuse to use English if you know the other. Instead, the law is there to help those who don't possess English, not provide a loophole for those who possess both languages.

Kevin

If they truly are both official languages of the state, then one might as well say the provision is for people who don't speak Hawaiian.

Keith Wilson
01-27-2018, 08:59 AM
You guys are hiding cultural genocide under the cloak of pragmatism.Too late; that's already been done. Out of a population of 1.5 million in the islands only 20-some thousand are fluent in Hawaiian, and most not native speakers. The language of the vast majority of Hawaiians is English. Traditional Hawaiian culture was overwhelmed long ago by a vast influx of people from elsewhere. One may lament this, but it has already happened.

The court is obligated to provide an interpreter if someone is not fluent in English. They are not obligated to do so if a bilingual person is being a schmuck to make a political point.

Hwyl
01-27-2018, 09:05 AM
Too late; that's already been done. Out of a population of 1.5 million in the islands only 20-some thousand are fluent in Hawaiian, and most not native speakers. The language of the vast majority of Hawaiians is English. Traditional Hawaiian culture was overwhelmed long ago by a vast influx of people from elsewhere. One may lament this, but it has already happened.

The court is obligated to provide an interpreter if someone is not fluent in English. They are not obligated to do so if a bilingual person is being a schmuck to make a political point.

We'll have to agree to disagree. As has been said this kind of protest worked well in Wales, and the language was brought back from the brink.

Ian McColgin
01-27-2018, 09:42 AM
The actual meaning of "official" language is evolving at least in part because the forces that have been part of the last hundred and fifty years' hard work to exterminate the Hawiaiian language are unwilling to be a blunt and open as they once were. So when the constitution was ammended in the eighties, 'official' was not exactly defined or in any circumscribed but the first action under that provision was to make room for Hawaiian phrases and slogans on government letterheads, seals, and such. Then there was a major fight to oblige banks to cash checks written in Hawaiian. Now we have court debate in Hawaiian.

Hawaiians who have had a lifetime to not learn both official language must feel as I (no French) would feel were I to argue a Quebec traffic ticket.

Seems to me that a simple rule for places with more than one official language would be that defendent gets to pick the official language in which the matter will be argued. Dead minimum, defendant gets to argue in whatever official language she or he chooses and the court deals with interpreting both ways.

Translation between official languages can be fraught with peril. Any translation in courts of law can be freighted with error that can lead to false conviction, reversable error, and legal nightmare. Were I a defendent before a foreign court, I'd certainly want an interpreter but I would also hope to be absolutely fluent in the host language so that I could be certain that my intent in my language was being accurately conveyed through translation. In that manner, the professor's point stands as valid even though, especially though, he is likely more literate in English than our president, most of his appointees, and at least half our congress.

The state of Hawaii voted to have two official languages. I think that the start of honorable attempts to heal the wounds of a racist and exploitive history.

Too Little Time
01-27-2018, 09:56 AM
Here's the details. It's far more interesting than the msn condensed version.

http://m.hawaiinewsnow.com/hawaiinewsnow/db_330510/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=YTPnUXB5
I took the time to read your link. It is indeed more interesting and more informative than the msn version.

I will make the observation that his behavior in court was consistent with the behavior that put him in court in the first place.

While use of the Hawaiian language is at the discretion of the judge, it seems to be proper for a person who wants to uphold native Hawaiian rights to demand the use of the Hawaiian language.

bobbys
01-27-2018, 10:05 AM
The actual meaning of "official" language is evolving at least in part because the forces that have been part of the last hundred and fifty years' hard work to exterminate the Hawiaiian language are unwilling to be a blunt and open as they once were. So when the constitution was ammended in the eighties, 'official' was not exactly defined or in any circumscribed but the first action under that provision was to make room for Hawaiian phrases and slogans on government letterheads, seals, and such. Then there was a major fight to oblige banks to cash checks written in Hawaiian. Now we have court debate in Hawaiian.

Hawaiians who have had a lifetime to not learn both official language must feel as I (no French) would feel were I to argue a Quebec traffic ticket.

Seems to me that a simple rule for places with more than one official language would be that defendent gets to pick the official language in which the matter will be argued. Dead minimum, defendant gets to argue in whatever official language she or he chooses and the court deals with interpreting both ways.

Translation between official languages can be fraught with peril. Any translation in courts of law can be freighted with error that can lead to false conviction, reversable error, and legal nightmare. Were I a defendent before a foreign court, I'd certainly want an interpreter but I would also hope to be absolutely fluent in the host language so that I could be certain that my intent in my language was being accurately conveyed through translation. In that manner, the professor's point stands as valid even though, especially though, he is likely more literate in English than our president, most of his appointees, and at least half our congress.

The state of Hawaii voted to have two official languages. I think that the start of honorable attempts to heal the wounds of a racist and exploitive history..

TDS... when one cannot post without taking a shot at trump no matter how .illrelevent.

David G
01-27-2018, 11:15 AM
.

David,

This is one of the links in the OP:

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/37344278/arrest-warrant-issued-after-maui-professor-speaks-hawaiian-in-court

In it, a newscaster, a prosecutor, and a supporter of the professor, all agree that the law applies to those whose English skills are limited. Those on the prof's side specifically want to change that bit of language to include say, (sic)" any language speaker." You can Forward the video to about the 1:50 mark to hear these statements.

Kevin

Yes... I saw the assertions. And they have been repeated here. Repeating them yet again does not advance us. What I was thinking you might come up with was language in the Hawaiian law that would back up those assertions. And maybe something that would address the issues of reconciling what the Hawaiian law says with what the Federal law says. Which statute takes precedence if they conflict? And no matter which stance they favor, I find TV news... and the pronouncements of some old, retired, white guy... unconvincing. As sources.

What I can find in the Hawiian Constitution is the following, which has been cited here already... but, I believe, misinterpreted. You'll note that the language of the statute is that Hawaiian can be required only by specific inclusion in subsequent laws. Required. Not 'allowed'. If there are subsequent Hawaiian laws inverting that approach, I'm unaware of them. But that seems to be what you are arguing so persistently and erroneously --

OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Section 4. English and Hawaiian shall be the official languages of Hawaii, except that Hawaiian shall be required for public acts and transactions only as provided by law. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

Too Little Time
01-27-2018, 12:07 PM
Yes... I saw the assertions. And they have been repeated here. Repeating them yet again does not advance us. What I was thinking you might come up with was language in the Hawaiian law that would back up those assertions. And maybe something that would address the issues of reconciling what the Hawaiian law says with what the Federal law says. Which statute takes precedence if they conflict? And no matter which stance they favor, I find TV news... and the pronouncements of some old, retired, white guy... unconvincing. As sources.

What I can find in the Hawiian Constitution is the following, which has been cited here already... but, I believe, misinterpreted. You'll note that the languages that Hawaiian can be required only by specific inclusion in subsequent laws. Required. Not 'allowed'. If there are subsequent Hawaiian laws inverting that approach, I'm unaware of them. But that seems to be what you are arguing. --

OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Section 4. English and Hawaiian shall be the official languages of Hawaii, except that Hawaiian shall be required for public acts and transactions only as provided by law. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]
Even I know that use of Hawaiian in court is at the discretion of the judge. I got that from a link posted above. It is really not that hard to find the facts.

David G
01-27-2018, 12:08 PM
Even I know that use of Hawaiian in court is at the discretion of the judge. I got that from a link posted above. It is really not that hard to find the facts.

Citation, please. Which link are you referring to?

Hwyl
01-27-2018, 12:19 PM
It's all moot anyway https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/professors-arrest-ordered-after-he-speaks-hawaiian-in-court/2018/01/25/73c73b98-01fb-11e8-86b9-8908743c79dd_story.html?utm_term=.f9250b8fd387


I wish the Hawaiian people good luck in their endeavour to maintain their culture.

David G
01-27-2018, 12:34 PM
It's all moot anyway https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/professors-arrest-ordered-after-he-speaks-hawaiian-in-court/2018/01/25/73c73b98-01fb-11e8-86b9-8908743c79dd_story.html?utm_term=.f9250b8fd387


I wish the Hawaiian people good luck in their endeavour to maintain their culture.

I wouldn't say it's moot at all. It is just a small skirmish in a larger battle against cultural oppression... and even the outcome of this skirmish is not yet decided. From the link... you'll notice that they are now 'reviewing' their policies.

The Hawaii State Judiciary said previously in a statement that there is no legal requirement “to provide Hawaiian language interpreters to court participants who speak English but prefer to speak in Hawaiian” and that judges can grant or deny the requests.
On Thursday, the Judiciary said it will be reviewing policies for providing Hawaiian language interpreters.

In bureaucrat-speak, I take that to mean, that - despite Hawaiian being an official language - the forces of oppression have been successful enough at quashing Hawaiian culture/language/self-esteem that no one in an official capacity ever thought about the actual meaning of the status of 'official language'. No one thought to make practical and administrative arrangements to actually have it BE one. And probably no one had pushed the issue. Until now.

So the "Hawaii State Judiciary" (shall I open a betting line on what % them are old white/asian guys... and what % are natives?) is now looking at the language, and the legality, and realizing that they might need to change their stance. So, rather than admitting their error, they decide to 'review' things.

Maybe that's good. Maybe they will take an honest look at the situation, and make any necessary changes. Or maybe they are just delaying - in the musty way of dithering bureaucrats everywhere - hoping this unpleasantness will blow over before they have to make any hard decisions.

Too Little Time
01-27-2018, 12:59 PM
Citation, please. Which link are you referring to?
The one in post #9. And now the same information is repeated in a link in post #81. But I see from your post #82 you seem to have a different view of the comments than I do.

David G
01-27-2018, 01:20 PM
The one in post #9. And now the same information is repeated in a link in post #81. But I see from your post #82 you seem to have a different view of the comments than I do.

You should click that link again. It's been updated. You'll find that the State Judiciary has changed its stance, as of y'day. They will now, as I had hoped, and as I believe correct per the laws, provide for legal proceedings to be run in Hawaiian OR English. Through the provision of interpreters.

http://m.hawaiinewsnow.com/hawaiinewsnow/db_330510/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=YTPnUXB5

Dave Hadfield
01-27-2018, 01:41 PM
It costs you, the taxpayer, money, and slows down government and jurisprudence.

Sure it's more fair. But you have to pay for it.

We have some courts allowing Cree and other native languages in the Northern communities. But if it had to be made available in Toronto? Stupid.

David G
01-27-2018, 01:52 PM
I'm surprised at how many joined the chorus in this discussion in the spirit of Creeping OldPhartism. But join they did, a chorus it's been (with some notably articulate, knowledgeable, carefully considered dissension), and grumpy old pharts they've behaved.


From the pen of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. --

“For when people get caught up with that which is right and they are willing to sacrifice for it, there is no stopping point short of victory.”

"True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice."

“We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

Dave Hadfield
01-27-2018, 06:03 PM
We in Canada have a great deal of experience with it.

David G
01-27-2018, 06:25 PM
We in Canada have a great deal of experience with it.

We have some of the same issues with native languages here in the NW. And clearly the Welsh have fresh memories of the same dynamic.

Too Little Time
01-27-2018, 07:23 PM
You should click that link again. It's been updated. You'll find that the State Judiciary has changed its stance, as of y'day. They will now, as I had hoped, and as I believe correct per the laws, provide for legal proceedings to be run in Hawaiian OR English. Through the provision of interpreters.

http://m.hawaiinewsnow.com/hawaiinewsnow/db_330510/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=YTPnUXB5
As I said it is still a matter of discretion. And those who make the court rules have directed discretion toward providing interpreters when asked to.

I think that is the right direction.

David G
01-27-2018, 08:16 PM
As I said it is still a matter of discretion. And those who make the court rules have directed discretion toward providing interpreters when asked to.

I think that is the right direction.

Discretion? Sorta, kinda, maybe, probably not. As far as I can tell - and no one has shown any language to the contrary despite repeated invitations - the law makes those two languages co-equal. The fact that habit and custom has (as the result of suppression efforts by the white boys) been to use English... Hawaiian has equal standing. No discretion involved. And when the State Judiciary TRIED to act as if they did have discretion, and found themselves challenged, they had to back down. Hence the revised ruling. No 'discretion' involved - unless you mean 'discretion is the greater part of valor'.

You have a real talent for grasping only a part of the picture... and running with it. Back on ignore wit' ya'.

David G
01-27-2018, 08:17 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwNm5h61F4I

Ian McColgin
01-28-2018, 09:40 AM
Side riff on Iris DeMent's song.

By the time I was at the top of my life as a community organizer I was settled in on my approach to public demonstrations -"actions" as we termed it. Of course it had to be interesting and newsworthy. People I worked with on Cape Cod - poor people, welfare mothers, homeless, nursing home workers and residents - liked a touch of being offensive but generally did not want an "arrest strategy". I do not believe in organizing a set-up where people are surprised into civil disobedience. So on that front, we had long strategy sessions on how to diffuse (de-fuse) situations, especially if more aggressively militant people or provocateurs were in our crowd. And we had at least one attorney standing by with plenty of blank representation forms.

Mostly we tried to make it fun. Songs are a huge part of that.

If you have enough songs, you can avoid that international cadence universal demonstration chant for any language that in English mostly starts off "Two. Four. Six. Eight. Who (Or What) do we (any four syllables that end in -ate). Anyway, rhyme to your four strong first syllables. I remember getting involved in a small anti-war action in Hong Kong in the early '70s. That horrid chant sounded to my arrogantly western ear like, "Chow! Chi! Jong! Jong! . . . " to which I was rhyming in with " . . . I'd really rather smoke a bong." I've even seen that horrid chant on TV in Arabic during the Arab Spring.

Anyway, songs. I had the habit of a night-before pizza and beer session where we'd make some signs and work on some songs. A good protest song needs to have an easy to learn melody or (in the tradition of everyone from Joe Hill on) be a popular melody readily adaptable to timely lyrics. Ideally there's a rousing refrain that will be sung by anyone between the verses sung by one person with a real voice. And the verse melody should lend itself to spontaneous new lyrics so that people in the crowd can make up their own. To help that along, we'd salt the crowd with people from the pizza&beer session who each had a verse ready.

Our leaders and regular members knew that their singing had to be seriously loud to overcome my voice which is both loud and can cause seagulls to fall dead from the sky.

I had friends from the Boston area, Western Mass, and the North Country who'd drive in for the day. A couple of friends from Oregon even timed visits East to join in. Our actions rocked.

"We Won't Keep Quiet" exactly fills the bill. Thank you David.

David G
01-28-2018, 10:39 AM
Side riff on Iris DeMent's song.

By the time I was at the top of my life as a community organizer I was settled in on my approach to public demonstrations -"actions" as we termed it. Of course it had to be interesting and newsworthy. People I worked with on Cape Cod - poor people, welfare mothers, homeless, nursing home workers and residents - liked a touch of being offensive but generally did not want an "arrest strategy". I do not believe in organizing a set-up where people are surprised into civil disobedience. So on that front, we had long strategy sessions on how to diffuse (de-fuse) situations, especially if more aggressively militant people or provocateurs were in our crowd. And we had at least one attorney standing by with plenty of blank representation forms.

Mostly we tried to make it fun. Songs are a huge part of that.

If you have enough songs, you can avoid that international cadence universal demonstration chant for any language that in English mostly starts off "Two. Four. Six. Eight. Who (Or What) do we (any four syllables that end in -ate). Anyway, rhyme to your four strong first syllables. I remember getting involved in a small anti-war action in Hong Kong in the early '70s. That horrid chant sounded to my arrogantly western ear like, "Chow! Chi! Jong! Jong! . . . " to which I was rhyming in with " . . . I'd really rather smoke a bong." I've even seen that horrid chant on TV in Arabic during the Arab Spring.

Anyway, songs. I had the habit of a night-before pizza and beer session where we'd make some signs and work on some songs. A good protest song needs to have an easy to learn melody or (in the tradition of everyone from Joe Hill on) be a popular melody readily adaptable to timely lyrics. Ideally there's a rousing refrain that will be sung by anyone between the verses sung by one person with a real voice. And the verse melody should lend itself to spontaneous new lyrics so that people in the crowd can make up their own. To help that along, we'd salt the crowd with people from the pizza&beer session who each had a verse ready.

Our leaders and regular members knew that their singing had to be seriously loud to overcome my voice which is both loud and can cause seagulls to fall dead from the sky.

I had friends from the Boston area, Western Mass, and the North Country who'd drive in for the day. A couple of friends from Oregon even timed visits East to join in. Our actions rocked.

"We Won't Keep Quiet" exactly fills the bill. Thank you David.

My dj buddy puts out a 'best of' compilation CD every xmas. That one is from his 2017 disc. I'd not heard it before, but like it a lot.

Breakaway
01-28-2018, 10:40 AM
David,

You keep conflating the language relative to the state language(s) of Hawaii with the rules for procedure in a courtroom.

Here is a a quote from the Associated Press, as published in at washingtonpost.com. Do realize both of these organizations operate television departments, but here is the quote and the link.

The Hawaii State Judiciary said previously in a statement that there is no legal requirement “to provide Hawaiian language interpreters to court participants who speak English but prefer to speak in Hawaiian” and that judges can grant or deny the requests.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/professors-arrest-ordered-after-he-speaks-hawaiian-in-court/2018/01/25/73c73b98-01fb-11e8-86b9-8908743c79dd_story.html?utm_term=.84710d411e92



The professor's action was a stunt, done for what appears a good cause, but also at the expense of the time and convenience of other citizens utilizing the court system and wanting to get on with their business as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Kevin

David G
01-28-2018, 10:48 AM
David,

You keep conflating the language relative to the state language(s) of Hawaii with the rules for procedure in a courtroom.

Here is a a quote from the Associated Press, as published in at washingtonpost.com. Do realize both of these organizations operate television departments, but here is the quote and the link.

The Hawaii State Judiciary said previously in a statement that there is no legal requirement “to provide Hawaiian language interpreters to court participants who speak English but prefer to speak in Hawaiian” and that judges can grant or deny the requests.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/professors-arrest-ordered-after-he-speaks-hawaiian-in-court/2018/01/25/73c73b98-01fb-11e8-86b9-8908743c79dd_story.html?utm_term=.84710d411e92



The professor's action was a stunt, done for what appears a good cause, but also at the expense of the time and convenience of other citizens utilizing the court system and wanting to get on with their business as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Kevin

And the Hawaii State Judiciary has since reversed itself. See the link in my #84. If you're going to contend, it would be helpful if you'd read what's been said first.

Keith Wilson
01-28-2018, 10:50 AM
The state should not have to provide interpreters for those who are fluent in English, whatever language they'd rather speak. If someone doesn't speak English well enough, whatever their first language, an interpreter should be required. AFAIK, that's current policy. Whatever the mistreatment of native Hawaiians in now or in the past, Mr Kakeo's stunt did nothing to help them. He was just being a politically-motivated jerk.

George Jung
01-28-2018, 10:52 AM
The state capitulating doesn’t change the point.

David G
01-28-2018, 11:04 AM
The state should not have to provide interpreters for those who are fluent in English, whatever language they'd rather speak. If someone doesn't speak English well enough, whatever their first language, an interpreter should be required. AFAIK, that's current policy. Whatever the mistreatment of native Hawaiians in now or in the past, Mr Kakeo's stunt did nothing to help them. He was just being a politically-motivated jerk.

You're welcome to an opinion about how they 'should' have written the law to be most sensible. But it seems apparent by now that the way the DID write it means that any of the actors (attorneys, court reporter, prosecutor, judge, bailiff, etc.) can speak either of the languages they choose to. They apparently did this to respond to criticism of the proposed new statehood constitution that natives were being slighted in many ways. And you misapprehend 'current policy'. I will recommend to you as well, clicking the link at #84 for the updated official interpretation. My #82 lays out my deduction about the process that led to that reversal.

I couldn't disagree more about his 'stunt' failing to be useful. As a long-time small-time participant and organizer of political actions, I see both utility and genius in his approach. On this point, I'll refer you back to my #86.

David G
01-28-2018, 11:05 AM
The state capitulating doesn’t change the point.

Which point are you referring to?

miketaylor
01-28-2018, 11:22 AM
I have been following this discussion with interest.

It appears that no one has directly stated what seems to me to be obvious.

The professor is entitled to use either English or Hawaiian under the terms of the state constitution. He is fluent in both languages but elects to use Hawaiian as is his right.

The judge apparently cannot understand Hawaiian. The professor does not require an interpreter. The Judge does.

Mike

David G
01-28-2018, 11:26 AM
I have been following this discussion with interest.

It appears that no one has directly stated what seems to me to be obvious.

The professor is entitled to use either English or Hawaiian under the terms of the state constitution. He is fluent in both languages but elects to use Hawaiian as is his right.

The judge apparently cannot understand Hawaiian. The professor does not require an interpreter. The Judge does.

Mike

Indeed. I've hinted at this a few times, including in my #98, just above.

Canoeyawl
01-28-2018, 11:47 AM
I have been following this discussion with interest.

It appears that no one has directly stated what seems to me to be obvious.

The professor is entitled to use either English or Hawaiian under the terms of the state constitution. He is fluent in both languages but elects to use Hawaiian as is his right.

The judge apparently cannot understand Hawaiian. The professor does not require an interpreter. The Judge does.

Mike

I think he figured that out...
And if he pushes it, a new judge would be required.

Canoeyawl
01-28-2018, 11:58 AM
Don't you dare speak your native tounge on your native soil!!!this is my courtroom and i do not have to learn your gibberish. I am the conqueror here and you are the ignorant savages and need to learn your place!!!

Genius really, I wonder how many more people are now alerted to the plight of native Hawaiians?
The judge is a little obtuse and was blindsided.

CWSmith
01-28-2018, 12:00 PM
The state should not have to provide interpreters for those who are fluent in English, ...


Under ordinary conditions, this would be sensible. I think we have to recognize that the behavior in court was a continuation of what got him there. It points to there being problems in the society and this changes the dynamic in the courtroom. This is not a privileged citizen choosing to speak Latin just to be a jerk.



Whatever the mistreatment of native Hawaiians in now or in the past, Mr Kakeo's stunt did nothing to help them. He was just being a politically-motivated jerk.

Perhaps, but if his intention was to raise awareness he was successful. We continue to discuss it here.

David G
01-28-2018, 12:04 PM
Don't you dare speak your native tounge on your native soil!!!this is my courtroom and i do not have to learn your gibberish. I am the conqueror here and you are the ignorant savages and need to learn your place!!!

Put into the bluntest, harshest, rudest terms... that it.

But I don't fault the judge terrible much for being befuddled, and a bit offended, when a long-time practice was challenged. It had been going on for so long that it had become the 'norm'... and accepted as 'right' and 'legal'. It took someone being obstreperous for them to twig to the legal facts. To their credit, the governing body did reverse their stance (after examining the law more closely, one would imagine).

Breakaway
01-28-2018, 12:05 PM
And the Hawaii State Judiciary has since reversed itself. See the link in my #84. If you're going to contend, it would be helpful if you'd read what's been said first.



You are overstating your case, sir. The law still only provides a guarantee of an interpreter for those who do not possess English. The updated link reports that the state judiciary will change the POLICY ( not the law) and provide interpreters for those who request it TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.( IOW: not guaranteed ).

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Canoeyawl
01-28-2018, 12:09 PM
Put into the bluntest, harshest, rudest terms... that it.

But I don't fault the judge terrible much for being befuddled, and a bit offended, when a long-time practice was challenged. It had been going on for so long that it had become the 'norm'... and accepted as 'right' and 'legal'. It took someone being obstreperous for them to twig to the legal facts.

Like blacks on the back of the bus...

David G
01-28-2018, 12:35 PM
You are overstating your case, sir. The law still only provides a guarantee of an interpreter for those who do not possess English. The updated link reports that the state judiciary will change the POLICY ( not the law) and provide interpreters for those who request it TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.( IOW: not guaranteed ).

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I'm going to ask one more time for a reference. Where does the statute say that? I've shown what it does say. what do you say to that? Any response or rebuttal... or will you simply go on endlessly and bootlessly repeating your unsupported assertions?

David G
01-28-2018, 12:39 PM
Like blacks on the back of the bus...

Like Rosa Parks being obstreperous.

And it often takes a while for common practice, administrative rules, etc. to catch up. It's a process and a drama. Complete with apologists, people easily offended, those resistant to any form of change (often the elderly, but not exclusively), those with vested interests, actual racists, etc.

George Jung
01-28-2018, 12:50 PM
That’s quite the house you’ve built- cards, is it? This was a stunt- well done, successful though it seems. Best locale being our courts? Maybe. It’s not like they’re doing anything important. So what’s the cure? Dual language judges/staff/lawyers? Maybe duplicate court systems based on language? Or maybe- stipulation of needs before appearing in court?

Tough to to see what makes the most sense.

David G
01-28-2018, 01:09 PM
That’s quite the house you’ve built- cards, is it? This was a stunt- well done, successful though it seems. Best locale being our courts? Maybe. It’s not like they’re doing anything important. So what’s the cure? Dual language judges/staff/lawyers? Maybe duplicate court systems based on language? Or maybe- stipulation of needs before appearing in court?

Tough to to see what makes the most sense.

House of cards? Naaahh. I've just been dealing with various issues like this, and the authorities involved, for a lot of years. I know the dynamics. I know the patterns, I know the tactics - both legitimate and underhanded from the authorities, both polite and outrageous from the resisters. I know the excuses and rationales from the institutions and their apologists.

I don't know what the 'correct' policy is regarding the courts and other public venues. Perhaps the designation of English as the everyday language, and a requirement to provide a Hawaiian interpreter with prior notice.

But really, it's really not that hard as a practical matter, now that the official body has had it pointed out that the law puts the native language as co-equal... and not really that important in the scheme of things. It's one small skirmish, as I've already noted. A venue that became available to this particular 'uppity native'. The core issue is larger, and the main value of this skirmish is to raise awareness of the issue. THAT is an ongoing challenge for oppressed groups. Most of us have plenty of challenges in our everyday lives, and don't really want to hear about it, no matter how just the cause.

Canoeyawl
01-28-2018, 01:20 PM
That’s quite the house you’ve built- cards, is it? This was a stunt- well done, successful though it seems. Best locale being our courts? Maybe. It’s not like they’re doing anything important. So what’s the cure? Dual language judges/staff/lawyers? Maybe duplicate court systems based on language? Or maybe- stipulation of needs before appearing in court?

Tough to to see what makes the most sense.

Gulags work...

Ian McColgin
01-28-2018, 03:03 PM
Of course it was a stunt. Of course it addresses several very real and deep issues. And of course it exploits the fact that one might rely on the law regarding provision of an interpreter if one insists on treating Hawaiian as simply a language other than English. But that statute does not address in any way the fact that Hawaiian is an "official language". Hawaiian in Hawaii is not just another foreign language. The constitution and various other laws and rulings address places where Hawaiian may be required, other places where Hawaiian must be accepted, but does not specifically address use in a court of law.

Nicholas Carey
01-28-2018, 03:07 PM
You are overstating your case, sir. The law still only provides a guarantee of an interpreter for those who do not possess English. The updated link reports that the state judiciary will change the POLICY ( not the law) and provide interpreters for those who request it TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.( IOW: not guaranteed ).



The state constitution provides that Hawaiian is one of two officials languages of the state, and thus legal for use in court proceedings, contracts, etc. The accused chose to speak in Hawaiian: the burden of understanding lies on the judge and the court.

And, as the accused, the defendant doesn't have to speak one word. He could remain mute if he so desired.

I might add, that Hawaiian being an official language of the State of Hawaii, court submittals on the part of the accused and his attorneys could have been submitted to the court in Hawaiian.

Nicholas Carey
01-28-2018, 04:07 PM
The Hawaiian State Constitution provides in Art. XV, Section 4 (http://lrbhawaii.org/con/constitution/CONST%200015-0004.html) that:


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

Section 4. English and Hawaiian shall be the official languages of Hawaii, except that Hawaiian shall be required for public acts and transactions only as provided by law. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

Cross References
Statutory provisions, see §§1-13 and 13.5.


The only mention of the Hawaiian language that I can find in the revised Statutes of Hawaii is the above-listed statutory cross-references


HI Rev Stat § 1-13 (2014):

§1-13 Official languages. (https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch0001-0042F/HRS0001/HRS_0001-0013.htm) English and Hawaiian are the official languages of Hawaii. Whenever there is found to exist any radical and irreconcilable difference between the English and Hawaiian version of any of the laws of the State, the English version shall be held binding. Hawaiian shall not be required for public acts and transactions. (emphasis mine) [L 1864, p 68; RL 1925, §26; RL 1935, §9; RL 1945, §8; RL 1955, §1-16; HRS §1-13; am L 1979, c 97, §2]

HI Rev Stat § 1-13.5 (2014):

§1-13.5 Hawaiian language; spelling. (https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch0001-0042F/HRS0001/HRS_0001-0013_0005.htm) Macrons and glottal stops may be used in the spelling of words or terms in the Hawaiian language in documents prepared by or for state or county agencies or officials. Any rule, order, policy, or other act, official or otherwise, that prohibits or discourages the use of these symbols shall be void. [L 1992, c 169, §2]


Alll the legislature has done is prohibit the requirement of the Hawaiian language; it has not prohibited its use, and, that being the case, longstanding precedent in US law holds that that which is not explicitly forbidden is, by default, allowed.

David G
01-28-2018, 06:08 PM
The Hawaiian State Constitution provides in Art. XV, Section 4 (http://lrbhawaii.org/con/constitution/CONST%200015-0004.html) that:

OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

Section 4. English and Hawaiian shall be the official languages of Hawaii, except that Hawaiian shall be required for public acts and transactions only as provided by law. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

Cross References
Statutory provisions, see §§1-13 and 13.5.


The only mention of the Hawaiian language that I can find in the revised Statutes of Hawaii is the above-listed statutory cross-references


HI Rev Stat § 1-13 (2014):

§1-13 Official languages. (https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch0001-0042F/HRS0001/HRS_0001-0013.htm) English and Hawaiian are the official languages of Hawaii. Whenever there is found to exist any radical and irreconcilable difference between the English and Hawaiian version of any of the laws of the State, the English version shall be held binding. Hawaiian shall not be required for public acts and transactions. (emphasis mine) [L 1864, p 68; RL 1925, §26; RL 1935, §9; RL 1945, §8; RL 1955, §1-16; HRS §1-13; am L 1979, c 97, §2]
HI Rev Stat § 1-13.5 (2014):

§1-13.5 Hawaiian language; spelling. (https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch0001-0042F/HRS0001/HRS_0001-0013_0005.htm) Macrons and glottal stops may be used in the spelling of words or terms in the Hawaiian language in documents prepared by or for state or county agencies or officials. Any rule, order, policy, or other act, official or otherwise, that prohibits or discourages the use of these symbols shall be void. [L 1992, c 169, §2]


Alll the legislature has done is prohibit the requirement of the Hawaiian language; it has not prohibited its use, and, that being the case, longstanding precedent in US law holds that that which is not explicitly forbidden is, by default, allowed.

Yes. And that's the ONLY relevant verbiage I can find in the document. As I said back in my #78.

I keep inviting those arguing otherwise to provide some language, some section of the document, SOME evidence, but instead they just keep repeating their seemingly erroneous, and unbuttressed, assertions. Makes me wish I could send the 3 Stooges to their homes to 'reason' with them <G>

George Jung
01-28-2018, 06:12 PM
Family?��

David G
01-28-2018, 06:19 PM
Family?��

George - do you have anything of substance to offer to argue against the legitimacy of this fellow's approach? Or are you simply going to ride Keith's 'he was a pill, and should, therefore, be discounted/denigrated' train?

Chris249
01-28-2018, 07:19 PM
I must say it is a sad comment on the Brits on how easily they let vermin take the place over.

Sorry, but why apparently blame the British for illegal acts by US citizens? Not even the US president was in favour of what happened but they apparently felt there was no way of turning the clock back. How were the British going to do so effectively?

Chris249
01-28-2018, 07:21 PM
Thanks to Nicholas for providing the relevant information.

Great posts, Ian, David, Hwyl and Clouds.

Chris249
01-28-2018, 07:28 PM
.

Well , one can state that england, or britian or blighty or whatever all agree with stealing the falklands ..

Heres where i takes me bow...LOL

Go away and take your lies with you.

George Jung
01-28-2018, 07:51 PM
George - do you have anything of substance to offer to argue against the legitimacy of this fellow's approach? Or are you simply going to ride Keith's 'he was a pill, and should, therefore, be discounted/denigrated' train?

There's been enough hot air on this one already, with the same points repeated - ad nauseum. Your 'three stooges' comment was a nice touch. I've already stated my take on this - you simply haven't liked it. Keith does have it right - as do I, and others. YMMV.

Phil Y
01-28-2018, 10:19 PM
I'm very surprised the Prof has received so little support here. I think he made an important point and made it well. It matters that the language and culture of the indigenous inhabitants of any country should be preserved. It matters a lot. Good on him for taking a stand on behalf of others less able to do so. I'm glad the judge ultimately recognised his error and reversed himself. Dissapointed though that he acted as a bigoted bully in the first place.

Keith Wilson
01-29-2018, 08:13 AM
Could someone please tell us how many people there are who speak Hawaiian as a first language, and are not also fluent in English? 98+ percent of the citizens of the islands do not speak Hawaiian at all.

Several points:

- Yes, the Hawaiian Islands were invaded, conquered, and overrun by mostly English-speaking people, and the original inhabitants dispossessed and sometimes killed. The same can be said for all of North America, but that train left the station a long time ago. Does Mr. Ka'eo's action affect this at all? Does it make things even a little more just, or does it merely make him feel virtuous and gets his name in the paper?

- One can make a plausible case that keeping the Hawaiian language alive would be a good idea. At one point it was actively suppressed. Is Mr. Ka'eo helping this cause? How?

- Do you guys really think that someone fluent in English should be allowed to conduct his business in Hawaiian around monolingual English-speakers, and it should be the English-speakers' responsibility to figure out what he's saying, and provide an interpreter? Is this really just? Does it really help his cause? Honestly, if this kind of thing becomes common, I can see a movement among the 98% who don't speak the language to remove its official status.

- Samuel Kaleikoa Ka‘eo is an associate professor of Hawaiian Studies, Department of Humanities at the University of Hawaii, Maui College. Hawaiian is an official language of the state; he works for a state college. Let us say he decides to teach his courses in Hawaiian, and require that the exams and papers be written in Hawaiian (notwithstanding the fact that Hawaiian is written in Roman letters, and was not a written language at all until westerners arrived). Should he be able to do this, despite the fact that only a couple of percent of his students can speak the language fluently?

Hwyl
01-29-2018, 09:07 AM
I'm amazed at your stance on this Keith.

Keith Wilson
01-29-2018, 09:47 AM
Be amazed if you like. I have a fair amount of sympathy for the concerns of native Hawaiians, and God knows they've suffered injustices, but I think Mr. Ka'eo is being stupid about it, and probably harming his cause more than he's helping it.

This is not Martin Luther King refusing to leave a segregated lunch counter in Birmingham.

George Jung
01-29-2018, 10:33 AM
Yep. I'm surprised by those who feel his windmill jousting is 'just', or useful.

Canoeyawl
01-29-2018, 11:37 AM
This is not Martin Luther King refusing to leave a segregated lunch counter in Birmingham.

I'm not so sure of that.
It is not my struggle and I know little about it, but (legally) attracting attention for a just cause is a noble thing.

CWSmith
01-29-2018, 11:41 AM
Does anyone really think this is about language? Clearly, language is being used to make a point about a bigger issue. I am not sure the prof. was as successful at it as he might have wished, but I doubt this is just about language.

Keith Wilson
01-29-2018, 11:53 AM
Of course it isn't just about language. But this is a counterproductive way to make a point about a larger issue.

When black folks refused to leave a segregated lunch counter, their point was that segregation was unjust, and they should be able to eat lunch there if they wanted. When a man fluent in English refuses to speak it, and insists that everyone else accommodate his desire to speak Hawaiian - what point is he making? What end is he trying to achieve?

CWSmith
01-29-2018, 12:06 PM
Of course it isn't just about language. But this is a counterproductive way to make a point about a larger issue.

When black folks refused to leave a segregated lunch counter, their point was that segregation was unjust, and they should be able to eat lunch there if they wanted. When a man fluent in English refuses to speak it, and insists that everyone else accommodate his desire to speak Hawaiian - what point is he making? What end is he trying to achieve?

When the indigenous people have been relegated to an impoverished second-class state, is calling attention to that fact by speaking the native language (legally) in a court of law such a bad thing?

Nicholas Carey
01-29-2018, 12:12 PM
Try

And [url="http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/census/acs/Report/Detailed_Language_March2016.pdf"]Detailed Languages Spoken at Home in the State of Hawaii (https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10524/431/JL34007.pdf?sequence=2)

In a nutshell, not very many people speak Hawaiian. That's not really the issue, but it IS the problem. Further, the bigger issue is this: Hawaii is a very polyglot state, in fact, the polyglot of all 50 states. A lot of people don't speak English very well. From the above executive summary:

- There were 326,893 people comprising 25.4% of Hawaii&rsquo;s population who spoke a language other than English at home. At least 130 languages were spoken in this state. Tagalog with 58,345 speakers, Ilocano with 54,005 speakers and Japanese with 45,633 speakers were the top languages. In the State of Hawaii, 48.8% of those who spoke another language at home spoke the English language less than &ldquo;very well&rdquo;.

- There were 250,517 people comprising 27.8% of Honolulu County&rsquo;s population who spoke a language other than English at home. At least 120 languages were spoken in this county. Tagalog with 45,163 speakers, Japanese with 38,561 speakers and Ilocano with 36,275 speakers were the languages with the largest number of speakers living in Honolulu County. Of all the speakers who spoke a language other than English at home, a majority of 52% spoke English less than &ldquo;very well.&rdquo;

- There were 32,732 people comprising 18.7% of Hawaii County&rsquo;s population who spoke a language other than English at home. A total of at least 60 languages were spoken in this county. Hawaiian with 5,920 speakers, Ilocano with 4,555 speakers, Spanish with 4,440 speakers, Tagalog with 4,395 speakers, and Japanese with 4,094 speakers were the languages with the largest number of speakers living in Hawaii County. In total, Hawaii County had 31.1% of these people who used another language at home speaking English less than &ldquo;very well.&rdquo;

Keith Wilson
01-29-2018, 12:14 PM
When the indigenous people have been relegated to an impoverished second-class state, is calling attention to that fact by speaking the native language (legally) in a court of law such a bad thing?Is that what he's doing? Yes, Hawaii was stolen from the original inhabitants long ago, as was all of the western hemisphere. (For that matter, just about every habitable piece of land on earth has been conquered and reconquered many times, but leave that aside.) How does going to court and refusing to speak the language of most of Hawaii's citizens, a language in which he's perfectly fluent, advance the cause of native Hawaiians?

I agree 100% that a court should provide an interpreter for someone not fluent in English, whatever language they may speak.

CWSmith
01-29-2018, 12:31 PM
How does going to court and refusing to speak the language of most of Hawaii's citizens, a language in which he's perfectly fluent, advance the cause of native Hawaiians?

Well, for starters they got us talking about it for several days. It has elevated my awareness of the native Hawaiian people and I doubt I am alone. So, he actually did succeed at some level.

Too Little Time
01-29-2018, 01:19 PM
Yes. And that's the ONLY relevant verbiage I can find in the document. As I said back in my #78.

I keep inviting those arguing otherwise to provide some language, some section of the document, SOME evidence, but instead they just keep repeating their seemingly erroneous, and unbuttressed, assertions. Makes me wish I could send the 3 Stooges to their homes to 'reason' with them <G>
I as well as others have provided information to you. You don't accept it.

But to repeat: The court system not us has the obligation to determine what the laws mean. The court system has made a determination that the courts have discretion in the matter.

There may be superior courts including the US Supreme Court that may in the future change the situation. Even the Hawaii government could do so. But until then the courts have discretion - with the instruction to cut people who want an interpreter a bit more slack.

Too Little Time
01-29-2018, 01:23 PM
...
From another source I ran across this week: 5% of the population speaks Hawaiian at home.

Keith Wilson
01-29-2018, 04:12 PM
According to this state report, the number of people who speak Hawaiian at home is 18,610 out of a population of a million and a half, about 1.3%, and only 3010 of them speak English less than 'very well', about 0.2% (source, see page 8 (http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/census/acs/Report/Detailed_Language_March2016.pdf)). Those 3010 people should definitely be provided with an interpreter if they need to appear in court.

David G
01-29-2018, 10:19 PM
There's been enough hot air on this one already, with the same points repeated - ad nauseum. Your 'three stooges' comment was a nice touch. I've already stated my take on this - you simply haven't liked it. Keith does have it right - as do I, and others. YMMV.

Yes... people certainly have kept repeating the same things. To some degree.

But it's also true that the discussion has evolved, as the language of the Federal law, and the State constitution came to light.

But I am still left puzzled. Usually, when people are contending, I can comprehend where those on both sides are coming from. But I'm at a loss here where you, and Keith - two people I normally regard as quite sensible - are coming from. I'm hoping you'll take a moment to clarify.

Is your objection on legal grounds?

Is your objection on practical, administrative, budgetary grounds?

Is your objection to his abrasive style?

Or... is it something else?

Canoeyawl
01-29-2018, 10:36 PM
I agree 100% that a court should provide an interpreter for someone not fluent in English, whatever language they may speak.

As mentioned previously, perhaps an interpreter should have been provided for the judge, who is apparently not fluent in the official state language.
(I am beginning to think after this that anyone could request for legal procedings in an Hawaiian court to be conducted in the official language.)
However it resolves, I suspect that a couple of million people are now alerted to a case that they never would have heard of. Which was the professor's point, to peacefully bring attention to his protest.

obscured by clouds
01-30-2018, 05:42 AM
But I am still left puzzled. Usually, when people are contending, I can comprehend where those on both sides are coming from. But I'm at a loss here where you, and Keith - two people I normally regard as quite sensible - are coming from. I'm hoping you'll take a moment to clarify.


I too am somewhat puzzled and just a bit saddened by the stance taken by some of our more moderate and liberal members here, who seem to think that pragmatism out-trumps [sorry] any principles one has.


perhaps an interpreter should have been provided for the judge

No 'perhaps' about it. There should be one retained by the Court.

Keith Wilson
01-30-2018, 10:27 AM
Let me explain why my take on this is not what some people would perhaps expect.

Hawaiian is very nearly a dead language. There are only 18,000 people who speak it at home, and 85% of those are also fluent in English. This is because Hawaii was conquered and overrun by English-speakers, and the Hawaiian language was actively suppressed for quite a while. One may think this is an injustice, one may lament it, but it is a fact, and it will not be undone. Like it or not, Hawaii will never again belong to the descendants of the original Hawaiians.

There are more people in Hawaii whose primary language is Tagalog, Ilocano, Spanish, Japanese, or Chinese than Hawaiian, and almost as many who speak Korean. Data here, page 8. (http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/census/acs/Report/Detailed_Language_March2016.pdf) (They for some inexplicable reason separated Chinese, Mandarin and Cantonese; I combined them.) Hawaiian is an 'official language' not because a significant fraction of the population speaks it, but because of history, nostalgia, and guilt.

My take is that a place belongs to the people who live there now, not the dead buried there. The overwhelming majority of people who live in Hawaii now do not speak Hawaiian anymore. I do not see how Mr. Ka'eo, by refusing to speak English, is advancing any good cause in the slightest - not justice for native Hawaiians, not the preservation of the Hawaiian language, as far as I can tell, no good end at all. In fact, I think he's doing the opposite.

The idea that someone perfectly fluent in English should be able to speak a language that only 1.6% of Hawaii's population speaks, and it's the state's responsibility to provide an interpreter is completely absurd. (If someone is not fluent in English, of course they should have an interpreter, whatever language they speak.) If that's how the law is currently written, it should be changed. If that is a result of Hawaiian being an 'official language', then Hawaiian should no longer be an official language.

CWSmith
01-30-2018, 10:31 AM
Let me explain why my take on this is not what some people would perhaps expect.

Hawaiian is very nearly a dead language. There are only 18,000 people who speak it at home, and 85% of those are also fluent in English. This is because Hawaii was conquered and overrun by English-speakers, and the Hawaiian language was actively suppressed for quite a while. One may think this is an injustice, one may lament it, but it is a fact, and it will not be undone. Like it or not, Hawaii will never again belong to the descendants of the original Hawaiians.

If you offered this explanation to a Scottish, Irish, or Gaelic speaking person who witnessed their own language being resurrected after suppression by the English, what do you think they would say?

Keith Wilson
01-30-2018, 10:41 AM
Resurrected? Only 1.1% of the Scottish population can speak Scots Gaelic at all, only half are fluent, and the number is decreasing (source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Gaelic)). Irish Gaelic is the main language of about 1% of the population of the Republic, and also decreasing (source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_the_Irish_language)). Monolingual Gaelic speakers are about as uncommon as Hawaiian speakers who don't also speak English. Irish and Scots Gaelic are dying as everyday languages, despite folks' best efforts. Welsh, probably not, but a much larger percentage of the population can speak it (about 20%, data here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_language)).

Now one may think this is a bad thing, and I might agree. But once a language gets past a certain minimum size, it's effectively doomed, and there's not a damned thing one can do about it. In an increasingly interconnected world, the advantages of English fluency are just too large. And one can make a very good argument that's it's better for people to be able to communicate with each other.

George Jung
01-30-2018, 10:51 AM
Butbutbut... whattabout Moana?

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
01-30-2018, 11:01 AM
Come home to a real fire, buy a cottage in Wales.

Keith makes an entirely rational point, but one that butters nary a parsnip, feelings can run very very high on this matter.

David G
01-30-2018, 11:45 AM
Let me explain why my take on this is not what some people would perhaps expect.

Hawaiian is very nearly a dead language. There are only 18,000 people who speak it at home, and 85% of those are also fluent in English. This is because Hawaii was conquered and overrun by English-speakers, and the Hawaiian language was actively suppressed for quite a while. One may think this is an injustice, one may lament it, but it is a fact, and it will not be undone. Like it or not, Hawaii will never again belong to the descendants of the original Hawaiians.

There are more people in Hawaii whose primary language is Tagalog, Ilocano, Spanish, Japanese, or Chinese than Hawaiian, and almost as many who speak Korean. Data here, page 8. (http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/census/acs/Report/Detailed_Language_March2016.pdf) (They for some inexplicable reason separated Chinese, Mandarin and Cantonese; I combined them.) Hawaiian is an 'official language' not because a significant fraction of the population speaks it, but because of history, nostalgia, and guilt.

My take is that a place belongs to the people who live there now, not the dead buried there. The overwhelming majority of people who live in Hawaii now do not speak Hawaiian anymore. I do not see how Mr. Ka'eo, by refusing to speak English, is advancing any good cause in the slightest - not justice for native Hawaiians, not the preservation of the Hawaiian language, as far as I can tell, no good end at all. In fact, I think he's doing the opposite.

The idea that someone perfectly fluent in English should be able to speak a language that only 1.6% of Hawaii's population speaks, and it's the state's responsibility to provide an interpreter is completely absurd. (If someone is not fluent in English, of course they should have an interpreter, whatever language they speak.) If that's how the law is currently written, it should be changed. If that is a result of Hawaiian being an 'official language', then Hawaiian should no longer be an official language.

It appears that your answer is 'practical, administrative, or budgetary'.

And you'll get no argument from me on that front.

But I'd also say - that only matters when it comes time to be practical. We're not there yet. We can think of this whole drama as analogous to the legal system.

First - there are laws. I hope no one is still arguing that Hawaiian is not, by law, co-equal to English... regardless of what the common practice has come to be.

Second - someone feels harmed and wants to enforce the law. That's this activist.

Third - the plaintiff brings suit to enforce the law. In this case, the fellow did it both in the court of public opinion, and as an adjunct to his existing legal case.

Fourth - the proper body adjudicates. This phase is ongoing. The judge, after consideration (and I assume he likely reviewed the statutes) reversed his 'contempt' ruling. The State Judiciary has reviewed things and altered their administrative rules in the right direction. My own sense is that they're not yet in full compliance with the statutes, and - if challenged further - will have to change it further.

Fifth - once the parties have had a chance to review their positions, ponder where they stand, and evaluate their chances of winning a legal batter... it is often time for a settlement. THAT is when it's time to engage the practicalities.

But since we're talking practicality, I doubt any of those practical matters will satisfy the activist, and his supporters. That's only a secondary focus. As I said, earlier, I suspect the reality in court will be some sort of de facto or administrative acceptance of English as the primary language, with Hawaiian interpreters provided for anyone who asks. And - again as a practical matter - how many people who speak both do you think will actually request a Hawaiian interpreter? I'll lay long odds that the # will approach zero. It will likely cost or trouble the court little or nothing to fully accommodate the letter of the law.

But his actions were NOT primarily about practicality. They were about symbolism.

And they are brilliantly, beautifully, calculated to highlight the early history and ongoing practice of the quashing of Hawaiian culture.

And this reminder is important. Not because there's likely to be a wide-spread revival of the language culture (though it's possible, I suppose). But because it is one small step in our evolution as a species. Just as activists against slavery, or debtor's prison, or sending kids under 16 into the coal mines, or for habeas corpus all advanced our cultures, and served to make the world a better place. Pointing out the injustices of conquering other nations by force, and suppressing their cultures, also aids in that evolution of humankind. As a fellow activist, and joyful provocateur, I applaud him.

Too Little Time
01-30-2018, 11:52 AM
Let me explain why my take on this is not what some people would perhaps expect.

Hawaiian is very nearly a dead language. ...
I don't think it is about language at all. It is about respect. I believe the charges that brought the fellow into court were for protests about the new telescope. An issue where the Hawaiian people were disrespected.

Keith Wilson
01-30-2018, 11:57 AM
And they are brilliantly, beautifully, calculated to highlight the early history and ongoing practice of the quashing of Hawaiian culture. I disagree. I think what he did was silly, obnoxious, and far more likely to damage any cause he supports than advance it. But that's a tactical question, not a moral one.

David G
01-30-2018, 12:15 PM
I disagree. I think what he did was silly, obnoxious, and far more likely to damage any cause he supports than advance it. But that's a tactical question, not a moral one.

Yup... we'll just have to disagree on that one.

Canoeyawl
01-30-2018, 02:28 PM
I don't think it is about language at all. It is about respect. I believe the charges that brought the fellow into court were for protests about the new telescope. An issue where the Hawaiian people were disrespected.

"Disrespected" is a term bandied about often enough at San Quentin.
It is a "big word" but only a personal perception regarding appropriate retaliation and hardly a position of fact. I am dismayed to see it moving into the vernacular.

Too Little Time
01-30-2018, 02:46 PM
"Disrespected" is a term bandied about often enough at San Quentin.
It is a "big word" but only a personal perception regarding appropriate retaliation and hardly a position of fact. I am dismayed to see it moving into the vernacular.
The word has much more history than that. If only there was some sort of magical device that we could look up the meanings and history of words ...

Ian McColgin
01-30-2018, 04:20 PM
I figured "disrespect" as a neoligism and went looking it up for authoratative information -- and it really is old. From the OED

1614 WITHER Sat. to King, Juvenilia (1633) 346 Here can I smile to see..how the mean mans suit is dis-respected.

1633 BP. HALL Hard Texts N.T. 11 If he love the one he must disrespect the other.

1683 CAVE Ecclesiastici 231 (Basil) To honor him, and dis-respect his Friend, was to stroke a man’s head with one hand, and strike him with the other.

1706 HEARNE Collect. 26 Apr., He was disrespected in Oxford by several men who now speak well of him.

1852 L. HUNT Poems Pref. 27 As if..sorrow disrespected things homely.

1885 G. MEREDITH Diana I. 257 You will judge whether he disrespects me.

Paul G.
01-30-2018, 04:58 PM
To many Hawaiians the US is an imperial colonialist, to communicate in the native language is a right and declaration that one person at least does not agree with being turned into a mall, holiday park and military base.

Keith Wilson
01-30-2018, 05:13 PM
Yes, the US conquered and annexed Hawaii. Right or wrong, that's over and done with, and the native Hawaiians are no more likely to get it back than the Ojibwe will get Minnesota or the Picts will get Britain. Refusing to speak English when one is fluent in the language will not make that more likely.

CWSmith
01-30-2018, 05:52 PM
Yes, the US conquered and annexed Hawaii. Right or wrong, that's over and done with, and the native Hawaiians are no more likely to get it back than the Ojibwe will get Minnesota or the Picts will get Britain. Refusing to speak English when one is fluent in the language will not make that more likely.

This clearly bothers you more than it seems to bother any of the usual right-wing suspects. Why? You are normally more accepting of things you don't agree with.

Ian McColgin
01-30-2018, 05:54 PM
While the percentage of native Hawiians is small in the population, the percentage of Hawiian citizens who voted in the constitutional measure was a majority. If that many Euro-American, Asian-American, Afro-American, and any other hyphens you find on the voting lists joined Hawiians in making Hawiian an official language, who am I to say they were wrong.

David G
01-30-2018, 06:06 PM
Yes, the US conquered and annexed Hawaii. Right or wrong, that's over and done with, and the native Hawaiians are no more likely to get it back than the Ojibwe will get Minnesota or the Picts will get Britain. Refusing to speak English when one is fluent in the language will not make that more likely.

Well... yes, the deed is done. And yes, it's not likely to be reversed. Just as slavery in the U.S. happened. No getting around it.

But - like slavery - there are repercussions. And chances to help the oppressed regain some dignity. And reasonable ways to make amends. So, it's not really 'over and done'. Not totally, anyway. And bless those who will stand up and remind us of the wrongs that were done.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwNm5h61F4I

Phil Y
01-30-2018, 09:38 PM
Yes, the US conquered and annexed Hawaii. Right or wrong, that's over and done with, and the native Hawaiians are no more likely to get it back than the Ojibwe will get Minnesota or the Picts will get Britain. Refusing to speak English when one is fluent in the language will not make that more likely.
Like in Australia, the genocide is not quite complete. That's no reason to continue with it. Hell, let's do what we can to preserve whatever is left of these rich and ancient cultures we have all but destroyed. I find you attitude on this not only surprising but thoroughly reprehensible.

Keith Wilson
01-30-2018, 11:10 PM
Like in Australia, the genocide is not quite complete. That's no reason to continue with it. Hell, let's do what we can to preserve whatever is left of these rich and ancient cultures we have all but destroyed. I find you attitude on this not only surprising but thoroughly reprehensible.Genocide of native Hawaiians currently? Excuse me? Where? Getting just a tad histrionic, perhaps?

Like it or not, Hawaiian is very likely going extinct as a living language. Once a language falls below a certain number of native speakers, it is almost certainly doomed, whatever anyone does. The advantages of speaking the majority language, and the disadvantages of speaking a very rare one, are just too large to overcome. I am making no value judgements, just stating facts. Has there ever been a case where a language spoken by some 1% of the population was revived? I sure don't know of any. In fact, the only case I've ever heard of where an obscure declining minority language once again became the daily speech of lots of people is Hebrew, in Israel; definitely a special case. Many more languages have died out, and more still are only now spoken by old people, and will soon be gone.

If you can explain to me how Mr. Ka'eo is helping native Hawaiians in the slightest by refusing to speak English in court when he's as fluent in the language as I am, possibly more so, I would be interested to hear it.

Canoeyawl
01-30-2018, 11:27 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revived_languages

Keith Wilson
01-30-2018, 11:36 PM
Most on that list are 'revived' in the sense of 'a few people learned it in school', although it's kept them from disappearing entirely. Not a single one of them is a language of daily conversation for more than a very few and decreasing number of people - except Hebrew. Reviving a moribund language past that point is very rare, almost impossible. I could wish that weren't the case, but it is. Most people simply can't learn any language all that well as adults, and at best it's difficult. A living language has to be learned as a first language by a lot of children, and used every day, otherwise it will pretty much inevitably disappear - and the advantages of speaking the majority language are very great. There are very, very few places you can get a job speaking Hawaiian, or Gaelic, much less Manx or Ainu. Again, no moral judgement at all, just facts; this is the linguistic equivalent of 'if you don't eat enough, you'll get very skinny and eventually die.'

And while one may lament the loss of rare languages, might it not be better overall that more people can communicate easily?