All positions in support of multilingualism are correct.
All positions against multilingualism are correct.
All speakers that wish to be heard in a given language will assure that they are.
All listeners that wish to hear a given speaker will assure that they do.
Use of one's native tongue is an inalienable right.
Preservation and Integrity of a culture requires respect of the language.
Security and Stability are grounded on an ability to communicate.
Even without a single word spoken one can tell from a writing where the other person is coming from. Yes the double meaning is intended. We do not need accents or even a meticulous literal translation. Watch a Jury trial in any language and then go back and read the transcripts - you will undoubtedly at some point say, that is not what was said, and that is not what I understood. Note, quite often the stenogropher will sit in a position different from the Jury and have a different perspective. Facial expressions, stoic manners, smiles, and frowns are absent (in most instances, unless the stenogropher finds it important - hmmm) It can be said the lawyer that buys the stenographer the most roses wins his case on appeal. Note also; my intentional sexist role playing created by the cultural basis of uniquely Anglo Saxon Jurisprudential history. Certainly we all agree that men and women speak the most desperately distinct and different languages. ;-}
Who translates, who certifies, who controls - I for one would not trust a Hong Kong English translator to interpret a Hebrew speaker for me. Note again the use of WHO and it's now double meaning, and the reference to an ancient language which often brings up derisive thoughts - I could have used Palestinian - then again those two cultures use English as the vehicle for negotiations - perhaps good perhaps bad.
eric hdierker