Pardon me, but shouldn't it be compulsory that if the police know they're dealing with a foreign national they speak to him with an interlocutor of his preference? I mean - why should the onus be on the accused to blurt out his rights and then do the entire merry-go-round. I'm sure it won't be that difficult to arrange for 1 English (global business language) interlocutor in Copenhagen. The onus should be on the police to allow an opportunity for explanation.
On the other hand, if you're a guest in a country, shouldn't you be responsible for making sure you can understand and be understood, either by learning the language or knowing someone you can call?
Personally, I think a middle term would be more appropriate - police agents should have a decent grasp of English (i.e., better than mine), and visitors to the country should know either the local language or English. An "interlocutor of his preference" seems an excessive requirement.
That's usually the case in Copenhagen. I'm surprised it wasn't here. You can typically interact with civil servants (and banks, and just about anyone else) in English. Official government forms are usually available in both Danish and English (but not, as you note, in any arbitrary choice of language). Even the online citizen-service portals typically are translated.
I would say Denmark is somewhat undecided what to do about language. Whether the norm should be "if you move here you must integrate", or whether it's good that Copenhagen has foreigners from all over who use English (rather than Danish) as the lingua franca, is one of the actively contested areas of Danish politics. The business sector is increasingly using English internally, and wants to put out an image to expatriates that Copenhagen is an international city where they're welcome, and where everyone speaks English. But some Danes are understandably worried about the implication that they will not be able to get a job in their own country speaking only Danish. This is already the case, sometimes de-facto and sometimes a formal requirement, for many professional jobs, but perhaps not for police. And there are also cultural worries about what it would mean if Copenhagen becomes more of an international, English-speaking city than a Danish city (Berlin has some similar cultural debates, but Germany's government and big businesses are less English-accommodating than Denmark's).
Unless you make that a legal and well-known requirement for residence in a country, that's just not okay.
Do I agree with the general idea, that 'guests in a country' (i.e. foreigners with a working permit) should learn about the local culture, the language? Sure.
But
- the author claims that he knew some danish. Learning the local language to flirt, order a beer and talk about the weather isn't the same as defending yourself in a legal case
- you need the translator anyway for short-term visitors that you want to charge (unless you ask people to learn the language before they go there as a tourist)
I'm speaking from the perspective of someone that worked in Tel Aviv for a year. I cannot speak Hebrew (well.. words, stupid phrases. I cannot speak a coherent sentence). That's unfortunate, since I tend to like the parts of the language I know. Languages are just .. hard, for me. Learning a language while you're working full time is worse. Being shy about using it -> even worse. The idea that a cop would've expected me to defend myself in Hebrew is .. a nightmare.
Frankly, if I'd be charged in London I'd ask for a German translator. I think antirez wrote an article (during that 'accent' discussion) recently that struck home: Even if you know a foreign language, you're often limiting yourself to the same topic. Smalltalk in English? Why not. Talking tech stuff? Sure thing. But I wouldn't try to argue with a cop just like I wouldn't feel comfortable discussing arts or doing pillow talk in that language.
Well, I did say you could have someone to call; in your case, you could have the number of a German translator who you'd call if you were to be arrested. My question is mostly whether arranging for that translator should be the police's responsibility or the foreign national's.
We are talking about something serious out here - someone is alleged of a grave crime. Therefore, it should be necessary that the person is allowed a full and fair opportunity to defend himself. This can only happen if the person talks in a language he's comfortable in. Considering this case, it is only rational to make such a requirement.
Your point on local culture/language may be applicable in other scenarios like speaking to local clients, buying groceries, shopping for clothes but alleged involvement in a crime which can lead to time (years?) in prison is a different matter altogether.
I'm not saying that the person should be required to know the language; a translator would be fined. My point is whether it should be the police's responsibility to arrange for that translator.
I never said it is the police's responsibility to arrange for the translator. I said that the police should maintain status quo (with a definite time period) and allow the accused to arrange for a interlocutor of his choice. I said that it was the police's responsibility to upfront state that to the alleged instead of asking questions and trying to exploit the loophole of the accused not knowing his rights.
