Refusing translations on ethical, moral, political, or religious grounds?
Written by ForeignExchange Translations on Thursday, July 22, 2010
Abortion. War. Religion. Sex. Torture.
Those are subjects that most translation service providers don't translate on a regular basis. And for many translation companies and freelancers, a request to translate questionable or offensive materials can raise difficult personal questions.
Our recent articles When politics and translation collide and Translators in harm's way are good examples of how deep-rooted beliefs can come into conflict with the reality of day-to-day life and running a business.
In order to stimulate further discussion, we are conducting a wholly unscientific poll. So go ahead - get on the soap box and let us know where you stand on this subject.
As with past surveys, participation is completely anonymous. But if you want to add some depth to your vote, leave us a comment below!
For daily updates, subscribe to Medical Translation Insight via email or RSS. If you would like more frequent updates, follow us on Twitter at @fxtrans.
82 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have worked for CDC (Center for Disease Control) translating hygiene instructions for the troops and everything that could be useful.
Morality is a very personal subject. Religion also. But I cannot translate material on how to kill people or send them to the cleaners for being treated for illnesses when considered a privilege, not a right, for taxpayers.
[Via LinkedIn]
This is a very good question. I have never had such a situation, but I did think about this issue and I guess I would decline an offer to translate a text that could bring evil to somebody in some way. On the other hand, one often has no chance to read the whole text before accepting it and finds out that something is wrong only in the middle of a project. Right now I translate a drug documentation and... It turns out that the medicine is not expected to be effective but still it has been approved! I cannot back out now but I feel bad about participating in such deception.
Best!
Paulina
As for me, yes, I sometime refuse translations on ethical grounds, and, as a teacher of translation I also devote a substantial part of a week of the ten-week course to questions of ethics in translation.
I have never been offered a translation concerning some issue I find questionable. This is why I have voted for "sometimes". Should the question be "Would you ever accept...", I would have replied "No, never".
I realize there are very few people who can actually do that, but I think certain professionals should strive to attain this level of understanding, separating what is private and what is work.
I have been translating for over 25 years and if I allow a text to interfere with my personal thinking, than I might as well close up shop.
The way I look at the issue is more or less like this: If I do not translate a text that "...would send them to the cleaners for being treated for illnesses... etc.", as Ms. Woontner said (just an example, I am not picking on anybody here!), then they might really be taken to the cleaners without even knowing why and how.
We, translators, have a VERY important job that has a lot of responsibility attached to it. Besides, we are ONLY translating somebody's thoughts, not ours! If something bothers me to the point I start having questions, I just get in touch with the client and request that a "Translator Note", specifying the text does not reflect the translator's thoughts or opinions, is prominently shown in the finished work.
Marcia F Havrilla
I've refused translations when they conflict with a signed secrecy agreement, i.e. when I get asked to work on both sides of a law suit. Eventually, any busy translator will run into this at some time or another.
It can be lucrative work but I'd rather use my skills where people are interested in communicating, not just winning or crushing the opponent.
Bernie Bierman
Translation/interpreting is a PROFESSION and, as such, is governed by the very same ethical code as many other professions. I can hardly imagine a surgeon refusing to perform an operation just because his patient is a criminal or believes in non-traditional medicine or a lawyer refusing to defend a war criminal in the court of law.
By the same token, accepting or refusing any assignment is a right and a privilege of any freelancer regardless of underlying reasons or motives.
However, perceiving simple commercial act of rejecting certain assignment as a sign of moral superiority over others who accepted it, is, in my opinion, utterly immature and unprofessional. It is immature since there’s nothing to be proud of: Your individual belief has no absolute moral authority over acts of others. It is unprofessional since if you’re good as a translator, there’s always a chance that your work will be done by less-experienced individual thereby damaging the reputation of our profession.
In the modern society, virtually any profession is, directly or indirectly, contributing to causes which many of us may consider objectionable or even immoral. Therefore, some believe that the most honest way of staying morally or ideologically pure is doing nothing and judging others for their indiscriminate greed. This is exactly what is immoral, from my prospective.
I would be interested in a poll that was designed to explore some more hypothetical situations.
Very bluntly, most of your arguments and analogies are simply flawed:
1. Different professions are governed by different ethical codes, not the same code.
2. I do not see in any way how a surgeon refusing to operate on a criminal would be analogous to a translator translating, say, a torture manual. A surgeon refusing to operate on a child because (s)he believes the operation will not benefit the child would perhaps be one.
3. I believe quite a few lawyers do decline to defend certain people (and certainly, as you have suggested, war criminals) precisely because they do not wish to contribute to their evading any punishment.
4. Your argument that risking that a text deemed immoral will be translated by a translator whose work is inferior to yours is damaging the profession as a whole (and therefore immoral!) is also utter rubbish. Even though I agree that people will always find SOMEONE who is prepared to translate anything (such as, apparently and regrettably, you): if they have difficulty finding a reputable translator and get several rejections on ethical grounds, this would, in my eyes, raise the reputation of the profession as a whole.
The only thing I can agree with is that today (and probably, in the past), virtually every profession is (and was) "contributing to causes which many of us may consider objectionable or even immoral". That may very well be the case, but it applies to almost everything you do in modern society, whether professionally or as a private person (e.g. polluting the planet by driving a car, buying clothes sewn by children in sweat shops etc. etc.). But it does not prevent you from trying to rectify things where you can, and this applies to professional in the same way as to private behaviour.
You somehow seem to make the case that what is ethical is purely a matter of individual choice (otherwise I could not make any sense of your weird last argument). I would suggest reconsidering that point.
Florian v. Savigny
As linguists, one of the best ways that we can fight ethical wrongs is to make sure that everyone understands the wrong-minded source, with the assumption that others will recognize its unethical overtones as we have done, personally. This speaks for a precise translation that conveys what the source says, but without 'highlighting' our perceived negative aspects or 'torpedoing' the source with poor wording or misleading word equivalents.
For myself, I have declined assignments in which I had professional conflicts of interest.
I have done a lot of human rights abuse work, such as torture, rape, beating and murder and it leaves me drained and depressed, as do Tax codes. My reason for refusing either one are apolitical, simply I would rather be doing something else.
Why should I translate that document?
memodedo@gmail.com
At one point, we received a request to translate manuals on how to maneuver weapons. We didn't have trouble with our translators, but once word got to our (same) Manager, he said we should refuse such work in the future.
He is a highly principled person who cares a lot about the environment and well being of everyone he interacts with. I can totally understand his point of view and would probably do the same if I were him.
I have interacted with translators over the years I have worked in the business, and some of them have refused some projects. I believe every freelancer can choose to work for whatever project they feel they want to. At the same time, I fully understand why someone wouldn't want to list certain projects in their CVs, so why translate something that they feel would be a stain in their impeccable CVs?
Freelancing is also about having the freedom to choose your clients, projects, how you spend your time. I wouldn't blame anyone, no matter the reasons they bring for their refusal. Some can simply say they're too busy to handle certain projects and we might never know whether ethical, moral or other reasons hide behind those excuses.
Indeed, bragging about those true reasons and considering that they make one superior to others who accept them is not nice.
However, Memo Zizo's post brought up an interesting broader issue. I happen to disagree quite strongly with his or her take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters. Does this mean we should both stick to translations of texts that reflect our own stance on this issue? I don't think so.
I think it is dangerous to translate any source text that you feel too passionately about to keep the necessary professional distance, be it in agreement or in disagreement. To quote Cicero, we should aim to translate "sine ira et studio", meaning that, in my experience, overly enthusiastic agreement with the content of the source text is as big a danger to the quality of the translation as strongly felt disagreement.
In other words, if we notice the content of the source text deals with issues we feel very strongly about - positively or negatively -, we should take a hard look at ourselves and question our ability to remain uninvolved enough to stay professional. We are not robots, and - albeit in most cases: hypothetically - I think there are issues for any of us that hit too much of a nerve to keep cool.
I later found out that the president of this organization is known for making racist comments (against the same group) when no "outsiders" are present. At this same meeting, he made veiled racist comments to the members on at least one other occasion. Again, I had the "pleasure" of being on the microphone when he made them.
I will no doubt refrain from working for this group again in the future despite the fact that they treat the interpreters with the utmost respect, something which is often sorely lacking in today's world.
It's interesting to note that one man's racism is another man's truth. I personally take exception to some of the comments on this very thread, but I prefer to not start a long and fruitless argument here.
I'm very sorry to hear about your experience and would suggest that, at least in this case, they clearly did not treat the interpreter with the utmost respect, or even a baseline level of respect. If you feel comfortable doing so and have not done so already, please let them know the reason why you will refuse future work with them. What you're doing is a form of boycott, and as with any boycott, its effect is neutralized if the object of the boycott isn't informed of why they are being targeted.
As far as the question at hand, I have not yet refused a job on ethical grounds, but I'm sure I would. Offhand, I can think of a fairly lengthy list of industries and advocacy organizations whose offer of work I would refuse based on my objection to their core missions. I do not, however, think that my enthusiastic support for a topic would impede my ability to do an accurate translation, as another commenter suggested.
Lastly, I would agree with what appears to be the consensus here: Any freelancer has the right to choose what work they accept and what they reject, and they don't really owe the would-be employer much of an explanation either way.
I will not knowingly agree to work for organizations such as neo-Nazi groups, though I will faithfully and accurately render what their members have to say when I'm working for anyone else.
What we do matters. The story of the Third Reich is the story of people who were "only doing their jobs". I can understand people needing to make a living, then as now, but don't try to pretend it doesn't make a difference what you accept.
I've known interpreters who have claimed to "leave their morality at the door" when interpreting and then flaunted all sorts of ideologically biased and unprofessional terminology choices -- e.g., traditionalist interpreters refusing to say "gender" and always saying "sex" at feminist gatherings (the equivalent of an atheist interpreter refusing to say "God" and saying something like "the imaginary Supreme Being" at a theological conference), or strict vegetarians refusing to say "carcasses" and saying "dead cows" at a meeting on beef statistics.
Does "Yes. sometimes" actually mean "Yes, in some of those cases where the assignment contradicts my beliefs", and does "Yes, always" actually mean "Yes, in all such cases"? Otherwise, "Yes, sometimes" might mean "Yes, sometimes, — whenever translation assignments run counter to my beliefs", while "Yes. always" might (in theory) mean "Yes, I always refuse translation assignmentss, i.e. I do not work as a translator anymore, because every time I would find something wrong in them" :).
While I understand that yoo have most probably meant the first type of interpretations, I would still make the survey wording 100% clear.
I would definitely refuse to work for the arms industry (and since I don't do technical translations it's highly unlikely they will ever ask me). I have volunteered translations several times in the past for Greenpeace.
I do work a lot for the medical device and pharmaceutical industries. Sometimes I feel uneasy when I translate marketing materials for drugs that patients do not really benefit from. But then I hope that everyone who is able to read the statistics will feel the same way when they read my translation.
First, as a professional, this question undermines the essence of my profession. Two, it totally negates the role translators have played throughout history. Third, it relegates the essential services provided by a translator to an art-level, as opposed to a professional service.
The litmus test for accepting translations can only be the legality of its content. If it is legal, I must translate it.
As such, I am glad to live in a province, and a country, Ontario, Canada, where a translator could rightfully be sued for refusing translations on so-called ethical, moral, political, or religious grounds.
My role as a translator is to reproduce objectively the message provided in the source language into the target language.
Throughout history, translators have played a role in bridging the gap between languages and cultures (sometime at great cost for themselves in period of conflicts) to convey the point of views of others.
Furthermore, I would seriously question the professional standards of any translator willing to refuse translations on “so-called” ethical, moral, political, or religious grounds. By letting his or her personal opinions (subjectivity) get in the way, he or she demonstrates the ability or his or her willingness to compromise objective professional standards.
Sadly, this question transpire of a popular “right-wing” agenda which uses ethical, moral, political, or religious grounds to create rules of exception that justify discrimination.
"Anonymous (why anonymous?), you don't accept human rights work because you'd rather be doing something else? So would the victims of torture and beatings. How do you think human rights will improve if we all don't do what we can to alleviate the situation? And conversely, if enough xlators do turn down jobs we find objectionable, perhaps the clients will sit up and listen. Or what Anonymous said about the Third Reich…
I'm Israeli, and I respect Memo's decision. I actually refused a job from a realtor selling residences in the occupied territories. It was for commercial gain from land that belongs to Palestinians. And I did politely let the client know that I couldn't comfortably do the job. I knew he'd find someone who would, but it didn't matter to me. It was a small job, so I might've found it harder to refuse if it were NIS3,000 instead of merely NIS 300. I guess that's where the Translator Note comes in.
What do others think of a client who discovered a suspected lover in his wife's mail and wanted it translated (he didn't know the wife's native tongue)?
I have to admit, Marcia's idea of adding a 'translator's note' stating that the views of the document do not represent the views of the translator seems like a good idea. However, I wonder how much good that would do when it comes to activists that may be protesting. If say, an agency added a statement like that to a document that was drawing attention from an animal rights group, do you think that would excuse the agency from the activists?
The first element of ethic I learned in translation school was the "detachment" of the translator from the subject in order to achieve a maximum degree of objectivity in rendering the message.
The first time someone refused to help me translate a military-related document on the basis that the person was against the war in Iraq. So am I! I had to tell that person that if translators across history had his attitude, none of the ancient texts, information, historical facts, or scientific discoveries would have ever been passed down to future generations. The reasoning behind that? Victors wright history and usually translators are found among the vanquished; they become the voice of the vanquished and the voice of the past without actively participating in the events, were they constructive or destructive.
By defending the rights of a criminal, the lawyer does not participate in the crime and by treating a criminal, the doctor does not support crime.
PS: I am very surprised by the results of the poll.
I once subtitled a documentary about Abu Ghraib prison. Although I felt like it was an important job, I also felt quite sick and I was glad when I finished it.
Also, I do believe that one of the benefits of freelancing is that it is in my power to deny certain tasks.
You wrote, "Sadly, this question transpire of a popular “right-wing” agenda which uses ethical, moral, political, or religious grounds to create rules of exception that justify discrimination."
When I read that kind of a statement, I have to ask, who now is being disciminatory, not to mention openly bigoted? The left is just as, if not more, discriminatory than the right. Discrimination eminates from everywhere and everybody including ALL political groups and agendas. It is a universal problem.
The original question, however, is interesting. I have never had this issue arise but I would refuse something that was illegal.
I believe that everyone should be free to chose with whom he or she works as a freelancer. However, I also believe that if we openly discriminate against clients based on personal agendas, then expect that to come back to haunt you. And don't complain when it does.
The code of ethics requests that we only accept assignments where our own biases will not interfere with the appointment.
I know I would not be able to remain impartial in such a situation.
Si je suis rémunéré, on ne peut associer mon travail à un quelconque ralliement politique. Après tout, qui soupçonnerait un plombier de racisme au simple motif qu'il a remplacé la chasse d'eau chez un homme politique d'extrême droite ?
1. In translation
a.) You do not want to do business with a CLIENT that you feel acts unethically - e.g. "I won't do business with racists, weapons manufacturers, etc.".
b.) You do not feel comfortable lending your voice to CONTENT you feel is unethical or might get you worked up - e.g. "I won't translate texts justifying torture."
c.) You have ethical reservations about the intended PURPOSE of the translation: e.g. "I would translate this Hitler speech for a documentary, but I won't if it is for a political pamphlet targeted at neo-nazis" or "I won't translate a manual that will be used to operate weapons and kill people."
2. In interpretation
all of the above plus:
d.) You get caught in a situation where a speaker says outrageous things that, even in a professional interpreting situation, you feel very uncomfortable repeating.
For example, I once found myself in a position where I, unexpectedly, had to interpret a staunch stalinist (yes,they still exist) who told survivors of communist prosecution to their faces that they were "lying agents of fascism and capitalism". It was heart-breaking and very hard to interpret.
In addition, my adrenalin went up as extremists usually are cowards and it's easy to blame the interpreter. "I never said ..., it must have been mistranslated" (Every interpreter dreads this moment, and this was the first thought I had when reading Wendy's post). However, this is an entirely different question very specific to interpreting...
Elena
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
Does this mean one could/should be equally shocked by all these topics?
Usually I say that this is not my topic, I won't be able to make a good job out of this. Especially if it is no such obvious case as military which might be more "normal" to refuse than many other things that I want to refuse.
I regret that I have not refused some more, e.g. on deceptive products used to get advantages for one's own person (declared in the text not to be illegal!), some documents on unethical greedy behaviour from one person
I did a translation of a petition for a private person once, dedicated to a court to plead her case. I felt with her case and I did not translate it quite truly: I sorted out some of the many adjectives to make it sound less affected and more convincing. The client asked me on delivery what my impression was and I said that I had tried to make it a bit more matter-of-fact by sorting out some adjectives. The client was happy for this. Therefore I think I made a better job of it getting this emotionally involved.
Translating accurately or not accurately versus accepting or refusing to accept jobs are two different things, though sometimes interconnected. Refusing a job on moral, ethical, or any ground is fair to do, doing a bad job for a cause that one does not agree with is not fair. Doing a good job for a cause that one does not agree with might be called professional - if it is to get food on the table it is might be difficult to avoid, but if it is just for earning more money than necessary for surviving one will lose credibility. Then it must be difficult to trust oneself.
If today I refuse to give a voice to an abortion advocate, tomorrow I can as easily do the same for a civil rights advocate.
I don't believe I can impose my views to other people or to society and my profession puts me in a position where I don't have the luxury of skipping this issue.
1) As humans, regardless of how cold blooded and self controlled we are, our emotions can betray at some point.
2) I would be more concern whether I have to vocabulary required to cover a specific topic in an interpretation and remain accurate.
3)If I was going to take an unfamiliar topic which could step on my intellectual boundaries, I see it as an opportunity to expand my knowledge.
I bet all of you at the end of a session on your way home, etc, you reflect about what transpired in a conversation.
So might as well take it as an opportunity to grow intellectually.
Believe me, living in SC there is a lot of rubish that drive me nuts!!
Carlos Harris
Translators and typographers are not public carriers like a railroad, and we may -- and should -- refuse service to anyone who asks for work that offends moral, patriotic, or religious sensibilities.
I guess it's a question transcending well beyond the realm of translators and I find it hard to answer.
How much would I have to disagree with a text to refuse translating it? (For me, the money is not an issue but that might be due to my complete ignorance regarding it.) How much would I have to disagree with the client's agenda to refuse working for that client altogether?
I can imagine scenarios where I would refuse to take on a translation job and I have to say that I find it very disturbing that there are areas in the world where I could be sued for that.
On the other hand I find it questionable to "tint" a translation with my beliefs, for whatever reason. I would consider this as not doing my job professionally.
Then again, I live in Germany. I can imagine that in other parts of the world where beliefs are generally stronger and/or more radical, people would decide differently.
My problem is when by mistake I accept work that I then find I have problems with. I feel I have an obligation to my client, so I'll finish the job but I won't charge for it and I'll tell the client I don't want to accept further work of that nature.
My obligation is to do the work I've accepted to the best of my ability, not to turn every trick that comes along.
Uwe Saddhu Pharoah S. Hirayama
Berenice Bastin
Yeah, the best at this little game is Rudolf Höss, head of Auschwitz-Birkenau! During the day, he could order his soldiers to throw kids into gas chambers (on top of adults) and then join his family (4 kids) in the evening, feeling perfectly happy...
Not my style or upbringing...
Of course, I don't want to be working ON PURPOSE for entities that encourage war, hatred, etc. But I know of at least one company that works for industry, and has deals with MoDs, so where and more importantly how do you draw the line with a such a client?
The fact that you are a professional translator/interpreter/whatever, especially if you work freelance, also means that you need to take responsibility for what you accept or turn down, not just lay the blame on those evil clients who make those evil offers to you.
So my (different) view is that if you actively and consciously promote your services to "good" clients (and the definition of this will clearly depend on your own sensitivity) instead of passively receiving "evil" offers, you might be able to keep yourself busy enough (as I do) with only those clients, and to turn down every unacceptable offer, while nurturing the higher moral ground that you want to keep. I agree that it's not an easy route, but it can be done.
There would be two cases where we would be obliged to accept every job. One is the Hippocratic Oath or any similar situation, but we are not doctors. The other type of situations is about a public offer. E.g. there is a shope selling bread or sugar at a certain price, or a bank opening its branches and saying "Come and deposit your money, and we will pay 4% p.a.". However, as a freelance interpreter and translator, I do not make a public offer, i.e. I do not promise to provide my services to anyone and everyone on certain terms.
A question for those who talk about censorship etc. Suppose there is a printing shop that prints books, magazines, newspapers, etc. Would you say they violate the freedom of speech by deciding that they only print all those for clients from a certain specialized area, or by accepting orders for newspaper printing from leftists only, or Conservatives only, etc.?
I would also like to ask Ontario-based colleagues for a reference to any law or regulation under which a freelance translator or interpreter can actually be punished for "refusing translations on so-called ethical, moral, political, or religious grounds".
“Being a Muslim, I do not translate any text that has to do with porn, winery, adultery, casino, and any text that is offensive to any religious or ethnic groups.”
To do this, you would need to know, in detail, rituals, beliefs, etc of all ethnic and religious groups. What if somewhere in this world there is a cult dedicated to the worship of the “divine spinning wheel”? Would your beliefs not contradict theirs? If I, not being a Muslim, translate something related to wine, am I committing a “sin”?
“Also, I do not translate any text that would - for example - promote hatred or claiming for example that Israel is being attacked by Palestinians while the opposite is true. Moral, ethics and religion play a central role in my preferences when it comes to translation. In the past, I refused a project … because it was targeting the Muslim world and describing freedom fighters as terrorists…”
How do you know the “opposite is true”? Israelis do “attack” and will quite probably go on “attacking” Palestinians, but do not the latter also do exactly the same?
You seem to somehow “know” who the “freedom fighters” and who the “terrorists” are; So can I ask, what do you call the “live bombs”, Palestinians who “sacrifice” not only their lives (as is their absolute right) but also the lives of young people dancing in discos, staying at hotels or waiting for a bus at a bus stop? Are they martyrs? Will they be declared “saints”? Are they freedom fighters? Or maybe, quite simply put, plain, common murderers?
Also, what happens if the “other side” also decides “your” “freedom fighters” are “terrorists”? What if I decide Confucius is evil while “they” decide “my” “insert sacred text here” or whatever is equally evil? Should we never translate either text? How do we communicate? You send over a few suicide squads and I few missiles/combat drones and conclude the matter “according to our beliefs”?
“I won't benefit from money that is earned from lies..”
I wholeheartedly agree with you on principle (assuming you can tell the “lies” from the “truth”). So my friend, it would seem you never did - and never will - translate anything like this ad :))
BUY XXXYYYZZZ! Not just a car - the best car in the world!
Also, please have in mind that by "you" I do not really mean you personally in any way - by "you" I mean anyone else who is not "me" really ... or as some put it, perhabs a bit better, "the Other".
Anyway, the spectrum goes from people claiming that a young woman or man has the right to blow themselves up (I disagree: without insane patriarchal indoctrination they would never even conceive of that) to the pseudo-professional ethics of impartiality. It's just a job. I followed orders. Or the "just an ear" excuse. Chop yourself off the body you're an ear of and see how you feel then about being "just an ear".
I have seen - and experienced - judges who, against their better knowing and under no legal obligation, make decisions that destroyed people's lives, and do that for the mere purpose of proving to themselves their impartiality. How much of a self-lie can you come up with? Verrrrry partial to their own impartiality, aren't they?
Don't get involved. There were times when, around the world, that statement was clearly tagged as an Americanism. Now, hardly anyone ever gets involved anywhere.
I do. I get involved. I am involved.
If I translate a contract for a company who is about to get themselves into a corporate suicide mission, I will tell them so. I am enough of a legal eagle to know a bad thing when I see one and I will tell.
On the other hand, If I get a text to translate which is offensive to me, I may either refuse or, within the margin of linguistic variances, translate the text in such a way that its offensiveness becomes evident rather than soft-pedaling it. I do that. And the bad guys are so lacking self-reflection, are so sure of themselves and their greedy schemes, that they don't even notice.
On the other hand, when I am working in-house with a company and I see a personality problem, either in the shape of a text or a flesh-and-blood person, I will get involved. I will translate the context and not just the text. (Don't anyone dare steal this slogan, you sandwich boards of ethics our there!)
You see, it's like the story of a drunken asshole who gets sober and becomes a -- you guessed it: sober asshole. We will always be who we are. If we can't handle power as a older sibling, we won't be able to do so as a clerk or a cop or a judge. Or a translator.
As a translator/interpreter we have the power and responsibility that comes with knowing something our clients don't. Some time ago, I translated operating instructions for a heart catheter. If I don't do that right, someone may die. Maybe not, but for argument's sake, let's presume it is so.
So what it boils down to is an issue of power and responsbility.
Blessed be
Wolfgang
I have no other qualms.
All within reason, however, I translate automotive matters happpily, even though the cars are instrumental in killing millions of people every year.
However, the question could have been, How objective could you be translating something you have a strong opinion on (either in favor or against)?
I feel that would provide a very different perspective, and probably answers.