CANADIEN

of what? You haven't demonstrated your absurdist argument that only ambitious second-rate lawyers find a use for the french language. Are you calling the judges currently sitting on the SCC second-rate?

I'll just take one example, of a former senior associate with one of the top firms in the country, McCarthy Tétrault. Legal training at McGill, U of Toronto, Cambridge. His French was apparently good enough for him to represent Canada in a international court case against the Government of... France. Also a former Associate Deputy Minister in the federal Government (so he must have been good enough to pass the language test ). Former Commissioner of the International Commision of Justice, Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, Not a second rate lawyer, from the look of it. And bilingual, His name is Ian Binnie and yes, he is s puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. BTW, eight of the nine judges on the SCC are bilingual. Feel free to demonstrate they are second rate lawyers any time.

And your proof that French is useless to lawyers unless they plan to sit on the SCC bench is?

Except that most of them are likely also able to work on trials in French.

I didn't say there are a lot of bilingual lawyers, just that those who are have a wider pool of possible clients. And I see you don't even comment on the FACTS I have written about bingualism in the court system. Oh really? There is a grnad total of nine seats on the SCC. I doubt very much that any lawyer, except those who show exceptional talents from the start, even dream of getting there. Or that any lawyer except those who show exceptional talents from the start (and even then) build their career around the very very small possibility thaey may become a Supreme. Unless one has a well beyond average track record in their field, they will not even be considered for the kind of top judgeship or university tenure that is the usual stepping stone to the SCC. Even the unecessary requirement that all Supremes be bilingual will not change the fact that if you are not a top notch jurist you will not seat on that bench.

I always thought they might be at risk, with the Colisée issue.

You know, of course, than any person accused of a crime can get his/her trial in English or French, anywhere in the country? That, for examplend French have legl status in Manitoba and Nova Scotia courts, and that civil trials may be held in French is most parts of Ontario? Looks to me that somebody who learns French could end up with a larger pool of potential clients. Or maybe you do not know it. Which might explain why you make no sense whatsoever.

They'Ld say yes without hesitation. After all, living in a dictatorship, what other choice would they have. As someone who have promoted a dictatorship for this country (oops, I mean an authoritarian regime), you should understand that.

Duceppe's own cacus would rip him apart if he even joked about becoming the PM of Canada. There is no way that the Bloc would even consider forming the federal government

The premise is obvious - that bilingual candidates are likely to be of lesser quality. Which, of course, is absolute non-sense. A bilingual lawyer is likely to have a better understanding of how Quebec civil law works, for example. And quite frankly, someone who can manage to be good enough of a lasyer to be considered for a senior position AND be able to function in a second language is likely to be amongst the top in his/her position. Not because he/she can speak a second language per se, but because they combine that knind f knwledge with a very analytical mind, which is what is needed to be a legal expert. Besides, a recruiter hiring for top positions is unlikely to think there are hundreds of possible candidates, or want to look over dozens, let alone hundreds of résumés. If anything, he"she will likely do head hunting, go to the potential candidates more than the other way around.

Somebody who can either raise in the ranks from lawyer to judge or legal scholar AND understand more than one language would be far from third rate.

As most of your postings show, their understanding is ten mile wide compared to yours. Interesting, isn't it, that the sovereignists have been saying for most of the past 40 years to Québécois that they had nothing to fear from sovereignty because there would be an offer for a new parternship and Canada would be so happy to accept it. Which is why some Aboriginal leaders won't even speak to Quebec officials at federal-provincial-First nation conference. Let's follow the logic here. Quebec is a Nation, therefore the integrity of its borders is its business only. And...First Nations are Nations. Therefore, the integrity of their territory, including what cou ntry they want it to be part of, is their business only. The same principal applies. Unless, of course, someone wants to promote imperialism (to use your own words). There is nothing fair in the claim that nothing should happen in Canada without the blessing of the Quebec government.

Your two statements contradict themselves, but I get your point. That being said, it can be argued that a bingual judge will have some familiarity with the other-language legaese, which is something that an unilingual judge won't have. An Anglophone bilingula judge outside Quebec, for example, will likely have presided over a few trials in French during his/her carrier. They won't be entirely at lost. besides, all legalese in any western language is Latin

Which is why ATIO (the Association of Translators and Interpretors of Ontario), to give just one example, have separate exams and certification for judicial interpretors.

Legalese is also part of the french language, and by your own logic knowledge of french is also needed to get fine technical aspects of jurisprudence or interpretations of laws that are written in French. Too bad really, you were managing to make some sense.

Who gave you the impression that I don't communicate with civil servants outside of the front line people. I have had the opportunity over the years to deal with civl servants who are not front line, not that many though above the lower management level, and only one ADM (well, he was my boss before joining the public service ). I have rarely had reason to consider those people to dealt with to be not sufficiently competant, knowledgeable and professional for the task at hand. And more so that quite a few people in similar positions in the private sector. And if you don't deal with them, how do you know how competent they are or are not?

I must change job and quick. All my time spent at my workplace on the York University campus is causing me to see Muslim women everywhere. You know they don't?

Big surprise here. You cannot resist the temptation to make a fool of yourself whenever somebody does not share your prejudice.As for my use of the word diatribe - doN't worry. I checked my Oxford Concise first. But you have a point, for once. I shouldn't have been nice and use the word diatribe. Nope, the best word to describe something like... is ranting. Never heard of Norm Sterling? Or attempts by evangelical groups to get their people selected is Conservative candidates through massive card signing by individuals not previously involved with the party ?

Even more than that. I do not imagine Duceppe wanting it. That would be a blow to his dream of an independant Quebec - ohow could he seriously play the "we have no place in Canada" when even he can lead the government?. As for numbers. I think the BQ may get one or two more seats than last time, but with a lower number of votes. Result of the NDP surge. Also, it is unlikely that both the Liberals and the NDP will end up with less seats than the Bloc. The elction of 1993 saw a confortable majority for one party, another one virtually wiped out, and four parties getting seats outside Quebec. Not so this time.

exactly. Well, the removal of the French language from Manitoba's legislature and tribunals was a clear violation of the Manitoba Act, 1870, which is part of our Constitution. Don't you find interesting that we can always count on Quebec ultra-nationalists and Francophobes (two groups that exlude both you and I, obviously) tend to treat Franco-Ontarians, Acadians, etc. as some sort of Quebecois in exile, who should either relinquish their interests and their voice to the Government of Quebec or just move back to Quebec.

The Supreme Court reference on the patriation of the Constitution (English text at http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1981/1981canlii25/1981canlii25.html) is agood source of information. I haven't say anything about who speks or doesn't speak for whom. That's not my point. My point is that the "Quebec is French and the rest of Canada is English" ignores some realities, like linguistic minorities or Nunavut (whether or not Nunavut wants any kind of status other than its current one is not related to the point I made). Tyhe Government of Quebec does not speak for me or for Franco-Ontarians.No, it is not what I am saying. You even quoted me right. Read again. I was saying the Official Language Act made french public schools illegal. I was very accurate and I provided the sources to demonstrate what I said. I invite you to do the same. Even Manitoba's website is saying it. You don't agree, prove me otherwise. You call the Act in question the "Official Language Act". This infers, whatever you realize it or not, that the act in question specifically stated that English was the official language of Manitoba. School rights in Manitoba were removed under acts passed by Manitoba legislature in 1890 regarding school rights, the "Act respecting the Departmnet of Education" and the "Public Schools Act"; a summary of these two acts can be found at http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/docs/manitoba/notes.htm These two laws effectively suppressed education in French. by suppressing publicly founding of Catholic school. There was another Act, passed in the same session, regarding the use of French in the legislature and the tribunals (I have not seen any summary or text of that Act that confirms the notion that it was titled the "Official Language ACt" or that it stated that English was Manitoba's official language.

And here we go with the Apocalypse. As for the Lenin line... The use of the school system as a endoctrination mechanism was not Lenin's attention. If anything, in this like in other methods of moulding society to think one way and only one way, he only had to turn to Christian theocracies to find models to adopt. Somehow, if the teaching in the schools about religion was that "all religions are bad, except ours", I doubt you would protest that much.

And there is nothing in the teaching of the FACT there are different religions that prevents parents from teaching their own religions or values. Nothing, nada, rien, zero.Might as well argue that teaching about, let's say, desegregation is preventing parents from imparting racist world views on their children.

This is a generalisation. This is not always true. In the particular case of the SCC, the legal terminology used is pretty standard. Legal texts (laws, for example) are subject to some of the most rigurous translation process done in governments. In Ontario, for example, the Legislative Assembly has its own translation staff for the translation of legislative texts and proceedings, as the usual process used in the rest of Government (contracting out) is not considered reliable enough. The oral argument part of the SCC procedures is more legalistic jousting than anything there. But even then, the interpretors tend to be amonst the most qualified. Most of the research work (and that is the key part of the procedures) is done by law clercks, not the judges themselves. There is no evidence to suggest that having some judges on the SCC bench who do not speak French has been detrimental to people (or more exactly their lawyers) submitting their brief in French or speaking before the Court in French. Or that having a bilingual judge in place of a unilingual one would have led to different judgements.

Actually, it was not a formal written process, but unwritten convention. That the "Quebec is French the rest of the country is english" claim is not entirely true. Even without taking into account official language minorities (and you will not be surprised that I do not consider the French language dead outside Quebec), New Brunswick is officially bilingual, and people in Nunavut would likely be surprised to be described as English speakers. Here's the exact words you used: Once again, no no provincial legislature other than those of Quebec or New Brunswick ever enacted laws stating that one (ot more) language had official status. As I said before, you want to use history, be accurate.