Bill C-232

[Born Free]

Funny thing about "interpretation". When no one gets to second guess you or overrule you, you can interpret most legislation to say any damned thing you want it to say, regardless of the demonstrated, proveable intent of the people who wrote that legislation.

Intent, you see, is entirely in the eyes and mind of the beholder. The US Constitution didn't have to change from when it was perfectly acceptable to own slaves, to when it was not, but acceptable to deny Blacks basic rights, or to when that was not allowed either. All that changed were the people "interpreting" the constitution.

Perhaps you believe otherwise, but I'm betting that the US Supreme Court Justices werent involved in the writing of any Civil Rights legislation.

[Argus]

Perhaps you believe otherwise, but I'm betting that the US Supreme Court Justices werent involved in the writing of any Civil Rights legislation.

The US Supreme Court justices re-interpreted the constitution a number of times along the way. Replace them with the batch that found slavery was perfectly fine and see just how the Constitution gets interpreted again.

Our own constitution would be of absolutely zero help if a government stacked the SC and then decided to start burning Jews, Gypsies and gays in ovens. They'd simply "interpet" the constitution to allow it.

[Born Free]

The US Supreme Court justices re-interpreted the constitution a number of times along the way. Replace them with the batch that found slavery was perfectly fine and see just how the Constitution gets interpreted again.

Slavery was abolished by the government not by the US SC. The SC justices dont write legislation. They rule on court cases. Of course you must surely know that.

Our own constitution would be of absolutely zero help if a government stacked the SC and then decided to start burning Jews, Gypsies and gays in ovens. They'd simply "interpet" the constitution to allow it.

Even you cant believe what you just wrote.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Born Free

[Argus]

Slavery was abolished by the government not by the US SC.

But the Supreme Court found there was nothing unconstitutional about slavery. Think they'd rule that way now?

Even you cant believe what you just wrote.

What would stop them? The Supreme Court can find anything constitutional they want to. It really doesn't matter if scholars disagree. Whatever the SC says - goes.

But that's really a secondary issue. The issue is appointing the best minds to the Supreme Court, and if you disqualify 99% of all lawyers and judges west of Quebec what's left?

Just how many fluently bilingual lawyers or judges from BC do you think they will have to choose from in future appointments? Three? Four?

Edited April 23, 2010 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

But the Supreme Court found there was nothing unconstitutional about slavery. Think they'd rule that way now?

The USSC can't rule that way....because of the 14th Amendment overiding the court's Dred Scot decision (slave rights).

What would stop them? The Supreme Court can find anything constitutional they want to. It really doesn't matter if scholars disagree. Whatever the SC says - goes.

False....the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and can be changed to reign in any court.

[Argus]

The USSC can't rule that way....because of the 14th Amendment overiding the court's Dred Scot decision (slave rights).

False....the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and can be changed to reign in any court.

The SC in both countries get to decide what the Constitution means. The only way of overriding those decisions is a constitutional change which takes years, and is virtually impossible in this country.

[Born Free]

The SC in both countries get to decide what the Constitution means. The only way of overriding those decisions is a constitutional change which takes years, and is virtually impossible in this country.

..............

Edited April 24, 2010 by Born Free

[bush_cheney2004]

The SC in both countries get to decide what the Constitution means. The only way of overriding those decisions is a constitutional change which takes years, and is virtually impossible in this country.

Correct....but not in the "other" country.

[Argus]

Correct....but not in the "other" country.

But we're not talking about that "other" country. The demand for all Supreme Court justices in the United States to be familiar with both official languages won't come for another thirty or forty years, when the number of Hispanic voters reaches 30% and Spanish becomes an official language in the U.S.

[bush_cheney2004]

But we're not talking about that "other" country.....

Then why did you bring it up?

[msdogfood]

How is Bill C-232 legal if there is this???

Section Fourteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Section Fourteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the last section under the "Legal rights" heading in the Charter. It provides anyone in a court the right to an interpreter if the person does not speak the language being used or is deaf.

The section states:

“ 14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.

Interpretation

The rights implied by section 14 were defined by the Supreme Court in the case R. v. Tran (1994), which involved an interpreter for a defendant who spoke Vietnamese in an English language trial. The Supreme Court found that section 14 requires the translation to be of consistent quality ("continuity") and unbiased accuracy. However, not everything in the trial must be translated if it is not truly important to the defendant's rights.[3] The finding on the required quality came from the purpose of the right, which, based in natural justice and multiculturalism, emphasized that a defendant must fully understand the trial. Natural justice means a defendant can respond to accusations. The Court also stated that the quality of the translation must not be so high that the defendant is actually more informed than those who speak the court's language.[2]

Usually a person who wishes to have an interpreter must ask for his or her section 14 rights to be fulfilled and carries the burden of proof that he or she actually does not understand the court's language. The court itself is also responsible for satisfying the right, and sometimes a section 14 request does not have to be made by a defendant in order for an interpreter to be provided under section 14.[2]

Notes

1.^ Hogg, Peter W. Constitutional Law of Canada. 2003 Student Ed. Scarborough, Ontario: Thomson Canada Limited, 2003, page 1149.

2.^ a b c R. v. Tran, 1994 CanLII 56 (S.C.C.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 951.

3.^ Hogg, page 1150.

So how is Bill C-232 legal???.

[CANADIEN]

How is Bill C-232 legal if there is this???

Section Fourteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Section Fourteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the last section under the "Legal rights" heading in the Charter. It provides anyone in a court the right to an interpreter if the person does not speak the language being used or is deaf.

The section states:

14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.

While Bill C-232 is not necessary, nothing in there makes it illegal.

Section 14 of the Charter mandates the use of an interpretor if a party or a witness does not understand the language being used. Note, however, that it says nothing as to what is the language that is to be used. In fact, there is plenty of legislation that warrants that court procedures be in the languages of the parties to them.

In criminal proceedings, section 530 of the Criminal Code states that

530. (1) On application by an accused whose language is one of the official languages of Canada, made not later than

(a) the time of the appearance of the accused at which his trial date is set, if

(i) he is accused of an offence mentioned in section 553 or punishable on summary conviction, or

(ii) the accused is to be tried on an indictment preferred under section 577,

( the time of the accuseds election, if the accused elects under section 536 to be tried by a provincial court judge or under section 536.1 to be tried by a judge without a jury and without having a preliminary inquiry, or

© the time when the accused is ordered to stand trial, if the accused

(i) is charged with an offence listed in section 469,

(ii) has elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge or a judge and jury, or

(iii) is deemed to have elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury,

a justice of the peace, provincial court judge or judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice shall grant an order directing that the accused be tried before a justice of the peace, provincial court judge, judge or judge and jury, as the case may be, who speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused or, if the circumstances warrant, who speak both official languages of Canada.

Idem

(2) On application by an accused whose language is not one of the official languages of Canada, made not later than whichever of the times referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to © is applicable, a justice of the peace or provincial court judge may grant an order directing that the accused be tried before a justice of the peace, provincial court judge, judge or judge and jury, as the case may be, who speak the official language of Canada in which the accused, in the opinion of the justice or provincial court judge, can best give testimony or, if the circumstances warrant, who speak both official languages of Canada.

Accused to be advised of right

(3) The justice of the peace or provincial court judge before whom an accused first appears shall ensure that they are advised of their right to apply for an order under subsection (1) or (2) and of the time before which such an application must be made.[/wuote]

This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Queen vs Beaulac (1999).

Federal Courts: The Official Languages Act states:

14. English and French are the official languages of the federal courts, and either of those languages may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any federal court.

Hearing of witnesses in official language of choice

15. (1) Every federal court has, in any proceedings before it, the duty to ensure that any person giving evidence before it may be heard in the official language of his choice, and that in being so heard the person will not be placed at a disadvantage by not being heard in the other official language.

Duty to provide simultaneous interpretation

(2) Every federal court has, in any proceedings conducted before it, the duty to ensure that, at the request of any party to the proceedings, facilities are made available for the simultaneous interpretation of the proceedings, including the evidence given and taken, from one official language into the other.

Federal court may provide simultaneous interpretation

(3) A federal court may, in any proceedings conducted before it, cause facilities to be made available for the simultaneous interpretation of the proceedings, including evidence given and taken, from one official language into the other where it considers the proceedings to be of general public interest or importance or where it otherwise considers it desirable to do so for members of the public in attendance at the proceedings.

Duty to ensure understanding without an interpreter

16. (1) Every federal court, other than the Supreme Court of Canada, has the duty to ensure that

(a) if English is the language chosen by the parties for proceedings conducted before it in any particular case, every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings is able to understand English without the assistance of an interpreter;

( if French is the language chosen by the parties for proceedings conducted before it in any particular case, every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings is able to understand French without the assistance of an interpreter; and

© if both English and French are the languages chosen by the parties for proceedings conducted before it in any particular case, every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings is able to understand both languages without the assistance of an interpreter.

while sextion 132 of the Constitutional Act of 1867 states that

(...)either of those Languages may be used by any Person or in any Pleading or Process in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec.

All texts can be found at http://www.canlii.org/en/

Edited April 25, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Argus]

While Bill C-232 is not necessary, nothing in there makes it illegal.

Perhaps, but common sense makes it a terrible idea.

In most provinces outside Quebec I would suggest 99% of all lawyers would be screened out of consideration for a judge's position based on fluency in French. That leaves us with an extremely small talent pool from which to choose great legal minds from - assuming great knowledge and wisdom are considered at all important compared to the ability to order a meal in French, of course.

[msdogfood]

While Bill C-232 is not necessary, nothing in there makes it illegal.

Section 14 of the Charter mandates the use of an interpretor if a party or a witness does not understand the language being used. Note, however, that it says nothing as to what is the language that is to be used. In fact, there is plenty of legislation that warrants that court procedures be in the languages of the parties to them.

In criminal proceedings, section 530 of the Criminal Code states that

Federal Courts: The Official Languages Act states:

while sextion 132 of the Constitutional Act of 1867 states that

All texts can be found at http://www.canlii.org/en/

So if i understand you correctly there is no need for Bill C-232 at all???

If that is true why the hell was it tabled in the first place???.

[scribblet]

So if i understand you correctly there is no need for Bill C-232 at all???

If that is true why the hell was it tabled in the first place???.

To forward an agenda and political power, for a province which is known for wanting to destroy Canada.

[CANADIEN]

So if i understand you correctly there is no need for Bill C-232 at all???

If that is true why the hell was it tabled in the first place???.

Go ask people who think it is needed, not me.

And now a question for YOU. Since there is nothing illegal in the bill, do you have a problem with the notion that Canadians should be able to bring heir legal cases to the Supreme Court in either English or French and have judges who can understand what they say?

[CANADIEN]

To forward an agenda and political power, for a province which is known for wanting to destroy Canada.

Correction.

The further the right of Canadians to present their case to the Supreme Court in either English or French. While the tool chosen is not necessary in this case, the objective remains valid.

[Argus]

And now a question for YOU. Since there is nothing illegal in the bill, do you have a problem with the notion that Canadians should be able to bring heir legal cases to the Supreme Court in either English or French and have judges who can understand what they say?

People do not attend their cases at the SC. Only lawyers do. And the translation seems to function quite adequately.

[msdogfood]

To forward an agenda and political power, for a province which is known for wanting to destroy Canada.

on that bases could you not make the case Bill C-232 violates the charter because of the direct mandates in it

the riles of criminal procedure has Bean set out by Parliament but modified by the courts to be carter compliant

is a judge not also a party to a case Thais engaging SECTION 14???.

[CANADIEN]

on that bases could you not make the case Bill C-232 violates the charter because of the direct mandates in it

the riles of criminal procedure has Bean set out by Parliament but modified by the courts to be carter compliant

is a judge not also a party to a case Thais engaging SECTION 14???.

A judge is not a party to a trial, either civil or criminal. The plaintiff and the defendant are the parties.

[Leafless]

To forward an agenda and political power, for a province which is known for wanting to destroy Canada.

Wanting to destroy Canada?

I think they have been successful in destroying the polical workings of English Canada.

To bad intelligent politicians don't know the same thing or are totally dumbfounded as to what to do about it.

Bilingual SC justices is an example of linguistic madness and perceived rights gone bonkers.

[msdogfood]

A judge is not a party to a trial, either civil or criminal. The plaintiff and the defendant are the parties.

pecicly ware is that specified anyware???.

[Leafless]

A judge is not a party to a trial, either civil or criminal. The plaintiff and the defendant are the parties.

The plaintiff and the defendant are litigants, not parties.

[Topaz]

In my view, I would think as a judge I would want to speak both languages and not rely on someone else's interpretation of what the person was saying. Have your heard the problems some of those people have in Question Period going from French to English? People always want to take the easy way out in a situation and that is not always the right way of doing things.

[msdogfood]

The plaintiff and the defendant are litigants, not parties.

OK in law ware is that indicated or defined???