Forcing all Supreme Court judges to be French or Quebecers

[Argus]

Some of you may have missed it, but a couple of months back the Bloq Quebecois, the Liberal Party and the NDP teamed up to insist that all future Supreme Court Justices be from Quebec or be French from other provinces.

This was done for obvious reasons. The Quebec MPs wanted more power for Quebec and Francophones. The Liberal Party wanted to grovel and ingratiate itself to Quebecers, and the NDP just hate anyone who isn't some kind of minority and are always eager to stick it to them.

Under the new law, if you're a brilliant legal jurist from BC or Alberta or, for that matter, Ontario, but you aren't fluently bilingual, well screw off. As in the Public Service as a whole, technical ability (i.e., knowledge of law) will become secondary behind the need to be able to speak French. I can personally attest to the deterioration in the quality of management in my agency after the bilingualism rules were tightened, and I have little doubt things will be even worse for the Supreme Court. What percentage of lawyers in BC or Alberta are fluently bilingual anyway? For that matter, how many in Ontario are, unless they're Franco Ontarions?

Not that we've always stressed quality anyway. Political affiliation (or gay friendliness if you're a Liberal) and geographic location have always been more important. And you get extra points if you've got ovaries or can claim to some sort of ethnicity.

The bill hasn't yet passed the Senate, and might not given the Tories have a razor thin majority. It depends on what the five independents in the Senate do. The Canadian Bar Association announced near unanimity in opposing the bill the other day - not exactly timely but what do you expect from lawyers.. So we'll see if that has any influence in the Senate.

National Post

As an aside, whenever I think it might actually be possible to consider voting Liberal things like this remind me of what a group of grasping, venal, self-serving, spineless, sniveling weasels they are.

[kimmy]

Maybe if you're a brilliant legal jurist who doesn't speak fluent French you can still get to the Supreme Court and take that super-awesome language skills training Da Shwa was talking about.

-k

[Jefferson]

Here's how Supreme Court judges get their jobs in Canada;

"Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada are appointed by the Governor General-in-Council, a process whereby the governor general, the viceregal representative of the Queen of Canada, makes appointments based on the advice and consent of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada#Appointments

So the Queen of England, through her personally selected middleman the Governor General, selects them. Who did she select for that position? Michaëlle Jean, a Haitian refugee. She wasn't even born in Canada. What qualified her for that position? Having been a journalist and CBC broadcaster. This is also the person who chooses the Prime Minister, a person granted sweeping powers, including making numerous other appointments, and who can hold the office until the day he dies unless another Party gets elected, which doesn't look very likely in our lifetimes.

The obvious question is why is the Queen of England able to appoint anything in Canada, much less the person who will then singlehandedly decide who will have dictatorial powers over the nation? Look how that turned out. This might sound crazy but wouldn't elections by the citizens of Canada be a more appropriate way to decide who rules the country than the Queen doing it for us through her appointee, who apparently requires no political experience whatsoever? I have to think a CBC broadcaster is not the best choice for that position, especially when they are an immigrant who, for all we know, might hold a grudge against a country full of white folk and want to screw it up as much as possible by appointing a useless nerd as Prime Minister, a guy who dances like he has cerebral palsy and sings "I'll get high with a little help from my friends" with such talent that all four judges on "Canada Doesn't Have Talent" would hit the gong button simultaneously.

When will Canadians get an operation to attach cojones and then have a war of independence with Britain, who are still ruling the country through their chosen proxies? When will Canada actually become a real republic with an actual elected President and a real Constitution? Apparently never. We'll always be "the colonies". When will somebody actually start the Canadian Republican Party and tell Britain to screw off or face the consequences because we're tired of being the Queen's lackies. What a a pathetic excuse for a democratic and supposedly independent country. We have no say whatsoever in the two highest positions in the country. We get to elect MPs from one of three Parties (the only ones with a chance in hell of getting elected), each one of which is worse than the other. That's it. That's all the democracy we get. I guess that's all we deserve if we actually stand for it. Now where's a shipment of British tea? We have a party to get started and we're a few centuries late already.

Edited August 28, 2010 by Jefferson

[Peter F]

Get off your lazy butt and start organizing 'stead of moaning that no one's gonna do it for you.

[kimmy]

I have to think a CBC broadcaster is not the best choice for that position, especially when they are an immigrant who, for all we know, might hold a grudge against a country full of white folk and want to screw it up as much as possible by appointing a useless nerd as Prime Minister, a guy who dances like he has cerebral palsy and sings "I'll get high with a little help from my friends" with such talent that all four judges on "Canada Doesn't Have Talent" would hit the gong button simultaneously.

When will Canadians get an operation to attach cojones and then have a war of independence with Britain, who are still ruling the country through their chosen proxies?

-k

[Evening Star]

Montreal lawyer Yves Tourangeau said there is a danger of arguments being lost in translation if judges are forced to rely on interpreters.

“We only request that the nine people serving on our Supreme Court understand French and English, not be fluent in both languages,” he said.

If this is what the bill requires, that's a bit different than what the OP suggests (and sounds fairly reasonable to me).

[CANADIEN]

As I said last time this topic was brought in, there is no need for all nine judges of the Supreme Court to be bilingual for it to operate in English and French, and on that account alone I oppose that waste of a law.

That being said, let's get the FACTS straight. Contrary to what the misleading title of the OP states, there is NOTHING in the law in question that prevents somebody from outside Quebec to sit on the Supreme Court (unless someone is to believe the absurdist notion that there are no Francophones or people able to learn French outside Quebec). There is also NOTHING that states that one has to be a Francophone to sit on the Court.

But well, why just state the law is uneccessary when it is a lot simplier to make up facts out of ignorance and prejudice.

Edited August 28, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Jefferson]

Get off your lazy butt and start organizing 'stead of moaning that no one's gonna do it for you.

Uh, I am not exactly in a position to start a new political party, being of low income. Perhaps you could get off YOUR lazy ass and take care of it for me, or are you happy with being a citizen of a British colony. I think you like it. I think you like the Prime Minister being appointed by a Haitian radio broadcaster and I think you liked it when Adrian Clarkson, a TV talk show host was appointing the PM too. In fact, I think you'll love it when Bubbles from Trailer Park Boys is appointed by the Queen to be the GG. Now go kiss the Queen's hand like a good tea drinking Brit, instead of criticizing me.

[Shwa]

Maybe if you're a brilliant legal jurist who doesn't speak fluent French you can still get to the Supreme Court and take that super-awesome language skills training Da Shwa was talking about. -k

One would think a brilliant legal jurist would be smart enough to apply for the job while possessing the necessary qualifications rather than giving up halfway through the process and then blaming their failure to qualify on unfair hiring practices.

One would hope so, you know, with them being a brilliant legal jurist and all...

[g_bambino]

So the Queen of England, through her personally selected middleman the Governor General, selects them.

Wrong.

When will Canadians get an operation to attach cojones and then have a war of independence with Britain, who are still ruling the country through their chosen proxies?

Why would we do something so grossly stupid as to wage war over something settled long ago? Why don't you instead just go entertain yourself with some American Revolution re-enactments south of the border? There's no need for any Boston Tea Party here.

[William Ashley]

Its stupid.

It is noble though, as Canadians at the highest level of the state should know both languages - but I don't think it ought to be a requirement this could cause issues, but that is what translators and two official languages are for.

It would have to be "both English and French" what good is a french only speaking judge over a English only speaking judge.

It is just plain stupid.

It would be much easier if the bar just required all lawyers to have both official languages - good luck with that one.

Very stupid. I do favour incredible reforms to the justice system but making the two official langauges unequal is not one of them.

Non,

C'est stupide. Il ne necesaire pas. Qu'est la reason pour traducion.

(Ma fracaise est tres horrible, et autre personne francaise angliase est horrible)

Quest la raison pour suelment francais? Je crois la duex langue est egal, est tout divergence est mal.

Anglais est francaise un peux plus et derange. La normands captures le deux la francias et l' anglais.

Un loi plus bon est require le deux langue plus la langue latina en l'ecole en tout Canada. C'est la future - mais la plupart du Canadiens son inculte et biaisees contre la langue de l'opposition. Nous somme un comme des canadiens.

necesaire pas pour un exclusion de la langues officielles en Canada. Ils son egal. Elles son egal. Est histoire. Le suel langue necessaire pour luer est raison et grace.

Edited August 29, 2010 by William Ashley

[Argus]

Montreal lawyer Yves Tourangeau said there is a danger of arguments being lost in translation if judges are forced to rely on interpreters.

We only request that the nine people serving on our Supreme Court understand French and English, not be fluent in both languages, he said.

If this is what the bill requires, that's a bit different than what the OP suggests (and sounds fairly reasonable to me).

His statement is nonsense. Anyone who knows anything about bilingualism knows that. Learning a little French, even a lot of French, is not going to allow you to follow a complex legal argument. It just isn't. I've lived in Ottawa almost all my life. I know a ton of people who are billingual. But the only ones who are really fluent, who really can participate fully and understand complex arguments without difficulty are Francophones who were born outside Quebec, and Anglophones born inside Quebec. For the most part, people who don't grow up with a language and don't use it every day of their life simply do not have the necessary linguistic capability to understand the nuances of complicated, technical arguments. They will STILL need to get this stuff translated.

So what exactly is the reason for a bilingual requirement again? Especially given that probably well under 1% of lawyers outside Quebec are fluently bilingual?

Edited August 29, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

One would think a brilliant legal jurist would be smart enough to apply for the job while possessing the necessary qualifications rather than giving up halfway through the process and then blaming their failure to qualify on unfair hiring practices.

One would hope so, you know, with them being a brilliant legal jurist and all...

When you re-write the "necessary qualifications" to put in an irrelevent qualifaction which has nothing to do with the actual technical skill level you subordinate the job to the new qualification. That is exactly what's happened with the federal government. Actual skills in any position which is bilingual are subordinated to linguistic abilities. And this screens out about 95% of the potential applicants in any given profession. So we have people doing all sorts of jobs, especially at high levels, who aren't anywhere near as good as others, but who get the job because of their linguistic abilities. We have really mediocre lawyers, crappy managers, executives who can't make decisions, inept engineers, lousy IT people and a horryfingly incompetent HR staff.

But they all speak both languages.

Edited August 29, 2010 by Argus

[jefferiah]

Montreal lawyer Yves Tourangeau said there is a danger of arguments being lost in translation if judges are forced to rely on interpreters.

“We only request that the nine people serving on our Supreme Court understand French and English, not be fluent in both languages,” he said.

This does not make a lot of sense. If the lawyer is not required to be fluent, for instance, how does that necessarily make him more reliable than a translator? The level of fluency required to make legal arguments is not something you can pick up easily.

Edited August 29, 2010 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

One would think a brilliant legal jurist would be smart enough to apply for the job while possessing the necessary qualifications rather than giving up halfway through the process and then blaming their failure to qualify on unfair hiring practices..

And what of those brilliant legal jurists who got the job before this is mandatory?

[Evening Star]

Yeah, you guys are actually swaying me on this.

[capricorn]

The level of fluency required to make legal arguments is not something you can pick up easily.

Another aspect is that those in the legal profession that are fluent in English and in French are able to determine which language version of legislative texts would work to their advantage. There are legislative texts that have errors in the original translation that are still on the books today and can be interpreted differently in the other language. You need to be fluent in both languages in order to determine which version you will be relying on in whatever action legal endeavor you're undertaking.

[Argus]

Another aspect is that those in the legal profession that are fluent in English and in French are able to determine which language version of legislative texts would work to their advantage. There are legislative texts that have errors in the original translation that are still on the books today and can be interpreted differently in the other language. You need to be fluent in both languages in order to determine which version you will be relying on in whatever action legal endeavor you're undertaking.

My best friend is a halfbreed. Grew up in Ottawa with French/English parents. The government's highest rating for fluency is E - which means you're so fluent you're exempt from having to ever take any tests again. That's what she has. Her French is good enough that she is often dismayed at the poor level of French on some government web sites and in many documents. And she grows angry when her superiors try to get her to translate documents because, she says, her French isn't good enough.

The people who translate for the government are in a class by themselves, well above the normal levels of fluency the government tests its regular employees on. They're specialists and she says only they can reliably translate documents properly - and even they make mistakes from time to time.

So how is it that a requirement for a Judge to be considerably less fluent than my friend is going to enable them to read through hundreds of pages of complicated legal arguments without the use of a translator?

[Shwa]

When you re-write the "necessary qualifications" to put in an irrelevent qualifaction which has nothing to do with the actual technical skill level you subordinate the job to the new qualification. That is exactly what's happened with the federal government. Actual skills in any position which is bilingual are subordinated to linguistic abilities. And this screens out about 95% of the potential applicants in any given profession. So we have people doing all sorts of jobs, especially at high levels, who aren't anywhere near as good as others, but who get the job because of their linguistic abilities. We have really mediocre lawyers, crappy managers, executives who can't make decisions, inept engineers, lousy IT people and a horryfingly incompetent HR staff.

But they all speak both languages.

And why is the designation of blingualism for certain positions written into those qualifications in the first place? Any idea?

[August1991]

Under the new law, if you're a brilliant legal jurist from BC or Alberta or, for that matter, Ontario, but you aren't fluently bilingual, well screw off.

Argus, you are being deliberately controversial.

We have employed quotas in Canada since the British arrived in 1759. For example, the British parliament's BNA Act of 1867 requires that Canada's Supreme Court have three justices from Quebec.

----

Quota - or a specific code? Like Bambino, I sometimes prefer established tradition.

I think that it's an accepted tradition/convention in Canada now that all federal PMs are bilingual. There is no law requiring this, but it is an accepted convention. (Pearson was the last unilingual federal PM - and even he and Diefenbaker made attempts at speaking French. Campbell's French was admittedly iffy.) Moreover, it is understood that anglophone federal cabinet ministers will have to deal with French texts/memos, and francophone federal cabinet ministers will have to sit through meetings in English.

For several decades now, parents across Canada have known about this (if they didn't before. English Catholic parents in particular). In English Canada nowadays, they send their children to immersion schools and in Quebec, they let their kids listen to American music. Fortunately now, we in Canada have a large number of people who can manage in another language. No purist, I happen to think that's a good thing.

I only object to passing this law. In my mind, no PM should propose a Supreme Court justice who cannot at least read French and English, and be able to have an accented conversation in both languages.

No law is required for such a tradition or convention.

Edited August 29, 2010 by August1991

[msdogfood]

Regardless of the current argument's I Still think they are going to have a problem with section 14 of the charter if they change this!!!

If not that could one not bring a employment discrimination case if thay are past over for a position based on the new law???.

If that is true What the Hell was the NDP thinking???.

[CANADIEN]

Regardless of the current argument's I Still think they are going to have a problem with section 14 of the charter if they change this!!!

If not that could one not bring a employment discrimination case if thay are past over for a position based on the new law???.

If that is true What the Hell was the NDP thinking???.

Section 14 of the Charter applies to the parties (i.e., the plaintiff and the defendant) in a trial, not to a judge. In fact, it does not even applies to the lawyers for the two parties, as stated in New Brunswick court decision (http://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbqb/doc/1986/1986canlii92/1986canlii92.html).

As for the argument that the law is discriminatory, it falls flat on its face. The same requirement applies to ALL posible candidates, and rests on what skills (linguistic in this case)are needed for the job. That theskills are not absolutely necessary does not make the requirement discriminatory.

Edited August 29, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Argus]

And why is the designation of blingualism for certain positions written into those qualifications in the first place? Any idea?

For political reasons. It started out quite sensibly with a requirement that the public had a right to service in either official language (something I agree with). But they continued to expand the program, and the real kicker was that you had a right to be supervised, and to have all internal communications given to you in the language of your choice. This is NOT to help the public, it is political, for internal only, and the vast majority of bilingual positions are due to this. All managers and supervisors, all executives at the HQ level, IT people, HR people, anyone who deals with internal clients had to be bilingual. Even if you almost never, or even never have to deal with someone of the opposite language, the job is still designated bilingual.

[Argus]

Argus, you are being deliberately controversial.

Guilty.

I think that it's an accepted tradition/convention in Canada now that all federal PMs are bilingual.

Yes. But it isn't a law. Once you make it a requirement you then have to establish the rules of the requirement. Just how bilingual do they have to be, and who is going to test them to ensure they meet the standard? The standard for managers in the Ottawa area is C/C/C, which is (theoretically) fluent. I put it to you that none of the four federal party leaders would be able to pass the tests the federal government has created for that level of fluency.

Fortunately now, we in Canada have a large number of people who can manage in another language. No purist, I happen to think that's a good thing.

A large number? That depends. We have a number of people who can ask the route to the bathroom in either official language, who can order a lunch at a restaurant, or possibly even give simple information. How many are actually fluent to the level the federal government requires for executives? How many are fluent enough to carry on a complex, technical conversation in the other language? I'm suggesting it is under 1% nationally. Are you comfortable with discarding 99% of potential judges and only selecting them from the 1% who are fluent in both languages? And if so, where do you suspect the great majority of that 1% are from?

[William Ashley]

My best friend is a halfbreed. Grew up in Ottawa with French/English parents. The government's highest rating for fluency is E - which means you're so fluent you're exempt from having to ever take any tests again. That's what she has. Her French is good enough that she is often dismayed at the poor level of French on some government web sites and in many documents. And she grows angry when her superiors try to get her to translate documents because, she says, her French isn't good enough.

The people who translate for the government are in a class by themselves, well above the normal levels of fluency the government tests its regular employees on. They're specialists and she says only they can reliably translate documents properly - and even they make mistakes from time to time.

So how is it that a requirement for a Judge to be considerably less fluent than my friend is going to enable them to read through hundreds of pages of complicated legal arguments without the use of a translator?

Because official documents should be kept in both languages - and there should be one of the language they use.

The thing about using any "text" is that it is applicable in both languages so the benefits and failings of the texts exist in both languages. Speaking in one language doesn't omit the interpretation of the text in the other language. The argument prior this post is false to a point, it has both advantages and failings. The actual intent of articles ought to be added in the long form of the articles, that is to include the intents and purposes and application, not solely the words used in the article.

The whole provinciality is a little stupid also. Canada is a whole. So what if some judge just moves to Quebec for the appointment? Since they can take up residence anywhere in Canada etc..

it is stupid.

Edited August 29, 2010 by William Ashley