Forcing all Supreme Court judges to be French or Quebecers

[Sailor]

lol if all SCOC justices were from Quebec, I'd not only support their seperation, I'd insist the entire court go with them!

[Benz]

The Bloc never asked something like that.

All the nine judges are required to speak and understand both languages. Because everyone in Canada should be able to go to the supreme court and be listen in its language (french or english).

However, half of the judges should come from the english culture and the other half from the french. Those cultures are different in some points and the understanding can also be different.

[Scotty]

The Bloc never asked something like that.

All the nine judges are required to speak and understand both languages. Because everyone in Canada should be able to go to the supreme court and be listen in its language (french or english).

However, half of the judges should come from the english culture and the other half from the french. Those cultures are different in some points and the understanding can also be different.

Why should Francophones, who make up one fifth the population have one half the judges?

[Smallc]

However, half of the judges should come from the english culture and the other half from the french. Those cultures are different in some points and the understanding can also be different.

Half? Are you kidding? Half? The third that currently comes from Quebec is almost too many. If Quebec's culture is distinct, so is that of every other province and region in Canada.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Smallc

[CANADIEN]

The Bloc never asked something like that.

All the nine judges are required to speak and understand both languages. Because everyone in Canada should be able to go to the supreme court and be listen in its language (french or english).

However, half of the judges should come from the english culture and the other half from the french. Those cultures are different in some points and the understanding can also be different.

There is no reason why judges need to be from one part of the county or another, except regional balance. Like it or not, all Canadians are equal. Having three judges who are from Quebec (or more exactly, who have practiced inn Quebec) is justified on a practical point of view, there need to be a certain number of judges familiar with Quebec's Civil law system. Beyond that, I do not care where the Supremes hail from.

As for the idea that all judges in the Supreme Court has to be bilingual. The nature of the proceedings in the Supreme Court makes it unneccesary (even though the more can function in both official languages, the better). There is not just one judge, but nine, the translation service is excellant, and the vast majority (not to say almost all) of the arguments in this court are on points of law, or precedents in terms of past judgements.

That's the most important point. citizens rarely appear in person in the SCC. All is done by lawyers, and not any lawers, btw, but by lawyers with years of practice. As I said, the arguments rely on precedents and interpretations of laws more than on evidence, and most of that staff has been translated. In any case, most of the research is done by law clercks (if there is a need for a pool of binlingual people, it's there more than with the nine people who sit on the Bench). Not having a knwledge of the language in which the argument has been presented does not have the same effect than at a lower court.

When it comes to the Supreme Court, there is no evidence whatsover that not having nine bilingual judges is detrimental to the rights of the persons whose case is brought to the Court either in English or in French. Linguistic rights and linguistic equality is not affected, and is not compromised.

Edited April 20, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Why should Francophones, who make up one fifth the population have one half the judges?

Why should the first language of a judge be relevant at all?

[CANADIEN]

However, half of the judges should come from the english culture and the other half from the french. Those cultures are different in some points and the understanding can also be different.

And which French-speaking cultureS should the judges come from? You know that the Acadian culture is different from the Quebec culture, right?

[Benz]

Why should Francophones, who make up one fifth the population have one half the judges?

+

Half? Are you kidding? Half? The third that currently comes from Quebec is almost too many. If Quebec's culture is distinct, so is that of every other province and region in Canada.

My bad. It is indeed 3, not half. I mixed up with something else.

However, why all the nine judges should be bilingual? Very simple, even the very best translation can fool the true meaning of what it is said.

I will give you an example. When the former Québec's prime minister Bernard Landry said "Je ne vais pas faire le trottoir pour un bout de chiffon rouge", the english canadians translated "chiffon" as "rag". Because there are no word for "chiffon" in english, the closiest is "rag". In reversed translation, the word "rag" in french would rather be "guénille". Rag is pejorative, guénille is pejorative, chiffon is not.

Depending of the contexts, one word can have several different meanings. The translation adds difficulties to the precise understanding.

I am not saying an unilingual judge cannot do its job, I'm saying the chances he/she commits an error is a little bit higher than a bilingual judge. Since learning a language is very easy when you put the appropriated efforts to it, there are no good reasons why we do not use that criteria. We are not in a situation where it could be difficult to find judges meeting that critera added to the current ones.

[CANADIEN]

However, why all the nine judges should be bilingual? Very simple, even the very best translation can fool the true meaning of what it is said.

I will give you an example. When the former Québec's prime minister Bernard Landry said "Je ne vais pas faire le trottoir pour un bout de chiffon rouge", the english canadians translated "chiffon" as "rag". Because there are no word for "chiffon" in english, the closiest is "rag". In reversed translation, the word "rag" in french would rather be "guénille". Rag is pejorative, guénille is pejorative, chiffon is not.

Depending of the contexts, one word can have several different meanings. The translation adds difficulties to the precise understanding.

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.

Edited April 20, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Molly]

See, this I disagree with.

Benz, your English is fine, but I would also propose that you've had a great deal more opportunity to learn to speak English well than most Canadians have to learn to speak French well. (That's also a bit of a herring, but....) so the demand for bilingualism seriously reduces the size of the pool, does it preferentially, and does those things for no good reason.

I'm going to mess with your words just to point out that competent learning of a language isn't necessarily so easy as you say, that there's little to be benefitted from second-language studies when compared to competent translators.

I am not saying an unilingual judge cannot do its job, I'm saying the chances that he/she would commit an error is a little bit higher than a bilingual judge. Since learning a language is very easy when you put the appropriated efforts to it, there are no good reasons why we do not use that criteria. We are not in a situation where it could be difficult to find judges meeting that critera added to the current ones.

A reasonably thorough editing would completely rewrite your final sentence, at very minimum, because it's off to the opoint that I don't really know what you are trying to say with it. Most of the paragraph should be restructured.

Conversational second languages are easy enough to attain for many people, but the lingusitic mastery that would prevent, rahter than cause translation errors is much more rare and difficult to attain.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Molly

[Benz]

See, this I disagree with.

Benz, your English is fine, but I would also propose that you've had a great deal more opportunity to learn to speak English well than most Canadians have to learn to speak French well.

Are you trying to claim pity? Blame your ancestors for that because they oppresed the french language. The ratio would be more balanced and "opportunity" for the anglos to learn french would be greater if all the french canadians could send their kids into french schools. Now you are trying to argue that it's not fair for you because it's easier for the french to learn english? It cannot be a valid point under any circumstances. Not in Canada.

so the demand for bilingualism seriously reduces the size of the pool, does it preferentially, and does those things for no good reason.

No good reason? You may beleive reducing the pool is bad, but you totally failed to demonstrate my reasons are not good. Plus, it's not like if we have to find hundred thousand judges. Just nine. You are easy to discourage.

I'm going to mess with your words just to point out that competent learning of a language isn't necessarily so easy as you say, that there's little to be benefitted from second-language studies when compared to competent translators.

I didn't say they should be perfect translators. By the way, isn't it better to say"as easy as you say"?

A reasonably thorough editing would completely rewrite your final sentence, at very minimum, because it's off to the opoint that I don't really know what you are trying to say with it. Most of the paragraph should be restructured.

I didn't learn much english at school. I wasn't paying attention and I was doing the minimum. I got interested later on when I used it at work and when I had an anglo girlfriend. I wish I had an immersion program and take the courses more seriously. Neverthenless, when I compare my level with several average americans on the net, I considere myself not so bad.

Conversational second languages are easy enough to attain for many people, but the lingusitic mastery that would prevent, rahter than cause translation errors is much more rare and difficult to attain.

Possible. My opinion is not closed. I'd like to hear the opinion of the linguists about it. I think the criteria is worth it. Unless one can prove me that attending a reasonnable level is more difficult than the benefit the justice can get from it.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Benz

[Scotty]

I didn't learn much english at school. I wasn't paying attention and I was doing the minimum. I got interested later on when I used it at work and when I had an anglo girlfriend. I wish I had an immersion program and take the courses more seriously. Neverthenless, when I compare my level with several average americans on the net, I considere myself not so bad.

Whether you consider yourself 'not so bad' or not is irrelevant. You are capable of writing in English to a much better degree than most bilingual Francophones, and yet your English writing skills, and presumably your reading skills, are far too weak to ever be considered to be fluent enough to be reading and writing complex legal decisions in English. The reverse is true of bilingual Anglos, of course.

Far better to have top notch translators than to drastically limit our selection of judges to those very, very few who, like you, are 'bilingual' and then have them try to understand and reply to complex legal arguments in a language which they do not truly understand.

[icman]

Whether you consider yourself 'not so bad' or not is irrelevant. You are capable of writing in English to a much better degree than most bilingual Francophones, and yet your English writing skills, and presumably your reading skills, are far too weak to ever be considered to be fluent enough to be reading and writing complex legal decisions in English. The reverse is true of bilingual Anglos, of course.

Far better to have top notch translators than to drastically limit our selection of judges to those very, very few who, like you, are 'bilingual' and then have them try to understand and reply to complex legal arguments in a language which they do not truly understand.

Mastery of English is less important than the mastery of legaleze when reading and writing legal documents and considering legal arguments. I am not sure if you've done much reading of legal documents or, worse, legislation and legal decisions, but I am confident that an Anglo judge can read an English legal paper much better than the best English-French translator if that translator does not also have a lot of legal language training. As a result, a Franco judge trying to read an English legal paper will be much better served by learning English than by employing a translator. The reverse will also definately be true.

Top-notch translators for judges will not succeed if they are not also legal experts.

[icman]

Mastery of English is less important than the mastery of legaleze when reading and writing legal documents and considering legal arguments. I am not sure if you've done much reading of legal documents or, worse, legislation and legal decisions, but I am confident that an Anglo judge can read an English legal paper much better than the best English-French translator if that translator does not also have a lot of legal language training. As a result, a Franco judge trying to read an English legal paper will be much better served by learning English than by employing a translator. The reverse will also definately be true.

Top-notch translators for judges will not succeed if they are not also legal experts.

Further...

Now, jurisprudence experts are even harder to develop and train than English-French translators that also speak legaleze. So, I am not suggesting that using translators is not a good idea, only that using English-French translators is not enough. The translators need to be English/French/English-Legaleze/French-Legaleze translators.

[Scotty]

Mastery of English is less important than the mastery of legaleze when reading and writing legal documents and considering legal arguments.

Legaleze IS English, and without a mastery of English you can forget about understanding fine technical points of law.

I am not sure if you've done much reading of legal documents or, worse, legislation and legal decisions, but I am confident that an Anglo judge can read an English legal paper much better than the best English-French translator

These translators are extremely knowledgeable about legal terms in both languages and have used them for years. The point you fail to take into consideration is that that same judge, who is bilingual, will have a tortuous time trying to understand french legalese because his knowledge of his second language is almost certain to be highly imperfect. I have had to endure speeches by 'fluently' bilingual people in the past and I shudder at the thought of them making complex decisions based on documents and arguments only heard in the other official language.

And yet just to get judges with this extremely imperfect second language skill some want to narrow down the available field of legal applicants by 98%?!

Edited April 21, 2011 by Scotty

[CANADIEN]

Legaleze IS English, and without a mastery of English you can forget about understanding fine technical points of law.

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. Edited April 21, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Now, jurisprudence experts are even harder to develop and train than English-French translators that also speak legaleze. So, I am not suggesting that using translators is not a good idea, only that using English-French translators is not enough. The translators need to be English/French/English-Legaleze/French-Legaleze translators.

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.

[Scotty]

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.

The point you fail to take into consideration is that that same judge, who is bilingual, will have a tortuous time trying to understand french legalese because his knowledge of his second language is almost certain to be highly imperfect.

Does the above not entirely cover that?

[CANADIEN]

The point you fail to take into consideration is that that same judge, who is bilingual, will have a tortuous time trying to understand french legalese because his knowledge of his second language is almost certain to be highly imperfect.

Does the above not entirely cover that?

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

[Scotty]

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

I'm not saying a knowledge of the other language might not be helpful on occasion. My concern is that outside parts of Quebec, BC and eastern Ontario there are exceedingly few lawyers who are fluently bilingual. I do not want the Supreme Court to start taking in third rate legal minds simply because all the best ones, outside certain geographical areas, are unilingual.

[CANADIEN]

I'm not saying a knowledge of the other language might not be helpful on occasion. My concern is that outside parts of Quebec, BC and eastern Ontario there are exceedingly few lawyers who are fluently bilingual. I do not want the Supreme Court to start taking in third rate legal minds simply because all the best ones, outside certain geographical areas, are unilingual.

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.

[ToadBrother]

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.

Just as importantly, one that has an excellent grasp of criminal law, common law and civil law seems to me to be, by definition, a pretty damned good lawyer. Hell, that kind of lawyer could probably practice law in most jurisdictions in the industrialized world.

[Scotty]

Just as importantly, one that has an excellent grasp of criminal law, common law and civil law seems to me to be, by definition, a pretty damned good lawyer. Hell, that kind of lawyer could probably practice law in most jurisdictions in the industrialized world.

"Just" as importantly?

Most people would consider an excellent grasp of criminal law, common law and civil law" the bare minimum required to even get on a list of candidates for judge. A record of sound judgement, temperament, and ability to act without bias would come on top of that.

What some are suggesting is - forget all the above, start out with who can speak French. And only then do you assess which of that small group comes with the best knowledge and abilities.