Up the Revolution!

[CANADIEN]

Actual no. Learning a second language that is only useful in the unlikely event of SCC appointment is a time consuming task. If the rule was instituted, it would likely only be met by second rate legal minds looking to make up for what they lack in other areas. The top minds would not waste their time on languages because they would already have more than enough opportunities to pursue that provide a greater ROI.

You would have a point if biliguilism was actually a useful skill for a lawyer to have outside of Quebec.

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.

Edited April 21, 2011 by CANADIEN

[TimG]

Looks to me that somebody who learns French could end up with a larger pool of potential clients.

If that was the case we would already see a lot of lawyers with the required French fluency. But we don't so your speculation is obviously wrong.

The language requirement would be met by only by lawyers who build their career around getting an SCC appointment. There might be a few talented people in that group but it would mostly be second raters looking to take advantage of arbitray rules that eliminated most of the competition.

[M.Dancer]

If that was the case we would already see a lot of lawyers with the required French fluency. But we don't so your speculation is obviously wrong.

Ummmm....have a look at the big firms and the partners...Torys, Cassels Brock, Stikemen, Ogilvey Renault, Bennet Jones, Osler....most of the senior partners are bilingual.

[Sandy MacNab]

The Liberals are buying a half and hour on TV to show Iggy's rise up speech this weekend. In other news I wont be watching that snooze fest. Seems like a waste of money to me, TV isn't the medium people watch anymore and those who do will tune out.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberals-to-air-half-hour-tv-special-with-michael-ignatieff/article1993507/

So, that's where some of the missing $40 million is going!

[TimG]

Ummmm....have a look at the big firms and the partners...Torys, Cassels Brock, Stikemen, Ogilvey Renault, Bennet Jones, Osler....most of the senior partners are bilingual.

Big firms deal with Quebec so there is a need. But even then, there are many different levels of bilingual. Being able to conduct a business meeting in French is not good enough to meet the bilinguialism requirements being floated.

[Battletoads]

No it didn't. To say so shows a massive ignorance of Canadian History.

It did. To say otherwise is to pander to the self important minority.

I can't blame you for taking after your dear leaders example though.

[Smallc]

It did. To say otherwise is to pander to the self important minority.

No, you have to show evidence. There is no evidence. The French heritage of this country is far from dead. You may want it to be, but...too bad.

[CANADIEN]

If that was the case we would already see a lot of lawyers with the required French fluency. But we don't so your speculation is obviously wrong.

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.

The language requirement would be met by only by lawyers who build their career around getting an SCC appointment. There might be a few talented people in that group but it would mostly be second raters looking to take advantage of arbitray rules that eliminated most of the competition.

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.

Edited April 21, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Big firms deal with Quebec so there is a need. But even then, there are many different levels of bilingual. Being able to conduct a business meeting in French is not good enough to meet the bilinguialism requirements being floated.

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

[TimG]

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.

Yet that completely unnecessary will eliminate all of the talent that has better things to do with their time than learn a language which is useless to them unless they are appointed to the SCC.

The real issue is there is no rational justification for the requirement. It is nothing but pandering to English speakers that think that pandering to French helps (I don't think most French speakers care that much - as long as SCC has the 3 Quebec justices).

Edited April 21, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

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

Do you have any concrete evidence to support that claim. I know fluently bilingual people who cannot pass the civil service tests. The requirements are quite rediculous.

[CANADIEN]

Yet that completely unnecessary will eliminate all of the talent that has better things to do with their time than learn a language which is useless to them unless they are appointed to the SCC.

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

Edited April 21, 2011 by CANADIEN

[TimG]

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

How many lawyers outside of the French belt in Ontario, Quebec or NB speak it at the level required? My understanding is next to none. That is evidence enough.

[CANADIEN]

Do you have any concrete evidence to support that claim. I know fluently bilingual people who cannot pass the civil service tests. The requirements are quite rediculous.

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.

[CANADIEN]

How many lawyers outside of the French belt in Ontario, Quebec or NB speak it at the level required? My understanding is next to none. That is evidence enough.

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?

Edited April 21, 2011 by CANADIEN

[TimG]

BTW, eight of the nine judges on the SCC are bilingual. Feel free to demonstrate they are second rate lawyers any time.

And how many of those would pass the bilingualism test being proposed? The problem is not the suggestion that they speak French. The problem is they are expected meet a rediculously high standard fluency.

[CANADIEN]

And how many of those would pass the bilingualism test being proposed? The problem is not the suggestion that they speak French. The problem is they are expected meet a rediculously high standard fluency.

I'll come back to the example of Justice Ian Binnie. when the Canadian Government needed a lawyer to defend its case in a dispute with France, they must have thought that is French was good enough to do the job; after all, they could have easily chosen a Francophone lawyer. That's test enough as far as I am concerned.

[CANADIEN]

So, we have the non-sensical (and quite frankly insulting to the intelligence) idea that people outside of Quebec who bother learning French are second-rate workers in their respective field who are trying to get an employment advantage that they are otherwise non qualified enough to get.

Well, let's take a look at the SCC. Currently, eight of its judges are bilingual. They must all be second rate. Most importantly, having bilingual judges on the Court is nothing new. One would expect French-language night classes to be full of second-rate lawyers, the ones just not competent enough to be senior partners, or judges, or if they are judges stuck in the lower courts, the ones nobldy would consider for a university tenure or a job as editor of a prestigious law journal. Not happening.

Well.... there must be plenty of second rate lawyers who have figured out there is no point in learning French just in order to sit on the SCC because well... they're second rate.

[TimG]

Well, let's take a look at the SCC. Currently, eight of its judges are bilingual.

You do realize that Beverley McLachlin learned french AFTER she was appointed. Your stupid rule would have excluded her. Do you think she is a bad judge because she could not speak French? Do you think the country would have been better off without her?

Basically, you are saying you do not want to see any western juctices appointed to the SCC because learning French an absolutely useless skill for people practicing law west of the Manitoba border. It is a rediculous position to take.

Edited April 21, 2011 by TimG

[CANADIEN]

You do realize that Beverley McLachlin learned french AFTER she was appointed. Your stupid rule would have excluded her. Do you think she is a bad judge because she could not speak French? Do you think the country would have been better off without her?

Interesting, isn't it, that a rule I said at least three or for time over the past few days (in the thread on the SCC) is actually MY rule just because I do not share the incredibly stupid point of view that the level of knowledge of a second language of a lawyer is inversely proportional to his/her competency as a lawyer.

Since I have stated, clearly, that I do not believe it should be a requirement that the SCC judges be bilingual, the ridiculous proposition is I believe that the country or the court would have been better without the current Chief Justice.

BTW, since the Chief Justice decided to learn French once on the Court, could it because because she thinks bilingualism is a good knowledge for SCC judges to have?¨ She must think it is something useful to have once a Supreme.

Basically, you are saying you do not want to see any western juctices appointed to the SCC

This is a LIE.

[TimG]

I do not share the incredibly stupid point of view that the level of knowledge of a second language of a lawyer is inversely proportional to his/her competency as a lawyer.

You are beating up on a strawman because that I not what I said. I said that French is useless from the POV of a western lawyer so the only lawyers that would bother to learn it well enough to practice are judges that make being a SCC a career goal. This will necessarily mean that the talent pool would be much smaller and the average SCC candidate would be much less able than the average SCC candidate choosen from the complete pool. You tried to argue that knowing another language necessarily makes you a better lawyer. I disagree with that.

Since I have stated, clearly, that I do not believe it should be a requirement that the SCC judges be bilingual, the ridiculous proposition is I believe that the country or the court would have been better without the current Chief Justice.

They we are arguing over your misunderstaning of my position. I have no problems with learning languages and think everyone is better off if they learn more. I have a problem with the reduclous bilinguism requirements which are so strict that they exclude almost everyone who is not a native speaker.

[Scotty]

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.

Wow! There are two bilingual lawyers in Canada! Right on! I guess we don't need to worry then!

And the judges on the SC are already, often enough, second rate. The best person rarely gets selected because the party in power wants someone with their particularly ideological viewpoint, adn they have to be from a particular province, and often enough, there are other factors like "Oh, wouldn't it be nice to appoint a woman/lesbian/handicapped/eskimo" or other.

Paul Martin, as an example, sought only one primary requirement for his two appointments; that they be in support of his pro-gay agenda. Neither judge had a particularly impressive resume when he selected them for Supreme Court. He passed over everyone else for crass political opportunism.

And now you want to add on that they all have to be fluently bilingual! Wonderful. How about we add on that they're all bisexual too, so that they're equally unbiased against gays and straights? And how about they have to dye their hair in streaks just in case a blonde or a brunette might want some empathy? Anything else you'd like to throw in there while we ignore actual legal knowledge and ability?

[Scotty]

I'll come back to the example of Justice Ian Binnie. when the Canadian Government needed a lawyer to defend its case in a dispute with France, they must have thought that is French was good enough to do the job; after all, they could have easily chosen a Francophone lawyer. That's test enough as far as I am concerned.

A Quebec judge. Yeah, okay, which is the complaint people made, that all the judges would have to be francophones or Quebecers. Thanks for proving our point.

[Smallc]

Paul Martin, as an example, sought only one primary requirement for his two appointments; that they be in support of his pro-gay agenda.

Paul Martin didn't have a pro gay agenda. He was personally not in favour of allowing gay marriage. It was a matter of principle.

[punked]

Paul Martin didn't have a pro gay agenda. He was personally not in favour of allowing gay marriage. It was a matter of principle.

No the supreme court forced the Liberals hand with out them the Liberals would have ignored the issue forever.