Liberals Finally Appoint New Judges

Bonam · June 25, 2016

And yet they make up the majority of the bench, whilst making up a smaller majority (or at least a large plurality) of the Canadian population as a whole.

Nope... white females make up the plurality.

It should be obvious that when white males make up a substantially larger percentage of the bar and judiciary than of the population, discrimination is afoot.

So if a selection process results in a set of selections that is not representative of the racial and gender makeup of the population, then there is discrimination afoot? Given this definition, if white males make up about 35% of the population, should they not have made up 35% of the 15 selectees... 5 rather than 3? And if so, is this really any way to make such selections? Should not the selection simply be based on whoever are the 15 most qualified individuals, regardless of their race or gender?

Note the key point there... not the 15 individuals that are qualified enough, and then select them based on race/gender. But specifically the 15 most qualified. It is possible to differentiate to what extent individuals are qualified, besides whether or not they meet a minimum qualification criteria.

Smallc · June 25, 2016

Nope... white females make up the plurality.

You're right - I was thinking of white people.

if a selection process results in a set of selections that is not representative of the racial and gender makeup of the population, then there is discrimination afoot? Given this definition, if white males make up about 35% of the population, should they not have made up 35% of the 15 selectees... 5 rather than 3?

Not if you're trying to counterbalance the situation that already exist, with them making up more than double their share of the population.

And if so, is this really any way to make such selections? Should not the selection simply be based on whoever are the 15 most qualified individuals, regardless of their race or gender?

Generally I'd agree. In this case though, when it comes to the judiciary, I think it's important that their makeup reflects the population, as it is that population that they're dealing with, and hearing cases from. The diversity of the judiciary should mirror the regional diversity of the population.

Note the key point there... not the 15 individuals that are qualified enough, and then select them based on race/gender. But specifically the 15 most qualified.

That depends on the criteria. In this case, diversity is an important criterion of its own.

It is possible to differentiate to what extent individuals are qualified, besides whether or not they meet a minimum qualification criteria.

Given that they, 15, were selected out of the entire pool, it's likely that they meet far more than the minimum.

poochy · June 25, 2016

Go on. Keep insulting everyone who disagrees with you. I'm sure that will convince them to see the light and see your position.

Worked well in the UK, or not.

Bonam · June 25, 2016

Generally I'd agree. In this case though, when it comes to the judiciary, I think it's important that their makeup reflects the population, as it is that population that they're dealing with, and hearing cases from. The diversity of the judiciary should mirror the regional diversity of the population.

Not sure I understand why. Is the implication that these highly qualified judges are unable to set their racial biases aside when hearing a case? Does this apply to other professions? Can Asian police officers not adequately serve a black community? Can black teachers not adequately teach white children? Can white lawyers not adequately represent First Nations clients?

Smallc · June 25, 2016

Not sure I understand why. Is the implication that these highly qualified judges are unable to set their racial biases aside when hearing a case? Does this apply to other professions? Can Asian police officers not adequately serve a black community? Can black teachers not adequately teach white children? Can white lawyers not adequately represent First Nations clients?

Of course they can do all those things - but the people they're serving won't feel nearly as comfortable. Beyond that, there are certain cultural implications of various diverse groups. A non aboriginal, for example, has a hard time understanding the world that aboriginal people live in.

Archduke al-Qaddafi · June 25, 2016

Let's cut the horseshit. White men are the best fit for this job, all of you know it so admit it

Bonam · June 25, 2016

Of course they can do all those things - but the people they're serving won't feel nearly as comfortable.

Why not? Should I feel less comfortable if my doctor is Asian? What about if my computer programmer is Indian? Or perhaps if my financial adviser is a woman, should that make me less comfortable?

I don't understand the left's obsession with race. If my doctor is competent, I don't care what race they are. If my lawyer is good at representing my interests, I don't care about their gender.

?Impact · June 25, 2016

Can Asian police officers not adequately serve a black community? Can black teachers not adequately teach white children? Can white lawyers not adequately represent First Nations clients?

Donald tells me that Latino judges cannot hear cases against him.

Bonam · June 25, 2016

Donald tells me that Latino judges cannot hear cases against him.

Right. Which everyone pretty much ridiculed him for. And yet if a Latino says that they don't want to be judged by a panel of white judges, the same people that ridiculed Trump for his statement would think that the converse is totally reasonable.

Smallc · June 25, 2016

Why not? Should I feel less comfortable if my doctor is Asian?

Why would you?

What about if my computer programmer is Indian? Or perhaps if my financial adviser is a woman, should that make me less comfortable?

That last one probably should, yes.

I don't understand the left's obsession with race.

I don't care about race at all - this isn't about my feelings.

If my doctor is competent, I don't care what race they are. If my lawyer is good at representing my interests, I don't care about their gender.

I've come to understand that people from historically marginalized groups don't often feel comfortable with white men having power over them for reasons that it's difficult for us as white men to understand. That's why I support a move that broadens the horizons of the bench.

Bonam · June 25, 2016

Why would you?

That last one probably should, yes.

Why should that make me less comfortable?

Smallc · June 25, 2016

Why should that make me less comfortable?

It was a joke about women and money. I was making a funny.

cybercoma · June 25, 2016

Go on. Keep insulting everyone who disagrees with you. I'm sure that will convince them to see the light and see your position.

I don't care if they see the light or not. It's not my job to educate racism out of people. If 10 pages of asking people to show how these judges aren't qualified with absolutely no answer isn't enough to show you that the arguments are based on nothing more than racism, then no amount of "rational discussion" is going to make a difference.

cybercoma · June 25, 2016

Worked well in the UK, or not.

I don't care if bigots and racists feel insulted. If their arguments are offensive to themselves, then they should re-evaluate their positions. Otherwise, suck it up and own it.

Argus · June 25, 2016

Sometimes viewpoints like this need to be mocked and ridiculed because they are just that ridiculous. Trying to debate politely just gives legitimacy to a view like skin colour matters to how good a judge will be.

Huh? I thought the reason behind the desperate efforts at affirmative action in hiring and promoting people on other than merit, was that society needed to have cops, firefighters, politicians, judges, CEOs, managers, etc. who 'represented' the whole racial spectrum of the universe? Why would this be necessary if it wasn't the thought that having judges, cops, politicians, etc. who were racial minorities but who could not be successful based on merit, would somehow improve society?

Why would a judge's ethnicity be considered in the appointment process? And if it is, and you KNOW it is, then you are, logically, choosing a person for their race over someone else who is at least a little better, because you feel that we need a judge who has a different skin colour. Why do you feel that?

Edited June 25, 2016 by Argus

Argus · June 25, 2016

The argument is that they can be both eminently qualified and diverse. I believe that legal knowledge was criterion number one. I believe that because the history of appointments in Canada really does aim that way, no matter the party in charge. I don't accept that it was hard for the Liberals to find 12 diverse people (cot counting the 3 white males) who were first able to be good jurists.

And why do you suppose they tried so hard to find these 'diverse' people to be judges? What's wrong with simply appointing on merit?

Argus · June 25, 2016

Generally I'd agree. In this case though, when it comes to the judiciary, I think it's important that their makeup reflects the population, as it is that population that they're dealing with, and hearing cases from. The diversity of the judiciary should mirror the regional diversity of the population.

Why? What possible use would that be? Unless you're thinking that you're going to assign Asian judges to Asian trials, Black judges to Black trials, Gay judges to gay trials and disabled judges to disabled trials.

And you're ignoring that most of our visible minorities are immigrants to Canada. Thus they would have a degree of cultural variance from the population here, which likely includes all manner of extreme religious and bigoted social views, and little tradition of keeping that out of judgements.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Argus

Smallc · June 25, 2016

And why do you suppose they tried so hard to find these 'diverse' people to be judges? What's wrong with simply appointing on merit?

Because merit is only one criteria for a position like this (or any position for that matter).

Smallc · June 25, 2016

Why? What possible use would that be? Unless you're thinking that you're going to assign Asian judges to Asian trials, Black judges to Black trials, Gay judges to gay trials and disabled judges to disabled trials.

No, I don't think so. The judiciary should represent the community though, as they're serving said community.

Argus · June 25, 2016

Because merit is only one criteria for a position like this (or any position for that matter).

It's the only one that should count. It should override all others.

Argus · June 25, 2016

No, I don't think so. The judiciary should represent the community though, as they're serving said community.

So are garbage collectors and dry cleaners. You don't care about them representing the community.

TimG · June 25, 2016

I don't care if bigots and racists feel insulted.

All such arguments do show how petty and small your world view is. A little hint: your values and priorities are not shared by other people and other people having different values and priorities does not make them wrong or inferior. It just means they are different. Maybe you should take some of that energy you spend trying to justify racism and use it to develop a non-judgemental understanding of people who prioritize their values in different way. Edited June 25, 2016 by TimG

Smallc · June 25, 2016

It's the only one that should count. It should override all others.

So you say. Many would disagree. Jobs don't simply hire on skill anywhere that I know of.

Smallc · June 25, 2016

So are garbage collectors and dry cleaners. You don't care about them representing the community.

How do you know that I don't?

Argus · June 25, 2016

So you say. Many would disagree. Jobs don't simply hire on skill anywhere that I know of.

True enough. But we're talking about judges. The two primary requirements for the job are legal acumen and judgement - which is a difficult thing to test for but possible. No other criteria comes remotely close in importance. You can make a case for administrative abilities being important. You cannot make a case for skin colour being important or even relevant to the job.