Merits of making Supreme Court bilingual could be lost in translation

Sounds like a case of a sore loser.

Seems to me that all these francophones never got their way (regardless of votes)...so now their starting to call "Discrimination." As for "francophone" lawyer Michel Doucet, stop trying to use our/my Supreme Court as a bashing plate to "improve" your status. English is here to stay, so accept it or go to another country and see how long you will last. These Judges bring their vast experiences to the table (this is why some have translators). French is also here to stay, thus is why many people who want to get ahead in Canada, become bilingual.

So considering the highest concentration of bilingual persons is out east there will be very little choice from any possible western appointees, something which "may" mean the best choices are passed up for the second best appointees who can be second rate, but at least second rate in both languages. Could this lead to sitting Supreme court judges in the future?
Another question, if this guy claims the translator got what he said wrong what is to say the judge who's second language is French would not likewise have understood ( translated it himself) wrong?

In an officially bilingual country, I just kind of expect people at the highest levels of our federal government and judicial system to be bilingual, or at least that there will be sufficient numbers of bilingual people such that a lack of bilingualism will not ever be an issue. Westerners can study French too, unless they're inbred, they probably don't have a genetic disadvantage in this area.

I also expect that somebody who makes the exta effort to master a second language in addition to mastering the law or whatever area of occupational expertise should indeed be rewarded and considered superior to their peers who didn't bother to make that effort.

So you could be the most incompetent judge in the country... but learn French or English and you should be considered part of the upper echelon?

Sorry, not buying it.

Now you know I didn't say that appointments should be regardless of competence or should be bases solely on language. I said "in addition to mastering the law or whatever area of occupational expertise."

Please quit trying to be an extremist on the issue and draw absurd conclusions, we all know that appointing incompentent people is not the inevitable or even likely outcome of this situation. There are plenty of bilingual people in Canada, its not like we have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to scare up a few.


If anything, taking the extraordinary time and effort to master a second language in addition to mastering a profession is likely more indicative of intelligence, competence and dedication than not.

I repeat again: we demand bilingualism to our politicians and even for our top military persons. But we should not demand bilingualism for our top court of the third branch of our country ? The judicial branch ?

I don't care a judge in Saskatchewan doesn't speak french. But the Supreme Court hears people coming from english and french canada.

I don't buy the "we won't get the best judges because they are bilingual" argument. You want to be one of the 9 judges of the Supreme Court ? You should be able to understand the plea of citizens in both languages. We are talking Law here. The two parties should be able to use the language they are the most familiar, english or french.

And I know what I'm talking about. I have a bilingual judge in my family who when he was a lawyer went to the Supreme Court, in 1989 to change an important law. Guess which one it is.

And for TuavDan: the constitution is very clear about the number of judges at the Supreme Court: no more than 3 from Quebec. So don't play that card.

Not only do we demand it for the highest placed Canadians, but also for our airline crew, border guards, telemarketers... So please, what is the deal? Go to school, learn French, we all can do it.

You got it wrong, the law doesn't say "no more than 3" from Quebec.

The law says that at least three must be from Quebec.



http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/S-26/page ... rbo-ga:s_4

Exactly. When you want a so high rated job, being bilingual is like the normality. I'm almost bilingual and without that I would not have the job I have. I have some problems with spoken english but I understand 95% of what I hear in english. And I didn't follow any other english classes than my normal school classes.

Damn, Stephen Harper learned French in less than a year. We understand him very well when he speaks in French and he makes almost no mistake. Yes he has an accent but we don't care. At least he speaks French.

If a Supreme Court judge from Edmonton can understand french like I understand english, that's perfect. That means he will be able to understand the pleas in the language of the speaker. After that, he can open his constitution, common law book or criminal code book in English to make a decision. As far as I know, Section 296 of the Criminal Code of Canada is the same offense in french and in english.

You got it wrong, the law doesn't say "no more than 3" from Quebec.

The law says that at least three must be from Quebec.



http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/S-26/page ... rbo-ga:s_4

The law says 3 from Quebec, 3 from Ontario, 1 from Maritimes and 2 from the West.

I stand corrected but anyway, it's still no more than 3 from Quebec.

Haven't you heard of some of the insane verdicts judges render in this country? I know there are some seemingly not playing with a full deck, I know there are some that I would be horrified to have as part of the Supreme Court.

What I am saying is that the best judges should be considered for the job, not the best bilingual judges.