http://bit.ly/8ZBsUv
Here's an interesting piece on the bill to require a bilingual Supreme Court. As readers may recall I am in two minds about the concept (I can support it but see the concerns of those who oppose it) but the interesting spin here is that the Senate will have a serious role in deciding the fate of a Bill the Conservatives dislike. Will they decry the appointed Senate now?
In any event, the whole fuss is somewhat bogus -- if a Federal Government wants to have bilingual Supreme Court judges they don't need legislation -- they merely appoint judges who are bilingual.
6 comments:
So brilliant unilingual legal minds, be they only Anglo or French speaking, need not apply. So much for the best man/woman for the job.
What concerns? That a uni-lingual judge using an interpreter will miss some nuance of language and in so doing render an incorrect verdict? If that's so then how can any person speaking a different language before a judge using an interpreter get a fair trial? Shouldn't we immediately shut down the International Criminal Court? (Ok, yes we should but that's another argument)
Rat, that's a good point -- especially as trials in Nunavut are heard in English but none of the parties speak it...
But doesn't that put paid to the notion that judges can't work with translators?
I have lived all my life in BC and have reached middle age without ever needing to speak French. The only time I ever tried out my high school French was in France. Bilingualism just isn't a reality out here, at least not French bilingualism. I have needed Mandarin, Cantonese, Punjabi, and German much more than French. Applying New Brunswick standards to a country as broad as this is simply bigoted discrimination against Westerners. There are more than two solitudes in Canada.
Given that only two of the current supreme court justices would pass this language litmus test, the bill is ridiculous.
To accept that justice requires bilingual justices, you have to accept that the current supreme court is fundamentally unjust.
I expect this kind of nonsense from the Bloc. That the Liberals went along with it is extremely disappointing to say the least.
.
As for the senate issue, it's a red herring. Of course you can decry the senate while welcoming a positive outcome if the senate does the right thing and kills the legislation. Believing that the senate is a massive anachronism doesn't mean that every decision it makes is the wrong one.
It's all about political games. I recall reading a Law Times article recently which noted just how close a majority of the Supreme Court is to retirement; I have little doubt that this measure is just an attempt to tie the executive's hands in terms of judicial appointments - how many of Harper's preferred candidates would we expect to be bilingual, after all?
While, in this particular instance, I can't say I'd be opposed to such a tying of hands, I don't think that the Supreme Court of Canada should be caught in the middle of these partisan ploys.
-DDB
Post a Comment