Reading the Star's editorial, and other ignorant diatribes, makes me reconsider my frequent criticism of QC's education system. I'm starting to wonder about the accuracy of interprovincial rankings, since apparently the other provinces' education systems have resulted in a terrible epidemic of first language illiteracy and diminished cognitive abilities, judging from the ignorant and illogical comments made by some supposedly educated media. If people would take the time to educate themselves about what the bill actually says and read up on the House debates, they might realise how misplaced their views are. Since I assume that like all serious Canadian commentators of public policy the Star's editorial writers already know of Legisinfo and have taken the time to research the question to the best of their ability before writing, I can only assume that those abilities are extremely limited. Like Carpay, they may be functionally illiterate in their first language, and cognitively-challenged, and of course, this being the case, unaware of their own gibbering imbecility. Of course, the other possibility is that they are closet separatists, and are being dishonest so as to advance the cause, since upholding institutional bilingualism as a sine qua non of Canada's existence in theory, and then refusing to be coherent on the question in fact, can only be a position designed to alienate the most hardened QC federalist.
Surely the Star and others can't be so ignorant as not to know that every other national court, whether Appeal, Federal or Tax, has had bilingual justices for many years now, and in fact the SCC was actually an integral part of this state of affairs. Surely they would then understand that their logic (I use the term loosely) would imply that this should not be the case, as many of these other courts are also the final court of appeal, in certain matters. Surely they would understand that if not a bilingual SCC, and logically, not any bilingual Federal Courts, then it would follow that bilingualism is not essential for all other similarly placed positions of final judgment, whether administrative (clerk of the privy council, deputy ministers, CDS, etc.) or political (PM) or other, etc.. And this would imply, given Canadian demographics and political realities, a preference for QC independence, as well as that of Acadia and parts of Eastern & Northern Ontario too.
Many are overstating the reach of the bill. As pointed out by Max Yalden already, C-232 does NOT require fluency in both Official Languages, only that "In addition, any person referred to in subsection (1), who understands French and English without the assistance of an interpreter, may be appointed a judge." As Yalden remarked, that "is a quite different, and less demanding, criterion." Drastically less demanding. And I'm sure they know that simply understanding speech is quite different from the requirement to be fully bilingual, or be able to speak or write fluently. And are too canny to confuse the difference between interpreters and translators. The bill has the very mild aim that the Supreme Court meet the same basic standard as all other courts, the Federal Court, Tax Court, Court of Appeal, etc., which have all had the same requirement for years now, with no noticeable problem. It is a standard the Supreme Court has itself approved and advanced, for all other Federal courts and institutions. And eight of the nine current Supreme Court justices currently meet that mild criterion of oral understanding, and it was nine of nine until recently, and I know of no-one that has accused those courts' composition as evidence of lower legal standards.
This bill is quite mild in its reach and helpful in ensuring that justice be done and be seen to be done, as no lawyer would wonder if some nuance of his oral arguments had been lost by the interpreters, especially if they lost a close 5-4 vote, and that the justices could have their internal discussions in either official language, neither one nor the other becoming the superior default language; otherwise, for example, if eight justices are bilingual in oral understanding and one is unilingual, inevitably, all discussions will be held in the language of the one unilingual, which is not something any fair-minded Canadian would want.
On the off chance that the Star & others are not functional illiterates and imbeciles, but only lazy journalists, as hard to believe as that might be, I am sure that should they take the time to actually research the question and think deeply on these matters, while reflecting on how best to achieve legal excellence within the context of a fair and officially bilingual society, they will revise their views, following the examples set by by Prime Ministers and leaders of all parties, such as Pearson, Stanfield, Trudeau, Clark, Turner, Mulroney, Campbell, Chrétien, Charest, and Martin, and by numerous groups, legal bodies, the Quebec National Assembly (unanimously) and the Canadian Bar Association: CBA says bilingualism to be considered part of merit criteria.
It makes one wonder whether many supposedly pro-bilingualism anglo federalists are so uneducated or undereducated as not to realise there is a rather well-known expression, from a reasonably well-considered writer, to describe their hypocrisy, namely that in their cases, bilingualism is more to be honoured in the breach than in the observance.
Surely the Star and others can't be so ignorant as not to know that every other national court, whether Appeal, Federal or Tax, has had bilingual justices for many years now, and in fact the SCC was actually an integral part of this state of affairs. Surely they would then understand that their logic (I use the term loosely) would imply that this should not be the case, as many of these other courts are also the final court of appeal, in certain matters. Surely they would understand that if not a bilingual SCC, and logically, not any bilingual Federal Courts, then it would follow that bilingualism is not essential for all other similarly placed positions of final judgment, whether administrative (clerk of the privy council, deputy ministers, CDS, etc.) or political (PM) or other, etc.. And this would imply, given Canadian demographics and political realities, a preference for QC independence, as well as that of Acadia and parts of Eastern & Northern Ontario too.
Many are overstating the reach of the bill. As pointed out by Max Yalden already, C-232 does NOT require fluency in both Official Languages, only that "In addition, any person referred to in subsection (1), who understands French and English without the assistance of an interpreter, may be appointed a judge." As Yalden remarked, that "is a quite different, and less demanding, criterion." Drastically less demanding. And I'm sure they know that simply understanding speech is quite different from the requirement to be fully bilingual, or be able to speak or write fluently. And are too canny to confuse the difference between interpreters and translators. The bill has the very mild aim that the Supreme Court meet the same basic standard as all other courts, the Federal Court, Tax Court, Court of Appeal, etc., which have all had the same requirement for years now, with no noticeable problem. It is a standard the Supreme Court has itself approved and advanced, for all other Federal courts and institutions. And eight of the nine current Supreme Court justices currently meet that mild criterion of oral understanding, and it was nine of nine until recently, and I know of no-one that has accused those courts' composition as evidence of lower legal standards.
This bill is quite mild in its reach and helpful in ensuring that justice be done and be seen to be done, as no lawyer would wonder if some nuance of his oral arguments had been lost by the interpreters, especially if they lost a close 5-4 vote, and that the justices could have their internal discussions in either official language, neither one nor the other becoming the superior default language; otherwise, for example, if eight justices are bilingual in oral understanding and one is unilingual, inevitably, all discussions will be held in the language of the one unilingual, which is not something any fair-minded Canadian would want.
On the off chance that the Star & others are not functional illiterates and imbeciles, but only lazy journalists, as hard to believe as that might be, I am sure that should they take the time to actually research the question and think deeply on these matters, while reflecting on how best to achieve legal excellence within the context of a fair and officially bilingual society, they will revise their views, following the examples set by by Prime Ministers and leaders of all parties, such as Pearson, Stanfield, Trudeau, Clark, Turner, Mulroney, Campbell, Chrétien, Charest, and Martin, and by numerous groups, legal bodies, the Quebec National Assembly (unanimously) and the Canadian Bar Association: CBA says bilingualism to be considered part of merit criteria.
It makes one wonder whether many supposedly pro-bilingualism anglo federalists are so uneducated or undereducated as not to realise there is a rather well-known expression, from a reasonably well-considered writer, to describe their hypocrisy, namely that in their cases, bilingualism is more to be honoured in the breach than in the observance.
No comments:
Post a Comment