Categories: Polls

Should Supreme Court judges have to be perfectly bilingual?

…

by macleans.ca on Monday, April 26, 2010 2:44pm - 55 Comments

Tags: bilingualism, judges, Supreme Court

Orson Bean

I know a lot of people will object to the mandatory bilingualism requirement in principle, but . . . I have been to court proceedings where translation services were required, and it's very, very far from ideal. If you are not bilingual, either as a lawyer, spectator or judge, and you have to rely on a translator, there are all kinds of nuances that you miss. This is especially important in judging a legal case, when often the arguments and points being made can be very complex. Because of that, I reluctantly support the bilingual requirement, even though that means a lot of great candidates get left out.

Chantale

I understand your argument, but how many potential Supreme Court judges will be able to catch the subtleties in their second language? I mean, sure it is entirely plausible that some candidates are functionally bilingual, but how many? And I think the interpreters probably offer a better translation of the proceedings than a judge who has a tenuous grasp of his second language. Anyways, I'm willing to debate and explore the question, but I don't think this approach is necessarily optimal.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

Look for Dan Gardner's article on this subject last week. As he says, expecting a jurist to be so self-sufficiently bilingual so as to be able to parse legal arguments well enough in both official languages is to reduce the pool of candidates to nearly nothing.

If you find professional interpreters insufficient, who specialize in their craft and send years honing not only their technical command of the language but also their inter-cultural fluency as well, then your ideal is virtually unobtainable, let alone feasible at a practical level, even in so-called bilingual regions of the country.

http://twitter.com/AlyssaMo @AlyssaMo

Excellent point – Leave the mastering of a second language to professional interpreters, leave the mastering of adjudication to the judges.

Jaded Iris

At least there are two sane Canadians in this country. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Our laws are 30 years behind the times anyway ( definitely NOT what the majority of voters hope for ) and then with the caliber of judges bothering to make language requirements. JUST No Help for this country with MP's wasting years on voting games . So much to fix in this country to waste our energies on this drivel.

Ambow

Sorry but bilingual has two different interpretations as I have seen it.
If you are a "bilingual" French first language hello and good bye is all you need in English to qualify..
I have seen this with candidates in the RCMP.

However for an English first language person to be considered bilingual, they really need an understanding of the French language.
Lets just leave things as they are, use an interpretor and stop pandering to a minority of Canadians.
Catherina

If they are great candidates, they should be able to speak at least our two languages, French should be mandatory all through highschool, maybe more people will be able to at least understand it.
We had to learn French, German and English starting in grade 5 , all through highschool ,besides our own language. I'm glad I had the chance.
http://intensedebate.com/people/comishdan comishdan

Having served on Jury Duty once for an incest case, and again on a murder trial, and having served as a police dispatcher for twelve years, I would not give you two cents for the whole Judicial System reguardless of the language.
http://intensedebate.com/people/comishdan comishdan

Having served on Jury Duty once for an incest case, and again on a murder trial, and having served as a police dispatcher for twelve years, I would not give you two cents for the whole Judicial System reguardless of the language.

herringchoker

I would vote yes if the standard was that all anglo SCC jurists had to speak French as well as Yvon Godin speaks English. That would prove a pretty small hurdle. Failing that, I have to vote no.
John D

I think they should have to be bilingual, but not 'perfectly.'

People act like kids are graduating high school going "aw nuts, I can't be a Supreme Court judge, I didn't study French." It kinda takes a long time to become a Supreme Court Justice. If you finish law school and start to realize you're a pretty freakin' smart law dude or dudette, you have a few years to take some French classes.

It's not like one day you wake up and go "Damn, I am one of the top jurists in the country but I never thought to take a French class so now I can't be a Supreme Court Justice!" Heck, lets send qualified uni-lingual candidates to French camp for the summer (Bonus: awesome reality show). If Harper and Layton can learn French, I'm pretty sure any judge can do it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/minaka minaka

This is unrealistic. The kind of fluency that the bill demands cannot be achieved by most adults, only those with unusual facility for languages. Two major talents, understanding law and linguistic ability show up in an unusually small pool of people.

There is no evidence this new requirement will improve judgments coming from the Supreme Court or that previous judgments were lacking. (The Supreme Court uses mainly written material and lawyers' arguments to reach its decisions with very little new testimony). It's just another preference that will give a leg up to people whose first language is French as they have much greater opportunities to learn and practice English. As such it's just another power play disguised in political correctness.

Mike T.

If there's a group of people I would think would have an above average likelihood of gaining another language as an adult, that group would be potential supreme court nominees.

hosertohoosier

"If Harper and Layton can learn French, I'm pretty sure any judge can do it. "

Harper went to French immersion classes, and Layton grew up in Montreal, learning some French from construction sites. Only 11% of anglophones are bilingual, and that number gets even lower when you consider who is functionally bilingual and who is not. Even among those who are bilingual, there is a lot of technical jargon involved in the study of law that requires not merely a passing understanding of French, but full on mastery. One poster above was afraid that judges would miss the nuances of a translated trial – if we narrowed down the number of candidates to those who can understand the complex nuances of technical language in French we would be talking about perhaps less than 5% of anglophones.

The educational and professional standards we demand of judges are very high. Achieving those standards often requires a slavish commitment to one's job – something that precludes French boot camp in Lac St. Jean. Bilingualism should be considered an asset in judicial appointments, but unilingual judges cannot be disqualified without narrowing down the pool of possible candidates substantially. Look at Clarence Thomas to see a good example of what happens when you fish from a shallow stream (because Bush Sr. was replacing Marshall he had to pick an African American, and there are very few African American Republican-friendly judges out there). This federation has gotten on just fine for over a century with unilingual judges. Simultaneous translation is reasonably effective (its good enough for parliament), and the day when language translation software is effective may not be that far away (compare the improvements in google translate compared to babelfish).
ColdStanding

A top jurist has already spent a lifetime attaining a great variety of qualifications. We have a strong expectation that they will be highly intellegent, studious/educated, and engaged in the dynamics of our country's culture. I highly doubt that obtaining a high degree of fluency in French (how would this high degree be measured anyways?) would be such a barrier.
Having said that, I would strongly disagree that attaining a high degree of fluency in French should be a requirement for all levels of the civil service. One could reasonably allocate staff on the basis of the community that is to be served.
As for the HOC & senate, I should expect that one would be desirous of attaining fluency in both tongues. Optional, but expected. Valued, but not legislated.
ColdStanding

A top jurist has already spent a lifetime attaining a great variety of qualifications. We have a strong expectation that they will be highly intellegent, studious/educated, and engaged in the dynamics of our country's culture. I highly doubt that obtaining a high degree of fluency in French (how would this high degree be measured anyways?) would be such a barrier.
Having said that, I would strongly disagree that attaining a high degree of fluency in French should be a requirement for all levels of the civil service. One could reasonably allocate staff on the basis of the community that is to be served.
As for the HOC & senate, I should expect that one would be desirous of attaining fluency in both tongues. Optional, but expected. Valued, but not legislated.
Joe

Welcome to Canada, so yes.

Joe

You are a pinhead. Canada is NOT a bilingual country. Smarten up before you make a comment like that you moron.

Kevin Lafayette

I have a right to a jury of my peers. I feel that my peers are uni lingual Englich speaking Canadians. I wonder if the same principle applies to the judges hearing any case against me? Leaving that aside, does anyone think creating a language based caste system is a good idea? 85% of us would be in the lower caste, and unarmed to boot.
John D

We're talking about Supreme Court judges here. You don't think there's already some sort of 'caste' system at play? You think a young person, dreaming of being a supreme court judge (hey I dreamed of nerdier things), looking at the path ahead would find bilingualism to be the biggest barrier? I haven't pursued all the Justices' CVs, but I wonder how many of them grew up in low-income families, how many went to rural public high schools, how many went to lower-tier law schools?
L.Pitcher

This decision is astounding given this is 2010. Decisions have traditionally required common sense and fairness as well
as a good grasp of reality. Provincial governments will become a growth industry as Canadians discover the Federal
system doesn't represent their reality or values.
JamesHalifax

Best way to become a judge in Canada……..donate copiously to the Liberal Party of Canada. Credentials have always been secondary.

Joe

Fortunately the tide is turning very rapidly. The conservative government have been terminating positions in the federal system to alleviate this travesty. Canadians are absolutely fed up with this french language bullsh-t. A language that on the world stage is insignifficant. The federal deficit would be eliminated in 3 years if these useless mandatory french programs were stopped. That is, like it or not, the truth.

Mark

Just as a point of information Joe, French Canadians were here first. That is, like it or not, the truth. They have a right to speak their mother tongue, just like you. Unfortunately, there are many people who think the way you do, in that we should be able to speak the official language of our choice so long as it's English.

http://intensedebate.com/people/minaka minaka

The push for fluently bilingual Supreme Court justices is like affirmative action for French speakers as they are a drop in the sea of North American English and have greater opportunity to acquire fluency in English.
R Brittain

Again, sacrificing quality for linguistic ability – all politically motivated.
Example: New Brunswick government preferred to employ a physician from Quebec to head up the primary provincial Trauma Unit, who had lost his license on more than one occasion, rather than employ a well respected New Brunswick physician – who is one of 25 physicians in North America qualified for the position, and who was unanimously recommended by the College of Physicians for the position – because the New Brunswick physician 's French language abilities were determined not sufficient for the government's political liking.

Phil

Liar, liar pants on fire!! The physician you are referring to withdrew his candidacy. As for your accusations about his license being revoked – better back that up with proof or retract your statement. Stop trying to create a controversy where none exists.

Joe

If you, as a french person, do not know how to speak English then you are a total moron. There are a lot of morons out there. SAD.

Verna

I don't know about the moron bit, but I do think that French is going the way of Greek and Italian. The Spanish language is becoming more previlant, but English is supreme and will remain so for a very long time. They should only need to speak French in Quebec and maybe some of the other eastern provinces. Out here in the west, we have no need for it. We have very few French, and those that are here can speak English.
We are however, getting more people who speak other languages, but they quickly learn to speak English.
I understand that the French want to keep their culture, but it should only be in Quebec, not anywhere else in this country.

Martin

It is not a question of being useful. It is a question of heritage. The French Canadians were here before the British, not just in the areas called Quebec or the Maritimes nowadays but also in Ontario, Manitoba, Sask and Alberta.

czekmark`

Here in the states, judge selection is tainted too but on idealogical basis not language, yet. There is bilingual discrimination in some areas particularly education where some teachers are expected to be bilingual in english and spanish. If biligual were to be extend to the judiciary, the one place most likely would be California.
TheresaJ

I vote NO. We are dealing with the law, so only facts should matter. Nuances and subtleties are not supposed to play a part in facts. A literal translation – approved by English and French speaking members – should be enough.
http://Overgrow.ning.com ElectroPig

The funny thing is that noone seems to think that our politicians and statute authors (they’re NOT “law makers”) are required to posess the qualities of honesty, morality or intelligence. If they speak two languages, for some reason, is perceived as important, while being intelligent and moral enough to understand the situations they “rule on” on a daily basis.

Personally, I’d be far more accepting of an HONEST man than one who is immoral but speaks thirty-seven languages. But then, it’s a matter of priorities…and politics.

Common sense would also be a nice thing for our elected “representatives” to possess…but again, if it’s not important to most voters, it might as well be non-existant, and to be sure, it’s rare at best in Canadian politics.
Davidmb

If I had my druthers I would rather have a uniligual judge dealing with my case as opposed to a dumb bilingual judge any day of the week!
John Speck

If Jean Chretien were a judge, would he be considered fluently bilingual? Who would determine the degree of fluency in either language? Bearing in mind the make-up of Canadian citizens and the need to speak English being the greaterr requirement It seems likely that more Quebecers are fluent in English than English speakers are fluent in French, so it would tip the scales in favour of a Quebec dominated Supreme Court. In addition any language that one uses infrequently results in loss of vocabulary, and nuances. Vote NO
Mars

Lets not open a can of worms!!!!The universal language is English– so if they all speak it– why bring another language into it???? If U start this–then all peoples in the court room(working) would have 2 speak French too!! Who would be the judge– in case mistakes are made? then too– I speak 2 other languages– & some of the words in them–simply are not available in English—& besides all that– never use those languages anymore. Treaudu started multicluturalism—didn't ask the voters-if they wanted it–so U see- what a conundrum it has -already-created!!! English it is!!!!
Rodney Rooster

We are already being discriminated against so much in our 'free' society. Minorities are gaining unbelievable, inherent 'rights'. Distinct society – don't get me started.
There is a bill coming close to second reading making it law that immigrants to this country can collect old age security after residing here for 3 years!! How is that for bringing old ma and pa over for lots of medical attention and old age money paid for by we poor working masses!! Perhaps the sponsors could give up their share of old age security for their loved ones?
Language is just another way of dividing everyone yet again. The bilinguals get the cushy jobs the rest of us get the left overs. It is bad enough trying to read tiny printed instructions on all our packaging because half the space is given over to french. English is spoken and understood somewhat all over the world. Keep it simple!!
Buddy

Another match stick to add to the realisation that Quebec is becoming too burdensome, perhaps?
Taxslave

Funny that. You work and pay taxes here all your life and get discriminated against by the government because you do not fit some socialist dogooder's you can not get a government jod but yet someone right off the boat from whereever gets more rights than you.
AsAnderson

senior civil servents & the military have a large number of Quebecers;out of proportion to the population.. The reason is that the promotional boards criteria requiies canditates be fluent in Quebec french & in some instances that they must be able to "think" in french. Should it become a requirement in the Supreme Court; I predict that within a few years 75% of the judges will be Quebecers. there is no such requirement for any of the above to be fluent in Engglish !!
SoSay

Pinhead or not. Canada is a bilingual country or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. The minute the "bilingual" is left out of Canada, the country is at risk of becoming essentially English giving up 50% of our history and changing forever what makes us unique. We now have a population overburdened by multiple languages; many immigrants unable to make themselves understood or to fully understand their adopted country's laws and manners.
Do we choose a different second language and let the original French component cast off, perhaps setting up a separate country? Let's get real. Honour what we have. Make it work by working at it. Immigrants should understand fully that this bilingual country they've chosen for their second home will serve up the laws and mores in either French or English. It's Canada. It wouldn't hurt any of us to learn either French or English as a second language. Certainly, it would occur to any lawyer who has his eye on being a judge at whatever stage to learn French long before the's offered the position. Judges are not without savvy.