[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Moldaver doesn't speak french, and he's currently on the Supreme Court. A bunch of others have really limited knowledge, certainly not enough to discuss law in any detail.

In recent times?

Which ones do you have in mind?

I'm talking about the current crop sitting now. Judges from Qc and I think 2 others are fluent. The rest couldn't hold a 10 minute conversation.

Well that means 5 out of the nine are fluent.  Far from ideal but at least the majority (barely).

I did a bit more digging.  Rowe struggles in French.  Moldaver makes two. But I am not sure who the other two are who are not fluent.

[crazy canuck]

it has Napoleonic Civil Law

(Nitpick: the Lower Canada Civil Code of 1865, the predecessor to the current version, drew inspiration from the Napoleonic Code, but it also drew considerable inspiration directly from the Paris Coutume - much like the Napoleonic Code itself - as well as from elements of the practice of Civil Law, as it had evolved in the St. Lawrence Valley since 1760).

This is why I love Languish 

[Barrister]

it has Napoleonic Civil Law

(Nitpick: the Lower Canada Civil Code of 1865, the predecessor to the current version, drew inspiration from the Napoleonic Code, but it also drew considerable inspiration directly from the Paris Coutume - much like the Napoleonic Code itself - as well as from elements of the practice of Civil Law, as it had evolved in the St. Lawrence Valley since 1760).

While I appreciate the further detail, I don't think this counts as a "nitpick" - I chose my terminology because of who I was responding to.

[crazy canuck]

Plus I presume almost all the legal jargon is exactly the same.

I remember speaking with a judge who had a pretty decent conversational French, that the first time she tried to hear a french trial it was a whole different ballgame.

Gotcha. As a STEM guy usually operating in other languages is pretty easy due to shared jargon and reliance on numbers...presuming it also uses Roman letters and Arabic numerals of course

But it is the exact same legal code with identical procedures yes?

As BB eluded to, the jargon in common law cases is completely different from the jargon in civil law cases.  In your world you might as well be talking to a botanist.  Sure there are similarities to the math you are using in your respective fields.  But the deeper knowledge required to understand the rest of the jargon has to be learned - in a different language.

[crazy canuck]

it has Napoleonic Civil Law

(Nitpick: the Lower Canada Civil Code of 1865, the predecessor to the current version, drew inspiration from the Napoleonic Code, but it also drew considerable inspiration directly from the Paris Coutume - much like the Napoleonic Code itself - as well as from elements of the practice of Civil Law, as it had evolved in the St. Lawrence Valley since 1760).

While I appreciate the further detail, I don't think this counts as a "nitpick" - I chose my terminology because of who I was responding to.

I am impressed you knew that historical context.  I didn't.

[crazy canuck]

That 80% you mention is self-excluding by not learning the official language of the country despite wanting to serve on its highest court.

BB significantly overstates the problem - if it is a problem.  The number of people who receive serious consideration for elevation to the SCC is small and especially since the appointments are regional.  Everyone in Western Canada who could be considered to be appointed to fill the seat of the former Chief Justice had years to prepare for that selection process.  The person in BC who I think had a very good chance of being appointed (and for what it is worth would have been an excellent choice) did become fluent in that time.

[Jacob]

I am incensed that I am being excluded from consideration for the Supreme Court! I AM perfectly bilingual, and speak both Danish and English! How can my French language skills be held against me like that? They are, in fact, superior to my legal credentials!

So unfair!

[Barrister]

I am incensed that I am being excluded from consideration for the Supreme Court! I AM perfectly bilingual, and speak both Danish and English! How can my French language skills be held against me like that? They are, in fact, superior to my legal credentials!

So unfair!

Thanks for this insightful commentary Jacob.

[Jacob]

Thanks for this insightful commentary Jacob.

You're welcome. I certainly enjoyed making it

[Malthus]

Have we had any monolingual anglophone Supreme Court judges in recent times?

A single one, Moldaver, whose appointment was controversial for that reason.

I don't think it is a good idea - Supreme Court justices must be able to judge cases from Quebec, abs ideally should not require translators. However, hearings before a full panel of the Supreme Court are not common, so a single monolingual judge probably isn't too big a problem to work around. Ideally though, all should be bilingual.

I disagree.

When it comes to deciding cases based on Quebec Civil Law, the Quebec-based Justices invariable take the lead anyways - as they indeed should.

But to decide that all SCC Justices must speak French (which indeed is the custom, except for Moldaver), not only means that you are excluding roughly 80% of all candidates (based on overall census data, I can't find numbers based on lawyers/judges) - but you are necessarily biased in favour of candidates from the "Laurentian elite".


By the way, I had the privilege of attending in 2009 the Ontario Crown Prosecutor's "Crown School", where Moldaver (then of the Ont CA) spoke.  I have never man-crushed on a Justice before or since, but I man-crushed on him hard.

It is true that generally justices from Quebec lead off on cases under the Civil Code, and it is also true that full panels of the Court are not always required - they hear cases with five or seven members on the panel, as well as requiring all nine. Not sure what percentage of cases require all nine.

Perhaps having one or two non French speakers on the court would not impair the function of the court that much. But having too many would. I do think it should be a general rule, subject to an exception here or there.

[Grey Fox]

I think getting a unilingual french speaking judge would settle everything down.

[Malthus]

Learning another language is a superhuman feat that only a small 4 billion people in the world have been able to achieve. Mere elite lawyers and judges stand no chance.

Mere elite lawyers and judges who are in the running for a Supreme Court slot tend to be rather more elderly than the average school kid, and so rather less capable of picking up another language. This is a function of human physiology, because ability to learn a language varies with age.

Moreover, studies have shown that it takes between five and thirty years for the average person to master a new language (the opinions of researchers vary). This means it is not something the average person can simply pick up in short order, when they discover they may have a shot at a Supreme Court position. 

Of course, some people pick up languages much faster. But there is no guarantee that (say) brilliance at law makes one a brilliant linguist.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/at-what-age-does-our-ability-to-learn-a-new-language-like-a-native-speaker-disappear/

[Jacob]

I think getting a unilingual french speaking judge would settle everything down.

I'd be okay with that, yeah, given the realities and arguments being put forth here.

[Barrister]

I think getting a unilingual french speaking judge would settle everything down.

I'm not opposed to having a unilingual french speaking SCC justice.

But here's the thing - I feel like you'd have to look really, really hard to find a qualified justice from Quebec who didn't speak English.  On the other hand you could find dozens of otherwise qualified justices who only spoke English.

[Malthus]

I think getting a unilingual french speaking judge would settle everything down.

I know you are being sarcastic, but it is obvious that having a unilingual French judge would be an even worse idea, due to the mathematics of the situation.

Accepting for the purposes of argument that only someone who speaks the language should hear cases in that language, the vast majority of cases outside of Quebec would be in English - some 3/4. That means a unilingual English judge could still work on 3/4 of cases, while a unilingual French judge could only work on 1/4.