Canadians for Language Fairness

Banner
End the unfairness of official bilingualism. Stop wasting our tax dollars.

Supreme Court to be "functionally bilingual"?

August 6, 2016

Not sure if this bothers you but we are another step closer to putting Canada completely under French control.  If you haven't already heard about it, this is Justin Trudeau making "funtional bilingualism" one of the requirements for a Supreme Court judge.  If you want to read about it from his web site, here is the link:

From the Prime Minister's Web Site (http://pm.gc.ca/)

Prime Minister announces new Supreme Court of Canada judicial appointments process

August 2, 2016

Ottawa, Ontario

Today, the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, announced a new process for appointing Supreme Court of Canada Justices that is open, transparent, and sets a higher standard for accountability.

............ read the rest yourself.


My biggest concern is that NOBODY has even tried to define what "functionally bilingualism" means.

Ernest Semple from Quebec wrote:

Justin Trudeau's significant wording on SOC appointments in future states:

"Under the new process, an independent and non-partisan Advisory Board has been given the task of identifying suitable candidates who are jurists of the highest caliber, functionally bilingual, and representative of the diversity of our great country.

For the first time, any qualified Canadian lawyer or judge may apply for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada through the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs. "

Graham Fraser recently put another spin on this clear cut statement by Justin Trudeau's press release Tuesday August 2nd.

In Graham Fraser's pronouncement on Trudeau's SOC announcement,

Fraser purposely omitted the word "functionally".

The use of the word "functionally" by Justin can be taken as his way of indicating that the old rules do not apply under his jurisdiction.

I am pleased that I have predicted this immediately after the Maritime sweep was announced in the last federal election.

The Canadian Language Laws are all illegal under the 1867 BNA act and moreover are contrary to human nature!

It should be recognized by all Canadians that protection of a language is impossible by law, and only by the users on an individual basis.

Pronouncements and Announcements frequently prove this fact.

Ernest Semple


There are several articles in the media on this topic - the link to the G&M article and the National Post article are inserted below.  Before reading those articles, I'd like you to listen to Brian Lilley's video:

www.therebel.media/trudeau_s_changes_to_supreme_court_of_canada_will_tip_scales_toward_laurentian_elite

Well said, Brian!!


Now for some comments from ordinary citizens who are very concerned about this:

Sharon M's NP Facebook Comment:

As long as anyone, including Supreme Court Judges, are required to be "functionally bilingual" we will have an unnecessarily biased Court,  And highly competent unilingual jurists will be overlooked for anyone who is barely "functional" in French. Notice Trudeau's qualification insures anyone who can barely speak the language is included. This will insure that future gov'ts will continue to favor and encourage spending even more money on the half-baked French language programs we have in Canada that cost millions and produce few bilingual adults.  Note also, Trudeau makes no mention of qualifying jurists based upon scholarship and a vast knowledge in the many important subjects covering the entire gamut of Canadian public life, a life that happens all over the country, not just in Quebec.  But that, of course, simply reinforces his myopic view of our country.

This is the state of this nation: Guaranteed Gov't Jobs for barely competent French-speaking Canadians while highly competent and desirable English-only leaders are passed over. Unquestionably the best leader in Canada today, Brad Wall of Saskatchewan, must sit on the sidelines of federal leadership because he doesn't speak French and a man, barely comprehensible and utterly uninformed and incompetent, Stephane Dion, is a high-level Cabinet Minister of Foreign Affairs!! His ability to speak French and bare competency in English did not deter Junior Trudeau from choosing him for a job on the international stage.  In fact, I am sure his choice for the Foreign Affairs portfolio was purposely made to underscore to the world that Canada is a bilingual country ~ a bilingual country that barely tolerates the English language, given how badly Dion speaks it. Unfortunately it also makes the world see Canada as a nation of naïve, uninformed, illiterate buffoons, too.

It is beyond embarrassing; Dion is a blatant example of why preferential bias based upon speaking a language that is purely symbolic is a policy that needs to be tossed in the dustbin of history, not added as a requirement for the top jobs in Canada and a way of disqualifying at least 90% of exceptional Canadian judges.

Sharon M.

From Orlin O. of Manitoba

It is nice to see that Mr. Trudeau has recognized the flaws in straight out appointing partisan judges to the Supreme court. Under this proposed system of selection the public will have some idea of what they are getting in the high court. However the people's elected representatives will have no vote in the selection.

Appropriate adjustments for Quebec's "unique legal tradition", meaning Quebec will continue to be over represented in the Court? If all candidates for the court throughout the nation must also be functionally bilingual, it will certainly impact the selection of Judges from English speaking Canada. Most people who study law in English Canada do not do so in a French language law school. In fact Canada is not bilingual and never will be. Two Likely the only people proficient enough in French legalese would be those educated entirely in French including law school. This would rule out a lot of excellent Anglophone lawyers and judges. This of course is the whole idea as far as the French language zealots are concerned.  The French in Canada have always shown a bias toward their own, be it Prime Ministers or government officials. It is something to be concerned about. Official bilingualism has been a very good tool for the advancement of the French Cause and an expensive one for English Canada. What will the next move be? Minorities should not rule. We are the authors of our own destruction. 

Likely the only people proficient enough in French legalese would be those educated entirely in French including law school. This would rule out a lot of excellent Anglophone lawyers and judges. This of course is the whole idea as far as the French language zealots are concerned.  The French in Canada have always shown a bias toward their own, be it Prime Ministers or government officials. It is something to be concerned about. Official bilingualism has been a very good tool for the advancement of the French Cause and an expensive one for English Canada. What will the next move be? Minorities should not rule. We are the authors of our own destruction. 

Orlin O.

From Neil L. of B.C.

Subject: No more unilingual English Supreme Court justices!!!

The PM has taken a half measure when a full measure would have been more appropriate. No parliamentary vote on selection of Supreme Court justices - what the heck gives? Now we have seven more folks (the new Advisory Board) at the trough - doing something our elected folks might otherwise do. Would a multi-party committee do as well and at no greater cost to the country?

What gives with Supreme Court justices being required to be functionally bilingual? Isn't that another one of those sneaky moves shoving the pendulum several more notches to the left?

Getting a "Board" to his dirty work for him.

Functional bilingualism is nothing more than tilting the balance in favour of a province pandering to a love relationship with a dying language. I remain unconvinced any government should be in the language(s) business. As stated on many occasions, just because a piece of legislation states the country is bilingual does not make it so.  In fact, the government which promoted that piece of socialist propaganda achieved much by less than honest and fully transparent means.  My former law professor declared that we used to have a tradition of codifying the everyday recognized practices of society when establishing legislation.  But that was back in the "good old days" (or maybe a touch beyond that) when people used something akin to common sense and basic factual evidence.

What about all our well qualified Canadians, who are excellent at their jobs in the legal profession, whose first language may be other than English or French. Their second language is very likely English and you would likely find them practicing their professional in one of the major law firms in western Canada. They have no chance at sharing their hard-won skills and knowledge in the Supreme Court. That's what I call unjustifiable reverse-discrimination.

Stephane Dion has often been put forward as a prime example of how beneficial bilingualism is and how much it offers. Remember?  He was the Liberal leader who couldn't understand a simple question put to him by a journalist in English, during the run-up to a federal election.  And now he is Canada's super Foreign Affairs guy.  He has demonstrated that he is not functionally bilingual - so I guess he won't be applying for the job on the Supreme Court.  Or does "functionally bilingual" mean you can mess up in the English language and still qualify for a government job? Wouldn't surprise me!

Our PM stated that the best, most well-qualified people reflective of Canadian society are named to Canada’s top court. Somehow, that statement seems in conflict with the "functionally bilingual" requirement of the job.  Either it's a meritorious appointment or it's subordinating clearly demonstrated experience, skills and knowledge in favour of someone else's perceived ability in the other official language.

Either way, we are left to sit and watch ... unable to influence the process. Even our MPs will have no influence.

Oh, fuddle duddle!

Neil L.


Articles from the Globe & Mail and the National Post

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-canada-has-a-new-way-to-choose-supreme-court-judges/article31220275/

www.therebel.media/trudeau_s_changes_to_supreme_court_of_canada_will_tip_scales_toward_laurentian_elite

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-robson-parliament-should-have-a-vote-on-supreme-court-appointments


 

From the CFAX post - Adam Sterling's show (from 9:05 to 9:30 am) on August 2nd.  His comments on the Supreme Court issue starts at about 9 minutes into his show.

http://www.cfax1070.com/Podcasts

I listened to the show and was disappointed that Adam Sterling is trying to be "reasonable" and is obviously not totally aware of the French agenda.  First of all, NOBODY knows what "functionally bilingual" means.  If it means "fully bilingual" and having the ability to hear cases & judge cases in both languages - then that is not possible.  Mr. Sterling at least admits that.  He is one of the majority of Canadians who actually accept that Canada is "officially bilingual" when it is patently obvious that Canada is NOT.  Quebec is unilingual French - allowed to pass anti-English laws that go totally out of their way to be hostile to English-speakers.  As long as Quebec is part of Canada, we cannot accept a situation where Quebec is allowed to be anti-English but the Rest (Most) of Canada have to be bilingual, giving the French (the minority) an obvious advantage.  Most of the callers to the show who support bilingual judges are French-speakers as evidenced by their accent - not obvious but can be detected if one listens carefully.

I'm disappointed that not many English-speakers care enough to call.  B.C. is a socialist province and Adam Sterling himself is bending over backwards to attempt to come across as "reasonable".  When it comes to the French agenda - being reasonable is lethal as they don't believe in being reasonable.  If they were, they would apply the caveat "where numbers warrant".  In Quebec, 50% of the municipality have to be English-speaking or they don't get service in English.  So why are we in the Most of Canada bending over backwards to accommodate them?

Kim McConnell



Share




LanguageFairness.ca

The various opinions expressed on this website are not necessarily shared by everyone whose photo is displayed.

This website has been visited 179051 times.