Alberta francophones disagree with the government of Alberta's position on Bill C-232 as laid out in Justice Minister Alison Redford's column. We feel that the rights of citizens to a full defence before Canada's highest court trumps the rights of unilingual lawyers and judges to patronage appointments.
Well said. The Senate should pass this one.
9 comments:
Good gosh, it's those francophones that don't exist outside Quebec. Worse, it's non-existent Prairie francophones.
Egad, why ever should anyone listen to this bunch of cavorting unicorns?
(nyah and an evil eye to persons who argued French in the West was irrelevant)
Poorly reasoned article.
Out of the 200 judges and 3,600 lawyers who speak French in Western Canada, how many can speak the language at a level proficient enough not to require an interpreter in our highest court? A few dozen maybe?
This discriminatory bill is designed to exclude thousands of Canadians in the legal profession from sitting on our highest court simply because they don't speak the correct language.
Access to the courts in our official languages is the critical point. And citizens must also be heard by our country's best legal minds.
Over 90% of Canada's legal talent will be excluded from service on our highest court by this ill-thought out law. An improvement? Hardly.
Lesser quality judges sitting on our highest courts in the name of PC-rigidity serves no one's best interests.
This bill represents a setback for Canadian citizens of any language.
No use Paul, people--myself included--pretty much have their minds made up on this one.
I think the article doesn't prove much; taking the word of the head of a French-rights lobby group isn't really the way to judge this one. I don't think her voice is any more relevant than an anglophone with strong feelings on the issue.
Also: "We feel that the rights of citizens to a full defence before Canada's highest court trumps the rights of unilingual lawyers and judges to patronage appointments."
Does it trump the desire of Canadians to have the greatest legal minds making decisions on such important issues such as gay marriage and abortion? There is far more at stake here than this woman lets on.
Remember, the Supreme Court also rules on things such as the Clarity Act; it gives advice to our government. It is FAR more than a place where people want to feel good by speaking in their own language.
you blogging reformers are pitiful, just pitiful, culture starved Albertans eager to partake of Quebecor's TV offerings, determined as always to sneer at and belittle the French language, wilfully and deliberately ignoring the fact Quebecor's board business in conducted in that other language supposedly irrelevant to western Canada
"Does it trump the desire of Canadians to have the greatest legal minds making decisions on such important issues such as gay marriage and abortion?"
Exactly.
Couching this as meaning a bunch of lawyers will not get their SCC appointment is bullshit. I know lots of lawyers, and not one of them thinks this law is bad because it means they will not be appointed. It is an utter lie to say that is why people oppose it - but that lie does make it easier to argue for the legislation. I guess my liberal friends are learning from the conservatives...
Paul, this country has two official languages. Deal with it.
Paul, dans ce pays sont les deux langues officielles. Vivre avec elle.
What Bill C-232 does is turn official language policy into a discriminatory, unworkable fetish.
The Bill, if passed, is prejudicial and possibly even racist, particularly to First Nations people and immigrants.
Between 95% to 98% of our legal talent would be excluded from service on our highest court because of this dead horse of a bill.
Deal with it ? Nah. Just toss it.
Post a Comment