by Infected Mushroom » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:03 am
by Jute » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:06 am
Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and atheist wrote:"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages,
when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling,
that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...
The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
Italios wrote:Jute's probably some sort of Robin Hood-type outlaw
"Boys and girls so happy, young and gay / Don't let false worldly joy carry your hearts away."
by Infected Mushroom » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:07 am
Jute wrote:Quebec has a very different culture from the rest of Canada, doesn't it? Even has a different language. So I can see the reason for why some judges should be from Quebec in every Supreme Court.
by Zavea » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:09 am
by Infected Mushroom » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:11 am
Zavea wrote:quebec has a unique civil code which requires special interpretation, so three of the seats on the SCOC are allotted to quebec to guarantee that there's always sufficient expertise to handle cases where it's pertinent
by Ifreann » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:14 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:In Canada, it is an unspoken rule of judicial appointment that three of the nine Supreme Court Justice positions must go to Quebec.
The Supreme Court Act limits eligibility for appointment to persons who have been judges of a superior court, or members of the bar for ten or more years. Members of the bar or superior judiciary of Quebec, by law, must hold three of the nine positions on the Supreme Court of Canada.[10] This is justified on the basis that Quebec uses civil law, rather than common law, as in the rest of the country. The 3 out of 9 proportion persists despite the fact that only 24 percent of Canada's population resides in Quebec. As explained in the Court's reasons in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, sitting judges of the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal cannot be appointed to any of Quebec's three seats.
by Infected Mushroom » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:20 am
Ifreann wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:In Canada, it is an unspoken rule of judicial appointment that three of the nine Supreme Court Justice positions must go to Quebec.
It's not an unspoken rule, it's a law. Part of the Supreme Court Act.The Supreme Court Act limits eligibility for appointment to persons who have been judges of a superior court, or members of the bar for ten or more years. Members of the bar or superior judiciary of Quebec, by law, must hold three of the nine positions on the Supreme Court of Canada.[10] This is justified on the basis that Quebec uses civil law, rather than common law, as in the rest of the country. The 3 out of 9 proportion persists despite the fact that only 24 percent of Canada's population resides in Quebec. As explained in the Court's reasons in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, sitting judges of the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal cannot be appointed to any of Quebec's three seats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Co ... f_Justices
30 seconds on Wikipedia and I know more about the Supreme Court of Canada that someone who is supposedly nearly finished law school in Canada.
Three judges from Quebec
6. At least three of the judges shall be appointed from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province.
by Zavea » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:26 am
by The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:41 am
by Sanctissima » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:04 am
Jute wrote:Quebec has a very different culture from the rest of Canada, doesn't it? Even has a different language. So I can see the reason for why some judges should be from Quebec in every Supreme Court.
by Gauthier » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:09 am
by The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:17 am
Zavea wrote:the rule ensures that the SCOC is sufficiently competent to handle any case from any province/s, and quebec just so happens to be a province in canada... who woulda thought
whinging about demographics is more or less irrelevant when the alternative is to deny a quarter of the population sufficient legal representation on the highest court in the land. if someone angry about it they can write a petition to re-engineer quebec's legal system and culture
by Ifreann » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:25 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:Ifreann wrote:It's not an unspoken rule, it's a law. Part of the Supreme Court Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Co ... f_Justices
30 seconds on Wikipedia and I know more about the Supreme Court of Canada that someone who is supposedly nearly finished law school in Canada.
then the problem is even more serious than I thought...
I've found the provision, here's the wordingThree judges from Quebec
6. At least three of the judges shall be appointed from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province.
It doesn't say, so long as the population of Quebec is X it shall have at least 3 judges or if the population is X compared to the whole of Canada's population, it shall be Y. It doesn't say that there's to be at least ONE judge, it says three.
This makes the act absurd and obsolete in a few decades given Quebec's demographic.
Quebec isn't expected to have as high a population growth as other provinces in the future. Yet it's ALWAYS guaranteed at least 3 judges no matter what? It's not cool.
The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse wrote:Quebec has 23% of Canada's population.
by The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:28 am
by Ifreann » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:30 am
by Infected Mushroom » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:34 am
Ifreann wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
then the problem is even more serious than I thought...
Indeed, you should probably have a conversation with your tutors about just how you managed to get to this point in your education without knowing about the composition of your Supreme Court.I've found the provision, here's the wording
It doesn't say, so long as the population of Quebec is X it shall have at least 3 judges or if the population is X compared to the whole of Canada's population, it shall be Y. It doesn't say that there's to be at least ONE judge, it says three.
This makes the act absurd and obsolete in a few decades given Quebec's demographic.
Quebec isn't expected to have as high a population growth as other provinces in the future. Yet it's ALWAYS guaranteed at least 3 judges no matter what? It's not cool.
Are you suggesting that in a few decades there will not be any individuals in Quebec qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court?The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse wrote:Quebec has 23% of Canada's population.
Why does this matter?
Are you suggesting that in a few decades there will not be any individuals in Quebec qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court?
Indeed, you should probably have a conversation with your tutors about just how you managed to get to this point in your education without knowing about the composition of your Supreme Court.
by Sanctissima » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:41 am
by The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:43 am
by Cetacea » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:45 am
by Sanctissima » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:47 am
Cetacea wrote:Considering that all 9 judges are Europeans with no native or 'minority' quotas to reflect the cultural diversity of Canada I'd say the Quebec quota is not only ridiculous, its also racist. Canada has been sensitive to getting women appointed but the wjitewash remains
by Infected Mushroom » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:49 am
Sanctissima wrote:Cetacea wrote:Considering that all 9 judges are Europeans with no native or 'minority' quotas to reflect the cultural diversity of Canada I'd say the Quebec quota is not only ridiculous, its also racist. Canada has been sensitive to getting women appointed but the wjitewash remains
Quotas in general are stupid.
Positions should by no means be handed out based on one's cultural background, religion, race or ethnicity.
They should be based on one's actions and one's skills, not on things beyond one's control.
by Gauthier » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:50 am
Sanctissima wrote:Cetacea wrote:Considering that all 9 judges are Europeans with no native or 'minority' quotas to reflect the cultural diversity of Canada I'd say the Quebec quota is not only ridiculous, its also racist. Canada has been sensitive to getting women appointed but the wjitewash remains
Quotas in general are stupid.
Positions should by no means be handed out based on one's cultural background, religion, race or ethnicity.
They should be based on one's actions and one's skills, not on things beyond one's control.
by Sanctissima » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:54 am
Gauthier wrote:Sanctissima wrote:
Quotas in general are stupid.
Positions should by no means be handed out based on one's cultural background, religion, race or ethnicity.
They should be based on one's actions and one's skills, not on things beyond one's control.
If there's a legal expert on Quebecois laws who isn't a native I'm sure they can be appointed too.
by Gauthier » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:55 am
Sanctissima wrote:Gauthier wrote:
If there's a legal expert on Quebecois laws who isn't a native I'm sure they can be appointed too.
Actually, they can't. They have to be Quebecois in order to be appointed as one of those 3/9 judges.
And even if they were an expert on Quebec Law, why should that matter aside from how knowledgeable they are in that field? Giving a subset of a legal system special recognition just helps to divide a nation, which is something Canada has already suffered enough from.
by New Werpland » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:56 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: 0rganization, Cyptopir, El Lazaro, Eurocom, Great-Desolates, High Earth, Likhinia, Love Peace and Friendship, Senkaku, Shirahime, The Jamesian Republic, Tiami, Umeria, Uvolla, Warvick, Washington Resistance Army
Advertisement