Three Judges Must Be From Quebec

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

Yeah, what Jute said.

Another bad idea from Fungus, I see.

This is a strawman.

Bonus points if you or anyone else can figure out why. Read every word in the OP closely and every word in the Jute quote, you'll notice a problem.

But then again N., your discrimination against mushrooms is clear from the outset so I doubt you took the time to read carefully (the OP or what you supposedly gave Jute credit for); you are hardly impartial and so your support isn't worth much.

[Cyrisnia]

Yeah, what Jute said.

Another bad idea from Fungus, I see.

This is a strawman.

Bonus points if you or anyone else can figure out why. Read every word in the OP closely and every word in the Jute quote, you'll notice a problem.

But then again N., your discrimination against mushrooms is clear from the outset so I doubt you took the time to read carefully (the OP or what you supposedly gave Jute credit for); you are hardly impartial and so your support isn't worth much.

IM, you've suggested banning dogs, suits, the Socratic method in schools, and setting up an authoritarian government over children screaming.

[Fartsniffage]

Brilliant idea. I wonder why no one has thought of it before?

Sarcasm?

Anyway, it's really not that immensely difficult to form a single legal system. Just merge aspects of both together.

Of course, our legislative and judicial branches are too horrendously screw up to do that, but it's a simple matter nonetheless.

Has it ever been done before? Merging a common law and Roman law system together?

[Nazi Flower Power]

In Canada, it is an unspoken rule of judicial appointment that three of the nine Supreme Court Justice positions must go to Quebec.

I feel like this is a special privilege that should be abolished. To be truly fair, the appointment of the Justices should either be completely random within a pool of highly qualified individuals (but without paying attention to locale) or it should actually be consistent with some sort of demographic reality (and if it were consistent, then the ratio of Quebec's ~8 million and Ontario's ~12 million compared to Canada as a whole should be reflected; this wouldn't yield the incongruent result of giving both of these provinces 3 judges).

Less than 25% of the Canadian population is from Quebec; therefore its a special privilege to grant Quebec 1/3 representation on the Supreme Court. It is unfair that someone born in Quebec should automatically enjoy a higher probability of becoming a Supreme Justice than someone born in another part of Canada.

We must do away with this.

What do you think? Is it fair that 3 of the 9 Supreme Judges are always from Quebec? Or is it a special privilege?

If it's just a tradition rather than an actual rule, then I don't see the problem. They can always choose someone from another province if it looks like a good idea based on the available candidates.

[Sanctissima]

Sarcasm?

Anyway, it's really not that immensely difficult to form a single legal system. Just merge aspects of both together.

Of course, our legislative and judicial branches are too horrendously screw up to do that, but it's a simple matter nonetheless.

Has it ever been done before? Merging a common law and Roman law system together?

Not to my knowledge.

Although that's hardly a reason why not to do so. It would be like saying "well, this seems too hard, I give up".

[Infected Mushroom]

In Canada, it is an unspoken rule of judicial appointment that three of the nine Supreme Court Justice positions must go to Quebec.

I feel like this is a special privilege that should be abolished. To be truly fair, the appointment of the Justices should either be completely random within a pool of highly qualified individuals (but without paying attention to locale) or it should actually be consistent with some sort of demographic reality (and if it were consistent, then the ratio of Quebec's ~8 million and Ontario's ~12 million compared to Canada as a whole should be reflected; this wouldn't yield the incongruent result of giving both of these provinces 3 judges).

Less than 25% of the Canadian population is from Quebec; therefore its a special privilege to grant Quebec 1/3 representation on the Supreme Court. It is unfair that someone born in Quebec should automatically enjoy a higher probability of becoming a Supreme Justice than someone born in another part of Canada.

We must do away with this.

What do you think? Is it fair that 3 of the 9 Supreme Judges are always from Quebec? Or is it a special privilege?

If it's just a tradition rather than an actual rule, then I don't see the problem. They can always choose someone from another province if it looks like a good idea based on the available candidates.

Ifreann has kindly pointed out my mistake. It is in fact a part of the law. Its in section 6 of the Supreme Court Act; Quebec unconditionally gets at least three seats.

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.

[Fartsniffage]

Has it ever been done before? Merging a common law and Roman law system together?

Not to my knowledge.

Although that's hardly a reason why not to do so. It would be like saying "well, this seems too hard, I give up".

I'm just wondering how you'd get around the issue that the fundamental basis of each system is completely different? You said it wouldn't be immensely difficult so you must have some idea.

[Fartsniffage]

If it's just a tradition rather than an actual rule, then I don't see the problem. They can always choose someone from another province if it looks like a good idea based on the available candidates.

Ifreann has kindly pointed out my mistake. It is in fact a part of the law. Its in section 6 of the Supreme Court Act; Quebec unconditionally gets at least three seats.

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.

Assuming you also aren't a fan of completely gutting the Canadian legal system and making Quebec leave the country, if you reduced the number of civil law judges on the court, how would you address the issue of ensuing the possibility of a majority decision in civil law cases?

[Sanctissima]

Not to my knowledge.

Although that's hardly a reason why not to do so. It would be like saying "well, this seems too hard, I give up".

I'm just wondering how you'd get around the issue that the fundamental basis of each system is completely different? You said it wouldn't be immensely difficult so you must have some idea.

Yes, the fundamental basis is different, but at the end of the day, each are a collection of laws. Simply have designated people from both sides sit down, discuss both systems, and decide which laws should be kept and which ones should be discarded. That's really not something which is terribly hard to do.

Sure, it would probably make Canadian law incompatible with the laws of other countries (which has been a positive for young lawyers, being able to practice law in more than one country), but having a unique national legal system is overall a good thing, in my opinion.

[Fartsniffage]

I'm just wondering how you'd get around the issue that the fundamental basis of each system is completely different? You said it wouldn't be immensely difficult so you must have some idea.

Yes, the fundamental basis is different, but at the end of the day, each are a collection of laws. Simply have designated people from both sides sit down, discuss both systems, and decide which laws should be kept and which ones should be discarded. That's really not something which is terribly hard to do.

Sure, it would probably make Canadian law incompatible with the laws of other countries (which has been a positive for young lawyers, being able to practice law in more than one country), but having a unique national legal system is overall a good thing, in my opinion.

Okay, before we carry on, you do understand the difference between the two systems? Right?

The closest example I've been able to find of something like this happening is Louisiana in the US. They have a civil law system at state level. In order to integrate it into the legal system of the rest of the US the judges now consider opinions of the appellate courts in making their decisions and lawyers arguing before them must learn these previous decisions in order to argue before them. Guess what? They became a common law system without juries.

[Nazi Flower Power]

If it's just a tradition rather than an actual rule, then I don't see the problem. They can always choose someone from another province if it looks like a good idea based on the available candidates.

Ifreann has kindly pointed out my mistake. It is in fact a part of the law. Its in section 6 of the Supreme Court Act; Quebec unconditionally gets at least three seats.

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.

I thought you were a law student. How do you not know this stuff?

I have the excuse that I don't live in Canada or study law.

[Sanctissima]

Yes, the fundamental basis is different, but at the end of the day, each are a collection of laws. Simply have designated people from both sides sit down, discuss both systems, and decide which laws should be kept and which ones should be discarded. That's really not something which is terribly hard to do.

Sure, it would probably make Canadian law incompatible with the laws of other countries (which has been a positive for young lawyers, being able to practice law in more than one country), but having a unique national legal system is overall a good thing, in my opinion.

Okay, before we carry on, you do understand the difference between the two systems? Right?

The closest example I've been able to find of something like this happening is Louisiana in the US. They have a civil law system at state level. In order to integrate it into the legal system of the rest of the US the judges now consider opinions of the appellate courts in making their decisions and lawyers arguing before them must learn these previous decisions in order to argue before them. Guess what? They became a common law system without juries.

Oh yes, I understand the difference.

Although I fundamentally disagree with the whole "deal with cases by precedent" idea (since I think it makes the role of a judge pointless), I don't think that integrating the two would be such a major issue. You'd just choose which case studies to keep, and which ones to discard.

A lot of work, I know, but it's not like lawyers and judges aren't used to that sort of thing.

[Fartsniffage]

Okay, before we carry on, you do understand the difference between the two systems? Right?

The closest example I've been able to find of something like this happening is Louisiana in the US. They have a civil law system at state level. In order to integrate it into the legal system of the rest of the US the judges now consider opinions of the appellate courts in making their decisions and lawyers arguing before them must learn these previous decisions in order to argue before them. Guess what? They became a common law system without juries.

Oh yes, I understand the difference.

Although I fundamentally disagree with the whole "deal with cases by precedent" idea (since I think it makes the role of a judge pointless), I don't think that integrating the two would be such a major issue. You'd just choose which case studies to keep, and which ones to discard.

A lot of work, I know, but it's not like lawyers and judges aren't used to that sort of thing.

If you understand the difference, you know why the bolded is such a bloody stupid thing to say...

So once that's done, do the judges get to keep interpreting the law and creating new precedence or just enforce it as it's written?

[Sanctissima]

Oh yes, I understand the difference.

Although I fundamentally disagree with the whole "deal with cases by precedent" idea (since I think it makes the role of a judge pointless), I don't think that integrating the two would be such a major issue. You'd just choose which case studies to keep, and which ones to discard.

A lot of work, I know, but it's not like lawyers and judges aren't used to that sort of thing.

If you understand the difference, you know why the bolded is such a bloody stupid thing to say...

So once that's done, do the judges get to keep interpreting the law and creating new precedence or just enforce it as it's written?

Both.

Leave certain laws subject to 0 scrutiny, while most are up for the judge's interpretation.

Everyone walks away happy, more or less.

[Jute]

This is a strawman.

Bonus points if you or anyone else can figure out why. Read every word in the OP closely and every word in the Jute quote, you'll notice a problem.

But then again N., your discrimination against mushrooms is clear from the outset so I doubt you took the time to read carefully (the OP or what you supposedly gave Jute credit for); you are hardly impartial and so your support isn't worth much.

IM, you've suggested banning dogs, suits, the Socratic method in schools, and setting up an authoritarian government over children screaming.

Also fishing as a leisure activity, which is an important part of some cultures and threatens parts of the tourism and hobby industry.

[Ifreann]

You yourself pointed out that Quebec is not French Canada, so I would guess ignorance.


Feel free to enlighten me.

I hardly think it's bizarre to point out when someone is so hilariously wrong about their own country.


1875? Or 1949?

Well, I'll do my best.

Here's a quick link about the Seven Year's War. Although I suspect you already know the details well enough (I think you're British, or maybe that's someone else with rainbowdash as their flag):

I believe you are thinking of someone else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0qbzNHmfW0

So that's how it started, more or less. Things kind of went downhill from there. Basically, relations between Anglican Englishmen (since that was pretty much everyone who didn't speak French at the time) and French Catholics were always shitty after the 7-year war. Neither group liked the other, and way they went about cultural integration didn't help (the English were always favored in jobs and divying out government positions). The original parliament building being burned to the ground in Montreal didn't help. Nor did Acadians in the Maritime provinces being essentially isolated in small fishing communities.

Things remained fairly status quo for a while, until the 60's came about. Well, shit was brewing for a while, but the baby-boomers pretty much brought things to the forefront, amongst other things. By the time the 70's rolled around, the Bloc Quebecois party and Quebec separatism had gained quite a deal of support (from pissed off baby-boomers, mostly), and the province came close to separating. Fortunately, Pierre Trudeau, a Quebecois, came out of the blue and more or less convinced them to remain united with the rest of Canada, although he made a lot of concessions in the process (bilingualism (which wasn't a bad thing), french immersion, positive discrimination, quotas, etc.).

Flash-forward a decade or two, and in 1995, another referendum is held. Quebec misses out on separation by 0.58% of the vote.

So yeah, 3/9 of the supreme court judges needing to be from Quebec is a bad thing since it's just one of many compromises that do nothing but make the situation worse.

Um, this period of status quo between the Seven Years' War and the 1960s would cover both the establishment of the Supreme Court of Canada by the Supreme Court Act in 1875, which provided for six judges of which two were to be from Quebec, and the 1949 amendment of that act expanding the court to nine judges and requiring that three of those be from Quebec.

[Geilinor]

They can't give 25% to Quebec, they have to either give 2 or 3. 2 would be under-representation.

[Infected Mushroom]

Ifreann has kindly pointed out my mistake. It is in fact a part of the law. Its in section 6 of the Supreme Court Act; Quebec unconditionally gets at least three seats.

I thought you were a law student. How do you not know this stuff?

I have the excuse that I don't live in Canada or study law.

we weren't even quizzed on who the present Justices (or any past Justices) are/were in Canada; I'm not sure I can name more than a few off the top of my head...

i've only taken one mandatory course on constitutional law

[Infected Mushroom]

They can't give 25% to Quebec, they have to either give 2 or 3. 2 would be under-representation.

even if we go with that, it should still be 2 since they have closer to 20% of the population, they don't even have 25%. In a few decades, they are expected to lag further behind the more populated Canadian provinces.

[Aelex]

I'm having trouble making out what you're trying to get across, but judging by your previous post, it's in regards to anglo-french relations.

Which, for the record, is a massive load of BS. The situation has been pretty egalitarian since the 60's, and I have no interest in making amends for something people did 100 years ago. And either way, you're from France, so how can you possibly make a judgement call on this? Do you have any idea how much crap went on in French colonies? If we were to follow your line of thought, your own people would have quite a bit to answer for in regards to the hell-hole you turned parts of Africa into.

From what Québécois's friend of mine tell me; it's still shitty as hell no matter what you say.

Also; don't start with the colony my dear; your good english friends were a lot more awful than us, also, if we were that horrible; Françafrique wouldn't even exist anymore.

[Saint-Thor]

Those are among the reasons why I'm an independentist. There's not enough room for asymmetric federalism in that "federation" and the component representing the majority always tried to remove or restrain the minority part, ignoring the principle of the two founding people in 1867. The Supreme Court is an instance I do not like. It has the power to go against the Assemblée nationale of Québec on an unanimous vote (as shown here). Allowing people from Sasktachewan, Alberta or Nova Scotia to decide for the fate of Québec sounds like a silly idea. They don't know the civil code and when they do, they barely understand it in the original version (French). When the judges of the highest tribunal of the country can't understand 22% of its population, it tells a lot. Plus, Québec never signed the constitution precisely for that kind of attitude the OP is having, denying its identity and claiming that we should have the same status as, say, PEI or Manitoba.

There are people who may be happy with their provincial status. I, however, see Québec as a nation. Trying to reform an instance of federal jurisdiction makes no sense to me.

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.

It really doesn't. Despite what many say, the cultural difference is negligible.

It used to be fairly different, but the cultural differences between Quebec and Canada have become less and less significant.

And they don't have a different language. French is the only official language in Quebec, but it's hardly unique in being a province where a lot of people speak French. We are, after all, a bilingual country (English and French).

The federal institutions are bilingual, not the country. And even then, it's the French who are bilingual. Outside of Québec, it's pretty uncommon to find someone who can speak proper French.
It's funny because you say we are not French Canada and now that we don't have a different language. What's the point of trying to strip us from our differences? I thought English Canada was all about multiculturalism?

Was it for another country (Eyes the US) and for another ethnic group (Eyes minorities), I would say yes.In some countries, minorities are not very well integrated or are not given adequate representation.But is it the case for Quebec? Most people there are bilingual if they even speak French.Secessionist movements died a few decades ago (I'm not a buff on Canadian history tho).So yes, this rule should be abolished in my opinion.

Let me guess, let's do our dirty tricks since the "French" are not separating anymore?

The independentist movement is not dead, it is simply dormant. It is still at 39% in the last poll I saw, which is much higher than the Scottish one 1 month before their referendum.

[The Archregimancy]

The federal institutions are bilingual, not the country. And even then, it's the French who are bilingual. Outside of Québec, it's pretty uncommon to find someone who can speak proper French.

Those of us who grew up in Francophone Europe think it's pretty uncommon to find someone who can speak proper French in Québec.

Sorry - really low blow that.

Especially since A) not only do I really enjoy visiting Québec, but B) I'm currently reviewing two really interesting (French-language) Laval University archaeology reports for a professional society journal. So now I'm feeling really guilty for making the joke in the first place.

[Arcanda]

That's my point.There isn't much of a practical difference between Québec and Canada.They weren't colonized by the same powers, do not have the same traditions and sometimes language, but that's it.Most if not all speak English and they both share a "western" culture.

Quebec has a civil law system, whereas the rest of Canada has a common law system. Now I'm no fancy big-city lawyer, but it seems to me that that there is a difference that just might be important.

I'm not a law specialist either.
If they have a different law system, then let Quebec judges deliver a sentence when the trial takes place in Quebec, and let the Canadian ones do it otherwise.

Was it for another country (Eyes the US) and for another ethnic group (Eyes minorities), I would say yes.In some countries, minorities are not very well integrated or are not given adequate representation.But is it the case for Quebec? Most people there are bilingual if they even speak French.Secessionist movements died a few decades ago (I'm not a buff on Canadian history tho).So yes, this rule should be abolished in my opinion.

Let me guess, let's do our dirty tricks since the "French" are not separating anymore?

The independentist movement is not dead, it is simply dormant. It is still at 39% in the last poll I saw, which is much higher than the Scottish one 1 month before their referendum.

39%, when compared to 100%, is pretty small.It's 12 points away from the majority, and even then there'd be harsh opposition from the 49% left.

[The Two Jerseys]

The American invasion threat is over. Why is Quebec still being catered to?

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

Well, I'll do my best.

Here's a quick link about the Seven Year's War. Although I suspect you already know the details well enough (I think you're British, or maybe that's someone else with rainbowdash as their flag):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0qbzNHmfW0

So that's how it started, more or less. Things kind of went downhill from there. Basically, relations between Anglican Englishmen (since that was pretty much everyone who didn't speak French at the time) and French Catholics were always shitty after the 7-year war. Neither group liked the other, and way they went about cultural integration didn't help (the English were always favored in jobs and divying out government positions). The original parliament building being burned to the ground in Montreal didn't help. Nor did Acadians in the Maritime provinces being essentially isolated in small fishing communities.

Things remained fairly status quo for a while, until the 60's came about. Well, shit was brewing for a while, but the baby-boomers pretty much brought things to the forefront, amongst other things. By the time the 70's rolled around, the Bloc Quebecois party and Quebec separatism had gained quite a deal of support (from pissed off baby-boomers, mostly), and the province came close to separating. Fortunately, Pierre Trudeau, a Quebecois, came out of the blue and more or less convinced them to remain united with the rest of Canada, although he made a lot of concessions in the process (bilingualism (which wasn't a bad thing), french immersion, positive discrimination, quotas, etc.).

Flash-forward a decade or two, and in 1995, another referendum is held. Quebec misses out on separation by 0.58% of the vote.

So yeah, 3/9 of the supreme court judges needing to be from Quebec is a bad thing since it's just one of many compromises that do nothing but make the situation worse.

Here's the thing though. If a question of civil law comes before the court then how do you guarantee that a majority ruling can be issued? 2 judges has the possibility of a tie and 1 judge would make a mockery of the whole thing.

You seem to think only the Supreme Court justices who previously practiced in Quebec would make the ruling, if it's a case from Quebec.

I really doubt that. You're saying every other justice on the court would recuse themselves? Leaving only the Quebec contingent of judges to decide? That would be hugely unjust, considering the Quebec judges are not required to recuse themselves from decisions about cases arising in other provinces.

Two justices with a grounding in the civil law system of Quebec should be quite sufficient to advise the rest of the Supreme Court. If they know something the other justices don't, they will surely win the majority to the point of law.