Three Judges Must Be From Quebec

[Ifreann]

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.


Are you suggesting that in a few decades there will not be any individuals in Quebec qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court?

---

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?

No I'm saying right now Quebec is already over-represented (~20% of the population of Canada but getting 33% of the seats in the Supreme Court). In the future, when Quebec's population lags further behind the rest of Canada as a whole, it would make even less sense to still have that already nonsensical 1/3 guaranteed representation. It would be even more unfair to the other provinces.

You've yet to explain why the number of Supreme Court judges from a given province should be based on that provinces population. Also, after a few seconds on Wikipedia I have learned that Canada has ten provinces and three territories. There are nine judges on the Supreme Court of Canada. If you want the provinces and territories to be represented proportional to their populations then you're gonna need a bigger 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.

We jumped straight into the case law (provinces vs federal governments) without really getting quizzed on this.

There are no tutors unless you pay for them.

Ye gods.

---

Canada's judiciary is appointed, not elected, no doubt to Canada's lasting benefit.

No exactly.

I mean, they're appointed by our governor-general, who's appointed by the queen of England.

As far as supreme court judges are concerned, the governor-general basically appoints whoever the prime minister tells him/her to appoint, since the entire governor-general position is at most, symbolic.

This has been the cause of problems in the past, since the prime minister can basically just choose who he likes more to be the next supreme court judge (the position's pretty much for life, so that's quite a deal of judicial influence). Parliament has little to no say whatsoever in terms of who the judge is going to be. Thankfully, few supreme court judges have died during Harper's reign (since most of us hate his guts), so he hasn't been able to appoint any judges to screw our country over.

So yeah, our judicial system is crap, thank you very much.

If you have that big a problem with your PM then I don't know why you'd expect an elected Supreme Court to be any better.

---

Canada's judiciary is appointed, not elected, no doubt to Canada's lasting benefit.

But as you yourself first pointed out, they can only be appointed within the rule that 3 of the 9 must be from the Quebec judiciary.

This is a legal requirement. As you pointed out.

I'm aware.

The legal (but not constitutional)

Is that not a contradiction?

requirement is undemocratic.

How is it? And further, if it is, so what?

The judiciary is a branch of government, no more and no less for being appointed by some other branch of government.

Are you suggesting that all branches of government must be democratic, even if appointed?

Also, you have a very strange user name. What's it mean?

Hell. In Irish.

---

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 where is that written? Can people from outside Quebec not move there, study law, and get appointed to the Supreme Court?

[Cetacea]

Considering that all 9 judges are Europeans with no native or 'minority' quotas to reflect the cutural 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.

I agree, quotas are stupid, to an extent. However the court also needs to reflect a diversity of perspectives and thats were a culturally diverse panel helps - its that whole 'jury of ones peers' thing.
Afterall there are aboriginal and black judges in Canada, so its not an issue of lacking skills and ability.

[Ifreann]

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.

I agree, quotas are stupid, to an extent. However the court also needs to reflect a diversity of perspectives and thats were a culturally diverse panel helps - its that whole 'jury of ones peers' thing.
Afterall there are aboriginal and black judges in Canada, so its not an issue of lacking skills and ability.

I imagine there are also aboriginal and black lawyers in Quebec, so how exactly the requirement that three judges on the court be from Quebec is racist is rather beyond me.

[Cetacea]

I agree, quotas are stupid, to an extent. However the court also needs to reflect a diversity of perspectives and thats were a culturally diverse panel helps - its that whole 'jury of ones peers' thing.
Afterall there are aboriginal and black judges in Canada, so its not an issue of lacking skills and ability.

I imagine there are also aboriginal and black lawyers in Quebec, so how exactly the requirement that three judges on the court be from Quebec is racist is rather beyond me.

3 from Quebec for "cultural diversity" is racist when all 9 are European. The Canadian Justices are suppose to reflect Canadian society, and well Canada is not 100% White

[Ifreann]

I imagine there are also aboriginal and black lawyers in Quebec, so how exactly the requirement that three judges on the court be from Quebec is racist is rather beyond me.

3 from Quebec for "cultural diversity" is racist when all 9 are European.

Exactly who said anything about cultural diversity?

The Canadian Justices are suppose to reflect Canadian society, and well Canada is not 100% White

Canada is also not 100% lawyers, so maybe they aren't actually supposed to reflect Canadian society.

[Cetacea]

"I think the court should be representative of society..." Madame Chief Justice McLachlin, Supreme Court of Canada. She was discussing women appointments at the time, but it is still relevant and I will defer to her superior opinion nonetheless

[Ifreann]

"I think the court should be representative of society..." Madame Chief Justice McLachlin, Supreme Court of Canada. She was discussing women appointments at the time, but it is still relevant and I will defer to her superior opinion nonetheless

Her opinion, be it superior, inferior, or anything else, is exactly that. Her opinion. Any number of people might think that the Supreme Court of Canada should reflect Canadian society. That does not mean that it is supposed to reflect Canadian society.

And again, nothing about this rule keeps the Supreme Court from reflecting Canadian society.

[Infected Mushroom]

"I think the court should be representative of society..." Madame Chief Justice McLachlin, Supreme Court of Canada. She was discussing women appointments at the time, but it is still relevant and I will defer to her superior opinion nonetheless

Her opinion, be it superior, inferior, or anything else, is exactly that. Her opinion. Any number of people might think that the Supreme Court of Canada should reflect Canadian society. That does not mean that it is supposed to reflect Canadian society.

And again, nothing about this rule keeps the Supreme Court from reflecting Canadian society.

her opinion seems to be the majority opinion among the Canadian population I would say

[Rio Cana]

Supposedly, this tree judge arrangement was agreed to some time ago. Any change would involve French Canada agreeing to it.

[Infected Mushroom]

Supposedly, this tree judge arrangement was agreed to some time ago. Any change would involve French Canada agreeing to it.

Unfortunately

which is why the Supreme Court Act is badly drafted legislation, its compromised legislation

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

But as you yourself first pointed out, they can only be appointed within the rule that 3 of the 9 must be from the Quebec judiciary.

This is a legal requirement. As you pointed out.

The legal (but not constitutional)

Is that not a contradiction?

No. "Legal but unconstitutional" would be a contradiction.
I mean "with the power of law" but not "with the power of law and constitution".

I'm avoiding any claim of what is constitutional, in Canada.
Because I don't know the Canadian constitution all that well. I doubt you do either.

The judiciary is a branch of government, no more and no less for being appointed by some other branch of government.

Are you suggesting that all branches of government must be democratic, even if appointed?

I wouldn't try to write a constitution requiring that.
So no, not "must be". Should be.
The elected representatives should try to express the will of the people. In appointments to the court, as in all other things.

Also, you have a very strange user name. What's it mean?

Hell. In Irish.

Thanks! Always good to learn a new word.

[Sanctissima]

Supposedly, this tree judge arrangement was agreed to some time ago. Any change would involve French Canada agreeing to it.

Unfortunately

which is why the Supreme Court Act is badly drafted legislation, its compromised legislation

Not to mention the fact that "French Canada" is by no means exclusive to Quebec. I mean, if we were really to go the whole linguistic representation route, there's a large portion of francophones who aren't being taken into account: Acadians, French Manitobans, Francophones in Ontario, etc.

Not that I think there should be special linguistic representation in the first place, but still, it just goes to show how faulty the Act is.

[MERIZoC]

I mean, I guess it's sort of justified, population-wise. Don't see why it's such a big deal.

[Ifreann]

Her opinion, be it superior, inferior, or anything else, is exactly that. Her opinion. Any number of people might think that the Supreme Court of Canada should reflect Canadian society. That does not mean that it is supposed to reflect Canadian society.

And again, nothing about this rule keeps the Supreme Court from reflecting Canadian society.

her opinion seems to be the majority opinion among the Canadian population I would say

You'll forgive me if I am less than swayed by what you would say, given your previously demonstrated lack of familiarity with the subject at hand.

[Sanctissima]

I mean, I guess it's sort of justified, population-wise. Don't see why it's such a big deal.

It's Canada.

Anything that gives special treatment to Quebec is a big deal.

History's complicated.

[Infected Mushroom]

I mean, I guess it's sort of justified, population-wise. Don't see why it's such a big deal.

No its not. They aren't 33% of the Canadian population.

Also, the quota is frozen in time. In the future, it will make even less sense.

[Ifreann]

Unfortunately

which is why the Supreme Court Act is badly drafted legislation, its compromised legislation

Not to mention the fact that "French Canada" is by no means exclusive to Quebec. I mean, if we were really to go the whole linguistic representation route, there's a large portion of francophones who aren't being taken into account: Acadians, French Manitobans, Francophones in Ontario, etc.

Not that I think there should be special linguistic representation in the first place, but still, it just goes to show how faulty the Act is.

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.

Yes, look at all that special linguistic representation for French Canada.

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

Supposedly, this tree judge arrangement was agreed to some time ago. Any change would involve French Canada agreeing to it.

Unfortunately

which is why the Supreme Court Act is badly drafted legislation, its compromised legislation

Got your own little State's Rights problem up there in Canada?

Oh poor you.

[MERIZoC]

I mean, I guess it's sort of justified, population-wise. Don't see why it's such a big deal.

No its not. They aren't 33% of the Canadian population.

Also, the quota is frozen in time. In the future, it will make even less sense.

Hence the "sort of". It's not like they gave the 3 to Alberta or anything.

[Infected Mushroom]

Unfortunately

which is why the Supreme Court Act is badly drafted legislation, its compromised legislation

Got your own little State's Rights problem up there in Canada?

Oh poor you.

I wouldn't be surprised if in a few decades we'll have to fight a civil war to keep Quebec in the Union.

[Ifreann]

I mean, I guess it's sort of justified, population-wise. Don't see why it's such a big deal.

No its not. They aren't 33% of the Canadian population.

Also, the quota is frozen in time. In the future, it will make even less sense.

The Supreme Court Act is not frozen in time.

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

I mean, I guess it's sort of justified, population-wise. Don't see why it's such a big deal.

No its not. They aren't 33% of the Canadian population.

Also, the quota is frozen in time. In the future, it will make even less sense.

If the population growth of the rest of Canada exceeds that of Quebec, the rest of Canada will have ample opportunity to change the law.

If they even care about where Supreme Court judges come from.

[Ifreann]

Got your own little State's Rights problem up there in Canada?

Oh poor you.

I wouldn't be surprised if in a few decades we'll have to fight a civil war to keep Quebec in the Union.

What union?

[Sanctissima]

Not to mention the fact that "French Canada" is by no means exclusive to Quebec. I mean, if we were really to go the whole linguistic representation route, there's a large portion of francophones who aren't being taken into account: Acadians, French Manitobans, Francophones in Ontario, etc.

Not that I think there should be special linguistic representation in the first place, but still, it just goes to show how faulty the Act is.

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.

Yes, look at all that special linguistic representation for French Canada.

As I said, Quebec is not French Canada. Which just adds to how utterly screwy and compromising many of our politicians act, and think for that matter.

Aside from that, 1/3 of our supreme court's judges being required to be from one province (We have 10, plus 3 territories), is by no means a small amount. And this isn't an isolated circumstance. The whole "linguistic privileges" thing gets taken quite a bit further here in Canada. Ever heard of French immersion, positive discrimination, french-only schools and the french-english teacher quota in New Brunswick? All of those have proven to be pretty fucked up and detrimental to society.

So do please refrain from lecturing me on the situation of my own country. I know it pretty damn well.

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

No its not. They aren't 33% of the Canadian population.

Also, the quota is frozen in time. In the future, it will make even less sense.

The Supreme Court Act is not frozen in time.

I could have said that.

Reply to my previous post if you want. But I think you have this latest outbreak of infected mushrooms under control. I'll bow out.