Friday, September 23, 2016

j reacts to push back on the requirement that supreme court judges be bilingual

i actually have no problem with the bilingual requirement, though. actually, i would insist upon it - and argue that those arguing otherwise are just being dense. it's a functional job requirement to be able to hear cases from quebec, which means you need to be able to understand the vernacular. you simply can't do this job if you don't speak french, and if you don't realize this then you just don't understand what the job is.

the bilingual requirement is not identity politics. it's not francocentric.

it's a basic job requirement.

and, it's long past due that this is formally enforced.

no, stop. it's actually really, really outrageous for an anglophone canadian to stand there and claim that a francophone canadian is not entitled to justice in their native language. how would you feel about going up against a court that only speaks french, and only understands civil law? you'd feel like you were living in a foreign country.

this is not a serious debate. and, it's kind of depressing that there are people that think that it is.

http://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/beverley-mclachlin-says-bilingualism-necessary-for-some-judges