Sunday, April 25, 2010

Even the normally left leaning MSM thinks Ignatieff is wrong

Even the normally left leaning members of the MSM think Ignatieff is wrong on his support of C-232, the private members bill to make it mandatory for Supreme Court Justices to be fully bilingual. (which would disqualify 7 of the 9 current SC Justices!!)

The Toronto Star: "The Senate should exercise its responsibility for sober second thought and block this bill."

Robert Silver (Globe and Mail):"So, about that Senate rubber stamp... if ever there was a bill that was crying out for a "sober second thought" - some deeper study, this is it. "

So we have the these normally left leaning members of the MSM against it, we have former SC Justices against it, and of course many bloggers are against it; now the question is, aside from Ignatieff and the opposition MP's who voted for this nonsense, is there ANYONE out there who does support this?


maryT said...

OT but read BC Blue's latest post. The left is arguing for the Ban on Gallaway to be lifted when it gets to court, but banned Ann Coulter.
Listen to a Hamas supporter, and cheer.

dupmar said...

In response to your query, I consider the proposal quite reasonable, given that it's been close to 50 years since we had the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, it's not an issue that has caught nominees for the Supreme Court by surprise, they have had plenty of time to acquire competence in numerous fields, including basic competence in both official languages.

Yes of course you get the usual assortment of high school dropouts, cultural lumpens and other of life's losers, who never in their wildest dreams held such aspirations for such office, yet again complain that bilingual requirements have yet again frustrated and obstructed their aspirations for self-fulfillment.

You may wish to consider that every graduate from the much-maligned University of Ottawa meets such minimal linguistic requirement as a pre-requisite of graduation, and yet this is considered betond the capability of aspirants and potential candidates for the highest court in the land. Not to mention every immigrant taxi driver or pizza delivery guy who somehow discovers the capability to function in a second, acquired language.

Not one of the blogging tories has raised a ruckus over the fact that
second language ability is a prerequisite for every PhD graduate at every university across this land, you would think this would likewise be an appropriate cause to raise an outcry about the "injustice" of it all.

Next you complain that the so-called "culture war" is an invention of liberal media and pollsters, and that the blogging tories are not a haven of bigotry, while encouraging every maryT to cut loose with her outbursts on "French language crap" and demands to abolish French language rights.

And in response to maryT's query on another blog, yes, English language instruction is part of the curriculum of every school in Quebec, and it is most unfortunate that such is the level to which discussions pertaining to the proposed qualifications of Supreme Court Justices has sunk.
There is a great deal of arrogance in the assertion that Alberta speaks for the West on such cultural issues. My family, which is French-speaking, has resided in Manitoba dating back to the period when French was an official language in its legislature, with equal status, long before Alberta entered Confederation and presumed to speak for "the West" with its narrow minded bigotry.

If anything, this does reveal the gulf between the Progressive Conservatives of an earlier period, to which I belonged, and the current crop who claim the title, if not the continuity of its policies.

The_Iceman said...

BC Blue's "latest post" is just a link to something someone else wrote. He doesn't inject any original thought into the original text, as per 90% of his posts.

CanadianSense said...

The coalition need to fan the flames for English vs French again debate.
The hick farmer, oil barons in FT. McMurray ploy!

On a lighter side.
French For Dummies

Ardvark said...

Dupmar: do you support the removal of 7 out of 10 of the current crop of SC Justices as they are not 'fully' bilingual?

We are not talking conversational competence but rather being fully bilingual and fluent in legalese.

Is it good to be bilingual, yes it is but should being a good linguist carry more weight than having a good legal mind?

Ardvark said...

This is weird. I can see my comment when I view the post a comment page but not in any other view, and I have refreshed.

CanadianSense said...

I had an earlier message I already submitted my comment. (some error)

It was the first time I saw that message. Must be part of the culture war, mess up your site!


Alberta Girl said...

Sorry are it not reasonable.

Given that Quebec BANS anything to do with english why should the rest of the country be exempt from attaining any level of schooling or career because of a language barrier.

And Alberta DOES not speak for the west, is that Alberta was singled out as being somehow full of racists and homophobes and xenophobes - Alberta is singled out as being the province that singlehandedly is causing "global warming - er climate change" - Alberta is singled out as being the province that signifies the west. We didn't do that, the eastern media and the current crop of opposition members have done it in a effort to create a whipping
boy and play politics.

Sorry Dupmar - but you come across as the jealous cousin who never got the recognition they feel they deserve.

And I truly do not believe your "prerequisite" for PHD because I know a few and know for a fact they do not speak french.

So if that is true, please provide evidence to that assertion.

Ardvark said...

"There is a great deal of arrogance in the assertion that Alberta speaks for the West on such cultural issues...., long before Alberta entered Confederation and presumed to speak for "the West" with its narrow minded bigotry."

Who claimed that Alberta speaks for the west?

Narrow minded bigotry? Frank is that you?

I take it that the irony of your comments escape you; to bad an entire province can't file a complaint with the HRC.

bocanut said...

This Supreme Court judge bilingual requirement trial balloon is just part of the continuing push back game for French-speaking Canadians hopelessly trying to stem the eroding loss of their influence,and tax dollars.
Parliamentary seats are coming to Ont.,AB.& B.C., eroding Eastern Canada's influence.
The 3 stooges have expressed opposition against this seemingly democratic reform.
Count Iffy pontificating and actually acting to attempt to legitimize this Supreme Court requirement is another far too frequent example of his continuing machinations of buffoonery and flip-floppering.
He's making Chretien look classy, Martin look decisive and Dion look like a political genius.

maryT said...

Dupmar, please inform us hicks what other province other than Quebec has a language police force. Why would they be needed if Quebec is so bilingual. Story out today re this police force raiding a sex store for daring to have a product for sale with english only pkging.

Anonymous said...

A poster here argued that the court has had 50 years to adapt to bilingualism, well it has but.. in 50 years, Quebec has faltered and is no longer a force in Canada. That is why this bill is B/S, not relevant and even divisive. Not necessary. Like I said before, if we have to make a seperate supreme court for Quebec. (real conservative)

CanadianSense said...

It has been 40 years, QC has not protected English language rights. They are the only province with a language police.
The are not allowing immigrants to choose English for their children.
They are trying to restrict the use of English in Federal buildings. A minority vote for the Bloc 38.1%, they capture 65% of the seats with 1.1 million votes from one linguistic group.
The other Federal Parties should stop pandering and demand QC fund their own socialist programs.

The new 338 Parliament in 2014 means Ontario-QC control 58.9% of the seats.