Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not likely. If that happened the Supreme Court would have a field day with appeals from the ROC. Can't have different standards of justice across the country just because of language.

Does the Supreme Court in Canada review things such as amount of bail (or lack thereof), numbers of years of jail (or lack thereof)? That would be rather bizarre, as this is precisely left to the judge's discretion. In most court systems, the supreme court is only in charge of making sure the judge applied the correct law (for example, a particular crime was correctly identified as that particular crime in the criminal code, and not wrongly identified as a worse crime entailing a worse punishment).

If a French judge sentences you to 5 years in jail (not suspended) for, say, fraud, you cannot appeal to the supreme court (Cour de cassation) because you think the limited amount of your fraud meant you should have been sentenced only to 3 years of suspended jail term. The supreme court cannot review the extent of the punishment (unless it went further than the maximum allowed in the criminal code for that particular case). The supreme court can only make sure the correct article in the criminal code was applied, and due process of law was followed. The "quantum" of the punishment, as it's called technically, is at the lower judge's discretion and cannot be reviewed by the supreme court (but you have the right to an appeal, and the judge in the court of appeal will pronounce another quantum that may differ from the quantum pronounced by the first judge; it's just that after this appeal, the supreme court in Paris cannot review or change the "quantum" decided by the judge in the court of appeal).

I don't believe it's any different in Canada, or that would be quite bizarre.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We also don't have things like politically unionized judges. I think most Canadians would find that idea (judges in a union with a political lean) ridiculous.

The unions are not affiliated to a party. But people of same "ideas" or "ideals" tend to gather together. What do you do if judges who are more on the left to far-left side of politics all gather in one particular union that is therefore a very left-wing union, even if it's not affiliated to any left-wing party or doesn't even say in its charter that it is a left-wing union?

[Truenorth00]

If you get a harsher sentence just because of where you live, I imagine that would be grounds for appeal since it violates the principles of universality that is implicit in the law and our constitution/Charter.

Also, who gives a shit what you do in France? Not relevant to this thread.

[Acajack]

Not quite the same thing but this was a notable case

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/...osque-shooting-sentence-parole-1.6466847

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Does the Supreme Court in Canada review things such as amount of bail (or lack thereof), numbers of years of jail (or lack thereof)? That would be rather bizarre, as this is precisely left to the judge's discretion. In most court systems, the supreme court is only in charge of making sure the judge applied the correct law (for example, a particular crime was correctly identified as that particular crime in the criminal code, and not wrongly identified as a worse crime entailing a worse punishment).

If a French judge sentences you to 5 years in jail (not suspended) for, say, fraud, you cannot appeal to the supreme court (Cour de cassation) because you think the limited amount of your fraud meant you should have been sentenced only to 3 years of suspended jail term. The supreme court cannot review the extent of the punishment (unless it went further than the maximum allowed in the criminal code for that particular case). The supreme court can only make sure the correct article in the criminal code was applied, and due process of law was followed. The "quantum" of the punishment, as it's called technically, is at the lower judge's discretion and cannot be reviewed by the supreme court (but you have the right to an appeal, and the judge in the court of appeal will pronounce another quantum that may differ from the quantum pronounced by the first judge; it's just that after this appeal, the supreme court in Paris cannot review or change the "quantum" decided by the judge in the court of appeal).

I don't believe it's any different in Canada, or that would be quite bizarre.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If you get a harsher sentence just because of where you live, I imagine that would be grounds for appeal since it violates the principles of universality that is implicit in the law and our constitution/Charter.

Also, who gives a shit what you do in France? Not relevant to this thread.

I at least find it interesting to have comparisons between different countries.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I at least find it interesting to have comparisons between different countries.

We never talk about different countries. Just one. And more often than not, it's not even the one we live in.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If you get a harsher sentence just because of where you live, I imagine that would be grounds for appeal since it violates the principles of universality

Good luck with proving that there are systemically harsher sentences in certain parts of the country... How do you prove that? Besides, each supreme court's review is based on a single case. How do you prove that the single case examined violates the principle of universality? Even harder to prove.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I was actually thinking of adding the exact same thing about the Somali community in Ottawa. The issues there aren't really religious-based.

Though their women have started covering up a lot more than they did when they first arrived in the 90s. I briefly dated a Somali girl in the 90s and neither she, her family, her friends and no one in her entourage covered up at all at the time.

I'd agree also it's much more likely ethnic ghettoization than religion. If these Brampton basements jamming 8-15 young people of the same ethnic group becomes permanent (and there's no indication they can afford anything better in the midterm horizon), and if these so-called "students" with minimal legit qualifications decide to stay put here and get themselves stuck in the cycle of poverty, employer abuse and destitution, Brampton can very well evolve into Canada's version of Seine Saint-Denis.

I think Montreal is in a much better place in this regard vis-a-vis Toronto thanks to the vigilance of the Quebec government, in that there's no booming cluster of ethnic ghettoization on or off island, city nor banlieue. IMO Montreal won't have to worry about itself turning into Marseille.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Good luck with proving that there are systemically harsher sentences in certain parts of the country... How do you prove that? Besides, each supreme court's review is based on a single case. How do you prove that the single case examined violates the principle of universality? Even harder to prove.

That's what lawyers and statisticians are for. In any event, there's no evidence this is a problem in Canada. But I'm sure you're going to tell us we don't know Canadian law so I'll wait....

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not quite the same thing but this was a notable case

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/...osque-shooting-sentence-parole-1.6466847

Yeah, but this is slightly different, as this concerns parole. The criminal code in Canada surely must say the maximum punishment applicable to any crime, like in other countries, right? So if a particular crime with a maximum possible imprisonment of 5 years gets you routinely condemned to only 1 year of jail in Québec, but judges in Alberta routinely condemn people to 4 years in jail for the exact same crime, I don't see how the supreme court could say that 4 years in jail for this crime is "cruel and unusual punishment", when it is lower than the maximum allowed for that crime in the criminal code.

Note that in France this cannot happen (different sentences depending on regions) because judges are recruited nationally and sent to courts all across France, not in their home region, so there is no regional culture that can influence the justice system.

Also note that IF that ever happened (say, Alsatian courts being harsher than other courts in France), there's not much the supreme court could do about it. Like I've said, we don't have regional differences, because of national recruitment, but we do have judges who are known to be harsher than others. If you have a harsh judge for your trial, then tough luck, you will have a harsher sentence, and the supreme court cannot do anything about it (as long as the judge respected the maximum allowed by the criminal code for that particular crime).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

I'd agree also it's much more likely ethnic ghettoization than religion. If these Brampton basements jamming 8-15 young people of the same ethnic group becomes permanent (and there's no indication they can afford anything better in the midterm horizon), and if these so-called students decide to stay put here and get themselves stuck in the cycle of poverty, employer abuse and destitution, Brampton could very well evolve into Canada's version of Seine Saint-Denis.

About the only place in Canada see having that risk. Let's see what happens though, now that the provincial government just brought the hammer down on the strip mall colleges (they got zero of Ontario's student visa allocation). In theory, this should really take some pressure off Brampton after the current cohort graduates and moves on in 1-2 years.

[Acajack]

There are significant problems with sentencing, bail, release, etc in Canada, but it's not better or worse in any region of the country versus others.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Yeah, but this is slightly different, as this concerns parole. The criminal code in Canada surely must say the maximum punishment applicable to any crime, like in other countries, right? So if a particular crime with a maximum possible imprisonment of 5 years gets you routinely condemned to only 1 year of jail in Québec, but judges in Alberta routinely condemn people to 4 years in jail for the exact same crime, I don't see how the supreme court could say that 4 years in jail for this crime is "cruel and unusual punishment", when it is lower than the maximum allowed for that crime in the criminal code.

Note that in France this cannot happen (different sentences depending on regions) because judges are recruited nationally and sent to courts all across France, not in their home region, so there is no regional culture that can influence the justice system.

I've never heard of there being a difference. Since they are federal appointees Quebec's judges are probably quite "Canadian" in their outlook and approach.

Yes there is a sentencing range for every crime in our laws. Judges must impose sentences based on that range and stay within it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There are significant problems with sentencing, bail, release, etc in Canada, but it's not better or worse in any region of the country versus others.

Exactly. A lot of this has more to do with changes by this government, minimum sentencing facing constitutional challenges and the recent precedent of limits on trial wait times. One of my family friends is a CBSA officer (works on organized crime and was on the guns and gangs taskforce), he attributes the last point for the recent increase in lighter sentences and prosecutors dropping charges. Basically they can't hold off a trial forever. So this means that they let smaller crimes go now. In his opinion that ruling means the government needs to hire a lot more judges and prosecutors or start treating non-violent crimes differently. His suggested strategy was following the Italians on cracking down on mafia. Just take away the proceeds of crime rather than trying to jail the thieves. He thinks this would work with all the car thieves.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Agreed. But that's largely this government. They've already started backtracking. And there's not yet evidence that this policy will endure past this government.

Should be noted that students aren't necessarily a poor source of immigrants. It's the group that is easiest to integrate, arriving in rather formative years. It's mostly our failure at managing their integration that is the problem. Probably moot anyway when this policy gets changed. Also mostly an ROC problem as Québec never really embraced student Immigration.

Given the excellent issue you brought up re: OAS eating up the federal budget in the other thread, I wouldn't be surprised if the immigration ponzi scheme rears its ugly head in another form before this government sunsets, or sometime during the mandate of the next government. Or if the federal government is lazy, restart the same scheme. The Casper boomers whose interests dominate Ottawa has an iron grip over federal politicans, and the boomers see this as the only way to pay for their expensive entitlements.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There are significant problems with sentencing, bail, release, etc in Canada, but it's not better or worse in any region of the country versus others.

I take your word on that, but given the large cultural differences between Québec and the rest of Canada (as this tread exemplifies), I'm curious how they manage to ensure a unity of sentences across such a vast country with a cultural divide in its middle. It cannot be national recruitment as in France, since judges from Québec stay in Québec, judges from ROC stay in ROC. So what then? Cannot be the existence of a single Canadian criminal code either, because the code gives a sentences range to judges as you say. So what then? In France there used to be the "parquet" which gave orders to the judges to enforce laws in a certain way (although the control of the "parquet" over the criminal judges has been loosened since the 2000s), but I doubt Canada has anything similar to a federal minister of justice telling judges across provinces how severely or laxly they should punish crimes via a "parquet" issuing orders.

[Acajack]

https://twitter.com/Pascal_Gaxet/status/1779125734352519195?t=kjs6FJjnSuDg01M8tFiY7A&s=19

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

About the only place in Canada see having that risk. Let's see what happens though, now that the provincial government just brought the hammer down on the strip mall colleges (they got zero of Ontario's student visa allocation). In theory, this should really take some pressure off Brampton after the current cohort graduates and moves on in 1-2 years.

The basement ghettos are most concentrated in Brampton, but admittedly they're quite common in the 416, Mississauga, and Durham as well. I've heard they're even popping up in tony Oakville.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

https://twitter.com/Pascal_Gaxet/status/1779125734352519195?t=kjs6FJjnSuDg01M8tFiY7A&s=19

It's all the difference between fricative consonants and plosive consonants. Do you know some languages do not distinguish fricative from plosive consonants?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

The basement ghettos are most concentrated in Brampton, but admittedly they're quite common in the 416, Mississauga, and Durham as well. I've heard they're even popping up in tony Oakville.

With the amount of people that have been let in and continue to arrive, I wouldn't be surprised at all.