SOSC 1350 - Week 3 - Part 4

Summary

The video script discusses the RDS case, highlighting the controversy surrounding Chief Justice Antonio Lamer's comments during oral hearings, which were perceived as racially stereotypical. It contrasts the scrutiny of Judge Sparks' comments on systemic racism with the leniency given to Lamer's remarks. The script critiques the Canadian judicial system, suggesting a double standard where the privileged perspective is often mistaken for impartiality, while marginalized voices are more harshly judged. It concludes by challenging viewers to consider the nature of bias and impartiality in the legal system.

Takeaways

• 🏛️ The Supreme Court's decision in the RDS case was final and could not be appealed, but the controversy extended beyond the court's written decision.
• 🗣️ Chief Justice Antonio Lamer's comments during the oral hearing were scrutinized for being based on racial stereotypes, contrasting with the prepared nature of Supreme Court decisions.
• 📚 The oral hearing is a significant part of the Supreme Court process where judges are well-prepared, unlike trial courts where decisions are often made with minimal prior information.
• 🎯 Lamer's questioning of the ability to take judicial notice of 'Chinese gambling' and 'Roma pickpockets' was seen as invoking racist stereotypes, despite being presented as hypotheticals.
• 🤔 The Chinese Canadian National Council filed a complaint against Chief Justice Lamer for his comments, highlighting a perceived double standard in what constitutes bias.
• 🔍 The Canadian Judicial Council, chaired by Lamer, investigated the complaint but concluded his comments were not evidence of bias, raising questions about the independence and impartiality of the investigation.
• 👥 The incident underscores the challenge of achieving genuine impartiality in the judiciary, as the socially privileged viewpoint is often mistaken for objectivity.
• ⚖️ The treatment of Judge Sparks' comments versus Chief Justice Lamer's highlights a discrepancy in how bias is perceived and addressed in the judicial system.
• 💭 The case leaves the question of bias and impartiality open to interpretation, encouraging a critical examination of the standards applied to different judges.

Q & A

What is the significance of the RDS case in the context of the Supreme Court of Canada?

The RDS case is significant because it extended beyond the Supreme Court's decision, involving scrutiny of comments made by the Chief Justice Antonio Lamer during oral hearings, which were based on racist stereotypes.

What is an oral hearing in the context of the Supreme Court?

An oral hearing in the Supreme Court refers to the proceedings that occur in the courtroom where arguments are presented verbally by the parties involved. It is different from the written decision, which is a carefully crafted document that takes months to prepare and has legal force.

How do Supreme Court oral hearings differ from trial court oral hearings?

Supreme Court oral hearings are different from trial court oral hearings in that the judges are very well prepared, having read all prior decisions and written submissions. In contrast, trial court judges may have minimal information in advance and often base their decisions on evidence presented during the trial.

What role does the Chief Justice play in scheduling cases in the Supreme Court?

The Chief Justice, in addition to being part of the decision-making panel, is also responsible for scheduling cases in the Supreme Court, setting the Court's agenda, and determining when and how cases are heard.

Why were the comments made by Chief Justice Lamer during the RDS case oral hearings considered questionable?

Chief Justice Lamer's comments were considered questionable because they invoked racist stereotypes about Chinese gambling and Roma pickpockets, which were not based on evidence but rather on his personal assumptions and experiences.

What was the response of the Chinese Canadian National Council to Chief Justice Lamer's comments?

The Chinese Canadian National Council was appalled by Chief Justice Lamer's comments and filed a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council, urging an investigation into his bias.

What is the Canadian Judicial Council and how does it differ from the Supreme Court?

The Canadian Judicial Council is an independent body responsible for reviewing and investigating a judge's actions and imposing penalties if necessary. It differs from the Supreme Court in that it does not hear appeals of court decisions but rather handles complaints about judicial conduct.

How did the Canadian Judicial Council address the complaint against Chief Justice Lamer?

The Canadian Judicial Council determined that Chief Justice Lamer's comments were not evidence of bias because they were presented as hypotheticals rather than statements of fact or belief.

What is the irony highlighted by the speaker regarding the treatment of Judge Sparks' and Chief Justice Lamer's comments?

The irony is that while Judge Sparks' comments were scrutinized and deemed biased, Chief Justice Lamer's similar comments were treated as hypothetical explorations and given the benefit of the doubt, despite him being the one to criticize Sparks' comments.

What is the key takeaway message from the speaker regarding impartiality and bias?

The key takeaway is that the viewpoint of the socially privileged is often mistaken for impartiality, but genuine impartiality requires considering multiple perspectives. The speaker suggests questioning the standards of impartiality and recognizing that everyone has some level of bias.

Outlines

00:00

🏛️ Supreme Court's Oral Hearings and Decision-Making Process

The paragraph discusses the case of RDS that reached the Supreme Court of Canada and the subsequent scrutiny of the Chief Justice Antonio Lamer's comments during the oral hearing. It explains the difference between an oral hearing and a written law report, emphasizing that Supreme Court decisions are carefully crafted and take months to finalize. The oral hearing is a less formal process where judges are well-prepared, having reviewed all previous decisions and written submissions. The paragraph highlights the contrast between the Supreme Court's approach and that of lower courts, like the Youth Court, where decisions are often made with minimal written record.

05:02

🗣️ Chief Justice Lamer's Questionable Comments and Racist Stereotypes

This paragraph delves into the controversial remarks made by Chief Justice Antonio Lamer during the RDS case's oral hearing. Lamer suggested that he could take judicial notice of Chinese gambling and Roma pickpockets, drawing on racist stereotypes. The paragraph contrasts Lamer's well-prepared status as Chief Justice, who scheduled the case, with the inappropriateness of his comments. It also mentions that these comments were made in the context of a case scrutinizing a black woman judge's ability to identify systemic racism, adding a layer of irony and complexity to the situation.

10:04

📄 Chinese Canadian National Council's Response to Biased Comments

The paragraph describes the reaction of the Chinese Canadian National Council to Chief Justice Lamer's comments, which they found appalling. They filed a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council, seeking an investigation into Lamer's potential bias. The text explains the difference between an appeal and a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council, noting that the latter investigates a judge's conduct and can impose penalties, although its disciplinary powers are limited.

15:07

⚖️ The Canadian Judicial Council's Investigation and Its Outcome

This paragraph outlines the Canadian Judicial Council's role in investigating claims of judicial bias. Despite Chief Justice Lamer being the chair of the Council, another judge was assigned to investigate the complaint against him, with an independent review also sought. The Council ultimately determined that Lamer's comments, presented as hypotheticals, did not constitute evidence of bias. The paragraph highlights the irony that Lamer's comments were not scrutinized with the same rigor as Judge Sparks' comments in the original case, which he had deemed as biased.

20:08

🤔 The Paradox of Impartiality and the Socially Privileged Perspective

The final paragraph reflects on the concept of impartiality and how it was perceived differently in the case of Judge Sparks and Chief Justice Lamer. It points out the irony that Lamer's comments, made in the context of scrutinizing another judge's perception of racism, were treated as hypothetical explorations rather than evidence of bias. The paragraph concludes by suggesting that the viewpoint of the socially privileged is often mistaken for impartiality, while true impartiality requires considering multiple perspectives.

25:09

🔍 Questioning the Standards of Impartiality

In this paragraph, the speaker prompts the audience to consider who is right or wrong, who is biased or impartial, leaving the decision to the individual's judgment. It emphasizes the different treatments of Judge Sparks and Chief Justice Lamer, suggesting that the privileged perspective was treated as impartiality beyond question, while a more nuanced comment was quickly labeled as bias. The paragraph ends by encouraging the questioning of what is accepted as impartiality.

Keywords

💡Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest court in a legal system, having the ultimate authority to interpret laws and make decisions on constitutional matters. In the context of the video, the Supreme Court of Canada is where the RDS case reached its final stage, and it is also where Chief Justice Antonio Lamer made comments that were later scrutinized for bias.

💡Oral Hearing

An oral hearing refers to a court proceeding where arguments are presented verbally by the parties involved, as opposed to a written decision. The video explains that while the Supreme Court's written decisions are carefully crafted and take months to finalize, oral hearings are the immediate verbal exchanges that occur in the courtroom, which can include spontaneous remarks that may not be as thoroughly considered.

💡Judicial Notice

Judicial notice is a legal principle where a court may recognize and accept a fact as true without requiring proof, because it is well-established or commonly known. In the script, Chief Justice Lamer controversially suggests taking judicial notice of stereotypes about Chinese gambling and Roma pickpockets, which is criticized as inappropriate given the court's role in upholding fairness and avoiding bias.

💡RDS Case

The RDS case is the central legal matter discussed in the video. It involves a situation where a judge's comments were under scrutiny for potential bias. The case reached the Supreme Court, and the video discusses the implications of the court's oral hearing and subsequent decisions, as well as the reactions to Chief Justice Lamer's comments during the hearing.

💡Bias

Bias refers to a preconceived opinion or preference that can influence judgment or decision-making. The video discusses the concept of bias in the context of judges' comments and decisions, questioning whether certain remarks during the RDS case hearing demonstrated bias and how the court addressed these concerns.

💡Impartiality

Impartiality is the ability to be fair, unbiased, and objective, particularly in decision-making roles such as judging. The video explores the expectation of impartiality from judges, contrasting it with the perceived biases exhibited during the RDS case hearing, and discusses the challenges in achieving true impartiality.

💡Racist Stereotypes

Racist stereotypes are generalized and oversimplified beliefs about a particular racial or ethnic group. The video script criticizes Chief Justice Lamer for invoking such stereotypes regarding Chinese gambling and Roma pickpockets, highlighting the inappropriateness of such references in a legal context and the potential harm they can cause.

💡Canadian Judicial Council

The Canadian Judicial Council is a body responsible for investigating complaints against federally appointed judges in Canada. The video describes how the Council was approached to investigate Chief Justice Lamer's comments during the RDS case hearing, and it discusses the Council's findings and limitations in its disciplinary powers.

💡Systemic Racism

Systemic racism refers to the embedded racial discrimination within institutions and societal structures. The video touches on systemic anti-black racism as a point of discussion in the RDS case, where Judge Sparks had made comments regarding this issue, leading to the case being brought before the Supreme Court.

💡Socially Privileged Perspective

The socially privileged perspective refers to viewpoints that are influenced by a position of social advantage or majority status, which may not recognize or account for the experiences of marginalized groups. The video suggests that Chief Justice Lamer's comments and the subsequent handling by the Canadian Judicial Council may reflect a failure to recognize or challenge a privileged perspective as biased.

Highlights

The case of RDS extended beyond the Supreme Court of Canada, involving scrutiny of comments made by Chief Justice Antonio Lamer.

Oral hearings in the Supreme Court are distinct from written decisions, with judges being well-prepared and having access to all prior decisions and submissions.

Chief Justice Lamer's comments during the RDS oral hearing were based on racist stereotypes, questioning the judicial notice of Chinese gambling and Roma pickpockets.

The Chinese Canadian National Council filed a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council against Chief Justice Lamer for his comments.

Chief Justice Lamer, who was also the chair of the Canadian Judicial Council, was investigated by a different judge within the council for his alleged bias.

The Canadian Judicial Council found that Chief Justice Lamer's comments were hypothetical and not evidence of bias, contrasting with the scrutiny Judge Sparks faced.

The irony highlighted is that Chief Justice Lamer's comments were not held to the same standards as Judge Sparks', which he deemed as bias.

The viewpoint of the socially privileged is often mistaken for impartiality, while genuine impartiality requires diverse perspectives.

The case raises questions about who is right, who is wrong, who is biased, and who is impartial, leaving it to the audience to decide.

The treatment of Judge Sparks and Chief Justice Lamer's comments demonstrates different standards for what is accepted as impartiality.

The transcript discusses the process and significance of oral hearings in the Supreme Court, distinguishing them from trial court settings.

Chief Justice Lamer's role in scheduling the case and his preparedness for the oral hearing is emphasized, highlighting his influence and knowledge.

The historical context of the stereotype about Chinese gambling in Canada is provided, linking it to racist laws and societal attitudes.

The complaint process to the Canadian Judicial Council and its functions are explained, showing the avenues available for addressing judicial bias.

The investigation into Chief Justice Lamer by the Canadian Judicial Council and the independent review process are detailed.

The conclusion by the Canadian Judicial Council that Chief Justice Lamer's comments were exploratory hypotheticals is presented.

The transcript concludes with a call to question the standards of impartiality and the role of socially privileged viewpoints in the legal system.

Transcripts

part for judges judging judges outside

the Supreme

Court yeah so as I indicated in the

previous clip uh the case itself stopped

at the Supreme Court but The Saga of the

RDS case extended well beyond

it uh fittingly beyond the Supreme Court

of Canada it was not the comments of

Judge Sparks that were being scrutinized

but rather those of the Supreme Court's

uh Chief Justice at the time and Antonio

Lam

mer so uh the Supreme Court oral

hearing uh yeah yeah let me take a

moment to to explain what the the oral

hearing is um because that can be be

useful the Supreme Court oral

hearing

um uh yeah so right down oral

hearing oral

hearing what happens in the courtroom

itself different from the law report

written

decision yeah so so let me explain what

what is an oral hearing what does this

what does this term

mean um and how is it different from

something like a law report so Supreme

Court decisions um uh what we actually

read uh in the decision that is like

officially released from the court these

take months and months and months and

months and months and months and months

and months to write so every word in a

in a published Supreme Court decision is

carefully

crafted um so perhaps to that

point yeah perhaps to that point what am

I what am I talking about when we

normally talk about like a Supreme Court

decision so what is this this is this

this is the 65 page Supreme Court

decision that was when when we normally

talk about the Rd case this is the 65

page you know Supreme Court decision I'm

just scrolling through it really quickly

but like and you and you know careful

carefully worded so that it can be

perfectly translated into like both

languages both official languages and

everything like that but yeah a 65 page

document where every word has been

weighed carefully chosen Etc that is the

law report or like the written decision

of the Supreme Court um it's it's the

thing that actually has legal Force um

so quite unlike the uh uh Youth Court uh

where all of this started where you know

judge Sparks here's the evidence

presented before her you know weighs

everything there um you know she might

retire to her Chambers to to reflect but

um she can also at the same time just

say okay this is the conclusion we're

coming to uh I'm going to bang my gavl

and you know often times there's not

even a written decision released

afterwards um at that level of Court

when it comes to to trial court you know

sometimes there is uh but often times

even just the transcript uh is all you

get because these are not courts of P

pump in circumstance um you know at the

the trial court level a lot of the time

especially in Youth Court um it's it's

not uh a court of pomp in circumstance

you might get the transcript but it's

mostly just an oral hearing so oral

hearing is mostly what you got uh when

it came to the original trial um uh with

with judge Sparks and everything there

might be a transcript of that but when

we think of the Supreme Court we're

usually thinking about the law report

the written decision the that they write

like these you know this one's 65 pages

I I I don't assign it anymore but

there's one there's one in another one

of my classes that was like 200 pages I

stopped assigning it because nobody was

was reading it um but but they they are

quite lengthy um decisions that they

that they

write

um uh um so yeah let me so let me let me

find my place um so yeah the oral

hearing so original the origal RDS trial

it was just an oral hearing um and at

the Supreme Court they also have oral

hearings but what we tend to pay

attention to is the law report written

decision where they can weigh every

single

word I should say also though so the

Supreme Court oral hearings they are not

quite the same as as the original

circumstances that judge Sparks found

herself in when she had an oral hearing

for her um for the for the original RDS

trial rather for the Supreme Court oral

hearings the judges are very very very

very very well prepared so when a

Supreme Court Judge walks into their

courtroom uh they at this point would

have read the decision of every other

level of Court uh they would have read

um all the written submissions from the

um uh both both both parties involved in

the appeal and often times like a number

of inter intervenor groups as well so

that's to say the the judges uh at the

Supreme Court are not walking in blind

like to their their courtrooms the

judges at the Supreme Court even for the

oral hearings they have read at this

point for the RDS case they would have

read the transcript of of Judge sparks'

uh original ruling they would have read

uh the um decision from the first level

of appeal they would have read the

decision from the third level so from

the um second level of appeal that has

has come through uh they would have read

the written submissions coming from uh r

Small's lawyer they would have read the

written submissions coming from the

crown attorney and I think in this case

I'm just looking here there were yeah

they would have read written submissions

from all of these groups as well so they

are coming into this very well prepared

very well aware of what this is unlike

uh judge Sparks in her original

courtroom who may not have received

anything before going into the court

that day which is very typical of that

kind of trial court um very minimal

information is given um in advance most

of what um they'll be presented with the

judge is happening there at trial so

anyway all this just to say the Supreme

Court oral hearing it's it's what's said

in the moment uh there are transcripts

of it it's not usually what gets the

attention but even the Supreme Court

oral hearings like these judges walk in

very well informed about um what they're

about to hear um they should know the

insides and outs of this case already so

it was in this context that um just

chief justice Lam mer made particular

comments uh and I'll so just say chief

justice Antonio L mer during the um oral

hearings for the RDS case made a number

of questionable comments based on racist

stereotypes and I'm just I'm just

looking at my lecture notes here and I I

should add Like Chief Justice Antonio

Lam mer aside from the fact that as a

judge in the Supreme Court again he

would have had all those things to read

he would have read every other you know

level of decision he would have read all

these written submissions from all these

different people he went in very well

prepared as the Chief Justice he was

also the one who scheduled this case so

I need to make that very clear like

unlike you know his other eight

associate judges justices of the Supreme

Court who you know would have had access

to the information as well chief justice

La Mer is also the person who scheduled

this particular case to take place on

this particular day at this particular

time so as the Chief Justice like he

sets the Court's agenda and things like

that so he was just for context the most

well-prepared person he he the person

who could have been the most well

prepared um for this oral Hearing in in

the entire country essentially like

nobody nobody gets more information

provided to them more power over you

know when this happens and how this

happens and what information will be

presented and things like that than the

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of

Canada so during this oral hearing chief

justice Antonio L mer made a number of

questionable comments based on racist

stereotypes so um for example he

suggested that he should be able to take

judicial notice of Chinese gambling um

or Roma pickpockets by the same logic by

the same logic that um judge judge

Sparks used maybe I'll add that here

that judge Sparks used by the same logic

that so he I'll just I'll change the

sentence there he suggested that he

should be able to take judicial notice

of quote unquote Chinese gambling or

Roma pick buckets by the same logic that

judge Spurs used so in the context that

I explained above uh um of the the the

Supreme Court Royal proceedings uh uh

chief justice Lam mer asked defense

Council if hypothetically he could take

judicial notice of Chinese gambling in

Montreal and he was from Montreal

whether he could take judicial notice of

Chinese gambling in Montreal in the same

way judge spars had taken judicial

notice of systemic anti-black racism in

Halifax based on um then judge uh

justice Lam was saying here based on his

own lived experience that he used to be

a lawyer in in Montreal and in his

experience uh the Chinese people there

were involved in a lot of illegal

gambling so this is what he said could I

just take notice of Chinese gambling

because I used to live in Montreal and

uh you know when I was a lawyer in

Montreal I saw all of these Chinese

people involved in uh illegal gambling

can I take judicial notice of that

because that's my lived experience and

then he also went on to say could I take

judicial notice of this idea that Roma

people are pickpockets because maybe

that's my general intuition that Roma

people are all pickpockets could I do

that as well by the same logic that uh

justice Sparks um Drew on her own you

know lived experience or intimate

knowledge or things like that her

intuition so the issue here however is

that the Chief Justice of the highest

court in the land with all of the

background to this case walked into his

courtroom and at length then went on to

start State multiple different racist

stereotypes about the criminality of

multiple different racialized groups and

and

um oh I don't I'm just looking at my

notes I don't have it written out here

but I'll maybe I'll just say What's um

particularly oh no I do have it okay

yeah okay so the the the Chinese

Canadian National Council was appalled

by Chief Justice Lam Mer's

comments so uh in response to the things

that were said at the oral hearing uh

the Chinese uh uh Canadian National

Council was was quite appalled and

um I'm paraph so in my notes I wrote

down like uh uh uh WTF uh this man who

is the head head judge in a trial about

when a judge is being biased and where a

judge is being impartial this man

appears himself to demonstrate a

reasonable apprehension of bias and

maybe I'll just add I'm just looking at

my lecture notes here it is probably

worth noting that The Stereotype of of

um quote unquote Chinese gambling that

um uh chief justice Lam walked into his

courtroom and started asking if he could

take judicial notice of that that's got

a very long and racist uh history uh in

in Canada uh so until the 20th century

there were laws on the books that um uh

forbade Asian people in Canada from

doing a whole host of things and the

justification behind a lot of those laws

that specifically targeted Asian people

um was this myth that uh Asians were um

responsible for introducing gambl into

Canadian Society um so this is not some

like random reference that he's giving

here um but rather calling up a very

specific racist stereotype that has

previously actually led to some very

racist laws in Canada um up until the

early 20th century you had a very racist

laws that were Justified on this basis

that uh Asian uh Asian people coming

into Canada would bring problem gambling

or something like that so anyway

understandably the Chinese Canadian

National Council was appalled uh by by

these comments uh that were were thrown

out uh in the the courtroom that chief

justice Lam said well you know can't I

just talk about Chinese gambling if I

want to uh because I see Chinese

gambling um so they oh and I should

correct that hopefully I'll remember to

correct that in your notes as well but

the Chinese so they were apped they

filed a complaint with the Canadian

judicial Council urging an investigation

of Chief Justice Lam mer for his bias so

as I said previously you can't appeal a

Supreme Court decision that's where the

buck stops once the Supreme Court has

has you know made their decision they

you can't appeal it somewhere else

that's that's the end um but what the

Chinese Canadian National Council did do

was file a complaint with the Canadian

judicial

Council um so you'll recall I uh made a

statement earlier who judges judges

judges judge judges and I said that I

said it that time without stumbling at

all

um uh so this is uh different the the

Canadian judicial council is different

than an appeal so an appeal is a a whole

court case getting reviewed Again by

another level of court it's possible to

overturn the whole decision uh things

like that so a whole court case gets

appealed and appealed and appealed and

the RDS case was appealed all the way to

the Supreme

Court making a complaint to the Canadian

judicial council is different um and it

it might be linked to an appeal in some

way uh but it's it's a it's a completely

separate and for for the most part a

completely separate uh

phenomenon uh uh and that's to say yeah

this the Canadian judicial Council has

the power to review and investigate a

judge's actions and impose penalties so

where there's an allegation that a judge

is not

um trying to think of how to phrase

it not not upholding the values that

their POS not not acting in accordance

with um what their their position uh

should uh should entail uh the Canadian

judicial Council are the ones who

investigate that uh they don't have a

lot of disciplinary power uh so the

Canadian judicial Council can um Force

temporary suspensions uh and things like

that uh they they can request that a

judge uh resign they can't force a judge

to resign they can recommend to

Parliament that a judge be removed from

the bench and things like that they

don't they don't have a lot of power so

mostly they're there to investigate

complaints you know they can suspend

people temporarily but mostly their

power is to say yes this judge is acting

appropriately or no this judge is not

acting appropriately we will make that

determination and send a message based

on that and oftentimes if there's a if

there's a recommendation to resign I I

don't think there's ever been an

instance where somebody hasn't resigned

um so maybe I'll say that too that they

can't force a judge to to give up being

a a judge but if there's a a finding of

a huge breach and they say you should

resign uh the historically they've

always resigned I think in every case

actually there there was there was one

case from like the 1800s where somebody

originally refused uh and um he was he

later changed his mind and things like

that so the Canadian judicial Council

anyway so a complaint was made to the

Canadian judicial Council but here in

lies the rub so the Canadian judicial

Council like I said they have the power

to review and investigate a judge's

actions and impose some penalty

here in lies the rub that chief justice

lame was the chair of the Canadian

judicial

Council in 1997 uh

so this should start to seem like a bit

of a flaw in the system here

so this person chief justice Lam mer who

is in charge of a court that's supposed

to decide what constitutes bias so he's

sitting in this he was just sitting in

the Supreme Court case where their Court

was supposed to decide what constitutes

bias was this Lower Court decision

evidence of bias or not this person

himself who in the oral hearings for

that particular case seems to himself

demonstrated a kind of reasonable

apprehension of bias at least according

to to folks like the Chinese Canadian uh

uh National Council that this

guy he is the one in charge of the

judges

that are also supposed to investigate

claims of

bias so again it starts to seem like a

bit of a flaw in the system so it's that

complaints about judicial bias in

1997 all kept going to the same guy like

they all keep going to the same white

guy like they like whether it was an

appeal all the way to the Supreme Court

or a a complaint that outside the

process of appealing a court case or

something like that

they were all going to the same person

they were all going to Justice Lam mer

including in this case an instance where

uh uh there was an allegation of of of

him presenting bias in his courtroom the

complaint went to the organization that

he was in charge of so anyway yeah it

all just kept going to the same guy I

mean however you know a different judge

was responsible for investigating the

complaint against him so so even though

chief justice Lam mer was the was the

head of the Canadian judicial Council

like in addition to being like the the

head of the Supreme Court of Canada um

uh uh there was at least an attempt to

demonstrate some kind of Independence

and

impartiality um so a different judge was

tasked with taking on the

investigation

um yeah and he and this other judge I

think Justice mcer his is referenced in

the reading and he himself also uh uh

solicited an independent review from a

lawyer who was not associated with the

uh uh Canadian judicial Council um but

perhaps

unsurprisingly yeah perhaps

unsurprisingly the Canadian judicial

Council ultimately determined that Chief

justices Lam's comments were not

evidence of bias he posed them as

hypotheticals and not his actual

beliefs so

um yeah the the the CJC concluded that

Chief Justice's comments were not

evidence of bias since they had not been

stated as facts he claimed to believe

but rather as hypothetical as that he

wanted to

explore so you can come to your own

conclusions here like on the one hand uh

yes you know chief justice Lam mer did

pose these as hypotheticals he wasn't

trying to give Credence to these ideas

just throwing them out there he said

things like what if I were to take

traditional notice of Chinese gambling

because of what I see going on in the

casinos in Montreal what if I wanted to

say that all Roma people are pickpockets

what if I did this so he he threw them

out as hypotheticals these racist

stereotypes what if he believed this

racist stereotype because of this racist

thing that he had

seen on the other hand so on on the one

hand like yeah like they were

hypotheticals that's true like on the

other

hand he made those comments in the

context of a case where they were um

excoriating

uh a black woman um for much less

pointed statements uh and apparently

like there was uh apparently the the

Canadian judicial Council saw no reason

to subject uh chief justice Lam mer and

his comments to the same to any

comparable level of scrutiny or

reprimand so like maybe I'll just even

put that on screen like on the one hand

on the one hand that's true that's true

he did just State

hypotheticals like he wasn't saying I

believe this I think this I'm basing my

decision on this he stated hypotheticals

he threw out a lot of racist ideas but

these are just hypotheticals I'm

exploring on the other

hand on the other

hand he stated these in the

context of

scrutinizing scrutinizing a

judge's uh a black a black woman

judges um beliefs uh black woman judges

ability

to uh claim to see

racism

so

um I'm trying to think that's a good way

to put it on the one hand

uh yeah so maybe maybe I'll just and

yeah yeah I'll just I'll maybe I'll

leave it at that so yeah so yeah on the

one hand yeah it's true he just he did

just State hypotheticals he wasn't

saying that he believed this and he was

coming to a decision for this reason on

the other hand like you know this was in

the context of a case where they were

scrutinizing a black woman's ability a

black woman judges ability to claim to

see racism um so this was like just not

not not um he wasn't going into this not

knowing anything he walked in and made

all these statements in the context and

and invoked all these racist stereotypes

in the context of uh a that he

scheduled where they were supposed to be

assessing whether or not um you know

judge spars uh uh could um uh draw on

her lived experience or not uh yeah

that's that's that's the that's the

other thing maybe to consider here but

anyway the the Canadian judicial Council

found nothing wrong with what uh justice

Lam mer said but I'll just say you know

the Deep irony and I guess this is the

point I was trying to make thankfully I

wrote it on screen already so the Deep

irony is that chief justice Lam's

comments not held to the standards he

ruled judge sparks' comments should be

so I will say you know um on the one

like again like I'm I'm not saying that

the Canadian judicial Council came to

the wrong conclusion

um they quite reasonably stated chief

justice Lam mer was just raising things

in terms of hypotheticals he did not say

that these racist things were true he

didn't say that he was he was going to

base his decision on racist beliefs he

was just exploring the possibility of

racist beliefs like totally true but

perhaps the irony is that um uh uh uh

chief justice lame mer is the same man

who said that judge Sparks spoke out of

turn making comments on something she

had no evidence to back up so according

to the Canadian judicial Council this

same man who said that judge spars was

biased uh was was he he himself was not

biased for doing almost exactly the same

thing so in other words you know chief

justice chief justice

L Chief helps if I could spell chief

justice Lam mer did not give judge

sparx's comments the benefit of the

doubt however Chief I'll just writ chief

justice chief justice L's comments were

given

the benefit we're given the benefit of

the de so yeah the issue the Deep irony

in in all of this was that you know when

chief justice Lam mer was reviewing what

judge Sparks said he said this is this

is bias this is bias uh uh it's total

bias uh and I'm signing on to this

descent where we're saying there should

be original there should be another

trial I mean they weren't part of the

majority but but chief justice Lam mer

did not give benefit of the doubt to

judge sparks' comments versus then when

the Canadian judicial Council was

investigating chief justice L mer his

his comments were given the benefit of

the doubt those were just hypotheticals

perfectly defensible if he wants to be

drawing upon

that um so yeah I what is what is the

takeaway from all of this if nothing

else um I've got on screen the Viewpoint

the Viewpoint of I'll right the

Viewpoint the Viewpoint of the socially

privilege it's often mistaken is often

mistaken for

impartiality however genuine

impartiality requires many points of

view so I think if you take nothing else

away from this um it's that we're all

partial there's no view from nowhere uh

and an informed perspective needs to be

informed from many different

places

um yeah I'm just looking and I don't

have I don't have a great note to to go

out on so uh maybe maybe I'm just even

thinking I've been taught teaching this

case for a while people sometimes ask

afterwards so who was right who was

right was judge was Judge spars biased

was was Justice Lam mer biased was Judge

spars impartial was was chief justice La

Mer impartial well there's there's

that's that's really up to you to decide

um we have reasons to think that both of

them may have been demonstrating bias

and reasons to think that both of them

may have been demonstrating a kind of

impartiality we've got defenses and

critiques of of both of them um at this

point but I think that what we see in

terms of how they were treated was two

very different things that uh we see one

very privileged perspective being

treated as though it was impartiality

Beyond question and we've got another

that is a very carefully qualified

comment that was suddenly claimed to be

bias um so I think you know we should

probably also just keep in mind that the

Viewpoint of the socially privileged is

often mistaken for impartiality however

genuine impartiality if we can ever get

to it probably requires many points of

view um much Beyond just that one point

of view um that one might be drawing on

so something to to consider who is who

is right who is wrong who is biased who

is impartial um up to you to decide um

but at very least we can see that these

were treated very differently uh when it

came to um what we expect and what we

accept as impartiality and probably we

should question that a little bit more