SOSC 1350 - Week 3 - Part 4
Summary
TLDRThe 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
- ๐๏ธ 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.
- ๐ฃ๏ธ 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.
- ๐ 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.
- ๐ฏ 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.
- ๐ค The Chinese Canadian National Council filed a complaint against Chief Justice Lamer for his comments, highlighting a perceived double standard in what constitutes bias.
- ๐ 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.
- ๐ฅ The incident underscores the challenge of achieving genuine impartiality in the judiciary, as the socially privileged viewpoint is often mistaken for objectivity.
- โ๏ธ 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.
- ๐ญ 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
๐๏ธ 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.
๐ฃ๏ธ 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.
๐ 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.
โ๏ธ 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.
๐ค 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.
๐ 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
๐กSupreme Court
๐กOral Hearing
๐กJudicial Notice
๐กRDS Case
๐กBias
๐กImpartiality
๐กRacist Stereotypes
๐กCanadian Judicial Council
๐กSystemic Racism
๐กSocially Privileged Perspective
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
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)