RSS FeedBinnie and Charron Retire
OTTAWA, May 13, 2011 – The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada, announced today that Justice Ian Binnie and Justice Louise Charron have written to the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Robert Nicholson, to inform him that they will retire from the Supreme Court of Canada. Justice Charron’s retirement will be effective August 30, 2011. Justice Binnie’s retirement will take effect upon the same date or, if there is a delay in the nomination process, so soon thereafter as his replacement is appointed. The Judges Act provides that a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada may, for a period of six months following his or her retirement, continue to participate in judgments with respect to cases heard prior to retiring.
“The departure of Justices Binnie and Charron will leave an important void on the Court. Both have served the Court with great wisdom and dedication and have made significant and lasting contributions to the administration of justice in Canada. They are valued colleagues and friends. We will miss them” said Chief Justice McLachlin.
For his part, Justice Binnie said, “It has been an honour and a privilege to serve on the Supreme Court of Canada since January 1998. Much as I will miss the work and my colleagues, I am now well into my fourteenth year on the Court and the time has come to return to Toronto to pick up some of the threads of an earlier existence. I deeply appreciate the opportunities given to me to participate in the administration of justice in so many different capacities over more than 44 years and I thank those who from time to time made it possible”.
Justice Charron said, “I feel truly privileged to have spent the last years of my judicial career serving the Canadian people as a member of the Supreme Court of Canada. As promised when I took the oath of office, I have brought to this task my best, every day, whatever that could be at the time. I hope that I have lived up to the trust and honour that was bestowed upon me. The reasons for my decision to retire are quite simple. I have recently turned 60. My husband and I both enjoy good health. We have a great family and wonderful friends. I have been a judge for 23 years now and the seventh anniversary of my appointment to the Court, August 30 next, seems like the perfect time to move on”.
Justice Binnie was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada on January 8, 1998, after a distinguished career as an advocate in courts and tribunals across Canada and before the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Justice Charron was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada on August 30, 2004, after having served on the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) and the District Court of Ontario.
Chief Justice McLachlin concluded saying “I am certain that the Canadian government will give priority consideration to the appointment of two new justices of the Supreme Court with all the care and deliberation that is required in the circumstances.”
Reference: Andres Garin, Executive Legal Officer, (613) 996-9296
* * *
POUR DIFFUSION IMMÉDIATE
OTTAWA, le 13 mai 2011 – La très honorable Beverley McLachlin, juge en chef du Canada, a annoncé aujourd’hui que le juge Ian Binnie et la juge Louise Charron ont écrit au ministre de la Justice, l’honorable Robert Nicholson, pour l’informer qu’ils entendent se retirer de la Cour suprême du Canada. Le départ à la retraite de la juge Charron prendra effet le 30 août 2011. Le départ à la retraite du juge Binnie prendra effet à la même date ou à la date de la nomination de son remplaçant si le processus de nomination n’est pas complété le 30 août 2011. La Loi sur les juges précise qu’un juge de la Cour suprême du Canada peut, pendant une période de six mois après son départ à la retraite, continuer de participer aux jugements portant sur les affaires entendues avant la date de sa retraite.
« Le départ des juges Binnie et Charron créera un vide important au sein de la Cour. Ils ont tous deux servi la Cour avec énormément de sagesse et de dévouement depuis leur nomination et ont apporté une contribution substantielle et durable à l’administration de la justice au Canada. Ils sont pour nous des collègues et amis très chers, et ils nous manqueront », a affirmé la juge en chef McLachlin.
Pour sa part, le juge Binnie a déclaré : « C’est pour moi un honneur et un privilège de siéger à la Cour suprême du Canada depuis janvier 1998. Il va de soi que le travail et mes collègues me manqueront, mais je suis à la Cour depuis quatorze ans déjà et le temps est venu de retourner à Toronto et de renouer avec certains aspects de mon existence antérieure. Je suis très fier d’avoir eu la possibilité de participer, à de nombreux titres, à l’administration de la justice pendant plus de 44 années, et je remercie sincèrement tous ceux qui m’ont, au fil des ans, donné l’occasion de le faire. »
La juge Charron a dit ceci : « Je me considère très privilégiée de pouvoir terminer ma carrière judiciaire en servant les Canadiennes et les Canadiens comme juge de la Cour suprême du Canada. Ainsi que j’avais promis de le faire lorsque j’ai prêté le serment d’office, j’ai exercé mes fonctions en y apportant chaque jour le meilleur de moi-même. J’espère avoir été à la hauteur de la confiance et de l’honneur qu’on m’a accordés en me confiant ces fonctions. Les raisons pour lesquelles je me retire sont très simples. J’ai eu 60 ans récemment. Mon époux et moi sommes en bonne santé. Nous avons une famille extraordinaire et des amis merveilleux. Je suis juge depuis 23 ans et le septième anniversaire de ma nomination à la Cour, le 30 août prochain, me semble le moment idéal pour passer à autre chose. »
Le juge Binnie a été nommé à la Cour suprême du Canada le 8 janvier 1998, après une distinguée carrière comme avocat devant de nombreux tribunaux judiciaires et administratifs aux quatre coins du pays ainsi que devant la Cour internationale de Justice à La Haye. La juge Charron a pour sa part été nommée à la Cour le 30 août 2004, après avoir été juge à la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, à la Cour de justice de l’Ontario (Division générale) et à la Cour de district de cette province.
La juge en chef McLachlin a conclu par ces mots : « Je suis certaine que le gouvernement canadien fera de la nomination des deux nouveaux juges de la Cour suprême une priorité et agira avec tout le soin et toute la diligence nécessaires dans les circonstances. »
Renseignements : Andres Garin, Adjoint exécutif juridique (613) 996-9296
Federal Securities Regulation: The Saga Continues
The concept of Federal Securities Regulation in Canada is perennial. It keeps on coming back, most recently via a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. Pundits will talk, industry insiders will cross their fingers and hope for a favourable ruling, yet I doubt very much the story will end here.
It seems likely that securities regulation is permissible under various head of power in the Constitution. However federal regulation makes no sense if all of the provincial regulators remain in place. There is nothing to be gained gain by adding yet one more layer of regulation. The entire point of the exercise is to unify nationally so as to simplify. The real issue is whether the federal government can succeed in accomplishing this (whether through the Courts or through other channels).
Given the historical absence of federal legislation and the obvious connections with property and civil rights, it seems unlikely (in my opinion) that the SCC would declare, at the request of parliament, that suddenly all that was once provincial is now exclusively federal. This would be a massive restructuring of the federal-provincial power balance, something that the SCC would likely be very reluctant to “ordain” from the bench. Instead, the Court would likely hold that there is significant room for overlap. I wrote a research paper called “Constitutional Complexities Involved in the Implementation of a Federal Securities Regulation Regime in Canada: The View from 2009” that explores this topic in greater detail.
If this view is correct, then the real issue is political. It would be up to the Federal Government to negotiate with the provinces to ensure that regulation becomes unified and not multiplied. This would be difficult, to say the least. Arguably, with Ontario on-side the Feds could go “go it alone” and let the other provinces face the screams of protest from their local investment communities. Meanwhile, the possibility of the London Exchange buy-out adds yet another complicating factor to the politics. This might not be a “Canadian” industry for long.
My prediction: Regardless of the outcome of the reference to the SCC, this issue is far from settled.
Retro Is In
This post is a response to this article from the Telegraph about a French female lawyer ripping off another young woman’s burqa (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7735607/France-has-first-burka-rage-incident.html).
First, what does “No one may wear in public places clothes that are aimed at hiding the face” actually translate to in real life? Is this really practical? So does this cover wearing a ski mask when you’re on vacation or your Halloween costume? What about makeup or filming a movie in a public location? What about hats, scarves, sunglasses, goggles, wigs or veils? And what constitutes ‘forcing’ a woman to wear a burqa? What if the aim is not to hide her face?
And how is a burqa an affront to the nation’s values? I thought its values were freedom, equality and brotherhood (liberté, egalité, fraternité) – France’s national motto. Where exactly does racial, ethnic and religious discrimination fit into that?
Second, should we honestly believe that this law is well-intentioned? European countries have been increasingly hostile to Muslims and “outsiders” in general over the last few years. Belgium has outlawed burqas with France close behind, the Swiss have outlawed Islamic architecture, there have been scandals including anti-semitic remarks from a British diplomat, a Polish person declaring that Auschwitz was not a death camp, Grecian attacks on synagogues and other problems in Denmark and Hungary. In spite of the French President denouncing this bill, we are actually expected to believe that not only is it NOT racism, but that this is really about women’s rights! When was the last time anyone was really that concerned about women’s rights?
Third, as I’ve pointed out, the French are going to be hard-pressed to enforce this fairly and rationally. I foresee this turning into state-sponsored persecution of Muslims and particularly, Muslim women. Clearly, professionals are courageous enough to start attacking people in public already!
Finally, how exactly is this law going to achieve the supposed ‘equality’ for minority women that proponents are hiding beneath? Muslim women won’t be able to leave the house. They will be completely cut off. If they leave the house, they will be fined. But they won’t be employed (because they can’t leave the house and won’t pass a headshot, therefore they can’t work), so how will they pay the fine? And how will their husbands feel when their wives go out and get fined (and when they subsequently get fined for “inciting” their wives to cover their faces)? And how will women be able to leave their countries for Europe at all?
Furthermore, what if women CHOOSE to be Muslim and adopt the burqa? Why should they be discriminated against for this practice? And why should their husbands be viewed with suspicion for a choice their wives freely make? Not all Muslims are like this; not all Muslims are extremists and terrorists and wifebeaters. And again – I don’t see any sort of sexual assault or domestic assault law reform going on here. Nor do I see policy that will have the result of a fairer, more civil and more inclusive society.
People can hide in all sorts of ways – the burqa is just one way. Terrorists and other criminals will find other methods to hide. And airports shouldn’t have much difficulty accommodating women – all they need is a separate room with a female guard to show their faces. Therefore, it seems that this is really just codifying xenophobia, fuelling the fire of hatred and setting people up for battle. And with the French climate the way it’s been for the past few years (think Paris on fire), things may erupt sooner rather than later. Do they think this will solve the country’s problems? The last time I checked, systematic public persecution led to tension, strife, terrorism, violence, civil war and genocide.
The pendulum seems to have reached its limit. We’re in for a bumpy ride backwards. Captivité, disparité, et inimitié?
LOTR on Queen’s Pro Bono Radio
This was inspired by lawiscool.com’s previous post about LOTR as property law. We tried to break down different methods of possession and discussed who we thought was the true lord of the ring.
Speakers are Colin Brown, Heather Sagar and Joy Wakefield of Queen’s University. Thank you to Omar for the permission and to CFRC for the mics.
Enjoy!
International Intervention in Libya
By David Olevson and Ekaterina Perchenok
With the conflict in Libya and throughout the Middle East escalating every day, we must keep conscious of the inherent bias of our news outlets. While our hearts go out to civilians caught in the line of fire in this wave of unrest, collective international reaction must be carefully planned and scrutinized, as the possible consequences could be devastating with regards to human rights and casualties.
If the course of the international intervention in Libya is anything to go by, we seem to have forgotten some of the important humanitarian lessons learned in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. So far, several hundred missiles have been deployed, with the total civilian casualties remaining unknown. There have even been reports of child soldiers being recruited. Regardless of one’s stance on the general legality of this intervention, with no end in sight, the events are becoming more troubling each day.
UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized “all necessary measures” to protect the civilian population in Libya from pro-Gaddafi forces. The resolution demands an immediate ceasefire and a political (rather than military) resolution to the conflict. While the resolution clearly states in paragraph 4 that “all necessary measures” are to be taken to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack, it explicitly excludes sanctioned occupation. This statement is, without a doubt, an admirable ambition. The document also recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States to the legitimacy of this international response. This recognition is a significant acknowledgment of the complex regional tensions and geopolitics on a grander scale. Despite these attempts at added legitimacy, the document lacks in several areas. It does not provide for any definition or limitations on what course of action may be followed, it does not state which countries should take leadership roles or even which will participate, and the only limiting criteria within the resolution is the exclusion of sanctioned occupation. (For more on the Resolution, click here)
International intervention is now nearing its second week in Libya, with no end in sight. Some have even speculated that it may be months before an end is reached. If we are to prevent a new generation of child soldiers from being used for civil war, countless casualties and the further displacement of large groups of people, decisions must not be rash and must be carefully scrutinized. While we may want to help those being abused by a brutal dictator, the outcome of our response must not result in a prolonged civil war. While revolutions provide exiting headlines for Western news outlets, the West quickly becomes bored as new crises appear. Societal and social infrastructure problems are not solved by brief limelight and donations for the ‘cause of the day’, the problems must be solved with careful social building blocks that take years to reinforce. Only then can the issues be solved, and hopefully children be spared from the dim future they likely face.
For further reading, you may find this and this interesting.
—-
David Olevson and Ekaterina Perchenok are first year law students at the Faculty of Law at Queen’s University. David received his undergraduate degree from Huron University College at the University of Western Ontario, majoring in Political Science. Ekaterina completed her degree at York University, specializing in Global Political Studies.
From 3 Kilometres to 3 Clicks Away
Most law students are not strangers to the limitless potential of the internet. The internet has been tamed for us to apply to write the LSAT(s), apply to law schools, receive our acceptance(s), select our courses, pay our tuition, download slides for some classes (which offer them), networking, blogging, applying for jobs, et cetera.
However, that list is currently missing an important use of the internet that law students should (arguably) have access to: online lectures of law school classes (in audio, video, or both).
If law students had the option of physically attending class or virtually attending class, which do you think they would prefer? Think both. Why should law students be “falsely imprisoned” into choosing how to attend class. The real issue here is that law students should have the CHOICE of attending class either virtually or physically.
The technology to enable this important choice is prevalent throughout our society. Podcasts, YouTube videos, and even online universities have allowed online learning and education to become reality – just three clicks away – instead of three kilometres away.
But who would benefit? Many mature students have revealed to me that law school is like an insatiable hunger that ravishes their time. I would even assert that the same comment applies to traditional students straight out of university. Law school undoubtedly sprints by and the pace can approach the speed of sound; hence, online lectures would allow students (mature or traditional) to choose the pace at which they can run (or walk) through the lectures. How I wish I could pause the professors in some of my classes and press rewind! Moreover, online lectures would offer students the flexibility to “attend” class according to their preferred time. Many nocturnal students would agree. Even the law school administration would potentially benefit from admitting more students, albeit some law students currently looking for jobs would raise an eyebrow to this.
While there is a plethora of advantages and disadvantages to carving out this choice for law students, the discussion should begin to take place and not be left to future law school administrations or students to tackle.
In essence, why not allow law students the freedom to choose how they want to attend lectures (virtually or physically) and learn the curriculum in law school? Just because something has been engraved in the past for centuries, logic (appeal to tradition) dictates that old is not always gold.
Are You Considering Law School? Here are Some Helpful Online Resources
Thinking about becoming a lawyer? Then did you know it’s illegal in Victoria, British Columbia for street musicians to give balloon animals to children? Did you know that Canada’s criminal code states that anyone “offending a public place with a bad smell” is liable to two years in jail? Standing up for malodorous individuals has inspired a vast number of law students. Well, perhaps not.
What inspires you to go to law school? Are you sure it’s the right move for you? If you’re considering law school, take a look at some of these helpful online resources. There are also useful links for those who already have made the decision to attend law school.
Law School Admission Council’s (LSAC) Guide to Canadian Law Schools
This is hands down one of the best online resources for prospective law students. It’s official Guide to Canadian Law Schools offers a plethora of useful information. It’s a highly recommended resource for anyone pondering whether or not law school is right for them.
Law School Details
Canadian-universities.net offers links to every law school admissions department. The website also has a page about law school scholarships and awards, in case you would like some help in paying for law school. Chances are you would!
The Council of Canadian Law Deans provides links to every law school or law department in the country.
Jurist Canada is another great resource offering a comprehensive list of Canadian Law Schools. Besides links to law school homepages, it also provides links to the following useful sections of each school’s site:
- Faculty
- Law Journals
- Library
- Admissions
- Curriculum
- News & Events
Legal Specializations
Some people attend law school simply because they don’t know what else to do after obtaining an undergraduate degree.
Green Lantern?
This is a link to the latest post at my website. Here is the London Free Press story
I think this is very important for people to know… especially in Ontario. Read this, and you can save a life.
If you do not want to read the post, just know this.
In Ontario, please pull over and yield for vehicle with a flashing green light. They are voluntary first responders, usually in rural areas where the community operates with a volunteer fire department. By not yielding to them, you could be costing precious seconds or minutes to somebody in a life threatening situation.
This was the case tonight when I encountered after I yielded to a vehicle with a flashing green light and the vehicle in front of me did not. This was what he was going to:
Although there were little to no injuries, it is needless to say the result could have been a VERY different story. So PLEASE pull over for vehicle with green lights.
Access Copyright: Outrageous and Unnecessary
As a UWO student (and at many other Canadian universities,) you automatically pay an annual fee to an organization called Access Copyright. An item is included in your student activity fee, and it used to be $3.38 per student per year, plus an amount based on the number of photocopies made at library photocopy machines. However, when the licence agreement expired last year, Access Copyright did not seek to renegotiate with UWO. Instead, it applied to the Copyright Board for a massive restructuring of the agreement. If the Board approves the request, Access Copyright would receive $45 per student per year. With 30,000 full-time students, this amounts to $1.35 million annually. But that’s not all. Access Copyright would also have the right to surveillance: Section 14 (4) of the proposed licence agreement states that:
The Educational Institution shall give Access Copyright, on reasonable notice, right of access through-out the Educational Institution’s premises in order to organize and carry out an audit, including full access to the Secure Network and all Course Collections.
This would include access to university email accounts.
There are a number of problems with the Access Copyright regime. First of all, every university student is presumed to be infringing copyright and this seems very unlikely given the Fair Dealing rights in the Canadian Copyright Act that expressly permit the copying of non-substantial portions of a work for the purpose of private study. As well, the university is presumed to be responsible for the presumed copyright infringement by students. This is contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in CCH Canadian Limited v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339.CCD, which held that a library is NOT responsible for copyright infringement merely by providing access to photocopiers.
What is more troubling, though, is that by paying Access Copyright, our fair dealing rights become meaningless.
“Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior”
Although slightly unrelated to law qua law, this article published by the Wall Street Journal on January 11, 2011 has created much buzz in the legal world (and perhaps even typifies the upbringing of many students currently in professional schools). Written by author and Yale Law professor Amy Chua (who is married to fellow Yale Law professor Jed Rubenfeld), the article defends the “Asian” way of raising children. If you haven’t read it already, the article is posted here for your perusal (and you may want to read Above The Law‘s take on the article as well):
Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior
Can a regimen of no playdates, no TV, no computer games and hours of music practice create happy kids? And what happens when they fight back?
By AMY CHUA
A lot of people wonder how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids. They wonder what these parents do to produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies, what it’s like inside the family, and whether they could do it too. Well, I can tell them, because I’ve done it. Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:
• attend a sleepover
• have a playdate
• be in a school play
• complain about not being in a school play
• watch TV or play computer games
• choose their own extracurricular activities
• get any grade less than an A
• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama
• play any instrument other than the piano or violin
• not play the piano or violin.
I’m using the term “Chinese mother” loosely. I know some Korean, Indian, Jamaican, Irish and Ghanaian parents who qualify too. Conversely, I know some mothers of Chinese heritage, almost always born in the West, who are not Chinese mothers, by choice or otherwise. I’m also using the term “Western parents” loosely. Western parents come in all varieties.
When it comes to parenting, the Chinese seem to produce children who display academic excellence, musical mastery and professional success – or so the stereotype goes. WSJ’s Christina Tsuei speaks to two moms raised by Chinese immigrants who share what it was like growing up and how they hope to raise their children.
All the same, even when Western parents think they’re being strict, they usually don’t come close to being Chinese mothers. For example, my Western friends who consider themselves strict make their children practice their instruments 30 minutes every day. An hour at most. For a Chinese mother, the first hour is the easy part. It’s hours two and three that get tough.
Despite our squeamishness about cultural stereotypes, there are tons of studies out there showing marked and quantifiable differences between Chinese and Westerners when it comes to parenting. In one study of 50 Western American mothers and 48 Chinese immigrant mothers, almost 70% of the Western mothers said either that “stressing academic success is not good for children” or that “parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun.” By contrast, roughly 0% of the Chinese mothers felt the same way. Instead, the vast majority of the Chinese mothers said that they believe their children can be “the best” students, that “academic achievement reflects successful parenting,” and that if children did not excel at school then there was “a problem” and parents “were not doing their job.” Other studies indicate that compared to Western parents, Chinese parents spend approximately 10 times as long every day drilling academic activities with their children. By contrast, Western kids are more likely to participate in sports teams.
What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you’re good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on their own never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences. This often requires fortitude on the part of the parents because the child will resist; things are always hardest at the beginning, which is where Western parents tend to give up. But if done properly, the Chinese strategy produces a virtuous circle. Tenacious practice, practice, practice is crucial for excellence; rote repetition is underrated in America. Once a child starts to excel at something—whether it’s math, piano, pitching or ballet—he or she gets praise, admiration and satisfaction. This builds confidence and makes the once not-fun activity fun. This in turn makes it easier for the parent to get the child to work even more.
Chinese parents can get away with things that Western parents can’t. Once when I was young—maybe more than once—when I was extremely disrespectful to my mother, my father angrily called me “garbage” in our native Hokkien dialect. It worked really well. I felt terrible and deeply ashamed of what I had done. But it didn’t damage my self-esteem or anything like that. I knew exactly how highly he thought of me. I didn’t actually think I was worthless or feel like a piece of garbage.
As an adult, I once did the same thing to Sophia, calling her garbage in English when she acted extremely disrespectfully toward me. When I mentioned that I had done this at a dinner party, I was immediately ostracized. One guest named Marcy got so upset she broke down in tears and had to leave early. My friend Susan, the host, tried to rehabilitate me with the remaining guests.
The fact is that Chinese parents can do things that would seem unimaginable—even legally actionable—to Westerners. Chinese mothers can say to their daughters, “Hey fatty—lose some weight.” By contrast, Western parents have to tiptoe around the issue, talking in terms of “health” and never ever mentioning the f-word, and their kids still end up in therapy for eating disorders and negative self-image. (I also once heard a Western father toast his adult daughter by calling her “beautiful and incredibly competent.” She later told me that made her feel like garbage.)
Chinese parents can order their kids to get straight As. Western parents can only ask their kids to try their best. Chinese parents can say, “You’re lazy. All your classmates are getting ahead of you.” By contrast, Western parents have to struggle with their own conflicted feelings about achievement, and try to persuade themselves that they’re not disappointed about how their kids turned out.
I’ve thought long and hard about how Chinese parents can get away with what they do. I think there are three big differences between the Chinese and Western parental mind-sets.
First, I’ve noticed that Western parents are extremely anxious about their children’s self-esteem. They worry about how their children will feel if they fail at something, and they constantly try to reassure their children about how good they are notwithstanding a mediocre performance on a test or at a recital. In other words, Western parents are concerned about their children’s psyches. Chinese parents aren’t. They assume strength, not fragility, and as a result they behave very differently.
For example, if a child comes home with an A-minus on a test, a Western parent will most likely praise the child. The Chinese mother will gasp in horror and ask what went wrong. If the child comes home with a B on the test, some Western parents will still praise the child. Other Western parents will sit their child down and express disapproval, but they will be careful not to make their child feel inadequate or insecure, and they will not call their child “stupid,” “worthless” or “a disgrace.” Privately, the Western parents may worry that their child does not test well or have aptitude in the subject or that there is something wrong with the curriculum and possibly the whole school. If the child’s grades do not improve, they may eventually schedule a meeting with the school principal to challenge the way the subject is being taught or to call into question the teacher’s credentials.
If a Chinese child gets a B—which would never happen—there would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion. The devastated Chinese mother would then get dozens, maybe hundreds of practice tests and work through them with her child for as long as it takes to get the grade up to an A.
Chinese parents demand perfect grades because they believe that their child can get them. If their child doesn’t get them, the Chinese parent assumes it’s because the child didn’t work hard enough. That’s why the solution to substandard performance is always to excoriate, punish and shame the child. The Chinese parent believes that their child will be strong enough to take the shaming and to improve from it. (And when Chinese kids do excel, there is plenty of ego-inflating parental praise lavished in the privacy of the home.)
Second, Chinese parents believe that their kids owe them everything. The reason for this is a little unclear, but it’s probably a combination of Confucian filial piety and the fact that the parents have sacrificed and done so much for their children. (And it’s true that Chinese mothers get in the trenches, putting in long grueling hours personally tutoring, training, interrogating and spying on their kids.) Anyway, the understanding is that Chinese children must spend their lives repaying their parents by obeying them and making them proud.
By contrast, I don’t think most Westerners have the same view of children being permanently indebted to their parents. My husband, Jed, actually has the opposite view. “Children don’t choose their parents,” he once said to me. “They don’t even choose to be born. It’s parents who foist life on their kids, so it’s the parents’ responsibility to provide for them. Kids don’t owe their parents anything. Their duty will be to their own kids.” This strikes me as a terrible deal for the Western parent.
Third, Chinese parents believe that they know what is best for their children and therefore override all of their children’s own desires and preferences. That’s why Chinese daughters can’t have boyfriends in high school and why Chinese kids can’t go to sleepaway camp. It’s also why no Chinese kid would ever dare say to their mother, “I got a part in the school play! I’m Villager Number Six. I’ll have to stay after school for rehearsal every day from 3:00 to 7:00, and I’ll also need a ride on weekends.” God help any Chinese kid who tried that one.
Don’t get me wrong: It’s not that Chinese parents don’t care about their children. Just the opposite. They would give up anything for their children. It’s just an entirely different parenting model.
Here’s a story in favor of coercion, Chinese-style. Lulu was about 7, still playing two instruments, and working on a piano piece called “The Little White Donkey” by the French composer Jacques Ibert. The piece is really cute—you can just imagine a little donkey ambling along a country road with its master—but it’s also incredibly difficult for young players because the two hands have to keep schizophrenically different rhythms.
Lulu couldn’t do it. We worked on it nonstop for a week, drilling each of her hands separately, over and over. But whenever we tried putting the hands together, one always morphed into the other, and everything fell apart. Finally, the day before her lesson, Lulu announced in exasperation that she was giving up and stomped off.
“Get back to the piano now,” I ordered.
“You can’t make me.”
“Oh yes, I can.”
Back at the piano, Lulu made me pay. She punched, thrashed and kicked. She grabbed the music score and tore it to shreds. I taped the score back together and encased it in a plastic shield so that it could never be destroyed again. Then I hauled Lulu’s dollhouse to the car and told her I’d donate it to the Salvation Army piece by piece if she didn’t have “The Little White Donkey” perfect by the next day. When Lulu said, “I thought you were going to the Salvation Army, why are you still here?” I threatened her with no lunch, no dinner, no Christmas or Hanukkah presents, no birthday parties for two, three, four years. When she still kept playing it wrong, I told her she was purposely working herself into a frenzy because she was secretly afraid she couldn’t do it. I told her to stop being lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic.
Jed took me aside. He told me to stop insulting Lulu—which I wasn’t even doing, I was just motivating her—and that he didn’t think threatening Lulu was helpful. Also, he said, maybe Lulu really just couldn’t do the technique—perhaps she didn’t have the coordination yet—had I considered that possibility?
“You just don’t believe in her,” I accused.
“That’s ridiculous,” Jed said scornfully. “Of course I do.”
“Sophia could play the piece when she was this age.”
“But Lulu and Sophia are different people,” Jed pointed out.
“Oh no, not this,” I said, rolling my eyes. “Everyone is special in their special own way,” I mimicked sarcastically. “Even losers are special in their own special way. Well don’t worry, you don’t have to lift a finger. I’m willing to put in as long as it takes, and I’m happy to be the one hated. And you can be the one they adore because you make them pancakes and take them to Yankees games.”
I rolled up my sleeves and went back to Lulu. I used every weapon and tactic I could think of. We worked right through dinner into the night, and I wouldn’t let Lulu get up, not for water, not even to go to the bathroom. The house became a war zone, and I lost my voice yelling, but still there seemed to be only negative progress, and even I began to have doubts.
Then, out of the blue, Lulu did it. Her hands suddenly came together—her right and left hands each doing their own imperturbable thing—just like that.
Lulu realized it the same time I did. I held my breath. She tried it tentatively again. Then she played it more confidently and faster, and still the rhythm held. A moment later, she was beaming.
“Mommy, look—it’s easy!” After that, she wanted to play the piece over and over and wouldn’t leave the piano. That night, she came to sleep in my bed, and we snuggled and hugged, cracking each other up. When she performed “The Little White Donkey” at a recital a few weeks later, parents came up to me and said, “What a perfect piece for Lulu—it’s so spunky and so her.”
Even Jed gave me credit for that one. Western parents worry a lot about their children’s self-esteem. But as a parent, one of the worst things you can do for your child’s self-esteem is to let them give up. On the flip side, there’s nothing better for building confidence than learning you can do something you thought you couldn’t.
There are all these new books out there portraying Asian mothers as scheming, callous, overdriven people indifferent to their kids’ true interests. For their part, many Chinese secretly believe that they care more about their children and are willing to sacrifice much more for them than Westerners, who seem perfectly content to let their children turn out badly. I think it’s a misunderstanding on both sides. All decent parents want to do what’s best for their children. The Chinese just have a totally different idea of how to do that.
Western parents try to respect their children’s individuality, encouraging them to pursue their true passions, supporting their choices, and providing positive reinforcement and a nurturing environment. By contrast, the Chinese believe that the best way to protect their children is by preparing them for the future, letting them see what they’re capable of, and arming them with skills, work habits and inner confidence that no one can ever take away.
—Amy Chua is a professor at Yale Law School and author of “Day of Empire” and “World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability.” This essay is excerpted from “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother” by Amy Chua, to be published Tuesday by the Penguin Press, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. Copyright © 2011 by Amy Chua.
Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks
Richard Dawkins’ “Root of All Evil.” Divide and Conquer 101: Separating Children Based on Religion
The divisive forces in this world constantly bombard us with messages that allow them to conquer our hearts and minds. It is important to be mindful of these “divide and conquer” strategies. As a critical thinker I suggest acting in a way that is inclusive. To form the most multicultured-multireligious-multilingual identity in the self. To always seek out those that are “different” and to engage them and to interact with them. The first of a few segments that can be found one after the other if you happen to find the material mind stimulating.
