There is rising doubt as to whether the voice of law and
articling students is being heard in respect to decisions pertaining to the
future of the profession. Case in point: the Law Society of New Brunswick’s
special meeting on Sept. 13 to reconsider the council’s Trinity Western
University accreditation decision.
The meeting was convened upon the council’s receipt of a
petition by hundreds of members dissatisfied by the council’s decision earlier
this summer to permit Trinity Western’s law graduates to practise law in the
province. The decision doesn’t sit well with many members since the
university’s mandatory code of conduct discriminates against homosexuals by
upholding the sanctity of marriage between members of the opposite sex.
The code is offensive enough that the law societies in
Ontario and Nova Scotia voted against accreditation earlier in the year. The
petition included a motion to revisit the decision.
Speaking and voting privileges at the meeting were given
only to law society members. The rule excludes a key stakeholder: the student.
Law students at the province’s two law schools — the University of New
Brunswick and Université de Moncton — as well as New Brunswick’s articling
students were unable to speak to the motion at the special meeting which was
eventually endorsed in a remarkable vote of 137 to 30.
Generally speaking, student viewpoints skew more progressive
and lack cynicism. We, many of whom will one day be practitioners and members
of a provincial law society, represent the future. And while we are still
finding our sea legs in this ocean of law, we are solution oriented. Our
interests are great and our perspectives are valid.
“At the end of the day, they have to follow what is in our
legislation. It was a members’ meeting. They’re the only ones able to speak,”
says Marc Richard, executive director of the Law Society of New Brunswick. “If
we decide to open it up, when does it end because members of the public also
wanted to attend but it’s a members’ meeting. We have to follow the rules.”
Read more in my Canadian Lawyer Magazine Ab Initio column this month.
The censorious enemies of free speech need to be challenged. As stated in essay typer research, free speech is a civil rights issue and among the most important of all. Censorship is the essence of fascism and this country has, in my fifty plus years, never been so close to fascism as it is today. As soon as you justify censorship, the rationale you use will be picked up and promoted by all sorts of people to justify shutting down critics that should be heard across a range of issues. Just look at police now trying to shut down critics including by trying to have groups who monitor police misbehavior designated as terrorist groups for their speech, by referring to #blacklivesmatter as a "hate group" and so on. Promoters of censorship continually bend over backwards and use all the pretzel logic they can to try to categorize speech as action. Certain touted statistics regarding violence actually include speech as a form of violence thus tallying up victims of hurtful words or even of the silent treatment, as victims of violence in undifferentiated fashion. This is unacceptable in a society that values freedom. But in truth I think we are no longer a society that values freedom simply because it has been so taken for granted for so long; this is a loss so deep and momentous that entire future generations will grieve once they realize the significance of what has been lost.
ReplyDelete