Page 18 - Best Magazine Winter 2017

ONCE AND
FOR ALL...
John Spina
Ihave written several opinion pieces for this publication on the issue of freedom of speech. This is a timely topic which has recently been chronicled as the result of
two cases on Canadian university campuses and in the Law Society of Ontario’s initiatives to remove the barriers faced by “racialized” lawyers and paralegals.
In the case of the Law Society, it has correctly identified that non-white lawyers and paralegals have experienced challenges in entering the legal profession and more importantly, in going about delivering services to their clients as the result of prejudices on the part of other members of the profession and
others.
Society has chosen to address the problem, which while laudable, is in my respectful opinion, misguided.
There are other methods available to raise awareness of the problem without the mandatory adoption of a statement.
Making the formulation of the statement mandatory, is in fact telling legal professionals how to think and what to say, since failure to comply with the requirement could result in disciplinary measures taken against the professional.
One might argue that a slight infringement of freedom of speech, expression and conscience is a small price to pay to remedy what is obviously a serious problem in the legal profession, as well as for the public that it serves; however, as lawyers and paralegals, we are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that these rights are vigorously defended, at all times and at all cost.
I maintain that once we are on the proverbial "slippery slope" we've already failed in
discharging that responsibility.
Surely, in this case, the ends do not justify the means.
In addition, if legal professionals, who are supposed to be the guardians of our civil liberties are so easily coerced to fall in line, what of the general public’s ability to stand against abuse of our civil rights and
potential tyranny?
There is so much to admire about Ms Shepherd’s commitment to higher learning and her willingness to put herself at academic peril to defend it. It would be a shame for her story to become just another footnote in history. It is important to keep stories like this at the fore, to remind us of how precious our freedom is and the cost that was incurred to
attain it.
The issue of freedom of speech, expression and conscience is ignored by the vast majority of Canadians; most likely because we take it for granted. Our freedom has never been threatened (or so we believe) in a real and meaningful manner. This is clearly not accurate.
In the case of Lindsay Shepherd, a young teaching assistant at Wilfred Laurier University, she faced academic penalty for playing a video clip of a debate that aired on TV Ontario’s program, The Agenda, between two University of Toronto professors debating the use of non-gendered pronouns. Her intention was to expose her students to both sides of the issue, which incidentally happens to be the objective of higher learning (i.e. critical thinking).
For her efforts, Ms Shepherd was disciplined by two professors and a University official for the violation of the University’s “Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy” and was told that she created a“toxic climate”for students and that exposing them to the views of Professor Peterson, who is opposed to using non- gendered pronouns, was “transphobic”.
While the University subsequently apologized to Ms Shepherd, she still had to endure the wrath of the two professors and the stress and the on-going anxiety of facing real and substantial academic consequences for merely trying to expose her students to more than one view on the issue.
To alleviate the problem, the Law Society has undertaken certain initiatives, one of which is to require every lawyer and paralegal in the Province to formulate, adopt and declare a statement of principles, examples of which can be found on the Law Society’s website.
Many legal professionals, including myself, are of the view that this requirement constitutes an infringement of our freedom of speech, expression and conscience.
Let me be clear: I AGREE with the sentiments and principles contained in the templates suggested by the Law Society.
What I staunchly disagree with is the way
the Law
BY: JOHN SPINA
18 THE BEST MAGAZINE WINTER 2017 - 2018
ECONOMY AND FINANCE
N
E
-
T
R
E
P
S
R
S
E
E
N
E
N
U
I
R
S
U
S
B
-
-
M
S
A
E
E
T
R
-
s
V
I
C
E