RSS FeedFederal Cabinet Greatest Hits
Today Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed a new federal cabinet. A few key Ministers were shuffled around while several new MPs were added to the cabinet, which is larger in size than the previous one. Some of the appoints are, in my opinion, downright perplexing. What follows is a list of the most ironic and counter-intuitive cabinet appointments made today.
- Jason “Overheated Sikhs Using the Race Card” Kenney, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration – Kenney has made a number of comments as an MP that have been criticized as racist and/or homophobic in nature. Arguably, this is not the sort of person you want setting immigration policy in a pluralistic and multicultural nation. When allegations were made that one of his party’s riding association executives was a member of a white supremacist Neo-Nazi organization, Kenny pondered “How do we know that and how do we know that this isn’t overheated Sikhs using the race card, which they so often do when their credentials are being questioned?”
- Steven “Supreme Executive Power” Fletcher, Minister of State (Democratic Reform) – During his time as President of the University of Manitoba Students’ Union, Fletcher was critized for undermining the editorial independence of the student newspaper and raiding the offices of progressive or left-leaning student groups such as the Graduate Students’ Association, the Womyn’s Centre, Amnesty International, the U of M Recycling Group, the Rainbow Pride Mosaic and the Manitoban. When he sought a Progressive Conservative nomination while still President of the Students’ Union, he was criticized for having a possible conflict of interest. He described those who questioned him as “left-wing extremists”.
- Jim “Don’t Invest in Ontario” Flaherty, Minister of Finance – Flaherty, who called Ontario “the last place” to invest at a time when its economy was already struggling, retains the Finance portfolio in which a big part of his job is to not undermine the economy. Bucking the trend of previous Ministers who sought to increase investment in Canada, Flaherty has adopted the reverse psychology approach to economic management.
- Gerry “Listeriosis-Related Deaths are Funny” Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board – I am a little bit stunned that Ritz is even in cabinet at all, never mind that he retained the Agriculture portfolio. In case you missed it, this is what the Minister said at the height of the listeriosis crisis: “This is like a death by a thousand cuts. Or should I say cold cuts.” When told that someone had died in PEI, Ritz quipped “Please tell me it’s [Liberal MP] Wayne Easter.”
- Peter “It Isn’t a Matter of National Security when the Minister of Foreign Affairs Loses Classified Documents to Someone Associated with Motorcycle Gangs” Van Loan, Minister of Public Safety – As Government House Leader, Van Loan repeatedly defended disgraced Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier who left classified documents in the possession of a person with significant ties to Québec motorcycle gangs. “This is not an issue of national security,” stated Van Loan, adding that “this government would not put national security at risk”. He will now be in charge of public safety.
- Conservative “Thirty-Eight Per Cent” Party of Canada, One Hundred Per Cent of the Federal Cabinet – Despite having the second weakest mandate of any government in Canadian history, the Conservative Party occupies every single cabinet post. This is not surprising, of course, since this is how every government (save the rare coalition) works. However, those of us who support new and more inclusive ways of doing politics would love to see a multi-partisan cabinet that is actually based on merit some day.
Now that you are sufficiently frightened, have a safe and happy Halloween tomorrow. And don’t forget to print out your Stephen Harper Mask (PDF) for the little ones.
The Legal Intersection Between Sexuality and Race
What do Sikh immigrants to B.C. almost a century ago have to do with gay issues?
Everything. Or, maybe nothing.
On Oct. 24, 2008 I saw a film, Rex vs Singh, a 20-min. short film on a legal case from B.C. in 1915.
The event was hosted by Standing Against Queer Discrimination (SAQD) as part of a film festival at the University of Western Ontario.
One of the film-makers, John Greyson, introduced the film and answered questions.
A New City with Big Problems
Vancouver was a new city at this time, but was still Canada’s most multicultural city with a few pockets of Chinese, Japanese and Sikh communities. In 1907 riots ensued, destroying Chinese and Japanese neighborhoods, while the rioters sang ‘White Canada Forever.’
In 1914, a year before the case of Rex v. Singh, the Komagata Maru tried to dock in Vancouver. It resulted in a split within the Sikh community, and increased xenophobia by the rest of the population.
Discrimination Under a Different Name
The men in this case were entrapped by the police and accused of sodomy, which was of course illegal. Apparently this was part of a routine process of discrimination in a series of legal cases stretching back to the 1800’s. The film mentions over a dozen cases between 1905-1930.
But not necessary because these people were gay. In an interview earlier in the year Greyson said,
Were the men having sex? Or were they just entrapped? We don’t even know what the verdict was in this case —that part of the story has never been uncovered. There is so much about it that is unknowable, that is mysterious. This is a video about fragments of a story —the more we try to answer them, the more they fall apart.
Homophobia was used to persecute these minorities because they had full rights as British citizens, and could not be targeted using techniques more routinely used for harassing minorities. Immigration laws were deliberately designed to limit the number of Sikh women arriving in Canada, to discourage permanent settlement as much as possible.
Vancouver historian, Gordon Brent Ingram, who researched the case and also appeared in the film, said,
Certain white people in Vancouver were not happy about this. The early ‘city fathers’ of Vancouver were all white and often quite racist. They didn’t want Indo-Canadians becoming a significant demographic group in Vancouver, and by sexually harassing them they hoped to make these men feel unwelcome.
The film brings to life a transcript from the actual case, as the officer describes his tactics of tricking the accused as being “necessary.” But the accused responded they knew he was a detective, and did not attempt any sexual impropriety.
A witness also claims one of the Sikh men asked him to participate in sexual activities, but could not explain how this could have happened when informed that the man did not speak English.
The outcome of these cases are unknown, but similar cases in California resulted in sentances of 5-7 years.
What’s the Relevance Today?
The point is not whether or not these individuals really were gay. When intolerant elements of Canadian society were unable to persecute ethnic minorities using institutionalized discrimination, they resorted to other legal techniques to accomplish the same purpose.
Some reporters are attributing the recent Tory win to their ethnic strategy, which has given them 10 ridings in the GTA and Vancouver that have significant populations of ethnic minorities. Ruby Dhalla of Brampton-Springdale, a riding with one of the highest Sikh concentrations in Canada, won by a mere 1,000 votes, down from 8,000 in 2006.
Interestingly enough, the new Conservative Minister of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Jason Kenney, has himself made disparaging remarks dismissing them in 2000 saying they were,
…overheated Sikhs using the race card, which they so often do when their credentials are being questioned.
Family values, crime and taxes are issues supposedly resonating in these communities. “Family values” is often used as code for anti-homosexual policy.
What all these ethnic communities should realize, and often do, is that issues of discrimination cross boundaries of ethnicity, religion, race and sexuality. Advocacy therefore requires support for others who don’t necessary share your beliefs, culture, lifestyle or identity.
The case of Rex vs Singh is yet another reminder of this lesson.
What’s in a Name?
Middle Passage Law Series
“What’s in a name?”
Answer: something, nothing or perhaps everything.
The Middle Passage name was carefully chosen and is the everything of the series. A little confused, let me explain.
YES, I will make the admission right away, the name is intentionally provocative – just like the issue of race and the law. However, the name is not meant to be negative in any way; instead it is meant to provoke thought and meaningful discussion.
For those of you who are still puzzled as to the exact meaning of the name – I sure some of you have figured it out already, at least in part.
In the simplest of terms the Middle Passage Law name comes from the Middle Passage.
WHAT!!
I know I know it’s a circular definition but I can’t help it, I am a future lawyer after all.
The choice of the name is the best way, in my opinion, to make a direct connection between one of the most sinister chapters in our history – and “our” is being used here not just to mean Black/African but Canadian, indeed the world – and today’s social, political, economic and legal realities. What is this connection you may ask?
Answer: the African slave trade and its continuing legacy.
The Middle Passage and the African slave trade are so intimately connected that one cannot address one without addressing the other.
Oh No! That feeling of discomfort or elation that you felt in the series opener is back again isn’t it. You might even be thinking: ‘Here we go again! It’s always about slavery. It happened sooooo long ago, why not just get over it’ or ‘I am over it?’
Ok, ok, just relax, collect yourself and keep on reading, it will all be worth it. Trust me.
Before I respond to that – and I think my response is going to shock a lot of people – I must first give a less circular definition of the Middle Passage. To brief the Middle Passage, is the perilous voyage Africans where forced to take – to put it mildly – from West Africa to the New World to be sold into slavery.
The Middle Passage helps to explain – generally and very over simplistically – why there are Black people in the western hemisphere. However, and more importantly, its history and continuing legacy helps to explain why these people are a marginalized group.
Well, that’s enough of the history and sociology lesson but it was necessary for context.
‘So what does that have to do with me?’ Perhaps you are not black or perhaps you are but you are not a descendant from those who made the Middle Passage voyage.
Answer: everything.
Yes, everything, as hard as this maybe for some of you to believe.
For those of you that are Black but not descendant from the Middle Passage, the everything for you lies in the simple fact that you are Black. Yes I said: Black!
You, well at least some of you, may say well Yes but a different Black and you would be fully entitled to that label – if you want it. The Black community after all isn’t a monolith and the diversity within the community has to be accounted for, celebrated and respected.
Fair enough, different yes but Black none the less.
It matters little that you and or your bloodline has come relatively recently and directly from Africa, the Middle Passage directly affects you. Don’t take my word for it, take a minute and simply reflect on your own experiences in Canada.
Are you with me now? Well, I hope so. If not, this should help.
You know that feeling of exclusion or marginalization you have often felt – No, still not with me.
Ok, what about that feeling of having to prove or validate yourself constantly and many times over that of your colleagues – No or……. well maybe, am I getting closer?
Well, this should do the trick.
What about that feeling of responsibility and worse yet, normality, you are made to bear whenever a Black person is accused of a crime, while your successes and the successes of others like you are dismissed as being an irregularity or even worse yet, good for a Black person – Aha! With me now – good!
For those of you that are not Black you may think that the legacy of the Middle Passage is not yours or that it does not directly impact you. Well, you couldn’t be more wrong, it has everything to do with you.
‘What!! How could this be?’
Firstly, the history of slavery in Canada is well documented and the Middle Passage is undeniably interwoven in to the fabric of Canadian social, political, economic and legal history.
I would like to take a moment just to add a perspective on what is often considered a boring topic – History, namely Legal History. Legal History is any thing but boring, but that is simply my nerdish opinion. However, what is not opinion but fact is that legal history for student, academic and practitioner alike is always contemporary.
Legal history is always contemporary?
Yes, contemporary.
But how?
Answer: Precedents.
The study, the teaching and the practice of law are all exercises in Legal History.
Precedents are legal history, and as a corner stone of the Common Law are central to our concept and conception of justice. Thus, whether studied, taught or applied Precedents always bring legal history to the fore.
Secondly, we all live in Canada and what affects one segment of our society affects us all. If you don’t believe that or worse yet you don’t live, study or work like it’s true, it is a sad day for the legal profession, nay, Canadian society.
The sad part is not that you will not address, empathize or advocate Black or other diversity community issues and concerns but that you will not address, empathize or advocate for yourself.
‘What!! How does that work?’
What needs to be understood and often isn’t, is that by standing for justice, equality and diversity you are in fact standing for yourself. And I am not simply being altruistic here, though I must confess altruism is a factor.
The point to understand here is that you may or may not ever be in the majority but you will always belong to a minority of some sort – in thought, belief, opinion or expression. Therefore, unless you are prepared to defend the rights of others, your rights will never be secure.
The ancient Greek historian Thucydides puts it succinctly when he was asked when will justice come to Athens and he replied:
Justice will not come to Athens until those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are injured.
Now as to a response to the comment posed earlier that: ‘it’s always about slavery. It happened sooooo long ago, why not just get over it’ or ‘I am over it?’ Well, for now I say:
Stay tuned.
Closure to the Free Speech Debate?
We are fairly confident that many of our readers are well aware that the CIC v. Maclean’s case has been officially closed (at least at this point in time; an appeal is still a legal possibility).
Just in case you didn’t hear – Maclean’s won!
A Political No-Brainer
Does this come as a surprise? It all depends from which perspective you view the matter.
From an administrative law standpoint, there was strong precedent, sufficient evidence, requisite expert testimony, a clear mandate and policy rationale, statutory power, and overall a compelling case to be made in favour of the Complainants. Perhaps the only militating factor against the CIC’s claim was that the Canadian Human Rights Commission recently decided against them.
From a political standpoint it was a no-brainer.
Unsurprisingly, all the major newsprint and most journalists officially endorsed the Respondents, politicians were bombarded with letter and email campaigns resulting in vocal pronouncements for a review of human rights commissions (HRCs) and their provisions, and several civil liberty groups and recognizable figures such as Alan Borovoy provided unwavering support and reprimanded the use of HRCs for censuring our God given right (sic) to express ourselves.
Undoubtedly it was the politics of the day under the auspices of the national media that drove this decision.
The Currie 2-Part Test
This notion is not just sour grapes in light of our seeming support for my fellow legal peers. In fact it was Maclean’s supporters who first delineated this point in their characteristically witty and sarcastic prose.
Mark Steyn opined on the decision almost immediately. In one of his responses he reproduced this quote by fellow free speech advocate and popular blogger Jay Currie:
The way I read this decision is that it imposes a two part test:
a) are your words offensive and hurtful?
b) are you a major media organization with deep pockets represented by serious lawyers.
If “a” and not “b” you are a hate monger; if “a” and “b” you are engaged in political debate.
More importantly and telling is the wording and position of the judgment itself.
About the Decision
The Tribunal goes a long way out by prefacing their analysis by first explaining the Tribunal process. Specifically, it revisits the transformation undertaken over 5 years ago in 2003 which made the BC Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) the first “direct access” tribunal in Canada.
Further, it explains that to bypass the screening process there is a low threshold requiring more substance than mere conjecture and speculation, yet less taxing than requiring actual proof; the requirement is that the complaint alleges facts that, if proven, could contravene the Code. Both points justifying and explaining why the complaint made it directly to the hearing process.
Moreover, not only does the decision use legislative requirements to reinforce its undertaking of a hearing, it goes on to highlight Maclean’s failure to legally apply for a dismissal which (by the tone of decision writer) probably would have effectively ended the matter at that juncture.
Lastly, according to this excerpt in the National Post, counsel for the Complainants Faisal Joseph suggests that the tribunal “unilaterally changed the [legal] test” for establishing hatred and contempt, preferring a purely objective test over an earlier, more subjective one that focused on how the alleged hate message was understood by recipients.
What Next?
Moving beyond the decision, questions of what happens next are floating around in the ether.
Has the BCHRT quelled the surge for the abolishment of human rights commission and/or certain provisions by stealthily releasing the painstakingly anticipated decision to the most contentious Canadian debate of 2008 on the eve of a holiday weekend preceding a Federal election?
Or will the self-proclaimed free speech advocates revive this issue to the point where it will be incumbent upon our political representatives to officially confront the matter head on?
This is not the first time that HRCs and their respective provisions have been scrutinized by the media and it won’t be the last. And although this time around the media conglomerates flexed their muscles with overzealous force and coordinated cooperation it appears as if this war in the battle against HRCs has come to a close.
That is not to say that the legislators won’t have their final word through future amendments, but without further action taken in the form of an appeal or some drastic change in public sentiment through the release of a best-selling book, government and the legislature will let the dust settle before weighing in.
Former Slave Wins Landmark Case
The government of Niger has been found guilty of failing to protect one of its citizens from slavery. Hadijatou Mani brought her case before the Court of Justice of the West African regional body Ecowas and finding in her favour the court has ordered the government of Niger to pay Ms Mani 10m CFA francs (£12,430; $19,750).
“This [ruling] is very important in terms of the community of nations, and particularly the African community of nations looking at other countries within that region and saying: ‘What standard are we expecting each other to be held to in relation to international and national law?’”
Hadijatou Mani
Law is Cool Podcast – Episode #16
Alternative Lawyer Jobs
On today’s show Omar Ha-Redeye interviews Stephen Fine, creator of Alternative Lawyer Jobs. They discussed how many law school graduates and practising lawyers are looking for careers that are slightly off the beaten path. The site, which is North American is scope, seeks to connect employers with legal professionals for in-house counsel positions, business and entrepreneurial opportunities, or other possibilities. Fine says that Alternative Lawyer Jobs fills a void in the market that is not covered by other job sites.
Fine noted that the job listings on the site are drawn from a variety of sources, including other job sites such as Monster and Law Jobs in order to collect as many resources as possible in a single location. Jobs postings can also be submitted directly to the site and are screened before being published. Fine says that the site’s philosophy is to be as open as possible. The site also features a career blog that serves as a resource in terms of news related to alternative jobs for lawyers.
Fine claims that many law school graduates are not sure what direction they want to go in with after obtaining a law degree, and they should consider alternative careers that fit well with their interests and skills. He notes that lawyers develop many skills that are transferable to other areas such as writing, negotiating, and analytical thinking.
Finally, Fine acknowledges that users should exercise common sense when disclosing personal information to prospective employers because of privacy concerns.
Podcaster Meetup: Law is Cool meets Stuttering is Cool
Omar Ha-Redeye also attended a meetup for podcasters where he had a conversation with Daniele “Danny” Rossi from Stuttering is Cool, a show that describes itself as an “open-mic podcast for stutterers.” Omar and Danny discussed public speaking and techniques for overcoming “butterflies” by channeling nervousness into something positive.
Omar mentioned that one of his sources of inspiration to improve his public speaking is a quote from martial arts master Bruce Lee: “Someone who doesn’t feel butterflies in his stomach before a fight is probably going to lose.” The trick, according to Lee, is to channel the butterflies in the right direction. Omar has tried to apply that same principle to public speaking.
Omar also pointed out that stuttering as well as “ums” and “ahs” are completely natural. In fact, in many scripted interviews for professional radio, “ums” and “ahs” will be added in afterward in order to make the speech sound more natural. He claims that the key to public speaking is to listen to recordings of oneself, practice, and to keep things in perspective.
Copyrighting Facts in Movies – “We Are Marshall”
Movie producers often attempt to purchase the rights of real stories they want to turn into film. However, media sources reporting events have no copyright interest in the facts they are reporting.
A recent American case helps illustrate this point.
The 2006 Warner Bros. film We Are Marshall starring Matthew McConaughey depicted the true story of a plane that crashed on Nov. 14, 1970, killing all 75 people on board. The victims included 37 members of the Marshall University Thundering Herd football team.
Although Warner Bros. had approached the makers of an Emmy-winning documentary film, Ashes to Glory: The Tragedy and Triumph of Marshall Football, no formal agreement was made to license the work.
The film producers, Deborah Novak and John Witek, filed a $40 million copyright suit, with claims for breach of contract and fraud. U.S. District Court Judge Gary Allen Feess provided a summary judgment on the case Monday, citing 15 substantial differences between the documentary and the Hollywood film.
The opinion stated,
Though the two works tell the story of the November 14, 1970 air plane crash, that event, and the events that preceded and followed, are all matters of public record which cannot be copyrighted. Copyright protects only an author’s original expression and not historical facts or events…
Here, Plaintiffs have created and produced a fact-based narrative that recounts, in an historically accurate way, what happened before and after the 1970 air plane crash.
Defendants, on the other hand, have produced a dramatic recreation of the events that, though based on the historical record including the documentary, does not appropriate Plaintiffs’ expressive elements and makes no pretense of being historically accurate.
Thus, even though the two works have the same story as their subject, they are not “substantially similar” as that phase is used in copyright jurisprudence.
Cross-posted from Slaw.
International Law Conference Tackles Tough Contemporary Issues
By Daisy McCabe-Lokos of Windsor Law.
The Canadian Council on International Law held their 37th annual conference last weekend in Ottawa. The conference ran three days and showcased a range of panels discussing a variety of issues.
I was surprised to see that a significant portion of the attendees were students from law schools across Canada. This being my first chance to attend I am unsure whether this student turnout was unprecedented, however it seemed to indicate to me the increasing relevance of international legal issues in young law students’ educational experiences.
The conference not only gave us a chance to get a sense of the professional opportunities that exist in the international sphere, but it also gave us a snapshot of the developing fields of contemporary international law.
The panel that I found most enlightening was entitled “Law Applicable to Overseas Government Operations”.
It was chaired by John Currie – Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, and attended by Paul Champ - Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP; Oonagh Fitzgerald – Senior General Counsel, Department of National Defense/Canadian Forces Legal Advisor; Joanna Harrington – Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta; Major General Lewis Mackenzie (retired); and Christopher Waters – Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor.
The panel discussed the applicability of law – national and international – to international government operations. Much of the focus was on the debatable “hierarchy” of law present during overseas military operations.
The panel touched on questions such as – do and should Canadian Charter values and obligations follow our armed forces on international operations? Should the Canadian military be more susceptible to civilian oversight?
Professor Waters explored the courts’ deference to the military regarding issues of possible misconduct. He discussed the reluctance of Canadian, American and British courts to rule on the actions of their militaries that might be seen as conflicting with Charter values or other obligations to respect international human rights.
Paul Champ gave us a practical example how some of these issues play out by discussing the Afghan detainee case. This case deals with individual’s allegations of torture after being transferred (in Afghanistan) from the custody of Canadian military officials to the custody of Afghan military officials – where the alleged torture occurred. The complications of legal jurisdiction and civilian oversight of military operations are evident under these circumstances.
Major General Lewis Mackenzie provided a completely refreshing albeit troubling perspective.
Having been involved in numerous peace keeping and military operations with the Canadian Military, General Mackenzie was able to enlighten us civilians on exactly how the international legal initiatives sometimes pan out on the ground.
He clearly articulated his frustration with the sometimes impractical and unreadable legal mandates provided by the United Nations during peacekeeping operations. He expressed his concern about the bureaucratic and sluggish nature of legal process and its negative impact on the progress of UN missions and the ultimate safety of non-combatant civilians.
Overall the panel was balanced and informative. There were contrasting viewpoints and a variation of experience among speakers. Many of the other panels held by the CCIL were similarly enjoyable and did not disappoint.
Ontario Expands “Justice on Target” Initiative
According to the Ontario Attorney General’s website:
In 1992, it took an average of 4.3 court appearances to bring a charge to completion. By last year, this figure had more than doubled to 9.2 appearances. Over the same period, the average time needed to complete a charge has gone from 115 days to 205 days.
One of AG Chris Bentley’s prime initiatives during his office has been to address these delays in the criminal justice system.
Bentley is the Liberal M.P.P. for my riding of London West. Because of his personal knowledge of our court’s delays, Bentley made London the testing ground for his “Justice on Target” program. The program aims to identify bottlenecks and address them to reduce the number of adjournments and the amount of time it takes for criminal cases to be resolved.
The Ministry of the Attorney General has issued the following (slightly edited) press release today:
—
Accelerating The Pace Of Justice
McGuinty Government Selects Three Courthouses For Next Phase Of Justice On Target Strategy
NEWS
The Ontario Courts of Justice in Newmarket, North York and London have been chosen to begin the province’s intensive, sustained effort to move cases through the justice system faster.
This is the next step in the Justice on Target strategy , to reduce unproductive criminal court delays and appearances by making more effective use of justice resources.
These courthouses have been designated as “action sites” to improve the pace of justice. Teams, led by Regional Senior Justice Bruce Durno and Senior Crown Attorney Ken Anthony, will work to quickly identify, test and implement new ideas.
Successful initiatives will then be rolled out in other courthouses across the province to help achieve the target of a 30 per cent reduction in the provincial average of days and court appearances needed to complete a criminal case. Progress towards the targets in each courthouse will be measured and reported online.
QUOTE
“Our expert teams will be working closely with all justice participants in these three courthouses initially – but the goal is to identify, test and implement approaches that will make criminal justice faster province-wide,” said Attorney General Chris Bentley. “We’re committed to making the justice system more effective for everyone – victims, witnesses, and the public who pay for it.”
QUICK FACT
* With 600,000 charges entering the system every year, saving one minute per charge could save seven years of court time.
—
My personal London criminal justice pet peeve: simple disclosure requests that take six months to fulfill.
Economic Downturns Might Mean Less Summer Hires
Here’s a tip today for OCIs (on campus interviews) from Dan Slater of WSJ Law Blog. If a firm offers you a position, take it up ASAP. There might not be many to go around.
Susan Guindi, assistant dean for career services at Michigan law, said,
When firms came out here to recruit, most of them predicted similar size summer programs as last year. No one was looking at really reducing by any big number. But then of course the bottom dropped several weeks after, so to some extent there’s a wait-and-see going on. We won’t see the full effects until later in the fall.
Career services at Michigan have sent letters to their students, strongly advising them to accept offers immediately. Few people have had had offers rescinded, but it can happen.
There’s no reason to expect that similar economic fears in Canada could have Canadian law firms downsizing too, even if we are doing better than the U.S.
Ontario students might have it the worst. Most current 2Ls graduated from the double-cohort in high school, which doubled the number of university applicants. Presumably this affected law school admissions, and competitiveness within law schools, but no figures on this have been provided.
SNAIL Offences Act
Thomas Wisdom and I were discussing the issue of Students Not Actually In Law (SNAILs), and how the phenomenon seems prevalent across different law schools.
He mentioned a post on Slaw by Simon Fodden from a couple years back, that had some pretty interesting comments. Apparently the SNAIL infestation is world-wide, reaching as far as Singapore.
To demonstrate how bad it is, Alex Manevich of Heenan Blaikie, one of the commenters on the Slaw post (and currently a core contributor) said,
I recall just such a student from my first year at McGill Law, though this one took it farther than most. He showed up at orientation, passed himself off as a law student, and proceeded to attend classes for half the semester before the truth was discovered. He was even listed in the law student telephone directory, and rumour has it that he completed some of the legal research assignments. All in all, an impressive feat.
On this basis, we propose a resolution enacting the SNAIL Offences Act as follows,
SNAILS OFFENCES ACT
1. Short Title
This statute may be read as the Snails Offences Act.2. Interpretations
In this act,
”Snails” means Students not actually in law school
”law school’s facilities” and “premises” pertain to, but are not limited to, the [insert library name] Law Library (henceforth known as “the library”), the Law Classrooms, and the tables around the law faculty.
3. Definition of SNAILS
Any person who uses or abuses the premises of law school for his enjoyment without giving priority to Lawyers is a SNAIL.
Explanation
use and abuse includes, but is not limited to, studying, playing games, occupying space, squatting and is not limited to disruptive behaviour covered under s. 5 of this act.Illustration 1
X is in arts but does not use the facilities of law school. X is not a snail.Illustration 2Y is a science student. Y walks past the law library, and enters through the main doors. Y is not a snail until she sits down on one of the chairs, after which she is a snail.
Illustration 3
Z is an engineer. Z sleeps in the law library and starts snoring; he is a snail and he is guilty of every offence in this act.4. Infringing the personal right to enjoyment of Law School facilities
Any Snail who infringes upon the personal right of a lawyer to the enjoyment of law school’s facilities, thus depriving him of the use of the facilities is guilty of an offence, subject to the following exceptions listed in s. 6 of this act.Illustration
A is a lawyer, and leaves his belongings in a classroom for the sole purpose of reserving its use for his enjoyment. Another lawyer B is denied the use of the classroom. A, being a lawyer, is not guilty under this clause.4A. Penalty for infringing right to enjoyment
The penalty for this offence is subject to the discretion and pleasure of any lawyer whose right is infringed by that snail.5. Disruptive Behaviour of Snails
Disruptive behaviour is any conduct of a snail that reasonably causes a lawyer to lose concentration, his temper, or causes frustration, irrespective of whether the frustration was uncalled for or otherwise, while that snail is guilty of s. 4 of this act.
5A. Any Snail who exhibits disruptive behaviour while infringing the right of a lawyer is subject to the derision of any lawyer, and the discretion of any lawyer in the vicinity.
6. Exceptions
No snail is guilty of an offence if
(a) that snail is a babe[or hunk, whatever your preference], and does not deny a lawyer access to use of facilites, or
(b) that snail is a companion to any lawyer, subject to reasonablenessIllustration
(a) Kristin Kreuk is in one of the classrooms. She allows any lawyer to enter and use the classroom and any article belonging to the classroom, up to and including the chair she might be sitting on. Kristin Kreuk is a Snail, but satisfies the requirements under exception 6(b) and she is not guilty of any offence under this act. For the purposes of this act, Kristin Kreuk is a babe.
(b) Ronald McDonald and a lawyer walk into the library. Ronald McDonald’s shoes are making alot of noise, disturbing the peace of every lawyer in the library. He is a snail and is guilty of an offence inasmuch as he is companion to the lawyer but did not satisfy the test of reasonableness.
Although found on the Slaw post, the SNAIL Offences Act is attributed to a “Shane” of Where is the Spoon.
CBA Joins Fight to Repatriate Omar Khadr
The Canadian Bar Association has announced that it is joining with a number of other agencies to fight for the repatriation of Omar Khadr to Canada.
Omar Khadr, a 15-year-old boy at the time of his capture in Afghanistan, has been languishing in Guantanamo Bay since 2002.
Though the CBA has spoken out against Omar Khadr’s detention in the past, and has joined with other groups to call for the closure of Guantanamo Bay entirely, the Association has made the repatriation of Khadr one of its top priorities for this year.
In a statement to the House of Commons International Human Rights Subcommittee, the Bar Association explained that:
“Our commitment to justice is challenged where the individual is unpopular and accused of terrible crimes. It’s at times like this that we must speak out, and defend those rights. This is what the rule of law requires – that we recognize the rights of all, not just the favoured few.”
The CBA represents about 37,000 lawyers and law students across this country.
Podcast Feeds
Awards
Partners
- Advertise Here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Whiners - The Elusive Fish Creative Services
- Mesothelioma Lawyer
- no win no fee solicitors
- Compensation Claims
- personal injury lawyer toronto
- no win no fee
- Pardons Canada Accident Claim Medical Negligence Whiplash Claim
- No win No fee Claims
- Venue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
