616 THE ADVOCATE
VOL. 79 PART 4 JULY 2021
Stood Up to Them”. I have confirmed
the facts with Ms. Farsai.
I stand with her in saying that
the article should be published by
the Advocate. We need freedom of
speech and a multiplicity of opinions.
We, especially the legal community,
cannot shy away from
these conversations and bow down
to the dictates of a special interest
group, however much we may
sympathize and support their
needs.
I have to say, I feel afraid when I
read that the Advocate and Canadian
Lawyer backed down from
publishing this. When even
lawyers won’t stand up for rational,
respectful communication, society
should wonder what may come
next. Little by little, freedom is
stripped away in a society. By the
time everyone cares, it is too late to
fight back.
You are in a position of power.
Ms. Farsai has taken great personal
risks to write this article. I hope
your position can be used with
impartiality and in acknowledgement
that there is a woman’s view
that needs to be heard here.
Sincerely,
Jordana Dhahan
Richmond
The Advocate did not publish Ms.
Shahdin’s article for a variety of reasons,
which were communicated to
the author. Ms. Shahdin subsequently
revised the piece and told us she
would look to have it published elsewhere.
It should be noted that Canadian
Lawyer did publish a revised
version of Ms. Shahdin’s piece on its
website and later withdrew it after an
aggressive campaign to have it
removed was launched. A version of
her article later appeared in C2C
Journal. — Ed.
Dear Editor,
Re: “Entre Nous”
(2021) 79 Advocate 169
May I suggest that, as an alternative
to equivocation, you draw your
readers’ attention to the exceptionally
well-reasoned and thoughtful
decision of the U.K. High Court of
Justice in R (on the application of)
Quincy Bell and A v. Tavistock and
Portman NHS Trust and others,
2020 EWHC 3274 (Admin)
(<www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-
Judgment.pdf>)?
Philippa Estall
Vancouver
Dear Editor,
Re: Remembering Joe Arvay, Q.C.
In 1982, I, then a very junior
lawyer, challenged the constitutionality
of a section of the Canada
Shipping Act. The Court of Appeal
for Ontario and that of Newfoundland
and Labrador had both held it
to be constitutional. I was armed
/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf>)?
/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf>)?
/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf>)?