618 THE ADVOCATE
VOL. 79 PART 4 JULY 2021
Dear Editor,
Re: “Entre Nous”
(2021) 79 Advocate 169
My nephew, a lawyer, just sent
me your magazine’s March “Entre
Nous” editorial.
As a retired business school
dean, I am delighted with the
thrust of its content, yet disappointed
in the need for such a
theme, especially within the legal
profession. Yet, I am aware of some
of the blowback over certain positions
within the profession and
associated letters. However, it is
not surprising, I guess, given the
“wokeness” thriving in the West.
I would assume that debate is
the foundation of the law profession
and of academia. Will both let
us down?
Without debate, who needs the
law?
It is easy for me to say, as a
retiree, but I believe freedom of
speech is a sword I would be willing
to fall on.
Yours truly,
Rick Roskin
St. John’s,
Newfoundland and Labrador
Dear Editor,
Re: Practice Direction PD-59
The recent practice directive
entitled “Forms of Address for Parties
and Counsel in Proceedings”
mandates the proactive soliciting
and recording by the court clerk of
“the correct pronouns to be used”
for all parties appearing in proceedings
of the Provincial Court
and Supreme Court of British
Columbia. This directive degrades
the speech rights not only of judges
and witnesses, but especially of
advocates, and for that reason
should be vigorously opposed by
members of the Law Society of
British Columbia.
With regard to advocacy rights in
particular, the term “correct” is
especially concerning. Who warrants
that the pronouns solicited,
asserted and recorded are in fact
“correct”? The pronoun-referred
parties themselves. And who is the
directive most keen to see use the
asserted pronouns, once informed
of their “correctness”? Opposing
counsel.
The problem here should be
readily apparent. One party in a
dispute, backed by the court, is now
empowered to determine words to
be used in the normal course of
speech by opposing counsel.
It is scant comfort to know
that this empowerment is evenhanded,
generously allowing each
side to lecture the other on the correct
use of the English language.
This practice directive is illiberal
and needlessly divisive. It should
be withdrawn.
Sincerely,
Donald G. Gíslason
Vancouver