THE ADVOCATE V O L . 7 9 P A R T 2 M A R C H 2 0 2 1 171
It has been hinted that funding for the Advocate may be at risk if we publish
views contrary to those of the Law Society, though we emphasize that this
threat has not come from the Law Society itself. Threats to our funding have
washed up and down since at least 1971, but we keep paddling. We have also
learned that if we do not publish viewpoints critical of these directions, we
are “nothing but a forum for petty nothings, judge announcements, obits,
and a wine column”.1 In short, we find ourselves caught in the middle
between two disparate factions of the profession who will likely never see
eye to eye on this and perhaps many other issues.
We do not relish the thought of being the stage on which this issue will
play out (or not). Neither do we hope to become the catalyst for a deterioration
into the type of sniping we see south of the border, where different
viewpoints simply misrepresent and clash with one another for the loudest
and most aggressive coverage. We like to think that our 79-year history
speaks for itself: thoughtful, reasoned pieces that develop academic and
sustainable arguments. We are not merely a “trade magazine”. Neither are
we simply a collection of fluffy bios and obits. This editorial team works far
too hard for us to be considered in such insulting terms. (By all means, talk
among yourselves, but there is no need to be jerks about it!)
On the other hand, we regularly publish pieces with which we do not
agree. We are not simply a platform for orthodox viewpoints. We certainly
ought not to become that. We have waded into contentious issues in the
past. Readers of recent issues (including this one) will see that we have published
letters on opposite sides of the Palestinian/Israeli debate, for example.
Now there’s a hotly divisive topic that involves closely held viewpoints
centered on belief, dignity and ultimately identity. No one is threatening
lawsuits and boycotts over that discussion (yet).
Obviously, we would never wish to publish a piece that could cause harm
to anyone, in any circumstance. That is simply not consonant with the
moral and legal fibre and history of this publication, which seeks to uphold
the best standards of the legal profession. Further, it would certainly be in
our interest, and in the interest of the profession and ultimately the public
who benefit from this publication, to steer clear of actionable content and
to try to preserve our funding. However, we cherish being truly independent
when it comes to content and allowing our contributors broad scope in
expressing themselves. We do not feel particularly warm about being bullied
by anyone into publishing or not publishing. In this instance, we have
felt bullied in both directions.2
Where there is significant division within the profession on practice
directions from the court, do we simply ignore it? Is there a way to criticize
the practice directions without discriminating against the people those