Real problems at law society

Re: Law society statement of principles enforced. Joseph Brean, Dec. 2

Joseph Brean’s coverage of the defeat of Joe Groia’s motion to exempt conscientious objectors from the Law Society’s controversial statement of principles recalls the last line of Niemoller’s famous poem: “Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

It is f ri ghtening t hat bencher Sandra Nishikawa thinks debating the rights to free speech and conscience is “academic.” Protecting these rights, in Nishikawa’s opinion, “elevates the abstract value of free speech over the real concerns of real marginalized people.” Repeating “real” twice does not make it so.

The Dietrich Bonhoeffers and Martin Luther Kings of the world championed free speech when they spoke out for the “real” causes of the marginalized at the cost of their lives. What is “abstract” is virtue-signalling that causes lawyers like Anne Vespry (who says she represents seven “marginalized” groups) to state that defeat of the motion in favour of free speech would mean she would need to “look for a new career.”

Nishikawa’s r e marks make the Law Society look arrogant, elitist, and foolish. How can the real concerns of the real marginalized be protected in a world where the right to free speech is deemed too abstract? M. T. Murphy, Oakville Ont.