I have watched Christie argue his clients straight to the gallows. He often uses the courtroom as a publicity forum for their causes although I have seen moments where a trace of genuine intellect shone through. He's a hopeless zealot and I suppose that explains why his pre-tax averages 50-grand. I wonder what additional costs he'll get for the Court of Apples stunt - factum, authorities brief, motions, on and on and on.
I've often thought that choosing some lawyers is evidence that you actually want to lose, not win.
Were I a person facing charges relating to spreading hate, I'd choose a lawyer whose free speech credentials are impeccable, not one who only seems to care about free speech for bigots.
And I definitely wouldn't choose a lawyer who's been one for 40 years yet earns less than I do.
I think, in Canada, lawyers whose free speech credentials are impeccable would probably prefer to deal with libel and SLAPP suits, rather than take on these tawdry hate speech cases, for which a body of legislation and jurisprudence has, for decades, pretty much determined their outcomes, regardless of what each new generation of racists, genocidal haters and confused Canadian "first amendment" warriors thinks.
I don't remember. Was he? Given his recent disappointment over where civil/human rights legislation in this country has led us, I'd have thought he'd have taken on cases like these pro bono.
10 comments:
I have watched Christie argue his clients straight to the gallows. He often uses the courtroom as a publicity forum for their causes although I have seen moments where a trace of genuine intellect shone through. He's a hopeless zealot and I suppose that explains why his pre-tax averages 50-grand. I wonder what additional costs he'll get for the Court of Apples stunt - factum, authorities brief, motions, on and on and on.
I've often thought that choosing some lawyers is evidence that you actually want to lose, not win.
Were I a person facing charges relating to spreading hate, I'd choose a lawyer whose free speech credentials are impeccable, not one who only seems to care about free speech for bigots.
And I definitely wouldn't choose a lawyer who's been one for 40 years yet earns less than I do.
I'd choose a lawyer whose free speech credentials are impeccable
Yeah, but I bet they're expensive.
They're not 'expensive' Ti-Guy, just precious.
I think, in Canada, lawyers whose free speech credentials are impeccable would probably prefer to deal with libel and SLAPP suits, rather than take on these tawdry hate speech cases, for which a body of legislation and jurisprudence has, for decades, pretty much determined their outcomes, regardless of what each new generation of racists, genocidal haters and confused Canadian "first amendment" warriors thinks.
You're right on that Ti-Guy. Alan Borovoy wasn't elbowing Christie out of the way so he could represent Zundl or Keegstra was he.
I don't remember. Was he? Given his recent disappointment over where civil/human rights legislation in this country has led us, I'd have thought he'd have taken on cases like these pro bono.
no, as far as I know he steered clear of these characters. I'm not sure Zundl or Keegstra would want Borovoy anyway.
Turns out S. Boisson was represented (at least briefly) by Levant back in 2003.
Turns out S. Boisson was represented (at least briefly) by Levant back in 2003.
How'd that turn out for him, then?
Post a Comment