— Musings —03.12.2013 07:51 AM
— Musings —03.12.2013 07:51 AM
Im suprised the article made no mention of Christies Western Canada Concept leadership, which at the time tried to address, wrongly or rightly, Western Canada’s concerns about its treatment within Confederation….http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Canada_Concept
As a resident of Victoria, I can certainly vouch for the claims to fame that Christie had, even in his steadfast defence of racists and extremists. I remember often walking by his boarded up law office beside the Victoria law courts, as his windows had been smashed so many times he eventually stopped replacing them. However, in western Canada, Doug Christie was probably as well known as the long-time leader of the hapless Western Canada Concept Party. His death due to prostate and liver cancer is a horrible way to die.
Hmm. Some of those cases he defended some utterly reprehensible creeps. I hope he was competent, and I also hope someone competent will step forward to defend the next crop of creeps. When Zundel, or Keegstra get their comeuppance, I don’t want it said that their convictions were for lack of a defence. And if they are freed, well, that is a consequence of impartially administered justice.
Racists don’t deserve legal representation.
Lock them up and throw away the key.
Hate speech is not free speech. Case closed.
DPRK propagandist detected!
Probably my irish superstitious side talking here, but I don’t speak ill of the dead–in particular after what must have been a painful demise. I was no fan at all of whom he represented. But I respect the principle that all deserve fair representation in our courts.
I understand that it is unsporting to speak ill of the dead, but Doug Christie was not just an advocate. He was a true believer. Many years ago, I had an opportunity to observe an administrative tribunal proceeding that Doug Christie was involved in. Unsurprisingly, he represented hatemongers. Believing, like his clients did, that the tribunal was a “kangaroo court,” he refused to behave as a lawyer is expected to during the hearing. He showed the tribunal how contemptuously he felt about the proceeding by acting boorishly.
One of the lawyers on the other side was John Rosen. This was in the late 1990s, and Rosen was possibly even more infamous because he had just recently represented Paul Bernardo during his ghastly trial. In contrast to Christie, Rosen behaved with the utmost civility and professionalism.
After I became a lawyer myself, I had occasion to watch both of them in court. More Rosen than Christie. Bored young criminal lawyers can spend hours watching other people’s trials sometimes. They were both very skilled lawyers, particularly in cross-examination. However, I never believed that John Rosen personally liked, or endorsed, the murderers that he represented. He once told me, and some other law students, that he did not want to represent Bernardo. However, he is paid to represent them, and I honestly believe that he has a strong sense of professional duty. Doug Christie was a different animal altogether. He wasn’t just a lawyer representing hateful people. He was a hateful person too.
Rosen told my law school class that we should not practice criminal law if we wanted to earn a good living. He jokingly called it “poverty law.” After I became a criminal lawyer, I ran into him in court. He politely pretended to remember me. I reminded him of what he had said, and told him that I had ignored his advice. His response was, “So now you know.”
Does this mean that Canada’s new free speech champion is Richard Warman?
……..the company he keeps.