Words carry enormous power. As a future lawyer, words are all I have. Words are my currency; the perfection of the statements that come out of my mouth and those which appear in my written submissions are the bases upon which my future livelihood will be made.
The meanings of words are debated at length in this profession. We have an entire course to learn about interpreting the words the government has chosen to use in its legislation. Every law student knows to be attentive to “means” vs “includes”, and any Charter aficionado knows that positive rights under s. 7 were found in the additional “and” along with the placement of a coma in Gosselin.
Silence, just as much as words, can be oppressive. There is a famous quote that says, “We will forget the words of our enemies, but we will always remember the silence of our friends”. While I don’t consider the first statement to be true at all, the second half certainly is. Recently, I have participated in a number of workshops in the tradition of Theatre of the Oppressed, which is based on the writings of Paulo Feriere in Pedagogy of the Oppressed. The tradition comes out of latin America and the work of Augosto Boal, who remarks, “There are no bystanders in life”. Indeed, law school, if nothing else, has taught me that we are all active in holding “the law” in place, and that our words and actions are all incredibly important in establishing the norms and values that society endorses.
What, then, is my point in all of this? My point is, when you choose words, choose them carefully. Think about them, and their affect on anyone who might be around you. When you toss out the words “gay” and “faggot” and “dyke”, they oppresses people. When you use the term “gypped”, that oppresses people. So do the words bitch and douche and retarded. When you talk about “banging chicks”, that’s oppressive. When your team name is Team Ramrod, that, too, is oppressive. Why would you want to cause more hurt with a slip of the tongue when so much pain already exists in the world?
None of us is perfect all of the time, but lets all do better. Let’s be vigilant about what we do and do not say and when. Let’s call each other on our slip ups, and take personal pride in our successes and changes. Instead of permeating this public space that we all share with oppressive comments and hatred, let’s change our words and actions to hold in place a more equitable, more inclusive society.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Happy New Year: Prose v. Law School
It's been a while. I can't promise this will happen often. But when I write, it's a good sign. So tonight I was thinking about how the movie Milk would fit into my analysis of the blood donation ban. Its because law school dominates the landscape of the mental processes. Its a good thing we have a love/hate relationship of the type we do. I was also thinking about the Price girls in The Poisonwood Bible which I am currently slowly reading. It is a beautiful escapist experience, and stunning on its own accord. I love these epic stories about families, ones with all female characters, beautifully penned, that change your world just a little bit.
Literature is nourishing. Law is kind of the opposite at times. It is the most challenging, the most stimulating environment in which to be immersed, but judgments will always be a far cry from the prose of Ann Marie MacDonald, Barbara Kingsolver, Alice Munro. L'Heureux-Dube's judgments are kind of wonderful in the equality realm, Arbour's dissent in Gosselin inspired me throughout first year law, but the stories they tell rarely proceed so beautifully. Is that the only difference? The law tells it in its own way, which is simply less focussed on the beautiful moments along the way.
It was a good victorian night. I heard it was -28 in London. It was about 6 here today. I feel pretty alright with that. Hope all well in 2009 from halifax to victoria my loves.
Rach
Literature is nourishing. Law is kind of the opposite at times. It is the most challenging, the most stimulating environment in which to be immersed, but judgments will always be a far cry from the prose of Ann Marie MacDonald, Barbara Kingsolver, Alice Munro. L'Heureux-Dube's judgments are kind of wonderful in the equality realm, Arbour's dissent in Gosselin inspired me throughout first year law, but the stories they tell rarely proceed so beautifully. Is that the only difference? The law tells it in its own way, which is simply less focussed on the beautiful moments along the way.
It was a good victorian night. I heard it was -28 in London. It was about 6 here today. I feel pretty alright with that. Hope all well in 2009 from halifax to victoria my loves.
Rach
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)