Editor: I write today to acknowledge that the Law Society of British Columbia sees fit to protect us all from the rough lessons of history.
It appears that lawyers, and the public, must be protected from the offensive sight of a statue of Sir Matthew Baillie Begbie in the Law Society’s lobby.
This is the same body that gives out a copy of the same statue as its highest award, the Law Society Award.
As recently as last year the Law Society set out requests for nominations for the award and explained that the award itself was a bronze statue of Sir Matthew Baillie Begbie, cast by the late Pender Island sculptor Ralph Sketch.
Now the Law Society has decided that British Columbia’s first judge is no longer a symbol fit for it. Is the Law Society now going to be changing the award?
I have not heard confirmation of that but it appears logically inconsistent not to.
Judges are restricted from expressing themselves publicly in order to defend their reputations or comment on public issues other than in their decisions.
Judge Begbie has been dead for over 120 years and cannot express his views on these issues. I suspect he would have never wanted the recognition bestowed upon him in the first place. But now that this recognition has been given, is it proper to take it away?
The Law Society seeks to remove a symbol that it, till very recently, revered.
The City of New Westminster may soon be following suit and removing another statue of Begbie from outside of the courthouse, in that royal city. The names of streets may also need to be changed, and I suppose the elementary school in Vancouver is next on the list.
If the Law Society’s mandate is to right all the wrongs of the past I suppose they should petition the federal government to remove MacKenzie King’s image from the $50 bill, since he approved the internment of the Japanese during the Second World War. I submit that the sight of Franklin D. Roosevelt is equally offensive for the same reason.
In 1864, Begbie imposed death sentences on five First Nations leaders charged with the killing 20 white people in the clash known as the Chilcotin War.
For that, it appears that his image must be removed from sight as it may offend some individuals. That seems to be the logic. Thus, it appears the Law Society is judging a judge for doing his job, namely judging.
Shouldn’t the Law Society defend those who take difficult stands, at difficult times, and do what is required of them at the time?
No, it appears the Law Society’s function is to attempt to sanitize history for future generations. I submit we should look to the past and learn from it, not pretend that the past did not exist, or try to remove any reference to it.
It is sad day when the Law Society is not defending those who did their duty in the administration of justice, when they can no longer defend themselves. I understand that dead people cannot file a claim for defamation, the Law Society should take solace in that fact.
David R. Thompson
Langley