Dear Editor,
Perhaps John Redekop [Anti-law school arguments flawed, April 17 Letters, Langley Advance] lacks objectivity because of his position as adjunct professor at TWU. May I enlighten him to the flaws of his arguments?
First, comparing American and Canadian law schools is comparing apples and oranges. Check the admission requirements.
Second, the “social policy†to which he refers (abstaining from gay sex) is not based on the Constitution, the Charter, or any legislation.
Third, he is quite right: many lawyers (maybe most) do disagree with certain laws (marijuana, prostitution, euthanasia, to name a few), but as lawyers, we still must uphold those laws and can be disbarred if we breach them.
Holding a contrary opinion does not give one the right to flout the law.
Finally, how does TWU plan to teach its budding lawyers about the Human Rights Code and discrimination? By ignoring the fact that discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal?
What he advocates is not social progress.
I doubt that this debate is over.
I, for one, am offended.
Carol Lacroix (lawyer), Langley