Article content continued

Given the myriad of issues at play, a reasonable person might see that both sides have valid points. Indeed, as the SOP issue works its way through the courts, it is easy to see that decisions from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, even the Supreme Court of Canada, may well be split decisions.

The SOP was the ballot-box question in the Spring 2019 bencher election, which selects the directors that will run the law society for a four-year mandate. Going into the election, there was an underlying attempt by many to paint the StopSOP slate of candidates and their supporters as “extremists,” “racists,” and the ever popular “old, rich, white men.” The StopSOP slate was decisively elected by their peers, sending all 22 of its candidates to Convocation as benchers. Again, accusations of racism and white supremacy surfaced, even used as an explanation of the result. At the June 27 Convocation where benchers debated the fate of the SOP, these accusations continued, especially on Twitter.

Instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to their learned friends, trusting that the issue and competing arguments were carefully considered and ballots thoughtfully cast, ugly accusations of racism are levelled. The lack of charity in painting one’s colleagues as motivated by the basest of human impulses is regrettable. (One may question how so many “racists” can enter the profession in the first place. Further, as only 30 per cent of practitioners voted, it is surprising that such an overwhelming number of “racists” were diligent enough to be among the minority to exercise their franchise.)